1999 01-12MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 12, 1999
The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order 7:05 P.M. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Tammy De Weerd, Keith
Borup, Mark Nelson.
OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg.
MacCoy: It’s a new year 1999 and welcome you back to planning and zoning
and wish you hopefully all of us a good year. We are sure going to strive for that
in our position. First thing on the agenda this evening January 12, is the minutes
of the previous meeting held on December 8, 1998. Is there any discussion by
the commissioners as to what, any corrections?
De Weerd: I have none.
Borup: None.
Nelson: None.
Smith: None. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the
minutes of the meeting held December 8.
De Weerd: I Second it.
McCoy: Moved and seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L.
MANSHIP – 4375 W. CHERRY LANE:
MacCoy: Since it is a continued public hearing, I want to start with staff. Shari
do you have anything that you want to add at this moment because we had
some things coming back to us.
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy and commissioners. I believe that this was tabled or
continued because of some of the issues with the property to the south that is
nearly landlocked and will become an issue when they want to annex. The
applicant is here tonight, he may have some information on that. I believe that it
was continued so that the two property owners could get together and try and
come to some understanding.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 2
MacCoy: You are correct. I just didn’t know if they gave you anything before
tonight or not.
Borup: I think was also waiting for a copy of the easement.
MacCoy: I’m going to call the applicant forward here to open the public hearing
or continue the public hearing and ask the applicant to step forward to see if we
can clear up a few of these items.
JEFFREY MANSHIP
Manship: First American Title sent Shari Stiles a copy of the legal description it
had the easement in there. Cheryl Brown has not contacted me since, but
apparently she has had an offer from new interest in the property behind there
and they have contacted me and they are looking to annex in and what not.
There is no easement dispute as far as I know. I talked to Shari before the
meeting and she has a copy of that legal description with the easement and
there has been nothing else said on it.
MacCoy: Okay, any of the commissioners have anything to say or ask of us?
Smith: Shari is the easement wide enough to allow development of that south
parcel with the development of Mr. Manship’s property subdivision.
Stiles: There is the legal description that was submitted. We don’t have a copy
of the actual easement, but we do have a copy—a revised legal description. It’s
a 30 foot wide easement.
Smith: How wide does the street have to be?
Stiles: A public street has to be 50 foot minimum.
Nelson: If I remember right, this was the issue with the private lane and limit on
how many homes can be built, supported by a private lane. We were just given
the south property applicant time to check into that before she sold the property.
Isn’t that the whole idea?
Manship: Apparently she has new interest in property and offer accepted. The
gentleman that was here at the last meeting is out of the picture as far as my
knowledge.
De Weerd: You said he has contacted you. Does he have any?
Manship: I have not met them yet. I’ve just talked to them on the phone and they
are assumedly in the crowd here. I haven’t had time to meet them yet.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 3
De Weerd: Well great. Thank you.
Smith: So have you discussed negotiating a modification to the easement to
allow for a wider street?
Manship: Not yet. I was going to pursue my project and as time permitted talk to
them about any easement widening.
Smith: Well if that adjacent property owner is here maybe we could have them
come up. I don’t have any…
Borup: I think the two questions we had from last time was that and what the
wording of the easement actually was, not just the size of it. What the easement
would allow for, what usage? We are assuming that it’s talking about a road
back there. Are we also talking about utilities?
Manship: Thirty foot ingress/egress utilities is stated in the easement. My
knowledge First American Title when they sent a copy of that over to Shari Stiles
is that it was supposed to be included in that, apparently it was not.
Borup: At the time the property was originally divided, it was all under one
ownership and when they sold it, they sold it with those conditions. If there was
a problem, the original owners created it back when the property was first split.
They didn’t have a lot of foresight there probably.
De Weerd: Why don’t we see if we have a problem by talking to…
Borup: I did have a question for Shari (Inaudible) I need some understanding of
Comp Plan application to acreage’s within either both within the city limits or
within the urban service area, Specifically 63C talks about development may
occur in densities as low as three dwelling units per acre. That’s saying that is
the—this says as low as, is that saying that you don’t want density any lower
than that? Is that what the comp plan is saying?
Stiles: My interpretation is that the overall density should be around three. I
don’t know that it would forbid densities less than three units per acre. I think
that is a goal to go toward so that you can develop everything within our impact
area to an urban density.
Borup: That says development below three, may be allowed by conditional use
permit if the cost benefit analysis indicates positive impacts. So my interpretation
of the way that it’s written that that is the lowest density the way the comp plan is
written and a conditional use permit is needed to go below that.
Stiles: There is also a statement in…
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 4
Borup: I’m not saying that I agree with it, I’m just saying that…
Stiles: There is also a statement in the Comprehensive Plan that unless
municipal sewer and water is provided, then it’s a five acre minimum within the
impact area. This is an unusual case—sewer is not available to this site right
now. It’s a policy decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council whether they will even allow this kind of development to take place within
the city, without hooking up to sewer. It hasn’t happened before. So I guess
that’s what the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council are going
to have to determine if there are too many conflicts for it to be approved.
Borup: I don’t know if that answered my question, but thank you.
MacCoy: Anymore questions Mr. Manship? Can we have the other party, are
they here that we can talk to?
DAVID RUNYAN 2100 W. LUCERNE.
Runyan: I was here at the last meeting and we have since offered the Browns—
actually it’s my father-in-law that is doing it, purchasing the property. He’s out of
state so we are kind of handling his interest and they have accepted his offer and
we close on February 20th
. So we really haven’t had time to get our annexation
together, we feel like we need to close before we do that. Our main concern is
that we are—at the last meeting I felt like we—the city and council was going to
be flexible enough that we could divide that lot into four lots and use a private
lane. That’s what we were banking on. We have talked and called Mr. Manship
and as long as we can go with the private lane on our existing 30 foot easement,
he is in agreement with that, but he seems to be opposed to widening that
easement. He even—we’ve offered to pay for any additional curb, gutter, and
street that needs to be put in and he has disagreed with that. So far has not
agreed with widening that road for our access. So our concern is this piece of
property that we buy—that we intend to buy, it appears that it may be landlocked
and certainly that is not good for us. When we looked at Ada County and what
their restriction was, they had a 20 foot minimum road for private lane, 30 foot
easement minimum and that’s probably where they came up with 30 foot
easement. Anything over 400 feet can erode over 400 feet they required—you
can only have four residential lots on it. They also require the 45 foot radius turn
around at the end of that private lane for fire access. So that is where we were
coming from. We figured that if we could somehow get the Planning and Zoning
Commission to agree to allow us those four residence, which in this case it would
mean there would be seven lots on that one private lane that we could go ahead
and develop that. We planned to develop it only into four pieces which would be
just a little bit over an acre for each lot and two of those lots would be taken up
by our family and Kathy’s parents and we would be building on it as soon as we
could and we would sell the other two lots. So the use for that would be
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 5
residential on one acre lot. We also agreed that we would put in the sewer stub
from the back side of our lot back up to Jeff Manships property and that he would
provide us the water line to come from Cherry Lane down to ours and we have
agreed on that so we don’t have any problem there. I guess if we have anything
to say we would like to say that we recommend that you approve the plat plan
with the stipulation that we can then apply for annexation and go ahead and
subdivide ours into four, one acre lots. If we can do that, then we have no
opposition at all as to what is going on.
MacCoy: Any questions commissioners?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, Mr. Runyan you said you were going to pay for the
sewer line from your property to Cherry Lane?
Runyan: No, from the backside of our property—we talked to Engineer Bruce
last time and he said we could—they plan on eventually running a sewer from
Black Cat along side of Ten Mile Creek.
Borup: Right, I understand that. I’m just trying to make sure I understood what
you had previously said.
Runyan: We agreed that we would pay it for the sewer line, the dry sewer line to
go from Ten Mile Creek up through our property to Jeff Manship’s property with
the intent that we would go ahead and develop with septic and then hook up into
the sewer when it was available.
Borup: Okay, that was already established I think that would need to be no
matter what. I thought you were talking about something different.
Runyan: No.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup, are you through or just thinking about it? Any
other commissioner have any…
Borup: Mr. Runyan have you seen a copy of this easement?
Runyan: Yes I have. Not the legal description, but…
Borup: No, the wording of the easement (Inaudible).
Runyan: Yes, it says it’s a non-exclusive ingress/egress easement is what it
says on the engineer drawing. In fact, we have a copy of that, I think in our files
here tonight. That’s just a note written on the drawing, so it’s not like—I don’t
think it’s the real legal description or agreement. Maybe it is, I don’t know.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 6
Borup: The thought I had was wonder what the original intention was if it was
intended strictly for egress/ingress to the property in the back, the property that
you are talking about with intention of the Manship’s property accessing directly
from Cherry Lane or whether it’s intended for dual access for both properties.
Runyan: I’m not sure about that. We got some paperwork back from Ada
County, we had submitted a tentative site plan to them showing our four lot
division and basically they came back to us and said it’s an illegal lot and that’s
all they told us and that we need to apply to them to make it legal and they gave
us some other instructions. We feel like what we would really like to do is we
would like to be on city water and we would like to be on city sewer when it’s
available. So we fully intend to annex, so we didn’t feel like we needed to go to
Ada County.
Borup: That was my other question because I think last month you said you had
no intention of asking for annexation.
Runyan: Well after listening to what was going on, I think the annexation would
be in our best interest.
Borup: Thank you.
Runyan: It’s easier to work with Meridian City than it would be Ada County in this
case.
Borup: That’s all I had Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: Any other questions commissioners? Okay thank you. Since we are
still here in the public hearing is anybody here that would like to speak for the
proposal? Is there anybody here who would like to speak on the other side of
the fence, the negative side? If not, commissioners?
Nelson: I have a question for Shari, it’s the same question I asked last time, but I
forgot the answer. If we approve this as is, recommend it’s approval with the
potential seven lots, that’s going to be a separate submittal from…
Stiles: Yeah, you couldn’t put conditions on it like that, because until somebody
applies for something you can’t comment on it. You can’t put a contingency on it
that it’s going to approve somebody’s lots when they have made no application
for any annexation or platting.
Nelson: So I just wanted to point out that we can’t guarantee anything to these,
the new potential applicant and can’t really imply one way or another what—I
know that you have already looked at purchasing the property, but I don’t think
we can guarantee anything to you. That’s the way I see it.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 7
Smith: I have one question for Mr. Runyan again. Is it your intention to
subdivide your property?
Runyan: Yes it is.
Smith: Okay that’s the only question that I had.
Runyan: Into the four acres—or four one acre lots.
MacCoy: Anything else? Okay.
Runyan: My wife would like to say something.
KATHY RUNYAN, 2100 W LUCERNE.
K. Runyan: If you shut out the property now, it’s going to forever be landlocked
and you will never be able to develop that piece because eventually on that west
portion they will put in a subdivision and block it out, on the south side is Ten Mile
Creek, and you will have absolutely no access at all to that property and it will be
a dead piece of property in there. So if we can’t work it through with us, there will
be somebody coming behind us trying to do it and it will never be able to get
done. So is a possibility of maybe stubbing out the road and hooking in with the
new subdivision whenever that gets put in a few years down the road. Approve it
on condition of going on creating a public street off that south end. I don’t know.
MacCoy: Any questions for her?
Borup: Just a comment. It would not be landlocked, you have an easement
through there. You have an egress easement already, so there is access to the
property.
K. Runyan: Right, for how many homes?
Borup: That’s where the difference.
K. Runyan: Yeah for one home, I think it’s too expense.
Borup: Two homes, one in county.
K. Runyan: Just one home in there if only four homes allowed off of a private
lane.
Borup: That’s all there would be. Two up front and two in the back.
K. Runyan: Isn’t Mr. Manship going to put three homes on there?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 8
De Weerd: Just two off that road.
Borup: That was all thank you.
MacCoy: Shari do you have anymore comment on this right now before I close
the public hearing?
Stiles: I guess the more issues that come up about this project, the more
concerned I get that other people consider that this is setting a precedent within
the city that we are going to allow development of one acre lots or however many
acre lots without hooking up to sewer. I realize that sewer is a long way off from
this property, but—and probably the people in the adjacent subdivision are not
going to have any problem with having one acre lots adjacent to them and it’s
nice to have varying densities and have a choice for people, but that’s my main
concern is that we are considering annexation and subdivision of a property that
has no ability to be sewered at this time. There is 40 acres at Ten Mile and
Cherry Lane that I’m sure if they see what—if this is approved they are going to
use that as a case for why can’t we do our 40 acres in one acre lots? Then it
gets very cost prohibited to put in sewer and water at a later date and doesn’t
meet the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The ones that Keith brought up,
even though he may not agree with them, they are policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and I think that’s what commissioners need to look at in
their decision.
MacCoy: Thank you very much Shari.
Borup: MR. Chairman, maybe expand on what Shari, or question for her, do you
feel having dry line sewers installed, assuming that would be coordinated with
public works as far as sewer line depth, etc., do you think that would solve some
of the concerns? Answer some of the concerns there about developing without
having sewer if the dry line—if the sewer dry line is installed? I think along with
that stipulation of course would be that when the sewer is there and available
when the trunk line is in, then the connection need to be made at that time.
Stiles: It would help to appoint, in this case, if they build a dry line sewers as
shallow as possible, it shouldn’t be a problem, but if other people interpret that—
well as long as we put in the dry line sewers we can go ahead and develop it at
whatever density and disregard the five acre minimum, the dry line sewers are
not feasible in the majority of the cases. There—it’s impossible to tell what
elevation they are going to need to be at and no inspection is normally done by
any city staff to make sure that they are done to any kind of standard.
Borup: Well I would have a concern on that too then. Can that be made a
stipulation that the inspection be done?
Stiles: Inspection will be done when it’s annexed into the city.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 9
Borup: Right, I mean before the dry—you are talking about inspections on the
dry line sewers.
Stiles: Yeah, I’m referring to the dry line sewers that occur in Ada County, that
we don’t…
Borup: Area of impact?
Stiles: Right.
Borup: On doing acre subdivisions there. Well, I don’t know that this would be
starting a precedence then. There is a difference and the line has to be drawn
somewhere and I think that could be specified pretty specifically what applies
and what doesn’t, maybe not. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think there are certain things in the comp plan that
are not clear enough or we don’t agree with or there is a multiple listing of things
I’m sure, but if it goes against the comp plan, we can’t do it, can we Mr.
Attorney?
Rossman: No, if your determination is that this application is inconsistent with
the Meridian Comprehensive Plan or any of the standards in the subdivision
ordinance for Meridian, you can’t approve it. That’s pretty clear on that. If it is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan that can not be approved.
Borup: That’s why I asked that question to start with. To make sure we
(Inaudible) it does say conditional use would be required so I guess that is an
option there.
Rossman: But it hasn’t been applied for.
Nelson: But Mr. Manship’s proposal—does that meet with the comp plan?
Because really we are debating an issue that doesn’t exist yet.
Borup: No, I think it still applies to Mr. Manship’s yes. Maybe we need an
interpretation of that paragraph of the comp plan.
Smith: What’s more concerning to me is, we’ve had statements from the
adjacent property owner that they intend to annex, they intend to subdivide and
we would be approving a parcel with an easement that doesn’t work for that and
then we would be going through all this crap all over again. It seems like to me
these two, and with all due respect to Mr. Manship, he shouldn’t be held hostage
to someone whose not having an application on the table, but none the less,
testimony is a matter of public record. The adjacent property owner intends to
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 10
develop and subdivide. I think they need to get together and decide what they
are going to do and come in with a proposal that works for both of them.
Borup: You are saying a wider access?
Smith: It’s all hinging on an easement. We can make a conditional use
application for a variance from the one acre business that we’ve been discussing
here and approve it on that basis. Personally it doesn’t work.
Borup: Are you thinking a 42 foot easement which has been the city’s
requirement on a private road, something that would work and be in compliance
with…
De Weerd: With an application for a variance or a conditional use permit.
Borup: Is that the proper interpretation of the comp plan in this case? I guess
we could talk about something else while he is reading that.
MacCoy: Eric you checking the book?
Rossman: Keith’s reading of—what you are reading of the—it doesn’t look like
an ambiguous provision to me. It basically says that development may occur in
densities as low as three dwelling units per acre if physical connections
(Inaudible) existing City of Meridian water and sewer service and last by
conditional use permit. It seems pretty straight forward to me. There doesn’t
seem to be a lot of ambiguity there. If in fact they are asking for less than three
dwelling units, then it has to be done by conditional use permit. If they are
asking for more, there must be physical connection made to the City of Meridian
water and sewer service.
Borup: I really think, I doubt that some phases of say Meridian Greens that are
probably got less density than that. I don’t know (Inaudible) phases going
through, there are some pretty large lots in there.
Smith: Chairman MacCoy isn’t your lot the biggest?
MacCoy: No it’s not and I don’t care for it to be either.
Borup: As Shari mentioned, I think it’s good to have a variety of densities. This
is definitely something that needs to be addressed when we are looking at the
new comp plan changes coming up. Decide what—you know what citizens of
this town want and…
MacCoy: You will be involved in that anyway, it’s coming up.
Borup: I hope, I’m planning on it.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 11
MacCoy: Are we ready to either close the public hearing, leave it open?
Smith: I’m way ready.
MacCoy: Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing? What do you want to
do?
Smith: I make a motion to close the public hearing.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? Ready for that call. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one nay.
MacCoy: Okay, we still have three to one. Now having closed the public hearing
what is decision? Do I have a motion?
Borup: Well, we can have some discussion here.
MacCoy: You can have a discussion.
Smith: Seems like this application if it stood alone it would need to come with a
conditional use permit.
De Weerd: And it doesn’t so…
Smith: And given the testimony from the adjacent property owner intending to
subdivide that property, I would be inclined to recommend to deny this
application at this time.
Borup: Is there any input we can give the applicant on what would make it more
acceptable? Realizing nothing binding either way, but sometimes some direction
may be helpful.
Smith: It seems like to me there is two issues. One is for him to develop one
acre parcels and to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan he would need to
submit for a conditional use permit when he submits for annexation and zoning.
The second issue is and this is where I don’t want to muddy the water, but the
adjacent property owner has testified that they intend to subdivide. It seems like
good planning to me for these two individuals given the dependency on Mr.
Manship that the running tab, to come up with a mutually agreeable solution to
allow them to develop their parcel, i.e. a wide enough easement to allow street
width that complies with the city standards, ACHD standards.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 12
De Weerd: But by denying this, he will have to go through the reapplication
process and that—you know the reason I didn’t want to close the public hearing,
is I would like to hear from Mr. Manship on what he thinks about what is being
said.
Borup: You should of said that.
De Weerd: Well, did you give me an opportunity?
Borup: Yes, chairman did.
De Weerd: I said nay.
Borup: No, he asked for discussion.
De Weerd: Shari do they have to reapply then once it’s denied? So they have to
pay new application fees?
Stiles: If it is denied yes.
Borup: Could this have been tabled and asking for new documents, new
documentation.
MacCoy: You could have done that, yes that was part of your decision.
Borup: So just an adjustment of the current application?
Rossman: What do you mean an adjustment of the application?
De Weerd: To add to it a conditional use permit application I guess to go along
with the annexation.
Rossman: There would have to be an application for a conditional use permit.
You can table the preliminary plat application until that has been noticed properly
and put before the commission.
Stiles: You want to table or continue this?
Rossman: Up to you could do either one.
De Weerd: What’s the difference?
Rossman: Tabling means that you have closed the public hearing and you want
to delay your decision until another date. Continuing means that you are going
to continue the public hearing and take further testimony on this particular
application at a later date.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 13
De Weerd: I would support continuing it. That way we have an opportunity to
find out communication between the two property owners and see if there is a
further application for a conditional use permit on the hook-ups.
Smith: I could back that.
De Weerd: So would we need to withdraw the motion to close or reopen?
Rossman: Is there a pending motion on the table?
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: We don’t have a motion yet.
Rossman: There wasn’t a second, raise a motion then.
Borup: We still need to reopen the public hearing.
Rossman: Yes, you need to reopen the public hearing.
MacCoy: So you’ve got to take back.
Rossman: Move to continue.
Borup: We can finish our discussion before we do that.
MacCoy: Yes, but time is moving on here though.
De Weerd: I’ve said everything that I have to say.
Borup: That makes sense to me. I have nothing else.
MacCoy: Do you want to withdraw the motion and the second for closing the
public hearing?
Smith: I’ll withdraw the motion to close the public hearing.
MacCoy: Whose going to withdraw the second?
Nelson: I’ll withdraw the second.
MacCoy: Now we are back to having withdrawn that public hearing, it is now still
open. What is your decision now?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 14
Smith: I would like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing until our
February 9th
meeting.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, before someone seconds that, since it is reopen, can
we hear from Mr. Manship?
Rossman: Well do you need to do that now or would you rather do that when the
application for conditional use permit is (Inaudible).
De Weerd: If he has an interest in pursuing the conditional use permit and
talking with adjacent property owner then we have a reason to continue this. If
he doesn’t then you know, it would seem as though we might as well close it and
deny it.
Rossman: One more question, Shari is one month a sufficient time to submit an
application for a conditional use permit and have it properly noticed?
Stiles: Our next deadline would be the first working day in February and that
would be for the March meeting.
Rossman: Well you could just continue the public hearing until the March
meeting and then if there is a conditional use permit before you, you can address
it. If there is not you can deny this.
De Weerd: We can continue…
Rossman: Well, he’s got two months to provide a conditional use permit
application. That would be my recommendation is to continue this to the March
public hearing and if there is a conditional use application address them, if not
close the public hearing and deny it.
Borup: That would still be the time frame even with an application that is this far
along you are saying?
Stiles: They have to submit a new application for the conditional use.
Borup: Which needs to be processed you mean? How much processing is there
on something like that when we already have the facts?
Stiles: Same as any other application. We’ve still got public hearing
requirements.
Rossman: You’ve got notice requirements. What is it 30 days?
Borup: Oh, I thought it was two weeks, it’s 30 days? Three weeks, okay.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 15
Louie: Three weeks prior to the meeting, actually about 3 ½ depending on how it
falls in the month.
Borup: So that means the application to just meet that requirement alone would
have to be the end of this week.
Rossman: You are talking about March.
Stiles: For the February meeting, the notices have to be sent to the paper this
Friday.
Borup: Yeah, probably not enough time, okay. That answered my question,
thank you.
MacCoy: Okay, where do we stand now?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to withdraw my motion to continue the public
hearing and new motion to continue the public hearing on this item until our
March 9th
meeting.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second for that?
Borup: Again maybe clarify the purpose of the continuing to allow the applicant
to…
Smith: Submit conditional use permit or application for conditional use permit,
which is required by the Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: Second then.
MacCoy: Okay is there anymore discussion at this moment? If not…
Smith: The only thing I might add to that is there was also the issue of how the
other properties going to develop. Maybe something will come to light. Maybe
Mr. Manship will own it all by that time. Maybe the other party will, I don’t know.
Personally I’m looking for some kind of meeting of the mind with these two
owners that they can come up with a mutually beneficial solution that allows
development of both those parcels that is fair to both parties.
Borup: I agree with that too.
Nelson: And is legal.
Smith: Well okay.
De Weerd: That fits the Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 16
MacCoy: Is that the end of discussion?
De Weerd: I’d second the motion.
MacCoy: It’s been seconded, now the point is there is no more discussion I take
it, if I’m right I’ll call for a vote. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 2: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BY
PINNACLE ENGINEERS, INC. – EAGLE ROAD CORRIDOR:
MacCoy: At this time I would like to have a comment from our staff. Shari or
Bruce, one of you.
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners we have received this application for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment it involves the corridor roughly between Ustick
and Fairview along the Eagle Road corridor. They are proposing that this be
designated a mixed planned use development area. Because of the lack of
implementing ordinances and some more clear guidelines in the Comprehensive
Plan about what a mixed plan use development is and the fact that they are
proposing this for a single use of a storage facility on Eagle Road, coupled with
the fact that we are in the process of trying to get a consultant on line to update
our Comprehensive Plan, even though this probably could be accomplished
within six months and then it would be another six months before another
Comprehensive Plan change would be made. Staff does not recommend that
this be approved. We have a problem with the mixed planned use development
designation as it has been interpreted as anything you want to do just go ahead
and do it. Our problem was also with Ada County which they had that same
interpretation. If it’s orange on the map, they consider that to be wide open to
any kind of development that anybody wants to do. I think that the issues as far
as access on Eagle Road corridor is evidence by the letter we got from Ada
County Highway District, those issues are too important to take so lightly as to go
ahead and re-designate this area. I think we need some significant thought and
planning into what happens along that Eagle Road corridor that is why we
recommended that it be denied.
MacCoy: Bruce do you have anything to say? Okay, thank you. We’ll open the
public hearing now, is someone here from Pinnacle Engineers?
BOB UNGER.
Unger: I’m with Pinnacle Engineers, we represent the Weiss Family on this
application. Our address is 870 N. Linder Road, Suite B, Meridian, Idaho. I’m
going to try to keep this brief because I know you have a lot of things going on
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 17
and the first item ran rather long, but I think you need to know some of the
history of why we are here before you today. The Weiss Family back in 94’ and
95’ approached the county about the possibility of getting approval for a storage
facility on the property. At that time, the county advised them that they would
have to go to the City of Meridian and discuss that because the county was not
in a position where they could support such an application for the storage units.
At that time, they did come to the city, they did speak to the City Council. It was
a rather extensive meeting on that and at that time, the City Council and this is
June 6, 1995 issued a letter to myself, I was at the county at that time supporting
their request to have storage units on the property. Consequently these folks
preceded forward as quickly as they possibly could, which did take them a
couple of years to get things in order to do it and contacted Pinnacle Engineers
and this summer we came to the city staff and discussed this with them and we
were informed that the letter of 1995 by the City Council would no longer be
honored for their project. It was a bit to our surprise, and the Weiss family’s
surprise. We went to the county and said okay what do we do now? The county
recommended that we submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment that would allow a mixed use, or some sort of commercial use in this
area. It’s currently designated as single family residential. We also talked to the
city staff and they also felt that was our only route was a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. So consequently we have submitted this request for the
amendment. In our review of your Comprehensive Plan map, it shows a current
designation of mixed use at the intersections of Eagle and Fairview and also
Eagle and Ustick. We thought it would be appropriate to follow that designation
and connect that designation all the way between Fairview and Ustick, going out
approximately 800 feet from Eagle Road. We also realized and understood that
any projects…
(END OF TAPE)
Unger: …would have to be reviewed through the Planned Development process
conditional use, which is very appropriate and gives you, this Planning and
Zoning Commission, the City Council, the highway district a much better handle
on how development does occur along that corridor. Some of the comments that
the highway district made, they were concerned that because of the limited
access through their plan to Eagle Road that this would cause more problems
than what they currently have. We don’t feel that way about it, we feel that it
would give them more control, more review. We fully understand that there has
to be limited access, shared accesses and possibly frontage roads along Eagle
Road. The Weiss Family currently has an access to Eagle Road, so we are not
asking for an additional access, they have an access right now. They have
provided this evening for me, I have two letters of support, one being from John
Barnes of Property West Inc., a second one being from Mrs. Hart who owns the
property directly south and west of their property. I would like to submit those if I
could for evidence. We are a little bit surprised in the lack of support from the
staff here based upon our discussions in the past. I think one of the things that
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 18
the Weiss family have pursued and it did take them some time getting to this
point was that they also through the county did a zoning ordinance amendment
to allow the use that they are proposing in a C-2 zone, which is a highway
commercial zone in the county. Prior to that the county only allowed this type of
storage units in an R-14 zoning. So they did go through with the zoning
ordinance amendment with the county, which is somewhat in preparation of
paving the way for their project and that was approved by the county. Boise City,
just for some basis here, Boise City only allows this type of development within
their commercial zones as does the City of Meridian and also, in Meridian, also
industrial zones, of course those are all through conditional uses. If this
commission does not feel that it is an appropriate Comprehensive Plan
Amendment at this time, we would certainly welcome any advice that we could
get from this commission as to how to accomplish what we want to accomplish.
County Staff really hasn’t been of additional help other than the recommendation
for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, city staff we haven’t been able to dig in
to anything deeper than where we are right now. A couple of options that we
certainly would consider would be instead of doing an entire corridor from
Fairview to Ustick possibly extending the mixed use designation from Ustick
down to and including the Weiss Property, or and strictly on the east side of
Fairview, or coming up from Eagle or coming up from Fairview up to the south
slough which would include these folks property also. We are just trying to get
something through here that the city had made a commitment to us in 1995. We
are just trying to follow through with it. We are following the instructions that
everybody is giving us as to how to go about doing it and now it seems we are
running into brick walls. So we are asking for some guidance and help, some
recognition as to the dilemma these folks are in at this point. I think at this point
that concludes our presentation, will staff (Inaudible).
MacCoy: Any questions for Mr. Unger? Mr. Borup do you have anything to say?
Borup: Not at this time.
MacCoy: Mr. Smith.
Smith: Not at this time.
MacCoy: Thank you very much. We are at an open public hearing right now, is
there anybody here who would like to get up and say something in favor of this
project? Do you want to do this?
STEVE WEISS, 2500 N. EAGLE ROAD.
Weiss: I just wanted to speak to the commission this evening and basically
state, restate what Mr. Unger said, we tried to do everything that we’ve been
guided to do and we keep having the rules changed on us as we move along or
at least that’s the way it seems and we are just trying to do what everybody
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 19
would like. I have spoken to several of the landowners, not all of them, because
I haven’t been able to locate all of them, some live out of state, that surround my
property in the 300 foot area and they all support it to this point. There was an
article written in the statesman that spoke about it last—a week ago last
Saturday and Ada County Highway District had made a comment in that article
that they felt that we would commit a traffic problem by putting in a storage unit
facility. In my opinion and the opinion of the people that live around me, putting
homes in there with two cars per house, 48 homes, moving in and out going to
soccer practice, piano lessons, back and forth to work, to the grocery store, etc,
etc, etc. is probably going to create more of a traffic problem than 50 or 60 cars
a day moving in and out of a storage unit facility. We are also open to
suggestions that may be having people enter going north on Eagle Road and
exiting going North on Eagle Road, if that will satisfy any question about any
traffic problem. We are open to all kinds of suggestions. This is something that
we’ve been considering for some time and pursuing for sometime and we are
just basically looking for some guidance on what we can do to get this
accomplished.
MacCoy: Okay, any questions? Thank you very much.
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE, 889 N. (Inaudible)
Lawrence: I live in the Crossroad Subdivisions which is right off of Eagle Road.
My husband and I currently have a storage unit a little bit ways down Fairview
down by Fred Meyers and I do support the storage unit going in there, we have a
storage unit that is about 8 X 8 and we pay about $50 a month for it, which I think
is outrageous. We probably visit our storage unit maybe every other month and I
do think it would be a good idea to put the storage units in there rather than
residential because just like the Crossroad Subdivision now, we are surrounded
by commercial development and I think that granted they could put a residential
subdivision in there, but I don’t know how pleased the homeowners are going to
be when that whole area gets developed. As far as the traffic goes, every time
my husband and I went to visit our storage unit up Fairview, we are like the only
ones there. Storage units don’t get visited that often. Thank you.
MacCoy: Any questions for her by the way? All right, thank you. Is there
anybody else in favor of the storage unit who wants to speak at this time?
LAVONE WEISS, 2500 N. EAGLE ROAD.
L. Weiss: I would just like to say that I’ve lived on this property since 1972. My
husband and I bought it, it’s a small acreage. We have ran a dairy off of their,
we have had of course milk cows, beef cows and right now we have nothing
because Eagle Road is getting so busy that we can’t run it as a farm any
longer and we need to be able to use our land for something and Steven and
I, that’s my son, have thought about this long and hard, for a long time about
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 20
what we could put in there that would be beneficial to us and not impact the
school system or the roadway in Meridian. This is what we thought would be
the best. We would still be paying taxes, more taxes on the land, and we
wouldn’t have a traffic jam there trying to get out. Even at this point when I go
to work in the morning at 7:30 it’s kind of a struggle to even get out on that
road as I would have to see a small subdivision go in there because it would
make just that much more people trying to get out there. I think we won’t
impact the school systems any more either which we are having struggles
with in Meridian and this was our decision to help Meridian in this respect and
to also help us so that we could get the best use of our land, thank you.
MacCoy: Anyone else that would like to speak for the project? Let’s turn the
table the other way. Anyone here who would like to speak in denial of the
project? Anyone here (Inaudible) step up?
LARRY SALE, ACHD.
Sale: Those of you who know me know that I don’t enjoy being in a negative
situation, but unfortunately I find myself in that situation tonight. As I’ve told the
commission before and I want to make sure that we all understand this, highway
district doesn’t have any concern nor authority nor business in Meridian’s land
use plan. However, as we find more and more, there is a very fine line between
your land use and transportation issues and that’s my purpose here tonight. I
would like to comprise the commission of a study that the highway district
conducted in 1997 about Eagle Road, I want to present you with copies of that
study and then ask to come back to the commission some time in the future
when it is convenient for you to present that study to you and all of it’s
ramifications. I have to convey to you that as this was presented to the Ada
County Highway District commission, the commission asked staff to come and as
personally as possible represent the districts lack of support for the request. We
don’t care if the property owners develop their property for a storage shed. A
storage shed is of no concern to us, storage units, I beg your pardon. A large
area wide revision of your Comprehensive Plan to the requested designation is
as Ms. Stiles pointed out of late has seemed to be a wide open invitation for a
wide range of commercial and business uses, which depend to a large extent on
direct access from the abutting roadway for their support. Eagle Road, state
highway 55 is, probably will become the busiest highway in the state of Idaho, at
least the most busy north/south route. It’s been demonstrated that a roadway
can handle the same traffic with four lanes without direct partial access as it
would with six lanes if driveways are permitted to the roadway. Sure you can see
the obvious cost savings to the tax payer and the improvement of safety if we
reduce the number of direct driveways. The study that I’m going to give you
proposes a long term increase of protection of the Eagle Road Corridor
beginning with the current situation restricting driveways to the extent possible.
Obviously every parcel has to have access to a public road, we can’t deny that,
but we will be working to allow only public road intersections to Eagle Road, in
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 21
the future those will be restricted to every half mile, longer in the future of those
may be restricted to one mile with as Mr. Unger indicated with frontage roads
connecting the section east west section line roads. Eventually some of you may
see the day when we have what are called urban interchanges at the section
line interchanges of intersections of Franklin Road, Fairview, Ustick Road and
Chinden Boulevard. This study presents drawings of those potential
interchanges and the amount of (Inaudible) that would be required. So I—if the
city elects to approve the requested Comprehensive Plan change, the highway
district would request that you add a section to the text of the plan and we’ve
taken the liberty of numbering it, 5.20 and we would ask that that text read
“access to Eagle Road will be severely restricted and frontage roads will be
required to consolidate access points. Primary access will be provided to Ustick
Road or Fairview Avenue for those corner parcels that have frontage on Ustick
Road or Fairview Avenue.” With that Mr. Chairman I’ll end my remarks, I’ll
distribute these documents and I’ll stand for questions if you have any.
MacCoy: Do you have any questions?
Borup: I have a couple Mr. Chairman. This may—Mr. Sale does this address the
access point question in here. You made reference about—I wasn’t sure, first
you said one every half mile, then you said one every mile, so that means that in
this case somewhere in the middle of the mile, is what you anticipate if you are
talking one every mile.
Sales: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup if you want to take just a moment
and open that booklet to page 13, it’s a chart actually that looks like this.
Borup: We had that—that was in your packet that just came a few hours ago.
Sales: This describes a hierarchy of access control that would begin with—to the
status today and increase over four or five stages and might take 40 or 50 years
to move to stage five, which is the most restrictive stage, but the—if you look at
the first column which is titled approaches, they would be temporarily allowed as
full access driveways on a 660 foot spacing. As you go to level two which would
be as the intersection meets accident delay or volume signal (Inaudible) the
driveway or intersection would be regulated to a right in, right out driveway, or
intersection. Then if you move on to level three it would—level four would
continue to be restricted as right in/right out and eventually close—history of high
accident levels and a level of lower service on the arterial warrant such
regulation. It’s a fairly comprehensive look at Eagle Road, it looks at it—it’s not
entirety, but it looks at it from the interstate highway to state highway 44 in Eagle.
So we would like you to take the time to look at it and then if you would invite us
back at a future time for a presentation and we could, when you have more time,
we would appreciate it.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 22
MacCoy: Okay, thank you, thank you very much. Any questions now?
Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Sounds like ACHD’s main concern is what the access is going to be
when this whole corridor reaches full development, is that essentially correct?
Not necessarily what the impact of this single application is going to be, but what
the whole corridor implication would be.
Sales: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Borup, that is absolutely correct. Our concern is not
with the traffic that this proposed development would generate. It really isn’t
even with a driveway that his proposed development might have, now or in the
near term future. It is—we have a concern over this area wide revision of your
plan that would result in a request for many, many more driveways and our—the
potential of spenditure of public funds to purchase the rights of access from the
people in the future. That will eventually come, we would like to defer it as long
as possible.
Borup: How much area is needed for an access road, frontage area.
Sales: An access road, or frontage road?
Borup: What—explain the difference. What did I say the first time, I meant a
frontage road, yes, a frontage road.
Sales: A frontage road could handle all the traffic that it needed to in two lanes.
So that would be 40 feet wide, 40-50 feet wide.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have a question for the lucky property
owners along Eagle Road, how—what is ACHD’s solution for accessing
whatever develops there?
Sales: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, as you read the study you will
learn that we hope to access—we plan to provide access to the property from
the section line roads, from the east-west section line roads. There will be some
public streets connected with Eagle Road that will also go back in and access the
property as it develops, but the development of the property would be preferable
if it backed up to Eagle Road, rather than fronted on Eagle Road, so that the
access to the public road system would be actually away from Eagle Road and
then north and south parallel to Eagle Road to get through in this case Fairview
Avenue or Ustick Road, then to Eagle Road or a greater arterial.
De Weerd: Where would that be at in relationship to this property having access
to an east-west road?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 23
Sales: It could either be Fairview Avenue or Ustick, or a new public road midway
between the two.
De Weerd: But I assume they don’t have access to either of those roads at this
point.
Sales: Those will be constructed as the land is developed for whatever purpose.
De Weerd: So there is no time line on that.
Sales: Absolutely.
De Weerd: What was ACHD’s position on this application in 1995, did they have
one?
Sales: The commissioners voted to not support the application. They were very
concerned that that be presented personally to the city, that we try to express our
appreciation of the job that you people have in determining the land use of your
community without us getting involved. We want you to be aware of the
transportation impacts of your land use decisions and (Inaudible) and that’s why
we’d like you to get knowledgeable about the Eagle Road Corridor Study and
then hopefully adopt it as a part of your Comprehensive Plan.
De Weerd: Well, I understand that—I guess if they were still operating their
dairy, they would still have the same access and the same problems on having
the alternative routes or the alternative streets, so that they did not have to
access onto Eagle.
Sales: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, they will continue to have their
access to Eagle Road as long as there is no other public road access. We can’t
take it away from them, unless we buy the farm, which we would rather not do
right now.
De Weerd: Okay thank you.
Sales: Thank you.
MacCoy: Mr. Smith do you have anything?
Smith: No sir.
MacCoy: Mr. Nelson?
Nelson: No.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 24
MacCoy: Anybody else who would like to come forward now and speak at the
podium? Okay, after having heard from the public before we close anything, I
want to go back to the staff, is there any comments from you at this present
moment based on what you heard?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I would just like you to note in the letter
from City of Meridian, which I signed in 1995, it—the council at that time did vote
to recommend a favor—to have a favorable recommendation on this storage
facility. I don’t however believe that an approval from 3 ½ years ago is valid at
this time. You’ll not that in the final sentence of the first paragraph on my letter of
June 6, 1995 that the approval does not include hookup to any Boise City
services. A condition of this application and any construction at that site would
require extension of city services to the site. City services are not available at
this time there would be a considerable extension of sewer and water is not on
that side of Eagle Road and they have a five year moratorium on the road as
they have just constructed it. So I don’t see how it’s even possible that they
would be able to construct anything.
De Weerd: Then what was the thinking at the time they approved it. What’s
different now, then it was then?
Stiles: Part of it was that our Comprehensive Plan hadn’t been fully adopted by
Ada County. At that time, they also had staff that didn’t seem to care what
happened within our area of impact. The council at that time was probably more
than happy that they even considered the City of Meridian to ask a question. At
this time, unless an application is submitted, council would not even give this
consideration. A request like that would not even be considered by the council
because until an application is submitted, it’s not a valid request. So really what
happened back in 1995 was inappropriate.
De Weerd: I guess that is what I didn’t understand was that the application went
through Ada County then and not through the city?
Stiles: No application was ever submitted. They went to the county asking what
did they think and the only thing that came to us was a representation by an
attorney requesting their favorable recommendation to the county to be included
in some future application, I don’t know what application was ever submitted, but
the city never acted on a valid application that was submitted.
MacCoy: Thank you Shari. Is there any other questions you want to have of the
staff?
Borup: I guess I was still looking for clarification on why you felt the letter was
not valid. You mentioned sewer and water, maybe we need to get clarification
from the applicant, but I don’t think they were asking for sewer and water. Most
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 25
storage units don’t have a lot of bathrooms in them, unless you are looking at an
office site.
Stiles: Uniform Fire Code would require the sewer—water be extended to the
site.
Borup: But that wasn’t mentioned in 1995?
Stiles: It said the approval did not include hookup to any Boise City services.
They never made any proposal as to how they were going to extend services to
the site. This was prior to Eagle Road being constructed.
Borup: So they are looking at water for fire?
Stiles: Yes. Maybe legal counsel wants to advise on this, but I don’t’ believe that
a letter written 3 ½ years ago under a council that doesn’t even exists anymore
can be valid for anything.
Borup: Did they put any time frame on it?
Stiles: It’s not based on a valid application. It’s not—I think it’s a mute point. No
application was submitted—the methods that were undertaken to get this letter
were not appropriate, it didn’t follow state code requirements, it didn’t follow
zoning ordinance requirements, it didn’t follow the Comprehensive Plan. The
letter I guess I don’t know if council would have anything to say about it, I don’t
consider it to be valid and then if legal counsel wants to comment on that, I
would appreciate any input that he would have.
Rossman: Well, that’s what happens when City Council addresses matters
without an appropriate application and having it run through the system.
Obviously City Council’s comments in 1995 are appropriate and should be
considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, however
there was not a formal application filed, it was not—a letter is merely advisory in
nature and it does not constitute formal action by the city. So it’s certainly not
binding upon this commission or the City Council, but certainly prior actions of
the city should be taken into account and considered by the commission and
council making this determination. Any other questions?
MacCoy: Thank you counsel.
Smith: This anti-application process in 1995 was a request for a storage unit, not
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, so it doesn’t even—the letter doesn’t even
address, start to address the issues. The only issue that is before us is a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, not a storage facility, although that’s what
they intend to do. I can’t support amending the Comprehensive Plan so
somebody can build a storage facility. I don’t think it’s a proper location for it. I
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 26
sure as hell don’t think that that area, the busiest property adjacent to the busiest
north-south corridor is appropriate for single family residential development
either. I don’t want to see that particular area that Eagle Road Corridor and start
going into more of an extension of a light industrial area that we have between
Fairview and Franklin.
Borup: What should go there then?
Smith: I think that the kinds of things that you are going to see that will support
that heavy vehicular use between the north and south part of the state,
commercial development, restaurants, service types of facilities and not strip mall
development by any means, but there is going to be people traveling, they are
going to need to eat, sleep, they are going to need to get gas, services. I just
don’t—I can’t see it being single family, I wouldn’t want to live next to 55…
MacCoy: You’ve got a good point, but I think the things you have to look at is the
fact that we are coming into a Comprehensive Plan and Revision and the entire
picture of what we do for Meridian is going to take in the ideas that you are
mentioning right here. What do we want to do with it now that it’s a major north-
south artery.
Smith: I guess that’s probably a main reason why I would be in favor of not
approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment at this time given the fact that our
Comprehensive Plan is being updated at this time.
De Weerd: But the thing is—they are trying this approach because they haven’t
really been given a direction on what they should do. You know—I think if your
opinion is to deny this, we have to give them some direction on what they should
be doing. You know they are property owners, they have a home on there. You
say they shouldn’t be there, but they are. They were there before the road got
so big.
Smith: I didn’t say that they shouldn’t be there. I’ve lived here since the mid
60’s, I remember Eagle Road before it was five lanes.
De Weerd: We need to give them some direction and that is my point.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman before this goes any further. Personally as much as we
want to support the traffic going down Eagle, we also need to support the
subdivisions that we’ve already approved, so I do feel that storage units may be
appropriate. I do also think that it’s appropriate that they work with ACHD and
the Comprehensive Plan and accessing it in a manner that is more conducive to
the other development that we have planned there. So I don’t support changing
the Comprehensive Plan and I think as far as direction for the applicant would be
that they become a very active member in the new Comprehensive Plan so they
can work with ACHD, the city and find potentially a better way to develop that
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 27
property, while addressing the other properties. That way, storage units are not
the issue.
MacCoy: We are getting a little ahead of our selves here in the discussion
situation. We’ve got an open public hearing here and want to know since you
have heard everybody who wants to speak—we’ve got a, alright we’ll get back to
you in a moment. Once we finish this, then I’m waiting for a motion for closing.
At this point, since you…
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe Mr. Unger can answer this when he comes up, I
was curious how many property owners there were along this stretch of road?
The map that we’ve got, I’m specifically looking at the one from ACHD and the
corridor study packet shows a bare piece of property through half a mile. The
north quarter seems to be a bare piece of property. So that middle section
seems to be the only—seems to be where most of the parcels are. So I would be
curious to know—to know how many pieces of property, or how many property
owners there are on there. Thank you.
MacCoy: I would like Mr. Unger to come back forward here and have a chance
to do a rebuttal.
Unger: Just as a quick count, it looks to me approximately 17 properties would
be involved in this.
Borup: Okay, the map that we have seems to indicate four houses. Is that about
correct?
Unger: I’m looking at the entire corridor that we are discussing and it would be
15-17 properties.
Borup: I’m just looking at the east side of the road.
Unger: Six tops.
Borup: (Inaudible) more on that too.
Unger: Very quickly here, I’ll just point of clarification here. As far as what
happened in 1995, the folks never submitted an application and the reason that
they were directed to the city was because the county felt it was the city’s
Comprehensive Plan and the city should make a decision as to whether they
thought it was an appropriate use on this property or not. That’s exactly what
happened, that’s why it happened. ACHD did not even review it, so I think there
was a little confusion there when you asked Mr. Sales about that. There wasn’t
an application I don’t believe that the highway district even reviewed it back in
1995 their proposal. I kind of see where this is going and I understand your
confusion, concerns, and I understand the highway district’s concerns. So while
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 28
I’m sitting here listening to this, one thought occurred to me. Would this
commission, if we go through the appropriate process, would this commission
consider a zoning ordinance amendment to allow storage units within residential
zones through the conditional use process? I know that is something that the
county does. I know the city does it, or Boise City does it. Excuse me, wrong
cities and that is a possibility. That could accomplish what these folks wish to
accomplish, it would provide you folks a situation here where instead of doing a
massive change to your Comprehensive Plan and opening up this entire
corridor, where you could look at these on an individual basis. These storage
facilities are becoming more and more appropriate in locations where the
subdivisions are instead of cross town. I think that Mr. Sales would even agree
with me that it would cut down on trips, I think. He might, or might not. That
would be an alternative that we certainly would entertain if you folks felt that
would be something appropriate and we would pursue that through your staff
and through the hearing process. Like I said, we are looking for some direction
at this point in time, because we don’t seem to be getting any support from the
outside agencies at all.
MacCoy: Okay, any questions Mr. Unger?
Borup: Do you know the frontage of the Weiss property, approximately?
Unger: It is approximately 300 feet.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: Anybody else? Okay, thank you Mr. Unger. Commissioners what you
have before you is the present open public hearing, what do you want to do with
it?
De Weerd: I move to close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion about it, if not, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: I need a motion as to what we go do next. If you want to discuss that
among you, you have that chance now.
Smith: I think everybody knows how I feel.
De Weerd: I think we all well, I can also say that the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is—I’m not in favor of it either, but I am in favor of giving them some
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 29
idea of what direction they need to pursue to bring this back with the plan that
they intend to do and I don’t have the answer to that, or I would give it right now.
Borup: I think I’ve got some—they preceded ahead from 1995 thinking they had
the okay from the city. That concerns me. Reading the minutes of the City
Council meeting, the City Council didn’t seem to have a problem at all. A lot of
that has changed, but we still have some of the same people around. I don’t
know that I have—well I do some. I don’t’ know that we need to change a
Comprehensive Plan and create a whole new corridor there and maybe it needs
to be commercial zoning, but I don’t think it’s going to effect what is going to
develop there a lot one way or another. I think what Commissioner Smith Said is
the type of development that needs to happen there. The first half, the south half
of that whole mile is all open. I think the other thing that concerns me is what Mr.
Sales said about the access points. I think that is where we need to be careful
on what development happens here. I think provision probably does need to be
made for frontage road, whether it’s in right-of-way preservation or whatever
needs to be. On these large parcels that’s definitely not a problem, down here
close to the Weiss Property there seems to be some small lots. Maybe a couple
of acres in size or something that seems to have houses on there now, whether
there is room for—some type of right-of-way preservation to allow future frontage
roads along there I think would answer some future concerns on the access.
They are proposing a couple different things, but they already proposing six
access points along that mile, based on the one sheet here. I don’t know the
solution to—I think again they’ve preceded ahead thinking they had the city
approval, I'm not sure what it is that we need to do to allow that. Besides the
zoning issue, I guess the water is definitely another issue and how long it’s going
to be before we have water service to that area, I don’t know. Anybody else
have any other comments?
MacCoy: How about a motion?
De Weerd: Shari, a suggestion was made by the applicant on a possible way
that it could be done, was that feasible?
Borup: Not unless it’s in the city limits, is it?
Stiles: You mean proposing a zoning ordinance amendment to allow it or?
De Weerd: Yeah.
Stiles: We do allow with conditional use in the R-8 and R-15 zones, which R-8 is
a single family residential zone, but the county is not going to consider that as
part of their review of any application. The only way they could do that is if they
were annexed into the City of Meridian and even with that storage facilities, they
would have to do a conditional use permit in the city. I guess my advice to them
would be to look at more of the surrounding area and if they are proposing to do
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 30
a mixed plan use area, make it a mixed plan use area. Not a single use that they
are proposing at this time and maybe have some residential, maybe have you
know a true mixed development—a general development. I know that…
Borup: You are saying maybe (Inaudible) commercial area up front perhaps or
something?
Stiles: Not zone it commercial, but they can zone it to the R-8, have some
residential development in there and include storage facilities as part of an
overall plan, I just hate to see these properties come in one piece at a time.
Borup: Well, that’s why a comp change would handle that, wouldn’t it?
Stiles: No, because Ada County, like I say Ada County is going to interpret that
as okay it’s mixed planned use development whatever you want to do go for it.
Borup: Wouldn’t they still have to come here?
Stiles: No, it would comply with the Comprehensive Plan. They would refer it to
us, but they don’t give us any control over a conditional use.
Borup: So we couldn’t deny it.
Stiles: No, the city has no authority to deny it.
Borup: Maybe we need to annex it.
Stiles: That would be the best way.
Borup: Then we could control, it’s not contiguous yet is it?
Stiles: I want to let you know that I informed the applicant or the applicant’s
representative before he ever submitted it, let him know full well that staff was
not in favor of the change. So I don’t want—he made a statement earlier that he
was surprised by our comments and it shouldn’t have been a surprise,
because…
Borup: How close is this parcel to being contiguous to city limits?
Stiles: It’s about…
Borup: It’s not close in other words?
Stiles: Just under half a mile. Carol Subdivision is in between.
Borup: We’ve got the school site that we just annexed, wasn’t it?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 31
Stiles: It’s not annexed yet.
Borup: Is working on it.
Stiles: That would put it closer to 1/8 of a mile, probably (Inaudible)…
Borup: Is that site—if that school site extended forward to eagle road, is that
right across from this property?
Stiles: The school site won’t extend.
Borup: No, I mean the property east of the school site looks like it would extend
over to this property.
Stiles: Yes, (Inaudible) I have a meeting with the transportation department here
in the next week about the remainder of that property, which also concerns the
access and it’s a big concern.
Borup: So if that was annexed, then this would be a contiguous site.
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: Which may not be too far down the road.
Stiles: But it still wouldn’t allow storage facility.
(END OF TAPE)
Borup: …and zone change that would handle that.
Stiles: Not if it didn’t comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: Because of the designation of that area?
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: Is that a problem? I think most of us agree that is not a good site for
residential development. I don’t know what happens when you are limited to the
size of the parcels of what can be done. Storage units are minimum city service
utility type of usage. Looks like water is the main. I’ve testified earlier I’ve looked
at a lot of storage units and there is very little traffic in and out. The ones I’ve
visited, driving by them—when I’ve been some—maybe one other car, and that’s
in some pretty good sized ones. I don’t know that traffic is a big concern.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 32
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, it doesn’t look like we are going to be able to give
some specific direction tonight. Perhaps we’ve opened up some ideas of
perhaps what can be pursued. Certainly involvement in the Comprehensive Plan
update is a very good idea. You know, I think we need to move on, we have
more agenda items and I guess that I would move denial of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? Mr. Borup do you have anything that you want to
discuss before we move on?
Borup: I’ve probably said it all.
MacCoy: Call for a vote. All in favor for the motion that was given?
Smith: Aye.
De Weerd: Aye.
Nelson: Aye.
De Weerd: Ask for those opposed though. I don’t think Mr. Borup (Inaudible).
MacCoy: Here again I’m going to call for, which I have the option to do, a roll call
vote.
ROLL CALL: Borup – nay, De Weerd – aye, Smith ---
Smith: What are we voting on?
MacCoy: What the motion was.
Smith: The last motion?
De Weerd: To deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
ROLL CALL: Smith – aye, Nelson – aye.
MacCoy: All right, three ayes, and one nay to be recorded. Thank you very
much.
ITEM NO. 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, 1 TRI-PLEX, AND 4 FOUR-PLEX
UNITS FOR PROPOSED SEABURY SUBDIVISION BY WEST PINE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 33
DEVELOPMENT – BETWEEN W. PINE ST. & W. BROADWAY AVE., EAST OF
W. FOURTH ST:
MacCoy: Are you ready Shari?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners this is basically an infill project. It’s
located south of Pine and it’s surrounded mostly by development of some
apartments. There are some parcels that have been split off. We don’t have the
history of when those were split off, so we know if they are valid lot splits or not,
but have asked for that information. The main issue of the public works
department was the pressurized irrigation. Apparently there are water rights
there, but the ditches that were existing have been abandoned. So that needs to
be resolved.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Can you hold that for a little bit we’ve got a chance to come back to
that.
Stiles: The indication to staff has been that they have been abandoned. They
are located in a zone that allows this type of development. They are meeting the
minimum requirements as far as the zoning ordinance for parking and lot sizes
for the structures, although they don’t have direct access to Pine Avenue they did
locate a direct access to Pine, it would significantly detract from the ability to
develop this site and it would probably be a long time before it ever was
developed. I don’t think it would be cost effective to develop the site. They
would need to be concerned with buffering of the adjacent larger parcels that
exist around them. I think these infill projects you do have to be a little more
lenient in order that we get some of this developed. There is—you don’t have
before you yet, but there is another development coming from the other side that
would be very similar to this development and the only piece left for the
connection through of Idaho would be—actually there are two parcels that are
immediately to the east of this proposed development that no proposal has come
in on that parcel yet. If you have any questions.
MacCoy: Now that we’ve heard from our staff I’ll open the public hearing and
Becky come forward.
BECKY BOWCUTT, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, 1800 W OVERLAND, BOISE, ID.
Bowcutt: I’m representing the applicant in this matter. I have two applications
here, one a conditional use, the other a preliminary plat so I’ll just combine my
statements into one presentation and ask that those statements be allocated to
the other application. As Shari indicated this is an infill parcel, it’s located off
Pine and Idaho and then Broadway Street is located on our south boundary.
There is one existing single family dwelling on the parcel the rest of this is
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 34
currently undeveloped. It’s currently zoned R-15, this whole corridor between
Pine and Broadway is a whole swath of R-15. In looking at that area, it’s kind of
a mixed use area. We see some apartments, there are some 4-plexes, tri-plexes
and there is also single family dwellings. Most of the multi-family is located off
these Idaho Street and as Shari indicated, that Idaho Street there is a gap
between it. You can’t drive on Idaho and go straight through. You have to go
around and then come back. By developing this property, we’ll be extending
Idaho Street and building that two public street standards with five foot sidewalks
both sides, it’s across, I think 130 feet. Sewer and water does exist in Idaho
Street here, it’s also out there in Pine. The depth of the sewer, it is quite shallow.
We did submit some profiles to your staff for their evaluation of sewer ability,
service ability and they indicated barely, marginal. So we don’t have a lot of play
in this. One of the problems we have with these parcels is that they are narrow.
My intent in this design was to create a situation where we did not have any
backing movements onto Pine or Idaho, primarily Pine since it is an arterial, we
wanted to make sure that all cars—we have to have an approach, but we want
them to be going out frontways. So we created these parking enclaves. The
parking spaces are 9 X 19, which is in compliance with the ordinance. In order to
get our four foot landscape buffering on our perimeter adjoining unrelated
parcels we did decrease our aisle width from 25 to 23 feet. I discussed this with
staff, we kind of looked at some—talked about what our options were and both
kind of came to the determination that there were no other alternatives. In that
parking aisle width, the minimum under the Uniform Fire Code is I believe 20. In
apartment complexes throughout the Valley you will find them between 20 and
24 feet wide, the aisle ways. We believe that 23 is adequate, we are not
compromising our landscaping, nor are we compromising our parking. Providing
two parking spaces per unit. We’ve got four 4-plexes and one 3-plex and one
single family dwelling. So the preliminary plat consists of six lots and the
conditional use application is for a total of 20 units, one of those being the
existing single family dwelling. We reviewed staff’s comments. We were in
agreement—there was comment on the irrigation. I did confirm with
Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District that there are water rights on this parcel, so it
has not been excluded. What made me believe that there may be some
problems in this area is another surveyor in the valley called me and they are
working on the parcels to the east. She asked me what we are doing for
pressurized irrigation, I said you don’t have a choice it’s mandatory. She says
that the property owner that I’m working with indicates that the ditches out here
have been abandoned. So in my response to staff is that there was mention
from a property owner that they’ve been abandoned. My client who visited the
site said this summer there was water in some of the ditches. Not a lot, but there
was some. So my statement to staff is that additional research will have to be
done to verify is there an adequate supply of water, surface water to pressure—
you know, for a pressurized system. Obviously the ordinance mandates it, I
asked staff in the event that you don’t have a sufficient supply what can you do?
They indicated it has only happened one time and we would have to work that
out with the City Council. Whether we use a domestic source or ask for a
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 35
variance or something along that line. So research is going to have to be done
on how much volumes coming down these ditches. Is it constant? Some of
these older areas throughout the area, infill especially we have lots of problems
with, property owners—little coverts get kind of crushed if they have driveways
over them. People don’t clean out their ditches so we don’t have as good as
irrigation sources as we have out in the more rural areas as the bigger
developments start moving north and south. We feel this is compatible and
consistent with what is in this area, like I said, it’s zoned R-15. Our density that
we are proposing is 13.48 dwellings per acre. The site itself is 1.48
approximately. We feel that it would be a good compliment to the neighborhood.
The developer intends to—each lot will be landscaped. All the buildings will be
the same, so we are not—it’s not going to sell these off to independent builders
so that each unit, you know we don’t have any character that’s consistent
throughout the project, that’s not the case. In this case, he is selling it to one
particular builder who is going to build this unit right here. Of all the four plexes
that have been brought to me, this one with the deviations in the roof lines offset
facades looks the best. Honestly, the elevations here are some of the best that
I’ve seen in four-plex design. One of the problems typically with the four-plexes
is that they appear to be so boxy, they don’t have a lot of deviation in the roof
lines, and they are just not attractive. That is you can see the different elevations
of this, it’s a two story unit with the offset facades, the different roof lines, you are
getting a real nice look. So these aren’t your basic box structures that you have
seen in the past. Do you have any questions that I can answer?
Borup: Just minor, you said the sewer is quite shallow?
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Borup: Is it running to the east presently? Is that the direction that the sewer
line will—
Bowcutt: You mean which way does the sewer flow?
Borup: Yes, maybe I should have asked Bruce that.
Bowcutt: It’s flowing this direction, isn’t it Bruce?
Borup: It is flowing to the west?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: (Inaudible) properties to the east, so it’s even going to be more shallow
on those? Or is there another sewer line coming in from another direction. I
guess that doesn’t really matter, I’m thinking ahead here. I’m sorry. As long as
this parcels served, that’s all that counts. Thank you. Oh, I do have one other
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 36
question that I’m a little bit confused on. ACHD made reference to Broadway on
their site specific comments. This property doesn’t go to Broadway does it?
Bowcutt: This portion of the property abutted Broadway. In staffs condition
they’ve asked for evidence that it’s eligible for what they call a one time division.
I gave the key dates to the applicant who did some research and his research
indicated that the property was eligible for one division.
Borup: There is no structure on that property at this time?
Bowcutt: That’s correct, to answer your question, I’m kind of going in an indirect
route, sorry. To answer you question, Ada County Highway District’s rule is if you
take a one time split of a parcel and that has taken place within one year of your
application being submitted, then you are required to make those improvements
on your frontage. What was happening in the past is they would split off say an
existing home on a parcel and then they would not be required to install sidewalk
in front of that home. So you end up with a bunch of sidewalk, no sidewalk,
sidewalk, no sidewalk and their only chance of getting continuous sidewalk in
areas with existing streets that lack sidewalk was to impose this requirement.
Borup: So that parcel is not a part of this plat. (Inaudible)
Bowcutt: However, it was part of the parcel originally. So they have the ability to
impose that. Just for the 60 feet, 66 feet.
Borup: I was confused about that. Thank you.
MacCoy: Anything else? Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: I have nothing.
Smith: Nothing.
Nelson: Nothing.
MacCoy: All right, thank you Becky. Anyone here want to stand up in support of
what you’ve just heard for a project? All right, I’ll turn it around the other way. Is
there anybody here who would like to step up and oppose this project? Staff do
you have anything you want to add at this moment? No, all right.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close this public
hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? Doesn’t appear to be, all in favor?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 37
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Do I hear a motion? What do you want to do with this?
De Weerd: I would like to hear anything else from the staff last chance for
comment. Shari?
MacCoy: They turned us down.
Stiles: No, I don’t have anything further, I just ask that our comments be
included in your recommendation and that we receive the information that we
requested.
Rossman: I would also add to please input on the ACHD comments as well in
your motion.
MacCoy: Okay commissioners.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to the
City Council approval of this request for conditional use permit with the inclusion
of staff comments, ACHD report, and that the applicant provide evidence of
availability of providing pressurized irrigation for this project.
Nelson: Second.
Borup: Second
MacCoy: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? None, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO.4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
SEABURY SUBDIVISION BY WEST PINE DEVELO9PMENT –BETWEEN W.
PINE ST. & W. BROADWAY AVE. EAST OF W. FOURTH ST:
MacCoy: At this moment since we have already heard from the staff, unless they
want to make a comment at this moment. I guess not. Would the applicant step
forward please? We are going to open the public hearing now for this one.
BECKY BOWCUTT, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, 1800 W. OVERLAND, BOISE, ID.
Bowcutt: Please incorporate my previous statements and testimony into the
record on the preliminary plat application also.
MacCoy: Any comments for Becky before she sits down?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 38
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: I’ll ask the question, we have an open public hearing now, so is
anybody here that wants to speak in favor of this portion of the same project?
Seeing none. Is there anybody here who would like to have a protest on this
project? Seeing none. I will give it back to the commissioners.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Do I hear a motion as to the condition?
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval
for this request for a preliminary plat with the inclusion of staff comments, ACHD
report, and that the applicant provide evidence of availability of pressurized
irrigation to this site.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: We’ve got two seconds all right. Any discussion?
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: Seeing none, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
(BREAK)
ITEM NO.5 &6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING & PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THOUSAND SPRINGS VILLAGE BY
MARTIN DEVELOPMENT INC. –NORTH OF E. VICTORY ROAD, WEST OF S.
EAGLE ROAD:
MacCoy: Staff, what do you have to say about this one?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 39
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, you can if it would be easier, if you thought it would be
easier for the commission to consolidate 5 & 6 since they are the same applicant
if you like or you can keep them separate.
MacCoy: Are you going to allow us to do that?
Rossman: I will allow you to do that if you would like.
MacCoy: Our past attorney has took me to task for that. Okay we are allowed to
do it, I’ll take your word for it. So we will take testimony on both of them and we
will decide separately on each issue. Staff on 5 & 6?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy and commissioners, we have reviewed the
application. You have our comments that are dated January 7, 1999. We have
received a response from the applicant, you should have that in your packets.
We do request some additional information which the applicant has indicated
they will submit. This property is currently located in what is designated as a
mixed residential area. As a planning issue, I think we should be looking at
encouraging higher densities along these corridors so that we can support public
transit at a later date. They do have one out parcel that they are including with
the annexation. They are not including as part of the plat. We would like the
street improvements to be included through that parcel, which I believe Ada
County Highway District has also requested as with Thousand Springs
Subdivision they are proposing 50 foot wide right-of-way that would include a
four foot planting strip, staff could support that configuration provided that they
have the 22 foot setback from the back sidewalk and that the landscaping and
irrigation is constructed with the subdivision and is not left up to the individual lot
owners.
MacCoy: Anything else? Okay.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, member of the commission, from the public works
standpoint, the only real biggie item that we see is this area, when you get closer
to the intersection of Victory and Eagle it’s getting higher in elevation. Our water
model is indicating that we are going to be running into some pressure problems.
I did make a comment in our staff report regarding the need for a booster station.
Applicant has indicated that they have discussed it with their developer, so I just
bring that to light.
MacCoy: Good I’m glad that you did. Thank you. All right, it’s a public hearing
I’m going to open the thing—here she comes all ready to go. You are busy
tonight.
BECKY BOWCUTT, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, 1800 W. OVERLAND, BOISE, ID.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 40
Bowcutt: I’m representing the applicant in this matter. The project before you
this evening is an annexation request with a rezone to an R-4 designation and a
preliminary plat, which consists of 53 buildable lots and seven common lots. As
Shari indicated you may ask why the annexation is for 21.54 acres, however the
plat itself is 19.42 and that’s because we included Mr. Harris’s house parcel in
our annexation. In our discussion with staff they indicated that it’s difficult in the
future to go back and annex these little enclaves where a landowner has
retained their home on say a 2.5 acre 2 acre parcel. So it simplifies things and
makes it easier for the city if we just include it. However, the landowner did not
want to be part of the subdivision itself and he has a legal parcel with his house
and then he had the adjoining acreage. This particular parcel adjoins Thousand
Springs, this is Eagle Road and Victory right here. As you recall Thousand
Springs Subdivision came through 8-9-10 months ago, time flies. I can’t
remember.
MacCoy: That’s about right.
Bowcutt: This particular subdivision had I believe 328 buildable lots, the
requested zone on that is R-4 which is consistent with what we are proposing
here. There were two stub streets provided within the Thousand Springs
Subdivision here that we are making connection to within the Thousand Springs
Village. This village parcel is being developed within the same family. Different
family member, but related as the original Thousand Springs, that’s why it carries
a similar name. We had, I want to explain this one issue here, originally we had
proposed this street laid right against this property line for extension of that street
south into this parcel. In designing this development it occurred to me quite early
that I had put this stub street into the wrong place. It was too close to this stub
street and it caused intersection problems when I tried to extend it on through. It
should have been located either through here, or like in this area here. Ada
County Highway District originally thought it should go on through, but after
reviewing it and looking at the straight street it would create and the speed that
could—that one could reach as they went that 1800 feet, or 1600 feet, whatever
it is, they decided against it. So what we are proposing is a micro path
connection here so we would have pedestrian and bicycle connections up there.
These plans for this cul-de-sac and that to the north has just been submitted for
staff’s review and City Council review on the final plat and it reflects this cul-de-
sac, not abutting the parcel, but—and a micro path standing out. Staff in their
review concurred with that. We do have an approach to Eagle Road and we
provided one stub street here. There is a large parcel here that is undeveloped.
Larger than the 2-3 acres that you find here. So they will have an opportunity to
link into us. The fact that they are smaller—or that this parcel is smaller. I kind
of envision a street coming in and then teeing. They could probably with the
limited volume of traffic, probably get away with coming right out through us, as
was stated in the previous discussions trying to limit the number of approaches
to Eagle Road, that would be an opportunity there. We’ve got a pocket park here
that is also the lowest point of the property in that northwest corner. Our intent is
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 41
to take our storm drainage there. I’ve made that lot a pretty good size so that it
will be a soft swill. There is also a ditch that is being piped up through that area,
so we would have an overflow pipe to take some of that water away, which also
gives us additional capacity and we don’t have to put the pond so deep. That
acreage on the (Inaudible) is about 25,000 square feet. 25.58 something so it’s
a little over a half acre and the micro path, like I said will run right along the
perimeter. We want it to function as a pocket park. In here we’ve continued the
landscaping, there is landscaping right here next to Mrs. Glick’s property. We’ve
continued that landscaping here and the lots begin along this perimeter. One of
the things that I looked at when we laid this out, when we put the cul-de-sac’s in
our lots get a little bit bigger. These lots here are 18,824 – 17,273 – I’ve got a
16,900 and then we’ve got one that is 12,527 and 13,235. So they are deeper
lots, they are bigger lots. One of the reasons we’ve got the McDonald Lateral
that comes in and just terminates right here at us. There is a pipe that comes
over and it just dumps into the Ridenbaugh Canal, that’s the end of the line. We
propose to pipe the McDonald Lateral. Boise Project Border Control states it will
probably take a 24 inch pipe. The existing easement is 36 feet. I just found that
out today. They had to research it. From their initial review they believe they will
want some type of a small access road over the pipe for future maintenance.
The depth on that lot is like 152, this dimension is 245, I’ve got a 138. I’ve also
got a little additional depth there, so we may push that up a little bit to give us a
little more room there. They will not allow berming, nor will they allow fencing to
encroach within their easement. That’s according to Phil Komigas (sic) with the
Boise Project Border Control. The lots in here are consistent with the sizes we
have in Thousand Springs #1. As you can see a lot of these lots are 10,000, we
have a bunch that are, all these right through here are around 15,000, these are
14,000, I think my smallest lot is like 9,280 and that’s right up here. Those are
my smallest lots and they are 80 X 116. We’ve provided real nice depths, so
these homes will have real nice back yards. We feel that it is consistent with
what has been developed in this area. It’s linking in with the Thousand Springs,
sewer and water will be extended through the site, we provided evidence that it
can be sewered. I have had discussions with Bruce on the sewer station for the
water, it’s understood that it will be the responsibility of Thousand Springs
Development to put that booster in. We are coordinating with staff on how that
is going to be done and in the first phase we will be making some provisions for
the connection and then the booster station will be built when the city staff
indicates it’s necessary. I have talked to one of the neighbors, Rex Young. He
had some questions about transitional lot sizes, fencing, berming, type of
fencing. Along this area here, Mrs. Glick wanted like some berming six foot
fence with kind of a cap so we didn’t end up with a dog earred. This particular
developer said he was willing to match that and go ahead and take that fence
right through here, so it will be consistent with what is being done right here. As
far as berming along this particular area right here. I kind of have some
concerns about berming that I passed on to Mr. Young. The berm and you put
the fence—if the berm goes down to lets say a property line and then the fence
is on top, who maintains the backside of the berm. That is one of the problems
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 42
that we have. The other issue is since the irrigation district won’t allow us to
encroach with the berm over the pipe, where would a berm be placed? Berms
do cause us some difficulty and I’m not convinced that they make a real good
screen or that they are a necessity when you are talking residential with
residential. When I showed Mr. Young that the lot sizes that we have made an
attempt to make deeper larger lots adjoining his property. We put that little cul-
de-sac there. We’ve only got really these three lots that adjoin Mrs. Glick, Mrs.
Hastings, and Mr. Young, his property comes out here, he abuts I think about at
this point. So the impact I think is not that great. It will be a good development,
will benefit this area. We’ve also, I want to make note of this, we stub to this out
parcel. The highway district asked us to do that. After drafting their staff report
they called and said they wanted public street access to the out parcel, so I
moved that street over. The number of lots remain the same. So I just want to
note that for the record. You can see I had a (Inaudible) we looked at taking a
stub street straight across and it didn’t work real well. So what we did is we took
this street and we slid it over, so these lots came over here. So I do want to
make that part of the public record. I believe staffs, one of her conditions was
consistent with the highway district provide a public street access to the out
parcel. We’ll be doing curb gutter and sidewalk, or not curb gutter sidewalk,
sidewalk excuse me on Eagle Road as requested by Ada County Highway
District. They also stated that they wanted a continuous section of sidewalk,
(Inaudible) across the out parcel here. Staff’s comment was the same, so we
don’t have a break in that sidewalk linkage, they carried on right through here.
The right-of-way Mr. Harris indicated that he would be willing to sell additional
right-of-way to match our right-of-way from his parcel, which he would be
compensated from the highway district.
MacCoy: I’ve got one to start with, you mentioned the Glicks, we have a letter in
our file which you probably have also. Were you able to satisfy the Glicks to
some extent?
Bowcutt: I haven’t talked to Mrs. Glick about this phase of the project, but I did
talk with her on the original Thousand Springs and I think the key issues were
nice fencing, berming, landscaping, so that she was buffered. She didn’t want
any storm drainage next to her site, her parcel, which we would not. On the
south side of the property, that’s the highest point elevation wise, so there is no
way you could retain storm drainage in that location. I think those were some of
the key issues that we worked out on the original one. We are willing to work
with her to try and come up with something that is acceptable. We obviously
don’t want to impose on her privacy and protect her rights also.
MacCoy: Commissioners do you have any questions?
Borup: Just one, you answered all my questions that I already had written down.
I assume that you have no concern with any of the staff comments, either city or
ACHD. You didn’t mention any.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 43
Bowcutt: No sir, I think we pretty much concurred with staff on almost all items.
Staff agreed with the 50 foot right-of-way and the 5 foot sidewalks offset four feet
if the developer agreed to install that landscaping and the trees within our four
foot, so that it’s consistent throughout the development. So I think staff, we
agreed that we would meet staff’s requirements.
Borup: You said almost all.
Bowcutt: Well, I can’t remember, was there any—I don’t think there was anything
that we disagreed on sir. Not that I can see.
Borup: You need to work on that then.
Bowcutt: Okay, it’s getting late.
Borup: No work on getting some disagreements.
Bowcutt: Oh, working on getting some disagreements.
MacCoy: Anybody else?
Smith: Not at this time.
MacCoy: Keeping with what I said earlier, both items #5 & 6 we are taking at one
time at least for this part of the program and then we will vote separately on each
one of them. Is there anyone here in favor of the project who would like to
speak?
BOB BELL, 994 N. CAUCUS WAY, MERIDIAN, ID.
Bell: I own the piece of property that is just to the south of this development. I
don’t completely understand the process of how this gets approved and so forth,
but I wanted to make the commission aware that I will be requesting annexation
and rezone of my property and ask that as they are making decisions on this,
which is ahead of mine, that they keep this in mind. Things like sewer and water
and drainage and this kind of thing. I don’t know whether I would get involved
normally or not, but it’s a request of the commission.
MacCoy: Well, maybe to ease your mind, you have already heard particularly
Mr. Borup will be here, he keeps track of this stuff project to project and we try to
make a flow out of the thing so what we have agreed to carries on so. You can
remind us later if you want to, but we try to do that.
Borup: Just one question, did the stub street that was proposed look like it
worked out for what you have in mind? I don’t know that they did much different,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 44
but that’s always been a pretty standard thing that there is access provided to
adjoining properties, so that’s what they have tried to do here it looks like.
Bell: I couldn’t see the picture, but the picture I have, the stub street would be
fine.
Borup: I think that stayed the same.
Bell: Yes.
Borup: The only thing that may effect you is the statement that Bruce Freckleton
made on water pressure.
Bell: I’m concerned about both water pressure and sewage and I would really
like to hookup to city services and not redo things as they are laid down.
MacCoy: Any other questions of this gentleman? No, okay thank you very much
sir. Anyone else want to speak in favor of this project? If not, anyone want to
speak on the negative side of this project. Here we go.
REX YOUNG, 2950 E. VICTORY ROAD, MERIDIAN, ID.
Young: I want to speak to the negative aspects of the project. I’m not sure if I’m
in favor or against, it just depends on how things go.
MacCoy: That’s okay, you can still speak.
Young: I live immediately to the south of this proposed development. I’ve been
there for some 28 years and needless to say I’m not happy about subdivisions
going in, but I understand that it’s coming and we just as well accept it and try
and make things as palatable as we can possibly can. Having lived there for 28
years there has been a lot of changes. This morning as I walked out to get my
newspaper I walked across Victory Road, got the paper and stood there and
waited while 17 cars went by either coming or going. That is drastically different
than some 28 years ago.
MacCoy: I’m sure it is.
Young: As far as the project is concerned, I have some concerns and one thing
that I would like to be able to do, I would like to be able to protect my privacy as
far as possible. Living immediately to the south, I have a two acre lot and I’ve
just am concerned with doing everything that we can so that I can continue to
enjoy if you will some degree of privacy that I have come to enjoy. Some of the
concerns that I have, and I talked with Becky and she was very, very helpful.
There are still some questions that are unanswered. There is talk about possibly
covering the McDonald lateral by putting it in pipe and the rotation manager for
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 45
myself and three other property owners for a total of four, three of which are
impacted by this development. My personal opinion, I have no objection if it is
put in a pipe as long as I have access so I can continue to pump…
(END OF TAPE)
Young: …each one of the property owners has their own pumping station, so
each one would have to be provided those type of opportunities. Another thing
that I’m concerned about and I didn’t see anything that indicated that there would
be a well going in on this development, but just for the record, my well failed
during the drought years and I’ve had an opportunity of putting a new one in and
anytime a subdivision goes in or anything like it, I get concerned about the
underground water table. Where city water and sewer is coming in, I would
assume that that wouldn’t be a problem, but it’s always something that a person
has to be concerned with.
MacCoy: Can you tell us how deep your new well is?
Young: 170 feet. Before the drought, I was at 64 feet.
MacCoy: Quite costly to go down to 170.
Young: Considerably more costly than it was per foot, when the well was initially
put in. I had a concern about the right-of-way and roadway along the south
portion of the development and Becky told me tonight that the right-of-way
extends 15 feet south of the center line of the ditch and 21 feet to the north and
that the roadway along the McDonald Lateral will remain. I was glad to hear that
and hope that that is certainly the case. A concern that I do have, the Glick’s
Property to their west and the Thousand Springs Subdivision, they’ve got
berming and fencing, that wraps around to the north of the property and that’s
where the berming stops. I would like very much to see that berming continue.
It will be a buffer between my property and their property and will provide me
some additional privacy. I would like to see that berm landscaped and
maintained and I would like to see a masonry fence on that berm. I talked with
Mrs. Hastings, she is out of town, not able to attend this hearing and she
indicated that she was going to write a letter. She has some of the same
concerns that I do. Hopefully we can work together with the developers so that
we can get what we would like to have and the concessions that we think we
need to have and they will be able to push on with their subdivision. Do you
have any questions?
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Any questions here?
Borup: I have one for Mr. Young and that’s on the berm. You said you would like
a berm along the property line? You didn’t explain, where would you like that
located?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 46
Young: Well, it would have to be…
Smith: Could we get that map back up here?
Borup: I’ve got the plat and I (Inaudible) you are talking along that property, but
are you saying along the McDonald Lateral?
Young: If I understand it correctly…
Bowcutt: Show them where you house is…
Young: My home is right here.
Bowcutt: So you are about what? 130 feet?
Young: From where?
Bowcutt: (Inaudible).
Young: Now this is the lateral along here and there is a 21 foot easement and I
would like to see that berm on the other side of that 21 foot easement.
Borup: On the other side?
Young: I don’t think the irrigation people will let me put it on the roadway or…
Borup: No, that’s what was testified earlier and that’s what I was wondering.
Smith: So to the east property line on Lot 14.
Bowcutt: It would be the south property line of Lot 15.
Young: Yeah, the south property line of Lot 15 and would extend over on to the
corner of Lot 14.
Smith: The corner of 15 and 14.
Young: Yeah. I know Mrs. Hastings is interested in the same thing on her
property and their should be a letter on file to that extent.
Borup: We got her letter.
Young: Any other questions?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 47
Smith: And you are asking for some type of masonry fence, as opposed to
wood?
Young: That would be my preference, I saw too many wood fences in
subdivisions that the fences aren’t maintained and three years after they go in,
why it’s nothing but a mess. With the masonry fence, you certainly wouldn’t have
that problem.
Smith: But before you sit down, this would be addressed to Bruce, are these
individuals who Mr. Young mentioned that he coordinates their irrigation
schedule. Are they all going to be able to access this lateral once it’s enclosed
or are they going to incur expense and can that water pumping station be sized
to accommodate the previous gentleman’s comments about the possibility of him
developing his land? Two questions.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, Shari and I were just sitting
here discussing that. I wasn’t totally clear on how the water system worked
through there. Is it correct to understand that these pump stations exist now?
Young: Yes.
Freckleton: Okay, typically we require a common lot down through there so
people would have access to those facilities. We could do that.
(Inaudible)
Freckleton: Attach it to the other common lot and run it down the back of those
lot lines. Is that the first part of your question?
Smith: That was the first part of the question.
Young: I’m not sure that I understood what he said.
Smith: You will still have access to your water.
Freckleton: It would be left open from the street coming in you will be able to get
down through there. I would assume that he would still have to have—
(Inaudible)
Freckleton: …come in the other direction? Okay.
(Inaudible)
Freckleton: But you wouldn’t have to go into somebody’s back yard to get to
your water.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 48
Young: I certainly hope not.
Freckleton: Yeah. The second part of your question was?
Smith: The booster pump that is going to be required for the water, the domestic
water. Can it be sized so it doesn’t have to be redone when the parcel to the
south develops (Inaudible).
Freckleton: It would be our intention to size that booster station to where it would
handle the service area, this area out here.
Smith: Okay.
Freckleton: We do have a well site down near the Ridenbaugh Canal. We don’t
intend to drill that well at this point in time. You had asked that question.
Typically our city wells are considerable deeper than what your domestic well is.
We go into the deeper aquifers.
Young: Which if I may, doesn’t that sometimes tend to lower the water table on
the shallower aquifers?
Freckleton: That’s a good question for a hydro-geologist, not myself. I can’t
answer that, don’t know.
Smith: Thank you engineer Bruce, that was all of my questions for Mr. Young,
thanks.
MacCoy: Thank you very much. Is anyone—here we go.
JIM ALLEN, 3040 E. VICTORY, MERIDIAN, ID.
Allen: I think these two gentlemen over here are good farmers and they have
taken care of me. I own the property just east of Mr. Young. It has a little V in
the top of it. My biggest concern I guess is with irrigation. I know that I’m going
to be looking at roof lines, hopefully somebody designed some roofs that are
nice to look at. Primary concern, I guess is irrigation because as Mr. Young
indicated, there are seven of us that irrigate out of that lateral, all have different
pumping stations. I keep stock on my place, so I’m concerned about that, that I
end up having an attractive nuisance but also think that it’s my right to farm my
ground as I see it. So I would like that recorded.
MacCoy: That’s required by state law, anyway. (Inaudible)
Allen: Some of the other neighbors keep stock too. Thank you.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 49
Borup: Mr. Allen I did have a question. The lateral, (Inaudible) I understand
does run from east to west, is that correct? So behind your--
Allen: (Inaudible) east to northwest.
Borup: It appears to me then that the lateral behind your property which should
be—you are pumping out of an open ditch at this time?
Allen: Yes.
Borup: Behind your property. It’s my understanding that’s going to stay open so
they won’t be doing anything that would effect—
Allen: You are going to leave it open?
Bowcutt: By you, yes.
Borup: Because they don’t have any other choice, they don’t own or control that
property.
Young: Bob does.
Borup: Right, so he is the one you need to talk to. The other (Inaudible) will all
have access to their pumping stations and access to the ditch and I would
assume if something else comes up along your property it’s going to stay the
same.
Young: Okay, great. Thank you.
MacCoy: I think we are on a roll now.
DAVE MARQUART, 3100 E. VICTORY, MERIDIAN, ID.
Marquart: I’m the property just to the east of Jim Allen and I have some
questions that I would like to ask. I don’t know whether of the commission or of
staff. I think the first question that I have is concerning your item number 5
annexation. I looked at your map today and there is nothing contiguous to this
property for annexation, unless the map isn’t up to date.
Borup: It’s hard to keep that up to date.
Freckleton: It’s not up to date.
Marquart: Is there a property contiguous to this that is already annexed
officially? Okay good, thank you. That was the first question that I had for that.
The pipe into the later is one that I have here that I had for that and I won’t be
affected by that at this time, but if Mr. Bell comes back, I’ll be affected by that
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 50
later. I would like to address the issue of the lighting standards that were in your
packet, I do amateur astronomy, and it’s a beautiful place to do that. I would like
to have in your plans that the lighting not be polluted anymore than possible
upward and that the lighting be addressed in the downward condition, so that we
can still continue to enjoy not only the hobbies that I have in astronomy, but also
my neighbors with the darkness, because it is very nice out there. I would agree
with the berming that was mentioned earlier by Mr. Young and the Glick family. I
think that is very nice. I do have some specific questions that I wonder if you
might be able to help me answer those. Becky, may I use your (Inaudible)? I
could only count six common lots, rather than seven. I don’t know where the
seventh one is, but when we looked at it earlier, we could count the 53 lots, but
we couldn’t count the seven common, so I don’t know where that one is. But if I
could draw your attention to lot #6, Block 5, this little small sliver on the right
hand—on the left hand corner there on the west side. My understanding that
common lot is going to be used for drainage of water. I don’t know how your
Comprehensive Plan addresses drainage of water. Do you have to keep that
water on site or can it flow into somebody else’s subdivision? I don’t know the
answer to that, because it looks like this lot is—
Freckleton: Mr. Marquart, since you and I talked at the table here, I have talked
with Becky and she has given me some clarification on that, because I was a bit
confused as well. That lot, the map is incorrect, the drainage will not be collected
on that lot 6, the drainage does go on to the northwest corner and is collected in
lot 18, block 1 noted as common lot and drainage area, up in that corner. That
sliver of a lot is simply going to be added to a residential lot, in Thousand Springs
to make it bigger and more buildable. That’s just a point of clarification for you,
because I told you wrong earlier.
Marquart: So the lot in the original Thousand Springs needed to be larger and
they sneaked a little out of this property to do it?
Freckleton: Correct.
Marquart: I don’t know if that’s kosher you guys, but that’s what happens. The
other thing is, and I may have to speak with Mr. –I can’t think of his name right
now, our gentleman friend right here.
De Weerd: Harris?
Marquart: It appears that the lot, that this number 6 that is no longer going to be
a part of a drainage system but Block 1, Lot 18 will be, it was mentioned earlier
when I spoke with Bruce that that might be a pipe that was already in existence
and if that pipe already is in existence, I believe that is an irrigation pipe, not a
drainage pipe. I’d need clarification on that. Can we dump drainage water into
an irrigation pipe, that’s already live. Will Meridian Irrigation District allow that? I
hear a lot of silence over there.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 51
Freckleton: First of all, City of Meridian doesn’t have an irrigation district.
Marquart: No, Nampa.
Freckleton: Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District. Becky is this ditch under their
jurisdiction or is it under Boise Project Border control? It’s a question that maybe
she could answer better than I.
Bowcutt: The topography of the property is—this is the lowest by far the lowest
point on this parcel. Historically the parcel drains in that direction. As you can
see this ditch, you can see the ditch here existing. Historically if a parcel drains
to a particular facility we are allowed if treated to discharge the pre-development
flow. Meaning the amount of flow that came off the parcel in it’s undeveloped
form. If that particular irrigation district who governs it agrees to it. That is under
state law and that keeps you if you own property next to me, from shutting your
drainage ditch off (Inaudible) my parcel when I irrigate it, the slough goes into
your drainage ditch, it keeps those drainage facilities moving on. That applies to
developable land. What we can’t discharge is the post development flow. You
must retain that on site. So there is a differentiation between the two.
Marquart: But it has to be treated before it goes?
Bowcutt: Yes sir. That’s why—
Marquart: How do you treat that?
Bowcutt: In this particular one, it’s treated with sand and grease traps as the
storm drainage is collected off the streets, that’s the facilities you see here, then
it’s discharged into that lot being over a half acre, it’s all turfed and landscaped
and as the water flows across through it, you get the sedimentation, the
settlement of the impurities that possibly weren’t picked up in the sand and
grease traps which ACHD cleans out. We also have subsurface gravel, sand
filters, any nuisance water if there is just a little bit of rain, that’s filtered where it
will percolate into the pond. So anything that would overflow, it would have to
reach a certain elevation. It would be like in a 100 year storm, it gives you a
safety factor, those overflows, that’s what it does for you. If we have a terrible
storm, there is a safety factor. The cities experience with those (Inaudible)
without any overflows has been bad. Is that not correct Bruce?
Freckleton: That is true, quite true. Way bad.
Marquart: It would’ve been nice if we had a neighborhood meeting, we could
have solved a lot of these problems earlier. A lot of these questions. Also with
my neighbor who mentioned about the agricultural section on the Idaho Code
224503, that would be on the plat before it’s the (Inaudible). The ditches I think
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 52
are fine. On your site specific comments on your packet, commissioners if you
would number two, residential use, a variety of housing types and densities was
intended for this area. I would agree with that and I would also like to have you
take a look at the fact that larger lot sizes, larger than what is proposed on the
south side to buffer our neighbors on that side would be nice for you to do.
Number seven on your site specific irrigation, I think that is nice to conserve
water resources and Becky has taken a look at number eight there and has
addressed that well for me. Number 13 is certainly the same thing with the
drainage issue. Number 14 on site specific I think the highway width is certainly
appropriate and the way it’s been addressed with providing the pressurized
irrigation, if Becky would agree to would be nice to keep those wheat patches
from growing and nobody able to take care of those. By the way, I don’t believe
that ACHD has heard this yet officially, I don’t think the commissioners have
heard this, I believe it’s going to the commissioners on the 27th
of January?
Bowcutt: They have heard it.
Marquart: They have heard it?
Bowcutt: Yes sir, and they asked us to extend the stub street. They have no
adopted the revised staff report, but (Inaudible).
Marquart: Great, but not the revised. Okay.
MacCoy: We are having a hard time we can’t hear her coming back and so you
are asking questions that aren’t being recorded. It’s to your benefit that
(Inaudible) and there is a letter of narrative from Ms. Bowcutt’s firm that states in
number 10 that the development is compatible with adjacent residential uses.
The design provides for larger lots next to the existing one acre lots along the
south boundary. I would like to bring to your attention that those lots are not one
acre, mine is the smallest lot and I’m over an acre. Most of the lots there are two
acres plus. The sizes of the lots, if we are actually doing a transitional from one
subdivision to these lots, they are not one acre lots that we are looking at, they
are two acre plus lots. So I think that’s another reason why we might have a little
larger transitional lots on this. The other thing that bothers me a bit is the letter
that you received from Mr. Carberry on the school district. All the schools are
filled, over capacity, not at capacity, but over capacity and I think your letter
indicates that. I think it would be who of us all to take a look at that very
carefully. As these subs come on line. In addition to the parks, I believe as I
look through your Comprehensive Plan, your plan calls for five acres of park land
for every one thousand residence and the testimony this morning or earlier
today—seems like this morning stated that there be 500 or 328 lots in the other
subdivision plus 53 in this one. I don’t know what the demographics are, but if
you just figure 3 people in a residence, that’s over 1,100 people. Where is our
five acre park? Is it in the other subdivision that we don’t see here? Yes? Okay.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 53
Of course we don’t have that opportunity to take a look at that. Well those are
the comments that I have, stand for questions.
MacCoy: Thank you very much. Anybody else?
BONNIE GLICK.
Glick: I live, of course, where is the map? (Inaudible) My property is right here.
I have two, a little over two acres that abut Thousand Springs and then right here
where they brought this landscaping area around is right behind my place. My
house however, I don’t know if you have any maps that show the way my house
looks. Do you have it? My house. It sits in a direction that looks northeast, so if
you look on this plat, it shows that this landscaping area, this common lot 18 is
right behind my property, but my house actually looks right over lots 17 & 16,
that’s where my house looks. So one of my issues, whatever goes there, I want
it to be single story, because I have this gorgeous view of the mountains and I’ve
had it for 16 years and I love it, and I don’t want to have it blocked off by a big
monstrous two story house. So, that’s one of my requests. Becky, that was in
my letter too. A couple of concerns that I have, I feel a little bit like a broken
record, but you know, I keep referring back to the Comprehensive Plan and
earlier I heard the attorney say if it’s inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
we can’t approve it. Well, in the land view section under rural areas, 6.8U it says
that new urban density subdivisions which abut or are proximal to existing rural
residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger
more comparable lot sizes and Mr. Young has addressed this as has Mr.
Marquart, and I still want to see right behind me—like lot 17 & 16, make that into
one lot and put one house on that lot, rather than two houses right there.
Sixteen is not that large of a lot. As they said before, these properties south of
this area are all two acres plus. These houses on these little lots are not near
comparable lot sizes to our properties and I go back to the Comprehensive Plan
and say why do we keep approving these large high densities next to our rural
residential properties that have been here for two decades. I’m a little baffled by
that and disturbed by it. I too am concerned about piping the lateral there and I
guess that I didn’t understand the discussion that happened. My question is
even if they put a common lot there, my understanding is that’s so we can
access the lateral, was that correct? If it’s piped.
Smith: Yes.
Glick: If it’s piped, however, how do we—
Smith: It won’t be piped. Will it be piped?
Glick: Well however, (Inaudible) it’s got to be piped if it’s going to be covered.
It’s going to be piped. So how do we—we right now have a well that is sunk into
the canal, into the lateral that we have an irrigation system on our place from
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 54
that. How will we access that water once it’s piped? I mean, does our pump still
sit there? Is there going to be like a box where our pump can still be sunk or
how does that work? (Inaudible) okay. So there is no extra expense to us is
what I’m asking I guess, okay.
Freckleton: To address that, Briggs Engineering in their design for the
subdivision and their design for the tiling of the McDonald Lateral, they would
have to incorporate each one of your pump stations into their design to be able
to provide you with the water that you have historically had.
Glick: Okay, thank you. Let’s see. As Mr. Young said, I agree that coming
around that corner from Thousand Springs, right by my place here. I had
negotiated with Becky that we would come around and have the capped fence
and it seems to me that there ought to be something consistent to go around that
corner, instead of this abrupt change. This comes up the side of our property
right here and then, my understanding now is that it stops and something else
starts. Is there anyway that we can have a consistent fence coming around that
corner, so it would be a capped fence, hopefully? Okay. Lot #18, I just want to
make sure that is not a drainage lot behind me. Okay. I too like Mr. Young have
a real concern about our domestic well. I sort of gather from the conversation
that happened earlier is that we can’t really get an answer from anybody about
how is this going to effect our domestic wells. You know we’ve been there for 20
years, we have our well sunk. Many of us have re-drilled, Mrs. Hastings has re-
drilled, Mr. Young has re-drilled. Ours is about 110 feet I think and it worries me
when you guys are sinking these deep wells in even though they are deeper than
ours, like you know my understanding is too that the shallow wells then sort of
get sucked by the deeper wells. So if all these wells are going in behind us to
provide water for this development, who can guarantee me that I’m not going to
end up with no water.
Freckleton: If I could address that a little bit. I’m not a hydro-geologist. The city
wells typically, the ones that we’ve been drilling lately have been 600-700 feet
deep. Typically those aquifers are sealed from each other. They are not
interconnected. Especially at those kind of differentials of depth. I don’t know if
that helps you any or not, but typically you don’t see big draw downs.
Borup: I’m not a geologist either, but that’s—I’ve read articles about it and that’s
exactly the same thing that other experts have said. (Inaudible)
Freckleton: Our wells are solid cased down to those depths, you know, our
pumping depths where we will have our screens. We do case off those upper
water layers.
Glick: Well, it doesn’t feel like a complete guarantee which is what I’m looking
for, but I guess—
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 55
Smith: How far away is the well that services this project?
Freckleton: The well that will service this project is clear over on Locust Grove at
Los Alimitos, at the entrance of Los Alimitos. The new well Thousand Springs
dedicated a well site and it is on Eagle Road, adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal.
So, roughly half a mile to the northeast.
Glick: Okay, I’m concerned too about the traffic. Like Rex Young, I go out and
that’s a dangerous highway. People are driving up and down that highway at 60-
65 miles per hour and the corner of Eagle and Victory Road is a busy
intersection. I don’t know how ACHD is planning on moving that traffic once
these large density subdivisions come in, but there is going to have to be
something done. Has there been any discussion of that at all with that corner up
there Eagle and Victory? The other thing that I have a concern about is the
covenant that they are going to put in place, if there is any way that we can make
sure that those are in place and we won’t end up with junk cars and campers and
everything backed up next to our houses. Basically those are my concerns. I
think I look at the density of this right behind us and one of the biggest concerns
is, you know we have two acres and with all the berming and landscaping you
want to do you still aren’t doing transitional lots when you have got how many
houses backed up to—our properties there to the south probably add up to six or
seven acres and you’ve got a number of houses right there behind us in the
same amount of acreage. So I would appreciate whatever you can do for those
considerations. Any questions?
MacCoy: I’m going to answer one of your questions to do with the Victory-Eagle
roadways and so on. Yes ACHD has mapped out and planned the future of that
down to something like 25 years in the future right now and they’ve got them all
marked as far as about when they are going to have to go forward.
Glick: Are they going to widen Victory Road?
MacCoy: They will widen Victory Road, they will widen Eagle again besides on
the way down. You know what Eagle is up North, it will be carried further south
as we get more and more people out there. Which is where it is going to go, it’s
going to go both ways. It goes south, it’s going to go north of 84 because our
city is growing. If you look at it, we are about 33,000-34,000 now. The year
2004 to some place in there or 2005 they are predicting we’ll be somewhere
close to between 50,000-60,000 people in Meridian alone. So you can imagine
when it happens. Nampa is also growing in a very fast rate and Boise is almost
out of land, so. I don’t know what you are going to do to pull the plug to stop all
this, because people know a good place when they see it is what I think it
amounts to.
Glick: Well I guess my admiration would be let’s keep it a good place.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 56
MacCoy: (Inaudible) I don’t know how you stop that, there is a very historic court
order that was taken in California when the Oklahoma people moved into
California thinking they found the promised land, which it was, but California said
no way, so they passed a law in the state of California (Inaudible) take a walk.
The federal government stepped in and thou shall not be able to do that
including every state there is, you can not force people out, you can’t keep them
out.
Glick: Well I do appreciate the consideration that you guys have made for our
wishes and I hope that we can work together to reach a conclusion that is good
for all of us.
MacCoy: I’ll put one more plug in here. The firm that Becky works for has shown
in the past that they do as much as they can for the people that around there,
because they feel too that you have got quite a nice place and they would like to
have a nice place when they leave. So I think they do a good job. Thank you.
Any questions for Mrs. Glick.
Borup: I maybe more of—go ahead.
Smith: Well go ahead. I’ll go.
Borup: She had made a reference to the comp plan, I assume she was talking
about the reference in her letter. Were you aware that that section was referred
to rural areas, outside of the limits, it didn’t apply to areas in the city limits? Okay
just maybe a clarification there.
Glick: But we are not in the city limits.
Borup: This annexation, the subdivision is. I mean there is a lot of other things
that it talks about. It’s not talking about areas that are adjoining the city limits. I
don’t believe, at least in my interpretation of the one that you referenced to. But
also as we discussed earlier, this subdivision—the density isn’t, it’s below the
three per acre. That’s already been mentioned earlier, according to the comp
plan in that area, they need to add a few more lots in here. Sorry about that
Shari.
MacCoy: (Inaudible) you and I both sat on the board some years ago when
there was another project that went in there which we denied because we
thought the density was too high if you recall that.
Borup: That was before my time.
MacCoy: No it wasn’t either.
Borup: Yes it was, but I know what you were talking about, Highland Ranch.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 57
Smith: I would like to just tell Mrs. Glick that I do agree on you with that
transitional lot sizes. I think it’s unfortunate. This context, you know this
Thousand Springs Subdivision is quite large, it seems to be contiguous with that.
I—since I’ve been on this commission a year and a half, I have not seen a
project come through proposing a density less than an R-4 zoning. It’s disturbing
to me, but I’m not going to get on my R-4 soap box right now.
MacCoy: Thank you.
Smith: Leading into that, Shari you made a comment about higher density along,
I guess it was Eagle Road, this is—well it used to be out in the sticks, but there is
no, to my knowledge, there is no other higher density along Eagle Road
anywhere close that would, could even begin to support some kind of mass
transit system. Are you talking buses, are you talking—what are you, could you
clarify that statement and just how this project in its proposed—it’s fairly small in
perspective to the whole are that is going to be developed in the residential and
how this project could address a higher density that would answer your concern
about…
Stiles: You have to understand that in Meridian R-4 is low density. That’s
considered low density.
Smith: Don’t get me on this R-4 soap box. I want you to talk about the higher
density along that you had referred to. Higher density higher than this
subdivision is proposing.
Stiles: Along arterial corridors unless the City of Meridian starts developing high
density and I mean high density 15-20 units per acre along these corridors, we
will never be able to support a public transit system of any kind.
Smith: I’m sure you are going to make sure that’s addressed in the
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
MacCoy: Yes it will be.
Stiles: It’s already in the Comprehensive Plan and this is designated as a mixed
residential area, which meant that there would be a mixture of housing types
within this area and preferably higher density along the arterials. As far as this
being high density, it’s not.
Smith: Well I think we’ve heard from a number of other individuals tonight who
disagree with that statement. I have a tendency to agree with them and maybe
it’s just because I’ve lived in this state for a long time, I remember what it used to
be like. I think the City of Meridian is making a major mistake having all the
same type of housing everywhere, whether it’s R-4, there has nothing been
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 58
proposed as less, has less density, very little projects that have more density, the
hodge-podge around and I’m going to stop because I’m…
MacCoy: Commissioner Smith you are going to be on the board anyway when
we go through the Comprehensive Plan for it’s review, so you will have a chance
to do a lot of discussion there.
Smith: Yeah, I’ll close that can of worms, because that is not entering into my—
that’s not an issue to me on this project.
MacCoy: Let’s move on, it’s getting late. Okay, you want to say something to us
here?
Bowcutt: I would just like to address some of the statements that the neighbors
had to get this on the record. One statement that I would like to state in support
of what Shari said, in previous discussion, Eagle Road north you indicated, I
don’t feel that corridor is appropriate for single family housing. I think maybe 10-
15 years from now, as you go south of the interstate, you may have the same
feeling as the volume of traffic increase. I think what Shari is getting at in the
comp plan, it calls for mixed residential, which allows one to increase densities
and have multiple types of residential uses 4-plexes, some apartments or so
forth. You will see a change in development once the city imposes some type of
a planned unit development chapter that can be worked with, where you get
what you want, the mixed uses. The lower density that can be supported by
some higher density pockets over by next to the arterials. This is 2.7 dwelling
units per acre, we drop any lower than this, this project won’t happen. You can’t
afford to build the sewer, the water, the streets, put in the street lights and the
hydrants, it won’t happen. We are in an R-4 mindset, I agree, but we’ve been
forced into that mindset with some of the problems with the ordinance and with
the comp plan changes that you guys are getting ready to do, I applaud it, you
are getting closer, that’s your first step. Then you go into the ordinance and start
bringing it up to date with good strong PUD chapters that require amenities such
as open space, swimming pools, tennis courts, trade offs for this high density. I
won’t get off my soap box, I just want to put that on the record. On the well
issue, I just want to state that in my dealings with south county water and united
water, we’ve done major wells on other subdivisions in different areas. I’m no
hydrologist unlike Bruce, but what I’ve been told by those experts is that when
we get down in that 500-600-700 foot level, that is that third aquifer, we have
three. The very shallow, the middle and then that deep one. When that well
does go in, in Thousand Springs, the effect on the adjoining shallow wells should
not be detrimental. That’s what we have been told by the experts. I just wanted
to put that on the record. Covenants to answer Mrs. Glick’s questions, yes we
will be doing protective covenants. The protective covenants will be consistent
with the Thousand Springs covenants. They address issues like no junk cars, no
trailers can be parked in front of the houses. Landscaping requirements, x
number of trees, shrubs. All those covenants, they will probably, as soon as we
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 59
get through the hearing process they will start developing them. We already
have them on Thousand Springs One, we could give her a copy of that for her
review to look at before we go to City Council. If she sees some deficiencies that
she thinks we should be aware of, that’s great, then she has an opportunity to
bring those up. Density and lot sizes in the development, the minimum lot size is
8,000 in the R-4. We don’t have any lot that is 8,000. Our average lot size in
this development if you went through and averaged them out, I’m sure is 11,000-
12,000 square feet. The ones along that perimeter I intentionally tried to make
as large as possible. We can even make them a little bit larger by shifting the
cul-de-sac to the north. You have to understand with that corridor for the piping
of the McDonald Lateral, there will be a 35 foot corridor there. We can put it in a
common lot, we can put it in an easement. We have to make sure that everyone
has access to their water, it’s state law. The Boise Project Border control says
we must submit plans that go to their board for review showing how we are going
to provide water to all the individuals. My understanding is they irrigate on little
pumps, so they would all need boxes. On the projects that I’ve done in the past
we’ve coordinates with all the joining property owners, we give them a copy of
the plan, we have a sit down meeting with an engineer that explains how it
works. If they are happy with it, then we sent that on to the irrigation district.
That’s what I propose here.
Smith: Do you have a preference over a common lot, versus an easement?
Bowcutt: If it’s a common lot, then the lot owner is not taxed for that area, I think
that’s been one of the concerns of City Council people paying property taxes for
property they can’t use, which encourages them in five years to move their fence
out into that easement. In the past, all the projects I’ve done in Meridian, I’ve
tried to put them in common lots so they are protected and nobody thinks it’s
theirs and the association pays taxes on it, not—it’s not the burden of one
individual lot owner, or two or three.
De Weerd: And maintains it too, correct?
Bowcutt: Yes. We will probably talk to Boise Project Border Control, I don’t know
if they go through and spray now or what. You know, some times there can be
some arrangement that they spray once a year to keep it down, if they do not, it
would obviously fall on the association. You are correct. The right to farm
statement, I don’t see a problem with that as brought up by Mr. Marquart, it’s on
our plat for Thousand Springs, it’s on our plat for Sherbrooke Hollows,
Sherbrooke Village, that is west of this. It is a state law putting it on the face of
the plat makes it known to everyone. The client agrees to add that to the plat. I
want to make it clear that we are not piping all of that at McDonald Lateral, we
are only required to pipe which transverses us. So it would be open to the east.
It is a city requirement for the public’s knowledge that we pipe any ditch that has
a 48 inch or less pipe size, for ditch safety purposes. As far as berming, that is a
troublesome one, where do you put the berm, who maintains the berm, like I
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 60
mentioned before in my presentation, if the back side of the berm goes down to
the property, who maintains that? One particular project that I worked on, one of
the adjoining property owners that wanted the berm said you can build it on my
parcel, I’ll let you do that and I’ll maintain it. In that case it worked. I’d like an
opportunity to move forward with the project. I’ll get with the neighbors, we will
talk through the issues. They have another opportunity when we go before the
City Council they will get notice. It’s hard to work out those issues in our amount
in this type of forum, as you—as Mr. MacCoy has brought to my attention we
can’t be talking back and forth. We need to have a sit down and go over it.
Whether it’s on the phone or everybody is together on a one on one. I’ve been
successful in this area coming to compromises that worked well for everybody.
There are some things that we can do, there are some things that we can’t.
Masonry walls are very expensive. I want to make note that we are talking
residential to residential. Compatibility does not mean exactly the same when
you are dealing with residential. I’ve gone through this many, many times when I
would butt two acre or acre lots. We try to make them as big as we can, maybe
we can come a little closer, but I would like an opportunity out of this forum to do
so. So I would ask that you approve this and send us forward please.
Nelson: I have a question for you real quick. As these lot sizes grow, doesn’t
that tend to push for a larger home size on that lot?
Bowcutt: Yes sir. The larger the lot, the more expensive the lot, typically, unless
you have a lot that is non-like the other lots in the development. If all the lots in a
particular subdivision or all the homes are say $165,000 to $200,000 are you
going to go build a $350,000 dollar house in the middle? Probably not, nobody
likes to be the most expensive.
Nelson: I was deluding to the issue with the two story homes and the view.
Bowcutt: Oh, two story.
Nelson: Even though views aren’t guaranteed by law to anyone.
Bowcutt: Right. It was discussed on Thousand Springs #1 the issue and we did
come to a compromise.
De Weerd: I think the point he was…
(END OF TAPE)
Smith: …we can do, we did it.
De Weerd: I won’t comment on that. I do want you to restate your comment
about ACHD’s report, so we have it on record.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 61
Bowcutt: Oh, the Ada County Highway District—a staff report was drafted, we
reviewed it with staff. It went before the highway district commissioners. We
were in agreement, they heard it, discussed it, they concurred with staff report,
they asked that we provide a public street connection to Mr. Harris’s home
parcel. So the staff contacted us, asked us if we agreed, we said yes, they
revised the staff report. The new staff report I don’t believe has gone to the
commissioners, but they have already heard and discussed this project in it’s
entirety. They just added an additional condition for the record.
Smith: Is there not a berm now along the south access to Thousand Springs
between what is it, South Bennett Bay and Mrs. Glick’s property.
Bowcutt: Is there a berm here now?
Smith: Yeah, or part of the (Inaudible) development.
Bowcutt: Yes we agreed to put a berm here, because this is a collector street.
Then we would put a six foot wood fence with a cap and what our intent is, we
would take that berm and wrap through here, the same type of fencing would
wrap through. I also, one of the concerns of Mr. Young was what about the
integrity of the fence over time? I talked to the client, one of the things that I’ve
been trying to bring our developers to spend a little more money on these fences
and go with steel posts. Wood, dog earred with caps, but steel posts because
steel posts don’t rot out and (Inaudible) have a tendency to lean like some of the
old fences. They said yes that would be acceptable to go with the steel post so
we don’t get a lean or rotting of the posts. Yes, we are going to try and make it
consistent and wrap through here.
Smith: Some of the concerns of like Mr. Young, you could continue that berm
conceptually down to the south east corner lots 15 & 14.
Bowcutt: But it would be on their private property.
Smith: Yeah, but that’s something that…
Bowcutt: You mean continue it here?
Smith: Yeah all the way to the east there.
Bowcutt: On our side or their side.
Smith: I don’t want to tell you how. Just the point was brought up that they would
like to see a berm and fence right along there. So whether it’s centered on the
property line, shifted to one side or the other, I don’t know, but you did it on.
Bowcutt: But I can’t.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 62
Smith: Why not?
Bowcutt: The McDonald Lateral is there. The McDonald Lateral is running right
here. It weaves kind of back and forth, but it is on our…
Smith: You can’t put dirt?
Bowcutt: I can put dirt, but I can’t put a berm.
Smith: That’s stupid.
Bowcutt: They claim that would be additional excavation.
Smith: It would be yeah. If they had to go in and maintain it.
Bowcutt: I sent them a letter asking for this in writing. They told me verbally over
the phone, staff can call them, and they said no berm in our easement, no fence
in our easement.
Smith: So it would have to be on the south side of the property line.
Bowcutt: So what I’m saying is that it would have to be either on their side or it
would have to be north on the lot. If I put a berm here on the private lot and Mr.
Borup buys that lot, and after he’s been there a couple of year, he thinks I don’t
like that, I’m tearing it out, what can you or I do to stop it?
Smith: Right.
Bowcutt: That’s one concern that I would have.
Smith: Somebody had asked that homes along that—it’s 15 through lots 17 be
single story, would you have a problem with that? It’s only three lots.
Bowcutt: The developer would not like that, however, we didn’t like it over there
either. So I guess I’m not going to say that he’s just jumping for joy here.
Smith: No, but okay.
Bowcutt: No, I guess we disagree with it. I think I stated before we think it’s a
right whether you want a one or two story home. The ordinance does not give
this body the authority to dictate single story.
Smith: Okay, the only thing that wasn’t addressed I think was the gentleman’s
comments about amateur astronomer and I know all our street lights are
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 63
basically down lights, but they through light all over the place. I’m not a lighting
engineer, so…
Bowcutt: Public works department determines the location of them and they
dictate the specifications for them and they are all those capped lights that shine
downward and don’t go that way. Maybe they could be diligent in how they want
those located over by his property so that we don’t have any of that light.
Nelson: I think you’d have more problem with the flood lights in the backyards.
Borup: Patio lights.
Bowcutt: Possibility, can’t deny it.
Smith: So we can just tell this gentleman to call Bruce and…
Bowcutt: Oh yeah, he is further east. He doesn’t back up to us, he’s over there.
Smith: Right on the corner?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Marquart: No.
Bowcutt: You are just one off right?
Marquart: Three off.
Bowcutt: You are three, so—but you don’t abut us.
Marquart: I say light goes a long way it doesn’t care how far away you are.
Bowcutt: Okay, here is Mrs. Glick, Mrs. Hastings, Mr. Young, Mr. Allen, so you
are right there? So he is right here. Does he back up to us? No. We back up to
Mrs. Hastings, Mrs. Glick and just a portion of Mr. Youngs, because his parcel
comes over here. So I’ve got three parcels that I’ve…
MacCoy: Okay are you finished? Okay.
Bowcutt: …and this gentleman’s parcel here that testified first.
Smith: Oh, I did have one more. At the beginning you started talking about that
property that is called Not of Heart (sic). Did you say that that was to be included
in this annexation and zoning (Inaudible) now?
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 64
Smith: Okay.
Bowcutt: Not in the plat, but in the annexation.
MacCoy: Okay, you have another piece up here? You want to make a
statement or—something that you haven’t mentioned before we look—try to get
things keeping.
REX YOUNG.
Young: I just want to make sure that I understand this right and it goes on the
record right as far as that berm is concerned. Now, if you take, if I understand it
correctly, assuming McDonald Lateral is the property line and it’s pretty close,
then the irrigation people have an easement that goes 21 feet to the north, and
15 feet to the south. Thou shall not build a berm in that 36 foot area? Isn’t that
correct?
Bowcutt: Correct.
Young: The thing that I’m suggesting is that the berm be built to the north of that
easement. It would be 21 feet from the center line of the ditch in essence.
That’s where I’m suggesting that it be built.
Borup: So Mr. Young you are recommending, you are saying it would be built on
those properties, on those lots? So it would be built on a private lot?
Young: I’m saying that it would be built 21 feet north of the center line of the
ditch. Now whether they sell those lots off or not, or they keep that as a common
area, that’s up to them.
Borup: What would your feeling be if it was south of the ditch?
Young: Well, if they want to build it to the south side of the ditch, they’ve got to
go 15 feet and they are going to have some gigantic hybrid poplars they are
going to have to contend with to build that berm.
Borup: So you already got a big screen there?
Young: I’ve got poplars along that side, yes.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Is there anybody else now we get down to the lateness of the hour
here. Anybody else who wants to speak for either the 5 or 6 item on our list?
Okay commissioners what do you want to do.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 65
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close this public
hearing. We haven’t discussed amongst ourselves.
De Weerd: Second. We are going to have discussion.
Nelson: It doesn’t really matter.
Borup: Did you have a question for someone in the audience?
Nelson: No.
MacCoy: Well we can go ahead and close it then.
De Weerd: We don’t need to vote until he has his discussion right?
Nelson: My question was going to be about the status of the flat and whether
we need to request a revised plat. We already know it’s wrong, before we
approve this to City Council.
Borup: Because of the one road extension?
Nelson: Road extension, there is different lots, and clarification on some other
stuff.
Smith: Common lot.
Nelson: We’ve got some common lot issues.
Smith: Road was shifted.
(Inaudible)
Borup: You’re talking about the road going into the Harris Property.
Nelson: We kind of set a policy that it comes back here correct before it goes on
to City Council. So I thought I would ask what the—how do we want to handle
that now? Now that—it used to come back to us and different things…
Borup: We can still go ahead and handle the annexation and zoning and discuss
that.
MacCoy: We’ve got two issues here right now that we are trying to close the
public hearing for. (Inaudible) yeah, but we’ve got to vote separately on the final
piece for that.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 66
Smith: So lets knock off annexation and zoning.
MacCoy: Yeah, so you do that first.
Smith: So we vote on that.
MacCoy: Vote on the closing of the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: I said closing on 5 & 6.
Borup: Okay, thank you (Inaudible).
MacCoy: Now we pay attention to the issue itself at number 5. Discuss that one
which is the annexation and zoning. What is your discussion on that?
Smith: Well, I guess unfortunately it doesn’t sound like that berm thing is going
to work.
Borup: That would be a plat issue wouldn’t it?
De Weerd: Yes.
MacCoy: Not a zoning issue.
Smith: That is true.
Borup: Anybody have any other comments on the annexation and zoning?
Smith: No, no. Sorry.
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: Okay, do I get a motion?
De Weerd: Yes Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend annexation and
zoning of the 21.54 acres for the proposed Thousand Springs Village.
Borup: Second.
De Weerd: To include staff comments and ACHD’s reports as revised.
MacCoy: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Borup what were you going to say?
Borup: I just said second.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 67
MacCoy: Okay thank you, I got the thing confused from this end. Any
discussion? If none, what’s my vote? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: All ayes have it, so number 5 annexation and zoning is now passed on
to the council. Item 6 is a preliminary plat for Thousand Springs Village.
Borup: May have some discussion here. You are ready to make a motion you
mean?
De Weerd: Well I have a number of items to include in a motion. Do we want to
first discuss those, before a motion is made?
Borup: I think that would be appropriate.
Nelson: List them as a bullet item. So we can have them worked out before we.
De Weerd: I do have that um, they would need to have access to the residence
through a common lot for the irrigation from the McDonald Lateral to include right
to farm on statement on the plat to make the revisions to the plat as instructed by
ACHD and through staff comments. To require a berm that will be agreed upon
with the residents to the south of the property.
Borup: Let her go through and maybe we can go back. What no?
Smith: No, that’s fine, we can do that.
Borup: Was that it commissioner? Four items.
De Weerd: Yeah.
Smith: I would add one that the homes on lots 15, 16, 17 be single story.
Rossman: My legal opinion is…
Smith: I know that you don’t like it, and I notably, your legal opinion is going to
tell me I’m…
Rossman: Relax a minute, let me state my legal opinion, it’s my job and that is
that you can’t restrict story heights on houses. There is nothing in the
ordinances that allows you to do that.
Smith: Is there anything in the ordinance that says I can’t?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 68
Rossman: Well would you like me to hand you a case tomorrow after I research
it that will say that you can’t. I mean it’s out there. (Inaudible).
Borup: I can’t remember the specifics, but just recently I did hear a court case
addressing that.
Nelson: We might request that the developer encourage it.
MacCoy: That’s what he can do.
Rossman: Sure.
Smith: Okay, we could state it that way.
De Weerd: We can certainly try that.
Smith: But getting back to this berm thing. It was a good point made about if it’s
constructed on the subdivision home owners side, they can go tear it out any
time they want to and then it’s gone. It’s been a waste of money…
Borup: Another point, we’ve done a lot of berms over the last while, but I don’t
believe we’ve ever done any between two residential areas. I can’t think of a
single one.
Smith: Sounds like he’s got popular trees planted, there is—without seeing it, I
don’t know how good of a screen it is already.
Borup: We’ll he’d have to cut them down to see the berm.
Smith: If you put a berm, it’s going to kill the trees. So it doesn’t work. It just
seems 21 feet north, or 15 feet south seems silly. Seems like it should go right
on the property line, and this stupid irrigation thing that they can’t pull another
extra shovel of dirt out is—it doesn’t work very well.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Smith: It works poorly. I wouldn’t think…
Borup: I would have to agree with that.
Smith: I wouldn’t put anything in about a berm. Unless you want to say
encourage pursuing it with…
De Weerd: Just like the single story thing.
Smith: A little more loose than that.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 69
Borup: I think it’s already been established that there is no place to put it.
De Weerd: The developer, or Becky did say that she would work with the
residents and meet with them on that issue, so, I took that for face value.
MacCoy: Okay, what else do we have?
Smith: That’s it for me.
Borup: I don’t…
De Weerd: Well if you want me to make the motion, it’s not going to include the
single story thing, you may want to make…
Smith: Well I’ll amend your motion to include it. So you can either say it, or I will.
Borup: Are we looking for the first three items to be included as part of the
motion.
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: The common lot, the right to farm, the new plat showing Zimms
extending to Harris Property to the east and then the other four and five was
encouragement, not a condition.
MacCoy: What is the right to farm issue you have.
De Weerd: The statement that we had through the plat.
MacCoy: That’s required by state law.
De Weerd: To be added on the plat.
Borup: But it’s not always on the plat though.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: It is law, but we would like it added to the plat.
MacCoy: Okay go ahead and make the statement, but I think it’s redundant. Go
ahead.
Borup: Is that—am I incorrect on that, they are not always on the plat.
MacCoy: I’ve seen them on the plat.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 70
Borup: Well yeah…
Nelson: That forces disclosure to the new buyer.
MacCoy: Well they can go back in a case of law and win. Isn’t that right Eric?
Rossman: Yes, the requirement is state law (Inaudible).
Borup: It’s a lot easier if you don’t have to do that.
MacCoy: Go ahead, make your statement.
Smith: Attorneys would be out of a job though so.
MacCoy: All right do it, lets go.
Nelson: Are we going to see this plat again, or we can just let them change that
and send it to City Council.
De Weerd: I feel comfortable.
Borup: She showed us the concept of it moving all over the—the street went on
through and Pine Flats Avenue moved one block to the east or one lot, one lot to
the east.
De Weerd: I think that she showed it—well isn’t that the property of the city now?
Smith: (Inaudible).
Borup: Well was there a revised preliminary plat turned in anywhere even on an
8 X 10 or anything?
De Weerd: I only saw it on the (Inaudible).
Bowcutt: The Ada County Highway District (Inaudible) did I send one to Shari?
No, I just brought it on the bulletin board, but I could submit that board to
evidence.
De Weerd: That was my point.
Borup: Okay, then we’ve got it.
Smith: So the only thing that needs to be changed is the common lot along the
lateral.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 71
De Weerd: Yes, so the change…
Smith: And the inclusion of the right to farm act on the plat.
De Weerd: Right. Well, okay, it might need an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I
move that we recommend the preliminary plat for Thousand Springs Village with
a ACHD report as revised, staff comments submitted and including that there be
a common lot allowing access to the residents to the south for their irrigation
water that the statement for the right to farm act should be on the preliminary plat
and what else was on the preliminary plat? Oh, to show the common lot that we
recommend a berm to be agreed upon with the residents.
Borup: You left off the new plat showing the extension of Zimms.
De Weerd: And the new plat showing the extension of Zimms. What is Zimms?
Borup: That’s the name of a street.
De Weerd: Sorry, I did say that.
Borup: You did the first time, I didn’t hear it this—I didn’t think you had it in your
motion though.
De Weerd: That would be my motion.
Smith: I would like to amend that motion to include…
Borup: It hasn’t been seconded yet.
(Inaudible)
Rossman: Wait, the proper procedure would be to address this motion and if it is
not approved then you could raise a separate motion.
De Weerd: It needs a second.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Okay now, you want to amend it before we go and do the final vote.
Smith: We have to vote on it right? It’s been moved and seconded, we need a
vote on it right?
MacCoy: You have an amendment before we make the vote.
Rossman: What are you saying Will?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 72
Berg: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary procedure that I’m aware of that you can
amend motions that are on the table, through discussion, you can amend a
motion because you vote on the amendment to the motion.
Borup: First.
Berg: Then you get back to the basic motion.
Rossman: Well we also have a motion on the table by Commissioner De Weerd
who did not anticipate or desire the amendment to it. So my feeling is that you
address that motion first and then if there is an amendment then you can
address that separately.
MacCoy: What if she doesn’t like the amendment?
Borup: Well that’s why I think (Inaudible)…
Rossman: To allow someone else to amend her motion before it’s addressed.
Berg: I agree with you logically that makes sense, but parliamentary you can
amend and have a motion on the floor to amend a motion and it be outvoted and
not have the amendment.
(Inaudible)
Rossman: That’s fine, you can go ahead and allow it to be amended and
outvoted and go back to the original motion.
Borup: If the amended motion stands on it’s own, it’s voted separately.
Smith: Why don’t we go out on a limb here and go the logical route, instead of
the parliamentary route.
MacCoy: I don’t care (Inaudible) go with it.
Smith: Because I was the one who wanted to amend it, I think it makes sense to
do it. To vote on the motion.
De Weerd: She has a problem with it, if she agreed with it, then it would be
different.
MacCoy: All right, on the motion that is already on the table, it’s been seconded.
All in favor of that motion say so by saying aye.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 ayes, 1 nay.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 73
MacCoy: Now what?
De Weerd: Now it’s passed.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Can’t amend it.
Borup: But you can make a new motion. No he can’t, you’re right. We
should’ve amended the motion.
(Inaudible)
Rossman: Let me indicate how I think this should’ve gone. It should’ve started
with a motion by Tammy with a second. Go into the discussion and then Byron
could raise a motion to amend it, you address Byron’s motion to amend and if
approved, then you go with the motion, if denied you go back to Tammy’s original
motion.
MacCoy: That’s what I asked.
Nelson: That’s what Will said.
(Inaudible)
ITEM NO. 7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING
OF 1 ACRE BY KATHLEEN & WENDELL LAWRENCE — SOUTH OF PINE
STREET, NORTH OF HWY 30/FRANKLIN ROAD, ON LINDER ROAD:
ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY LICENSED FOR 50 CHILDREN BY KATHLEEN
& WENDELL LAWRENCE — SOUTH OF PINE STREET, NORTH OF HWY
30/FRANKLIN ROAD, ON LINDER ROAD:
MacCoy: Items 7 & 8 are off the same subject matter, we will do the same as we
did with 5 & 6. It’s a public hearing on both of these, it’s a request for annexation
and zoning of one acre and number 8 is a request for conditional use permit. We
can’t do that can we? I’m in the midst of trying to go through this. Request for a
conditional use permit for a child day care facility by the same individual and the
same location. Looking at number seven, staff? Where is my staff, looks like
everybody disserted the ship here.
Stiles: I’m really all alone.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 74
MacCoy: You wait till we get with her over here. Comments on items 7 & 8,
what do you see?
Stiles: We have our comments, we had no particular problems with it. Ada
County Highway District however in their report they are restricting them to one
access that has to line up with the adjacent access across Linder Road, which
the applicant is doing right now.
Unknown: I got those comments on Friday, so this—there will no longer be an
access right here.
Stiles: Well, I don’t know where the access.
MacCoy: Okay let her finish her statement before we open, we haven’t gotten to
public hearing yet, we are still asking the staff for help here.
Stiles: I’m not sure exactly where that driveway has to be, but the applicant will
meet all requirements of Ada County Highway District, although it would be
preferable to have the circle turnaround there, because of their limitations on
arterials. That’s not possible. Just want to emphasize that no use of the Union
Pacific Railroad Corridor is proposed and none are approved. We want to
preserve this for a future pathway, or light rail, some kind of use. We do need to
see any signage details and review them as part of design review. That’s all I
have.
MacCoy: Bruce do you have anything?
Freckleton: I have nothing further, other than what is in the comments.
MacCoy: Okay, now we’ll open the public hearing, the applicant is at the podium
already and now will say her name for the attorney.
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE, 889 N. FILLMORE WAY, MERIDIAN, ID.
Lawrence: I’ve received ACHD’s comments on Friday and didn’t have a chance
to get you a better revision of the plan. Basically for the parking we can scoot
the building back as much as necessary to allow for more parking or more
landscaping. I’m not very worried about the signage. That can be on the building
out of the way. I don’t think the sign is really what is going to get you the
children. Do you have any questions for me? Looking at my application.
Smith: I have a question. Do you and your husband just want your house back?
Lawrence: I think our home will probably keep both (Inaudible). We were very
successful in Crossroads, that’s a little gold mine out there.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 75
Smith: So do you know, I couldn’t see where you were pointing to that access
drive on the—could you bring it over in front of us here and…
Lawrence: I didn’t want to block Shari’s view.
Smith: Well, I don’t like to block the audiences view either, but we couldn’t see.
So where you’ve got marked across in pink is what they want you to omit?
Lawrence: Yeah, that would just be blocked off, no exit.
Smith: Really the only comment that I really had on your site arrangement is do
you anticipate kids being dropped off or does the parent have to come inside and
sign the child in.
Lawrence: The parent has to come and sign.
Smith: So there is no point in having a drop off.
Lawrence: No.
Smith: Okay, that was it, that’s all I have.
MacCoy: Mr. Borup.
Borup: You made a comment about increasing the parking or setbacks or
anything. I didn’t see anything in the staff comments that thought that was
necessary.
Lawrence: Well when I had the architect draw it up, I told him you know don’t
take a lot of time. Draw how you think is best, we will be open to any changes.
Borup: My understanding is that ACHD, you could, you don’t need to block off
that, you could move it to the center or anything that works for your site design.
Is that correct? No that’s not correct. They have to be that far away, oh have to
align with the other driveway, I’m sorry. The other driveway wasn’t showing on
the plat.
Lawrence: It’s on the other side of the road.
Borup: Okay I have nothing else, what else are you going to put next to a
railroad track.
Smith: Playing children.
Borup: No, I think it’s a good use for the property.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 76
Lawrence: Children like the train.
Borup: Don’t want residential there.
Lawrence: Well it’s actually a residential lot in Ada County, but they have been
unable to build on it.
Borup: Because no one wants to build on the tracks.
De Weerd: Just out of curiosity, what is the (Inaudible) off the train that goes by
there?
Lawrence: As far as I can tell and I’m in Crossroads Subdivision, 3:30ish.
De Weerd: In the afternoon?
Lawrence: Umm hmm , that’s the only one that I’ve noticed. There is another
one that is some time at night, real late or early morning. It wakes the kids up
from nap.
MacCoy: Any other questions? We’ll wait for Mr. Nelson here.
Nelson: Looks good.
Lawrence: You guys are getting more pleasant as the night goes on.
MacCoy: Is anyone here…
Borup: No.
Lawrence: (inaudible) it is, but yours is a better copy because this doesn’t show
the correct easement of Linder Road.
MacCoy: Do we have anyone here that would like to speak in favor or for this
project. No, since I see none. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on
the other side of the fence for this project?
SHERRY WITT, 300 N. LINDER, MERIDIAN, ID.
Witt: That is two houses south of the one that they are talking about.
Borup: Are you lot 4 ma’am?
Witt: Yes I am, I believe that’s correct. If I remember rightly. It’s a residential
subdivision with protective covenants and it says no business of any description
shall be conducted on the above property and so forth, it has a lot of. I don’t
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 77
want to read you the whole thing tonight and bore you to death, but I do object,
property values, but I object on behalf of the children next to the railroad track
and the traffic on that road. I go out for my paper and mail, I have to jump from
the ditch—the kids used to play out in the road, but no more you know. Now it’s
been (Inaudible) for seventeen cars and I thought only 17 crossed the roads this
morning or something. It’s a two story house and it’s on—I’m not sure how much
acreage, a couple of acres or whatever. (Inaudible) lived there for like 20 years
and they are divorced and they want to sell their house. These people would like
to buy it because they would like to branch out and have a daycare, which is fine,
but it is—I believe you said R-4, I think is our designation or whatever. Across
the road now they do have some commercial stuff, but it’s a regular residential
subdivision, Hepper’s Acres Subdivision at this point and because of property
values and things, I would like to see the protective covenants stand for
something. We’ve lived there since 1969. So you know, I don’t know exactly
what else to say, but that’s what, I just feel how are the people going to come
and bring their children, you can’t get in, you can’t get out. We have to drive on
our lawn to turn our cars around facing out in order to be able to pull out and
that’s waiting for lots of cars, but you can’t back out anymore and they are on the
same side of the road we are, because that’s the only row of houses along there.
MacCoy: Let me ask you a general question, do you have an association that
your homes belong to, for this covenants.
Witt: Pardon me?
MacCoy: Do you have an association a covenant association?
Witt: Well just sort of a loose one, the neighbors. We’ve gone to each other in
other times of—and no I don’t think anybody else is here tonight, but I don’t know
how many people are notified. I don’t know if it’s just that 300 foot rule or
whatever, but everybody has been pretty much generally in agreement. They
don’t like to see all the commercialization going in there, you know. The thing of
it is, our homes—we’ve all just lived there for so long, you know.
MacCoy: The reason I ask about an association because if you have an
association you have officers, and then you have somebody who “polices” that
your properties from the standpoint that they adhere to cars on a street or
whatever else.
Witt: Well, you wouldn’t be able to put your cars on the street.
(Inaudible)
Witt: No, I understand what you are saying. It’s looser than that. I mean we
cooperatively meet about irrigation days, and things like that. You know we have
like horses on our property and stuff.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 78
MacCoy: I was just interested to see what kind of association.
Witt: You know, there are only six or seven houses up and down the road, that’s
why it hasn’t been more formal, but I’ve gone around door to door with petitions
before. Other people have come to me, the same way. It’s mostly live and let
live most of the time unless there is an issue.
MacCoy: Any of the commissioners have any questions of her?
Borup: Just one, ma’am you said you were concerned about the children. It
sounds like you were concerned about them playing in the street, and playing on
the road.
Witt: No, about the traffic on the road. Parents getting into the driveway and out
again and the children being in a location right near the railroad tracks even
though hopefully they would be fencing and that sort of thing, kids can get out.
Borup: There is definitely fencing around it.
Witt: Well, there is pasture fencing right now.
Borup: No, I mean the new project will have fencing.
Witt: I have not been privilege to see any of that. I didn’t know about this.
Borup: Thank you.
Witt: All right, I guess I would like to say that I’m hear on behalf of myself and my
husband. He had to go to Salt Lake City for his job and couldn’t come with me
tonight, so I came to at least let you know that we do care about our homes.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else here who would like
to make a statement? All right, do you want to come back up here to make any
additional thing in mind.
Lawrence: I don’t have it with me, but the covenants and restrictions were
amended to allow businesses into the subdivision and that was done by—I
believe they had to have a certain percentage of the homeowners and it is
recorded and I have all the signatures. And then also we are not going to put the
daycare in the house, the existing house. It’s going to be in the empty lot that is
near the railroad tracks. The existing house is going to stay as residential.
Witt: You are going to build a structure?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 79
Lawrence: Right, so the existing house will be a buffer, we own that also, but we
hope to make that our residence.
Witt: When were these covenants amended?
Lawrence: It was amended shortly after the subdivision was recorded.
Witt: I was told by an attorney that that is not the case, not too long ago.
De Weerd: We need the conversations to be in the microphone.
Lawrence: She asked when the covenants were amended. I can’t give the exact
date, but I believe it was shortly after the covenants and restrictions were
recorded and I can get that to you.
Rossman: Well, that issue is really not relevant for this commission. That’s a
civil issue between the parties. This commission is not a body to enforce
covenants.
MacCoy: We just asked the question do you have them and we don’t get that
area.
De Weerd: I would have a question, across the street from your proposed
development, what is across the street?
Lawrence: I don’t know, it’s a commercial building, they got their permit I believe
in September of 1998.
De Weerd: So it’s commercial across the street?
Lawrence: Oh yeah, the zoning is commercial and then on the far side of the
subdivision is also commercial. I believe that other—west of that subdivision that
whole area there is light industrial with right across the street is commercial. I
didn’t know it was commercial until ACHD gave me the notice that they got their
commercial zoning here, I think in September.
Witt: May I make another statement? Can I come up again and say something?
Is it all right? The thing about these covenants is that someone tried to run a
business out of a rented home and within the last year and the attorney said
these covenants still stand. We were never told that there was any business
allowed ever and there aren’t businesses there. It’s commercial across the
street, but it’s R-4 where we live.
Smith: Ma’am the plat that was submitted calls that R-1 it’s a county zoning
(Inaudible).
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 80
Witt: That’s right, we are in the county, that’s right, the city is all around us, but
not our particular lots and you know, these people either have bought or want to
buy. I believe the person that still lives there moved in about 1970 and he still is
in the house. His wife has moved out, but—and they are trying to sell their place
and they would like to see the zoning changed or whatever so they can get it
sold. I’m not objecting to that other than how that effects us. We live in a
subdivision that is rural, but it’s got these protective covenants that we were,
none of us were ever told were amended and we—the (Inaudible) had a petition
within the last year to get that business out of there and it’s gone. I don’t know,
I’m just telling you what I know.
MacCoy: Thank you. Anyone else who wants to speak before we close the
public hearing?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close the public
hearing, on items 7 & 8.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Is seconded by Commissioner Borup? Any discussion?
De Weerd: Does staff have anymore comments before we close the public
hearing?
Borup: We can talk to them even after it’s closed.
MacCoy: They were shaking their heads.
Stiles: I just had one comment, I would like to ask the applicant—I noticed that
the option is for lots 1 & 2. Would you have an objection—unless you have to
start completely over again to annex the whole two lots.
Lawrence: My husband would love that. The reason why we did not do that is
because I wanted to keep that other lot R-1 to provide a buffer to the existing
homes that are there. I thought that would be more considerate of the other—for
them, just for their piece of mind to know that was still R-1, we couldn’t go in
there and start a booming business.
Stiles: Well that is probably reasonable for the protection of the neighbors. The
city would mostly be concerned about getting it annexed, because it is a small,
something that we’ll have to pick up and do the annexation on and also get you
hooked up to sewer and water that way.
Lawrence: We don’t have a problem with annexing both of them.
Stiles: That would probably require a revision in the application and…
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 81
De Weerd: And re-posting notice and…
Stiles: Forget it, forget it.
Lawrence: Shari, I can do that if it’s not going to cost me anymore. I can go
through the whole thing again, if I don’t have to pay the fees over again.
Borup: What would that do to your time frame on.
Lawrence: It would help us.
Borup: To delay?
Lawrence: Yeah.
Borup: We don’t hear that very often.
Nelson: I have a question for Shari. Can you annex say the two lots, but on the
rezone, only rezone the one?
Stiles: It would have to be a City of Meridian zone. Upon annexation is when it’s
(Inaudible) zoned.
De Weerd: So she would have to reapply then? Would we deny this and she
would have to reapply?
Stiles: She would have to amend the application. We would have to re-notice it.
Borup: Can we table it?
Stiles: We could continue it, she would still have to—we would still have to re-
notice it and she would submit her amended application, new legals, re-notice it.
I guess we could do it with a continued public hearing, but it would be continued
to March.
De Weerd: It doesn’t seem that she cares and this way it kind of gives them a
chance to look into the CC&R’s and resolve issues with her neighbors.
Borup: Then we would be zoning this lot L-O and the other lot R-2?
Stiles: Whatever they applied for. They would need to—if they did two separate
zones, they would have two separate legal descriptions and I don’t know…
Borup: Is that what you were anticipating it would be two annexation and two
different rezones?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 82
Stiles: NO, it wouldn’t necessarily have to be separate applications, but they
might have to have two….
Borup: No, but I mean zoning two different zoning designations.
Stiles: If they intend to use that as residential, they would need to have a
different zone.
Lawrence: You can’t live in Light office?
Stiles: Limited office, no. Single family home is not permitted use.
De Weerd: And there is no more cost to that?
Lawrence: The cost would be legal descriptions, which is fairly inexpensive.
De Weerd: Which is reasonable to you. Okay.
Stiles: I don’t know if—notice requirements and public in the paper would be
additional costs. I don’t know, I’m sorry I mentioned it now.
Smith: Yeah, me too, let me make sure I understand you right. You just want to
see both parcels annexed and zoned into the city as opposed to just one.
Stiles: Well since they have—it’s a contiguous ownership.
De Weerd: Well I’m not sorry that you did because it does allow her to
communicate with the other residents perhaps and resolve the issue that was
brought up tonight.
Lawrence: I want to let you know that we have a daycare license for 17 in
Crossroad Subdivision which is R-4 so the houses are really close together and
we had it for 12 before then and when we had our hearing for R-17 we had a
number of our parents come and support us that were right next door and we
had no one object.
Smith: I remember that and you might want to give her a couple of names to call
and maybe that would help put her mind to ease too.
Lawrence: You guys recommended it for a denial.
De Weerd: I wasn’t here.
Stiles: Byron was on a soap box that night.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 83
Smith: All right, I would like to retract my motion for closure of the public hearing
and make a motion…
De Weerd: We never voted on it.
MacCoy: We never voted—take it back.
De Weerd: You can still withdraw.
MacCoy: Take the second back.
Smith: Keith will take his second back.
Borup: I’ll take my second back.
Smith: I make a motion that we continue this public hearing….
(END OF TAPE)
Smith: …meeting to allow the applicant to apply for appropriate residential
zoning for an adjacent residential lot which is Lot 2 of Hepper’s Acres and to
research the covenants and work with her neighbors on her proposal.
De Weerd: I’ll second that.
Smith: (Inaudible)
Rossman: Sounds good to me Byron, go ahead.
De Weerd: I’ll second.
MacCoy: First and seconded, no discussion, any discussion? Eric do you want
to say something.
Borup: The applicant said that she was in favor of the—
MacCoy: What the delay, that’s correct. Twice, so what is wrong with that.
Borup: Okay, no I just wanted to reiterate that.
MacCoy: It’s there, we all understood that.
Borup: Okay.
MacCoy: All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 84
MacCoy: Moving on to the next part of this one which is the item 8, which has to
do with the request for conditional use permit childcare facility, license and etc.
Since you continued this one on, do you want to continue this one, how do you
want to handle this one? She has already made her statements.
Borup: We can’t do anything if the property is not annexed, can we?
MacCoy: I don’t see where you can complete 8 if you haven’t done 7, so I’ve got
to have a motion.
Borup: I move that we continue item 8 to the same March 9th
meeting.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
OF 8.51 ACRES BY JOHN GOADE—SOUTH OF TROUTNER BUSINESS
PARK, BETWEEN WALTMAN LANE & TEN MILE:
MacCoy: Staff? I’m waiting for comments.
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners this is a request for annexation and
zoning. We are a little—missing a little bit of information, I think. We don’t really
quite know where the L-O is and where the C-G is. Initially when I talked to the
applicants representative their plan was to come in with a plat in the conditional
use permit for first use and the annexation and zoning. However, there is only
the annexation and zoning right now, so it’s difficult to comment and we would
like to reserve our detailed comments for future conditional use permits that we
would ask for every use on the property, or that we not annex until there is some
plan proposed and that the platting is proposed. Those are our major concerns,
especially with Corporate Drive coming through this property at some point. We
don’t know exactly what the design is, it’s been some different designs proposed,
and the pathway issue is something else that we are concerned about, but I
would like to hear what the applicant has to say. If they can give us some more
information.
MacCoy: Is that it?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I received late today
a copy of a map from JJ Howards Engineering Company showing where the
proposed zoning lines are. I don’t believe you guys have seen this. We can run
some copies of it. I really don’t have anything other than what Shari has
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 85
mentioned. Legal descriptions that were submitted for annexation do not include
half of the right-of-ways of Ten Mile and North Waltman Lane as we typically see,
or as we require, I should say. Other than that, I have nothing.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Going to open the public hearing now, will the
applicant come forward and state who he is.
JIM HOWARD, JJ HOWARD ENGINEERING.
Howard: Seems like last time I was here they swore you in, I don’t know why the
change.
MacCoy: We don’t either.
De Weerd: Tired of being sworn at.
Howard: I’m sorry for the confusion concerning the requested zones here. Make
some copies of it, we kind of fell down on that element. Basically the property,
are you aware of all of where it’s at I think.
Freckleton: Yes.
Howard: There is no specific developed plans submitted. I talked to Shari a little
bit before we had the meeting, this is not often that this occurs and that you can’t
entertain—what we would do is stipulate to any development agreement. We
would stipulate—you would have a chance with the conditional use. The zoning
that you are about to see, which I’m sorry you don’t—you’ll see it in a minute is
appropriate for that area. There is a subdivision an industrial subdivision to the
north, and that is the Troutner Business Park. We are requesting zoning that is
the same zoning as the Business Park to the north, which is the—the business
park zoning is L-O, that’s what we would be requesting north of Corporate Drive
and then adjoining us to the east is storage facilities, that is currently zoned I
believe C-G, and that’s the zone we are requesting. The street layout is shown.
What we are going to do by—with that street layout is to solve some access
problems that Troutner Business Park now dead ends and we will provide a link
directly south and then back to the east on Corporate Drive. So it will give a
chance for that property to develop. So really, we are requesting zones that are
appropriate for that area. The only area that would where we would come up
against is the Franklin Square Subdivision and that’s a zone that we are
requesting which would be an L-O zone and similar to the Troutner Business
Park they have buffered that and we would propose the same type of buffering
adjoining a small section of Franklin Square Subdivision. I think that they would
be along Franklin Square there is approximately three lots that would be
adjoining that parcel. That more or less summarizes the issue that I thought
were perhaps most important. I believe having visited with the city there, the
staff members and Shari has left she will be back momentarily, I don’t think they
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 86
have any real serious issues with this type of zoning. That’s pretty consistent to
what they would like to see out there. I think I’ve covered everything that needs
to be covered, the owner as well as the owners representative who is a real
estate agent is here. As far as any specific plans, a lot of that is going to be
dictated by the market place, what they expect to see. They expect to see this
developed with in the next year. So they will be coming back at you. The reason
we haven’t formalized any plans is they are doing really a market analysis as to
what really should go in those particular zones and then you would have a
chance to comment during the CUP process and again we would stipulate to any
development agreement you want. That concludes my presentation.
MacCoy: Thank you, any questions for him?
Borup: Could you, did you address the pathway issue at all?
Howard: The pathway issue along the drain there?
Borup: Yes.
Howard: We have set aside the appropriate land for that continuation. That is
something that we’ve been reminded of and that we would agree to.
Borup: Do you know who—who controls that? Which irrigation district?
Howard: I believe that is a drain. I’m not sure which…
Borup: (Inaudible)
(Inaudible)
Borup: Bureau of Reclamation. That’s encouraging.
MacCoy: You guys are right.
Borup: They are a little easier to work with.
Howard: I think they are progressive.
Borup: Then you stated I think that is what Shari is saying tentative that it would
be annexed under conditional use or that specific businesses would be specified
as part of the development agreement.
Howard: Yes we would stipulate to a development agreement. So you are not
going to see something there that you are not pleased with. Whatever you—we
would come forward with a plan and then you would have a chance to review it
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 87
and turn it down. All we are looking for matching zoning. We are matching the
Troutner Business Park to the north, matching zoning to the storage.
Borup: I think my other question will be answered when we see the plat, if we
see it.
MacCoy: Any other questions for him?
Howard: I’m really sorry, I apologize once again—I’m going to fire the lady that
works for me. I couldn’t do that, she’s such great help, but I don’t know how we
missed our mark on this, it should’ve been in last week. We thought we should
continue with this. The map we show if you will look closely on it, it will show the
zoning, it’s an 8.25-8.5 acre track. It shows a zoning north of Corporate Lane
extended to be L-O and that’s adjoining the Troutner Business Park. To the
south of Corporate Drive is also L-O and directly adjoining an east or adjoining
the storage units there is the C-G which is comparable to—it’s the same zoning
as the storage facility. The street lay down we would agree to. I think there has
been a consensus among ACHD as well as City of Meridian, that’s what they
would like to see happen with Corporate Drive, and correct me if I’m wrong. So I
do believe that is what they would like to see ultimately happen to Corporate
Drive and at least that portion that we controlled that would be the direction it
takes if it was approved. So that’s the geometry of the street layout.
Borup: So you have no street tie into Waltman?
Howard: It is planned to continue…
Borup: Is that on someone else’s parcel?
Howard: That’s correct. In fact it’s supposed to link up to a subdivision directly
west of there. There is a stub street provided, I don’t know if you have a vicinity
map. In the subdivision west of there they have already stubbed the street out to
tie into Corporate.
Borup: I didn’t have anything else.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Howard: The owner and developer are here if you need to ask them questions.
MacCoy: Is there any here who would like to speak in favor of the project? Yes
sir, it’s about time huh?
MIKE BALLANTYNE, 2690 N. MILLDEER WAY, MERIDIAN, ID.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 88
Ballantyne: Always the last item on the agenda. I represent Troutner Business
Park directly to the north of the subject property. We fully support the proposed
use of the property as C-G and L-O, which is the consistent with the use.
Troutner is also zoned C-G and L-O, the L-O being limited to the property
abutting the Franklin Square Subdivision, the balance of the park being C-G. To
speak, first of all let me mention Mr. Goade has been extremely accommodating
to us as we went through the process of getting entitled and we could’ve written
a letter of support for the project, but we felt coming in person was more
important because he has been so helpful for us. Speaking to the Corporate
Drive extension, this design is the design of Ada County Highway District. Green
Head Way which comes out of Mallard Subdivision or the Landing Subdivision
would actually come in at a 90* angle to Corporate as it turns south, that way
Corporate wouldn’t become a main gut into Greenhead, or into that Residential
subdivision, but Greenhead would take pressure off of Franklin Road and would
come in with a stop sign into Corporate. This would also allow the highway
district to close off Waltman Lane which currently comes in at that main
intersection as you come north on Meridian Road and has created that kind of
five way funky little intersection and would allow this area to develop out properly.
The property owners will all work together to come up with a design which was
submitted to the highway district with a letter and the highway district commission
approved this design, that was last year. Our only concern here and it certainly
not with Mr. Goade, would be that there would be some control that the roads are
built whether it be through a C-G or a CUP or a platting process so if for some
reason someone else was to purchase the property from Mr. Goade, we weren’t
sure that southwest 5th
extension and Corporate Drive were both dedicated to
the highway district and built so that our southwest 5th
Avenue that we’ve built
doesn’t just serve as a driveway into the property. Other than that it’s a great
plan and we will be very consistent with what is going on. I’d be glad to answer
any questions.
Borup: Your comment on a concern on the road, which I’m assuming on
annexation and zoning there is not a lot of control, but the preliminary plat is still
going to have to come back here. That’s where the control would have to be I
believe.
Ballantyne: Are you asking me about your ordinance?
Borup: At this point, we don’t—we are not addressing the plat…
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Borup: I would certainly support what you are saying there, and I just think that
would be necessary on my part for a plat to be approved.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 89
Ballantyne: Mr. Howard eluded to that plat and we just want to ensure that
something like that does occur, but definitely in favor of the project and apologize
for treating Commissioner Borup so cruelly there.
Nelson: He’s used to it.
Borup: See I didn’t even catch it.
Ballantyne: Any other questions?
MacCoy: I guess not, thank you. Anybody else like to step forward and speak in
favor of the project?
LOREEN TOWNLY, 521 WALTMAN LANE, MERIDIAN, ID.
Townly: I understand that all this is for is to just take it into the city, and Mr.
Ballantyne had made a statement that landowners had been talked to about the
road and I can tell you that Jo Laurcher (sic) hasn’t and nether has Ed Haddok
(sic) or myself. We know that that is a good area to build in where it’s at, and we
have no problem with it going into the city, because we know when the plat
comes in, we will have our word. I have one question, Waltman House, is it
going to be commercial? It is really now, illegally or legally. Okay, but you are
going to keep Waltman House there, you are not going to tear it down?
Unknown: Correct.
Townly: Outstanding.
MacCoy: Okay thank you, anybody else? Okay, I’ll ask the other direction.
Anybody that wants to say anything negative for this thing? You get to walk to.
CRAIG CAVANA, 581 LINDHURST, MERIDIAN, ID.
Cavana: It’s kind of late to be getting real accurate here, but 7:00 I was a little bit
more sharper than I am now. I’m real concerned about the layout of this. I can’t
see how you guys would consider rezoning this until you have looked at a plat
map or understood the impact of traffic to existing neighborhoods. I looked at
this and as soon as I saw Corporate Drive go through, first thing that I wanted to
see is an impact study done, or a traffic impact study done, knowing how many
cars are going to go by my house, at all hours of the night.
Borup: Sir, could you clarify where your house is? Which street is Lindhurst?
Cavana: I don’t know which map he gave you.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 90
Borup: We’ve got the Franklin Square, are you on the end of the cul-de-sac
there?
Cavana: Can you see that arrow right there, that’s my home and one of the
other home owners is present as well, which lives right next to me. So I look at
that and I see Corporate coming right directly to my backyard and I’m thinking
headlights at all hours of the night and I don’t like that very well. I think there is
other ways of diverting traffic than making an arterial come that close to
residential zoning, other than running Corporate down through there and heading
into a subdivision that is growing leaps and bounds as we speak. So that’s one
of my concerns and has to do with the safety of my children and undo noise and
so on and so forth. The Troutner Business Park that they are talking about has
only got two buildings built on it. I went to that meeting too and it’s been several
years ago that they annexed that into the city and made it L-O and Commercial,
it hasn’t been finished. We haven’t seen the real impact of what this kind of
business park is going to do to our residential or noise or anything like that. We
don’t know about lights, it’s been siting there vacant for a number of years. So
I’m wondering why another piece of commercial needs to be added onto this and
more property annexed into the city and made commercial, where nothing is
being built. You know, if something was happening there, at least we would have
an evaluation in knowing what exactly is going to happen. Ten Mile Creek is not
a drainage ditch. It concerns me because it is a ten mile creek and in your
Comprehensive Study it’s mentioned about 12 times in there. Protecting the
value of that creek, in other words, the wild—the aesthetic value and so on and
so forth about that creek. If this whole area down through here including behind
my house becomes commercial I think all that is going to be destroyed. So this
kind of concerns me as well. I don’t know what their plans are as far as keeping
that aesthetic value up on that creek or not. The plans that I got don’t show any
kind of division, so I can’t really tell where a building is going to be built, how
close it’s going to be to my home, what kind of effect is going to go on, like I said
again, I can’t see how this can be rezoned until you guys see a plat map or until
you have a (Inaudible) idea what this property is going to be other than just
rezoning it. I think that about covers it. I request that it be tabled until you get
some kind of plat map, know where the businesses are going to be, how they are
going to be positioned within—around that road, whether Corporate for sure is
going to go through to, I guess it’s Meridian Road, or 1st
Street and where it’s
actually going to end up. I’d like to see that as well. The traffic impact study
should be done. That’s all in your Comprehensive Study.
MacCoy: Any questions for him? Anybody else like to speak at this time? Okay,
here we go.
TONY HICKEY, 2090 S COLE ROAD, BOISE, ID.
Hickey: I’m the developer or assistant to the owner. I want to respond a moment
to the last speaker. I’m obviously speaking in favor of this. One of the reasons
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 91
we took the approach for annexation and zoning was so that we could place the
Corporate Drive extension where the City of Meridian staff has indicated where
they wanted it and Ada County Highway District has required that that go around
and connect to Waltman Lane and then south to Kale Beckmans (sic) 24-25
acres between Waltman Lane and the freeway. As far as what buildings we are
intending to do there at this point, of course it’s going to be business driven,
whatever the businesses want. We know that we have a Comprehensive Plan,
has requirements for the buildings that can be there and we also know that we
have to come back before this board with anything that we want to do. Our
anticipation is to build 1200 or 1400 square foot office buildings along the creek
and maintain the integrity of the creek and maintain the integrity of the
walkway—the path green way and it’s there. There is a real need in this town as
far as I can tell for stand alones small office buildings that are aesthetically
pleasing. So that’s the intent here. We also, we do know as I said that we have
to come back and present whatever we want to build in the form of a CUP. We
will stipulate to a developer, or development plan, we have no problem with
doing that. As far as the build out on Troutner Business park, that business park
is building out, it does take some time to do those kinds of things. Their
buildings are considerably larger than what we are anticipating and with the
creek things along there that makes a nice place for a dentist office, or a CPA
office or something of that nature. Once we have the annexation and the zoning,
then we legally can offer them for sale. Until that point in time it’s very difficult to
offer something for sale when we are not zoned properly. As far as the Waltman
House goes, it’s currently vacant. It will be left in place, we are asking for L-O on
that as well and will be converting that to an office building of some sort that is
compatible. Any questions?
MacCoy: Any questions? Anybody else is moved to get up and make a
statement? Staff do you have anything you want to add?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners I just want to reiterate that it will be
extremely difficult to try and draft some kind of development agreement on this
proposal. I want you to realize that this is not any part6 of the application and
can not be considered as part of the application because the plat is not what is
before you. We do need extension of this Corporate Drive to go to Greenhead
and I haven’t seen any plans as to what that is and have never seen any type of
configuration of this and neither has the public works department as far as I
know. Mr. Hickey indicated that it’s—you couldn’t market this for sale or made
some kind of statement about that until it was annexed and zoned. Well no
portion of this property can be sold because it would have to be platted first. It is
not in the configuration that it was in 1984, it’s not eligible for a one time split.
So, they would have to plat it. The only legal frontage that they have right now is
Waltman Lane and so I guess with—if they meet occupancy requirements they
would be allowed to continue their commercial use, if that’s what it’s being used
for at this time. I also wanted to emphasize that if they are going to continue a
commercial use there, that they would need to meet the city ordinances for that
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 92
use including Uniform Fire Code, parking, landscaping, but it probably won’t stay
that way. (Inaudible) Other than that, those are our major concerns. We don’t
usually see something that comes in with just the annexation, but Planning and
Zoning Commission is satisfied with sending it on with no plan, I guess that’s the
decision that you have to make.
MacCoy: Thank you Shari. Commissioners?
Borup: Is there anyone here who is familiar with ACHD’s proposed tie in from
Greenhead from Corporate (Inaudible). You said you hadn’t seen that, I know
that Mr. Ballantyne had mentioned that was ACHD’s intention and plan, but you
said you aren’t familiar with that?
Stiles: Not that particular configuration that they are showing here.
Borup: But you knew that’s what they wanted, that they wanted to tie it in
someway.
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Anybody want to close the public hearing? What do you want to do?
Borup: Do we need any discussion first? We have had several other annexation
and zoning only without the plat, I know it’s not real common, but I can think of at
least two.
Smith: Do you have any comment to Shari’s concern about a development
agreement and so forth then under this scenario?
Borup: Well, just that I wonder if that’s pertinent. Can there be any development
without a plat, or is it just a piece of bare ground that is annexed and zoned. You
can’t get a building permit can you?
Stiles: The only way they could get a building permit is if they went through a
conditional use process.
Borup: Okay, it would be back here. Unless it’s an all new commission, then
they would have a hard time doing that. So it sounds, I don’t have a lot of
concern then about any development or anything going on. Nothing is going to
happen unless it’s back here anyway.
MacCoy: That is true.
Nelson: So what do they gain? I don’t understand what they gain then.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 93
Borup: Good question.
MacCoy: I don’t know.
Nelson: It doesn’t save them any steps really.
Borup: Maybe the applicant might want to answer that, I would assume they
have a confidence of going ahead with plans knowing that they can do what they
intend to do, rather than spending a lot of money doing a plat and developing
plans and then find out the zoning isn’t going to be allowed.
MacCoy: (Inaudible)
Borup: You think the same thing? We haven’t closed the public hearing, if
anybody disagrees with that, I guess they could state. Okay, did that answer
your question Commissioner Nelson? It didn’t answer your question?
MacCoy: Do you want to go home?
Nelson: I want to go home. I guess that would make sense, if we were to
rezone this, or first I guess we would annex it, then would we be doing any
rezoning at that time? C-G and what are these?
Borup: Well, oh, there is a concern there, yes.
Nelson: This isn’t platted…
Borup: We can annex it, but how can we zone it if we don’t have specific
boundaries? Does staff have any legal descriptions with boundaries and zoning
etc.?
Stiles: They have submitted two separate legal descriptions it’s just that we
didn’t have a picture, a depiction of what it was.
Borup: So there is one legal description for L-O and another legal description for
C-G?
Stiles: Yes, but they do need to be revised to include the adjacent rights-of-way.
We don’t have correct legals, but we do need some revised ones on that.
Borup: On the street right-of-way because those where it’s not a platted
subdivision they can go to the center of the roads.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 94
Stiles: If you do recommend this to go forward, the development agreement has
to be executed prior to annexation taking place. So all the details of the
development agreement have to be in place prior to annexation.
Borup: Is the development agreement part of city ordinance?
Stiles: For an annexation yeah.
Borup: Even though there is no plat or subdivision to develop on.
Stiles: It’s not tied to a plat, it’s tied to annexation.
Borup: So your concern on a development agreement is how do you write it and
what uses are included and which ones aren’t, was that your concern on how
you…
Stiles: I guess you could do it like Troutners was, that every single lot or every
single use on it is going to be conditional use permit regardless if it’s permitted in
the zone.
Borup: Or you specify the specific businesses as I think we’ve done that on
some others. How many lots are we looking here?
Stiles: We are not looking at any. We are looking at annexation.
Borup: Well, potential, how many potential conditional uses are we—we are not
looking at that many, it looks like.
Stiles: We don’t know.
Borup: I guess I don’t know either…
Stiles: It looks like five on this layout.
Borup: Yeah that’s what I was going to say more than half a dozen maybe.
Stiles: We could work out details like specifics on the bike path, or the pathway,
which is my main concern, buffering their adjacent residential uses, sewer and
water extensions. There are things that could be worked out, it’s just a little more
cumbersome to try and do that without having any idea of what they want to do.
Nelson: With the other rural transition being unplatted…
Stiles: Pardon?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 95
Nelson: As far as this road connecting in to Waltman Lane, we are only going to
annex half of what that would take, right?
Stiles: Correct, they only own to the center line, I guess the center line of Ten
Mile Drain.
Nelson: So, kind of fuzzy on how soon that road can every happen.
Stiles: That’s another issue too, we would have to have some wording about
future connection of Corporate to Greenhead and they would have to meet all of
Ada County Highway District standards. Ada County Highway District is not
going to have any comment on an annexation and zoning. They don’t care
because they are waiting for the development plans to come forward so they
could have additional restrictions that we don’t know about today, but I would
imagine that we could also include in the development agreement that if Ada
County Highway District doesn’t comment that prior to any development or as
part of platting, or whatever, they would have to bond for half of the bridge to go
over the Ten Mile--and then the adjacent property owner, once they develop,
they would have to pay the other half. That’s typically how it works, or they could
build half a bridge.
Borup: I’m coming back to Commissioner Nelson’s question of what does it
accomplish and now I’m wondering. I don’t know if I’m persuaded.
Hickey: If I might readdress, we have met with Ada County Highway District staff
and this is the configuration that they want to see. That’s staff we have three
new, or four new commissioners, so I’m going to suspect that they are not going
to change that very much, anyway that’s what the staff wanted. In order for us to
attempt to market a piece of property, we have to have a starting spot. If we
have annexation, we know we are in the City of Meridian, if we have a zoning,
which this allows two separate legal descriptions and zonings then we can go
ahead and approach a potential buyer and say we have annexation and we have
zoning, we have to go back before the city planning and zoning commission and
the City Council and get your particular use approved. It has to fall within the
guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and there is quite a series of different
types of uses that are already approved for L-O or for C-G and we expect to
meet and fall in with any of those that are required. The development agreement
is— (Inaudible) but the whole thing is developer driven and we’ve been a bit of a
bottleneck in the middle of this thing for quite some time with Doug Timora(sic) to
our east, has purchased Russ Johnson’s property and has been more or less
cleaned up, it’s continuing to be cleaned up. He did not want to promote
Corporate Drive extended until he knew what we were going to do. Kale
Beckman (sic) down by the freeway and south of Waltman Lane wants to do
something down there. They have not made any firm commitments until they
found out what we wanted to do. Ted Johnson with the Landing was, I believe it
was when he was annexed, when the subdivision was approved, Greenhead
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 96
was stubbed out to the far east to connect to some load at some point in the
future and according to ACHD they want that to connect to somewhere to
Corporate Drive extended. The intent is to block off Waltman Lane down at the
far east end because of the cumbersome mess of that intersection and the
highway district wanting to apparently put a clover leaf or something in on the
freeway. So this is a natural evolution of what is probably going to happen there
anyway. It gives us an opportunity to sit down with at least a (Inaudible) attack
and continue to pursue what we’ve got. We know that we have to come back
before you, we know we have to stipulate for a buffer similar to what Troutner
Business Park did between Franklin Square Subdivision and we know that we
must meet the Green way requirements along Ten Mile Drain, or Ten Mile Creek,
depending on where you look at it is. We don’t have any problem stipulating with
all those things. We are just asking at this point in time for annexation and
zoning on the two legal descriptions knowing that we can’t do anything we can’t
get a permit to do anything until we come back, but at lest then we will have a
starting spot.
Borup: Mr. Hickey, could you reiterate again why you feel that it would make any
difference as Mr. Nelson asked to do this annexation now. You mentioned on
marketing and selling the property. I assume any potential buyer is going to have
it contingent upon city approval anyway.
Hickey: Sometimes they do.
Borup: The time frame not going to be any different on having a plat filed then
what we are doing here now anyway.
Hickey: I wouldn’t have any idea on how to file a plat, in order to—on eight
acres, one is going to have to make some presumptions that at this point in time
we are not willing to make as far as exactly what would be going in there.
Borup: So you are saying that the street configuration would stay the same as
the concept that you have, but you may have different lot configurations?
Hickey: No, I don’t expect any different lot configurations unless we happen to
cut one in half or something of that nature. The only thing that we don’t know is
exactly what we are going to have for use. I wouldn’t want to come in here and
have five lots and having to come back and get it split to seven lots for example,
or something like that.
Borup: That’s what I’m saying, you don’t know specifically on your lot sizes.
Hickey: I don’t know at this point. We know the congenial configuration.
Borup: So you are thinking that’s what you want to wait, have potential buyers of
the property before you design the lot size?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 97
Hickey: That’s correct.
Borup: I don’t think that was explained earlier.
Hickey: We do understand that we need to stipulate to whatever the
requirements are of the city.
Borup: I didn’t understand that you were looking at designing the lots sizes after
you find the buyers. So I guess that is the reason for doing annexation now.
MacCoy: Are you ready to close the public hearing?
Borup: Yes, I’m ready.
MacCoy: All right, do I hear a motion.
Borup: I move we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? None, all in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: What is our next motion?
Borup: Well, I’ve changed my mind two or three times here. I guess the last
argument on having the buyers of the property have somewhat say on the size
and shape of their lots, I think that’s a merit to me.
MacCoy: I think so.
Smith: What about this development agreement? (Inaudible)
Nelson: Wouldn’t that have merit then that they have more input in development
agreement at the same time?
Borup: Yeah. The development agreement is not going to get—how are you
going to handle that Shari? Make it general, can you do it general and the
concern areas be covered with the CUP?
Stiles: Possibly.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 98
Nelson: I think what Shari is trying to do here is not make this an exception to
your process. Doesn’t it get kind of confusing when different approvals are in
different stages?
Stiles: It used to be prior to the attorneys that we have now…
Rossman: Sure, blame it on the attorneys…
Stiles: Well, which has caused a problem. Property was annexed with the
condition that they enter into a development agreement, but it might be two or
three years before they actually want to develop anything, so you know, of
course they come in with their building permit in their hand, their building permit
application, immediately wanting to turn that in and we say hey wait you don’t
have a development agreement, lets go back and research whatever happened
to two to three years ago and enter into a development agreement. New legal
counsel has given us excellent advice to make sure that that development
agreement is in hand prior to the annexation ever taking place. It wouldn’t be
impossible to at least incorporate at least a majority of our concerns about the
pathways, sewer and water, roadways, buffering and if they are willing to accept
going into a conditional use permit for no matter what it is, even if it is permitted
in that zone, I think we are covered.
Borup: Well that’s what it seemed like to me too. Have there been, I know there
have been some, have there been many instances in the past where businesses
have had to buy more land than they wanted so they ended up with unused area
or—I know that we have had some lot line adjustments and things like that for
the same reason where the lots didn’t necessarily suit the use of the businesses.
So I guess what I’m saying is maybe have a preliminary buyers does make some
sense and this isn’t that big of a project so the conditional use permit should
cover everything.
MacCoy: Okay, are you ready?
Borup: Yeah, are we ready for a motion.
De Weerd: He is arguing with himself.
Smith: As far as covering the development agreement at this time in general
terms would the incorporating staff comments as condition of approval be
general enough. Too general, not specific enough.
Borup: Don’t we need to say that the applicant will enter into a development
agreement and then Shari works that out.
Smith: Cool, whatever is easiest, lets go.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 99
De Weerd: But should we specify certain areas like the buffering sewer and
water, pathway, maintenance of unused areas?
Borup: Are you worried the staff may not do some of that?
De Weerd: No, but do we need to specifically specify it?
Rossman: No, it’s in the standard development agreement.
De Weerd: Well having never read one.
Rossman: I’ll get you a couple.
MacCoy: Yeah, it’s in the staff comments.
Rossman: (Inaudible) development agreement be entered into. We will work out
the rest.
De Weerd: I think there is one other comment over there.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the only thing that I
guess is kind of unclear in my mind is the timing of how the platting process
would come into play. As soon as he has a buyer for a chunk of this property, is
he going to come in and do a two lot subdivision? One lot being for that
particular buyer, the rest being the remnant parcel? I would then have to come
in with this next buyer and do a re-subdivision of lot 2 of the first subdivision and
so forth.
Borup: I had the same thought, but from my standpoint I think the next thing we
need to see is a plat for the entire parcel. I wouldn’t be amenable to doing a
piece meal like that, I don’t know about others here, but that’s what I would want
to see is a plat for the entire property.
Freckleton: The second part of my comment I guess was the timing of the
dedication of the right-of-way for Corporate Drive and southeast 5th
, with the
platting…
(END OF TAPE)
Freckleton: … I mean are we going to get SE 5th
and Corporate in chunks, or is it
going to be dedicated with the first plat?
Borup: Well if I have anything to say about it, we won’t have any remnant
parcels.
MacCoy: Well make the motion.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 100
Borup: I’ve got one vote. Are we done discussing? Are you ready for a motion?
Any other questions?
Smith: I was –
Nelson: I’m just leery of approving the rezone if staff had a lot of open issues,
but if they’re comfortable with the development agreement and if we discuss that
the dedication road all comes in one swoop, I’m ready to move on.
Smith: Okay, Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we recommend
approval of annexation and zoning of this parcel and that the applicant enter into
a development agreement with the city and that all proposed development on
this project be required to go through the conditional use permit process. Is that
it?
Borup: I think so. Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
De Weerd: Well would that include all development or lot plans submitted at one
time?
Borup: I don’t know if that needs to be in the motion, but –
De Weerd: That would be in the development agreement?
Borup: No, it just wouldn’t get very far with me if it wasn’t. I guess that can be
added, but I think that would be redundant.
De Weerd: Okay.
MacCoy: All right ready for the vote? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
10. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-101-CU PAUL A.
HOFFMAN:
MacCoy: Let’s take item number ten which is in your hands. You’ll notice in your
packet also comments from several sources, and it looks pretty straight forward.
Smith: The thing is already built. I really have a issue with the timing when this
was submitted to us by the County.
MacCoy: I know but we have to go through this according to our attorney.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 101
Smith: Well I think we ought to respond in some fashion.
MacCoy: Well last time we did. We had –
Smith: Well I like what Shari’s response is that it includes we don’t appreciate
not having this stuff submitted before the project is built, and we also had to
spend a bunch of time with this guy coming in for annexation and zoning.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: See what they do in Ada County? The poor guy had to go through a
conditional use permit to get the church approved. Then they want to hook up
the sewer and water so we have to tell them they have to have double fees, so
he’d rather be annexed he thinks until he comes and talks to us, and then they
want to put their little sign up because they’re going to drag on forever for
Planning and Zoning and now they had to request a second conditional use
permit through the county for a stinking sign.
De Weerd: Oh, let’s approve it.
MacCoy: The only thing I mention is the fact that we don’t have any details on
any of this material that we have to take a look at. They don’t give us the sign
size or anything else just give them approval for a sign.
Smith: So you want to not approve it pending –
MacCoy: No, I’m just saying at this point I’m ready to send it through –
Smith: With respect to those comments, we think we can’t endorse something
we don’t know what it looks like.
MacCoy: That’s what my problem is with this one.
Rossman: Recommend denial.
Smith: Recommend denial pending the details of construction and size of site.
MacCoy: Do that.
Stiles: You want to do it?
Smith: I’m only one vote though.
De Weerd: What are you recommending?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 102
Smith: Recommending denial of this since we have details of the construction
site and sign.
Borup: Do we know what size it is?
MacCoy: That’s my point.
Borup: Well can’t we – no, we can’t. Never mind.
MacCoy: You think about what our agenda is Planning and Zoning, we’re
compelled to do what we say.
Borup: Well I don’t know if it makes any difference on details of the construction,
but the size is certainly a –
MacCoy: That’s what I’m saying.
Borup: But I don’t think we need to know what material it is.
MacCoy: You don’t anything.
Borup: I don’t know. Right, size to me should be the only issue.
Smith: (Inaudible)
(Inaudible)
Stiles: Can we tell the County it’s ridiculous to require a conditional use permit
that has no details whatsoever?
MacCoy: Yeah, would you please do that when you sign this thing back to them?
All right take a vote here.
Stiles: To get $309 apparently. I don’t know.
Berg: (Inaudible)
MacCoy: We do.
Berg: Well I know but I’m asking for their application. Did they require all this
stuff for their application? If they didn’t then of course we’re not going to get it as
part of the application passed on to us.
MacCoy: Yeah but we’re doing this by the fact that we have to by law.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 103
Berg: I know but I’m saying if this is all their application is, is that all they’re
requiring? It goes back to what the requirements of what they’re passing.
MacCoy: We don’t have a book from those people to tell us that, but I think it’s a
good way to prove a point. You send it back to them, deny it from the standpoint
they haven’t given us any of the details.
Rossman: Yeah, I think the point her is if we send them back, maybe they’ll start
requiring it.
MacCoy: That’s what I say. Okay, let’s –
(Inaudible)
Stiles: What’s the motion?
MacCoy: Yeah, what’s the motion?
Smith: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we recommend denial of this item
and direct staff to respond as such.
Nelson: Second.
De Weerd: Can we recommend denial with a statement of why?
MacCoy: Yes, that’s what – she writes the letter for us.
De Weerd: Okay, because we don’t want poor Mr. Hoffman to think we’re really
–
MacCoy: Okay, there’s a motion on the floor.
Nelson: I second it.
MacCoy: Now discussion is proceeding.
Borup: I agree it needs to be turned back. This poor guy. I mean they’re just
trying to be good neighbor and part of the city.
De Weerd: They’re a church for god’s sake.
(Inaudible)
Nelson: I have a question. Does our approval or denial have any real weight
with the county anyway?
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 104
Rossman: Probably not.
Borup: Can’t they just say tough and do it anyway?
Rossman: Yes, they can.
MacCoy: Yes, they can, but the law tells us (Inaudible).
Borup: Can we also recommend that they make sure that we recommend that it
conforms with our sign ordinance? Can you add that to –
MacCoy: We need details. We haven’t (Inaudible)
De Weerd: Just say if they approve it with our recommending denial, it just has
to fall within our sign guidelines.
Smith: Can we do ten through fourteen under –
MacCoy: No, because they’re all different.
Smith: Well we’ve done it before.
Stiles: Can we quickly go through these so we can get out of here?
Borup: Can we create a consent agenda right now?
Smith: One by one and say deny, approve, approve –
MacCoy: We’re doing this. I’m trying to get this thing done.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: No, we’re trying to (Inaudible).
Borup: Let’s vote on number ten.
MacCoy: I’m trying to. He made a motion for denial. He second it. I want to
hear who wants – all ayes?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Okay done.
11. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-98-CU IAN R. SODINE:
MacCoy: Okay the next one is number 11.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 105
Stiles: What happened? You recommend denial?
MacCoy: Yes.
Borup: Does staff have a problem with any of the other four?
MacCoy: Okay the next one is –
Borup: Can we do it all at once? I want to – any problem with any of the four?
MacCoy: Well I had a problem with the one that we just took care of.
Smith: What about the rest of them?
MacCoy: Well I was going to say the next one I have no problem with.
Smith: I don’t have any problem with it either.
Stiles: The next one they’re wanting to build an apartment under their house for
their parents.
MacCoy: Yeah, they’re out in the middle of no where. Let them do it.
Smith: I think they ought to do it.
MacCoy: Number 12 –
Stiles: I will research our comprehensive plan and make sure we don’t have any
conflicting policies. How about that?
Borup: Well we don’t have any plans for this house they want to build either.
MacCoy: They gave you the dimensions. They didn’t give any dimensions on
the sign.
Borup: That’s true. Oh, we got a plot plan.
Smith: The church is closer to my house than the rest of these are.
MacCoy: Okay number 12, --
Borup: Did we vote on 11?
MacCoy: We just voted on 11 to approve that one.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 106
De Weerd: We did?
Stiles: Approve?
MacCoy: Approve, yes.
Stiles: What if it conflicts with something in our comprehensive plan? Does that
–
MacCoy: Well I plan on you to tell us that then take care of it.
Stiles: Okay. I don’t look at this stuff before today.
Rossman: That is a good point Shari. You should if not now sometime cross
reference it with Meridian Comprehensive Plan and make sure it’s consistent.
MacCoy: Well she’s going to have to do that. We don’t have any—
Stiles: It depends on what page I’m looking at.
Rossman: (Inaudible). Unless something jumps out at you and says it’s not
consistent.
12. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-99-CU STEVEN J. &
JULIE A. DILLEHAY:
MacCoy: I don’t see any problem with number 12.
Stiles: Number 12 it looks like they just want to do RV storage and no problem?
Smith: It looks good.
13. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-04-Z0A ACCESSORY
BUILDING STANDARD AMENDMENT:
MacCoy: 13 is – what is it? It’s changing a title. We don’t know anything about
it.
Stiles: They’re amending accessory building standard and I don’t know what the
details are. I’ve got the cover page for it, but I don’t know where the rest of it is.
MacCoy: So you’ve got to take care of that one.
De Weerd: We don’t have it either.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 107
Stiles: They used to have a standard that they can only have a certain
percentage of the original house. Then you could have for additional house. So
I don’t know what the change is. I guess I need to look at that.
MacCoy: Then we can’t vote on it then.
14. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-34-ZC BRENT
BARRUS:
Stiles: And the final one Brent Barrus to be consistent with our comprehensive
plan we need to say that they’ve got minimum five acres until they hookup to
sewer and water.
De Weerd: Okay.
Smith: Sounds good.
MacCoy: I don’t care. Go ahead.
Borup: Well the only concern I had is no access to the properties they’re
dividing. Are there?
Stiles: Well we could mention that too.
MacCoy: Just go ahead because already we got from Skip you say he doesn’t
approve it because of the fire truck and I agree with that, but I think it’s –
Borup: Yeah, no fire truck, no access. There’s no road.
MacCoy: That’s what I’m saying, so you take what you’ve got here and she
writes a letter based on –
Stiles: But maybe Jeff Manship will buy the lot later and then we can be okay.
MacCoy: Okay. That’s all right.
Borup: Well how can the county even approve a subdivision or lot splits without
a plat?
Stiles: They can’t.
Borup: It sounds to me like the county wanted us to do something first so they
wouldn’t have to.
MacCoy: I don’t know. We were given this recent here this last year.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 12, 1999
PAGE 108
Stiles: I don’t know.
Smith: Are we done with that now? We just got one more thing to do? Mr.
Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we adjourn.
De Weerd: I second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:30 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
_________________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK