1999 10-12MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 12, 1999
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Kent Brown, Tammy De Weerd, Thomas Barbeiro,
Richard Hatcher
OTHERS PRESENT: Stephen Rutherford, Bruce Freckleton, Gary Smith, Bill Gigray,
Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We’d like to begin our October 12th
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Start with roll call. First
Item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda consisting of minutes from, believe it or not,
four meetings been held since our last regular meeting. I am open for a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes held August 31st
,
September 14th
, September 16th
and September 30th
as presented.
Hatcher: I second that.
Borup: There is a motion and a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM 1: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME DAYCARE BY DARCY
ROBERTSON – 1458 N. HAVEN COVE AVENUE:
Borup: I assume Commissioner's have had a chance to read those. Is there a
comment first. Do we have a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Roll call vote.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 2
De Weerd: I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission determine that
upon review of the applicable standards and guidelines as set forth in Section 11-2-
410D of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian, the established
record, and the applicable law, that the applicant met the requisite accessory use
standards. Given the foregoing, the subject application for family daycare home
accessory use as set forth herein shall be granted and the use allowed subject to the
conditions imposed herein. The accessory use shall be subject to review by the City
upon notice to the Applicant.
Borup: All in favor. Did we hear a second?
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Okay, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 150.79
ACRES OF LAND (FOR R-4 ZONING) BY BEAR CREEK, LLC—EAST
OF STODDARD ROAD & SOUTH OF OVERLAND:
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I have a conflict of interest and I need to step down from the
following two items. Item 2 and Item 3.
Borup: Okay Commissioner Brown, so noted. Have fun.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, before we get into this it was my understanding that Mr.
Gigray was going to---
Borup: That is correct. Thank you for reminded me. Item No. 15 is review and
consideration of—for a change in zoning subdivision ordinances. Mr. Gigray has
another appointment he needs to leave and get to. He had asked if he could do a
presentation at this time and then we will take up discussion of that at the regular place
on the agenda. We would like to give the floor to Mr. Gigray at this time. I apologize
for—I did not write that down. I have learned I have to write things down rather then try
to remember things.
Gigray: Amen Mr. Chairman. I have the same problem. For purposes of record, my
name is Bill Gigray the third, City Attorney for the City of Meridian and I wish to thank
you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission for allowing me to make this
presentation at this time. I want to assure Gary Smith that much contempt over here for
my being able to be taken out of order. I am not leaving because of band practice. I
am a City Attorney for Wilder and they meet this evening, and they have some matters
that need attention. I have to be in Wilder immediately following this meeting. What I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 3
wanted to talk about briefly under Item No. 15 was, and this is a project that I’ve been
working on this year and that is the adoption of the Meridian City Code. As you know
your under existing ordinances of the City which are compiled and revised from
previous additions that have unfortunately become sadly out of date and very hard to
work with because you can not assure, as you look in the existing Code Book, that is in
fact the latest version of the ordinance that is an ordinance of the City of Meridian. The
City began this process about two years ago with Sterling Codifier who is the name of
the company that revises or we work with for the codification of the laws or ordinances
of the City. I have been working with them closely over the past year and with the
department heads of the various departments of the City that are effected by these
ordinances and we get what are called numerous worksheets. There have been
numerous laws of the State of Idaho that have changed since the old code was in
effect. There is some references in the code that are out of date given certain practices
that exist in the City today and so what this process of recodifing does, is not only
reorganize the City Code but it also brings it up to date and try to correct those technical
issues which need to be changed in the process. We’ve handed out a memo which
identifies where those changes are because a portion of this whole project does amend
the zoning ordinance of the city. In the technical ways, we felt it was appropriate that
there should be a notice and public hearing on that and that is why your having this
public hearing. I would tell you that the City—this is a very important matter to pass
because all of the other changes that we need to make to the City Ordinances which
are numerous, we’ve been holding pending the completion of this because this assigns
all the new code sections and as we do subsequent ordinances of course, we have to
refer to the way that things are codified in this book and so the passage of this
ordinance or this code book which the City Council can do in one ordinance when it
gets before the City Council, after conducting a public hearing there on the ordinance
changes here when the zoning code is very important. The one item that you have
under Item 15 which will follow the passage of the new code is an amendment of the
provision that governs the transferability of conditional use permits. As you know,
presently under your ordinance, they are not transferable and so every time someone
who has a conditional use permit sells a property and someone else wants to continue
the same type of business for which the conditional use permit has been granted along
with all the conditions, they have to come back and go back through an entire hearing
process in order to get that approval for transfer and unfortunately I don’t think the
existing ordinance provides many standards by which the City would govern, whether or
not to grant a transfer or not and generally does. The idea of the ordinance which is
before you in that regard on the conditional use permits is designed to limit that so that
they are transferable unless you are dealing with home occupation or something that is
licensed as child care or your dealing with alcoholic beverage establishment or
something licenses an adult business. Those would have to come back for transfers
automatically by the provisions of the ordinance under your consideration. As far as
those matters, that wouldn’t change except this proscribed standards for you to review
a transfer and those standards are one that the permit holder that had the permit that
they comply substantially with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 4
and number two is that the person to whom they will be transferred demonstrate that
they will be able to fulfill those conditions and operate in accordance with the conditions
of the conditional use permit. I think it gives us more tools to deal with that transfer and
a standard to which you would govern it which are not there now. The third item I want
to discuss is an ordinance for consideration is the ordinance which deals with the
development agreement. You have an ordinance in place now, which authorizes the
development agreement. The Idaho Legislature has amended the Idaho Code
provision 676511A, which deals and authorizes City’s to employ development
agreements as conditions for rezoning which the City of Meridian uses on many, many
occasions as you know by your own experience. The Idaho Code provides that a City
Ordinance in relationship to development agreements is to provide certain criteria
regarding the creation of those development agreements, the contents of those and the
process by which they are developed. The ordinance which you have before you for
your consideration on Item No. 15, is designed to comply with that state law so that the
City is clearly exercising its authority under the provisions of the now amended Idaho
Code and also it does provide a form of development agreement which we now are
using in the City of Meridian and the reason for that is to standardize the form of
development agreements so that we understand how those are put together and we are
not dealing with different forms coming from different developers where you have to go
back and try to retrofit them to make sure they meet your standards, but yet it is a form
that is flexible so that the conditions of use and the conditions of development can be
set for specifically in the agreement to meet the particular development that is the
subject of the agreement. That’s basically my pitch. It is very important, I think, to
move forward on the zoning ordinance changes that are related to the adoption of the
new code and except for the conditional use permit thing which I had mentioned, those
changes that have been made in there are either come from a recommendation of a
department head that what was there before was no longer a practice, or we have a
state law that is changed the requirements with regards to matters, or their reference
issues including definitions or a reference to rather a ordinance we are now referring to
a chapter which is just language that is appropriate when updating a code. They have
now split under existing codification the zoning ordinances and the subdivision
ordinances are in the same title. Under the new code title 11 will be the zoning
ordinance and title 12 will be the subdivision ordinance.
Borup: Any questions? I assume that Steve will be able to answer any questions later
on if we have any. Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Gigray, this is a part of the new book, is that correct?
Gigray: Yes. What this is, this is all the laws. You have just the zoning and subdivision
and all this does is take those, split –you know the numbers are different. These little
technical references about cross referencing to other sections, of course that all has to
be changed and they are really –they are not (inaudible) changes except for the
provision in there regarding the transferability of conditional use permits and since that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 5
was sent in, Shari and I have worked on additional language to try to make that better
and that is why you are considering that other one on that very point here.
Borup: Any other questions. Thank you.
Gigray: I thank you for allowing me to make this presentation. Thank you.
Borup: As noted, we will take up discussion on Item 15 as printed on the agenda. Back
to Item 2 and 3.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, one more thing. I see that the application –there is a request
to table Item No. 8 and 9. You may want to note that incase any one is here.
Borup: Yes, that would be good for the record. Yes, Item No. 8 and 9 which is the
Walgreen’s application on the corner of Fairview and Locust Grove, the applicant has
asked to be put on next months agenda. They wanted time to review staff comments,
ACHD comments. This has been noticed as a public hearing. We, as the time comes
up on the agenda we would be open to any comments if someone has come to make
them this evening and feels they rather do it tonight rather then at the next meeting. So
there will not be a presentation from the applicant and there will be another regular
scheduled hearing on that item. If that effects anyone here, that is for your information.
Thank you Commissioner.
de Weerd: That way they don’t have to sit through the rest of this.
Borup: Yes, but you are welcome to if you want to. Staff, I think we received a report.
Is there any additional items, comments that anyone would like to make on this
application. Yes, Item No. 2.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, hopefully you’ve had time to
go over the report that we submitted at a late hour. I think from staff’s perspective here,
we’d like to wait to have any comments until after the applicant is presented.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the Commissioner's before we hear from
the applicant. Is the applicant here and like to come forward.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt. Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland, Boise. I think where
we left off last month, you asked the planning staff to make some comments. We asked
for some input from the Parks Department. You asked us to have our traffic engineer to
come before you to answer some questions concerning the traffic impact of this project.
I think those three items have all been accomplished and we are here tonight to
basically report back to you. First of all, we did receive the response from the Planning
and Public Works Department. Obviously, most of the items we concur with, with the
exception of obviously the analysis of the preliminary plat sites specific requirements,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 6
item one concerning sewer. Then we had some questions concerning a couple of other
comments that the staff had made as far as sewer or clarification on the issue of
capacity, where they discussed reservation of capacity. Our question there was, does
that pertain to the qualification for latecomers fees or does that pertain to a reservation
of capacity. That was item 616. We have gone through the sewer issue over and over
and over again. My comments to your staff were short, but I think (inaudible). They
talk about the issue of philosophy—the philosophical standard where they basically
reserve capacity for each particular drainage area and exceptions are rarely made and
only under what they refer to circumstances where there is a critical reason. If you read
my response, it states there have been multiple exceptions that we’ve been aware of.
Borup: Becky, when did you turn that response in?
Bowcutt: The response was faxed back at 2:30 p.m.
Borup: Did anybody here get it in their box?
Bowcutt: I received staff’s comments just a little bit before 9 a.m. this morning.
Borup: I don’t think it made it to us. Sorry.
Bowcutt: Okay, I have some extra copies.
Borup: Which office?
Bowcutt: I faxed it to Public Works Department, to Bruce and Shari’s attention.
Borup: Just for your information---
Bowcutt: Oh, I did not fax it to Will’s office.
Borup: That’s what I was going to say---when it’s a last minute thing, that would
probably –help.
Bowcutt: Yes sir. I apologize. I was frantically trying to hurry and get it on paper and
back to your staff because they had asked for a response by noon.
Borup: So next time it’s the day of, do both. It would probably help.
Bowcutt: The projects that I am aware of where they have been allowed to sewer
outside of their drainage districts—Ashford Greens is one. Turnberry Subdivision is
another one. Those particular projects were in the identical situation that we had where
they were designated for the Black Cat Trunk and a temporary lift station or interim lift
station was provided for sewering that particular area. Based on the information that I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 7
acquired today, Meridian Greens was another one. I guess a lift station was installed at
Linder Road that provided sewer service to Meridian Greens prior to a gravity trunk line
being extended. The other one I reference in my letter is the Vienna Woods situation
up there in the far northeast area of the impact zone. In my conversations with staff
they’ve stated, well some of these their sewering other projects then just one
subdivision. Well, there is the potential to do that. There is a potential to do some type
of a regional station. We have looked at so many options and it seems like every time
we solve a problem then two or three road blocks are put up in front of us. We have
offered to upgrade the Ten Mile Trunk Line—a substantial expense—therefore creating
a substantial amount of capacity in that Ten Mile Trunk that does not currently exist.
We offered to come up some special assessment. The staff came up with a number of
1500 dollars per lot. We have gone through many scenarios and I don’t want to repeat
and go back through it again and waste the time this evening because it looks like there
is a lot of people here that would like to testify on other projects. But what it boils down
to is that this is good project. We’ve worked hard. We’ve tried to solve the problems
that have been put before us. We don’t feel this is precedence setting. I guess I would
challenge anybody to come up with a project that has the benefits that this one has,
with the exceptional low density, the park site and the varying lot sizes going for the
larger lot sizes. I think that is going to be hard to match. It is going to be hard to match
anywhere where gravity sewer is at your door step and easily available because the
cost is just too great and we can’t, in most instances, convince those clients because of
the excessive cost of the land to provide the amenities that we are trying to offer here.
One of staffs comments was that the priority was to the north. Well, my statement there
is we are not trying to change the cities priorities. We understand that the No Name
Trunk is a very important trunk. We are not asking the city to take those funds that they
are allocating for that No Name Trunk and allocate them to this project. We are saying
let us bear our own burden. Let us provide our capacity and in return you will get a
really good project. I think one of the reasons that staff opposes the project, it’s not an
issue of design, density, poor planning. It is the issue of complexity. This is not cut and
dried. This is not the cookie cutter cut and dried subdivision. It is more complex. The
complexity issue happens to be the sewer. We feel that we can solve that and we’ve
done a lot of research and spent a lot of effort in trying to come up with what we
consider to be a good compromise. This is probably one of the best projects that I have
ever had the opportunity to work on, especially in the City of Meridian. I am proud of
that. The impact upon this community is not going to be excessive. Yes, it add traffic.
All developments add traffic, whether they be residential, commercial or industrial. It
does add traffic, but when you consider the whole picture as staff mentioned in their
analysis, they have to look at the whole picture and the capacity at the treatment plant
and those dollars allocated to expand that treatment plant, we would pick up just a little
bit over 1 per cent of the capacity of that plant. That is not very much when you look at
the whole (inaudible) scale. Staff states that because of the urgency north to provide
sewer service that there basically should not be any commitment to this particular area.
Well I content that there is obviously has to be some type of obligation to provide
service to an area of impact within what people consider a reasonable amount of time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 8
Obviously, you can’t provide sewer service to every corner of your impact area all at
once. That is not feasible but there are certain things that property owners consider
and when you have such as this project, with the Elk Run Development right next door,
they have central sewer, they have central water—this property does adjoin the city
limits and then to be locked out due to the fact that there is a dashed or swiggly line that
runs through your property. We think this project makes sense because it has access
to the freeway. As I stated before, I don’t think it is good planning to take a particular
area, an isolated area and say this is the only place the city is going to grow for the next
5-10 years, whatever. That is not balanced growth. We’ve tried to answer the
questions the best of our ability. I hope you bear with us because I know it is
complicated and its been drawn out. If the solution is a regional lift station, we are
willing to look at that. We have done that before in the Kuna area. I had a particular
project that required a lift station and the City Engineer stated if you want to build the lift
station and incur the cost then we need to look at what adjoins you—and we did. We
built a regional lift station and it worked out very well. Some nice developments came
online. You can’t gravity sewer everything. One thing I would like to read to you—this
is in the Idaho Planning Act. When a city is defining its area of impact there are three
factors the state law says it needs to consider. One, its trade area. Two, its geographic
factors and three, areas that reasonable be expected to be annexed to the city in the
future. When we talk geographic factors, that can mean many things. One thing I
believe it does mean is obviously topography, sewer ability providing service to the
parcels. It is going to take some lift stations in the city. You can’t avoid them. There
are regional lift stations that are designated on your master plan. They are not a bad
thing. It is cheaper if you can do gravity. That is the optimum way of doing things but
that is not the way. We don’t live in a perfect world and we are not everything doesn’t
slope to the Meridian Sewer Treatment Plant. There is properties that are far south and
so some provisions are going to have to be made. The issue as stated is areas that
can reasonable be expected to be annexed to the city in the future. We adjoin the city
limits but we are basically being told you can’t be annexed and it could be anywhere
from ten, fifteen maybe 20 years. We don’t know. I don’t think that that’s appropriate.
You received a letter from the Parks Department. Did everyone get a copy of that?
That’s pretty much consistent with the conversations that we’ve had with Mr. Kuntz in
the past. We have had multiple meetings with him and discussed the needs of the
Parks Dept. What they want to see. Exactly what type of location they would want
within our project and we also consulted the City of Boise to discuss parking ratios,
number of ball fields that could be accommodated, sizing and so forth, to make sure
that we were on the right track. Mr. Kuntz has obviously sent a letter that he thinks it
would be a good idea if we could resolve the sewer problems. I will go ahead and stop
there and bring Mr. Dobie up.
Borup: Becky maybe just one item that you touched on again that can maybe some
clarification from last meeting that was on the upgrade—the parallel line. What was the
capacity increase that you was anticipating from that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 9
Bowcutt: If we ran that parallel line we have two choices. We looked at upgrading the
line from a 12 to a 15 or going ahead and running a 12 inch parallel line to fix the bottle
neck within the Crestwood Development. I believe it was approximately 2,800 lunar
feet and according to the analysis it added between 900 and 1000 or 1200 hookups
would be available. It all most—it doubled the capacity by going in and rectifying that
from what the existing capacity is. Mr. Dobie here? Come on up.
Dobie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's my name is Pat Dobie. My business address is
777 Heartstone Drive in Boise. I prepared this traffic impact study for the Bear Creek
Subdivision project and if you like I could just walk through and explain the methodology
that was used and some of the conclusions of the study.
Borup: Commissioner's, how much detail would you like?
Hatcher: I am trying to remember what the specific traffic issues were from our last
meeting.
Borup: I don’t know if there is anything specific. There was just questions and
concerns and what the effect would be.
Barbeiro: As I recall I remember the neighbors were very concerned about the traffic
impact on Stoddard Road, especially the intersection on Stoddard and Overland.
Borup: Okay. So Stoddard and Overland would be one area.
Hatcher: Yeah and I do remember—if you could specifically address the ratings of the
intersections in this study with Bear Creek. If Bear Creek was to be put in, basically we
are looking at LOS’s of d’s pretty much around the entire area and how you came about
getting—I would like to have a better and clear understanding on that because I think
ACHD had some suggestions that might assist in bringing those up to a better grade.
Borup: Okay, so I guess we are saying we don’t need a full report unless there is
something that you felt (inaudible) other than interested in Stoddard and Overland
intersection and then how this project would effect the other intersections on their level
of service.
Dobie: Okay. Let me try to address those issues. This study follows a procedure that
has been established by the Ada County Highway District and the Idaho Transportation
Dept. for evaluating the impacts of developments. What they look at is the capacity of
the roads and the capacity of the intersections at some year of the future. In this case, I
went to the year 2005. We looked at the condition of those facilities without the project
and then I went through and calculated the capacity of those facilities with the traffic
from the Bear Creek lots. A level of service standard is used to describe the capacity.
It’s a value standard ranging from A to F, where A is very high capacity, very free
flowing intersections and roads and F is a condition where the volume of traffic
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 10
approaches the theatrical capacity of the facility. In many cases, the volume of traffic
can exceed the capacity, but it is an undesirable condition. The Ada County Highway
District has adopted a level of service D as the standard for arterials and for system
roads and in some cases they allow the level of service, an acceptable level of service,
in the E category for certain roads that have very difficult fixes, like Fairview Avenue for
example. In looking at the baseline capacity of all of the roads and intersections
surrounding this site for the year 2005 without the project, they average from level of
service A to level of service D, with D being the Overland Meridian Road intersection.
In the year 2005, with the site generated traffic from the development, the Overland
Road intersection will continue to be a level of service D. Calderwood and Stoddard
intersections would be at A and the Victory Road would be at C. All of the—both
Victory Road and Meridian Road would be at A and Overland Road would be at D. The
highway district reviewed these and reached a conclusion that this complied with their
standards and that was outlined in their staff report, fact and finding letter X, I believe.
In reaching that conclusion, the highway district made a series of recommendations.
They required of the applicant to put turn lanes on Overland Road at the Stoddard
intersection and in addition to that, there will be a contribution of impact fees from this
development in excess of $300,000. That $300,000 will be used by the highway
department to do additional improvements to the system. With the widening of
Overland Road and the construction of left turn lanes, they deemed that the system
would be adequate to accommodate it. The second part of your question dealt with
some of the—there are certain turning movements where the specific level of service
for those movements during the peak hour period is in the F or E category. Those
conditions exist because of the traffic and because of the geometry on the arterials and
are more related to the conditions of the arterials then the traffic volumes. For example,
turning out of Calderwood in the afternoon and trying to make a left hand turn is a very
difficult move. The reason it is so difficult is because of the high traffic volume on
Meridian Road and the high speed on the road. The volume of traffic doesn’t really
affect that condition and there are some ways to improve it. Probably the best solution
is to put a traffic signal at the Victory Road intersection at Meridian Road. Unfortunately
the traffic volumes aren’t sufficiently high right now to warrant a signal, but as the area
grows and as more people use that intersection, it will reach that condition in the future.
Again, some of those impact fee revenues that are being generated by this project
could be used by the highway district to fund that improvement. Where there additional
questions?
Borup: Any questions? Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Dobie, is the light at Victory Road the concern or is it Amenity where you
come down and can’t see the intersection coming off of Meridian Road. I understood
there were some concerns about putting stop lights at some of these intersections
along Meridian Road. Your not familiar with the concerns—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 11
Dobie: On Meridian Road? The site distance on Meridian Road should be adequate if
your doing the speed limit.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Dobie. Commissioner's have any questions for staff at this point.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I have some questions for staff. Becky made note of the four
subdivisions that have lift stations as a part of their existing set up. Could you please
elaborate on one of more of those and the conditions of which those lift stations were
implemented and how those differ from this subdivision please.
Smith: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commission members my name is Gary Smith. I am
the City Engineer. I made a listing of the lift stations that the City of Meridian presently
has in operation. We have 8 lift stations in various areas of the City. Some of these
were installed for reasons that are, in my estimation, critical reasons and others happen
for other reasons. The most recent lift station that has been approved and Becky
related to it referred to it is the one at Vienna Woods Subdivision out in the northeast
part of our impact area. That subdivision is located between McMillan Road and
Chinden Blvd. on the east side of Locust Grove. It is approximately—it is a little over a
mile from our existing gravity system at Summerfield Subdivision. That particular lift
station was approved because we were protecting our area of impact from Boise City.
The agreement that was reached at the time that hearings were held with Ada County
Commissioner's, City of Meridian and Boise City to determine this east boundary of our
impact area resulted in a stipulation or a commitment by the City of Meridian that we
would provide sewer service, because this particular subdivision was an item of
discussion at that time. The City Council agreed that this would happen, and it is
happening in that manner. To facilitate that service of that area, we are in the design
stage now for what’s been termed the No Name Trunk which is located approximately
midway between Ustick Road and McMillan. That trunk will serve approximately three
and a half sections of land and each section is 640 acres so you are looking at in
excess of 2000 acres of ground that could be developed with that sewer service. The
other lift station that Becky mentioned is the Ashford Greens lift station and that is
located near the intersection of Black Cat Road and Ustick. That lift station serves
approximately 500 acres of ground and or will serve, I should say. The incentive for the
construction of that lift station had to do with the development of the golf course. That
is the second nine holes that was recently completed and the associated developments
around it. The developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision was a co-sponsor of the
construction of the lift station and the pressure lines. That lift station will ultimately
eliminate an existing lift station that is located in Golf View Subdivision. In fact Golf
View number 5 subdivision, which is the last phase of that sub, has a pre-construction
meeting today for construction of that sewer. That lift station will go away. It will be
abandoned. All the flow from Golf View lift station which is presently serving that
subdivision, Cherry Lane Village Subdivision #1, Parkside Creek Subdivision will all now
flow into the Ashford Greens lift station along with Ashford Greens, a couple of phases
of the Lakes Subdivision, I believe Dakota Ridge also flows that way. That we term a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 12
sub-reasonal lift station. Ultimately, that lift station will be replaced by a regional lift
station that is located approximately ½ mile north of Ustick Road on Black Cat. That lift
station would service the Black Cat Trunk which would ultimately end of at the front
door of Bear Creek Subdivision. Under long term development or ultimate build out of
our referral area, which is south of our impact boundary between Kuna Meridian Road
and I think we are a quarter mile south of Amity with our impact boundary now. All that
area south to Columbia Road flowing into the Ten Mile Drain, some of that flow is going
to be diverted in the Black Cat Trunk. All of this sewer planning has come about
through a master plan. The City of Meridian contracted with JUB Engineers to develop
this master plan. Develop these points of diversion for ultimate build out has developed
10 year projections for building in the City of Meridian, the sewer lines that are going to
be necessary. My concern with this development, as I have given you in the printed
material, is that we are pumping from one drainage area to another and right now we
see 326 lots being proposed for this development. I don’t know what else is in this area
that will come along later, but as I mentioned in the written material I can envision that
as soon as the dust settles from the first start of the street excavation, the City of
Meridian will see applications for development in that area adjacent to this subdivision.
My concern from that standpoint is that we are looking at just this subdivision, if the City
Council who give me direction for implementation of sewer lines feel that this area
needs to be considered for development, obviously that is what I will look at. I will look
at a larger area. By that I mean, an area where a lift station could be installed perhaps
at a point on Overland Road, one third of a mile west of Linder, which seems to be a
low point, I believe, on a drainage there. Where this is pumped, I can’t say right now.
Whether it is pumped north on Linder Road and into this line that is being proposed to
parallel pipe, or if it is pumped somewhere else, I don’t know. It is a lot bigger project
than what is being proposed now. We have not looked at that totally because we are so
much involved in development in other areas of the city. Just to give you an idea
***END OF SIDE ONE***
Smith: Eleven hundred homes capacity in the Ten Mile Drain right now that can be
built. Victory Road and South. That is a ten year projection for that area for building.
The applicants proposal to parallel pipe the sewer line in Linder Road and through
Crestwood Subdivision for a distance as I understand it, it estimated somewhere
around 210 or 220 thousand dollars. We need to implement a sewer trunk fee that all
development should pay for in the City of Meridian to facilitate the construction of the
sewer trunks. It is either that or bond issues because these are expansions of our
systems and we can’t use the monies that we have to develop these lines. As I
understand it, the applicant is not willing to enter into trunk line fees along with the cost
to parallel pipe. That would take 326 units out of the formula for financing the future
extension of the Black Cat Trunk Sewer. The other lift stations I can go through then if
you like. They were installed for various reasons. There are some that are pumping
into their designated drainage’s but they are not able to get there by gravity because
there happens to be a piece of ground that is undeveloped and they were not able to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 13
extend the gravity sewer and there are some that are pumping into another drainage
and they were done for whatever reason. It was not a critical reason. Becky is right.
There is a precedence. I am just concerned that this is going to be a big precedent for
this whole area and these other ones haven’t been large area developments. They
have been smaller subdivisions. We do have an obligation to provide service in our
impact area. That is part of the agreement that we have with ADA County
Commissioners. There is a time limit. As long as we claim the area, if the time limit
went by and we had not provided service with that area, then I would assume that
someone else, another entity, could request the County Commissioner's to amend the
area of impact boundary in a particular area where we are not there with sewer and/or
water.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Smith?
Hatcher: In regards to the Ashford Greens lift station, could you enlighten me a little bit
as to why the lift station was built for that particular area in lieu of starting the
construction of the Black Cat Trunk since the we are only talking about a mile or less to
be able to facilitate that.
Smith: Mr. Commissioner, Chairmen and Commissioner Members there was an
agreement between the City of Meridian at that time, Council and Mayor, and the
developer of the property to build this lift station. The size of the trunk in Black Cat is I
believe 33 inch diameter pipe and the actual location of the lift station in Black Cat Road
is like I said earlier, a half mile north of Ustick. It is a regional lift station. It would be a
huge facility to be accepting capacity flows from a 33 inch diameter pipe. There just
isn’t any way you can finance kind of an installation based on the limited amount of
property that was to be developed. We have the line that was constructed in Black Cat
Road as a 12 inch diameter line. Everybody knew going in that that was not the final
line that was to be constructed. Whether or not it is a throw away line I don’t know.
Perhaps it can be parallel piped with another pipe to give us a 33 inch diameter. I am
not sure of that. By extending that, building that lift station, extending that line,
Turnberry Subdivision was able to be developed which is approximately 40 acres I
believe of single family homes. All of Ashford Greens. The west half of the Lakes at
Cherry Lane Subdivision was able to be developed. Dakota Ridge was able to be
developed. There is probably other property along the west side of Black Cat Road that
can be developed and accepted flow channeled into that lift station. The southeast
corner of Black Cat Road and Cherry Lane Road, 40 acres, has been owned for I don’t
know for how many years, by a party in Nampa and they’ve wanted to develop that.
The north half of that property can flow by gravity into this lift station also. This lift
station also gets rid of a lift station that’s been operating since Cherry Lane Village No.
1 went into effect in 1980. This lift station accomplished a lot of things.
Hatcher: So how many houses do you feel that that particular lift station has served
with all of the subdivisions that are south of Ustick between Ten Mile and Black Cat all
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 14
the way to Cherry on Black Cat and even further south than Cherry along Black Cat, all
being served by this lift station. Plus potential for future growth on this temporary lift
station.
Smith: Well the service area for this lift station is approximately east of Black Cat
between Ustick and Cherry Lane plus probably a quarter south of Cherry Lane from
Black Cat east to the east side of Park Side creek. I guess that goes all the way to Ten
Mile Road. I don’t know how many homes are in there and I don’t recall the capacity of
the lift station. I know right now it is operating on the very low end as far as run time
and volume of sewage being pumped. I just don’t have those figures in my head to tell
you what it’s capacity is. It does have capacity to serve all that area. When the lift
stations are designed, we have to use a number so we assign a certain density and
dwelling units per acre against the service area for the lift station. That is how it is
designed.
Hatcher: Were any of these developments or subdivisions—was the trunk fee
established at that time. Has the city gotten any money allocated to the Black Cat
Trunk because of these developments.
Smith: No. There are late comer fees that were assessed against the installation of the
lift station and the pressure line. We do have one subdivision that was proposed,
English Gardens I believe it is called, that would be subject to a trunk line fee.
Borup: Can Mr. Smith one question on your comment. I think you said that you
understood that the applicant was opposed to a trunk line fee.
Smith: Yes. And the construction of the parallel piping combination.
Borup: I may ask for clarification on that. The staff report said otherwise. That’s why I
was confused. If I read the report right, they were talking about the—Shari or who ever
wrote that is that correct a thousand dollar—
Hatcher: The impact fee was $1500 per lot.
Borup: Well, that’s what I thought was mentioned at one time was $1500. Staff report
said something about $1000 surcharge. I believe the $1500 was mentioned in past
testimony.
Hatcher: I was just chunching that. If we have 300—
Borup: It is my understanding that was a trunk line fee.
Hatcher: It was a trunk line impact fee. I believe, I think the applicant can clarify this
but I believe that the agreement was that they would improve the bottleneck and create
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 15
the capacity that they need for this project without impacting the existing capacity and
the project would also be subject to the impact fee of $1500 per lot, which is roughly
$489,000 from this project alone that would go to the Black Cat Trunk. This lift station
would serve approximately about the same as the Ashford Greens lift station has a
potential to do. That didn’t generate any money.
Borup: That was our understanding. They were proposing both.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members, I’ll just read Item No. 2 on their impacts
on Ten Mile Drainage. It says the applicant had requested the $1500 special sewer
assessment include the Ten Mile Trunk upgrade.
Hatcher: Include. So we’d have to take the cost of that improvement out of that. What
was the anticipated—
Smith: Include. That’s a response. That’s the way I read it anyway.
Borup: Your saying that it was 210 to 220 on the improvement.
Hatcher: That’s a request of theirs. What is the approximate cost of that upgrade?
Do we have any idea.
Borup: $210 to $220,000.
Hatcher: So we still to get a quarter of a million dollars for the Black Cat Trunk off this
project.
Smith: The Black Cat Trunk is estimated at $8.5 million dollars.
Hatcher: Got to start somewhere.
Smith: Yes sir, you do.
Barbeiro: Mr. Smith, Becky said that this particular project would be less than one per
cent of the plant capacity now. Could you tell me where the capacity of the plant is now
and if she is correct in that one per cent plant capacity.
Smith: I can tell you where the capacity of the plant is right now. I don’t know on the
one per cent.
Barbeiro: Okay, what is the total capacity of the plant guessing that you would design
per home or—
Smith: We’re at 4 million gallons per day capacity right now.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 16
Barbeiro: How does that equate to a number of residents.
Smith: When the plant was designed initially it was designed at 2.82 million gallons and
population equivalent of 22,500 people. If you divide that, I’m sure what the answer to
that question is –just a second. Approximately 7500 homes. That’s about 376 gallons
per day per home.
Barbeiro: So the 4 million gallons capacity right now would account for about 35,000
people.
Smith: Approximately, yes.
Barbeiro: This project with 326 homes would bring in about 800 people. It would take
about 2 per cent of the capacity of the plant.
Smith: About 900 people. Is that what you said Commissioner?
Barbeiro: Yeah, 800 or 900 people, about 2 per cent. What is the impact that the
parallel line would have and what is your recommendation the way that the developer
has presented the parallel line.
Smith: The impact that it would have?
Barbeiro: They presented it as an alternate to either waiting for the line or the other
options that they have. I know that you have written in great detail could you
summarize for me the public works evaluation of running that parallel line. Could you
summarize that?
Smith The impact of the parallel line? Well I think that the engineering that has been
done said that it would add approximately 1000 dwelling units beyond the capacity
required.
Barbeiro: And does the Public Works Dept. agree with their assessments and would
you recommend that as an alternate.
Smith: My recommendation is not to pump into the, into that drainage.
Barbeiro: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Any other questions of the Commissioner's? We’ve spent a lot of time
discussing but this is a continued public hearing. Do we have any one else in the
audience who would like to comment on this application. Looks like everyone is here
for something else. Becky did you have any summary comments you’d like to make. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 17
do have one question, Mr. Dobie made some reference to the traffic study. I am not
sure if staff has a copy—do we have a copy of that? That is in the file. Is that right
Shari? Did not get into the City Clerk’s office. That’s why I wondered if we had a copy
for the file. If not, is that something you’d like to make part of the record?
Bowcutt: Quickly, I’ll just answer a couple of questions that arose. As far as
clarification on the special sewer assessment. Originally, if you recall when we
submitted the application, part of our application was a letter that stated that we would
like a special assessment to go into that fund for future funding of the Black Cat Trunk
line. In that letter was that we suggested $1000. We just kind of picked a nice round
number. Your staff' analysis, I think Mr. Watson indicated that they had calculated that
they felt $1500 was more appropriate. That was the number which was imposed upon
English Gardens which came before you last month. They were up I believe the same
night we were. Of that $1500 your correct, would generate $489,000. Since we were
creating some additional capacity above and beyond ourselves, we had hoped and I
want to say hoped, that the $200 to $210 thousand dollars spent upgrading the Ten Mile
line would be a part of that $489,000. That is now I responded to staff’s comments.
Obviously, that would be a determination made by this body and the City Council. We
did feel because we are creating 326 homes and we create a capacity of around say
1000 and we’re 326. We are adding something above and beyond what we would be
using. As Mr. Smith said, there have been many reasons why these lift stations have
been allowed in the past. It has always been a decision of the City Council and in most
instances based on circumstances and benefits. We feel that we provide a benefit here
that warrants this and based on our circumstances, our location of being next to a
sewer main line, that we can’t access. We feel there is something unequittible about
that. That’s it.
Borup: Any questions? Okay Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: Becky, setting aside the sewer issue on this project, have you and the
applicant had more than ample enough time to review ACHD’s comments and
suggestions. The Park and Recs comments and suggestions. Staff’s suggestions, if
this project was approved—so on and so forth. Do you have any problems with any of
the comments that have been sent back to you at this time.
Bowcutt: We agreed with all of ACHD’s conditions. I concur with all the park directors
comments. They are consistent with what we’ve discussed, as I stated before. I guess
it all boils down to the issue of the sewer and I think the only other thing I commented
on was Item 8 and was storm drainage. We believe that there should be some hand in
hand work as far as storm drainage overflows are concerned with the eastern portion of
the park. We’ve done that in the past with other projects such as schools and so forth.
If we have a hundred year (Inaudible) it makes a big difference if we have emergency
overflow areas for storm drainage purposes. This is some that would be technical issue
that would have to be worked out with the Parks Dept. and the staff.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 18
Hatcher: In a nutshell, if I understand you right what you are saying is that you want to
work in agreement with the City Parks Dept. to use the eastern portion of the donated
park as the on-site retainage for the overall site in a storm 100 year flood plane system.
Bowcutt: No sir. That would not be our only no, no, no. We have other storm drainage
facilities throughout the project. That would be an area just would serve kind of that
vicinity as an overflow area. What I explained to Mr. Kuntz, he envisioned stag ponds,
severely depressed areas. I said no, with a site of that size we would not –you know
you’ve got a lot of area. You don’t need to swale it or put ponds in. No, that was not
our intent at all. We want the park to be usable so I believe he qualified his comment
that we would have to comply with any wishes of the Parks Dept. concerning storm
drainage discharge. The park would not serve as a retention or drainage area for street
run off without approval from Parks and Recs Dept. We agree with that condition.
Borup: Your saying as an emergency overflow would be something that would still be a
grass area—a usable area, play area what ever.
Bowcutt: Yes. We have done it with elementary school playgrounds also. Over in
Kuna and in Idaho Falls where we have a substantial storm event then you have the
ability for that overflow just to go out into grassy play areas.
Barbeiro: Becky you said that the 326 homes would account for less than one per cent
of the capacity of the sewer at this time. Mr. Smith tells us that the capacity of the
sewer is about 32,000 people. Using what I believe is a conservative figure of 2.75
people per home, that would give your subdivision about 900 people in that subdivision.
That would account to closer to 3 per cent of the capacity of the sewer, not less than
one. Is that correct?
Bowcutt: That depends on what your looking at. I believe Mr. Smith was looking at
what is the current capacity of the plant. The current capacity is 4 million gallons. The
future capacity after this upgrade that is in the works at this time will be 8 million. How
we calculate it is we calced approximately 3-1/2 bedrooms which gave us 275 gallons
per day per home. Obviously multiplying that by 326- it was just a little bit under 90,000
gallons per day, so if we look at 90,000 gallons per day and take a percentage of the 8
million which will be the size of the plant after this upgrade, we are up to 1.12 per cent
of capacity.
Borup: Any other questions for Miss Bowcutt? Thank you Becky. Commissioner's. We
still have Item No. 2 on the annexation and zoning open.
Hatcher: I have one more question for staff to hopefully wrap this up for me. Question
is, in regards to our last meeting last month we were talking about the lift station that
would service Bear Creek—whether it was going to be a temporary lift station for the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 19
subdivision it self and I believe that staff’s recommendation was that a regional lift
station down around Linder and Overland be put in to service a larger area. Could you
elaborate on that because I feel a conflict. If we put in a regional lift station in that area,
we saying okay we now have the capacity and ability to service this large area which in
fact we don’t—not until the Black Cat Trunk comes in. On the other hand if we look at
this project and this project only so that we don’t establish a precedent setting scenario
I am envisioning more maybe along the lines of this subdivision being built with gravity
flow sewer if the black cat line existed. At that point to where it would connect to the
Black Cat line temporary lift station be installed, at that point connect it to Ten Mile and
then abandon it when Black Cat gets there. Can you elaborate.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Commission members. That was the original proposal, yes. We
do know however, there is a 40 acre parcel on the west side of Stoddard Road that is
owned by the same, or at least has the option by the same developer. There is
property at the southwest corner of Stoddard and Overland that has expressed interest
in developing. I think if, ideally, if you take just the Bear Creek Subdivision and you plug
it into a lift station, you’ve got one situation. Realistically I think what is going to happen
is that there are other properties adjacent to this that will want to develop in the near
future. So, if you look at it from a longer point of view or a longer term, then you go
west and you go to Overland and Linder or somewhere in that area and you plan for
this whole area to develop. I really thing that is what will happen. It is going to be
another developing area of the City of Meridian. It is not just an isolated and I same not
just, because this is a large development, but just this development—I don’t think this is
as far as it is going to go.
Hatcher: But if the regional lift station was put in to allow for future development,
besides this project, how does that effect Ten Mile. We are all ready talking about not
having capacity for this project. How are we going to have capacity for other projects.
Smith: Well it is a trade off is what it is going to be. Unless, you pump this into the
Black Cat drainage and get it far enough north where it flows into that existing or start
building that Black Cat Trunk. Otherwise, if you pump it into the Ten Mile Drainage, we
are going to have trade-off with gravity flow up stream south of Victory Road for
example. That is where this pumping becomes a real problem. You have to establish
some ground rules if you start it. Capacities are capacities and there are just certain
things you can do to increase those capacities. The existing trunk lines that you are
dumping into are you capacities. Those are your restrictions. I understand exactly
what you are saying, but there are really two different scenarios that need to be looked
at. If the approval is given for just Bear Creek Subdivision, then that is one thing. That
is not going to have the impact that the whole sub-regional area will have, obviously.
They are two different things. I just don’t know if you approve one, and then you get an
application for the 40 acres across the street and you say no, I’m sorry you can’t. I am
not sure how far that one will fly. I just don’t know.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 20
De Weerd: So, in your opinion this is a fringe property and by approving it with a lift
station, it would only serve that development. Your thinking then our boundary moves
and then the next property would be a fringe property.
Smith: Yes. We have seen that happen with the Golf View lift station. That think has
moved three times, I believe. That lift station itself has moved three times. It has been
upsized as it is moved. Smaller scale, but similar situation.
Hatcher: What governs the boundary? Why would it move once it is established? Just
because it is going to Ten Mile, why would you incorporate all of Bear Creek as part of
that?
Smith: It is not where your pumping, it is where your gathering it up by gravity that
moves. That point of collection moves and it moves with the topography of the ground.
As a lift station is situated and the pressure comes to build down stream of the lift
station, then you can do one of two things. You can move the lift station down stream
and pump back, or you can build another lift station and pump back into this first lift
station. That is not a particularly good scenario, so you move the lift station to
accommodate the additional ground that wants to develop.
De Weerd: But it would not be sufficient to say were are not setting a precedence today
that your fringe boundary would move with this development.
Smith: I believe that it would—that there would be sufficient pressures to move to the
west.
Hatcher: If it was designed for gravity flow based upon the Black Cat Trunk impact
area, then were still—that project would still be part of the Black Cat Trunk because that
is how it was designed for gravity flow. That point of which all that subdivision connects
to, but that point to a temporary location at Ten Mile is a temporary service for the
subdivision itself and that is it.
Smith: Yes.
Hatcher: We would not be setting a precedent for future development because we can’t
connect to that lift station because that lift station is only for this project. In return, they
would be fixing a problem in the middle of the city that would allow them to build the
project without impacting the existing capacity. In fact, I think it would be improving it
and it would be generating money for a Black Cat Trunk which is the big problem. So I
kind of think—I can of see that with a little bit of give and take, it is almost a win, win
situation.
Smith: Commissioner, I will certainly agree with you on the impact fee, the trunk fee.
We don't have a problem with the sewer capacity in the middle of town now. We have a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 21
problem –we would have a problem with this development with parallel piping
requirement. I still believe because of what I’ve seen happen in the city in the past, that
that lift station there would be pressure to move that even through as you say, the
sewer lines, the trunk line in Bear Creek will be built so that it can be continued on as
part of Black Cat Trunk, the lift station could go away, be abandoned. That is what we
have done in other areas of town where the trunks have been extended and weren’t for
one reason or another when the development went in. Lift stations are abandoned and
it becomes part of that trunk line. I also feel strongly that that lift station is not going to
stay there for very long. It may stay for the development of this subdivision and 326 lots
will probably take, with the rate lots are selling in Meridian, I don’t know, 5 years maybe,
something like that. That’s 70 lots a year and that’s a month worth of building permits in
Meridian typically. It will be there for that length or time, but it won’t be there any longer.
Barbeiro: I have another question for Becky if I may please. Becky, Mr. Smith talked
about the need to possibly move the lift station one or more times. Considering
perhaps seven years out when the development is complete, there may be needs to
move the lift station in 7 to 10 years. Would the developer be willing to incur the cost of
moving the lift station one time. They might have to change it two or three or four times.
That’s not reasonable to assume the developer would incur the cost of that many
moves.
Bowcutt: To answer your question, in instances that I am aware of where lift stations
have moved, the city did not incur the cost to move them, the developer incurred the
cost to move them—meaning the subsequent developer down the line. What Mr. Smith
indicates is that somebody installed a lift station and it was designed to service only that
subject property at that particular time. Then somebody else came to the city later and
says I want to develop, but I am even further away then he is, so I am going to pick up
that lift station and move it. That next gentleman pays for the upgrade. In this
particular Golf View one, I think he is indicating it moved 3 times. In my opinion, if the
issue of the domino effect is of concern, the city has the ability to limit it. Like I said, I
challenge somebody to come in with this kind of density, this size of lots with the
amenities and the public amenities to the city. It is going to be hard to match. Really
hard to match. The city could put its foot down and it was talked about this is the fringe
and then does the fringe move. No, the fringe doesn’t move. The fringe stays the
same. A portion of this property is in the Ten Mile Trunk. The southeast portion, if you
recall from the little map I drew you last time. So does the fringe move—No. I am still
on the perimeter of that drainage area. So the city, as far as justification could turn and
say well the line is there. Your beyond. Your not fringe, your west. The other thing I
want to bring to your attention is the fact that the Ten Mile Trunk will eventually be
deterred into or intercepted by the Black Cat, if you recall that discussion also.
Eventually, Nine Mile, Ten Mile will all be diverted into the Black Cat in the future. What
we send down Ten Mile eventually will work its way into the appropriate Black Cat future
trunk line. I think that is another important issue that we need to recognize.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 22
Borup: Becky, would the current location of the lift station be able to service any
property to the west without moving it?
Bowcutt: I wouldn’t want to answer that question because I don’t have a topographic
map of what is west of me. I believe staff is correct that the low point in that vicinity
would be around that Linder road area. I think Gary said 1/3 mile west of Linder is
typically the low points of the drains and everything kind of slopes in a northwesterly
direction typically.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners. We can discuss this. We can discuss with the
closing this hearing and we still have the option of asking staff anything.
Barbeiro: Bruce is that customary the way that Becky describe it where the subsequent
developer will pay to abandon an existing lift station and built a new one.
Freckleton: Commissioner Barbeiro that has happened. I believe in Golf View, the
case there the original lift station was installed by Cherry Lane Village Sub 1. It was
relocated. The lift station that was in Cherry Lane was abandon. There was a new lift
station built in cherry Lane Village. That lift station had to be built to accept the flow
from Cherry Lane and Parkside Creek so he did incur costs to in essence to move the
lift station.
Borup: The city did not.
Freckleton: Correct.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we close the public hearing on
Annexation and Zoning of Bear Creek.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay, probably appropriate for discussion. Would anyone like to step in first or
do we want to go down the line.
Barbeiro: So much of the discussion comes back to the funding, direction and priorities
of the sewer lines as set forth by the City Council. These are items we can not have
power over. If we were to recommend and City Council were to approve this, it would
then come to City Council to prioritize, fund and direct sewer lines in this area. The two
exceptions that Mr. Smith made note of—one was intended to keep the City of Boise
out of our impact to service an area so that the City of Boise would not take it over. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 23
other was to add the nine holes to Cherry Lane. Both of these exceptions appear to me
to be more political exceptions and (inaudible) exceptions then they were critical. I do
agree that by approving this we would move the fringe boundary and be setting a
precedent for future development in the area, but as it is now I would recommend to
City Council that we approve this and leave it to them to direct, fund and set the
priorities for the sewer in this area. If they so choose to approve it, then it become to
them to develop those priorities.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Basically, the way that I seeing it is if we were to go ahead and approve it, this
is not only an asset to the city in regards to creating funds for the sewer, which is such a
big problem. We’ve got a potential solution or start of a solution. Second, this town is
screaming for parks and here we are being given a rather large park. Plus, this
development, although it is 326 houses, it is an extremely low density development.
Far lower than the average subdivision in this town. I see that—I wouldn’t classify this
as breaking the rules. Maybe bending it a little because it is on the fringe, but I
disagree. I don’t think that this is precedent setting. I say that we keep the boundaries
for Ten Mile and Black Cat as they are because that is established by geographic
location and the reason that I think we should approve it is because this property is in
both drainage’s. We build it for Black Cat. We temporarily connect it for Ten Mile,
because it is in both. That way we get the benefit of it.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner De Weerd any comment?
De Weerd: No.
Borup: I guess one of the factors that had a lot of influence on me is the statement has
been made over and over that we need some money for the Black Cat Trunk line. We
went through a whole list of subdivisions—at least 6 subdivisions and capacity for
others that are all ready on a lift station that was put in. Specifically for those. The
opportunity to get a fund going—the earlier concern was taking away capacity for the
Ten Mile Trunk by running the parallel line upgrading the other, they’ve eliminated that
problem. They created a capacity of approximately which beats 674 more of what they
are adding. If those 1000 homes were allowed to be developed, at 1500 per home, that
is a million and a half—including Bear Creek that would be a million and a half that
could go toward the trunk line fund. Even if the $200,000 is subtracted from that. That
would be 1.3 million. We all ready have some coming from English Gardens. It would
be close to two million dollars, which is 25% I think of what the estimated—was it 8
million—am I remembering right. Probably more by the time it is ready to go. It is a
start. I think that is all I’ve got to say.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 24
Borup: Oh now you decide to say something.
De Weerd: Well yeah. It’s been hard to stay quiet. I’m really not concerned about
opening up the land for future development. I do agree with Commissioner Barbeiro
that that needs to be a direction from City Council and something they need to look.
They do have a master plan in planning and those plans are put in place so, Gary’s
concerns are very valid in that respect. However, I do see how this development can
benefit our community with the park land. I certainly appreciate design and the density
that it is a lower density. I don’t think we are going to set precedence with the fringe. In
my opinion the fringe is not going to move. It is going to stay where it is, but I really
hesitate. I know how strongly staff is opposed to this and I really have a problem going
against one of their—such a strong objection.
Borup: I think we all have that same feeling. All we are going to be doing is
recommendation.
De Weerd: That’s true.
Borup: I think I like Commissioner Barbeiro’s idea. Let City Council-- I am ready for a
motion.
Barbeiro: I move that we recommend to City Council annexation and zoning of 150.79
acres of land for R-4 Zoning for Bear Creek, LLC.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor. That’s 2 ayes and 1 nay.
MOTION CARRIED:
Rutherford: Point of clarification. Is that to include staff comments, some of staff
comments, little of staff comments, maybe none of them.
***END OF SIDE TWO***
Borup: Staff did not end up making on single recommendation—well sorry. They did
make one.
De Weerd: They made a strong recommendation.
Borup: Yes they did. I take that back. They did make one strong recommendation with
a lot of options and alternatives and etc.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 25
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman if I may amend –we’ve all ready approved something without
an amendment. How do we.
Hatcher: Just amend you motion and we will vote on the amendment.
Rutherford: Actually, at this point if you just clarify your motion to what you met to
include, I’ll act accordingly.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if I may amend my motion to include all of staff comments for
recommendation by the City Council. (inaudible)
Borup: So including even the recommendation to deny?
Barbeiro: Yes.
De Weerd: Commissioner Barbeiro. I know I can’t vote on this since I voted against it,
but are you also going to make a motion on the impact fees and applying to the
improvements or that they would do both.
Borup: Let me ask this question for staff. Would the item of the trunk line impact fee,
etc., would that apply to the annexation and zoning or under the preliminary plat.
Rutherford: I believe that it would be the annexation and zoning and part of the
development agreement.
Hatcher: All the requirements, conditions and everything that we want on this project
needs to be done during the Annexation and Zoning.
Rutherford: Correct and as a clarification, I believe the request for the Development
Agreement Requirement is in staff comments, so that would not necessarily need to be
part of your motion, but the question by Miss De Weerd would.
Borup: I think we need clarification on the amount of the fee since two different
amounts have been mentioned. One staff comment that mentioned a thousand dollar
fee. In public testimony it had been mentioned and other submittals on the $1500.
That is the clarification probably. Maybe if we have a recommendation on whether the
two hundred and some thousand for the upgrade would be credited toward that fee or in
addition too.
Hatcher: Can I amend your motion? Okay, basically what I would like to have this—I’d
like to have all (inaudible) comments from ACHD, the staff, parks and rec., the whole
kitten caboodle, except for the denial of this project, be part of the commitment of
conditions for annexation and zoning. I would like to have the developer pay for the
entire cost of the Ten Mile Drainage improvements over Franklin and Linder—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 26
Crestwood subdivisions so that and I’d also like to see that this project in addition to
that implement the $1500 per lot trunk fee. I’d like to state for the record, and I don’t
know how we can legally—if there is anyway we can legally put this in there but I do not
want this to be construed or considered as a precedent setting that the lift station as
required would be for this project and this project only and that the sewer for the
subdivision be designed according to the gravity flow of the Black Cat Drainage. I think
that is it.
Barbeiro: I would still like to have—
Borup: I just (inaudible) clarification even though the $1000 was mentioned earlier the
staff recommendation was $1500 per dwelling unit. That is on page 4 of their other staff
comments, Item2. That was specifically written that way.
Hatcher: I was recommending $1500.
Borup: Right. You just repeated Item 2 on the staff comments. That’s okay.
Barbeiro: I would still like to have Public Works recommendation for denial included.
Borup: I think he all ready did.
Hatcher: (inaudible) striking it. How can we recommend approval to City Council if we
have staff comments recommending denial.
Borup: City Council going to have the comments Steve.
Rutherford: I can include that in the comments with the specific recommendation from
the Council or from the Commission that indicates that you approve it despite the staff
comments.
Barbeiro: So Steve, from what we’ve put together here will you be able to make sense
of this.
Rutherford: I will work it out.
Borup: Do you need another vote. All right good, thank you.
ITEM 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PROPOSED BEAR CREEK SUBDIVISION OF 326 SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING LOTS BY BEAR CREEK, LLC:
Borup: This is a continued public hearing so we’d like to open the continuation. Staff,
any additional comments?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 27
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission we have nothing further to say.
Borup: The applicant has nothing additional. She also indicated by the nod of her head
that she would like to incorporate all the previous comments and testimony into this
item.
Hatcher: There is one thing I would like to add. I would like to add that the
development, either the HOA or the developer, however they would like to work it out,
that they incur the cost of maintaining the lift station until such time as that lift station be
abandoned and hooked to the Black Cat Trunk. That the city does not incur
maintenance costs.
Borup: I would like to hear some comment from Public Works Dept. on that. Have you
gone both ways or has it always been by the subdivision or how has it normally been?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission the recent lift stations that we’ve
done have included a maintenance agreement with the homeowners association for the
subdivision to pay the cost of city maintenance of that station. It also paid the electrical,
the telephone and all the other utility costs associated with that maintenance.
Borup: So the city maintains it with billings to the HOA. That way you’ve got control of
the quality of the maintenance. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to
testify on this application. Seeing none. Commissioner's.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I motion that we recommend approval to the City Council for the
preliminary plat for the proposed Bear Creek Subdivision of 326 single family dwelling
lots by Bear Creek, LLC with the one additional condition of the lift station maintenance
that we just spoke about. And, incorporating all staff and other reg. agency comments
as described earlier.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES ONE NAY
Borup: Thank you. I think we will go through a few more before we take our break.
We’d like to cover a few things. In case anyone has come in late, Item No. 8 or 9 on
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 28
the Walgreen’s application –the applicant has asked to have that item moved to next
months agenda, November 9. We will not be hearing a presentation from the applicant
but we are available for questions for comments if any one has come to do that. Will
someone tell Kent that he can come in.
ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF TWO 10 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC
UTILITY EASEMENTS BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY—LOTS 5 AND 6
BLOCK 1, MERIDIAN BUSINESS PARK:
Borup: Miss Stiles do you have a presentation?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's I’m not sure if they have a representative here.
Okay, Jonathan. I just wanted to make sure that the application was a sketchy and it
was a little hard to follow. I wanted to make sure it was understood where those
easements are. I believe what they are asking for if you can see this, this would be lot
6 and lot 7 and 8. Although the notice went out to say lots 5 and 6 for a five foot
easement on either side of lots 5 and 6. I believe they are also requesting the five foot
easement on the north side of lot 6 and the south sides of lot 7 and 8 to be vacated.
This would not include the Hunter Lateral Vacation. I think they may be able to address
that if that has been relocated. I also wanted to make sure that they understood that we
would want the lot lines to be adjusted if there was going to be a building on those.
Other then that, I just wanted to clarify that because it was a little unclear from the
application.
Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward.
Seel: My name is Jonathan Seel with the W.H. Moore Co., 600 North Steelhead, Boise,
Idaho. Shari is correct. It is a 2 easements there. Ten foot easements. The one that
is the southerly on is a little hard to read on this. We have a lot line adjustment though,
so the next one down that one. We have a lot line adjustment but we don’t want to up a
little bit. Right there. We do have a lot line adjustment but we have been told not to
submit that until after this has been vacated. Anyway, it is that one where the arrow is
and the one to the north. Those are the two that we are asking for Vacation of and as
they say, as soon the vacation of the southerly easement is completed, we will submit
the lot line adjustment for that. We have been told not to do that. We read the staff
report. We have not problems with it. On the northerly one they plan to build a building
on it as well as on the southerly one too, so that is the reason for the vacation of the
easements. Utilities are on the street and the balance of the project as we done in the
future, we have not put utilities or easements between the lots on the plat just because
of this reason because you end of having to come back and vacate them later.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's. Commissioner Brown.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 29
Seel: The Hunter Lateral has all ready been moved. You can again kind of see that
dotted line. It is an “L” shaped one. It borders right there along that property line and
heads directly up there. That easement as it is shown there has all ready been
vacated. The Hunter Lateral (inaudible) through the project. I am not sure why that is
showing on there.
Brown: Have you got your relinquishments of your easements all ready?
Seel: We are in the process of doing that right now. We have given one to the city,
which we were asked to do. TCI Cable, Idaho Power, U.S. West and Intermountain
Gas. We will have those before the City Council meeting. I am getting some of those
all ready. They have been done and we’ve asked them to acknowledge and notarize
those.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. Do we have anyone from the public who
would like to speak on this application. Seeing none, Commissioner's.
Brown: I move that we close the public.
Hatcher: I second it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Commissioner's, do we have a motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend Vacation of the two 10 foot wide
public utility easements to include staff comments.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 5: PUBLIC HEARING: ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR PRE SCHOOL
PLAY GROUP 3 HOURS PER MORNING-5 CHILDREN BY SANDRA
LOVETT:
Borup: Miss Stiles.
Siddoway: I am not Miss Stiles but I’ll go ahead and handle this one. Commissioner's
this application is for a day care which is 5 kids or less. An Accessory Use Permit
because there was an objection filed with the city. We are required to send this to you.
The highlighted there is the request. We would ask that all of our comments that are on
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 30
the October 6th
memo be included. I don’t think there are any other outstanding issues
related to the application. You should have a copy of the objection in your packets.
Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here?
Lovett: Sandra Lovett. 1835 S. Swan Avenue in Meridian. I am the applicant. I guess
my situation in a nut shell, I have applied for the permit and have started going through
the licensing process through the state as any full time child care would, or home day
care, even though I am only just a part time half day morning play group program
planned. Just being that I have been in the early childhood profession for about 14
years I just thought it was necessary to go through all the necessary steps to prove my
commitment to the professional aspect I guess to the parents who are interested in my
program. Just kind of hit the snag when one of my neighbors did oppose the idea
because it is stated in neighborhood covenants that there are to be no businesses run
out of homes. However, before we purchased the home back in May, I spoke with the
president of the neighborhood association. He told me that they do make exceptions
for family home day cares, being there is such a high need for them in our area as well
as other areas. He had no problem with it, the neighborhood association had no
problem with it, so we went ahead and purchased the house and went through with the
plans to do this but as I stated before, one of the neighbors did object. According to
the neighbor, from what I understand from the neighborhood association who has kept
in good contact with me just to update me how things were going from their end, the
main objection was not the traffic. It wasn’t the additional children because there is so
many children in our neighborhood anyway. It was just the fact that it was going to be
okay to let a business be run out of the neighborhood. He did not feel comfortable with
that. He wanted to stick to the original agreement in the neighborhood covenants that
said no businesses. The neighborhood association does not care to take a stand
because they have made exceptions for other full time day cares.
Hatcher: I just wanted to bring up on point on staff comments—Item 2. The City of
Meridian does not enforce protective covenants and if the Accessory Use is approved
the HOA would need to seek legal counsel to enforce their covenants.
Borup: Did staff explain that to you?
Lovett: Yes.
Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Lovett? I’ve got one. Have you got a proposed group
together at this time.
Lovett: Parents and children? Yes.
Borup: How many are within you neighborhood?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 31
Lovett: Just one.
Borup: Do we have anyone here who would like to testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Now we can do a motion.
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we ask the City Attorney to prepare Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for the Accessory Use Permit for preschool play group,
three hours per morning for 5 children and that we recommend approval for it to include
all staff comments.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3 BUILDING
RETAIL COMPLEX OF APPROX 50,000 SF ON VACANT 5.5 ACRE SITE
IN A C-G ZONE BY NORCO:
Brown: I just asked the Commission to advise me here. This is directly across the
street from my wife’s personal business. I don’t see a conflict but I wanted to verify that
with you if you felt that would be conflict for this potential business to be across the
street from me and that I might benefit some way from that.
Borup: Do you own the property or leasing.
Brown: Leasing the property.
Barbeiro: This would not be a direct competitor of yours?
Brown: No.
De Weerd: I don’t see any conflict.
Borup: I don’t either. Any of the other Commissioner's feel that. Thank you. Okay,
Shari.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 32
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's, this is for the vacant property located south of
Dove Meadows Subdivision. This would be where Louie’s Restaurant is going. This is
Capital Christian Center. This is also vacant, still in the County. This would be where
the Shoshone Building and then across the street, I’m not sure which parcel would be—
there would need to be changes to the site plan to comply with Ada County Highway
District’s report. They are requiring a driveway to be located at least 200 feet east of
the west property line and that this eastern driveway should be located adjacent to the
property line, so that will have a significant impact on the layout of this project. The
reason the conditional use permit applicant indicated he had no clue why he needed to
have a conditional use permit, but because there are more than one principle building
located on this lot, that is what necessitated their application for a conditional use
permit. The Norco building is proposed to be here. I don’t know that they have any set
tenants for any of this building they have here. I just like it to –the recommendation to
reflect that no approval is being given for a drive thru service of any kind on this project.
If they were requesting that approval, they would have to come back with a separate
application. They are providing the 35 foot entry way corridor set back. They are
attempting to buffer the adjacent residential use with a 20 foot landscape planting strip.
I am a little concerned that we have no comment from the fire department based on
some of the materials they may be storing here as far as flammable materials or
oxygen, those types of things and what kind of special requirements they have for that
and if there is a need for access around this building. Lacking any kind of a comment
from them, I don’t know if you have any comments in your packets, but I was not able
to find a comment from the fire department. They have proposed two different signage
details. One of them is a 6 by 5 foot monument that I believe would be located in this
area. The other one they are proposing is 25 feet by 15 feet. Staff would recommend
that not be approved and that they be limited to the 72 square foot minimum—
maximum—that has been approved for other projects along this Fairview Avenue
corridor. I would like to see the advised plan to reflect what they are going to do with
those driveways. It will make a difference in this site plan and I do think we need to be
able to see that site plan prior to approving it. That’s all I have.
Borup: When you say driveways, do you mean the cross access driveway.
Stile: Yeah, the full size plan—
Borup: Was ACHD proposing moving the access onto Fairview were they.
Stiles: Yes. That’s what I read from the report. They want a 200 foot offset from their
eastern property line, which would put it roughly there.
Borup: Does anyone have any question for Shari. Commissioner Brown.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 33
Brown: Shari, ACHD made a special recommendation about an alternative
transportation program and that they would have to annually report. Did you
recommend that—that be done?
Stiles: Did we recommend it?
Brown: Yes, did you take their special recommendation and –I did not see it in the
report.
Stiles: Apparently, staff supported that at their meeting. I would not think we could
support a recommendation, but not make it a requirement particularly for a 5-1/2 acre
site. They did not make it a requirement for the family center. They did change that to
make it a suggestion or to ask that they consider that, but it was not a requirement for a
74 acre site, so—
Brown: That probably would not be appropriate I guess maybe for since you only know
what one of the businesses will be.
Stiles: We asked them to change that at the Family Center. Instead of required say
encouraged.
Borup: Did anyone else have any questions?
Hatcher: ACHD I believe, recommended a cross access easement be established with
this lot and the lot to the east. I am not 100 per cent why.
Stiles: This property is not developed. It is just a single family home on it and basically
kind of a contractors yard. That will be redeveloped into a commercial use at some
time.
Hatcher: So the cross access easement would be so that that smaller lot comes into
Fairview off of this site rather than it’s own—
Stiles: They would allow it still to have a driveway there, but say that your in this
building and you want to go over to this building if something is built in there, so that
your not having to access this huge arterial only to turn back in here. It is just to ease
circulation between the lots.
Borup: That is something they have been trying to encourage and prevent some of the
problems that Fairview and Boise has. Shari I had a question along that line. I was
(inaudible) why they weren’t talking about a access to the west. Realizing like you say
that Shonone Building maybe not a loot of businesses there now but you know I could
perceive that property being redeveloped also. Any thoughts along that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 34
Stiles: I think that we should make that recommendation that there should be—this is
all parking over here and then they are showing a driveway all round here so it would
be our preference to somewhere have some cross access to get over there too.
Borup: Looks like it would be able to happen with out disrupting their site design.
Stiles: I think so.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Strite, I assume you would like to say something.
Strite: Don’t I always.
Borup: The thing I like most about your application is your signature.
Strite: That is a stamp. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission Billy Ray Strite,
1087 River Street, Boise, ID. I am here on behalf of Norco. I am the individual with no
glue considering this is a C-G zone and all the uses that we proposed here are principle
permitted uses within any zone standing singularly. Let me first start with the Ada
County Highway District comment.
Borup: Maybe not to leave that hanging there. Shari mentioned in her comments the
reason it is, is because you’ve got more than one building.
Strite: Yes. I now realize that. Let me start with Ada County Highway District
comments. I did meet with David Split and Christine at the Development Services
Group. The reason for the request to move the westerly driveway if you will access to
Fairview Avenue, is to accommodate the new Ada County Highway District policy
manual which requires 220 feet between access points based upon a speed of 45mph.
As you probably all aware, Ada County Highway District is taking additional right of way.
2005, I believe, Fairview becomes 7 lanes, the speed reduces to 35mph. So, in doing
that we suggested that what we would be proposed to do at this particular point of time
is use the 220 foot dimension, if you will, from the easterly boundary access to the
church property, which Shari has noted as the Shoshone Building. That would require
us to move only our access approximately 20 feet—not even that. I think it was 18 feet
to the east. That does not affect the plan at all. On the east side, she is absolutely
correct and I think that Commissioner Hatcher brought this up, the reason for the cross
access and I think the Chairman answered it, is because they are trying to encourage
cross access between parcels as opposed to additional curb cuts along Fairview. We
have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, what they would like us to do is, if you will
notice that access now, it generally as you proceed south it turns to the west creating a
little easier turning movement. We are going to turn that back to the east that would
allow us to provide a cross access to the parcel to the east side, which is a single family
residence now but certainly in some due time will become right for development.
Relative to Shari’s comment in the access to the west, certainly we would not have a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 35
problem with doing so. Ada County Highway District probably can tell you has been a
little reluctant to go back to an existing owner and ask for cross access for new
development. On the other hand, the new development in our particular case, would
have absolutely no problems in finding a cross access to those to the west. I think that
probably is Ada County Highway District comments. There is a 10 foot right of way
requirement take. I noted in the title report that the existing center line to property line
is 57 feet, not 50 feet so in fact the requirement for take is only 3 feet. I will take that up
with Ada County Highway District Commissioner's if you so choose to approve this
tonight. Relative to the fire department, my colleague here, Mr. Fitell has met with Mr.
Voss. He also met with Dot Whitman. They went through the procedures. He
approved the plan as you see it today. There are a couple things that we are going to
discuss with him and that is the outdoor storage of some cylinders which may in fact
require 1 hour wall on our westerly parcel—low line of the Norco building it self. The
remainder of the building is going to be classified type 5N, so nothing else is required in
that respect. I think with those comments I think what I’d like to do is open it up for any
questions you might have and I’d like to see this thing approved tonight and let us move
forward if we can.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Strite?
Hatcher: Mr. Strite, is this facility being proposed as Norco going to be their typical
distribution facility or is this an office facility for the over all company. Could you
elaborate on its use.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Mr. Hatcher I can do that yes. It is none of the above. Basically they
have their home offices on Amenity Road. They have a 3 story office building which
houses primarily their corporate offices. 4,500 to 5,000 square foot of this would be the
actual on site office operations for administration. 5,000 square feet of this particular
facility would house their medical facility which is has to do with oxygen equipment not
tanks necessarily, but equipment. Medical equipment, wheel chairs, beds and that sort
of thing and the remaining portion of it would be warehousing for outside units. In other
words when they go out to a hospital or a care facility, they have to provide a certain
number of units. They can come to this operation, pick those units up, take them to the
hospital and/or facility then they are returned here, refurbished and put back into
storage.
Hatcher: Have you, you all ready said you sat down and talked with the fire
department. Have you gone through with them the potential for H4 or H2 classification
of those cylinders which could require you to have a four hour blast wall.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher, we have done that. As a matter of fact
we had originally envisioned that part of this would be H4. Because we were able to
supply them with MSGS sheets for the appropriate materials and the sizes and the
quantities, it was Skip’s opinion that this would not in fact be done. Number 2, all the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 36
particular materials I am making reference to are stored on the outside, so we are back
to the type 5. We would not be looking for anything other than M or S as opposed to a
H4 or possibly H2.
Hatcher: None of the cylinders being stored on this facility would classify into the H
category.
Strite: That is correct.
Barbeiro: Mr. Strite, there is nothing on your plans showing me where there would be a
fenced storage area for the outside.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Barbeiro the it refers to a covered dock and that would
be on the west end of the building. You can see where the truck dock extends it would
be the northwest corner of the Norco building itself. I have a large site plan if it would
be of benefit. I assumed that you all—that is the area that those materials would be
stored. It is covered and actually has 2 sides. The only open end would be the west.
Barbeiro: Will there be deliver trucks running along there? I know that Norco has
everything from a small Chevy trunk all the way up to large panel vans and then tractor
trailers. Will we be seeing tractor trailer diesels in there coming in at 6am for deliveries?
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Barbeiro, we are anticipating one over the road vehicle
a month. If it is the wish of this commission you can set the time, I don’t think that that
would be inappropriate. The others are all local deliveries. You have probably seen a
number of Norco trucks or small vans. The northerly most truck dock that you see on
the plan before you there is recessed 48 inches. The remainder is recessed 36 inches
to accommodate small over the road vans and pick up trucks as opposed to anything
over the road.
Barbeiro: If memory serves me right, the facility on Amenity had a major incident
several years ago where the area was evacuated because of the potential danger of
explosion as there were a number of canisters that did explode there. With regards to
the fire department and Commissioner Hatcher’s questions about the H rating, how can
we be reassured with that building backed right up to homes that there are provisions in
place to prevent this, and should it happen that there are evacuation procedures
available to the neighbors.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, the very (inaudible) questions; however, I
can’t answer any of them. No. I think I could assure you, number one, let me tell you
that I had no idea, and I have not read, quite frankly, the problems that you have
referenced. I will suggest you, however, that that facility out there, if you’ve ever been
there, is along side the office building and there is a large number of canisters that are
stored within the building, and it’s a considerably larger facility. There’s been 60,000
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 37
square feet here. We’re talking at max, the medical area, 5,000 square feet. Again,
we’re storing what little we have in the MSDS in quantity sheets (inaudible) provided to
Skip Voss, so I guess – my only suggestion to you is we’ve done what we feel is
necessary, and I think that we’ve received the approval for your fire department, and I
hope that that would be sufficient. We would take all precautions, obviously, and I
believe that we have.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Brown: How do you feel about the staff’s requirements for the sign? Is that – is there
any conflicts in what the staff report has said that other than being approved tonight?
Strite: Well, that one is a tough one. I guess what I would suspect that under signage,
it makes reference to the 11.2.4. My suggestion would be that we pass this resolution
tonight with a proviso that the signs come back under separate application. That’s
pretty typical every place else we do business. I quite frankly cannot respond to the
signs. I’m not into the signs (inaudible) wouldn’t be any signs, but I know that’s
unrealistic. In support of my client, I suggest that we pass it as it is and put the proviso
in there as a condition that it come back under separate application. Seems a little
more realistic than to tie that into the development as a whole.
Hatcher: But as staff’s requirements, other than staff asking for a new site plan for the
changes as required by the Highway District, you don’t have a problem with the staff
report?
Strite: No, sir. No. I think I find the conditions acceptable and certainly appropriate.
Again, I think there is some (inaudible) the way I interpret the sign ordinance as it’s
written here, they’re going to have to come back anyway. So in reference to your
comment, I’d rather stay out of the signs if I may. I get myself into enough trouble as it
is.
Borup: Any other questions?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Finding that this will be a warehouse, do you have
renderings of what these buildings look like?
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, we do have, I believe the staff does
have that in hand. The colored rendering, unfortunately, is sitting in Mr. Kissler’s office,
but I see that there is also a condition here, let me see if I can point that to you, that we
provide – here it is. Item No. 14. That we are to provide colored rendering prior to the
City Council hearing. We have that rendering, and I apologize. I do believe we
submitted an 8-1/2 by 11 color photo. Of the elevations. That was submitted as part of
the original packet. The rendering itself, that was required by one of the conditions. It
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 38
could have been provided tonight; Mr. Kissler’s out of town, but I could have brought
that this evening.
Barbeiro: Yeah. I don’t have one.
Borup: It never was –
Hatcher: Shari, do you have –
Stiles: There was one copy submitted. I’ll bring this up for you to look at. I would like
an explanation of – there’s no north elevation shown. It shows a front elevation and an
east and a west elevation, but I don’t see where the 31-foot high warehouse part shows
from the front at all.
Strite: Let me clarify that. The warehouse portion is 14 feet high with a 3-foot
structural system so that the rear wall, I believe, is a maximum of 18’6”. The 31feet is
the canopy that’s shown in the front; is the entry canopy. If I may leave the podium for
just one second. This portion that she’s making reference to –
Borup: We just want to get it on the –
Strite: The portion that she’s making reference to, and I think it’s a good point, is the
entry canopy in the front. That only extends back here 8 feet beyond the face of the
building on the south side. The north side which is here is 18 feet that follows the
northerly boundary along the north property line. I apologize. I think that there was
really not much on the rear elevation other than block because of the massive
landscaping. Yes. There are no openings allowed in that 20 feet. I believe, quite
frankly, (inaudible) ordinance, we’re only by ordinance, allowed to – required to have a
minimum of ten feet, but understanding, I think, what could potentially be a
neighborhood concerns, and an 18-foot fairly massive wall in comparison to scale to a –
*** END OF SIDE 3 ***
scale is to move these back to 20 feet; heavily landscape it. I hope that would answer
Shari’s comments or questions.
Borup: Does that – did the Commission get a chance to see that well enough? All
right. Thank you. Anything else from Mr. Strite? (inaudible) Do we have anyone here
in the audience that would like to come forward and testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: We have a motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 39
Brown: I second.
Borup: And a second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. We ready for a motion or would we like some discussion first?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: With the nature of the materials that are stored here; pressurized gasses,
oxygen (inaudible), others, and without a report from the Meridian Fire Department, I
would rather not make any recommendation to City Council until I have a written report
from the Meridian Fire Department. I am very, very concerned that this building backs
right up to a residential neighborhood with those – with the potential for explosives.
Borup: Shari, is there – have you been in contact with the Fire Department or the
Building Department at all? Did they – have they passed anything along to you?
Stiles: They have made no comment at all on this project.
Borup: I know, but don’t have anything written, so they have done nothing verbal,
either?
Stiles: Typically, they will at least say must comply with all codes or –
Borup: Well, they always have on all the ones that don’t matter.
Barbeiro: With the pressurized gasses, I’m surprised that –
Borup: Okay.
Barbeiro: -- one of the neighbors haven’t been – (inaudible) regarding this.
Borup: Okay. We do have a comment from the Fire Department.
Barbeiro: Where is it?
Borup: Okay. Would you like me to read it? Apparently it didn’t get copied in the rest
of our packets, in all of our packets. For the record, the Fire Department – we also
have from the Police Department and the Water Department and everything else. They
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 40
were all standard. Fire Department said all codes, water supplies, hydrants with this
project will need to be approved. Does that help you any?
Barbeiro: Then I will defer to the Fire Department’s notice with that.
Borup: I think we could put in our motion that we would like a little more information
and clarification with the Fire Department to present to the City Council.
Barbeiro: If we may then, I will do it.
Borup: We can make any motion we want, you know. Whether it’ll do any good – No. I
think in this case, I think that’d be appropriate.
Hatcher: There’s two points of discussion on this issue, too. The first one is that a
building of this nature based upon its building type and Certificate of Occupancy, they’re
required to submit MSDS Sheets. They have to keep those current and active at all
times. Basically at any time in the Meridian Fire Department could spot check them. If
they’ve got canisters out in their storage that aren’t allowed, you know, we have an
issue there that could be enforced. The other issue is the incident that occurred at their
main site was a substantial incident, but the facilities there were properly designed, their
suppression system, their setbacks, everything was by the book, and it was confined,
literally, to that one area of incident, and it could have literally been catastrophic event.
With my experience and dealings with Norco and my understanding of hazardous
material codes and stuff like that, that I think it’s a relatively small issue for this facility
because I think it’s primary use – I’m not speaking for them, but their primary use on
this facility, I do believe the office and medical, and medical gasses, most medical
gasses typically aren’t explosive. They’re flammable, but not necessarily explosive. I
think if we deferred that to the Fire Department just to make sure standard enforcement
is implemented, we’d be okay.
Barbeiro: The medical gasses that are stored there, under normal temperature and
pressures are not explosive. (inaudible) pressurized canisters, (inaudible)
Hatcher: There’s different categories to HazMat material. One is corrosiveness,
flammability and explosives. Oxygen, specifically, is flammable but will not explode.
Even under pressure. I can’t tell you what they are and aren’t going to store here, but
based off of Mr. Strite’s testimony of MSDS Sheets and their meeting with the Fire
Department, I would suspect that you know, a settling is not something that is going to
be here, and it is explosive. I was just kind of bringing that up as a topic of discussion.
But I would end up, obviously, deferring that between Norco, their Certificate of
Occupancy and the Fire Department.
Borup: Okay. Does that answer your question?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 41
Barbeiro: Yes.
Borup: So do we want to form a motion here? Do you want to discuss some things we
may want to include in it or are you ready to do it?
Brown: I think we need to modify staff’s condition 12 about signage. I agree with Mr.
Strite’s recommendation that the signing along Fairview should come back before the
Commission. No?
Borup: Or – if they comply with the 72-square-feet monument sign, there’s no need for
it to come here.
Brown: I would agree with that, also.
Stiles: I prefer that rather than have it on the agenda again. And in other cases, we’ve
had to review signage, we have actually had to go through the conditional use permit
process again just for signs.
Borup: So by approving that, we would not have to come back through the conditional
use as long as they complied with (inaudible)
Stiles: (inaudible)
Borup: 72-square-foot monument sign. We really don’t need to see them again.
Brown: Unless they chose to do another kind of sign, and then they’d come back
before this Commission (inaudible).
Stiles: Unless it’s 72 feet by 1 foot.
Brown: Okay.
Borup: Okay. We can make clarification on that. I think the other thing is mention of
the cross-access agreement. ACHD had mentioned one to the east but not one to the
west. That is true. They can’t force existing business to allow that, but when the
business use ever changes or they come back before us, that’s the time that that would
be done. If that easement isn’t on this side, then we’re back to the same problem.
Brown: So we encourage it on this side –
Borup: I think both ends. The east and the west. Yeah. And one on the – as
mentioned, one on the west is not really going to cause any problem on the design it
doesn’t look like. There’s a driveway around there, anyway. If it’s allowed for with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 42
easement there, then it can be developed at a future date. So the sign, cross-access.
Do we want to have some statement for more detailed report from the Fire Department?
Okay. SO those three items?
Barbeiro: I’d also like to reaffirm that the neighbors be notified (inaudible) neighbors
(inaudible) facility (inaudible).
Borup: Well, they were notified.
Barbeiro: Okay.
Stiles: How many addresses were notified?
Borup: Just checking. This is going to be – everyone within 300 feet
: Looks like 51 or 52.
Borup: 51 mailings. That’s more than normal.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Rutherford: Point of clarification: Just for the Commission’s edification, before they
make this motion, and Shari can correct me if I’m wrong, I believe that since this is a
conditional use permit in a commercial zone, this is something that if approved, you
would request that I prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and those would
be acted on by the City Council in absence of a public hearing. There would not be a
public hearing. Any additional comments from the Fire Department would not
essentially have any opportunity for public comment at the City Council because there
would not be one.
Borup: That’s something that the City Council can still receive and review?
Rutherford: They can make amendments to your Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law.
Borup: You’re saying any additional comment from the Fire Department would not be
part of the public record?
Rutherford: (inaudible) I consider – I believe, yes, it would not be. You’d close the
public hearing at this point. They wouldn’t be able to receive (inaudible)
Borup: Well, we have received the comment. We just feel that (inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 43
Rutherford: (inaudible)
Borup: -- we have a little more detail.
Rutherford: Potentially clarification is something that you could request, but further
comment probably outside the bounds of clarification would probably (inaudible)
Borup: That would be the intention of the motion, right?
Brown: (inaudible)
Borup: Commissioner Brown just mentioned that (inaudible) facilities downtown Boise
near the hospital. Same general type of usage. My understanding it’s more like a
satellite store for them. Okay.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I recommend that we Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law regarding
the conditional use permit for a three building retail complex of approximately 50,000
square feet on vacant 5.5 acre site in a C_G zone by Norco to include cross-access to
the west, excuse me, to the east and to the west, request that the Meridian Fire
Department clarify their notes.
Borup: Get more detail on their –
Barbeiro: And to include staff comments.
Borup: On the sign?
Barbeiro: (inaudible) staff comments, that we’re not going to bring the sign back unless
they propose a condition –
Borup: Okay.
Barbeiro: Outside of the boundaries that (inaudible). Cross-access on the east end and
the west end.
Brown: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 44
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
ITEM 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL FIBER
ARTS SUPPLY STORE BY JENNIFER OAK—55 E. STATE AVENUE,
OLD TOWN:
Corrie: I think we can get – yeah. And then we’ll take a break right after I have No. 9
which I think 8 and 9 will be quick anyway. Item No. 7, public hearing: conditional use
permit for retail Fiber Arts supply store by Jennifer Oak.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I just need to go and take some Ibuprofen. Please.
Borup: Okay. 30-second break. Everyone hold their seats. Staff can get set up for the
next Item. Okay. Ms. Stiles, who is presenting this? Brad is? Go ahead.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this application is for a proposed retail Fiber
Arts supply store in Old Towne with a combined residential use. The Old Towne, as you
know, is designed for the, in the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance, it is designed
as a mixed-use area by intent. In terms of the intent for having retail next to residential,
it meets, for the most part, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Code. The
primary issue which you can’t see by this design, but you should have presented to you
in your packets, I would just point out that if you follow along the back – the primary
issue on this according to staff comments that’s brought up is the issue of parking. The
combination of the square footage of the retail and the square footage of the residence
requires five off-street parking stalls. Staff would recommend that one option to
consider would be off-alley parking in order to possibly accommodate that. I believe the
ratio was three stalls for the retail and two stalls for the residential which makes the five
off-street parking, and then going back, there are the main uses around – Nazarene
Church is located here on the south side of Pine. There are issues of parking related
on the weekends related to the use of that facility. The off-street parking is an issue for
downtown. Old Towne, but because of the already congested nature of this area, we
feel that the five off-street parking is important. I think with the long driveway it’s
possible to get a couple of cars there. Then off-street in the alley a couple there. They
could meet the requirements. I think that’s all we have.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission?
Freckleton: And note for the signage as well, sir.
Borup: (inaudible) Number 3 that no signage has been –
Freckleton: Requested, you mean?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 45
Borup: Is that what you were referring to?
Freckleton: Correct, to the Item –
Borup: Item No. 3?
Freckleton: Three on the staff comments? Yeah.
Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Would you like to come forward and
address the Commission?
Oak: Good evening. My name’s Jennifer Oak of 55 East State Avenue. As they
explained, I’m in here to request a conditional use permit to operate a retail store out of
my home. It’s a low-volume store and it’ll be operated a limited number of business
hours, 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday; 10:00 to 6:00 p.m. on
Friday and Saturday, so a total of 25 hours a week. I estimate one customer per hour,
so a total of 25 customers per week as well. There is one clarification I’d like to make.
There is a sign in my proposed site plan that you couldn’t see because it was too light.
There’s a sign location, but I did not provide any sizes, and I did bring size details with
me tonight, so I’d like that to be considered with my application as well. I have that on
overhead, but I do not have a hard copy. I’d feel free to give you guys my over head.
The sign, proposed size, is 3 feet 4 inches by 3 feet 2 inches. Can I set this up?
Borup: Maybe we could make a quick copy. Okay. Go ahead. We’ll try to get a quick
copy. She says it’s 3 feet 4 inches by –
Oak: Three feet two inches.
Borup: So essentially 3x3?
Hatcher: Less than 10 square feet.
Borup: Okay. Did you have any other comments of any of the staff – staff comments or
recommendations?
Oak: I looked at parking a lot because I know that was a concern of both my – some of
my neighbors as well as Planning and Zoning, and I didn’t see on-street parking to be
as big of an issue as everybody else did, and I did a study, it’s by no means an
extensive engineering study, but I did a study this past Friday of the number of spaces
available and the number that were taken at any time during the day, and I took some
digital pictures as well, so I have those if you’d like to see them. What I found is there’s
approximately 39 on-street parking spaces on that street, and the way I came up with
that number is there’s six houses with driveways and nine houses without driveways. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 46
figured for houses with driveways, you could fit two cars in front of the house and for
driveways you could fit three cars in front of the house, so that equals a total of 39
available on-street parking spaces. I also went out two hours each day at 10:00 a.m.,
12:00 p.m., 2:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. and counted the number of cars parked
on the street. The average number of cars parked at any one time was 11.4 cars. So
obviously, there’s 27 available spaces, on average, this was last Friday, by no means is
this representative of every day, but this is one day to point, so 71 percent of parking is
available on the street. Now, with my low volume, I’m obviously not going to take up 27
spaces. I think three spaces off-street for my retail is more than adequate. I don’t think
I’m ever going to use three off-street spaces at the same time. If there is any chance of
lowering that, I’d like that to be considered as well.
Borup: Do you know what the width of your property is?
Oak: It’s 60 x 120 deep.
Borup: So your driveway is probably close to 100 feet?
Oak: Deep? Yeah.
Borup: 90 to 100 feet?
Oak: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Any question from the Commission? None? Do you want to take a look
at the sign design? Sure? Now that they’re making copies?
Oak: And the sign drawing just shows approximate size – it’s by no means artwork of
any kind.
Borup: Did you have anything else for the record that you’d like to submit?
Oak: No, I don’t.
Borup: Okay –
Oak: I’d like to submit my digital pictures of the parking on-street and my calculations
for that, too, if you’re –
Borup: Okay. From your alley access, is that lawn in that area?
Oak: It is currently grass, yes. So there’s two views on the drawing that Shari’s
passing out. The one on top is the top view, and the one underneath it is a front view.
I’m not a photography by any means.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 47
Borup: Did everybody get one of these?
(inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Borup: Shari, did that – do you have any other comments, questions on the sign? That
handle any concerns? Okay.
Oak: There is actually one more comment I’d like to make about the parking. The 11.4
average number of cars parked on this street that I mentioned, out of those 11.4 at all
times during the day, two of those were people that are helping us remodel our house,
and two of those are employees of Texaco. That – obviously the two people that are
helping us remodel our house aren’t going to be there on a regular basis, so that would
decrease the number of cars to 9.4.
Borup: You’ve got easy two cars on the front of your property that can park on the
street.
Oak: Yep. Two long-bed trucks, three short-bed trucks.
Borup: And 80 to 90 foot driveway.
Oak: Yes.
Borup: And if there was a problem, are there any trees – your site plan doesn’t show
any trees or anything in the back off the alley that would –
Oak: There is one tree, and we believe that if we had to put off-street parking off the
alley that we could get in three spaces without having to cut down the tree.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Thank you. Do we have anyone
here that would like to testify on this occasion? Yes, sir. Come on up.
Bever: My name is Tim Bever, my address is 6754 Cochrane Drive. We own the
building immediately to the west on East First that backs up – excuse me, on the east
that is on East First and the subject house is right behind our building. The parking
situation in that part of town is chronic. I’ve watched it five years. We have many, many
problems, much like she illustrated. Texaco people park along our side of the road
because they don’t want them in their parking lot. They provide parking for everybody
but their employees. The driveway between the two properties is on the property line,
so if it’s used for parking, that will – there is no buffer other than the space between the
property line and our building. We’re not opposed to development in Old Towne, but
parking has to be addressed. It’s becoming a negative effect on the downtown. We
experience it with our tenants. There is no parking enforcement in Meridian other than
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 48
a few signs, but there is no enforcement. This is just an area that I think if this
development’s going to continue, it’s a 65-foot lot with 10-foot driveway. It’s a 55-foot
lot. That’s just our concern. We’re not opposed to the development. We think there’s
ample room in the backyard with removal of the tree and the old garage to put probably
five parking spots there which does not address the Americans with Disability Act
parking requirements on new developments, and this is our only problem we have with
the development is the parking. You’ve got to start providing with a little bit of parking
because there is a building immediately across the street that has no parking but off-
street parking or on-street parking. This is – so we’re kind of in agreement with staff.
It’s just parking. I don’t know if you’ve been downtown on Wednesdays when they have
Bible Study and 600 people show up and it becomes – it’s great (inaudible) downtown.
Don’t get me wrong, but if there’s no place to park, people don’t want to come
downtown. That’s basically all I have to say.
Borup: Okay. Any questions for – you say you own the building – you referred to it as a
building. What does the use to that? Is that a residence?
Bever: It’s an office building. It’s on East First. It’s got little blue awnings on it.
Borup: Okay. Right.
Bever: It used to be the Ambrose Plaza and we remodeled it. The driveway behind it is
a property line driveway. As used as a residence, it was not a big issue, but if it’s going
to be six cars deep, that kind of thing, it’s not paved. These are just – it’s parking.
Welcome to downtown Meridian. That’s our only objection.
Borup: And you’re concerned it will disturb the people in your building?
Bever: We’re already have a problem with parking in downtown Meridian. We have –
Borup: No. That wasn’t my question. You’re concerned that them parking in the
driveway will disturb your tenants?
Bever: Not disturb it. It’s just what degree of parking, because you’ve got 100-foot strip
there, you’re going to put six cars in there? Seven cars in there? It’s quite – I think
there’s about six foot buffer behind our building to the edge of the parking lot, and –
Borup: And do you know what the hours of most of your tenants?
Bever: They’re eight to five, the attorneys are in there on the weekends, Saturdays, it’s
– I don’t monitor them. (inaudible)
Borup: Okay. (inaudible) Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 49
Bever: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Come on up.
Bowen: Yes. My name is Larry Bowen and I live at 49 East State Avenue. I’m directly
west of the subject property. Couple things have been brought up as far as parking. It
really is a problem. I’ve been there for 13 years. I have a conditional use permit
myself. When I came to the Commissioners for conditional use permit, what was sort of
seemed to me was the fact that my customers couldn’t impose their parking on the
neighbors. She brought up there’s 39 parking spots, but the problem is that then the
customers will be parking in front of the neighbors. Her hours are Friday night. About
two doors down and across the street, Alan has Bible Study Friday night, and the street
is just full. They park in front of my place, they just cover the whole street Friday night.
Borup: Friday night at what time?
Bowen: Anytime 6:00 on.
Borup: What if her hours were closing at 6:00?
Bowen: Pardon?
Borup: Her hours ended at 6:00.
Bowen: I thought it was 6:00 to 8:00.
Borup: 10:00 to 6:00.
Bowen: 10:00 to 6:00 on Friday? Okay. I’ve had vehicles from that night spend the
night there and they’re in front of my place. They didn’t mention that there is the trophy
business across the street that does not have off-street parking so the people park on
the street. The lady across, next to the trophy place does not have a garage or
driveway, and I’ve – like I said, I’ve lived there 13 years, and what has happened is the
parking for Ambrosia Plaza because they developed that street, they’ve eliminated a lot
of parking for the clients on First Street. So they fall over onto State Avenue. They’re
from – like there’s two spots on the corner by the stop sign, they usually take up those.
Circle K or Texaco now, their employees park in front of their place, and my place and
across the street. There’s a two-hour parking sign there, but it’s totally ignored. It’s not
enforceable. People park there all day without being concerned about being towed
away or anything. The problem that I see the impact is that if you don’t address the
parking situation, basically it’s just going to go down the street. That means that people
are going to park in front of my business which means that my people are going to now
park in front of the neighbors which I try to not to have them do. We’re even getting
fallout form the Cottage Expressions which is on the other side of Texaco. I’ve seen
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 50
people park in front of the trophy place, walk pass the Texaco and go to lunch over
there. That’s usually on Saturdays. So it’s a big problem there, and it’s just building up.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bowen? Thank you. Anyone else wish to come forward?
Okay. Commissioners, is there anyone else you’d like to ask any questions to from staff
or the applicant? Then we ought to proceed.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearing. We don’t have a second
yet?
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Discussion?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, is this a recommendation to City Council or a Findings of
Fact –
Stiles: This is Findings.
Borup: Right. This is Old Towne, so there’d be the one public hearing.
Barbeiro: Has there been any precedents set in the recent past in regards to Old
Towne? Have we – I know there’s a lot of residential houses down there that have
been converted over into business and whatnot, and I guess – are we, have we
typically been requiring the off-street parking, you know, pretty much cut and dry – has
there been some fluctuation given each condition? I mean, prior –
Borup: Staff may wish to comment. I think that most – the closest one is probably the
bridal shop to this area.
De Weerd: Wasn’t there someone further down State? Wasn’t it State that just came
before the Commission?
Borup: Oh. Yeah. The office building? Yes. That – they did have parking off the alley
for the office building.
Barbeiro: Doesn’t Epi’s have off-street parking behind the building and Cottage
Expressions and Red Door? What about Red Door or whatever that place is called?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 51
Borup: And if any special thing had been given, it was probably looked at the nature of
the business and, at least in my mind, how much traffic is that particular business going
to generate. At least I know that was one of the considerations for the bridal shop was
a fairly low traffic business. (inaudible)
De Weerd: But didn’t they have to do something in the alley? They had to do some
parking in the alley.
Borup: Did they ever do it?
Stiles: They just recently have paved parking spaces in, they haven’t striped them yet, I
don’t think they have put in their handicapped parking space and ramp yet. But they
are still required to do that as part of their conditional use permit or it will be revoked.
Borup: But they did not have a driveway from the front, did they?
Stiles: No.
Borup: They had no driveway at all. It was no curb cut or anything onto the street, so
that was the only off-street parking that they could – available would have been from
the alley.
De Weerd: So you’re suggesting that they can park in the driveway.
Borup: Well, I think that’s already been stated. I mean, it – as far as customers, you
probably talking only one. You know, the residents can certainly fill up – I think Shari
was saying two residents, three business? I mean Brad was? So you certainly get the
two residents on the driveway. You’re not going to want to stack business use.
Barbeiro: Even if you had one or two clients –
Borup: With off-street and on-street parking, you know, they’d have two on the street
and one off-street. I – you know, one option – well, I don’t know. Maybe it’s not an
option. Is if the traffic from the business is more than what their own property can
accommodate, that may be the time to add additional parking. Can that type of
stipulation be –
Stiles: Who is going to do that?
Borup: It’d be on the conditional use process which as the standard statement is can
be revoked at any time. Isn’t that the verbiage?
Stiles: Are we going to stand out there and watch?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 52
Borup: Oh. Well, no.
De Weerd: Yeah. You can.
Stiles: It would be extremely difficult to enforce that. The existing driveway they have is
not paved, so to meet our requirements, they would need to pave. We did have a
suggestion that maybe they could have their two residential spaces in their driveway
once they pave it, and then they are going to have to provide handicapped accessible
entrance to their home, so maybe the third space back they could make a handicapped
space with a ramp to get into the building and then provide two off the alley. I mean,
that was a suggestion that we had. Like Paisano’s, they did come through with a
conditional use permit. They didn’t have adequate off-street parking to meet their
requirements, so they got a variance. They requested and received a variance.
Borup: Which – okay. Does that answer some of that?
De Weerd: Shari, in suggesting that, what was – was the applicant responsive – I
mean, was that an option for them?
Stiles: I believe Steve talked to her, to the applicant, but I don’t know what her
response was. I mean, that was just our suggestion as trying to work out some kind of
compromise that might work.
Hatcher: Would the applicant like to respond to that?
Borup: Well, we need to re-open – didn’t we just close the public hearing?
Hatcher: We did.
De Weerd: I move that we re-open the public hearing.
Borup: Well, we may – I guess my concern is the same as it has been on the others of
this type is we need to be concerned about what we approve in the City, but I think we
also need to be cognizant of a small business with limited hours of operation and not a
lot different than a home business. If we put so many restrictions that they can’t –
De Weerd: Well, that’s why I would like to hear from the applicant on –
Borup: Okay. Let’s re-open the public hearing. If the applicant would like to come up
and respond to –
De Weerd: Hey. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we re-open the public hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 53
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Thank you. We have a motion and seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Did you understand the question?
Oak: Once again, Jennifer Oak, 55 East State Avenue. I’m not opposed to complying
with the recommendation from Planning and Zoning; however, I don’t think it’s
necessary. I don’t think five spaces for my business is going to be needed or used at
any time during my hours of operation. I’m willing to pave my driveway and use that for
my two residential and my ADA parking and then use the two in front of my house
which would also provide five total spaces. I think that’s more than adequate. If I have
to pave the back, I have to pave the back. I just don’t see that it’s necessary at this
time. I’d also be willing to re-evaluate that at some further time, verify if my customer –
if I’m so wildly successful that I have to put spaces in, you know, then I want places for
my customers to be able to park as well, and I wouldn’t be opposed to that.
Borup: Additional questions? Did that answer your question, Tammy?
De Weerd: So there is no parking in the back at this point?
Oak: There is not.
De Weerd: For your residence?
Oak: No. Just the driveway is all there is.
De Weerd: Shari, how can that be built into a conditional use permit that if this business
does become more than one customer an hour, can that be re-assessed? How can
that even be measured?
Stiles: I’m not going to. It would just – that would just have to be on a complaint basis,
you know, which one of the neighbors every time there’s two cars out there, they’re
going to be calling us. And what do we do? Go out there and camp and say, “Oh. Yep.
There’s two people in there at one time.” It would be impossible. I mean, unless you’re
going to make a condition – I guess you could make a condition. She can only have
one customer at a time and she can only be open during those specific hours, and if
she’s open at any other time, we could revoke the conditional use permit. But, I mean,
we don’t wish that on her that – hopefully she will be successful.
De Weerd: We might as well be consistent with our businesses in these homes
because they will start having more and more.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 54
Borup: Which is the other question. She’s surrounded on all sides by businesses. Do
we any of them have the same requirements?
Stiles: If they are working under a conditional use permit, they had the same off-street
parking requirement.
Oak: I don’t believe that that’s the case. I don’t think that any of the people – I know
the bridal shop just added their off-street parking, they have two spaces, and their
house is two-story. It’s huge. My house is 900 square feet and they want five spaces
for my house and they want two for 1600 or 1800 square foot house for the bridal shop.
I don’t know –
Borup: How much (inaudible) are you allocating to your business?
Oak: 500 square feet.
Borup: 500 for the business.
Oak: Yes.
Borup: Does the trophy shop have off-street parking?
Oak: They have two spaces. I believe they use them for their employees, not for their
customers.
Borup: And your neighbor to the west?
Oak: I don’t believe he has any off-street parking, but I don’t know. He’s the one that
testified, so you could ask him.
Bever: We signed an agreement, an easement agreement with the City –
Borup: You need to come up. The question is do you have any off-street parking.
Oak: He’s to my east, too.
Borup: Yes, sir.
Bever: We have lateral parking in front on the – six spaces off of East First where you
go in –
Borup: Oh. On the property to the west.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 55
Bever: Yeah. The issue is about money here --
Borup: The question was on your property to the west, do you have any off-street
parking?
Bever: I’m east.
Barbeiro: He owns the (inaudible)
Bever: To the north of my lot, on the right side (inaudible) –
Borup: Well, that wasn’t my original question.
Bever: I didn’t understand your question. You said (inaudible).
Borup: I’m sorry. We’ve got the wrong individual. Pardon.
Bever: May I speak again later?
Borup: Go ahead now while you’re here.
Bever: The thing – they can – they have ample room. We’re not trying to kill the
project. They got a big tree and an old garage in the back yard. There could be five
spots in there, and there would be no problem – the garage, I don’t know.
Borup: The problem –
Bever: The problem I got is that it’s going to impact my business.
Borup: The reason it impacts your business is because you don’t have adequate
parking.
Bever: Well, that building’s been there for 42 years.
Borup: Well, this house has been there longer than that.
Bever: It’s been a business for 42 years. I’m sorry.
Barbeiro: And how many spaces do you have?
Bever: Well, there are six in the front –
Borup: And how many square feet is your building?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 56
Bever: 4500 square feet.
Borup: Okay.
Bever: It’s – there’s room for parking behind that building and access from the alley. I
have no agenda here not to put them in business or anything –
Borup: You want your customers to park in front of her house.
Bever: No, the people from Texaco park in front of her house. Their employees. The
people from Paisano’s park in front of my building, and my people park down past
Nazarene Church, and that’s kind of the problem right there. It’s – Circle K guys get
there 5:00 in the morning. They stake out their parking spots, and those are never
available. Never. And those are not our tenants. We have asked the church which is
next to the bridal shop. There’s a large parking lot that the church owns that has given
permission – that’s, I think, that was an issue that the bridal shop deal that that was part
of the reason that they only got two spots is because the church says you can use that
lot. Some of our clients park in that lot, also, we asked for permission, the church has
been really great about it.
Borup: You’ve got different hours of operation.
Bever: We’ve tried to buy it from them because they’re selling, but they’re not selling.
It’s – that’s what I have to say.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Mr. Bowen. Am I remembering the
right name there? Did you have any off-street parking?
Bowen: No, I don’t.
Borup: Okay. Thanks.
Bowen: I’m not required to.
Borup: Did you say you’re operating a business?
Bowen: My conditional use permit says that I have adequate parking in front of my
business as long as I don’t impose the neighbors’ parking; in other words, I don’t have
my customers park in front of the neighbors’ house. To this point, I don’t think that has
happened. My business is a photography business, and I am by appointment only, and
I have like one car come at a time, and I have two spots in front of my house, and I
have a 60-foot driveway. The question that comes to me is with my driveway, is if I
have a customer park in my driveway and I come home or somebody comes home, if
the customer is there, where do I park? I have to park on the street. So if she has
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 57
customers in her driveway and they come home, where do they park? They park on
the street. They have to park in front of someplace until their customer leaves, then
they can pull their car in the driveway. If they want to leave, then their customer is
there, they can’t get out. There’s no – driveway’s only one way. So that’s a question I
have is, say, for instance, they have a customer and somebody comes to their house,
they’re going to park in the street, and that’s going to create a problem there. With
Texaco across the street on Saturdays is people park there, their truck and trailer rigs
and run across the street and get coffee. I know that’s only for a small period of time,
but if you have a customer come in at that time – I have pictures of people who park in
front of my place who were at Circle K and my customers had to park next door while
they came to me. It’s just backs up.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners have any other questions for anyone they’d
like to pose before we close the public hearing?
De Weerd: When they pave the driveway, is it going to be wide enough that they can
put two cars side by side?
Borup: Not the existing driveway.
De Weerd: So how can they have the ADA handicapped drive – parking spot up there?
Stiles: It’d have to be (inaudible).
: (inaudible)
De Weerd: Behind what?
: (inaudible) residential parking, cars would be here and (inaudible).
De Weerd: (inaudible)
Barbeiro: I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second that.
Borup: We have a motion to close the public hearing. All in favor? Any other
discussion? It sounds like it may be appropriate for a little bit prior to a motion.
De Weerd: Nay.
Borup: No other comment?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 58
De Weerd: I would like to know on this driveway if you could make that a through so
that they could go out their alley.
Borup: They’d have to remove the building.
De Weerd: Well, why couldn’t they just put a door on the other side of it? Oh.
Borup: I don’t believe it’s a garage.
De Weerd: I guess that’s not an option. I was just trying to be creative. I think I’ll just –
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Hatcher, Barbeiro, Brown, any comments?
Discussion? Anybody ready for a motion? I’m ready.
Brown: I recommend approval of CUP 99-035 for a conditional use permit for a retail
and residential use for The Fiber House at 55 East State Street by Jennifer Oaks.
De Weerd: And to instruct the City Attorney to do Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law and adopt the staff’s requirements including the requirement for the five off-street
parking spaces and that the applicant work with the staff to come up with those spaces.
Unidentifiable: That’s State Avenue, not State Street.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. It does say State Avenue.
Brown: State Avenue.
Borup: Approval of signage as presented? You modify this – staff comment had the
(inaudible) proposed.
Brown: I would accept that amendment that they approve the signage in condition
three per their application that they’ve submitted tonight.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: Second. Discussion? No discussion. Commissioner Hatcher, are you ready to
say something?
Hatcher: Well, yeah. I do have to say something. I’m not – I’m all for approving the
project, but I’m tentative in approving the motion that was just given. I think that off-
street parking is vital to help alleviate the downtown problem that’s going to just
consistently exist. But on the other hand, due to the current proposed use of this other
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 59
retail facility, I think that five off-street parking stalls is rather excessive use. It just – I
think there should be a happy medium somewhere between there. They provide the
off-street parking, but I don’t think that five’s necessary.
Borup: I think the number five came per code.
Hatcher: (inaudible) –
Borup: I guess the concern I’d have, it’s not consistent with the surrounding properties.
Hatcher: Yeah. We’re going to enforce –
Borup: They’ve got full-time businesses that don’t have –
Hatcher: Any of the neighbors, none of the neighbors do –
Borup: Eight hour a day businesses. Shari, did you state that you feel as far as staff
recommendation this is what it needed to be. The other option is to ask for a variance.
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: And at this point, it’s not something you feel there’s an option to approve as-is,
the proper procedure would be to ask for a variance and then take a look at it at that
time?
Stiles: I believe so, yes.
Borup: Does the applicant understand that? Does that help any? I don’t know. What
would the variance – would the variance come back to us? To City Council?
Stiles: Yes. All right. That’s true. Ordinance – it would go under the City Council.
Barbeiro: So we can go ahead then and approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law then she would go to City Council after that?
Borup: No. Just if she asked for variance. The other choice is to approve it with
however we want to change it. With two off-street parking or, you know, one plus her
personal residence parking.
De Weerd: But we’re approving per our own city ordinance. That’s – I agree. I don’t –
Borup: But the city ordinance is –
De Weerd: -- think that she needs five at this point, but it’s our –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 60
Borup: Did the Trophy House ask for a variance?
Stiles: I wasn’t here when they came in. I don’t know.
Borup: Yes, you were.
Stiles: No. I wasn’t.
Borup: That’s the same one that used to be over on Franklin. They’ve only been there
–
Stiles: No. It was already approved under a conditional use –
Borup: For a business.
Stiles: -- for a book store.
Borup: As a book store.
Stiles: Yeah.
Borup: And that was close enough to the same usage.
Stiles: Yes. So they applied for a transfer which didn’t involve any public hearings.
This application will go to the City Council, but it will just go with your findings and
recommendation. They will take the final action on it when the – on the application.
Borup: But they’re not likely to (inaudible) no public testimony. They’re not likely to
change the Findings.
Stiles: Not likely.
De Weerd: Well, they normally don’t even ask for comment.
Borup: So if the recommendation and motion is as per ordinance, City Council is not
going to change anything. If the motion was not in compliance with city ordinance, then
the City Council would have the option right at that time to make a change without –
yeah, they’d be discussing it without it going to a variance application. Which – well, we
don’t have a second. Oh, yeah. We did get a second. We’re in discussion.
Hatcher: Well, I personally feel that we should modify the motion to reduce it from five
parking spaces to three.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 61
Borup: Okay. Do –
Hatcher: (inaudible)
Rutherford: Point of information. I think the appropriate procedure would be for you to
vote on that motion, and then if there are other – if it’s defeated and there are other
motions, the Commissioners want to make that, that would be the time to change that.
Barbeiro: Commissioner Brown also has the option of amending his motion.
Borup: So you’re saying you want to let your motion stand, Commissioner?
Hatcher: I wish to withdraw my second of Commissioner Brown’s motion.
De Weerd: I believe I was the one that seconded it.
Hatcher: Oh.
De Weerd: You can withdraw yours, though.
Borup: I take it your not withdrawing your second?
De Weerd: I –
Borup: Okay. Let’s vote on the motion. All in favor? Opposed? We have a tie vote.
I’ll vote nay. Someone have an alternate motion?
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to City Council,
conditional use permit of the retail Fiber Arts Supply Store by Jennifer Oak to include
staff comments as written with one modification changing the required off-street parking
from five spaces to three.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE TO ONE.
ITEM 8. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES
FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G (WALGREEN’S) BY HAWKINS SMITH
MANAGEMENT, INC.—NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST
GROVE ROAD:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 62
Borup: Thank you, Commissioners. Do we have anyone here from the public that is
here to testify on Item No. 8 and 9, the Walgreen’s Store? Show of hands if there are.
And is the applicant here? Okay. Let’s – I’d like to open the public hearing:
Annexation and zoning of the 4.34 acres from C-2 to R-8 and R-8 to
C-G, Hawkins-Smith Management. I’d be open for a motion to continue this hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this until our November 9th
meeting.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 9. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THRU
WINDOW (WALGREEN’S) BY HAWKINS-SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC.—
NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: Item No. 8 – Item No. 9, public hearing: Conditional use permit to construct
single-tenant commercial building with a drive-thru window by Hawkins-Smith
Management. The same situation.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for conditional use
permit until November 9th
.
Brown: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded to continue until November 9th
. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. This probably is an appropriate time for a short break. The break
starts now.
(At which time the meeting was in recess at 10:30 p.m.)
Borup: I’d like to reconvene the Planning and Zoning meeting. Is that what this is?
Brown: Can we poll the audience to find out which projects they’re here for?
ITEM 10. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR OVERLAND
MINI-STORAGE OF 7.25 ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
WITH ACREAGE TO COMMERCIAL LOTS AND MINI-STORAGE
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 63
FACILITY BY OVERLAND MINI-STORAGE, LLC—1230 OVERLAND
ROAD:
Borup: Well, we’ve only got two left. Have we got anybody here for the mini-storage?
Okay. I think that answers that question. Okay. That is the next item on the agenda.
Item 10, annexation and zoning for Overland Mini-Storage of 7.25 acres. Staff, I take it
is Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is for the property on Overland Road just
west of Locust Grove Road. This was the very popular 300-unit apartment complex
that was denied here. We have Nine Mile Creek running along here. We also have a
sewer easement running along there. Sportsman Pointe right over here. We have the
Treasure Valley Baptist Church here, recently a contractor’s yard and additional area for
the church was approved at this location.
De Weerd: What’s that K.D. Roofing?
Stiles: Yes. We have submitted our comments. They have responded to our
comments. They seem pretty much in agreement with everything. We still do need to
have easements shown because we need to know where that Nine Mile Creek
easement falls on the land and also where our sewer easement falls. We have let the
applicant’s representative know they have prepared a landscape plan that shows
extensive buffering of the storage area, and we’ve just made it clear that that same
landscaping will need to be provided outside of any existing easements. Also they will
need to comply with our 35-foot planning strip, the 25-foot driveways between the
buildings, and I believe that they can accommodate those comments with not significant
changes to the application. They also have presented a proposal for a sign that they
have relocated that would be on the new lot that would be for the storage area, and
they’ve proposed a 12-by-5 foot sign approximately this location where the caretaker’s
house would be. That’s all I have.
Borup: Any questions for Shari? Mr. Unger, it’s all yours.
Unger: Good evening. Commission members, my name’s Bob Unger. I’m with
Pinnacle Engineers, and we represent the applicant on this project. Our address is 870
North Linder Road, Suite D, Meridian, Idaho. As Shari stated, we have reviewed the
comments, we have responded back, and just prior to the hearing, we went over those
comments and the reviews. We really had no problems with the staff’s conditions. We
have modified our plan from that one to this one right here, and the only real change
that you’re going to see is the relocation of the caretaker’s residence here. This unit
right here. And the parking and then we’ve provided a gated area here, and, of course,
this would all be fenced all the way around. That’s really the only modification that we
have made from what you see right there. We certainly don’t have any problems with
the conditions of approval that staff has prepared, and we will provide the additional
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 64
revisions that they’ve asked for showing the easements on the project. I would also like
this testimony be included on the next two items also so we don’t have to get back up
and do this again. I will stand for any questions that you might have.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Unger? None? Thank you. Even though I asked earlier if
anyone’s – this is a public hearing. Do we have anyone here in the audience testifying
on this application? Thank you. Commissioners –
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Brown: I move for the approval of the annexation and rezone for Overland Mini-Storage
of 7.25 acres from single-family to – with acreage to commercial lots and a mini-storage
facility by Overland Mini-Storage, LLC at 1230 Overland Road subject to staff’s
recommendations – do we have to do Findings of Facts?
Borup: No.
Brown: -- subject to staff’s recommendations.
Borup: We have a motion.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion?
De Weerd: Just a question for staff. Do you want a development agreement on this or
you just going to take care of it under the CUP? Any conditions? And annexation and
zoning, don’t we normally have a development agreement?
Stiles: We would request a development agreement.
De Weerd: Okay. I didn’t see it in your staff comments.
Stiles: We would verbally request a development agreement.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Brown: I would amend my motion to require a development agreement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 65
Hatcher: I concur with that. Second.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion and a second. No additional discussion. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR OVERLAND
MINISTORAGE SUBDIVISION BY OVERLAND MINISTORAGE, LLC—
1230 E. OVERLAND ROAD:
Borup: Item No. 11, public hearing: Preliminary plat for Overland Ministorage
Subdivision. Ms. Stiles, any additional comment?
Stiles: No, sir.
Borup: Mr. Unger, any additional comment?
Unger: No, sir.
Borup: Commission.
Brown: I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Yes. I was going to close it, but I can’t do that. We have a motion and second
to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: We need another motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. I move that we recommend to the City Council the
preliminary plat for Overland Ministorage Subdivision by Overland Ministorage, LLC at
1230 East Overland Road with staff comments and we –
Borup: That should cover it.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Brown: Second.
Borup: The motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 66
ITEM 12. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMERCIAL
SUBDIVISION MINI-STORAGE ON LOT 2 OF PROPOSED OVERLAND
MINI-STORAGE SUBDIVISION BY OVERLAND MINI-STORAGE, LLC—
1230 OVERLAND ROAD:
Borup: Item No. 12, public hearing for a conditional use permit for the same project.
Same comments from staff?
Stiles: We’d like to incorporate our previous comments.
Borup: Mr. Unger.
Unger: Same.
Borup: Same comment for Mr. Unger, he’d like to incorporate his comments from his
previous into this. Commissioners.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to City Council, conditional use
permit for the commercial subdivision mini-storage on Lot 2 of proposed Overland Mini-
storage Subdivision by Overland Mini-Storage, LLC at 1230 Overland Road to include
both written and verbal staff comments.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Rutherford: Point of clarification. Kind of a question for staff and the commissioners.
Two items ago you approved annexation and zoning. What was the zoning that you
approved?
De Weerd: C-G.
Rutherford: Just more information than anything. I’m not sure as Shari may be able to
give us some insight on this, but, my understanding is the way City Council has been
doing it, the City Council won’t process the annexation and zoning, preliminary plat or
anything else until that development agreement is signed. I believe that’s the way that
they’ve been proceeding on this. I guess you can approve the CUP in this agenda item,
but, essentially, it’s going to sit until at least two meetings of the City Council if not three.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 67
Stiles: We would normally send all three applications simultaneously for public hearing
to the City Council, but they wouldn’t be able to act on the preliminary plat or conditional
use permit until that development agreement was in hand and the ordinance was
prepared.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Berg, do you have an additional comment? Okay.
Berg: (inaudible)
Borup: So that’ll be presented to the City Council at the same time. We had a motion.
Any other discussion?
Hatcher: I need to add to that motion that City Attorney compile Facts and Findings,
and what’s the other part of that? And Conclusions of Law.
Borup: Steve, are you – was that your recommendation that Findings be included on
the CUP?
Rutherford: Yes. If you’ve approved this conditional use permit in a C-G zone, that’s a
commercial zone and it does not require a second hearing as we’ve had earlier tonight.
De Weerd: It’s not C-G yet.
Berg: It’s not annexed yet.
Rutherford: That’s why it seems just a little bit odd to me, but –
Stiles: If they’re existing commercial or old town or industrial, then we don’t require that
second public hearing, but if it’s part of an annexation and zoning, we have been
requiring the second public hearing.
Rutherford: So we wouldn’t have Facts and Findings.
Borup: Right. No Facts and Findings? So the motion was as originally stated.
Rutherford: Originally stated.
Borup: Okay. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 13. PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF PARCEL “A”
FROM RT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND PARCEL “B” FROM
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 68
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO LIMITED OFFICE BY
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC—SOUTH OF E. FRANKLIN ROAD
AND EAST OF S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: We’re here for the entertainment item for the evening. Item No. 13, public
hearing: annexation and zoning of Parcel A from R-T to single-family residential and
Parcel B from single-family residential to limited office by Woodbridge Communities,
LLC. Staff, do we have, is it, Brad?
Freckleton: Good guess. Commissioners, I would like to request just to incorporate, I’ll
just run through the staff for both the annexation and the conditional use. As pointed
out in the staff report, which I would request be included in your recommendation date
October 8, but as we pointed out, there are actually two parcels associated with this
annexation. The smaller one-acre on the west side of Locust Grove, this is south
Locust Grove right here, recently approved Cobblestone Apartment Complex here on
the southwest corner. You have bounded on this one-acre piece, you have existing
rural-residential type, you have agricultural use on the south, and the Jabill Company is
building right here, some other residential here, Ada County residential subdivisions
bound the 80-acre piece on all three sides here. The staff has pointed out due request
that you deal with this. They requested an L-O zone for this one-acre piece, and, again,
the primary purpose being in the application is to make the 80-acre parcel contiguous to
the city limits. This is the proposed conceptual layout plan for the 80-acre parcel. They
did submit it in color. You should all have those in your packets. Apologies for the
quality here, but I think, as pointed out, again, here is Locust Grove Road and they
have one primary access here. You should also have received a fuller supplementary
packet from the applicant, and in that they did include somemore detail which deals with
the proposed roadway system internal to the project. That would probably be the
primary issue. There’s also a letter from Ada County Highway District, Larry Sale, who
was – which was submitted today. You should have had on your desk when you came
dated today to Chairman Keith Borup. The primary thing I would point out there is that
Ada County Highway District has not yet acted on the application, but they have not
recommended a full nature-collector roadway. They are recommending the residential
collector, and that would be this primary road here that comes through the project. One
of the primary differences, things that the staff has recommended in our report, of
course, relates, and again, I would point out this is all related to the conditional use
permit which is conceptual only. A lot of this tonight, in terms of the roadway system,
the design of the lots, would be covered in a preliminary plat which would have to be
submitted in order to actually move forward with this. I guess, just pointed that out in
terms of tonight’s discussion being related to the conceptual plan and specifically the
PUD aspect of it: requesting these, let’s see, one, two, three, four, I guess six general
areas that they could actually have four different types broken down in terms of housing
types and lot sizes which you also have in your packets. On the road issue, staff do
feel that this location down here, and the applicant can address it further, but the Magic
View Subdivision, which is right here on the east, Eagle Road is just off this map, runs
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 69
north and south here, this is currently being built Eagle Partners site here which does
have a roadway connect. There’s a light here which they’re going to bring that road and
come down and head south with it. I guess it’s off the map here, but – the con activity
for this subdivision, when you talk about 280 I believe homes coming across at a further
northerly point in their subdivision, we feel, would be a more direct access to cut across
here. They currently show it on the south which would hook up with Magic View which
is currently primarily five- to seven-acre parcels. Mainly for the audience, there’s some
elevations of the proposed housing types that they have submitted. The applicant did
respond in writing October 11 to our staff comments, and they can address those
further. The other major issue on the accessibility is here on this access point here
which is Weatherby Drive to the north which is being proposed as a pedestrian access
and there is currently a stub street coming down to the boundary, to the north boundary
of this proposed subdivision. It’s not constructed – it’s platted. I’m sorry. It’s a platted
stub. It’s not built. Both ACHD and staff at this point are recommending in order to get
that accessibility and activity through to make that a vehicular access. This Phase I is
basically divided at this point along Five Mile, and that is a point of discussion tonight,
took, in terms of the number of houses to be built in Phase I. Currently, this is showing,
I believe, about 150 in Phase I. I guess I’ll just leave it at that for the applicant.
Borup: Any questions for Brad from the Commission? Probably go on? Is the
applicant here this evening? Like to come forward?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Brown.
Brown: I should state that I am a resident of the Green Hill Subdivision, but I’m a half
mile away from the closest point on this development, and it should not be a conflict of
interest.
Borup: You were not notified, I take it?
Brown: No.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Brown: Would the applicant like to come forward?
Pete O’Niell: Chairman and Commissioners, my name’s Pete O’Niell. I’m President of
O’Niell Enterprises, the managing member of Woodbridge, LLC. Our address is 100
North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. I’d first like to introduce our team, some of which are
here. First, from O’Niell Enterprises, myself, my son Derek and Scott Beacham, our
land planner is Tony Gazardo of Anthony Gazardo and Associates in San Francisco.
He is not here. Our engineer is Toothman-Orton is represented by Barry Simple here
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 70
tonight. Our traffic engineer is Centennial Engineering, Kent Fugle has done the work
on that, and there’s full-blown traffic study that’s been submitted to ACHD. Scanlan
Engineering has done the water rights and irrigation work represented by Terry
Scanlan. Our legal advisor is Givens Pursley, Ed Millers works with us and his
associate Gary Alan is here tonight, and (inaudible) is final member of the team and
their architects and planners out of Seattle. I guess I’d like to start by commenting that
we’ve been working on one phase or another of the planning of this project for in
excess of a year. The Planning Department and Public Works Department have been
involved to one degree or another for most of that time. There’s been a tremendous
amount of meetings and data transpired over that time, and I’d like to thank the staff for
their patience in working through all of those issues with us recognizing that this is not a
normal project for the City of Meridian in their normal day-to-day activities. I would like
to point out, however, that the formal submittal format requirement and the base
application which is required for a conditional use permit and a PUD was submitted in
late August, and that really doesn’t adequately allow for the depiction and explanation
of a proposal such as we’re proposing, so, consequently, having reviewed the staff
report that we received on Friday afternoon, last Friday afternoon, it became clear to us
that in order for the Commission to properly consider this proposal, you really need is
more information, so we did hand-deliver to you yesterday a cover letter and some
information that either you got individually or in your packet. I want to add that there’s
nothing in this that hasn’t previously been discussed in some depth with staff. There’s
no new information here. It’s just put into a format that hopefully you can understand
because, frankly, the formal application process doesn’t allow for this other than as a
supplement. I’d also point out that the staff did acknowledge that we did respond in
writing to the staff report, again, having received it on Friday and delivered or response
today, and that dealt with some very specific issues, again, which you have in your
package which we’d be happy to react to but don’t want to take your time at this hour to
re-read. So I apologize in advance for any confusion that may have caused you or the
audience or anybody else. I’d like to take a few minutes to tell you who we area and
what we do. I started in this business 20 years ago. I was only 15 when I started. Our
first project was a 125-acre planned-unit development in southeast Boise for 700 units
which became known as River Run. On the completion of River Run, we’ve also
created the communities of Spring Meadow, the Springs, Meadow Creek and Surprise
Valley here in Boise or in Ada County area, and we’ve done Lane Ranch and Sun
Valley and Spring Mountain Ranch in McCall. We’ve got a little handout for you here
that Scott can give you that has some of the propaganda on these projects in it so you
get some sense, in case you’re not familiar with what they are, some sense of the
character of the projects and what they are. All of those projects are unique to
themselves because of the land configuration or the location or the market conditions at
the time. But they all have some very common elements that I will not reiterate at this
time, again, in difference to the hours that you’ve already put in and the other members
of the audience have put in, but they were covered in the letter and packet that you got;
there are certain things that we try to achieve in our communities that are common
throughout, and you’ll note in reviewing the application for Woodbridge that there’s a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 71
number of these common elements that you’ll see used again that have been
successfully used elsewhere, there’s a number of the design solutions that you’ll see in
Woodbridge that have been used before. So that’s kind of what we do as a developer.
We’ve always felt since we began the business that the home-buying consumer is our
customer; so consequently, we don’t view ourselves as a subdivider who sells lots to a
builder who sells homes to a home-buying consumer. We view the home-buying
consumer as our customer and design our projects accordingly, and consequently
found ourselves in the building business because we’re always thinking there’s some
product out there that consumers would like to have and maybe others aren’t supplying
it, so we said, by golly, we’ll do that. We’ve been a builder. Our home-building
operations is called OEI homes, and from the beginning, we built about half of the 645
units in River Run, so we’ve been doing this awhile. We also feel that the marketing
and sales representation of any community is vitally important, so we have our own
brokerage and on-site sales organization that goes under the name of OEI Properties.
And one of the bigger nemesis is that you don’t come into contact with too often is the
management of communities and the Homeowners Associations that are created within
those, and that becomes a real challenge to do that and to do that well, and we found it
necessary to be in that business as well, so we have a company called Residential
Community Management Group that actually manages Homeowners Associations, and,
frankly, we do our own. We’re not real excited about doing – making that a bigger
business than what it really is. Clearly, we’re an integrated residential real estate
developer, builder, sales and marketer, and association manager. I want to spend a
minute talking about planned-unit developments and the planned-unit development
process. All of those projects that I mentioned that we have done have all gone through
the planned-unit development process. That’s why I’ve aged 45 years in the 20 years
we’ve been in business. It is a more difficult process than the subdivision process. But
let me read you from your Comprehensive Plan what the City of Meridian says about
PUDs. PUD regulations are intended to encourage innovations in land development
techniques so that the growing demands of the community may be met with greater
flexibility and variety in type, design and layout of sites and buildings and by the
conservation and more efficient use of open space and other natural environmental
features which enhance the quality of life. That sounds a lot like our mission statement.
That is a good statement, we think. That’s all we’ve done for 20 years, and that’s the
only business we’re in. So, we feel really quite passionately about this whole PUD
process. The City of Meridian’s development and zoning ordinance also encourages
the uses of PUDs, although, they’re not common in the City of Meridian. They’re not
common in the Treasure Valley. Reference 8, specific key advantages of PUDs and we
meet most of those and the other ones aren’t really intended for what it is we’re doing.
So I would hasten to add, however, that the – if the PUDs are so neat, how come you
don’t see more of them? I’ve got my opinions on that. I think they’re much more
difficult for the developer; they’re clearly more difficult for the staff; they’re more difficult
for Planning and Zoning Commission; they’re more difficult for City Councils to deal
with. I think that’s for two reasons. One is here in the Treasure Valley, we’re not used
to dealing with them so for every PUD that comes – residential PUD that comes along,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 72
there’s probably, and I don’t know the statistics, there’s probably 1,000 Lot/Block
subdivisions. Lot/Block subdivisions by their very nature are a creature of ordinance.
They either meet the requirements of an ordinance or they don’t. It’s really quite an
object of decision that you have to make on the Lot/Block subdivisions. The PUD, on
the other hand, by its very nature is a judgmental issue. We’re asked to vary setbacks;
we’re asked to vary lot sizes; we’re asked to do things differently in turn for more open
space, more amenities and so forth, so by the very nature, they are subjective in
character, and consequently, lend themselves to more debate and more, argument and
in the end, it’s a judgmental decision. We think they clearly take more work, they take
more time, they take more planning, they’re more expensive for us to prepare, it takes
more of your time and your staff’s time; on the other hand, we think the end result is
worth that effort, and that’s why that’s our business. In any event, we’re delighted to
have found a piece of property in the – close to the City of Meridian that lends itself to
this process and our approach to this business. We are happy to be working with you
and the City of Meridian to bring Woodbridge to fruition, and we are confident that we'll
be able to proceed with Woodbridge and create a community which both the City of
Meridian and OEI can take pride. Let me pause for one second before turning it over to
Derek. I want to back up and, I think, go over kind of concisely what you’re being asked
to do tonight. There is a request for annexation and zoning of Parcel A which is one-
and-a-half acres on the little yellow thing on the – west side B – did I – I screwed it up
again. Okay. Parcel B, which is one-and-a-half acres on the west side of Locust Grove,
and, frankly, that’s a path for annexation. While the 80 acres is more or less
surrounded by the City of Meridian, there’s nothing contiguous. The acquisition of this
property and its annexation and zone will allow the 80 acres to be annexed to the City
of Meridian. That’s really our focus. The second that you’re asked to consider is the
annexation and zone of Parcel A which is slightly more than 80 acres as an R-4 zone.
Thirdly you’re being asked to approve or recommend the approval of the conditional
use request for a planned-unit development that’s composed of a maximum of 283
home sites on the 80 acres. I’d also add that, particularly having witnessed some of the
earlier discussion this evening, that because of the complexity of the CU process as it
relates to a planned-unit development, typically, they’re accompanied by, and staff
recognizes this, that they’re accompanied by a development agreement which
incorporates all of the obligations of the developer and all of the commitments of the
City that becomes part of the final approval. That is something only the City Council
can do, so I think there’s a lot of work ahead of us to work with the staff and the legal
representation to craft a development agreement that incorporates the needs and
desires of the City and ourselves. That typically does not happen in a forum like this.
Subject to a public review and public hearing, but it’s crafted as a separate document
that would be available later in the process. So I just point that out that there’s an
awful lot of details that need to be specifically worded. With that, I’ll turn it over to
Derek who’s been in this business six years, and he started the Surprise Valley
entitlement process five years ago when he was only 15, so he’ll – he’s aged a few
years in those five. You’ll take it from here. Again, I thank you for your consideration
(inaudible).
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 73
Derek O’Niell: Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Derek O’Niell, 100
North 9th
, Suite 300.
*** End of Tape 5 ***
go through quickly our concept plan and orient you with our site and what we’re
planning to do with the site. Scott will help me and we’ll try to get oriented. My
presentation is intended to hit the highlights of our proposal. There are substantial
detail and backup information provided. If you have any questions, we’re happy to get
into it, but I’m trying to hit the highlights of our proposal tonight. To begin with, I want to
start with location and existing conditions. They were reviewed briefly. I want to hit a
couple of things on the vicinity map. Location. Woodbridge and the site is one mile
from several key employers to the City of Meridian including Jabill, Micron, St. Luke’s,
Western States. There’s a large employment base very, very close to the Woodbridge
site, not to mention the fact that Blue Cross, R.C. Willey and whatnot are less than just
a couple miles away. We’re one-and-a-half miles from the core of Meridian, downtown
Meridian, and the access to the interstate is extremely close to Eagle Road right to the
interstate, and there are also several other major traffic circulation areas. Eagle Road
which you’re all familiar with, Franklin Road. We’re three-and-a-half miles, essentially,
from Boise Towne Square, and we’re seven-and-a-half miles from downtown Boise. In
terms of the site itself, we’ve got a photo of the site and want to talk about the existing
conditions. It was mentioned the site itself is 80 acres. It wasn’t mentioned, but the site
has been identified in the Comprehensive Plan for single-family residential use. The
site is through the small site that we talked about partially be – is contiguous to the City
of Meridian or will be contiguous to the City of Meridian. There’s sewer and power and
the utilities to the site. Water is 400 yards from the site where Jabill stubbed out a
street to Locust Grove. We’re surrounded to the north by Greenhill Estates, and you’ll
hear from several people tonight from Greenhill Estates and some vacant ground, and
then two large parcels. We’re surrounded to the south by Locust View Heights. There
are several owners from Locust View Heights that will talk tonight, and then we’re
surrounded to the east by Magic View which is currently, I believe, to the City with a
Comp Plan Amendment for a change in use for that whole entire area, and you guys
are familiar with that. Then we’re surrounded to the west by vacant property, and that is
intended to come into the City with a Comp Plan Amendment as well. That’s currently
in the Comp Plan for single-family residential, but it’s my understanding that’ll come into
the City for more of a light-industrial office use. That is why we’ve, at the City’s
recommendation, agreed to ask for the light-office use on this small parcel we have. In
terms of the site itself, the main feature through Woodbridge is Five Mile Creek. You’re
all familiar with Five Mile Creek. It essentially bisects the center of the property.
There’s some significant topography on this site. There’s a 20 foot drop from one side
of the property to the other, essentially. There are wetlands and there are some flood
plains on the property as mentioned in the staff report. We have worked diligently with
the Corp of Engineers and delineated the wetlands on the site. There’s less than an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 74
acre. They have been delineated by the Corp of Engineers. There are also irrigation
laterals, and you’ll hear several people talk about the irrigation and the importance of
the delivery of water tonight. There’s two serious irrigation laterals, the Barker and the
Cook irrigation lateral. Both of those laterals deliver water to us as well as other users.
Then Locust Grove, you’ll hear much about tonight as well, and Locust Grove Road is
currently planned to be widened to five lanes and the 96-foot wide right-of-way with an
overpass over the interstate over to Overland. Right now, that is not in the five-year
plan, but it’s anticipated in the next month it will be in the five-year plan. I know it’s a
high priority for the City of Meridian to push that forward. The City is working on getting
federal funds to make that happen sooner than later. The last we talked with certain
city officials that that was the project could happen in the next five years. And then,
lastly, if you take all that into consideration and the surrounding area, the characteristics
of this area are changing dramatically. I know there are several people here who wish
that it wasn’t, but the characteristics of this area are changing dramatically. Magic View
is changing, you’re seeing Jabill on the other areas, so the makeup of this area is
changing seriously. With the existing conditions, we took all that into effect and
essentially created a master plan, a concept plan for the project. Based on the existing
and we look at the future conditions as well as feedback from neighbors, staff,
agencies, water users, we had over 30 meetings in the 12-month period of time with
neighborhood associations, with other neighbors, with water users, with staff and all the
agencies, we created a plan that we thought – we weren’t going to satisfy everybody,
but we thought we took most of the issues and put them on paper. The first thing I want
to talk about was reviewed in the staff report is the circulation plan. Obviously, our
primary access to this project will come off of Locust Grove Road, and we intend to
have a spine road which would be a 37-foot wide section of road with a detached 10-
foot pathway on one side of the road and, essentially, create a linear park from one side
of Woodbridge to the middle of the project. Then as we cross a bridge – we’ll have to
cross Five Mile Creek – we’re intended to have a clear-span bridge so it won’t impact
the creek, we will turn into a looproad section. That looproad section will come out to
Green Hill Estates. Right now, you’re showing a pedestrian access. We’ve worked with
the Highway District. We’ve talked closely with the Green Hill Estates homeowners,
they’re going to talk to you tonight about their desire not to have that be an access. We
feel what can work there is an emergency vehicle access as well as a pedestrian
access to the site. Emergency vehicle access can be designed such that there are
ballards (sic) and that there is fire engine emergency vehicle access to get there in case
of health and safety issues, but it wouldn’t be a thoroughfare for traffic. We feel that
makes sense. In doing that, we also recognize that we have to provide a secondary
access to the site. That is important. We have showing a secondary access at the
southeast corner of the site. The reason we are showing that, it is the closest distance
to a current public right-of-way. There’s a circle that’s drawn there that is a platted,
public right-of-way that the Highway District currently has. It would create crossing two
properties, both of those properties are bisected by Five Mile Creek so the property that
we would cross is essentially unusable property for those owners at this time. There’s
been discussion from the Highway District and staff that we move the access to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 75
north to create a straighter connection to the Magic View folks. We’re not opposed to
discussing that with staff. We feel the most appropriate location for the secondary
access is where we have it based on those reasons I just gave you. Those owners in
that area along Magic View, it’s highly likely that that area is going to change, and we
feel that it’s in our best interest to locate an area where we feel that there is control of
the owners or the control of the property, and if at such time there’s a better use and a
better way to connect it, we’re open to looking at that. So that reviews the circulation
plan. There’s a lot more detail that I can talk to you about in terms of street sections
and the planting and the sidewalks and whatnot, but I’m not going to get into that at this
point. In terms of the development concepts, I’m going to read to you – you guys are
tired of reading, but I’m going to read to you our goal for the Woodbridge property. The
goal for the Woodbridge property is to create a community of lasting value which will
provide the residents of the City of Meridian with a choice of living environments within
a master planned residential community in close proximity to public service. The
community will provide a quality housing in a variety of price points among abundant
open space, natural waterway features that have been carefully preserved and
enhanced. It will promote and maintain wildlife habitat along critical (inaudible)
corridors, and it will include active and passive recreation opportunities for the residents
of the community and the City of Meridian as a whole. I’m going to review some of the
key elements of that plan. One of our key criteria in the communities that we do is
creating individual neighborhoods that vary in price points and size. There’s a matrix
that you’ve received that we’ll go through quickly. The different neighborhoods that
we’ve identified at the size and price points of the homes that we see being built. The
red area is Type A home sites. We’ve identified those to be 4,800 to 6,000 square foot
home sites. Home size typical on those would be 1,200 to 1,800 square feet with a
price point from $140- to 170,000 approximately. Type B home sites, which are the
yellow home sites, are intended to be 5,500 to 7,000 square foot home sites, 1,800 to
2,500 square foot homes priced from $170- to 200,000. Type C home sites, 7,500 to
8,500 square feet and the Type C ones are the purple, I guess that’s purple, to be 2,200
to 2,800 square feet homes estimated price to be $200- to 250,000, and then Type D,
the larger home sites, 8,000 to 12,000 square feet, 2,500 to 3,200 square feet, $250- to
300,000. Those are the different neighborhoods. We try to create the neighborhoods
so they are insular, they’re somewhere between 30 to 40 home sites per neighborhood,
and it actually does create the feeling and sense of a neighborhood, not just one big
subdivision. We’ve had tremendous success doing that in the last several years in the
communities we’ve had. Next element that’s important is open space. We have
identified over 16 acres, or 20 percent of the land to be open space. There’s several
different types of open space. Natural open space would, obviously, be along the Five
Mile Creek corridor. We’re working closely with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to
make sure we can enhance and maintain that area and not just go in with a bulldozer
and make sure it’s moving water. We want to work with them so that we can plant it
and enhance it and maintain it. As you’re probably aware, this area has been farmed
and there’s been cattle and whatnot all over the site, and that area’s in somewhat
disrepair. We intend to reclaim that, plant it and make it a habitat, a natural habitat
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 76
area. We’ve had success in doing that, and some of the propaganda that you had
before it shows some of the projects that we’ve done that with. We also have linear
parks and neighborhood common spaces. The linear parks are along the roads as well
as in between neighborhoods. We find that certain people don’t like just fully-fenced
backyards. They also like the opportunity of backing up to open space. Those open
spaces are anywhere from 50 to 75 feet wide, and they give people an option who don’t
want to live on a fully-fenced backyard as well as a buffer between the neighborhoods.
Then we also have pocket parks. The pocket parks are within the individual
neighborhoods to create areas for children to play, for relaxing, et cetera. We also have
a community center, and the community center is identified, essentially, in the center of
the community, believe it or not, and it is a swimming pool, gazebo, restrooms,
changing area, and then somewhere in the neighborhood of three-and-a-half to four
acres of play open space, active and passive. We talked a little bit about environmental
enhancement. We feel very strongly about that, and we are going to work very hard to
protect and enhance Five Mile Creek. That is something that the City encourages and
wants through their Comprehensive Plan. The next element, it is the number one
amenity in the communities that we do and appears to be the number one amenity in
communities throughout the United States, is pathways, both public and private. All of
our communities have very integrated pathway systems. They start with a pathway
system on Locust Grove which is detached from the road that allows people to get out
of the project either way. We’d like to work with other land owners to make sure those
pathways go somewhere other than just our community, so we’re trying to figure out
how we can get it connected down to Jabill where the soccer fields are, et cetera. But
that’s the first element of our pathway. That’s public pathway, then we have a pathway
system that meanders through the community along Woodbridge Drive down to the
community center, and that’s a detached pathway, 10-foot pathway, as well which
accommodates bikes, pedestrians, runners, et cetera. And then in between each
neighborhood, we have connections that allow people to get through the neighborhoods
onto the pathway down to the community center without having to go directly out onto
their neighborhood road or the main road. We also have a substantial pathway system
planned for Five Mile Creek which also is identified in your Comp Plan. Right now, we
are creating that pathway. It happens that a portion of that pathway can also be on the
current sewer easement, the sewer line that comes through the property and then up
over to the hospital. The pathway is – will also be along that area. We’ve – we are
committed to that pathway right now. There’s not a path on either side of us. We want
to work hard with the City so that maybe we can get a path that goes somewhere other
than just Woodbridge, it actually goes through other properties down to other areas as
part of the – a big goal for the City, but we are willing to work with and want to work with
the City on that. Other characteristics of the community is, and you’ll hear about this
tonight as well, is neighborhood buffer and fencing. We understand these neighbors
who have lived in these homes for a long time don’t want to see anything happen out
there. Through the comments we’ve had, they want to see a buffer and fencing. Right
now we’re intending to put fencing along the perimeter of the project where there are
neighbors. There are some areas where we wouldn’t intend to do fencing down along
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 77
where the water in Five Mile Creek enters the next area at this point we’re not intending
to do fencing, but, obviously, we intend to fence our backyards and buffer between the
neighbors. In terms of community’s design character, we showed some elevation of
and the character of the architecture and the homes that are going to be built. The
community design and character will start with the bridge. The bridge we’re designing
to emulate, it won’t be, but it will emulate an actual wood bridge. There’ll be a change
in the surface and it’ll emulate a wood bridge, and from that we’ll take the character of
the whole community throughout. We’ll do our street signs, we’ll do street lights, we’ll
do entry signage and whatnot all to emulate the wooden bridge feel and sense of the
community. We feel that helps tie the community together and makes a difference. The
– couple of other important elements to touch on: there will be, obviously, based on
your requirements, but also because we believe in them, there will be a Homeowners
Association and covenants, codes and restrictions. And there will be also design
guidelines, so when homes are to be built, they’ll have to go through a design approval
and make sure they meet the standards and requirements that we feel necessary to
keep the character of the community. Another element that we commonly have in our
projects is a builder team. We typically don’t go out and sell all the lots to all the
builders in the community. We try to focus on the product that we want and then focus
on several builders that will provide that product for us. So we will have an integrated
builder team, and, essentially, builders will build in individual neighborhoods. Then, the
last element that is important to mention is that we also intend to irrigate our common
areas and individual home sites with a pressurized irrigation system that Nampa
Meridian will operate and maintain. Those are some of the common elements of the
community. I could go on with those, but I think that hits the highlights of Woodbridge.
Some important issues for you to consider, I believe, it was touched on – our response
to the staff report. There are three very specific areas there. I’m not going to read
them. We submitted today and as part of your package, if you have questions, we can
respond to it. Two, traffic and safety, I have for you tonight, as you probably haven’t
received it, we just got it this afternoon, Highway District’s draft staff report. They have
reviewed this project. They do have comments on it. I have that for you tonight. We
have done a substantial traffic study. There are comments in the Highway District’s
staff report that addresses the traffic and issues both on Locust Grove and the
interconnectivity of the project. You’ll also hear about irrigation, and we’ve worked with,
I believe we’ve worked with diligently and believe we will deliver water to the
downstream users subject to their water right, same way they’re getting in today. We
intend to pipe it and put it through a common area, but they will have the same amount
of water as they do today, and we will commit to cleaning the pipes that we have and
making sure they’re delivered water at the times they need it and the amount of water
that they’re accustomed to having today. And also, backing up of the upstream users,
there was a concern that if we put things in a pipe, it’s going to all get stuck and kind of
backup and flood out the upstream users. We’re committed to programming a plan,
also, that will make sure that we have the proper clean-outs and appropriate
mechanisms so that it doesn’t back up the upstream users. And then the other area I
already covered was the buffer of the neighborhood, fencing, and we’re committed to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 78
doing that. So, in conclusion, I’ve cut my – and you’re fortunate that I cut my report
down from a lot longer report, but in conclusion, I believe that the City’s mission and
goals go hand in hand with Woodbridge’s missions and goals. It’s a win-win project.
There are definitely serious concerns that you’re going to hear about tonight. We feel
we’ve diligently and will continue to diligently work with the owners to work those issues
out, but we’re going to request your forwarding these applications for positive
recommendation to the Council. So that was very quick. I’ll stand for any questions
that you do have, and we’ll get you here shortly the staff report from the Highway
District. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Derek? Derek, the ACHD report, is this the one
that you referred to or is there later one?
Derek O’Niell: No. We have a later one that was dated today.
Borup: This is dated today.
Derek O’Niell: This is the real staff report, not a letter from Mr. Sale.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Any other Commissioners? Thank you. Did you have
anyone else from your team? Okay. This is a public hearing. It looks like we have a
few people that may like to testify. We want to be able to get all the comments in we
can. I would necessity (inaudible) this size, depending on how many are going to
speak, we’re probably going to need to be some limits on time. Pardon? The – we
have received the petition concerning the access road into Green Hills. We’ve noted a
petition, and I’m not sure where a lot of the comments are. I – maybe approach and
break those down that we don’t (inaudible) the same things throughout all the
testimony. The other question I would have, and that’s the other thing that can allow for
longer testimony is if you have a neighborhood representatives. Our – has any of the
neighborhoods organized where they’ve got a representative to be speaking for the
neighborhood? Two hands went up. Is that two different neighborhoods? Okay. Okay.
That usually works real well. I think information sheet mentioned that. So we would like
to have anyone that would care to come on up. Do we want to start with a
neighborhood representative first? Okay. We need – as you may have noticed, have
everyone state their name, address and perhaps spelling of their name.
Fender: My name’s Fred Fender and I live at 2134 Autumn Way which is in the Green
Hills Estate just immediately north of the proposed subdivision here. And as you can
see, it’s a pretty hot topic. People glazed eyes up here in the audience are trying to get
through, so I’ll try to keep my comments fairly short, but we, obviously, have some
concerns about this. First of all, we are actually as a neighborhood group, a
neighborhood association, have been largely supportive of O’Niell Enterprises and what
they’re proposing here as far as the rezoning annexation. As a whole, we really have
no problem with that. You’re probably glad to hear that. We’ve been probably pleased
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 79
to work with OEI. They’ve been open with us and have had several neighborhood
meetings; have been able to answer questions. I feel have been honest with us in
terms of what they’ve got planned. So we’re pleased to see this scale of activity in our
backyards. The probably the biggest issue is – stems from this access road. As you
know, this part of Meridian is blossomed with commercial enterprises and now with
more residential developments, and any of you that either live here or at least drive
back and forth through this area realized what a traffic jam this can be around Franklin
Road, Eagle Road, and now probably soon to be Locust Grove. As the plat was
originally given to us as homeowners, it was drawn or approximately as it’s drawn up
here this evening, there was no mention of a vehicular access road which goes up there
on that northern boundary, as you can see. We feel that that vehicular access road
really would detract from our neighborhood. We feel it probably is not necessary to get
access in and out of this subdivision. With the main access being off of Locust Grove
and ultimately off of Eagle Road as it comes around. The reasons are many, but I’ll just
name a few. Number one, our subdivision, the Green Hills Estate, is a fairly quiet
subdivision. It’s tucked in down behind everything else. When you drive into the
subdivision, you’re going nowhere else except into the subdivision. There are no
sidewalks other than just a few limited sidewalks up to the half acres which is closer to
Eagle Road. There are lots of pedestrians that go out and walk on these, that run or
ride their bikes. We feel there are safety issues with routing traffic through our
subdivision. It’s not lit, we do not have streetlights at night. It’s actually fairly dark. We
feel like that presents some safety issues with traffic that is routed from this new
subdivision and through our subdivision. Lastly, that is the traffic jams that we see
trying to get out of our subdivision either off of Autumn Way or Springwood onto Eagle
Road. I think you all know what kind of a problem that can be at certain times of the
day. You can sit there for minutes trying to just even make a right-hand turn let along a
left-hand turn with (inaudible) impossible, and so to have more traffic coming (inaudible)
subdivision trying to accomplish the same thing would be counterproductive. The same
thing on Franklin Road at times of the day, rush hour at five in the evening or seven or
eight in the morning, it’s extremely difficult to get out of our subdivision, so now to have
more cars come in, we think that would also be counterproductive. Not only that, but
you’ve heard of (inaudible) developments to the west, Jabill and that is only, I’m sure,
the beginning of more businesses that will be built back there. If Locust Grove stays as
it is for another five or six years or who knows how long, it would be an easy jaunt in
through the proposed subdivision back up the vehicular access road out to Franklin
Road to avoid that intersection at Locust Grove and Franklin which we think could be a
real possibility. And so, those are just a few of the main reasons why we, at least as the
neighborhood association of Green Hill Estates feels like this is a great subdivision to
be planned in our backyards as a whole. Again, we’re supportive of it, but the vehicular
access was one of our major concerns, and we’d really appreciate your concern and
your studying this issue before passing this on to the City Council. Thank you. Can I
answer any questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 80
Borup: Any question for Mr. Fender? Mr. Fender, then it sounds like that was the only
item you brought up as far as the subdivision, was the Weatherby access. Were there
any other concerns?
Fender: Yeah. There are several other concerns. Probably the next biggest concern
would be the buffer between the neighborhoods. A mention was made of a fence, well,
we appreciate a fence, but certainly the type of fence, and I realize this is not an
(inaudible) of this committee, necessarily, but we certainly do not wish to see popsicle-
stick fence up that falls down in two years and fades and then is open to repair by
whoever wants to take it upon themselves with a project. That’s probably one of the
biggest of our concerns that we had as a whole neighborhood. I’m sure that if there are
some other people that want to testify. There may be some other concerns on their
part, too.
Borup: Do you know what – is there a fence currently along the Green Hill property on
most of them or is it hit and miss?
Fender: Just wire fence right now.
Borup: Just a wire fence?
Fender: Just barbed wire fence.
Borup: Okay. Just see – I guess I’m trying to get a feel for the concern on the – the
applicant already says that they would be putting some fence –
Fender: Right.
Borup: -- and I’m just trying to get a feel for why this is different than any other
adjoining subdivisions. You got a one neighbor’s yard backing up against another
neighbor.
Fender: Right. Right. Well, and we are pleased to see the quality of the subdivision. If
we had $80- to 100,000 houses going up next door, we would be very concerned of
that, but the fact that they will enhance our properties, our properties are larger, we are
all one-acre lots along that one side until you get up closer to Eagle Road where you
have half-acres. Overall, we’re quite pleased, at least, to see that they’re making an
attempt to match the property values.
Borup: This one looks like you’re looking at $300,000 homes along there. Then the
question on – and you’ve already made mention of that, but you realize that the
applicant’s first design did not have a road through there. That request has come from
ACHD.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 81
Fender: Correct.
Borup: And from City staff.
Fender: Uh-huh. I would like to know exactly the rationale – I can understand possibly
some emergency vehicle accesses, I think they had originally planned. But that road, I
think, would need to be closed off with promises that that’s not going to be punched
through at a later date.
Borup: I think ACHD is concerned about having one access into a subdivision of this
many homes.
Fender: Right. I understand that, and I think that’s –
Borup: That’s why they were recommending more. But the other question I had was
the applicant’s suggestion of making that a non-accessible road, just strictly emergency
access only. I think you may have seen that in other subdivisions where they have the
posts, the ballards in the middle where a fire truck and emergency – either remove
them or drive right over them. Any comment on that solution?
Fender: Yeah. There are differences of opinion, I think, on that, and I don’t necessarily
want to speak as a subdivision as a whole. My preference, obviously, would be nothing
at all. I might just add my house is just to the west of that vehicular access or that road.
That’s why I have a little personal stake there. I use that – there’s a gravel path right
now that goes back to my shed. A three-car shed that we store and park in, but be that
as it may, I’d just as soon see nothing there. Just close it off totally, however, an
emergency vehicle access, gravel path, camouflaged with a gated access, you know,
whatever design could be come up with. I think we would all be happy enough with
that. Our main concern is just not having free flow of traffic in and out of close to 300
houses going through our neighborhood and backyards.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner Brown.
Brown: I’m afraid that what would happen is it’s going to be the other way. The Green
Hill Homeowners Association as Eagle Road gets cut off and it is going to get cut off.
There’s not going to be any access out to Eagle Road in the future. As we discussed
St. Luke’s project and the long-term aspects of what’s going on Eagle Road, there will
not be any connections past my house to Eagle Road in the future. And as Franklin
becomes more traffic bound in the future, what’s going to end up happening is the
Green Hill Homeowners Association is going to desire to drive through the Woodbridge
Subdivision out to Locust Grove and then travel on Overland to get on the freeway. I
know that sounds absurd to my neighbors that are here, but long-term, that’s more
likely to happen than the few people that live in the back of that subdivision to drive
through our neighborhood. I think that their request to have it as it is right now, the stub
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 82
– stubbing to neighborhoods was done when this subdivision was done. That
connection was provided when the Phase I of Green Hill Estates Subdivision was done.
That’s – when you bought your property, you bought next to that right-of-way, and it was
there. And the purpose was for it to provide interconnection to another residential
subdivision.
Fender: Right.
Brown: Living where I do and living up next to the commercial development, you got a
real nice neighbor compared to some of my neighbors, and, you know, I understand
everybody’s concern, and there’s a lot of things that the Homeowners Association can
do with the Highway District to calm the traffic. I mean, we have 50-foot right-of-ways in
our subdivision. There are straight streets. You drive down Autumn Way or you drive
down Springwood and you come around the loop there, and it’s a straight road for a half
a mile and people drive fast. Who’s the people that are driving fast? It’s us. We’re the
ones that are driving fast. There are some cut-through traffic, and we’re getting more
and more. But the thing that happens, and the thing that you do to slow the traffic down
is to take that 50-foot right-of-way and narrow it. There’s a lot of ways of doing that.
That would be my recommendation for the Homeowners Association is to be proactive
and get that right-of-way back, not necessarily the Highway District’s going to give it to
us back, but if you look down those streets and you see the width of the road and how
far the homes are set back, you think you’re on the freeway. It’s a wide road. If you
narrow that down, and you can do that visually by painting the road and putting islands
in, I know that the acre part of the subdivision’s not set up for having common area and
someone maintaining them when you’re on your own separate wells, but those kinds of
things would calm the traffic and keep it slow. I think, as I have read, the Highway
District’s staff report, what they’re looking at is requiring the connection, but not
necessarily having it open at this time. And long-term, I think that that’s to our benefit.
Some day in the future, we’re going to be asking them to take down the ballards so that
we can get out of our development.
Fender: Well, that could be. I don’t know what’s going to happen out there on Eagle
Road, but all I know is that I do get concerned about more traffic coming in those
straight shots; however, you get down a straight shot, that immediate 90 degree angle,
then another immediate 90 degree angle, blind corners, you know, there is not made to
have free traffic flowing in and out of our subdivision.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Fender? Thank you, sir.
Fender: Thank you.
Borup: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 83
McMillian: My name is Reece McMillian. I live at 870 South Locust Grove. I’m the
second house south of this development, and this seems like a monthly deal here. You
come in here and you beat your head against the wall to try to cure a migraine
headache. The big problem is traffic. Locust Grove and Franklin is not set up to take
anymore traffic than what it is on now. Within the next few days, East Central is going
to be past Jabill onto Locust Grove which will add traffic to it more than what there is
now. If you open up this other subdivision, that comes down to Locust Grove, you’re
creating a big headache down there on the intersection. So, I don’t know, you know, if
they’re going to widen it to five lanes in the next five years, let them wait five years for
the subdivision. Thank you.
Fox: Alan Fox and I live at 1840 Cadillac Drive. I bought up to the south of this
subdivision. Dr. Fender, I’m sorry, but I would love to see that road go out your way,
then they wouldn’t be going out Locust Grove on us. Right now, you have approved a
92-unit apartment building on the corner of Locust Grove and Franklin. That’s going to
add traffic to us. As Mr. McMillian brought up, that road’s going to be paved, Jabill,
when they start business, they’re coming out on the road. If you’re going to approve
this, let’s hold off on it at least until the road’s taken care of. When I moved in out there,
I was told within ten years that overpass would be over the freeway. Let me tell you,
I’ve been there 27 years, and it’s not there yet. And you say five years? Maybe it will
be five years. When you have the money in hand and the property, then I’ll believe you
that it’s going to go over. Until then, I can’t, you know, like I said, I’ve been there 27
years. 280 homes, you know, if they cut it down a little bit, that would help us, but they
want to start building the homes up on Locust Grove. So all that traffic’s coming out on
Locust Grove. The road is not going to be punched through the back side of the
property to go out towards Eagle. From the talk we had, the one talk that he came out
and talked with us, any time in the near future they’re going to start on Locust Grove
and work their way back slowly. Larry Sale made the statement, as you said five years,
he said there’d be no improvement for five years. They turned a 300-unit apartment
complex down over on Overland and Locust Grove because of traffic was one of the
reasons, and we’ve got that right here. If they’d push for traffic – that road out the back
side so some of the traffic can go to Eagle, which they may, I don’t know if they would,
but that would help relieve us on Locust Grove. That’s going to be nothing but a
bottleneck there, and somebody’s going to get killed down there at that intersection.
They’ve already had one guy in our subdivision his pickup was totaled out. He pulled
out down there and a car got him. He didn’t see it. And somebody will be killed until
that road is fixed. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Plant: Morgan Plant, live at 300 South Locust Grove. I have no problem with the
concept of this development. My big problem is I have not seen anything in writing or in
detail about how they’re going to get my irrigation water down to me. I oppose this
project until I see something in writing and a contract by these people telling me how I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 84
am going to get my water down there, how they are going to water their place. I have a
great concern over that. I have been working with Scott Beacham. I trust him, I trust
O’Niell. But by the same token, I have not seen one piece of paperwork. I’ve asked
Nampa Meridian. I’ve asked the staff here, and no one has said they know anything
about what’s going to happen with the irrigation water. But they’ve said tonight what’s
going to happen. Apparently, staff has been in the know. They said they’ve talked with
Nampa Meridian. Nampa Meridian denies talking with them and working with them.
Now, somebody is not telling the whole story. I oppose this project until I see in writing
what exactly is going to happen to my irrigation water.
Borup: Mr. Plant, are you concerned that they’re going to prevent the irrigation water
from coming to your property?
Plant: No. They said they will get it there, but we are an in-ditch user. Our water
comes from over on Overland Road.
Borup: Right. I’m just trying to understand what your concern was. You say you don’t
have –
Plant: Are we going to divide water with them? Are we going to share streams with
them? Are we going to have separate head gates? Are they going to take it out of Five
Mile drain? What?
Borup: I think the law provides that you would still be provided with the same water flow
that you’re entitled to now. They cannot interrupt that.
Plant: I understand that; however, do I have access to the ditch all the way through?
Scott assured me that they will. But neither you – you have said that I will get the same
stream flow. We’re on a rotation with the people in Locust View Heights. We get an X
amount of water for a certain period of time. Is our water going to be split because the
water coming to that property now comes through our ditch also. It is a shared ditch.
Where’s their water going to be taken from? If they’re going to provide continuous
pressurized water to this subdivision, how are they going to do it? I’d like to see some
drawings, some plans, some concrete evidence of what is going to happen to the
irrigation water.
Borup: I think at this point, that’s premature to have that. Until they have some
indication on approval of the project, then that’s when those things are usually
designed. But the assurance would be that your water will continue, and I think Nampa
Meridian is going to make sure of that too.
Plant: I agree. I could read the Idaho Code as well as you folks because I have a
water users handbook also, but I haven’t seen anything in writing, and my contention is
still that I disapprove this project until I see something in writing because the City of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 85
Meridian made such a mess of Stonebridge and the irrigation water, I don’t want to see
it happen here. The Mayor and Shari and the developer has a copy of my demands on
the irrigation water; correct, Shari?
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Plant? Thank you.
Rockrohr: I’m Dick Rockrohr. I live at 2715 Autumn Way in –
Borup: (inaudible)
Rockrohr: Rockrohr, R-O-C-K-R-O-H-R.
Brown: Are you adjacent to the subdivision?
Rockrohr: I’m in Green Hill Estates. I’m not adjacent to the subdivision. I’m off – I’m in
a one-acre off in the corner, so I’m not really adjacent. I kind of like the layout and
everything. Listening to some of the people, though, on traffic concerns, you know, I
think maybe we are getting the cart ahead of the horse in a lot of places. We’re at the
mercy of Ada County as far as when they’re going to upgrade these roads, and it
sounds real good if we get Locust Grove and Franklin upgraded and a light down there,
and I know that they’re going to punch through in the new commercial development and
go to Magic View and have a light that accesses the St. Luke’s light, and it comes
around and accesses to there on the back side. So there is access to a light when you
get on. Without a light, it’s really hard to get out there in a lot of times. Especially if
you’re trying to make a left. You’ve got to make a right. Maybe we should get a
commitment from Ada County on when this is going to happen, a time frame, before we
get to crazy on developing anywhere. That's all I’ve got to say.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Smith: I’m Marshall Smith. I live on 398 South Locust Grove. The south part of my
property borders the project. I’ve had amicable talks with young Mr. O’Niell, and he was
– we agreed together that good fences make good neighbors, and we have, also, an
agreement that because I am rural, and we have – I put sheep on my property, so I’m
interested in not having the sheep abort or have problems because of the noise and the
dust that comes from building a project. He spoke to me as a possible berm with
maybe a four-foot fence on it or something like that. Anyway, he certainly sounded very
eager to be a good neighbor as well as I am eager to be a good neighbor to him. And I
share with my neighbor, Mr. Plant, a concern because I irrigate my property, and I do it
from the same irrigation that the South Locust Heights use, and it comes down across
the property. But if they plug off the (inaudible), why, I’ll get excited about it. But as
long as the thing accommodates and the bulldozer doesn’t plug the ditch up in my
irrigation – I have it on a timed basis, the same as other irrigation users. If I miss a
week, I’ve got hot spots in the pasture, and I have trouble. So I’m enthused about the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 86
use of the property next to me. I think it – they’ve got some wonderful ideas, and I
approve it with those reservations and concerns. I’ve met the young Mr. O’Niell, and
we’ve been very amicable. I’m looking forward to meeting his father. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
McMillian: I’m Del McMillian, and I live at 870 South Locust Grove, and I know we’ve
discussed for the last few weeks all the problems of Locust Grove and the traffic, so I
won’t go – but I am really, I mean, I have lived in Meridian my whole life, and I just can’t
see the schools. I can’t see the schools, I can’t see the police department, I can’t see –
we don’t even have enough fire department to handle all the people and the stress that
Meridian has on it right now, and I just figure that maybe we should maybe plan first and
build later rather than just building and wonder what we did wrong. But I do. I wonder
about the schools. We’re really in a hurt for schools and everything else. They say
they have enough to accommodate, but, basically, they really don’t. The way that I
understand it, we really only have three policemen that are actually really on the force.
That’s what I was told. That’s not enough to handle Meridian. So that’s my concerns,
plus on some days on Eagle Road, since that has gone into as many lanes as it is, if
the wind is right, it sounds just like the freeway. We get the freeway noise, we get that,
and I really don’t understand how you gentlemen want to build something so nice in an
area like that. It’s not an area for that type building. It’s a farm area, and it’s just – it’s
depleting your purpose because I think it’s a terrible place for you to even plan
something like River Run. I mean – we have that big apartment thing that’s going in,
and that’s a low-income thing, so something like this across the road from that just
doesn’t sound too comparable to me.
Borup: Thank you.
Mecham: My name is Bryan Mecham. I live at 2159 Autumn way which is just to the
north or just to the – well, north of the development, and I’m east of the stub road. First
of all, I just want to say I’m on the committee with Fred Fender, and I agree with
everything he says. I helped seek out the numerous signatures of the people in our
Homeowners Association who do not want vehicular access. I think that, personally,
being a prudent business person myself, I know that development is going to happen,
and I differ with some of these people who think that with –
*** End of Tape 6 ***
I’d rather have a nice, quiet community. So, realizing that development is going to
happen, I’m in full support of the development because I’d much rather have that than
what I previously mentioned. One of the concerns that I have is – one of the things that
I’m willing to give in on as being the person right next to there is emergency vehicular
access. One of the things that happened was when I moved here two years ago, I did
my homework, we called Shari Stiles, we had some of the things we were told then,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 87
none of those have come to pass. Secondly, we also contacted the ACHD. They told
me that I tried to vacate the right-of-way, they told me that they couldn’t do it at this time
until they found out who purchased the land and what it was going to be used for and if
that the home, if that person didn’t want to have use of that property, then I could have it
vacated. So when O'Niell Enterprise came and said, “We’re going to put this
development in,” we immediately talked to them about that, and they said, “We don’t
need – we’re not wanting vehicular access into your neighborhood.” So I though I was
in a good position because here I had a developer who was saying they didn’t want use
of it, the County’s saying that if the developer didn’t want use of it, that I could get it
vacated, not have it. Now they’re going totally against what they told me. So that kind
of concerns me. I agree with Kent Brown as far as, you know, down the road, if we do
get shut off at Eagle or Franklin, how are we going to get out? I guess the question I
pose back to the City is: What were you recommending if that farmer never sold the 80
acres and he still owned it for five more years, how were we going to get out when
Eagle and Franklin – what were your recommendations for our development then? So
I’m saying whatever they were for then, why can’t they be implemented now? Unless
it’s going through that road, of course. So those are a couple concerns. The other
thing is, if it is vehicular access, I talked with Scott before the meeting, I mean Derek,
excuse me, Before the meeting, and he mentioned that if – his proposal right now is
maybe vehicular access with a right-of-way to the ACHD so there’s emergency vehicle,
and then down the road, if what Kent’s saying is, the developments happen where
maybe we do want to go through that development, then it could happen down the
road, but if the other things don’t come to fruition like it sounds like it’s still 27 years later
there’s not an overpass on Locust Grove, then maybe this other stuff might not happen
for 20 years, why put a road through there that we wouldn’t need to if the other things
aren’t going to happen in the next 20 years. I just want to go on record that I am
appreciative of the fact that we’re going to have a nice community behind our house but
oppose any vehicular access other than emergency. Thanks.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Mecham? Bryan, maybe I’ve got one.
Mecham: Okay.
Borup: It’s just on clarification on whether the – sounds like you’re saying, and I’m
interested since you are an adjoining neighbor there. Sounds to me like you’re saying
your idea of a pedestrian path and an emergency vehicle access may be something
acceptable, and I think that’s something that as far as emergency vehicle, that’s
something that can benefit both subdivisions depending on what emergency. But – I
can understand. I would have the same concern with traffic coming down Locust
Grove, wanting to cut through here and then through your subdivision. I think that
would be the immediate concern. I could also see, perhaps, after the overpass goes in
that the traffic could run the other direction. I guess it sounds to me like you’re saying
with not having access at this time, but having the right-of-way there that it would leave
it open to some future date if that was the case, and your subdivision may want to have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 88
that then you’ll be able to have that access. Your preference right now is definitely not
to have it.
Mecham: I guess I have to go on – I have to walk a tightrope because as a subdivision,
the subdivision is saying, and I signed a petition that I do not want access at all.
Personally, I’m saying I support the subdivision, but at the same time, I understand that
if somebody comes and says, okay, they’re not willing to bend, and so we’re just going
to put the road in and who cares, then that concerns me. I’m rather willing to say that
as a person living on that property line, I’m willing to say if I can win with emergency
access with the knowledge that if something happens down the road where we get shut
off at Eagle and get shut off at Franklin, then we can open that up and we’ll be able to
go through the other community. I know that’s probably not what they want: to have us
going through that community, but I think it’s a compromise we’re all willing to pick to
make sure that this development goes through.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: I haven’t been feeling well all night, and I really have to go. I just don’t feel
good. Could I please be excused?
Borup: Yes. We still a quorum. Come on up, ma’am.
(At which time Commissioner De Weerd leaves the meeting.)
Smith: I’m Jere Smith, and I live at 335 South Locust Grove. Mr. Borup, I hope you’re
also concerned with me as far as I understand by reading this that there is a Parcel A
and Parcel B, and as Mr. O’Niell said, Parcel B is the little 1.5; is that correct? I wasn’t
aware of that. I know that young Mr. O’Niell owns it, but I wasn’t aware, yes, I see it up
there now, but I wasn’t aware of that in our packet or in our letter that we got. I wasn’t
aware that this was going to be included here tonight. I don’t know what their plans are
except it says limited office, and that happens to border our property. I’m very
concerned about that, and I’d like to know what the plans are.
Borup: Okay. Maybe we can find that out.
Smith: Pardon?
Borup: Maybe we can find that out for you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 89
Smith: Okay. And I’d like to say we’re talking about traffic, and I happen to be coming
down Franklin Road one day turning and going south, and as you all know that the
school buses also take Franklin Road, and there were six school buses, and by the time
those school buses all lined up to go left or go north onto Nola, they had Locust Grove
blocked off. You could not turn on Locust Grove. I don’t know if you’re aware the
construction trucks, I mean, we’re talking semis with (inaudible), the whole bit, down
that road continuous now. So I don’t know how that we can handle – the people in
Green Hills are concerned, but the people on Locust Grove, if they channel all this on
there now without having adequate access and excesses to it, it’s going to really be a
problem out there with all of the construction and everything. I’m very concerned about
this limited office here next door to me, and what they’re going to do with that, and how
they’re going to keep the property cleaned up because they – I thank them for coming
in and having it mowed, but whoever came out and mowed it mowed the circle. Like I’d
go clean my living room in the center of it and leave the rest of it, so I do have to visit
with them about that. We’ve eaten an awfully lot of dirt this summer. We can’t touch
anything at our house. I feel like a prisoner in it because of John Barnes which is a
nightmare behind us, and I hope that the O’Niells doesn’t present that kind of a problem
for us and multiply it anymore because we just about had the limits over at our
neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Smith? Are there – looks like there are – (inaudible)
then on Locust Grove?
Smith: No. There’s one, two, three, four. Four of us? Is that right? Four residents?
Unidentifiable: Five.
Borup: I mean on your little strip there on the same side. From you north.
Smith: There’s four of us and then Dr. West is on the opposite side of the road and the
Plants. Then Mr. (inaudible).
Borup: I was just looking at that section right along there. The area of you, I can only
see –
Smith: Are you talking the west side of Locust Grove?
Borup: Yes.
Smith: There are four of us.
Borup: Okay. There we go. I can see. Two of the properties are for sale right now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 90
Smith: Yes. Mr. Plant’s is for sale and Mr. Presley’s are for sale. Gene Presley and
William Plant. And mine may be for sale too if the price is right.
Borup: I thought I’d seen two for-sale signs on the west side.
Smith: I’m not aware of that.
Borup: Okay
Smith: I think the Robbersons still live in their house, and the rest of us are still there.
Borup: Thank you, Mrs. Smith.
Smith: Uh-huh.
Borup: Anyone else? Your last opportunity. Good. Thank you. Commissioners? Any
questions that you’d have from staff or – Yes. I was getting to that.
Hatcher: I have a question for staff and a question for the applicant.
Borup: Okay. Why don’t you hit the staff first and then we’ll get the applicant up
because we do want to ask the applicant also about what they’ve got for the L-O
property.
Hatcher: Okay. First question for staff is: Since we don’t have a representative of the
Fire Department here, are you aware of their – do they allow, does the Fire Department
allow grass pavers to be used at access strips? Some departments do, some
departments don’t. I was just thinking as a common – satisfy both needs that this
access strip into –
Unidentifiable: (inaudible) public right-of-way, though, so you’d have to ask --
Hatcher: That would be an ACHD –
Unidentifiable: because the Highway District (inaudible).
Hatcher: Right. Well, they don’t. It’s either undeveloped though. Because I’m thinking
that maybe grass pavers would still allow emergency vehicle access, but then it would
still be like a park. So it’s something that, I think, I’d put to the developer to check in on
and work with ACHD and the Fire Department. As far as staff’s notes, do you know if
Meridian Fire Department allows them?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, to my knowledge, I don’t know
of any location where grass pavers have been utilized. We do have several locations
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 91
that concrete paths with ballards have been used, but I’m not aware of any grass paver
situation. Of course, this is different since it is platted, deeded, dedicated right-of-way.
Most all the other situations are over common lots –
Hatcher: (inaudible) they have done it. Thank you. My other question is to the
applicant. This is in regards to street access. I figured –
Borup: Which one of them you’d like to address that?
Hatcher: Whoever wants to answer this question, I’ll pose the question to you. I’d like
to know if you’ve had communications and talked with the owners of Lots 14 and 16 at
the southeast corner of your proposed stub street.
O’Niell: (inaudible)
Borup: Would you like to come on up?
Hatcher: Let them collect all the questions if that’s what he desires.
Borup: Did we have any other questions from the Commission? Did –
Pete O’Niell: The way we would normally do this, and I don’t know what your process
(inaudible) is typically we get a chance to respond to testimony.
Borup: Right. And I think –
Pete O’Niell: You have a chance to ask any additional questions you’d like (inaudible)
is that fair?
Borup: Yes. That’s what we’re going to do. I think we were done with all the testimony
other than Mr. Mecham as raised his hand again. Did something new come up?
Mecham: When Mr. Richard Hatcher started talking about the right-of-way again, I
guess, the question that I would propose – the question I'd like to have asked is it’s my
understanding that it’s the staff’s recommendation that vehicular access be put through
that subdivision. To our subdivision. I just want to make sure that’s recommendation,
and if it is their recommendation, I would ask that that recommendation be changed to
emergency vehicular access rather than vehicular access.
Borup: Okay. I think we understood that. Yeah. That is their recommendation, but it’s
our recommendation that will go to City Council. Thank you. Mr. O’Niell.
Pete O’Neill: Thank you. I’d kind of offer a compliment, by the way, that we’ve done
business in a number of cities, and you’ve got a very civil leader in Meridian, and we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 92
appreciate that and appreciate your concerns. Particularly at this hour. It seems to me
that there’s three general issues that run through the questions in the public, concern in
the public testimony, plus the third specifically, how we’re going about finding an access
to the east. Those concerns would be the whole approach to Green Hills Estates in
terms of access, emergency, full-time vehicular, grass pavers, whatever. The other
issue is the whole water delivery irrigation, down-stream users, if you will, and shared
users. The third is the whole traffic in general in the general area issue, whether it’s
Locust Grove, Franklin Road, Eagle Road, it’s – it really is hardly unique to this project.
It’s unique – it’s the Treasure Valley and everything is in one of the prices you pay for
prosperity is growth and a little more congestion. So let me try to deal with those as
they came up. In terms of Mr. Fender’s and the people concerned with the Green Hill
Estates access, let me make our position very clear. When we first looked at the
existing conditions and we saw that there was a right-of-way to this property from Green
Hill Estates, we said, well, that takes care of our second access. We’ll come in from
Locust Grove Road and we’ll go on out through Green Hill Estates, and that’s a good
idea. But we never even floated that as far as I know with any of the neighbors in
Green Hill Estates, and talking with ACHD and in talking with the City of Meridian, and
talking with ourselves and to the landowners in Magic View – is it Magic View? No. To
the east. The whole issue really became is the secondary access, should it really be to
the east headed for Eagle Road or should it be back again to the north headed for
Franklin Road? You know, we may be brash, but we’re not brash enough to even
suggest to the residents of Green Hill Estate that the primary secondary access should
be to the north through Green Hill Estates. Our proposal from the beginning is an
emergency access and it’s a pedestrian access, period. That is our proposal today. A
compromise to ACHD’s staff report, and perhaps the City of Meridian staff report,
although it wasn’t particularly clear on that is, we’ll provide the 50-foot right-of-way so
that in the future, if traffic studies, the neighbors, ACHD and the City of Meridian and
our own neighborhood association decide that that should be full-time, the right-of-way
is there for that to happen. I personally agree with a lot of the neighbors that I’d want to
either have no access or emergency access. I think we’re going to lose that argument,
and if we can buy a future, provide the right-of-way, and let ACHD be happy and the
City of Meridian be happy and put Green Hill Estates into the decision, ultimate
decision-making process, I think that’s as good as we can do. Keep in mind the
emergency access, A, can be – I don’t know in the City of Meridian. We’ve got grass
pavers on emergency accesses of at least five locations that I’m aware of that other fire
departments have bought off on and other highway districts, including ACHD, bought off
on, so that is a reality. That’s what our proposal would be. To disguise it. We don’t
want a super-highway coming up (inaudible) bollard on that, so we’re kind of in your
camp on that. I would suggest that you turn that to the ACHD hearings as well because
they’re the ones that are probably going to drive that decision. I would also point to the
traffic study which very clearly says we don’t need three points of ingress and egress.
Then as it relates to the traffic in general issue, there has been an extensive traffic
study done that’s been reviewed by the Highway District that it’s in this report,
unfortunately, we didn’t – we should have summarized that report, but, essentially,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 93
they’re saying the impact of this project on the traffic on Locust Grove Road which is
really a function of the intersection at Locust Grove and Franklin, that’s where the traffic
problem is. Until there’s an overpass built, there’s not a traffic problem on Locust
Grove. If there is one, it’s at Franklin, and it does not change the level of service,
project in itself. If you add all of them, notches it down according to their studies of – it’s
still at a satisfactory level. I can commit to our neighbors and the City that a bad traffic
situation doesn’t help us. We’re going to try to market property, and if you can’t get to it
or from it, it’s going to be hard to sell property. We would work with the City. We would
work with the neighbors to accelerate the improved intersection at Franklin Road and
Locust Grove. That’s the issue is that intersection. Whether it’s an LID or whatever to
accelerate that – the improvement of that intersection, we’re all for it. As it relates to the
– I’ve got some kind of questions that we’d build slowly towards Eagle Road. I hope
not. We’d like to do this quickly. That’s the business we’re in. We’d like to get through
and get out the other end. But, coming back to that, we’ve made the decision that the
appropriate secondary access is to the east. We think that little stub is the shortest way
to a public access point. There may be arguments for other locations. We have talked
to all of the landowners including those two and all of the other major owners in that
subdivision down there. Their property has gotten very, very dear, and based on what
some of them think their property’s worth, you’re not going to see single – five-acre or
one-acre single-family development in there. You’re going to see something much
more intense whether it’s commercial or industrial or retail or apartments. Those people
are not asking prices that will keep that in residential property very long. Those two
little owners, they’ve got some property that can’t be used for anything. We think
there’s a logical case that we can get through there, and we’ve got their commitment to
work with. Don’t have a deal.
Hatcher: So you have talked to them directly about bringing a road between your
development and the Five Mile Creek to the closest – looks to be a cul-de-sac of a
public right-of-way?
Pete O’Niell: Yeah. There’s an existing cul-de-sac right-of-way.
Hatcher: So instead of a cul-de-sac, we’d – you’d just extend that right on through?
Pete O’Niell: Extend that right on through. Then you’d have access to some property
that’s otherwise unusable.
Hatcher: Right. And they have no problems with this? They like the idea? They’re
opposed to the idea? What was their feedback?
Pete O’Niell: They’re willing to talk
Hatcher: You’re willing to –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 94
Pete O’Niell: We’re willing to talk
Hatcher: -- take it to work with these two owners?
Pete O’Niell: I can just tell you by experience. Every time we’re put in a position to say
you have to require a certain right-of-way, that becomes very, very valuable ground.
We’ve had some bad experiences, frankly, trying to do the right thing for all of the
neighbors, for the City, for the Highway District, and we’ve ended up on the short end of
the stick. We do have to protect our interests. We’re willing to work with anybody in
good faith, and we think these people will work in good faith, and that’s our first choice.
We’ll work hard at that. That is not our requirement, by the way. Our requirement is to
provide a right-of-way heading that direction. We think – what I don’t want to have
happen, in all honesty, is we don’t want to come up to the second phase of this project
and have the ultimate second access point a negotiable issue. Then we really get
hammered. We’d like to get that resolved sooner than later.
Hatcher: As being the advocate for the City, you have to appreciate the fact, too, that
we have to look at what’s for – what we hope is the best interest in the City. Not saying
that you will – everything’s in good faith, you could get to house 249 and decide, “Well, I
don’t want to have to put forth the extra effort or money to get that second access in, so
I’ll just stop at 249 and that way I comply with the requirements.”
Pete O’Niell: We’re getting into the issues of the development agreement. If it were – if
I were the City and I were in your position, I would say condition approval of the second
phase of the plat which really is 165th
lot, is that there be clear route established for the
easterly access point. That’s part of the development agreement –
Hatcher: And you have no objection to that?
Pete O’Niell: It’s reasonable. I mean, how do you object to – The irrigation issues,
again, in most projects we’ve worked with over the years, there’s the irrigation issues.
They all feel just as strongly as most of the individuals here feel. I mean, the west was
settled over water, and people got shot over it. Understand that. We’ve – there’s two
reasons why we haven’t given you a definitive answer of when and how you’re going to
get your water. The most important one is we don’t know. I mean, in all honesty,
because there’s two or three concept plans that can do that. We have found over the
years as we start working with neighbors that sometimes a less than obvious solution
works best for everybody. If we’re going to have a pressurized irrigation system and
storage, maybe there’s other ways to supplying it other than the same route that you
have. If worse comes to worse, we know we can supply it. We can supply it in two or
three different ways, and as Mr. Borup said, a condition of approval of the whole project
is that we have to deliver water to the current water users, and typically you wouldn’t
have an engineered plan to do that at this stage of the process. So understand their
concerns and we’ll deliver the water. We’ll see that the water’s deliverable. Fencing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 95
Thank you. Good questions on the fencing. We, I think, there’s even some words in
our proposal that when we talk about a permanent fence, we talk about a good-
neighbor fence. In all our designs, there’s a lot of different kinds of fences. Most of the
subdivisions you see have one good side, and that’s the guy who puts it up, and that’s
to the neighbor. A good-neighbor fence looks the same on both sides. Looks good on
both sides. So that’s what our proposal would be. It’s in our best interest and our
buyers’ best interest to have a substantial-looking, solid, attractive fence or we’re going
to have a hard time selling our property. Fencing will be good-neighbor, and it will be in
appropriate places, and it will be a developer expense. Then – in terms of the zoning
on the one-and-a-half acres on Locust Grove and what do we plan to do, I think the –
collective wisdom of the staff here and our own judgment that that is an area in
transition. The property, from what we understand, the owners that bought the
substantial property across the street from us is not residential but some kind of
industrial, light-office, and therefore, they’d be our neighbors, and that is a logical
zoning to have on it. We don’t have a plan, we don’t have any plans, so I can’t tell you
what specifically we would do with it. You cannot get annexed, you cannot annex a
property without giving it a zone. So we’re suggesting and staff is suggesting that that
is an appropriate zone for the annexation. Is there any others? Yeah. The whole
notion of making a mess during construction, you know, we do the best we can, but I –
you can’t control all your contractors and subcontractors and you can’t control the wind.
We do pride ourselves in trying to be good neighbors at the front end and all the way
through the back end, so we try to manage the construction process well, and it’s not
only dust, it’s dogs and trash, and all of the rest of the things that happen (inaudible) in
construction. So, if you’re part of our builder team, you’re signing onto a pretty
(inaudible) appropriate. The City has some say on how that’s done as well. Any
additional questions?
Borup: Any questions for Mr. O’Niell? Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, go up to the (inaudible).
Borup: Here. Would this help?
Barbeiro: Shari, could you show this picture on the board, please.
Brown: We don’t have that one. That’s their slide.
Stiles: It’s a transparency.
Barbeiro: I’m trying to understand where, if you’re going to have a road coming out
here, it would then come in and connect here to this road and then come back out to
Eagle here?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 96
Pete O’Niell: That’s all in the process, I believe, you’re going in – it also doubles back
the other direction, I believe.
Barbeiro: Down in the future –
Brown: It goes to the north to the stoplight.
Barbeiro: This is the stoplight right here?
Brown: No. (inaudible)
Pete O’Niell: It’s going to come from here, around here behind what the development
(inaudible) to the light at St. Luke’s right there (inaudible).
Barbeiro: So your development would come here, loop around and connect to this road
here; is that correct? That’s the intent for your backup?
Pete O’Niell: Yeah. It comes straight – I’m not sure – it comes out of the corner.
Barbeiro: It comes out here?
Pete O’Niell: Yeah. Yes.
Barbeiro: And then it would turn and connect into here?
Pete O’Niell: Yes.
Barbeiro: Okay.
Borup: Do you have additional –
Barbeiro: Also, how many phases are you planning on? Is it going to be three phases,
four phases?
Pete O'Niell: Well, at the moment, we’re thinking of it in two phases, that which is
(inaudible) the creek is the logical divider, the first phase would be larger than we’d like
to do, but we’ve really got to get it to the rec center, get it to the bridge, and so,
consequently, we’re ready to make that – (inaudible) to do that whole west side as a
single phase.
Barbeiro: The road there on Locust Grove really is a rural country road. According to
the traffic study that we received regarding Cobblestone, the road now has about 1,100
vehicle trips per day. 1,075 vehicles per day. With the addition of Cobblestone Village,
that will add about 800 vehicle trips per day on Locust Grove. With the addition of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 97
Jabill, that will add about 1,200 vehicle trips per day. With the addition of your project, it
will add 2,871 vehicles per day. So we’ll be going from, essentially, 1,100 vehicles per
day to close to 5,000 vehicles per day. I am a little confused of how can we go from
1,000 vehicles a day to 5,000 vehicles a day and not change the classification of the
intersection?
Pete O'Niell: It does change. It goes from a C to a D or something. But you’d have to
talk to the traffic engineers. The statement from Franklin Road Locust Grove
intersection operates at an acceptable level of service under existing conditions. A
traffic signal is not warranted at this time. The Franklin Road Locust Grove intersection
is expected to operate at an acceptable level of service under the existing plus – and
that’s in quotes – existing plus project conditions. A traffic signal is not warranted under
the existing plus traffic conditions, in the ACHD staff report.
Hatcher: Well, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher. (inaudible).
Pete O'Niell: (inaudible) make in terms of one of the other things we run into in the
PUD process is it’s typically bigger projects, and 283, and Meridian isn’t all that big
because you do a number of larger projects, but in a lot of locations, people – the
agencies and the neighbors are used to working with 20-, 30-, 40-unit subdivisions,
and, you know, the traffic impact is now. When you’re looking at something that may
take three or four or five years to build out, the traffic impact isn’t now, and yet,
everybody focuses on it as if it’s done. It takes a period of time to get there.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to add to the topic of the traffic, and it goes back to
what Mr. Sale of ACHD had commented on when we were looking at and reviewing the
Cobblestone project, and that was ACHD’s approach is to fix the problems after they
occur, not before they occur and that I personally, hesitantly had approved the
Cobblestone Village in anticipation that with Jabill and pretty much by Larry’s comments
was that once Jabill was up and running that that would then push that intersection to
an iffy situation, so to speak, and then with Cobblestone, he felt that most likely that
would then make ACHD classify that intersection as an immediate, must-fix solution,
and by putting in the signal and right-turn lanes and stuff like that, that was prior to even
considering this project. Now, if we had this project, it’s going to make the conditions
worse and put more fuel under the fire for ACHD to fix that intersection.
Barbeiro: I’m a little confused because if, as Mr. Hatcher tells us, Larry Sale impressed
upon us that a light would be in there based solely on Cobblestone and Jabill, and now
with the addition of what would double the traffic there, their recommendation is that
there would be no light. So we’ve gone, by my addition here, we’ve gone from 1100 to
6,000 cars and they still say there would be no light.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 98
Hatcher: I can’t speak for ACHD, but I think what they’re looking at is they’re looking at
existing conditions plus the project in question, period, and that’s all their looking at.
Pete O'Niell: No. The study includes all of the projects.
Hatcher: Your study, but what about their report?
Pete O'Niell: It is responding to our study.
Hatcher: It is –
Pete O'Niell: We’re required to do a study. It makes a bunch of assumptions on what
happens everywhere.
Borup: So the definition – what’s the definition of “existing plus project?” That’s in
quote a couple times.
Pete O'Niell: I – we got this this afternoon just like you did. It is our understanding that
in terms of the traffic on Locust Grove Road, it assumes Jabill build out and
employment, it assumes Cobblestone, it assumes this project and existing projects. It
also – there is some level of traffic that would be going out the east and coming in from
the east, but I think it’s insignificant in terms of the impact on Locust Grove Road.
Borup: So your traffic study, by Centennial, you said, included all –
Pete O'Niell: Yes.
Borup: -- all the projects.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. As I understand it, and I think this is true for everybody, when
ACHD requires – the traffic study’s required by ACHD, and they give the conditions
upon which the traffic study should be made, we don’t decide how many trips a day are
going to come in and out of Jabill or how many trips a day are going to come – ACHD
has their standards, and the traffic engineers and study people do their work.
Borup: Okay. I think the concern was, because it’s our understanding earlier, and
correct me if I’m wrong, Commissioners, that ACHD stated they did not take into
consideration all of the projects they were taking – looking at specific one time, and,
hopefully, they’ve incorporated that in there now in their request because I don’t think
they were looking at that earlier.
Pete O'Niell: I suspect when they did Cobblestone, our project wasn’t submitted, so we
weren’t (inaudible).
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 99
Borup: No. They didn’t do that, but I – they didn’t even have a traffic account of Jabill
when they did Cobblestone.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Pete O'Niell: And I could stand to be corrected, but it’s my understanding it includes all
of those.
Hatcher: I would have to bring – this is the traffic impact study for Cobblestone Village,
and I’m reading right here, this is existing conditions based upon late June of this year
that the traffic count for South Locust Grove was 1,075 vehicles per day. That’s the
existing condition, so I don’t see how we can get 1,000 vehicles with Jabill and this and
Cobblestone. I mean – we’re reducing the traffic by 75. I just – I don’t see how, what
ACHD’s stating here in this report includes all of the projects in question.
Borup: This report doesn’t give any total count, does it?
Hatcher: The draft states the traffic study determined fewer than 1,000 regional vehicle
trips would utilize a through-roadway from Locust Grove.
Borup: That’s from Locust Grove to Eagle. That’s the one through their project.
Hatcher: Oh. Through your project. Okay. I stand corrected.
Borup: I didn’t see where this study mentioned a traffic count on Locust Grove. Was
there? Does anybody – anyone aware of where they even mentioned it?
Hatcher: So the –
Borup: I think what Commissioner Barbeiro was saying, the 1,075 plus Jabill plus
Cobblestone plus this project is probably the count.
Barbeiro: Yeah. If you put that together and add it up, just over 6,000 vehicles and that
was assuming that all of the vehicles in this subdivision –
Borup: Goes through Locust Grove rather than to the east.
Barbeiro: -- and since –
Borup: Which is not going to happen once that access is there.
Brown: The District is saying they got 1,000 trip limit.
Borup: That’s the road capacity. That’s the policy.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 100
Barbeiro: That’s the limit if you have a house on that road.
Brown: And they’re saying they’re mandating.
Borup: The second access. Yes.
Brown: (inaudible).
Borup: Okay. Did you finish where you were going to, Commissioner Hatcher, or were
you sure where this was trying to go to?
Hatcher: Well, no. What I was trying to address was –
Borup: Locust Grove.
Hatcher: -- the Locust Grove Franklin intersection which is the area of debate or
discussion and was bringing up what Larry had mentioned was in the plans and the way
they typically deal with problems and whatnot.
Borup: I think he was talking about the first access and the turn lane and then a traffic
signal.
Hatcher: Correct. Because we were trying to implement those requirements onto the
developer of Cobblestone, but it was not legally binding, so we backed off from that.
Larry’s like, well, this is how it’s all going to be done.
Borup: So are you leading to ask Mr. O’Niell if –
Hatcher: No. No.
Borup: Well, why not?
Hatcher: I’m not asking him to do anything at this time.
Borup: Again, you say (inaudible) legally binding, but how would you consider a
contribution to a – of an intersection improvement?
Pete O'Niell: Carefully. I think there’s a couple – first of all, again, I think most every
project we’ve ever done, the traffic thing becomes a buggaboo, people can manipulate
numbers and do all kinds of things, you know, we kind of all defer to ACHD and then
question their judgment. We’re not exactly sure how to deal with that either, other than
– unfortunately, I think because of the demands that are on the system and the budget
they have, there is a large element of the squeaky wheel. I think I could get on the side
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 101
of, okay, let’s look down on the road and say, okay, these things are going to happen.
We really don’t like that. Let’s all begin to work together with Jabill and Cobblestone
and the neighbors to begin to have a plan now to address that intersection before it
becomes – whether it’s Level D or C- or whatever and try to get ahead of the power
curve. I think it’s a practical matter. There are a number of people who think the
overpass is going to be built, you’re going to have five lanes on Locust Grove which will
drive a master intersection at Franklin and the whole problem is resolved that way.
Because as I understand, the push from the City of Meridian for that overpass and the
approval of Locust Grove is independent of this project or any other project. It’s a
question to take some traffic off of Eagle and off of Meridian and so on and so forth.
You know, if I was a neighbor on Locust Grove, that would concern me. You know, we
can’t solve all of those problems. All we can do is try to be a catalyst and help work
with you and work with whoever to solve those problems because it’s not in our best
interest to have a gridlock situation out there. We’d like, as an example, to build the
finish section on our half of Locust Grove Road so that at least in the meantime there’s
turn lanes, the bike path is in, the landscaping isn’t, the fencing Is in so we don’t have
these things that we don’t have all over town. But if the road out here, 20 feet of no-
man’s land, and a fence in a project behind. We’d like to mess it all up one time, fix it,
and –
Borup: Have you talked with ACHD on that?
Pete O'Niell: Yes.
Borup: And what’s their answer?
Pete O'Niell: The road –
Borup: They used to do that a number of years ago, and then they got away from that.
I think I asked that question once, and they said they wanted engineered first. That’s,
you know, too early to – was that their answer or did they have another answer?
Unidentifiable: (inaudible)
Pete O'Niell: They’re all hung up over the power easements because there’s a whole
set of power lines going down there that have to be relocated at some point in time.
You know, it gets to be a complicated issue, but our point is that we want to get them
resolved.
Borup: So you may be able to do this thing and let them do the improvements on that
side, on your side, assuming that the grades and engineering can be worked out to
what they would engineer it to. They’re saying that they think can do that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 102
Pete O'Niell: We have to do that anyway or we can’t really get an access if we don’t
match the grade.
Borup: All right. But they’ve been having the setback enough that there is some
flexibility in the grade changing. I think what this Commission is trying to get to is, you
know, there is a problem on there. It will be solved when the overpass goes in, but we
don’t feel you want to wait the five years on your project, so the solution is probably
upgrading that intersection of Franklin.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. I think –
Borup: Some way or another what –
Pete O'Niell: -- there’s got to be a commitment to work in good faith to do that, because
if in fact nothing happens for five years, and this isn’t meant as a threat or anything
else, but we have the land under contract. If we don’t end up buying it –
Borup: Goes back to –
Pete O'Niell: -- goes back to – you know, there is a sense out there that this ground is
more valuable than what we’re proposing to use it for because if you do apartments and
industrial and more Jabill, it has a higher value. I’m not sure that’s what the neighbors
want to see. I’m not sure that’s what Meridian wants to see.
Borup: I’m not sure that fits in with our Comprehensive Plan at this point.
Pete O'Niell: Except that it would be adjacent to – I’m not going to get in on –
Borup: Right.
Pete O'Niell: We think we have a good plan. We’d like to move forward with it, and
we’d like to work with the City, with the neighbors, with all of the relevant agencies --
*** End of Tape 7 ***
-- some of these issues. They don’t go away by ignoring them. That’s one thing we
have learned.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. We’re dealing tonight, maybe to refocus here a little bit, tonight
we’re dealing with annexation and zoning, and we’re dealing with conditional use.
Borup: Right. And not with the plat.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 103
Hatcher: We approve or disapprove – we act upon this tonight, this project would come
back before us under a preliminary plat with Facts and Findings because we do a
conditional use tonight, what does that impact, Shari, besides – just a preliminary plat
and that’s it?
Stiles: They’re just asking for approval of basic concept of what they’re proposing.
They would have to come back with a preliminary plat showing all the dimensions
where we’d get the final roadway configurations, you know, the streets, irrigation.
They’d have to have preliminary plans for all, profiles for sewer and water, all of that as
part of their plat.
Borup: I think the question is what’s the significance of the conditional use? So they
can know they can go ahead with their concept plan?
Stiles: That you agree with the concept of what they’re proposing.
Hatcher: Giving them the ability to continue on for – and get some detailed answers on
these out-of-the-blue questions.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. O’Niell?
Hatcher: I have no more.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Scott, could you put up your plat or your drawing, your concept? Turn it over.
All right. It’s getting late. In your concept, you don’t – you only had one cul-de-sac,
realistically. Have you looked at cul-de-sacking your east-west street that parallels
Autumn Way? You would still provide the connection, but what you would end up doing
is making it more difficult for traffic to let’s say drive through your project, let’s say, to
Locust Grove. If you took and cut it off right there, made this a loop coming back this
way. I know that you have problems, but you would be providing a connection this way.
This becomes a cul-de-sac and this becomes a loop going this way. Similar to the
connection that you have here. You didn’t run your street (inaudible). What this has a
tendency to do, you know, for us is makes people slow down when they go through
something like that, and you would have the same thing here is that you’re causing
them to go a direction that they don’t really want to go.
Borup: (inaudible) just as an alternative.
Brown: I’m just asking the question because the connection to Green Hill becomes an
issue when it’s an emergency access and you have to provide a secondary access
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 104
according to ACHD staff report at 250 blocks. That connection is going to be made
here before it’s going to be made here or somewhere along this side, and wherever that
connection is made, it’s going to be made sooner than we probably are excited about.
But when you can make that traffic have to go a way that they wouldn’t want to go, and
you know what I’m talking about.
Pete O'Niell: We can put our plans – you don’t have enough wall –
Brown: I understand.
Pete O'Niell: --space to look at all of the alternatives we’ve looked at over time, and
we’ve settled on this one as our first choice. But the assumption behind this one is that
is not a full-time connection into Green Hill. That’s an emergency access and a
pedestrian access only, and it is not full-time, so it is surcuitous (sic) to get through here
and out to the east. To be fair, your staff does not support – your staff is looking for a
straight-through road. We don’t think that’s in the best interest of anyone. There’s a
bunch of straight-through roads around the county now, and we don’t need to add more
of them. We’ve – if that was our preferred solution, making it surcuitous would –
Brown: Well, and I understand the process that we’re going through. We have
annexation, and we’re looking at a conditional use which has to do with this site plan
and the different aspects of the site plan. I mean, another one that comes to mind for
me is right here where you have, I would say, your upper-end lots and then you have
your lower-end lots, and you have one abutting another, and, you know, I know that you
have to make a cutting point someplace in your transition. I’m not saying I don’t like
your plan. I mean, everybody else has said they like your plan, and I’m not – but – and
I like the amount of open space that you’ve provided. As I scaled these off, and I can
be corrected wrong, these lots are how wide? Fifty feet?
Pete O'Niell: Nominal 50, 55.
Brown: And they’re 110 deep? And you have -- in here you have 60s and 60-foot wide
which would be a typical Boise City lot for the most part, 110 feet. You have 80s in
here.
Pete O'Niell: I agree with you. We’re not comfortable with the colors on the second
phase because we really don’t know what the market acceptance is going to be in the
first phase, and those colors could change --
Brown: Well, and I –
Pete O'Niell: -- depending upon –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 105
Brown: -- realize that as this property over here changes and they come in for a
Comprehensive Plan change and I continue to have more commercial neighbors than I
do residential neighbors, that you’re going to want some kind of transition just like you
transitioned out on Locust Grove.
Pete O'Niell: That was the thought behind the red being there. If it stayed the way it is
today, we’d probably carry the larger lots around because that’s an attractive neighbor
to have the horse pasture and pig homes in your backyard. We’re led to believe it’s not
going to stay that way.
Brown: No. No, it’s not.
Borup: Okay. Does that conclude that?
Pete O'Niell: I just want to make a comment. I don’t want to drag this on any longer,
but the CU process and PUD process, it would go from here to City Council and then
we’d start the preliminary plat process. This is more than a concept plan. There are a
number of specific things. We’ve outlined road sections, we’ve outlined road
dimensions, we’ve outlined bike path designs, we’ve outlined the landscaping, the
fencing. It’s all in the plan and presumably been recommended for approval by staff.
Lot dimensions and setbacks and so on and so forth. It will not meet your standard
subdivision ordinance. We’re using the PUD process to get the trade-off of more open
space and less stringent (inaudible) lot design. So you need to understand that.
Borup: I had a couple questions, Mr. O’Niell. You’d made reference to the grass
pavers. You said ACHD has accepted that in your projects or other areas or – and
those have been on public roads not private?
Pete O'Niell: Yes. There’s a connection in the first phase of Surprise Valley that has a
walking path and then grasscrete on both sides of it with break-away ballards. We did
one years ago in Spring Meadow.
Hatcher: It’s ACHD right-of-way?
Pete O'Niell: I think some of them are easements.
Hatcher: I thought some of them were emergency accesses but not ACHD right-of-way.
Borup: That was what I was wondering if there was a difference.
Hatcher: I thought that was –
Pete O'Niell: Fact is, they could tear it up and pave it in the future.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 106
Borup: Well, if it’s right-of-way they could. If it’s an easement, then they could be –
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. We’d love –
Borup: Well, I was wondering if (inaudible) difference.
Pete O'Niell: We’d love it to be an easement.
Borup: You’re still able to construct those to the low-bearing specifications?
Pete O'Niell: Yes.
Borup: You can do that just with compaction or do you need to go in with – just gravel
compaction will do it before the pavers go in?
Pete O'Niell: As I understand it, you can kind of build the road base –
Borup: Same base, you just top it off with the pavers? To me that would be a real
attractive way to do that. It sounds like that would be the first choice. Question then on
access. So if that was the way you say will proceed, sometime you are going to need
that secondary access, then, assuming that this would not be the secondary access.
So you’re saying that you’re committed that one way or the other you will have an
access to the ease whether it goes down through the Locust View Heights or whether it
goes into Magic View through some other location one way or the other?
Pete O'Niell: Absolutely. That is –
Borup: Is there some point that you’d feel comfortable having that as a requirement,
some point in your development? Like, you know, Phase II? There’s – well.
Pete O'Niell: I think the Highway District’s saying that by 2050, you need to have the
secondary access in place.
Borup: Right. And I think the City feels that number’s maybe a little high.
Pete O'Niell: And –
Borup: From a real – from what the City would prefer as far as fire accesses.
Pete O'Niell: We’re suggesting that the middle ground by the time we cross the creek
and get into the second phase –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 107
Borup: Okay. And that’s what I was asking. So you feel that by the time you started
the second phase that you would have – and you’re saying an access to a public
roadway in Magic View then?
Hatcher: Just a stub.
Pete O'Niell: And the only reason I’m hesitating a little bit is the Highway District is
taking the position that if we provide the right-of-way to the property line, it is their
responsibility to get the right-of-way from that point.
Borup: Okay. That’s what I was looking for clarification on.
Pete O'Niell: I don’t want to go on record as saying we will buy that right-of-way from
whoever it is at whatever price they’re asking for.
Borup: And I guess the way we have any way of control of that is when and if that
property comes before us for development.
Pete O'Niell: That’s why we’re trying to talk with the neighbors at your suggestion. We
talk to – we’d like to have that pinned down; on the other hand, if someone buys all of
that other property, and it is rumored to be in the mill, and they have a project and they
say we want to connect here, you know, maybe that’s –
Borup: Then you could re-do your design to connect where they’re talking. Okay. And
then I want to ask another question one more time. I know you’re not going to want to
answer that, but any – and that was on contribution to an intersection upgrade.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. Excuse me. I didn’t answer that. I gave you –
Borup: Well, and I understand why.
Pete O'Niell: The background (inaudible). Our position on that is really very
straightforward. We’d be happy to pay our proportionate share of any improvements to
that intersection prior to one ACHD would normally do them. And proportionate share
means that the traffic demand and whatever is created by Jabill, whatever’s created by
Cobblestone, whatever’s already existing on the road. Somebody else going to pay
that?
Borup: And again, I don’t think we can make that requirement, but it’d be a real good
faith.
Pete O'Niell: Our suggestion is we try to lead that effort to cause that to happen.
Brown: Inactive catalyst to help facilitate that –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 108
Pete O'Niell: I think everybody’s going to sleep better at night, including ourselves, if
we’ve got –
Borup: Okay. That’s all I had. Anyone else?
Barbeiro: What road improvements on Locust Grove will you do along your frontage? I
don’t know if (inaudible) or widen it there, and if that becomes an ACHD issue or
something that you would perform, I’m thinking of the number of shopping centers in the
area. The shopping centers have paid for the road improvements adjacent to the
shopping centers.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. As I mentioned earlier, our preference would be to build a full build-
out section that would happen when the overpass comes across. Short of that, I think
there’s a turn lane or an acceleration lane to get in and out.
Borup: They’re talking 96-foot – so your proposal is your preference would be to
develop half of that 96 –
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. We’d do the 40 – whatever, 48 feet.
Borup: Yeah.
Pete O'Niell: Plus the section, landscape section we’re talking about plus the fencing
so you’d have (inaudible) intersection.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Commissioners. Thank you, Mr.
O’Niell.
Pete O'Niell: Thank you very much.
Hatcher: One last time for final comment.
Borup: From you?
Hatcher: Close it –
Barbeiro: I would like to keep the hearing open.
Borup: Well, that’s – do you want to do a little discussion first?
Barbeiro: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. Would you like to lead off?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 109
Barbeiro: Well –
Borup: Maybe we still have two more. We still have two more items.
Barbeiro: What’s surprising me is that I’ve not heard an adamant dislike for this project
like we did for Cobblestone, but I also understand that the – I’m really frustrated with the
whole concept of the traffic here. This project alone – when you include Cobblestone
and Jabill, this project will double the traffic on Locust Grove, and yes, it is a constant
issue in any place you go in Ada County. Ideally, I would like to see the road
improvements done prior to the placement of the project, but that’s not going to happen.
I’m not satisfied that this road is going to be improved in the next five years and that
there’s going to be an overpass in the next five years. I’m just perplexed that the
neighborhood association as strong as they have been in the past, you weren’t as
(inaudible) as you were –
: (inaudible)
Barbeiro: Yeah. Understood.
Borup: I think what we’re – I mean, the only thing that can be done in the near future is
the intersection.
Hatcher: ACHD will probably hold off on trying to do any improvements on South
Locust Grove until that overpass goes in.
Borup: That wasn’t the impression I had last time from Larry.
Hatcher: No. I’m not talking about the intersection, I’m talking about the road itself.
Borup: Oh. Of course.
Hatcher: So the best we could hope for within the next five years is to get that
intersection to some sort of acceptable standard with the existing conditions.
Brown: The road section is not the problem. It’s the intersection.
Hatcher: That’s one of the – yes. That’s what I’m saying.
Brown: I mean, driving down the road –
Hatcher: Yeah. That half mile of road is not the issue. It’s the intersection. That’s the
only thing that we could really fix right now.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 110
Borup: And I think he was saying the first – what they’re talking about doing is steps, if
I’m remembering right, that they do a turn and do another turn lane would be the first
step, and then the second step would be the signal.
Hatcher: Based upon the load at that intersection. As Cobblestone came on board, as
Jabill came on board, as Phase I and Phase II of this project came on board, it would
increase the demand of that intersection and then, you know, by that demand, they
would do the right-lane – right-turn lanes, he said almost immediately, and it wouldn’t be
far down the line -- the intersection would probably go in particularly just by Jabill firing
up.
: They made the comment on the Cobblestone that ACHD (inaudible) that the turning
lanes would not work because there’s still no light there, but he made the comment that
the turning lanes will not work unless there’s a light there.
Hatcher: For left-turn lanes.
: He said turning lanes will not work.
Hatcher: For left-turn lanes. Right turn-lanes aren’t going to stop – marking the stop.
: Yeah. For –
Hatcher: Well, he’s talking about left-turn lanes aren’t going to help without a light.
Borup: We’re not getting all that on the tape.
Hatcher: Sorry.
Borup: Who – continue.
Brown: Locust Grove is not lines still, right? There’s no –
Borup: Striping.
Brown: -- striping or anything else.
Fox: Can I say something else?
Hatcher: Sure. Go ahead. It’s still a public hearing.
Fox: Alan Fox, 1840 Cadillac Drive. If you’re -- Chairman and Commissioners. Keith,
you were on and so was Tom, the other two are new, when we started with
Cobblestone. Larry’s statement at that time was that section of Locust Grove and the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 111
section of Locust Grove over by Ustick were going to be the last two sections of Locust
Grove that would be widened depending on which way the traffic went. At that time, the
overpass was 2023 when it would be put over. Solely, that has worked its way down.
Borup: That has changed.
Fox: Slowly it’s worked its way down. Until things, you know, like you said, until you
come up and get the money and you get the property, it could be more than five years.
It could be ten years still before anything’s done with that.
Borup: I think it’s been swiftly working its way down. Meridian’s made some –
Fox: Well, they’ve pushed on it, but so –
Borup: -- has achieved some commitments, and some resolution from APA.
Fox: Yeah. He said also there wouldn’t be light until they widened the road and ran it
straight through on both of them, Eagle and – Franklin and Locust Grove. They
wouldn’t put a light until they widened the roads. He made that statement up here;
Larry did.
Borup: Until they widen it (inaudible) –
Fox: Until Locust Grove was widened and Franklin was widened, they would not spend
the money to put a light in at the intersection.
Borup: I didn’t here it that way. I heard that when they put the light in they would do the
whole intersection improvement at the same time that widening and then it would
narrow down.
Hatcher: They weren’t going to put – I don’t recall it being the widening of the road.
What I recall was they would not put the light at the intersection in until Locust Grove
was realigned, and they were in the process of acquiring the last parcel that was
required to do that. I think since that last meeting, I don’t know this for sure, but I think
since that last meeting, I heard that they acquired that last parcel.
Borup: (inaudible). I think they were talking about when they do put that light in, the
intersection would – the light would be put in to accommodate the full size of the
intersection.
Hatcher: Yeah. When it went in. They would improve it as required for the overpass.
Borup: They’re not going to want to put a light in and then move it again.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 112
Hatcher: Correct.
Fox: But whether if subdivision goes in, he’s going to be land-locked, so will we on
traffic going out unless they do widen, put a light and stuff in. You’re going to have a
land-locked intersection down there.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, how would you like to proceed?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Brown: I second.
Rutherford: Commissioners, before there’s a vote on that, I’ve had a request from one
of the team members from the Woodbridge people that they have a last word.
Pete O'Niell: We don’t have any further comments. I was just wondering if you closed
the hearing or not.
Borup: No. We had not closed the hearing. Did you have any final comments? Okay.
Brown: I second.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Barring any additional discussion amongst the Commissioners, I move that
we recommend to City Council annexation and zoning of Parcel A from R-T to single-
family residential and Parcel B from single-family residential to a limited office by
Woodbridge Community, LLC south of East Franklin Road and east of Locust Grove
Road with staff comments, and I would like to add that if the developer intends Phase I
to be the area west of is it Five Mile Creek? That Phase II not begin until the secondary
access is complete through to another roadway.
Borup: So you’re saying ACHD would have to complete that access?
Barbeiro: Yes.
Borup: Outside this project?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 113
Rutherford: I’m not sure how you handle that as part of the annexation.
Barbeiro: I’m not certain either. Direct me on this if I’m using this out of place.
Borup: I think maybe that can be a requirement of the plat.
Barbeiro: Okay. If that’s the case, then it is not a part of the annexation, then you’re
correct. I would withdraw that one item and, again, include all staff comments
(inaudible).
Borup: I do have one – that’s your motion. Do we have a second?
Brown: I’ll second for discussion.
Borup: Okay. I didn’t see where staff made any recommendation on the L-O property
other than just annexation. Normally you like to add in there conditional use – is this
conditional use applied to both parcels A and B? Just parcel A.
Stiles: The conditional use there, we’re having to go through that as part of their
proposal.
Borup: See, we’re not proposing any conditional use on Parcel B, then?
Stiles: No, but a development agreement.
Borup: Okay.
Stiles: I just wanted to clear up, there’s some problems with the agenda as far as how
these things are worded. As for annexation and zoning of Parcel A from R-T to single-
family residential, that should be annexation and zoning of Parcel A from R-T to R-4,
and Parcel B from, I believe it’s R-T to L-O. I don’t know where all these single-family
residentials popped up in this agenda, but that’s – you might want to re-word your –
Borup: And do we need –
Stiles: -- motion.
Borup: -- to act on Parcel B as a separate motion first? Well, they can be one
annexation. Okay. Any other discussion?
Hatcher: No.
Borup: Don’t have any other addition to the motion?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 114
Barbeiro: I wish to amend the motion as described by staff, the annexation and zoning
of Parcel A from R-T to R-4 and Parcel B, R-T to L-O.
Stiles: Is it R-1?
Barbeiro: Is it R-1? Excuse me. From an R-1 to an L-O.
Brown: I’ll second that.
Borup: Okay. Any other discussion?
Brown: I shouldn’t have seconded. No discussion.
Borup: No discussion. Any question on – okay. Call for a vote. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: It passes. Go on to recommend City Council.
ITEM 14. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 283 LOT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R-T TO R-4 BY
WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC—SOUTH OF E. FRANKLIN ROAD
AND EAST OF S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: Okay. Item No. 14. Public hearing for conditional use permit for 283-lot
planned development on 80.3 acres from R-T to R-4 for Woodbridge Community, LLC.
Staff, anything additional?
Stiles: It’s, again, this is a strange wording of the Item. They’re not asking for a
conditional use permit from R-T to R-4. They’re asking you to approve a planned-unit
development that you basically buy off on their concept. It doesn’t include the
configuration of the streets as they are particularly now. That’ll have to go through the
platting process. I believe they’re proposing that narrower roads. They’re proposing
sidewalk on one side only. They’re proposing varying lot sizes that are below the R-4
standard, and, of course, their block lengths would exceed what our block lengths are,
cul-de-sac, would exceed cul-de-sac lengths. But they are providing the minimum 10
percent –
Borup: Is that it?
Hatcher: The 10 percent what?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 115
Borup: Open space.
Stiles: Yeah. They have the – what is the percentage? (inaudible) percentage they
had proposed. I guess I need a little input from legal counsel how bound we are to this
– I mean, are we saying if you’re recommending this, are you saying what you see is
what you get? That’s what you’re approving, or can that be – that recommendation be
worded that the basic concept is approved? Staff would recommend the narrower
streets be approved provided the ACHD will accept them as public streets. We would
not recommend private streets.
Rutherford: My inclination at this point would be that you’re buying off on the concept
and specifics of the concept as discussed tonight in this hearing, I think, would be
included.
Pete O'Niell: That’s not what we submitted.
Borup: Well, we’ll have you – the opportunity to (inaudible).
Rutherford: Shari, you’d be better versed on conditional use permit versus planned-unit
development. I’d have to look into that. My inclination is, at this point, on conditional
use permit it would be the concept not specifics.
Stiles: As far as a conditional use permit, normally we would have every tree accounted
for as part of a conditional use permit. The site plan would be exact. You would not be
moving streets, you would not be changing any of those details.
Borup: That’s the way it’s been.
Stiles: Maybe Kent has some –
Brown: No. That’s right.
Stiles: So, basically, what they’re asking for is that you take this exactly as you see it
and that’s it.
Borup: You’re saying the conditional use process is that, but that’s not what you said
the applicant’s initial intention was.
Stiles: I believe their intention was just to get the concept approved so that they could
work out the details later. That’s what I was told.
Borup: Yes. And you’re saying that does not fit in with our normal conditional use
process.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 116
Stiles: I guess I’d like an explanation from Mr. O’Niell. I know the public hearing is
closed, but –
Borup: No.
Stiles: Oh. It’s still open?
Borup: No. We’re open – we’re on a new Item.
Stiles: Oh. You just open it again?
Borup: No. Open for the first time.
Stiles: Oh. For the first time.
Borup: We’re on Item No. 14 – 13. Whatever we’re on here.
Stiles: Okay.
Borup: We’re on Item No. – 13 is closed. 14 has just been opened.
Stiles: I guess before I comment, then, I would like to hear what they expect this to get
them.
Borup: Okay. Mr. O’Niell.
Rutherford: And where the preliminary plat fits into the whole scheme.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. I must say I’m confused at this point in time.
Borup: Okay. This is a new public hearing.
Pete O'Niell: I thought the testimony was on both issues.
Borup: It can – one –
Hatcher: We’ll carry it over –
Borup: Will be incorporated.
Hatcher: -- to this so you don’t have to go through all that again.
Borup: No.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 117
Pete O'Niell: Is that okay, counselor?
Rutherford: Please don’t.
Pete O'Niell: We don’t like to give you reasons for somebody (inaudible). Scott, you’re
going to have to help me with the technicalities on this. We like the PUD concept.
There’s no such thing as a PUD application. You have to go through a CU process in
order to get a PUD, so the comments in the staff report, and I think the general
mentality, if you will, of a PUD in Meridian is a CU which typically has to do with a
shopping center or an apartment, and you look at all of the details. So this is a strange
beast when you look at a all single-family residential PUD.
Borup: We had – and we do have a few.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. And what are we expecting out of it? We’re saying this is a general
land use plan that we like. It’s a circulation plan that we like. We’ve presented very
specifically road dimensions. They’ve been approved by ACHD, by the way. They’ve
been built by us, by the way, and they’ve been accepted as public roads by ACHD. So
that shouldn’t be an issue. There is no question that the lot standards when we come in
with the plat, if the Public Works Department says, “Wait a minute. This is a
subdivision, and it doesn’t meet the R-4 subdivision requirements. You can’t do this,” –
Borup: I think we’re clear on all of that.
Pete O'Niell: Okay.
Borup: I think staff’s only comment – I think Shari’s only concern was on ACHD
maintaining the roads, and you say you (inaudible) on that and they will do that.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah.
Borup: I think that answers that.
Pete O'Niell: But as far as the other things that we’re expecting to get out of this, we
don’t have to want to go through the debate at a preliminary plat stage of whether or not
50-foot lots are acceptable, whether or not five-foot side-yards are acceptable, whether
15, 10- or 15-foot front yard setbacks on the side-entry garage are acceptable, all of
which were very specifically requested.
Borup: You’re saying you’re expected approval would include all the items on your
matrix?
Pete O'Niell: That – and our view, the only way to work that out is through the
development agreement. To get very, very specific, and that would be a condition of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 118
final approval by City Council, I think. That protects everybody. We know that you’ve
approved what we’ve asked for, you know that we’re going to commit to do certain
things that we’ve represented, and that’s what the development agreement is.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Mr. O’Niell, on the flip-side of that as well, I completely understand where
you’re coming from and what you’re asking. But on the other aspect, we’ve got to make
sure that what you’re proposing is a general acceptance of the concept and that if the
secondary access to the eastern – your east goes from that bottom corner up to the top,
you know, I don’t want it in any way to be construed that what you see is what you get.
You approved it last month. We’re not changing it. I mean, when it comes back for
preliminary plat, I want to be able to make sure that we have a mutual agreement here
that over the course of design, because design evolves, that you will be open to
modifications as necessary as things develop.
Pete O'Niell: Absolutely. Our Point No. 4 in our letter today in terms of the location and
secondary access point makes that very clear. We’ve made a proposal, you’ve made
some other suggestions, we’re perfectly willing to work with the appropriate folks on a
mutually acceptable location. We’re sticking by our guns until everything closes.
There’s something –
Borup: I think what you’re saying, you’re saying you’ve got a Type A, B, C –
Pete O'Niell: These ought to be made a part of the record that’s part of what it is you’re
approving.
Borup: Today’s letter.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah.
Borup: Well, essentially, you’re saying you’ve got Type A, B, C and D lots with the
minimum footages, the setbacks as outlined in here, and that’s what you’re asking for
approval of. So even though the plat design may change, you’re still looking at 283
home sites –
Pete O'Niell: And we’d be willing –
Borup: -- you’re looking at seven, how many acres of open did you say you had?
Seven –
Pete O'Niell: I think there’s 16.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 119
Borup: Sixteen-some acres. That’s going to stay the same. The configuration could
change a little bit, but I think that’s all we’re saying too. I think we’re on the same.
Pete O'Niell: We agreed to stick to not exceeding the 283 even though the R-4 would
allow for 320 and with the density bonus you could get up to 370. We’re not asking for
that. We’re saying 283 is as much as we need.
Borup: That gives as much – yeah. That gives as much insurance as can be and as
needed. And that still gives them flexibility on specific street layouts and whatever you
run into as you get further into the design. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. –
Brown: Yes. Your minimum lot frontage, then, you have a few flag – looks like flag lots.
Either flag lots or common drives or private streets or –
Pete O'Niell: We’re promoting some common drives.
Brown: Okay.
Pete O'Niell: We’re saying the frontage of the common drive needs to be 20 feet on a
public access, but we could go into a long discussion why we like those little common
drives, and we’ve done some recently as opposed to what you get at typically is those
big fan lots as you go around the corner, and you get all front and no back.
Borup: So your questions was just for clarification and what those were?
Brown: What the minimum frontage was and what that would be.
Pete O'Niell: I think that’s laid out. Where is that, Scott? Was that in the original
application or in the –
Rutherford: Footnote No. 5 gives the specifics on where the – where and what the
frontage is to be. That matrix generally identifies frontages for each lot type; however, it
excludes certain situations including the exterior corner lots, lots on – flag lots, lots on
common driveway lots which would be separate lots altogether; therefore, I think in
answer to your question, Kent, there are some lots that wouldn’t have necessarily
frontage on the public street, but frontage on the common driveway lot such as was
approved at James Place in Ashford Greens.
Borup: Thank you. Does that answer that question? Okay. Do we have anyone from
the audience that – well, Mr. O’Niell, did you – were you complete? Were you finished?
Pete O'Niell: Yeah.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 120
Borup: Okay. Yes. Come on up, Mrs. Smith.
Smith: Yes. I’m Jere Smith. I’m concerned that you’ve lumped this together, and I
understand that one development is much larger than the other, but I’m very interested
in what’s going on next door because, just like Mr. O’Niell said, they don’t really know
what’s going to go on next door, and they don’t have any drawing, they have nothing
concerning that plot, and I’m very interested in that. You’ve grouped it together and
went ahead and sent it, but –
Borup: You’re concern is the style of the building?
Smith: I’m concerned with all parts of it.
Borup: Okay. At this point, I mean, the application was for limited office.
Smith: Right. And I – and there’s no drawing, there’s nothing.
Borup: Right. That’s why I say your concern is –
Smith: Yeah. I’m very concerned.
Borup: -- the exterior style of the building.
Smith: Yes. If you live next door to it, and I’d like to know how it’s going to be
developed and the whole bit, and you’ve lumped it in with this other –
Brown: Mr. Chairman, it’s –
Hatcher: The first one was annexation and zoning of that lot. This conditional use PUD
is only for the large parcel. If any development on the small parcel that you’re
concerned about occurs, then that will have to be resubmitted – not even – it’ll have to
be submitted to the Planning Department and go through this entire process for
whatever it is they decide to do with that property. As of right now, they can’t do
anything to that property until it comes back through public hearing and the CU.
Smith: So it has to come back to Planning and Zoning before anything can be done
there?
Hatcher: That’s correct.
Smith: With nothing.
Hatcher: Yes, because what we’re talking about right now is for the big lot, not – and it
has nothing to do with the little one.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 121
Smith: Well, I thought when Tom – or Mr. Barbeiro presented that, I thought he said for
annexation –
Borup: Yes.
Hatcher: Yes. For the annexation and zoning.
Smith: -- this – that’s just for annexation and nothing more.
Hatcher: That was it.
Smith: Okay. Thank you very much.
Borup: And that little section was –
Smith: I stand to be corrected.
Borup: -- that little section was annexed so this one could be too. Have contiguous
piece.
Smith: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: They bought that just to get contiguous to the city here.
Smith: Is it –
Borup: Probably didn’t even want that property.
Smith: -- for access to the power and –
Borup: No. Just –
Smith: -- sewer or anything?
Borup: -- just land itself to be contiguous.
Smith: Thank you.
Borup: I think they probably didn’t even want that. Anyone else? This –
Pete O'Niell: What we’ve got is the annexation, the zone and you (inaudible), and you
get to look at it again.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 122
Rockrohr: Dick Rockrohr, 2715 Autumn Way. Just a quick question, now. If we’re
buying in on the concept, are you going to come back and have a plat meeting where
we have to sit through this or are we going to – now the roads, which is, of course, my
major concern, you’re buying in the concept that we’re exiting to the east onto Magic
View and then to Eagle Road, eventually, that way, and the concept was that it would be
an emergency access into Green Hill Estates, or do we come back and do another six
hours?
Borup: Well –
Rockrohr: Some of the –
Borup: -- we’ll be here whether you come. It’s up to you.
Rockrohr: But we’ll be re-addressed again, and we’ll need to be here for that one, or is
this going – if you approve it like they’ve proposed it now and it’s put up there on the
wall now is concept that way and we don’t have to address it again.
Borup: Well, the understanding is a concept will be substantially the same as what
we’ve seen.
Rockrohr: So we should be –
Borup: But they’ll come in with specific plans showing all dimensions of the lot lines,
you know, the size and dimensions and engineering of the street, sewer lines, et cetera.
Rockrohr: But that secondary access and when it gets to Phase II won’t just go, well,
it’s a lot easier to punch right through here so we’re just going to do that. We’ve got a
commitment –
Borup: That’s got to be all approved, and I think we’ve come to a conclusion, at least in
my mind that these access to the north would be emergency access only. The
secondary access would be to the east in the Magic View. One – you know, we’re at
the location may change, but that’s where it would be.
Rockrohr: Yeah. And so when you all vote on that, that’s pretty much going to lock it in
as your recommendation to the City Council, right?
Borup: Yes.
Rockrohr: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. O’Niell.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 123
Pete O'Niell: At all, at least our experience is the next big bite of the apple is this same
process over again with City Council, and then you – that might include at the separate
hearing the conditions attached in the development agreement. So all of that happens
before you get into the platting process. You get a whole other chance to go through
the public hearing process again. At least, it’s been our experience that if we do a good
job and the City does a good job in this process, then the development agreement – the
plats come pretty straight forward. Because you’re either consistent with what’s been
approved or not, so that typically isn’t time you have a great big debate.
Borup: The only time we’ve had problems is when a developer is –
Pete O'Niell: Changes his mind.
Borup: -- yeah. Tells us one thing and draws another. Designs another –
Pete O'Niell: Well, one of the reasons I – Keith, you’re old enough, you and I are
probably the only guys here that remember Al Marston and a lot of those early plans in
town, and I’m very sensitive to what I call the wick-pen concept drawings, and that’s
why we’ve submitted as much backup information that we have. This is not a wick-pen
concept. This is substantive concept.
Borup: (inaudible) thank you. Anyone else? Come on up and get on record if you want
to speak.
Mecham: I’m Bryan Mecham, again, from 2159 Autumn Way. I just want my previous
comments to be part of this also.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. we took – I just make a blanket statement that we would
consider all the comments made earlier as also part of this application so that they go
on the record as such. Anyone else?
Rutherford: Commissioner, if I might follow-up the question that Shari asked me just a
few minutes ago. In light of what Mr. O’Niell is requesting tonight, do you have the
appropriate information to have the Commission act on your comments in light of that?
Stiles: I guess that’s why I was asking you the question. I mean, obviously, the O’Niells
are much more sophisticated at this process and have been through many other
jurisdictions, and anytime somebody brings an attorney with them, it makes me
nervous. So I’m just wanting to make sure that we’re not – that what we see is not
exactly what we’re going to get; that we’re going to get the buffer on Locust Grove; that
we’re going to nail down those details as part of the plat and nail down the accesses
and those kinds of things; and that simply because we approved a Type-A that allows
down to 4800 is that going to be interpreted later as, well, we can make them all 4800
because they basically approved that? But, that’s why I was –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 124
*** End of Tape 8 ***
Borup: -- and just by stating that, that would make part of our recommendation. The
letter from OEI with their development matrix.
Stiles: And what about our comments as far as additional right-of-way on Locust
Grove, additional buffering on Locust Grove which is going to slightly alter their plan.
It’s not going to make a major difference, but I was – since no – we’ve never done a
PUD that had the concept first.
Rutherford: Understand. My inclination would be that’s subject to the development
agreement, and that’s what that’s for.
Stiles: That we could nail down all those details with the development agreement?
Rutherford: That’s correct.
Stiles: Okay.
Borup: So – ask Mr. O’Niell. Did – was there anything in the staff comments that you
felt would be a concern?
Pete O'Niell: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Pete O'Niell: There’s a letter dated October 11 to the Commissioners, a copy of which
is in – has been officially submitted. We took exception to several things very
specifically and laid them out and then had a general category that there’s a number of
them that depending on how you interpret them could change the plan or the what the
City thought they were getting so that those should be subject to a development
agreement and worked out very carefully between now and City Council. But to be
specific, we do not agree with staff’s comment that we think a 22 and-a-half landscape
buffer and sound wall as we’ve proposed along Locust Grove Road is appropriate, and
we don’t need an additional 10 feet which staff is suggesting which is our answer on
second page to the proper requirement under No. 6 here. What I’m concerned about
now, and the reason we do bring a lawyer along is if things aren’t handled properly, the
City opens themselves up to lawsuits, and it – I’m concerned that this is piecemeal and
certain staff comments are taken as a condition and others aren’t. I mean, at some
point in time, we’ve got to go through all of those conditions that would be attached to a
final PUD approval which is related to a development agreement and as a City Council
function. If you want to discuss the areas, I mean, the emergency access
recommendation by staff, I don’t think we agree with. We don’t agree with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 125
permanent secondary access has to be in at 100 lots, we don’t agree with that. It’s
almost physically impossible, and the whole circulation system where they want the full-
time access to Green Hill Estates as well as to the east, we don’t agree with that as well
as the – we’ve addressed the buffer issues on Woodbridge Drive that they did not
comment on, but they did comment on the Locust Grove buffer. We would suggest this
clearly as part of the record is – well –
Borup: I think we’ve covered at least what – I do have a question on your comment on
the buffer. I thought I understood and now I’m confused. You’re proposing a 22-foot
buffer? 22 and-a-half foot landscape strip outside of their right-of-way?
Pete O'Niell: No. There’s detailed plans that have been submitted that if you’re looking
at a –
Borup: I’m looking at Comment No. – on –
Pete O'Niell: The issue, I think, is how much is enough, and I believe it’s a City policy
and staff’s recommendation that whatever you have, we want an additional 20 feet of
project property as a buffer regardless of how much buffer there is in the right-of-way.
Borup: So where does this 22 and-a-half feet –
Pete O'Niell: Twenty-two and-a-half feet is 12 and-a-half feet of the right-of-way and 10
additional feet. Within that, we’re suggesting rather than a 5-foot sidewalk right behind
the curb, we’re suggesting a 22 and-a-half foot landscape section with an 8-foot
meandering bicycle and pedestrian path as well as full landscaping and a fence and
berming.
Borup: Then you’d be proposing to have an agreement with ACHD on that, then?
Pete O'Niell: Most likely we’d end up with a maintenance agreement with – a license
agreement which we’ve done in virtually every project.
Borup: Is there still a concern on that, Shari? Didn’t the family center do that partially?
Stiles: It appears from the roadway sections they provided that 10 feet of their planning
area would be, well, let’s see. There’s more than that. Twelve and-a-half feet would be
in the right-of-way.
Borup: Yes. That’s what he stated, and 10 feet would be on their property.
Stiles: So with the full construction of that roadway, it seems like the planning strip, 6-
foot planning strip would be eliminated if they’re going to have a 48-foot right-of-way.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 126
Pete O'Niell: The 48-foot fence –
Stiles: Forty-eight from center line.
Pete O'Niell: -- half right-of-way includes a 12-foot turning lane, 12-foot turning – no. It’s
half of a turning lane of – how much, Scott?
Beacham: It’s a 12 foot total, six foot is half from the center line and six feet – 12-foot
drive lane and bike lane, curb and 12 and-a-half feet of the remaining (inaudible)
Pete O'Niell: It’s a five-lane section that is allowed for there which is the same as the
fully developed Eagle Road section is today. The traffic capacity of that is enormous
coupled with the fact that Eagle Road and Meridian Road are going to be expanded to
seven-lane before Locust Grove would be expanded to seven-lane, and the likelihood
of this ever needing the full 98 feet for pavement is diminimous, and I think the data can
be developed to support that.
Borup: So is that what your concern is, Shari, if this ever went to seven lanes?
Stiles: Their right-of-way they’re going to need, what they require on all these section
line roads is 96 feet.
Pete O'Niell: Okay. They’ve got it.
Stiles: Our only comment was based on looking at scaling this map that we have.
That’s where the comment came from.
Borup: Okay. So that’s where the problem from; maybe the map wasn’t –
Stiles: Well, still –
Borup: Did you – you’re analyzing their cross-section here now, though? Does that
clarify that?
Stiles: So they would basically have 22 and-a-half feet of landscaping that includes 8
feet of a sidewalk.
Pete O'Niell: Detached meandering sidewalk. Very similar except it’s eight feet rather
than ten feet to the Surprise Valley sidewalk.
Borup: So they’re talking landscaping between the sidewalk and the street? It still
looks like it provides for five lanes and a bike lane.
Stiles: But you’re really getting 12 feet of buffering.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 127
Pete O'Niell: You’re getting 22 and-a-half feet of buffering, and I don’t want to debate at
this – I don’t think this is the correct hearing to debate 20-foot buffer, and our analysis of
that, I think, there’s some real loose wording in the City’s policy on that because they’re
talking – you know, we’re going by the intent because if you read visual – it is for visual
separation, and I’m not sure what 20 feet versus 10 feet of private property does in
terms of visual separation. I think the visual separation, the sound separation, has to
do with walls and landscaping, not how many feet of unlandscaped no-man’s land
you’ve created all over your community. I don’t think that’s solves the intent of the
problem which is to create a separation of the uses. I think a more intense use of 22
and-a-half feet would be better than a less intense landscaping of 32 and-a-half feet.
Borup: And we’ve discussed that before. That – we’ve done some reduced buffering
because of more intensive landscaping.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I think this is an issue that could be finalized within the development
agreement between staff and the developer.
Borup: I would like that.
Hatcher: And we could – we’ve got an opportunity to review it one last time during the
preliminary plat, but I would like to just bring up my concern. Our ordinances for
landscape buffering and everything is a certain amount of feet from the right-of-way. I
think in this case we have to have 20 feet from the right-of-way, and Mr. O’Niell’s
interpretation of our code and of whether it’s five lanes or seven lanes or – I don’t think
that that’s an issue. I think that we need to provide X-amount of feet from the right-of-
way. But I would defer that to staff and Mr. O’Niell to finalize the development
agreement, and if the lots have to move, the lots have to move. What I see that –
Borup: But we have done reduced setbacks when the landscaping intensity increased
appropriately.
Hatcher: Yeah. I understand that, and I completely agree with what Mr. O’Niell’s
proposing if it were to stay five lanes because then you have compact landscaping
which meet and exceed the requirements. But once again, we cannot foresee the
future, and if you’d – we’d only have 10 feet of landscaping from the way it’s shown
right now, from the right-of-way.
Borup: I don’t think we’re going to see seven lanes – anybody in this room – nobody in
this room’s going to see seven lanes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 128
Hatcher: Not on that road. So –
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to proceed? We still have a public hearing open. Do you
have anyone else that you would like to –
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Do we need some discussion how to draft this motion? I think we’ve
talked about is staff comments. There may be some clarification needed there. We
also have the letter dated September 9th
from OEI which goes into the development
standard matrix on home site types, yard setbacks, minimum heights, et cetera. I think
that was the intent of the applicant is that we would be approving what they have
submitted, the understanding that the design may change slightly, but that this would be
the number of lots with this number of breakdown. Anything else that needed to be in
there? Maybe how do we handle the staff question on the setback buffer. Shari, is that
specifically how that ordinance says? It says 20 feet from right-of-way, period.
Stiles: It’s a 20-foot separation next to incompatible uses.
Borup: So not necessarily on the road right-of-way.
Stiles: Well, we have been consistent in requiring the 20-foot beyond right-of-way.
Borup: Well, for subdivisions or for everything?
Stiles: It’s hard to tell from what’s been submitted if, you know, what that landscaping
is.
Borup: Well –
Stiles: It’s not scaled.
Borup: We don’t have – there isn’t any landscaping plan submitted, is there? This
shows greenscape there and that’s it and a pathway.
Stiles: No. They – what was I just looking at?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 129
Borup: Oh. The other – right. The other one.
Stiles: In what they submitted today or – on the 11th
, they do have some sections, but it
doesn’t show –
Borup: Oh. The cross-section –
Stiles: -- is not to scale.
Borup: -- and it shows – I’m not even sure if that’s to scale necessarily. Well, how do
we need –
Stiles: That is another item they can propose as part of a PUD. It’s just got to be that’s
what you approve or not. It’s hard to get all this information and know exactly what’s
changed or what’s in addition.
Borup: And that’s going to show – that’s going to be on the plat.
Stiles: They’re not going to show landscaping on a plat. They’ll have to provide a
detailed landscape plan as part of the final plat, but my problem is I’m afraid it’ll come
back that say, well, you approved this. This is what you – you can’t ask for anything
more.
Borup: Well, I’m not sure what we’re approving there.
Stiles: That’s what I’m afraid of.
Borup: Oh. I guess at some point it’s got to come down to the integrity and the history
of the developer. You know, what has their past history showed and whether we can
expect the same in the future.
Stiles: I have absolutely no problems when it comes with that. But you can’t base it on
that. I mean, it would be nice if you could, but they could sell it tomorrow to someone
else. I’m not questioning that at all. I think the project is great.
Borup: Can we – your statement about – repeat again on where the landscape – you
say we would need a landscaping detail? Would come before who at what point?
Stiles: Typically it wouldn’t come before anyone except as part of their submittal for a
final plat, but they have made a proposal as part of their conditional use permit what
they submitted yesterday.
Borup: But that proposal does not give dimensions.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 130
Stiles: No. It doesn’t.
Borup: So I consider that a concept without specific dimensions --
Stiles: They’re showing roadway sections.
Borup: -- or specific tree spacing or whatever.
Stiles: But they are showing roadway sections.
Borup: Yes.
Hatcher: Keith, if we were to accept or recommend approval based upon what has
been submitted, then we would, I think, legally have a sticky point that we would be
obligated to the dimensions in which these cross-sections show.
Borup: Right. On the cross-section. That’s going to show the 22 and – you’re saying
the 22 and-a-half feet.
Hatcher: Correct. Or the ten-foot. Depending on how you interpret it.
Borup: In my mind –
Hatcher: It’s something that needs to be addressed specifically so that we don’t have a
problem down the line.
Borup: Address specifically as what we’re –
Hatcher: As to whether we approve it as submitted or we make a modification on staff’s
recommendations.
Borup: Well, yes. That needs to be clarified because we’ve got two different
statements here.
Hatcher: Right.
Borup: So do we have a solution? In my mind, what counts is what that streetscape is
going to look like. Not – what it’s visually going to look like more than how many feet it
is.
Hatcher: I agree.
Borup: I guess that may be –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 131
Stiles: Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
Stiles: That planning strip ordinance, the Commission can approve something less than
that if they agree with this concept. I guess I would rather you approve what they’re
proposing rather than leave it up to staff later because we don’t like to have –
(inaudible) never like to negotiate that stuff after the fact. They want to know what’s
approved now. It’s a little difficult to say – to see here from what that fence construction
is, but we’ve certainly seen a lot worse in that 20-foot planting strip. If these are roughly
to scale, I tried to just scale the sidewalk, if that’s – if it’s roughly to scale, it’s about one
to forty, and it appears that the trees, at least in this typical section they have would be
about 40 feet on center.
Borup: I’m coming out closer to 35 if the – 35 and-a-half.
Stiles: On Locust Grove Road?
Borup: Yes. I’m not using a scale. I took the paper. Go down there where it’s 35 and-
a-half feet, draw two little lines and then go up to where the trees are, and it’s about the
same. So our assumption would be that the tree spacing is about 35 and-a-half.
Stiles: Is that one scaled?
Borup: That’s about – that’s as close as you’re going to want trees; isn’t it? (inaudible).
Stiles: The Commission needs to accept this as – unless you want changes to this, you
need to accept that as they presented it.
Borup: Okay. Make an assumption that the spacing is 35 to 40 feet. Can we add that?
Stiles: Well, that’s as they presented it. This is a scaled drawing.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, I think we’re ready and we can accept this as –
: We have a suggestion to make if the Commission would entertain it.
Borup: Anybody else from Commission like to open the public hearing? Okay. I think
what we got an option of, we can approve it as submitted, make an assumption and
how I scale this is that the – those trees are spaced 35 to 40 feet.
Hatcher: You know, to be perfectly honest, what I would really like to see is talking with
legal counsel, what I’d really like to see, I’d like to take and put this off and have the
developer and staff work out all of these items as to what it is is going to be done
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 132
because we need to – we have to approve or recommend approval to City Council of
this is what we’re doing.
Borup: Are we down to any other items besides this landscaping?
Hatcher: Well, one of my concerns, and it has nothing – I know the track record of the
developer, you know, integrity level, I have no problems with it. The problem that I
foresee a whole can of worms opening up is we get back to that exact same thing.
We’re going to apply it – we’re going to approve it in a general consensus, yeah, the
overall plan looks great. Go for it. And then between now and the development
agreement, all these things are going to – loose ends, and, well, that’s no – you
approved it. We submitted it; you approved it; that’s what you’re getting. Then on the
other flip side of that –
Borup: You mean you’re thinking if something is going to come in that’s not going to
show up on the plat?
Hatcher: There’s so much here –
Borup: That’s not going to show on the plat?
Hatcher: There’s so much here that I know there’s issues here that we haven’t even
discussed tonight, and we’ve been at it, for what, four hours, and I know that Mr. O’Niell
brought it up himself, you know, that we need to address all of these issues specifically,
otherwise the City opens up itself for a lawsuit. We cannot just say, well, yeah, I
approve Mr. O’Niell’s response letter dated such-and-such when he has a paragraph at
the bottom that says, “In addition to the comments from the staff report that are
addressed above, Woodbridge Community would like to voice our concern that several
of the comments contained in the staff report, depending on their interpretation, could
be contrary to the intent of the plan,” da da da. What is he saying? He’s not saying
anything other than–
Pete O'Niell: Read the rest of it.
Hatcher: -- have some concerns about all of it – No. I have read it. I have read it a
couple of times. I’m just bringing up the whole thing that I’m concerned of loose ends.
That we’re talking too many generalities.
Borup: -- on his final comment was I’d like to work with staff –
Hatcher: And that’s what I’m saying.
Borup: -- and to prepare a draft development agreement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 133
Pete O'Niell: For consideration (inaudible).
Borup: Yeah. Which at this point, Shari, is the – at what point now is City Council
wanting to see the development agreement? At what point in the process?
Stiles: Prior to annexation.
Borup: Prior to annexation.
Pete O'Niell: Too late.
Hatcher: We just recommended it.
Borup: No. Nothing’s been annexed, yet, sir.
Pete O'Niell: Yeah. That’s true. I’m sorry.
Borup: Okay. Well, then, would that answer that concern?
Hatcher: Rephrase it.
Borup: Well –
Hatcher: What would answer my concern?
Borup: The development agreement is going to be written and approved prior to
annexation by City Council. So those details do need to be worked out before they’re
going to annex. I guess they need some type of recommendation from us, don’t they,
before they can proceed ahead with that.
Hatcher: Correct.
Borup: So then don’t we need a recommendation be just on the annexation? Maybe
we don’t need to – I don’t know if we need to address every issue in the motion, but it is
getting late. Commissioners, we’re open for suggestion.
Rutherford: I’ve got to tell you. I’m the gentleman that drafts the recommendations,
and to tell you the truth, from what I’m understanding, I don’t know what to put in those
recommendations. I’ve got staff comments, a number of them, I have Mr. O’Niell’s
response, which he’d just like to incorporate in the record, and I can’t very well put all
that information in the recommendation because you really would be sending my
opinion to City Council a bunch of incomprehensible – it is my opinion that you need to
be recommending to the City Council something comprehensible. Again, my opinion is
that it would include getting – I guess you have a couple different options. I think
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 134
counsel for Mr. O’Niell has potential; a good alternative, and that’s to include specifically
in your recommendation that with regard to landscape, the second access and when
that’s to go in and the Green Hill Estates access that those issues are to be worked out
with staff by way of a development agreement. Or we sit here tonight, we (inaudible)
and you make specific recommendations about those issues up to the City Council.
Borup: It looks like we’re down to, specifically, the letter, I think, addressed five items
and addressing staff comments. You’re saying we either need to maybe address those
five items that there was not agreement on or have them work it out with staff in a
development agreement? Are those the two options you’re saying?
Rutherford: I my opinion, those are your two options.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I think we have another option of continuing the public hearing for the
(inaudible) bring us his (inaudible) of plat plan and development agreement.
Borup: Yeah.
Rutherford: Commissioners, I guess there is a third option which I didn’t mention. You
always have an option of you can – I really don’t think tabling this would be the method
to go to because then you couldn’t get anymore input from Mr. O’Niell and his staff.
Potentially, re-opening the public hearing and continuing this matter and staff and Mr.
O’Niell and his staff can get together and work out these issues with staff.
Borup: I think we could address the five issues right now if we wanted without going
into a lot of detail. If those are the only ones that – I see five. One’s the emergency
vehicle access. That’d be a recommendation that would be strictly an emergency
vehicle with – whether it can be the grass pavers or what could be worked out with
ACHD. Their second item was access to Weatherby which is the same thing. That
would not be the permanent access. Third was circulation. Staff was concerned about
limiting the 100 units before the second access. ACHD was saying 50 with the proposal
that was mentioned earlier, and I don’t know how the numbers come out, but it would be
essentially half of the development, and then there would be that second access point
when the second half was developed. That would answer that. Number four is also the
secondary access point. Staff comment was just locate further to the north to have a
more straight shot to Magic View. I’d have to – I mean, it was brought up earlier that
you don’t want those straight shots. You want to make a more indirect route. We could
answer that. The last item is the buffer. We do have a concept before us. We could
make some assumptions on size and put that in the motion, and I think that would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 135
address everything. Shari, those five items, essentially, are the only ones that you see
that was maybe different from staff comments of any substance that would –
Stiles: Unless something contained in the last paragraph was something that we didn’t
know about or –
Borup: And that ended by saying that would be worked out with staff. I don’t know
what – okay, Commissioners, do you want to try to incorporate that in or do you want to
–
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself, I’ve been up for 22 hours. The volume of
material that has been brought before us beginning yesterday and the additional
material today, I am not in a position to comprehend or make a viable recommendation
here with what we have in front of us just because of the lateness of the hour and the
volume of the material, and I have had a real difficult time following everything that is
here and keeping along Steve’s notes that he has without a direction on how we would
draft this to City Council.
Borup: Are you leading you’d like to continue?
Barbeiro: I’d like to re-open the public hearing and continue it and allow the developer
to present his more specific form of the plat.
Borup: The plat – I don’t know if we’re going to get more specific on the plat.
Barbeiro: I’m finding so many unanswered questions and open-ended items here that I
have lost track of (inaudible).
Borup: I guess I don’t see that many. You’ve been writing them down?
Barbeiro: Have I been writing them down?
Borup: Well, if you want answers to questions, you’ve got to be able to ask them.
Commissioner Brown, any comment?
Brown: I’d second a motion if he wants to make a motion to re-open the hearing to
continue it.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I would lean that way as well.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 136
Borup: My first tendency would be to try to get it done, but it’s getting too late. Yes. It’s
because of the lateness of the hour is probably the only reason I would agree with that
too. There is a limit to how much we can handle in one night.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we re-open the public hearing and continue it to
our next available date.
Borup: November 9th
.
Barbeiro: (inaudible)
Borup: Not unless you want to have a special meeting.
Barbeiro: I’m not inclined.
Borup: Motion is to open a public hearing and continue it to November 9th
.
Brown: Second.
Borup: Okay. We do have a second. Do we have any specific requests from the
applicant then, any information that you’d like to see? I don’t know how he can bring us
anything if we don’t give him some specific –
Rutherford: Commissioner, if I could have for bookkeeping purposes, a vote on the
motion to re-open and then a separate motion and vote on a continuation.
Borup: Okay. Motion for – vote first on the motion to re-open the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. The hearing has been opened, re-opened. Vote on continuation. All in
favor?
Or do you want another motion? Steve, do you want a new motion?
Rutherford: Please.
Borup: Okay.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we continue the public hearing to
November 9th
.
Brown: I second it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 137
Borup: Okay. Is there any request from the applicant? Is there anything different he
should come November 9th
with what he already has? Anything new that he hasn’t
already presented?
Brown: Specifically, some of the things that I can think of is, I’d like to know the things
that we’re hearing from staff and the (inaudible) is to where we’re not in compliance with
the zone so that we know what it is that we’re doing, and that would be just information
in the staff report that – I think that the two need to get together to work out these
conditions, and I think the direction that we could give them is that – you know, if I could
get support from my fellow Commissioners the condition asking for the 100-foot cut-off
is not reasonable.
Borup: Do you mean the 100 lot?
Brown: Hundred lot cut-off is not reasonable.
Borup: So you’re saying you’d support the Phase I?
Brown: Right. Number one is being proposed to provide the temporary access to
service those first hundreds until Phase II is provided. I think we have two different
issues, correct? One and two, Mr. O’Niell? Scott, are you saying it’s a temporary
alignment or by that –
Pete O'Niell: The reason (inaudible) to answer the question in general that you raised –
let me answer your specific one, first. Yeah. There was a recommendation to the staff
that a secondary – emergency access, we put in a permanent right-of-way by the
hundredth house or building permit or whatever. We don’t even know – we may not
even know what that is. We, by the 100 houses, we’ll guarantee an emergency vehicle
as another way in to service. I think we said by the 100th
(inaudible) occupancy permit
as opposed to building permit. By the time you have 100 people out there, you’ll have
another way in that you can get in all year round. Again, we’ve done that before. We
don’t even know what the right-of-way is, so shouldn’t be a big argument over that.
Then the access to Weatherby, we’ve gone over and over that.
Brown: Agree that’s going to be emergency access, pedestrian access. I think we’ve
agreed to that. I figured we got two different issues. One is – one and two are not the
same issue.
Pete O'Niell: Right. And then the location and then the circulation was that at 100 we
had to have the second way out, and we’re saying that doesn’t make any sense. ACHD
is 250 and we’ve said, you know, at 165 or 170 occupants, we’ve got to have the
second because we’re into the second phase.
Borup: You’ve already said you’d have it in the second phase.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 138
Pete O'Niell: Really, the only – I think the only issue that is there’s a logical – the other
one was where the access to the east is whether it’s what our proposal condition or
does it move further north, and we’ve beat that one to death. Really, the only debate is
the buffer deal and our suggestion to Steve which was – you could make a condition
that says prior to the final approval – the approval of the final development agreement
and City Council’s approval of the PUD, they have to approve a specific landscape plan
including fence design. So it is subject to the public hearing and so on and so forth. I
think the problem – you have identified and you’ve experienced in the last four or five
hours the reason more developers don’t do PUDs and the reason it creates so much
brain damage for everybody concerned because there is this – where does concept
leave off and where does detail begin, issue, and unfortunately I’m very empathetic to
the points that you bring up because they keep coming up. Everybody every time we
go through this. It’s not that you don’t get it. It’s just a hard, difficult thing. There is, as
Keith said, there’s at some point in time there is a leap of faith that we’ll do what we say
we’re going to do, and you can put in the conditions that they will be done before final
approval. That they become specific conditions, so if we turn around and sell the
property, they run with the property. It says right in the staff report and everything else.
These conditions run with the property, so if we submit a landscape plan that is
approved part of the development agreement, if we sold it, somebody’s got to do that.
So these are not insurmountable issues. They appear to be the first time you go
through them, and to be fair, you’ve received an awful lot of stuff in the last few days.
The staff report on Friday. You might not have read it until Monday, then all of the stuff
from us. I’m not personally upset by the fact that you want to give yourself a chance to
digest this and a chance for us to, you know, maybe give you some better diagrams,
something to understand what it is we’re talking about, and a chance to work with staff
to see if we can limit the number of issues that we have to deal with. But you do have
to give staff some direction.
Borup: It doesn’t sound like –
Pete O'Niell: I think you just have.
Borup: I think at this point, the only additional information we don’t have would be the
little more landscaping detail on the Locust Grove; is that correct?
Barbeiro: That and then the last paragraph of the letter, too. Back to that, Mr. O’Niell’s
comment of rather than addressing each item individually at the hearing, which is
tonight, they work with staff and get things ironed out for the development agreement.
What are those other items and, you know, I welcome Mr. O’Niell and staff to get
together and work out whatever these items are and bring them back to us.
Borup: You see, we’re never going to see the development agreement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 139
Barbeiro: I understand that. We’re not going to see it, but if there is these issues out
there that, you know –
Pete O'Niell: We could give you a list of those issues. Five of those issues points that
you have to stripe and do something on roadways or parking lots, you have to contain
the stuff on parking lots on-site. You have to – all things to do with specific CUs for strip
shopping center or apartment project doesn’t have anything to do with this project.
We’re suggesting rather than bare staff, bringing it up in public meeting that we work
with them and say, you know, those really aren’t appropriate for this project. They
should either be deleted or re-worded. That’s why we worded it the way we did so we
didn’t have to make the statement that we just made. There’s a lot of things –
Brown: I appreciate the statement that you just made because otherwise it’s loose end
that I have no clue what you’re talking about or what you’re asking.
Pete O'Niell: All conditions of approval, it seems to me (inaudible) through this that
there’s a certain amount of boiler-plat conditions and then there’s specific conditions.
Sometimes they’re at odds. Again, the reason we bring attorneys and – we do our
homework very professionally. We do our work very professionally. We take it very
seriously, and we like it when the City does the same thing. Sometimes it is an arduous
process, and the lawyers are challenged with things that most guys don’t challenge
them with. Do you mean this or do you mean this? Let’s work that out now or, you
know, early in the process so that when we get to a plat, we’re not saying, oh. I thought
you couldn’t have black roofs on houses. I thought it meant something else.
Brown: I certainly appreciate all the effort and time that’s gone into the documents that
you’ve prepared. In my profession – it just makes life so much easier when you –
people do do that. But in the same aspect, it’s also sometimes information overload,
and that’s what, I think, we’ve all kind of have reached over the last 24 hours.
Borup: Did we –
Brown: Voted for continuation.
Borup: Did we have a second motion? The second motion was to continue? Do we
have a vote on that? Okay. Do you still want to vote on that or has anyone changed
their mind?
Barbeiro: Call for a vote.
Borup: At this point, can I get the staff to maybe work out some details and then see a
new – a little bit more landscaping detail on Locust Grove, and that’s it? Is there – and
give us a chance to review these things a little more clearly?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 140
Brown: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Steve, you look like you’ve got a question, comment.
Rutherford: Waiting for a motion.
Borup: Just falling asleep? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Does anyone here have any question on direction? Shari?
Stiles: Yeah (inaudible).
Borup: Pardon?
Stiles: What did you just do?
Borup: We continued – the applicant would like to get with you to maybe go over some
specific things on – that would be included in the development agreement.
Brown: You have to bring ice cream next time.
Borup: And then, I guess, look at a little more detail on the –
: Will be first next time on the agenda instead of –
Borup: Yes, they will be. Well, we did put continue one other item earlier. Who was
that? It’ll be towards the first. The continued items are always first on the agenda. I
forgot what I was just going to say.
Barbeiro: (inaudible).
Borup: Yes. We still have two more items. I thought I had a question for Mr. O’Niell.
Barbeiro: (inaudible) skip (inaudible).
Borup: I’m sorry. I lost it.
ITEM 15. PUBLIC HEARING: FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING AND
CONSIDERING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION’S
CONSIDERATION OF VARIOUS TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL TEXTUAL
CHANGES TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES AND
WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEW FEE
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 141
FOR COPIES OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN
THE AMOUNT OF $25.00:
Borup: Item – what did we just say – 15. Okay. This Item 15 was the item that Mr.
Gigray – you know, I’m fine until about 2:00, and we’ve passed that. I’m not fine
anymore. Steve –
*** End of tape 9 ***
I’m going to turn this over to you to see how you’d like us to proceed on this.
Rutherford: Well, you’ve – members of the Commission, you’ve heard from Bill Gigray
earlier tonight, specifically about the three items. I think that’s when we’re a little
fresher. But, to tell you the truth, Bill left out that the one that was noticed in addition
we’re changing, and Will might be able to give us some insight on this, but we’re
changing the amount. It’s going to cost for a copy of the Code –
Borup: $25.00
Rutherford: $25.00 – I think it was $20 or $15 or something, maybe even cheaper. It’s
been awhile since we’ve adjusted it. And, again, just general overview, we’re adopting
the new booklet that’s the City Code. A new 3-ring binder. The old one is outdated,
arcane, and –
Borup: You’re looking for us just to do a recommendation on approval or a –
Rutherford: Or a recommendation on that and there will be no paperwork associated
with – that would get it to City Council. Same thing with the other four.
Barbeiro: I’ll trust you.
Borup: Then let’s make a recommendation –
Brown: I’ve got a question about 15.
Borup: That’s what we just finished.
Brown: No we didn’t. We’re on it. This de-annexation business in the development
agreement.
Rutherford: Yes.
Brown: I don’t understand.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 142
Stiles: We put that in all of our development agreements. It’s a big (inaudible).
Rutherford: It’s a big punishment, penalty potentially.
Brown: Maybe this legal counsel can tell me something different than other legal
counsel’s told me before, but they’ve told me that is not possible.
Borup: To de-annex?
Brown: To de-annex.
Borup: Has the City ever done it?
Brown: You can de-annex, but to have permission to de-annex, you have to be the
owner of the property, the owner of the property is requesting it. Does the owner of the
property grant to the future heirs or grantors of the property that – if someone doesn’t
follow the agreement than that could de-annex?
Stiles: The development agreement applies to all successors, heirs.
Brown: So we approve this Woodbridge Subdivision and then – is it complete?
Everything in the development agreement and we don’t catch it until all those people
are living in that subdivision you’re de-annexing.
Stiles: And we shut off all the sewer and water.
Rutherford: Theoretically, that’s a threat, but rarely would it ever, maybe never has it
ever come to fruition. Usually people just jump in line.
Brown: I don’t see what it does.
Rutherford: Commissioner, I couldn’t tell you the truth with what right now Idaho Code
– I don’t know that Idaho Code provides for de-annexation. I’m not sure.
Brown: I’ve done de-annexations as a part of the staff person for the City of Boise. The
owner has to make the request.
Rutherford: Right. And, again –
Brown: You’re having an owner grant you the authority for de-annexing at some time in
the future (inaudible) I took that specific thing to the legal counsel that I was working
for, and they told me that that was not possible. I saw that and I just kind of questioned
that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 143
Rutherford: To tell you the truth –
Brown: I word that real good – not mention any names.
Rutherford: I don’t know right now. I know that the – it’s been in the other form that the
City used, and Bill Gigray has included it in this form; it’s something I could absolutely
check into. Would not be difficult for me to find out.
Brown: I would appreciate it. I don’t have a problem with recommending approval, but I
– I just – that one kind of intrigued me, I guess.
Borup: Well, and if Kent can be intrigued, let me ask one question, too. I don’t know
what page this is, under Title 2, Section 3-2A –
Brown: First page?
Borup: Is that the first page?
Brown: After the Table of Contents.
Borup: Oh. Yeah. First page after the Table of Contents. The left-hand side says the
Commission, the right-hand side says the Administrator, and then under the old title, it
had that Commission members preside in the County for five years and that changed to
two years; is that in compliance with new state law?
Rutherford: That’s exactly what it is, and actually, most of the technical changes you
see, the textual changes you see are specifically that. Just we’ve gone through and just
updated – actually, it’s not even us that (inaudible).
Borup: So we do need to comply with state law? Well, I mean – two years isn’t very
long time for someone to live in the County to be making decisions for everybody.
Berg: My question is can’t you make it more restrictive? I guess I make this point is –
doesn’t it say that you have to have so many people living in the city limits and so many
in the area of impact; is that just one?
Borup: No. You’re limited to two in the area of impact. To (inaudible), I believe.
Berg: Two maximum; how about minimum? You could put your own restraints as long
as you comply with the minimum requirements of the state statute; correct? I mean –
am I –
Rutherford: As I understand it – I know that’s the way we work on the criminal side of
things. We have more restrictive laws here in certain situations.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 144
Borup: So, from this Commission as to – do we feel two years is enough?
Rutherford: That would be a situation where we would – if you didn’t feel two years was
enough, we would ask – you would ask your attorney to draft an ordinance, have a
public hearing, and change it to what you thought it needed to be.
Borup: I thought you were changing it already here.
Rutherford: We are changing it.
Stiles: To meet State Code.
Rutherford: To meet State Code.
Borup: Why can’t you leave it the way it is and still meet State Code, doesn’t it?
Rutherford: I understand, and this most recent effort was an attempt to update the
Code to – update the City Code to meet the State Code. That’s what all these changes
are. Recent changes in the State Code.
Borup: Well –
Berg: It doesn’t mean we’re not complying with State Code (inaudible).
Borup: Any other Commissioners have any concern? Apparently not. (inaudible).
Hatcher: Someone that lives here for ten years and wants to go through this abuse.
Borup: Well, I guess we’ll leave that up to the Mayor to –
Hatcher: I have complete confidence in our City Attorney –
Borup: Well, okay. Did we get a motion to approve this?
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Rutherford: That, actually, Commissioners, would require four separate motions,
please.
Borup: Four separate motions?
Rutherford: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 145
Borup: So one is on the one that says notice of hearing, you need a motion on that?
On the $25 –
Rutherford: Actually, let me clarify what – with Will. Will, do all these fall under the
guides of the textual changes in your opinion?
Berg: Pardon me?
Rutherford: Do all these fall under the guides of textual changes in your opinion?
Textual changes to the Code?
Berg: You’re saying there’s four areas. What were you going to mention? Textual
changes –
Rutherford: The textual changes to your proposed new City Code in its entirety, the
CUP, the development agreement and the $25 – the fee.
Berg: The fee.
Rutherford: Correct. So there’s four subparts to the textual changes.
Stiles: (inaudible) chance for you to review that, too?
Berg: Well, the concern is, my understanding is Bill’s in a hurry to get this to the City
Council for approval. My concern is making sure that everybody feels comfortable
about what they’re approving, and I know that everybody’s kind of in a hurry to get this
done, but I also want it done correctly. The way I understood, there’s some textual
changes, there is a transfer of CUP, development agreement –
Stiles: And the fee.
Rutherford: Which really falls under the guides of textual changes.
Berg: -- and that’s a textual thing and then the fees. I though those were the four areas
unless there are more.
Rutherford: No. Those are them.
Berg: I think the only thing that the P & Z has to deal with as a whole is the zoning and
development ordinance codes; is that correct, Shari? They don’t have to approve the
whole codified code book. They’re only dealing with the zoning and the development,
subdivision development sections.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 146
Stiles: When we – when Bill wanted this to go forward so that we could do the
recodification, I thought it was just all the changing ordinance to title and those kinds of
things and the numbers, but then this conditional – transfer of conditional use permit
and the development agreements have kind of got tacked on, and I didn’t know what
the big hurry was for that. Because every time I asked Bill what, you know, what were
those changes –
Rutherford: I think the hurry was we sent it over in June and nothing happened.
Stiles: Sent it to me in June?
Rutherford: Well, sent it – I think, as I recall, there was memos to both. That’s Bill –
that’s the indication I got from Bill is that there were memos to Planning and Zoning staff
and – I thought he said he sent it to the Commission.
Stiles: I have lots of things. I have lots of memos.
Borup: Do you feel you need more time or what? What are we trying to say here?
Stiles: The textual – those changes for the codification – is a development agreement
and this transfer thing, is that required for their recodification?
Rutherford: It’s not in the new codification, no.
Stiles: Oh. I guess I’d kind of like – my biggest problem with it is, I think it’s left out
things that I still want in about transfers.
Borup: So can we approve everything but that?
Stiles: I don’t have the new code book, so I can’t figure out what he’s added and order
of placed or what it is because it’s a whole new number that I’ve never even heard of,
and I don’t know what it’s replacing.
Rutherford: Absolutely.
Stiles: If you look at that packet – do you understand?
Rutherford: That’s the importance of the new code is that all that stuff is in the context
and the numbers and the references aren’t referenced to the new code.
Borup: So can we approve everything except for the conditional use transfers?
Stiles: I don’t really have any comment on the development agreement part of it unless,
you know –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 147
Rutherford: To answer your question, yeah. You can do whatever you want.
Borup: I want to move this along. Shari, would that – then you can review that? Is that
going to harm anything by not having the conditional use section –
Hatcher: Can we approve it including staff comments?
Stiles: That are yet to be generated?
Rutherford: We can send the CUP along later.
Borup: Let’s do something. Let’s – I’d like – if it feels like he wants to get this to City
Council, let’s get it to City Council.
Stiles: He does. He wants to get – I just don’t want to mess him up saying the
transfers –
Borup: Would you have the opportunity before City Council approves it to give any
comments to City Council about your thoughts on the conditional use permit transfer
section?
Stiles: Sure.
Rutherford: Yes. She’d be another hearing.
Stiles: I made a copy of the new code.
Borup: Why don’t you re-write how – why don’t you add those things that you want to
have in there, then?
Rutherford: My concern, though, is getting the wrong indication from the P & Z to the
City Council that you approve all this and maybe you don’t. Do you understand what
I’m saying?
Borup: And we approve it with stipulation that Shari would be writing some additions?
: (inaudible)
Borup: Yeah. Can we approve it with stipulation that Shari would be writing some
additions to the transfer section and that would be presented at City Council? That
gives you enough time?
Rutherford: Sure. I think so.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 148
Borup: Shari?
Berg: We’ve opened this hearing, haven’t we?
Stiles: If it’s recommended this will go to City Council –
Berg: (inaudible) then we’re going to make a recommendation.
Stiles: -- on the 19th
of November.
Borup: On the 19th
of when?
Stiles: November.
Borup: Oh. That gives you enough time, then.
Stiles: Yeah. With – if we can do that.
Borup: Okay. Let’s close this hearing.
Hatcher: Did we officially open the hearing?
Borup: No. I didn’t. Item No. 15 – open public hearing for review and consideration of
P & Z Commission’s consideration technical and clerical changes to the zoning and
subdivision ordinances and fees and et cetera. Everything that’s in the packet.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Do – can the minutes take all those comments that we made earlier and insert
them right here?
Berg: Yes.
Borup: Okay. So done. That was the intent.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion? Steve, do we still need four separate motions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 149
Rutherford: No.
Borup: Okay. We can do all one motion with the stip – the clarification that Shari will be
– would somebody like to do that? We’re making a motion to approve – yeah. Who is
–
Barbeiro: We’re recommending approval of Item 15. Various technical and clerical –
what’s that?
Borup: I skipped over that. I’m not –
Barbeiro: I didn’t want to read that this late at night. That changes to the zoning and
subdivision ordinance.
Borup: Motion?
Brown: Second.
Rutherford: Subject to Shari’s comments on CUP stuff?
Borup: Yes. Did you have on there that Shari would be –
Barbeiro: I would amend my motion for that.
Borup: All in favor?
Barbeiro: Do I have a second?
Brown: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: We’re done.
Brown: Sixteen?
ITEM 16. RECOMMENDATION FROM P&Z FOR VACATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON LOTS 5,6,12,13 BLOCK 7,
WHITESTONE ESTATES NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE
DEVELOPMENTS, LLC-NORTH OF W. FRANKLIN ROAD AND WEST
OF S. LINDER ROAD:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 150
Borup: Item 16. Shari, it sounds like they gave the (inaudible) – I’d like to open public
hearing on Item No. 16, recommendation from P & Z for vacation of public utilities and
drainage from Whitestone Development. They donated the land to the school; is that
right? The roads were –
Stiles: They re-subdivided and they had this third phase – part of those lots, there were
two or three lots that were part of the old subdivision, number two, so they re-
subdivided and did number three, but I’ve always understood that if you re-subdivided it
kind of gets rid of the old easements. That’s not – John Priest’s interpretation anymore.
They had to record it –
Borup: (inaudible) because of the County require – County Engineer?
Stiles: They had to record it with the old easements still outlined on these lots which
made them unbuildable. That’s what they’re doing.
Borup: Staff’s okay. No problems.
Stiles: They’re relocating any of the utilities that they’d need to. Yeah.
Borup: Everybody’s okay? No questions, no problems?
Stiles: We’re excited about it.
Borup: I’m open for a motion.
Hatcher: This last July, that rule changed, thought.
Stiles: About the vacation?
Hatcher: Uh-huh.
Stiles: Well, John hasn’t been to a new workshop yet, so –
Borup: Okay. I’m open for a motion.
Brown: I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 151
Stiles: That wasn’t even a public hearing, was it?
Brown: It’s a vacation, isn’t it?
Borup: Okay.
Stiles: Did it say public hearing?
Borup: No. This is not a public hearing. This is recommendation. So our
recommendation would be that we – do we have a motion?
Brown: Recommend approval to the City Council of the vacation of the easements for
Whitestone Development, the drainage and utility easements?
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Barbeiro: Second.
Borup: And a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, I would – how do we handle something like this in the
future?
Barbeiro: I’m leaving at 12:30. City Council –
Brown: Considers it 10:00 or 10:30 – (inaudible) cut off.
Barbeiro: Do you want to adjourn?
Borup: No. We’re setting policy here.
Barbeiro: Once I hit 1:00, I’m pretty much worthless. I just might – I mean, my
cognizant, ability (inaudible) –
Borup: I think the next time when we’re approaching that, let’s just continue – someone
kick me and remind me. I take reminders real well. So we may need to start continuing
– even if we’re in the middle of testimony –
Hatcher: We hit midnight, we need to bring it (inaudible) –
Borup: Start to wind it down.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 152
Hatcher: -- that we’re shutting down at 1:00 wherever we’re at.
Borup: Okay.
Hatcher: 12:30 – whatever you want.
Barbeiro: If you say 12:30, it’s going to stretch itself out. If you say 1:00, it’s still going
to stretch itself out.
Borup: Well, we can say 1:00 to ourselves and try to start getting it wound down at
12:00.
Hatcher: Yeah. In terms – we’ll stick it out until 1:00 or (inaudible)
Barbeiro: The idea that I like is that whatever hearing we are on at midnight, that’s the
last hearing.
Borup: Oh. Yes. Absolutely. But how do you handle – see, I can’t remember what
meeting I was – oh. City Council. When they had the – that last one when they had the
200 people here or whatever it was, they shut off the public hearing but they still went to
the end of their agenda and got through everything else. They still had the department
reports and –
Barbeiro: Continued all the public hearings.
Brown: Cut it at 10:30 and say, okay, we’re going to take this one more –
Borup: Well, the other choice, okay, then that’s the other thing. When we do that, do
we continue it to next month or do we continue it to a special meeting?
Barbeiro: I was open to a special meeting for the one –
Borup: That’s – wonder what you Commissioners feel. I don’t know if it’s fair to
continue it – make an applicant wait for a whole other month. Would we rather have a
meeting?
Barbeiro: I’ve been put off before another month (inaudible) I’m sure Kent has, too.
Borup: It sometimes may be appropriate, but if we’re going to start cutting them off
earlier, are we open to having another special meeting if it looks like it would merit that?
Barbeiro: I think our agenda items should never go over 12 or –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 153
Borup: It depends on what they are. So can we look at that on a case-by-case basis
on whether we have a special meeting or not and still try to get it – start shutting down
at midnight? I’d –
Stiles: Well, we should have had the special meeting first for the Fiver (sic) House.
That’s – how long was that one?
Borup: Let’s – I’d prefer a motion to adjourn.
Brown: (inaudible) adjourn.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 12, 1999
Page 154
Borup: Say second.
Barbeiro: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:07 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
_________________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK