1999 03-09MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
March 9, 1999
The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order 7:00 P.M. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Tammy De Weerd, Keith Borup, and
Byron Smith.
OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Steve
Siddoway , Will Berg.
MacCoy: The status tonight of your agenda if you have it in front of you is going
to be a little bit altered. Several of these items have been cancelled by the
applicant themselves and deferred to another date. I know right now from the
two letters I received, Item no. 4 and Item no. 5 are being moved to April 13
meeting. As the evening goes on we will see how the rest of these fair. Those
two right away are scratched. I would just like to know from a show of hands, is
anybody here for either four or five? One person is. The deferment bother you
any? Can you be back by April?
Unidentified: I suppose I’ve got to be. I think you ought to defer it forever.
MacCoy: That may be your interpretation. All right then moving on to the
beginning of the agenda, I would like to explain just a little bit so everybody has
an inside track on what we are doing here. I will read the Item No. and title as
we go through this and we will have a staff report on that very item so everybody
hears that first hand from the staff people. We will open the public hearing then
and the applicant will come forward and have his or her say and they have 15
minutes max to make their statement. After that those who were in favor of the
item will have a chance to speak no more than five minutes max, we would like
to have you keep it to three if you could. Then we will have those who feel they
do not want the item to be approved, have a chance to have the same and then
we will have a rebuttal by the applicant if it is necessary if he feels that he should
answer a few things. The statements—the commissioners have the chance to
ask questions, so if you are the one that gets up here and makes a statement,
don’t leave the podium until you have the okay to leave because the
commissioners might have something to say to you or ask you. The final piece
which is always of much interest is the commissioners then have a chance to
take a look to see what they feel about this. If they want to close the public
hearing, or maintain the fact it will be tabled for the future next meeting and that
will be stated. The items which are they way they handle the item is they have
four areas they can take care, they can continue it as I just said to table it, they
can accept the item as written, they can modify the item with conditions or
recommendations, or they can deny. That’s what the four powers they run out of
here. After the material has been either finished, it has moved on to the City
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 2
Council in many cases, some items don’t move to the City Council but are
finished here. Just a matter of note to you, this whole operation in the evening is
recorded, which then is transcribed into written document, which is maintained in
the office. Anything that you want to see later on and come back and refresh
your memory, you can come to the office and ask for that. (Inaudible) I ask that
everybody would be courteous and helpful to the fact that we try to (Inaudible) to
our time, we’ve got 22 items on the agenda tonight and I would like to be out of
here between 10:00 and 10:30 for all of our sakes. So would you please kind of
keep that in mind? We will take a break between 9:00 and 9:30 to give
everybody a chance to get up and stretch your legs and do whatever else. With
that, we will move right into the first part of our meeting this evening.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, point of order, Item No. 1 I have a letter in my packet from
the applicant requesting continuance until the April 13, meeting.
MacCoy: Can we hold that till we finish the first part then and we will bring that
up. Shari was going to bring that up.
Smith: So is it on the agenda or not?
MacCoy: Well, I would like to have Shari make her statement and you can do
your thing about…
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, another point of interest, before you—before we head
off into the public hearings, should we address the minutes from previous
meetings?
MacCoy: That’s what we are going to do next. That’s our next item of business.
The minutes of the previous meeting held February 9, any corrections to that set
of minutes?
De Weerd: I have none.
Smith: None.
Borup: I have none.
MacCoy: All in favor of the minutes as they stand?
De Weerd: I would move to approve the minutes of the February 9th
meeting.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 3
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Now we have the minutes from the previous meeting, which is a
special meeting held on February 24th
, any corrections?
De Weerd: I have none.
Borup: I have none.
Smith: None.
De Weerd: I would move to approve the minutes of the special meeting held on
February 24th
.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Now we start the public hearings.
ITEM NO. 1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP – 4375 W.
CHERRY LANE:
MacCoy: Item number one is continuing a public hearing, which has actually
been with us since December at least and was moved into the present time.
Shari, staff wise do you have a comment on that right now?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, we did receive a submittal for the
conditional use permit, however it was incomplete, if they do continue and try to
get a complete application into us it wouldn’t be till the may Planning and Zoning
meeting that it would be heard.
MacCoy: All right…
Stiles: May 11th
.
MacCoy: I need a thing to continue that.
De Weerd: I would move that we continue the public hearing for Jeffrey Manship
until the May 11th
meeting.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 4
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
& ZONING OF 1 ACRE BY KATHLEEN & WENDELL LAWRENCE — SOUTH
OF PINE STREET, NORTH OF HWY 30/FRANKLIN ROAD, ON LINDER
ROAD:
ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILDCARE FACILITY LICENSED FOR
50 CHILDREN BY KATHLEEN & WENDELL LAWRENCE — SOUTH OF
PINE STREET, NORTH OF HWY 30/FRANKLIN ROAD, ON LINDER ROAD:
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, this was continued last time because
it came up that the applicant was also the owner of the adjacent property and we
asked them to explore also annexing that piece at the same time. When we
learned some of what they want to do with that property such as wanting to run
another day care facility out of that as a home, staff reconsidered and thought it
would probably be better to do—consider all of those residential properties on
the east side at one time and do a little more research into what might be an
appropriate zoning, considering its industrial use across the street. So we could
continue, I don’t know if the applicant is here. I don’t believe there was any
additional testimony that they were asked for as far as providing additional
information. They are going to need to revise their site plan to comply with Ada
County Highway District’s conditions, but we had no major outstanding issues on
the application as presented.
MacCoy: Thank you, Bruce do you have anything?
Freckleton: Chairman MacCoy, nothing to add.
MacCoy: Okay thank you. Is the applicant here by the way? It doesn’t look like
it. Commissioners what is your desire?
Borup: Just a clarification, from what Shari said, the application last time was
just for the one lot, is that correct? We continued it to look—so at this point it is
premature to look at annexing the other lots, so you feel we could proceed ahead
with the original application?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 5
Stiles: Yes, that would be my recommendation.
Borup: That was—I think that was true, there wasn’t any real issues on the
original application, it was just looking at combining their other lot where they are
going to be living in with this annexation, wasn’t it?
MacCoy: That’s what you said wasn’t it Shari?
Borup: So at this point it sounds like the only issue was a revised site plan
showing a single entry, I believe?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: She didn’t mention that, but that’s what we had from before, they just
needed a single driveway entrance into the property.
MacCoy: Is the applicant here? We are on item no. 2 right now on the public
hearing for Kathleen and Wendell Lawrence. Then we will open the pubic
hearing, which is a continuation of the public hearing, actually.
KATHLEEN LAWRENCE.
K. Lawrence: Last time when we left off, we had—Shari had suggested that we
annex the other lot, not the one that we are wanting to build the daycare on.
Since then, we have had a neighborhood meeting and the neighbors have
expressed their displeasurement with having that lot with the home on it
annexed. So we went ahead and submitted the application as is. That’s as far
as I know anything new from last time. Thank you.
MacCoy: Any questions of her before she leaves?
De Weerd: Just that the only change that was discussed was having only one
entrance in, the entrance and exit would just be one, instead of two.
K. Lawrence: Right.
MacCoy: Anything else from the commissioners? Okay, thank you. Is there
anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this applicant? If not, is anyone
on the other side of the fence who would like to speak against the applicant?
Okay, we have one.
PAM KANTOLA, 988 W PINE AVENUE.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 6
Kantola: Unfortunately that is my second home in the next couple of years we
will be moving out of Alaska on a permanent basis and become a resident of
Idaho. I do have some questions, I know that when we purchased the property
back in 1996, one of the reasons why we purchased it was because it was an old
neighborhood, we figured we wouldn’t have to put up with any building noises
and such, everything was pretty well set in the neighborhood right there. I don’t
understand—she said they had a meeting for the homeowners in the area, I
never received anything on that, so obviously I couldn’t respond to that. I don’t
know to this point what is going on, once in a while I get a letter sent up to me up
in Alaska, I don’t know—I would like to probably have you run through it real
quick, where we are at on this. Like I said, I live on 988 W. Pine, which is two
houses from Canna Lily Estates Subdivision. I assume the land that we are
talking about is across the street from me and there is a house behind that house
if that makes any sense, and then there is an empty lot in their. Where exactly is
her property located that—I could never find out, I’ve been down a couple of
times, look at the maps in here and I can’t figure it out.
Borup: Ma’am her property is clear south of the railroad tracks. Quite away from
your place on Linder, not even near Pine.
Kantola: Well, maybe I’m on the wrong—maybe I’m on the wrong item, is that
possible?
Borup: Are you for the subdivision?
Kantola: Something about that they were going to build something in there, I
don’t know, across from my property. All I ever get from you guys is that there is
a meeting on such and such day.
Berg: Do you have the notice with you?
Kantola: I don’t , I’ve been out for about two months now. My husband said we
had received it.
Borup: Tremont Subdivision, does that sound familiar?
Kantola: Luna Vista sounds familiar.
Borup: That’s later on, that’s item number 11 & 12.
Kantola: Sorry, thank you.
MacCoy: Is there anybody else who has anything else to say about this project?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 7
SHARI WITT, 300 N LINDER.
Witt: I would be two houses south of the proposed property. I spoke at the last
meeting and you know opposed the annexation of the property and did go to the
meeting that they held and so did some other neighbors. The other neighbors
were opposed to it, they don’t want to be annexed. They are afraid that if they
start it, then they are going to want to take all of us and so forth. Anyway, I’m not
even sure they are here tonight and that’s that, why I’m standing up at this
moment, my feelings are sort of the same, but the (Inaudible) just south of us
have given me a letter to bring to you and you know I can read it or just hand it
over, whatever you want to do on that. The—it’s a couple, and as he explained
in the letter, she is in the hospital having back surgery today, so they couldn’t
come.
MacCoy: You could give it to the City Clerk here for the record—is the letter very
long?
Witt: No, it’s quite brief.
MacCoy: Why don’t you just read it and then turn it in.
Witt: It’s addressed to the Meridian Planning and Zoning and it’s from Debbie
Keller and David Burgess at 270 N. Linder. It says the subject is Wendell and
Kathleen Lawrence annexation and zoning. “We are unable to attend the
meeting on March 9, 1999 because Debbie Keller will be in the hospital having
back surgery. We would like to express our concerns about this proposed
annexation and zoning of the one acre property on Linder Road. The Hepper
Acre Subdivision covenants do not allow for a childcare facility. Linder Road is a
very busy road now, if they allow this childcare facility to go into business with 50
children, that is a potential 50 more cars twice a day going down Linder. If the
city decides to annex all the properties, this could mean higher taxes annexation
fees, city water hookups and other monthly bills. This could also mean having
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, all at the homeowner’s expense. As a homeowner on
Linder Road, I do not want to see the Planning and Zoning Committee approve
this. Thanks.” They have their signatures as well as the typed in names Debbie
Keller and David C. Burgess.
MacCoy: Will you give it to the city clerk please?
Witt: I surely will.
MacCoy: Is there any questions for the person here? Is there anything else you
want to say?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 8
Witt: I don’t really have anything more to say. I just know that they have told me
the other neighbors are really concerned about annexation and really don’t want
to have that happen to our properties, because we are part of the County, not the
city, even though it’s kind of going up around us. You know, they aren’t here, so
that’s kind of a mute point and so there we are. I’ll go ahead and sit down.
MacCoy: Shari, this is an annexation on an one acre piece, that’ s what the
applicant requests. It does not bother any property in the area.
Stiles: It does not propose any annexation, but the one lot that is adjacent to the
railroad tracks.
Witt: I think everyone just feels like it’s the…
MacCoy: The beginning.
Witt: Yeah, that’s their view.
Stiles: It’s probably likely that your property will be annexed in the not too distant
future, because it is an enclave within the city, but this annexation would have no
impact on whether that happened or not.
Witt: I see, thank you.
MacCoy: Is there any other person who would like to make a statement or ask a
question or whatever. Okay, Staff do you have anything else that you want to
add at this time? All right, Commissioners?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close this public
hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, did the applicant want to respond at all?
K. Lawrence: I just had one question does Shari need daycare?
Stiles: My brother does.
K. Lawrence: There was an amendment which I mentioned before. I think that
the subdivision was written up or subdivided in 1966. A couple years after that,
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 9
they did amend the CC & R’s to read to allow businesses, because that was
something that we specifically looked into. That’s all I had to add, thank you.
MacCoy: All right, we’ve got a motion made and second. Anymore discussion?
None, okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Is there a nay in there? No, all right three voted.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of this request for
annexation and zoning.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Any other discussion? All in favor?
De Weerd: I thought to include in your motion to incorporate all comments, is
that right counselor?
Rossman: Yes absolutely, thank you.
Borup: I would like to include all comments from staff and public hearing.
MacCoy: Second involved here from Commissioner Smith, is there any other
discussion? If not, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 3: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
MacCoy: Staff is there anything you want to say at this moment, based on the…
Stiles: Nothing further.
MacCoy: Is the applicant—the continued public hearing is now in action here. Is
there anything you want to add at this point for this point.
K. Lawrence: I do have the revised site plan with the one outlet and I can give
that to the clerk if you would like.
MacCoy: Yes please. Is there anything else, you don’t want anything else to
bring. Okay, moving on, does anybody have anything to say in favor of the
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 10
(Inaudible). If not, is anyone here have anything to say in the negative side of
the daycare center, back again. Okay, come on.
SHARI WITT.
Witt: Hi, thank you again. It isn’t anything really to do with the daycare center or
anything else, it’s just the idea of how we keep hearing how those things were
amended and everyone of us up and down the street has the covenants that talk
about businesses that say none are allowed on these properties. If I was told by
the County Planning and Zoning and by various people, attorney included that
they have not changed, that we have not changed those things, I moved in 1969
and got a copy of those covenants and there is no such amendment to my
knowledge and I would just like that to be clear. The other thing is that these
people are not the owners of the property, they are the prospective buyers and
those are really points that keep bothering me.
MacCoy: Well the covenants take charge over—we make our rulings based on
our city ordinances and then the covenants control your own area, we don’t have
any…
Witt: But the statements being made that businesses are allowed in that
neighborhood.
MacCoy: One of your are going to have to bring forth the material that says…
Witt: I did bring it to the last meeting, all right, if you are going to continue it or
something, I can do that again.
MacCoy: It’s between the parties now, we have done the thing for the state and
the city.
Witt: And you have approved it, correct. You have approved the annexation of
the lot.
MacCoy: Yes, based on the law we have. Now the annexation rights and
anything else about a business having to do with that is within the rule of the
community that you live in. You have rules and regulations that you have to sort
that stuff out. We don’t have a control over that type of thing.
Witt: I understand. You know we are trying to feel our way along (Inaudible).
Rossman: Ma’am this commission decides these applications based upon the
Meridian City Ordinance, if there are covenants that would restrict this type of
business, the covenants would provide for an enforcement mechanism. This
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 11
commission has no ability to enforce covenants, that is a private matter. So you
would have to refer to your covenants with regard to any enforcement provisions
in there.
Witt: I see, thank you.
MacCoy: Having gone through everybody, anybody else here who has anything
else to say? All right, commissioners would you like to do?
De Weerd: I move that we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: I need a motion now.
De Weerd: Yes, I would move that we approve the—or recommend approval for
the conditional use permit for Kathleen and Wendell Lawrence with all the staff
comments and ACHD comments to be included.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS SUBDIVISION NO.4 (5 SINGLE FAMILY
BUILDING LOTS ON 3.98 ACRES) BY GEM PARK II—NORTH OF VICTORY
RD., EAST OF LOCUST GROVE RD.:
MacCoy: We have a letter in our file given by the applicant to ask that this be
moved to another meeting. Commissioners give me a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for
Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision #4 to April 13th
.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 12
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR MULTI-BUILDING COMMERCIAL & OFFICE INCLUDING BANK
FACILITY WITH DRIVE-THRU (TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER) BY
CLARK DEVELOPMENT—SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE RD. &
FAIRVIEW AVE:
MacCoy: Again, we have a letter in the file given to us by Mr. Clark the applicant
requesting it moved to another date. I need a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for
Treasure Valley Business Center to April 13.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING
OF 0.38 ACRES FOR PROPOSED HARTFORD SUBDIVISION BY GLENN
JOHNSON HOMES – NORTH OF USTICK RD, EAST OF TEN MILE:
MacCoy: Staff, do you have any comments?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, you have our report on this project,
we have received a response from the applicant indicating that they will comply
with our requirements. This project was previously approved as the Hartford
Subdivision I believe either 1994 or 1995, that approval had lapsed and this new
applicant has taken up the project for the 58 lots. This is just north of Ustick and
East of Ten Mile approximately kitty corner from the wastewater treatment plant.
We ask that you would consider our comments for both Items six and seven. We
don’t have any serious issues with this project.
Smith: I have a question for staff. I have a vicinity map here that doesn’t jive
with the preliminary plat. I’m wondering which one is correct? Never mind.
MacCoy: Okay, I’m going to open the public hearing, is the applicant here
please?
RICHARD JEWEL, 1729 S MARSHWOOD, MERIDIAN, ID.
Jewel: I’m here representing the developer, Glenn Johnson Homes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 13
MacCoy: Anything you want to say about your application?
Jewel: There is one exception that we haven’t fully addressed yet and that
pertains to the drainage. There is high water table in that area, which as far as
the homes are concerned, we’ll be alleviating that problem. Making sure that the
roads and houses are above the high water table. However, there is not
adequate room to put your standard seepage (Inaudible) underneath draining,
underground drainage. We are presently looking at the possibility of putting a
pond—it’s only a detention pond, not a retention pond. I’ve been in
communications with ACHD and the Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District. So far
everybody seems open to it. What we do is detain the difference between the
predevelopment and the post development flows and let them out easily. After
the storm is all gone, the pond then would be dry and open for park use or
whatever. We would have to take a loss to do this.
MacCoy: That’s in the process right now being designed and investigated.
Jewel: I’ll have to further communicate with the city on that also.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Jewel: We will comply with all the other comments.
MacCoy: Okay, commissioners, do you have anything you want to speak here
for this.
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, so you are looking at a location on the plat for that
retention pond. Is that going to be taking part of one of the lots or are you
looking at the northwest corner, is that where you are talking about?
Jewel: it will be adjacent to the stub street that goes north.
Borup: Right in the middle there?
Smith: Indicate which lot and block (Inaudible).
De Weerd: That’s block 5, lot 1.
Smith: Lot 5, block 1?
Borup: The other, lot 1, block 5.
Rossman: Block 5, lot 1.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 14
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: Block 5, lot 1.
MacCoy: Thank you. Any other questions for him? Thank you very much.
Borup: Then you said every other, no questions or problem with any of the other
staff comments complying with it?
Jewel: No, I agree with them.
Borup: Okay. Have you worked out the details on any question or concern on
the path along the drainage pathway?
Jewel: Along with which drainage are we referring?
Borup: Okay, just the pathways going to it? They are indicated on the plat.
Jewel: They are common lots, correct.
MacCoy: Is that it? Okay, thank you. Is there anybody here who would like to
speak in favor of this project? Okay, anybody here who would like to speak on
the negative side of this project?
Unidentified: I just want to know where I could get a copy or see how the plat is
sectioned off and how it effects the roadways and such with the new construction
of Ten Mile.
MacCoy: Our Planning and Zoning department in the old high school is where
you would go to check that out. Any other person who would like to make a
comment about Item No. 6 right now? Staff do you have anything you want to
add to this now?
Stiles: Nothing, just to let everybody know, all of these applications are on file in
the City Clerk’s Office and they are available anytime from 8 to 5 to review.
MacCoy: Commissioners, what do you want to do?
Borup: Maybe for that last gentleman the site plan didn’t effect Ten Mile at all, as
far as there is no access on Ten Mile.
Unidentified: Ustick, I’m sorry.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 15
Borup: There is one on Ustick.
Smith: I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: What’s the motion now?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to the
City Council to approve the request for annexation and zoning of .38 acres for
the proposed Hartford Subdivision by Glenn Johnson Homes with all comments
and public testimony incorporated there.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you, any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Rossman: Just for clarification on the one issue that the applicant took exception
to the drainage, what is the—how is the motion to address that?
Borup: That wasn’t really involved in this annexation. So we will address it on
the (Inaudible) preliminary plat.
MacCoy: I figure that’s where you would put it on to the next one there. That
would be the preliminary plat. Moving on to Item No. 7.
ITEM NO. 7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
HARTFORD SUBDIVISION (58 SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING LOTS ON 18.02
ACRES) BY GLENN JOHNSON HOMES –NORTH OF USTICK RD, EAST OF
TEN MILE:
MacCoy: Staff, do you have any comments?
Stiles: Nothing further.
MacCoy: All right, thank you. I’ll open the public hearing, will the applicant come
forward again please.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 16
RICHARD JEWEL.
Jewel: I have no further comment.
MacCoy: Do you want your comments from before carried in this part?
Jewel: I don’t think I can remember them.
MacCoy: That’s all you have to say, that you would like to have your comments
carried forward to this one.
Jewel: Please include the comments in items no. 7 from no. 6.
MacCoy: Any other comments or questions from the commissioners at this
point? Okay thank you, that was simple. Anybody who would like to speak in
favor of this complex? Come forward now. Seeing none, anybody who is
opposed to this complex will you care to come forward to say anything? Go
ahead, now is your turn.
JOHN SCHAFER, 2788 W USTICK ROAD.
Schafer: I’m not really for or against either one. The subdivision—or just some
clarifications. One item was on the recommendations from the Planning and
Zoning Administrator and staff was Item No. 6, there was a proposed fence at
the boundary of Lot 12, Block 5. This is a future access to the Comprehensive
Plan for a proposed pathway along the Five Mile Drainage Canal. I would
recommend that this access be blocked off until future, when this pathway is
incorporated right now it would just dump it out—the kids out to, or adults or
whoever out into the drainage ditch area. That would be one recommendation.
Then Item No. 12, the 100 year flood plain, they have addressed that they will
comply with the 100 year flood plain. I guess I would like to know what their
proposal is, how that will effect the 100 year flood plain upstream and what
effects the adjoining properties. Item No. 13, there is notice here regarding the
wastewater treatment plant and unpleasant odors. I own the property to the east
of this proposed subdivision. I don’t know if this can be amended or in addition
to, or amended amendment, we do have livestock, we do have swine, and we do
have poultry. As everyone is aware, they do smell, and I just don’t want any
problems down the road when the subdivision is developed. One other item I
was informed that there will be perimeter fencing required around the property.
That’s about the only items that I would like to have addressed.
MacCoy: You know that you are protected under Idaho Law since you are there
under agriculture, or farm animal conditions. There can be no case brought
against you so you are safe (Inaudible).
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 17
Schafer: I just noticed that it would be putting the CC & R’s of the subdivision for
the wastewater treatment plant, if this could be added as an item, I would
appreciate it, if they seem to have a problem down the line.
MacCoy: Any questions for him while he is up here? Is there anyone else who
would like to make a statement at this time? Staff do you have anything else you
would like to say at this point?
Borup: Question for the city engineer, assistant city engineer, engineer
department, any comment or concern on the drainage pond.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, members of the commission,
these are just things that can be worked out during the design phase. In our
comments we picked up on the shallow groundwater issue. I made a comment
in there about our design criteria for separation. Mr. Jewel is aware of that and
he is aware of ACHD’s criteria. I feel comfortable with his proposal. I think it’s a
good solution, those ponds are used quite a bit lately, due to the shallow ground
water, so I don’t really have nay concerns with that, no.
MacCoy: We still have any open public hearing, what do you want to do with it?
Borup: Sometime, I would like to address Mr. Schafer’s three comments. Have
we got something else there commissioner?
(Inaudible)
Borup: I think the only one maybe for clarification for Mr. Schafer is if the
applicant would like to make a comment on the 100 year flood plain. Our plat
shows and I think we could answer that question that maybe more appropriate
for the applicant.
MacCoy: Would the applicant come back forward?
Jewel: Yes sir, we have addressed the flood plain issue, it’s noted on the plat,
there is a small area in there on two of the lots, we proposed to go ahead and fill
those up a little bit to get them up out of the flood plain. It drops down to
elevation 49 through that area and that’s the only part that is effected by the 100
year.
Borup: I’m not sure if Mr. Schafer saw that plat, but from our plat, you are
looking at—what 100 feet or so, that’s out of the road. There is a very small
amount that is even in the 100 year flood plain (Inaudible)…
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 18
(END OF TAPE)
Borup: We’ll that was all. I wonder if there is any comment from staff on fencing
on putting a temporary fence on the lot going back to the path, where it doesn’t
go into anything yet. I think your proposal was to fence both sides and I think Mr.
Schafer is talking about fencing off the 20 feet on the north side, that’s how I
interpreted that.
Stiles: I think that would be appropriate until such time as a pathway does exist
there.
Schafer: I guess the concern that I had with that pathway leading back there,
right now it’s just an open pathway that leads back to the canal. It’s just more of
an invitation for kids back to the ditch line. Things like that, if it was blocked off
till a pathway was eventually developed, then that temporary barrier could be
removed.
Borup: I think that makes sense.
MacCoy: You make a very good point there.
Schafer: I guess one other item that comes up, the high water table which is 1.5
feet as stated. I guess they were going to do a high water table research from
what was listed. I think it also mentioned that it had to be—the center line of the
road had to be 3 feet above high water table. What does that do to the elevation
of the back end of the property? That property right now is approximately 1.5
higher than ours. If they have to come in and add an additional 2 feet of soil to
get that 3 feet above, or a 1.5 of top soil to get that, all of a sudden there are like
3.5-4 feet above the property next. Will there be a retaining wall or something to
prevent that from slouffing or washing off. I guess that might be one other
question also for the engineer.
Freckleton: I guess that I would try and defer that question back to Mr. Jewel the
design engineer for the subdivision.
MacCoy: Okay, would you mind coming forward again, since you have a
chance to answer our questions here.
Jewel: If you don’t mind, let me ask the gentleman if he has seen a copy of the
plat.
Schafer: Yes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 19
Jewel: I guess in brief, basically what has taken place is right there where that
low area is, is actually an indentation in the property. He is correct, if the natural
ground and through the subject property is a little bit higher than the north
property. It all slopes that way toward the canal. All we would be doing basically
is filling that a little bit until where it’s level across the back.
MacCoy: So you don’t see it as a problem?
Jewel: I don’t but I understand his concern too. He doesn’t want to see a two or
three foot embankment come through there. We haven’t completed the design
of that portion of the road. In that low area, we are going to have to raise it to
maintain the three foot minimum above the high water. Once that is all resolved,
as far as the road (Inaudible) design, then we will know how much there is. It’s
still an indentation area and I don’t see it (Inaudible) anymore than what the
adjacent areas are.
Freckleton: If I could maybe follow up on that.
MacCoy: Sure go ahead.
Freckleton: One comment that I did make was that we requested additional soils
investigation work and also the establishment of the seasonal high ground water
elevation across the property. The data that has been submitted is for just two
holes that they dug, one up closer to Ustick and one down on that low end. They
were dug in January, the typical high ground water in the time of year is more like
August or September. So we’ve requested that they have a soil scientist to
establish the seasonal high ground water elevation and what I would be looking
for is to see if there is consistency across the property, closer to Schafer’s
property and if we’ve got any high ground water issues at that point, excuse me,
or if the water is deeper. That’s going to influence how he does his design for his
center line of his streets and the finished floors of the homes and that sort of
thing. I just kind of felt that the information that was provided wasn’t sufficient
enough to really give us a good comfort level on that.
Jewel: I agree completely with him. We’ve already been in contact with
(Inaudible) to perform that and as soon as he can work it out in his schedule,
we’ll be doing that.
MacCoy: Okay, then you will receive that back and make your decisions, very
good.
De Weerd: Hey Bruce, is that all covered in your staff comments?
Freckleton: Yes it is Commissioner De Weerd.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 20
Borup: When this subdivision was approved several years ago, was there water
testing done at that time? Any test holes that you know about?
Freckleton: Commissioner Borup, it was back in 1994 and I wasn’t really heavily
involved with the projects like I am now. I don’t know, to be honest with you.
Borup: Okay, that 1.5 foot just seems real unusual to me, I wonder—my
question was that really the ground water or just because it was such a wet
period right then that it may have been more run-off than ground water.
Freckleton: That’s quite possible, hopefully those type of things will come up
with the additional soils investigation.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Smith: This is for Engineer Bruce again. So based on your comments and
concerns, do you look at that as effecting how we vote on this preliminary plat
tonight or…
Freckleton: Commissioner Smith, I don’t think that these are un-scaleable
mountains that we are talking about. I think that they are just design—things that
can be worked out. So, I don’t see it as a problem that should hold this up.
MacCoy: Commissioners, where do we stand?
Borup: I have no more questions, are we ready to close the hearing?
De Weerd: I move that we close the public hearing, unless there is further
testimony.
Schafer: When we did test holes for the septic system, that does stand pretty
true on the very north side of the property about 1.5 on the water table along the
Five Mile Drainage. Those tests that we did were in about 1991 or 1992, we had
Central District Health come out and dig some test holes all along the east side—
excuse me, the west side of our property which we would be adjacent to the
subdivision. So from previous experience, that does stand pretty true.
MacCoy: Thanks for the information, now we are ready to close the public
hearing. There was motion made…
Smith: And a second.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 21
MacCoy: And a second, okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion on it. I would move that
we recommend approval for the conditional use permit—preliminary plat for
Hartford Subdivision, with the inclusion of staff comments and to add to site
specific requirements number 7 that that pathway be blocked until an actual path
exists.
Smith: Path on Lot 12, Block 5?
Borup: Then just one question…
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: No it’s item 7, I thought, item 6? No, 7. What is item 7?
Rossman: It’s actually 6 and 7. Six is the fencing.
De Weerd: That’s the perimeter fencing.
Rossman: It relates to Lot 12, Block 5.
Borup: It would be item 6.
De Weerd: Item 6 and 7.
Rossman: Also address the drainage if you would, with the detention pond.
De Weerd: Oh, and to include the comments on the retention pond.
Borup: That that be worked out in design with the engineer.
De Weerd: Oh yeah, detention pond.
Borup: The only other question that I had—I realize (Inaudible) state law
whether it be appropriate to include the right to farm clause in there.
MacCoy: If you want to put that in, you have the right to do so.
Borup: I realize it maybe a little bit redundant, but it still might not be bad.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 22
De Weerd: Yes, I would add that to my.
MacCoy: Anything else to add to that?
Smith: Second that.
MacCoy: Any discussion now? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF
INGRESS/EGRESS & UTILITIES EASEMENTS FOR ROARING SPRINGS
WATER PARK BY REED BOWEN, JR.—NORTH OF OVERLAND RD, EAST
OF BLUE MARLIN LN:
MacCoy: This is the one we have now been accustomed to seeing north of
Overland Road and east of (Inaudible). Staff?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, this is part of the Interstate Center
Development. This is where Roaring Springs is being constructed right now. At
the time the subdivision was platted, there was an ingress/egress easement that
served as a private road to serve all the lots in the development and along with
that roadway there were associated utility easements and this was a condition of
their conditional use permit for Roaring Springs that prior to getting occupancy
for the project, they would have to vacate those easements. So, I don’t believe
the applicant is here tonight, it’s really a house keeping issue and we
recommend that you recommend it for approval and send it on to City Council.
MacCoy: Okay, Bruce do you have any comments?
Freckleton: I have nothing to add.
MacCoy: Open the public hearing, is the applicant here? No. Okay, since it’s a
public hearing, is there any comment on the positive side for this? If not, how
about on the negative side? No. All right, let me ask the commissioners what do
you want to do?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 23
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend
approval to City Council for the request of vacation of ingress/egress and utilities
easements for Roaring Springs Water Park.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 0.578 ACRES
FROM R-15 & R-4 TO L-O FOR MERIDIAN FIRE STATION BY CITY OF
MERIDIAN – WEST OF NORTH TEN MILE, BETWEEN TETER & MUIRFIELD:
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, this is for the Fire Substation site on
Ten Mile Road, the property was originally annexed as part of the Lakes at
Cherry Lane Development and had a zoning of R-15 and R-4, the request is to
rezone to L-O because that is the only zone in which a firestation or public uses
are permitted outright at the present time. I believe Bruce went to go get Kenny
Bowers, Fire Chief to answer any questions someone might have as part of the
public hearing.
MacCoy: Is that it? We’ll get to you in a moment Kenny.
Smith: I don’t appear to have the correct vicinity map or site, or ACHD report in
my packet.
MacCoy: That’s true, I mentioned that to our planning people, we had to rework
that today and you won’t have it in your material there. It was a mistake made by
ACHD in putting it together.
De Weerd: We got it in February.
MacCoy: The map was misplaced when they put the report together, so you
don’t have that in yours. The map that is in there is for the station on Franklin.
The rest of the material is pertinent though. Okay, we will open the public
hearing and ask that the applicant come forward.
KENNY BOWERS, 33 E. IDAHO, MERIDIAN, ID.
MacCoy: What do you want to say about your station?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 24
Bowers: Basically Shari had mentioned to us that we needed to rezone the two
locations, the one on Franklin Road across from the cemetery, also the property
at Ten Mile. They were zoned R-15 and R-4 out at Ten Mile and firestations
through our Comprehensive Plan does not fit in those locations. They needed to
be rezoned to L-O.
MacCoy: Any statement about the station, the satellite station?
Bowers: The satellite station out on Ten Mile, what we want to build out there is
a building that will fit in with the homes, nothing that sticks out. Possibly be a
home on one end with an oversized garage on the other end. When Teter
donated the property to us at that time, that’s what he wanted us to build,
something that would blend in and look fairly well.
De Weerd: So you don’t have any plans at this point?
Bowers: We don’t have any drawings or plans for the Ten Mile station, right now
we are concentrating everything on Franklin Road.
MacCoy: Any other questions for Kenny? Okay, thank you Kenny. Is there
anyone here who is in favor the firestation and would like to speak in that behalf?
I guess if nobody wants to speak they are in favor for it. Anybody want to speak
in the opposite direction for the firestation?
De Weerd: I just can’t wait to see what all these people are here for.
MacCoy: Since there is none on either side, and there are no questions for
Kenny, staff do you have anything you want to add to this?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion for that? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of the rezone of
.578 acres from R-15 to L-O.
Borup: Second.
Rossman: With staff comments.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 25
De Weerd: With staff comments, thank you.
MacCoy: We got a second I heard on that from Commissioner Borup. Any
discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 1.936
ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O FOR MERIDIAN FIRE STATION BY CITY OF
MERIDIAN – NORTH OF FRANKLIN RD, BETWEEN 5TH AVE & BALTIC
PLACE:
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, this is for the proposed firestation site
on Franklin Road, across from the cemetery, it would be directly east of Artech
and the same reason for the rezone, it’s currently zoned light industrial and
needed to be rezoned to L-O to permit the public use of a firestation. We have
submitted our comments, if your packets are also out of order for the Ada County
Highway District comments, I ask that you incorporate their appropriate report as
such time as that comes in.
MacCoy: Bruce, do you have anything?
Freckleton: I have nothing.
MacCoy: I will open the public hearing now, will the applicant step forward once
again.
KENNY BOWERS, 33 E. IDAHO, MERIDIAN, ID.
Bowers: Basically this is the same thing as item no. 9, they wanted us to rezone
it to L-O. This is the property just directly east of Artech across the road from the
cemetery. On this project, we do not have any drawings to show you for the
building. We are working on the square footage and trying to get the offices, the
bays and the living quarters to fit in the two acres, or 1.9 acres. The only thing
we are having problems trying to find the sewer at this time, we believe we’ve
found it out there so.
MacCoy: You want to make any statement about what kind of station it’s going
to be.
Bowers: This station here at Franklin will be a three bay station with double
trucks that will be back nose to tail on them. On the east side of the building will
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 26
be offices. On the west side of the building will be living quarters, kitchen area,
physical fitness room, stuff like that. That building in that area will have to be
approved by the people at Artech before it can be built. It has to be built out of
brick, it can not be any metal. So it will be a very pleasing looking building. It
won’t be sticking out of the way out there.
MacCoy: Kenny is right, I’ve served on the committee for this thing
architecturally, I think the city will be very pleased with what has come out of this.
We have got some real good work in place on this thing for not only the firemen
that have to live there, but for the city that will see it and receive the services
from it. It will really be a gem in our community I think. Kenny and his people
have done a lot of very hard work to make sure it does come out that way. Okay
thank you Kenny. Do we have anybody here, since it’s a public hearing that
would speak in favor of the building, or wants to speak in favor of the building?
You are going to have a brand new firestation. How about on the other side of
the fence, anyone want to speak? Okay.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close the public
hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Next motion?
Smith: I would like to make a motion that we recommend to the City Council
approval of the request for rezone from I-L to L-O.
De Weerd: To include staff comments.
Smith: Including staff comments.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Rossman: Just for the record, when one indicates staff comments, that would
include ACHD and departments within the city.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 27
MacCoy: Eric, do you want that spelt out that way?
Rossman: No, that’s fine, just so it’s in the record that that is what the
commissioners mean when they say staff comments.
ITEM NO.11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 9.838
ACRES FROM R-8 WITH CONDITIONS FOR TOWNHOUSES TO R-8
WITHOUT CONDITIONS FOR PROPOSED TREMONT PLACE SUBDIVISION
BY LUNA VISTA, INC.—BROADWAY & 8TH STREET (725 W. 8TH):
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, we have reviewed this application,
you have our comments dated March 5, 1999. We did receive a revised plat, got
it in our boxes today along with the applicants response. Most of the issues that
remain deal with public works department and services to the project. We would
ask that the project be continued to your April meeting, so that we can do the
necessary studies and review the amended application. That’s it.
MacCoy: All right commissioners, you’ve heard the recommendation from staff.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this item
until our April 13th
meeting to allow staff to have necessary time to review the
revised and amended material as well as the commission.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? None, okay, all in favor?
Smith: Aye.
De Weerd: Aye.
Borup: So we are saying we aren’t even opening the public hearing?
MacCoy: No we are not, we are just continuing because no material.
Borup: Okay.
MacCoy: I need a motion. We just continue the public hearing is what we did.
All right moving on to…Keith did you give an aye or nay on that?
Borup: I didn’t give either.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 28
MacCoy: Are you going to abstain on this or are you going to add to one side or
the other?
Borup: We have several people here, but it looks like nothing is going to be
resolved tonight anyway, so okay. Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: Motion carried:
ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
TREMONT PLACE SUBDIVISION (36 SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING LOTS ON
9.838 ACRES) BY LUNA VISTA, INC.—BROADWAY & 8TH STREET (725 W.
8TH):
MacCoy: Staff same comments? What do you want to say?
Stiles: Yes chairman MacCoy, commissioners, there may be people out in the
audience tonight that had come to testify, though I didn’t know if you asked if
there was any public comment, but they probably should be able to address any
concerns that they have at this time, if they wish to testify.
MacCoy: We could use it on this number right now, is that what you are
suggesting? Number 12, since it is the same project would still be testimony for
that project.
Stiles: Yes.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I don’t agree with that at all, we are going to have to go
through this next month anyway. Staff has asked us to continue it. There is no
point in opening up the public hearing tonight because we are just going to
rehash all this stuff next month. Lets just move on. We moved on past the other
one. I apologize if someone is here, but this application had so many holes in it,
there were so many issues that had to be resolved and they just got the stuff into
our boxes here today, there is no way staff or ourselves could review them. We
are just wasting our own time.
MacCoy: I don’t disagree with you.
Smith: I have to disagree with Shari, I don’t see any point in opening a public
hearing right now.
MacCoy: She just made the statement and you are the commissioners you
make your position.
Smith: That’s my position.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 29
Rossman: It can be done either way, you can hear the pubic testimony of the
people that are here tonight to testify so they don’t have to come back, or just
continue the whole thing till everybody has all the information and hear all the
public testimony at one time in April.
De Weerd: Instead of speculating, can we ask for a show of hands if there is
someone out there that wants to testify on this item?
MacCoy: I can ask the question. Is anybody out here who would like to—or is
here for that one anyway. We have three-four, three.
Smith: These people have had no opportunity to review the amended
application.
MacCoy: Nobody has had a chance to see this yet.
Smith: So what are we going to talk about, we are going to talk about something
that isn’t even real.
MacCoy: All right, I think the point is made, we haven’t got the material, so we
are sitting here and you would be asking us questions that we have no answers
for at this point. The city clerk has just informed me that the material is coming in
right now if you want to have a chance to come into the office and review the file,
that’s open to you. It’s an open document.
De Weerd: I would like to see us open it and give them the opportunity to have
their say with the knowledge that they can also do it next month when they have
a chance to look at the plans.
Smith: What are we going to comment on tonight?
De Weerd: I don’t know that there is that much, many changes.
Smith: There is a whole list of stuff in staff comments here in this package. You
want me to go through them all. I think it’s a significant.
MacCoy: Just hold it down a minute. Commissioner Smith wait a minute. Hold
on here. Commissioner Smith is correct, the material we have is not enough to
go on tonight, there are a lot of problems with this thing, I found the same thing
when I went through this thing and I thought how are we going to make this
tonight. Anybody can make any statements tonight or ask any questions won’t
get any answers. You are going to have to come back next month in order to
hear the documents.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 30
Unidentified: I have one quick question. If we come back next month, are we
going to have to come back again then in May, June and then July?
MacCoy: Well the answer to that question is we haven’t got the documentation,
we have nothing to base this on.
Unidentified: I know this has been hanging for quite some time.
Rossman: This commission can certainly direct the applicant to make sure that
all the information is here with plenty of time before the next hearing in order for
it to be considered.
MacCoy: It’s only fair. They won’t be posted if they don’t have it. It shouldn’t
have been posted this time. That’s where a mistake was made. You wouldn’t
have been here anyway if you were here for that one. I was quite concerned
when I read this material because I said what did we have to really base this on.
Unidentified: That’s how I felt ever since I’ve got the paperwork on it. I don’t
know what’s going on, period.
Rossman: That’s fine ma’am you have a month to figure out what’s going on
and we will have a hearing next month.
MacCoy: You can come in and see the city clerk on that. So you do have a way
to go.
Rossman: I would encourage you to review the documents in the file rather than
show up next month and ask the commission what the application is all about.
Prefer that you do actually go and find out through the public file in the Meridian
City Clerk’s Office and find out what is indicated within the application, so that
you are aware of that when you show up next month.
MacCoy: Any other questions to the audience on that very…
Borup: Mr. Chairman?
MacCoy: Wait a minute hold it right here, I’ve got a hand in the back. Would you
come forward? I understand we’ve not done anything with this.
BOB UNGER.
Unger: My name is Bob Unger and I represent the applicant on this. I want you
folks to understand one thing, we received staffs comments at 4:00 via fax
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 31
Friday. The reason you don’t have what you need is because we didn’t know
what staffs comments were until 4:00 on Friday. We were directed to address all
these comments by 5:00 on Monday. Had we had more time, we would’ve had
this information to you so we wouldn’t be in this situation. We don’t want to be
tabled, apparently that seems to be the appropriate thing because you folks
haven’t been provided the appropriate information either. I just want to go on the
record as saying 4:00 o’clock on a Friday is not sufficient time to give us—or not
sufficient time for us to respond to the comments particularly the list of comments
that are on there. That’s all I have to say about it at this time. IF you want to go
to April, we will go to April, but we will make sure that you have that information if
you don’t have it right now, which I believe you do.
MacCoy: Thanks for your comment, there is an agreement in the house and I
want to go back and find what happened. If the material is not in your hands by
a certain date, which is much earlier than that one, it doesn’t even get on the
sheet, so we don’t even have to look at it this way. I’m sorry that we’ve worked
up this way, there seems to be some errors here some place along the line, we
will try to prevent that from happening next time. So where do we stand on this
thing?
Rossman: I think since the public hearing was opened, we probably better move
to close the public hearing—no to continue the public hearing.
MacCoy: I need a motion, that’s what I need. That’s what I’m waiting for now.
Borup: I thought Commissioner De Weerd had a—did you really do a motion, or
is that just a comment that you even made about even opening the public
hearing originally.
Rossman: No, it’s opened.
MacCoy: No, it’s open, we’ve got to continue it is what we’ve got to do now.
Borup: The only comment that I have and I agree it’s not going to accomplish
anything to rehash anything that we would cover next time, the question that I
would have is if there is anybody who may have information that could effect
design or any other information for next time. Now it would be better to have that
now, rather than a month from now.
MacCoy: I think you are going to get questions more than anything else right
now.
Borup: I do know that we have one adjoining property owner that when the
annexation was before us a year or so ago, or however long ago it was, I believe
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 32
one of the conditions was to coordinate with him as far as the stub street location
and it appears to do that. Wouldn’t mind maybe verifying that, or maybe just a
statement for the applicant to discuss it with Mr. Hansen.
MacCoy: That’s a good point. Is everybody in favor to continue this public
hearing on the next month? What is my statement here?
Rossman: Someone has to raise a motion here.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue the public
hearing on this item until our April 13th
meeting for the same reason as was given
for item 11.
De Weerd: I don’t have a problem with continuing it, but I still feel if someone
has something to say, they should be able to say it.
MacCoy: So you don’t agree with it. Okay, do I have a second for the motion on
board here?
De Weerd: Not from me.
Borup: I would agree with Commissioner De Weerd as long as we have the
option to cut the testimony short if it looks like it’s going to be redundant than
pertinent.
De Weerd: We’ve already spent more time discussing this than if we just do it.
MacCoy: Well, the motion dies from the want of a second.
Smith: I don’t see how we are going to review something that nobody even has
information on.
MacCoy: I don’t either.
Smith: It just doesn’t make any sense.
Rossman: The motion wasn’t seconded, so we better continue the public
hearing.
Smith: I just wanted to reiterate that.
Rossman: Please understand that if you testify today, please do not come back
in April and restate what you said tonight. If you come back in April, make sure
it’s new material.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 33
MacCoy: Based on what you’ve heard, we are going to open the public hearing.
First place, the applicant has the first chair.
BOB UNGER.
Unger: I’m with Pinnacle Engineers on this project in as much as we are not
going to deal—the zone changed has already been tabled, we will reserve our
presentation and comments till the 13th
.
MacCoy: Anyone in favor of this project have a chance to speak now. Anyone
who is—okay you do, come up.
LARRY HANSEN, 951 W. PINE, MERIDIAN, ID.
Hansen: My property is bordered to the east and south of this development and
in the original rezone with conditions for townhouses, as Commissioner Borup
mentioned, there was a stub street which would allow access to the back half of
our property. I just want to state that I need to review this plat to make sure that
the stub street is in the correct position and in addition to that, Mr. Arlen Sanders
had indicated that he may require an easement on my property to gain access to
the sewer because of the height of the sewer coming in from Broadway was too
high and would require a considerable amount of fill to allow proper drainage of
his development plan. Therefore, it would be best to bring the sewer out through
my property. I have not agreed to that proposal and I would like to know whether
or not, I guess next month, I’ll know whether or not that is still on the table or if
somehow the sewer on Broadway is now sunk deeper into the ground to allow
the drainage.
MacCoy: This is just a suggestion to you, you might want to talk to the
representative tonight before you leave here. Anybody else on the pro side here
before we move on to the other side. Okay, come ahead.
MIKE COLEMAN, 1213 (Inaudible), Boise, ID.
Coleman: I’m the applicant, Luna Vista Inc. We would be happy outside the
doors there if anybody wanted to visit with myself and engineer to answer any of
those questions. We did line the road up to go through the center of his property,
so if he wanted to future subdivide, it would line up and we can go through that,
give him a copy of the plat or answer any questions. Basically what we are doing
with this project is wanting to do single family homes. It was zoned before with
Mr. Saunders for townhouses, which is a much higher density and we are
wanting to go to a lower density and do single dwelling homes, which from the
testimony before, I was in here on another subdivision, it seemed some of the
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 34
neighbors were objecting to a higher density. We are trying to go with a lower
density, single-family homes.
MacCoy: Anybody on the positive side wants to make anything statement wise.
Not, we’ll go to the other side of the fence. Anybody who would oppose this
project wants to speak? Seeing none, lets…
Borup: Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing—I move that we
continue the public hearing to April 13.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN ACCESSORY USE
PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS CHILDREN BY DONNA &
THOMAS WEST – 988 NW 13TH AVENUE:
MacCoy: Staff do you have anything to say?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, we didn’t have any comments on
this, this is an accessory use permit, the reason it’s before you is because there
was an objection.
MacCoy: I didn’t get the last part of that there was too much noise going on
here. What was the last part of your statement?
Stiles: We had no staff comments on this, just that they meet our ordinance and
the reason it’s before you is because there was an objection within the 15 day
period. I would just like to note that make sure the applicant knows this is for five
or fewer children and that includes their own children.
MacCoy: We will open up the public hearing now, is the applicant here?
DONNA WEST, 988 NW 13TH
, MERIDIAN, ID.
West: I moved here a year and a half ago and I did daycare in my home for like
16 years. I never had problems with traffic, my house was always immaculate,
my yard was always immaculate and I feel the same will be here, because I do
not like mess. I don’t seem to think there is a problem. I have a three car
garage which has parking space for three and probably if we had to squeeze
four. I’m only going to have five children at the very most. They are all going to
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 35
be under the age of four probably because by then they will be going to a
daycare or if the parents want them to stay with me they can, it doesn’t make any
difference.
MacCoy: Any questions?
West: Oh, excuse me, I have some letters here, I’ll just put them in the file, for
people who are not here right now.
MacCoy: Would you please mention the names of the letters? So we have that
for the record.
West: Okay. Kirby Keller, he lives at 1342 W. State Street. This is from Cindy
Chase, she has Kids Club on 1st
Street next to the post office. This is from Aaron
and Sally Myler, they live on State Street, they didn’t put their address here, it’s
on the corner of State and 12th
.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you, any questions for the applicant.
De Weerd: Do you have any children of your own?
West: No, well, they are grown.
MacCoy: Any questions? Okay thank you very much. The public hearing is
open, anybody who is in favor of this, please step forward.
DAVE WHALEY, 939 NW 13TH
STREET, MERIDIAN, ID.
Whaley: I am also the vice president of the subdivision. There is the board
members and other officers here vacant of the president we have not filled the
position due to a vacancy. I can tell you as a neighbor of Tom and Donna West
that we have no problems with this child care, we know they will take care of the
kids. Traffic, if that’s an issue, we live next to the high school, when traffic backs
up to that intersection at Linder and Pine, they use our street to get around it. It
doesn’t make it any faster for them, I think they think it makes it faster. So traffic
is not an issue. We monitor our subdivision very closely to make sure there is no
problems going on. We think this is not a problem for us, you know, even within
our subdivision covenants, there is some rules about businesses. I think in any
covenants in subdivisions you have to be reasonable.
MacCoy: Thank you for your statement, any questions for him? Thank you very
much. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Yes, come on up.
CHRISTIE HEIN, 1402 W. STATE STREET, MERIDIAN, ID.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 36
Hein: It’s kind of kitty corner to Donna West, her house on NW 13th
. I kind of just
prepared a statement that I would like to share with you. My husband and I
bought a house in Navarro Place in 1998 and you know, we met Donna right off
the bat, she was just so generous and every encounter that I’ve had with her has
been a wonderful encounter with her. I think…
(END OF TAPE)
Hein: …a special type of person. It takes patience, love a great deal of devotion
and I sincerely believe that Donna West is capable of these responsibilities and I
think it’s wonderful that we have people like Donna that ease our fears and
anxiety when it comes to the well being of our children when they are in the care
of others. I feel it’s a shame that there’s not more people like Donna willing to
take on such responsibility. As far as the traffic issue, I really don’t feel that
opening a daycare will make any significant change from the current situation we
are in near the high school. When we bought the house, we knew we were near
the high school and we do get traffic through there, but I don’t think it will change
anything with that. I think it’s wonderful for the homeowners in our subdivision to
be able to utilize Donna and her services, and that’s all I have to say regarding
that.
MacCoy: Would you be willing to give us a copy of that so we can put in the file?
Hein: Sure, I actually have a cleaner copy but I will turn it in.
MacCoy: Thank you. Any questions for this lady? All right, anybody else here
who would like to speak in favor of this? Okay, come ahead. It looks like we’re
on a roll here.
MARK WILSON, 993 NW 13TH
AVENUE, MERIDIAN, ID.
Wilson: My name is Mark Wilson. I live at 993 NW 13th
Avenue, I live right
across the street from them. I’ve known Donna and Spike since they moved into
their house, and I feel that they are very capable couple. I would trust them with
my boy. I have a six and a half year old boy, and so I think they’d be a great
asset to our neighborhood to care for the children that are in our neighborhood.
Not that our neighborhood is a huge neighborhood anyway. The traffic on our
street really is next to nothing in that section because most of the people drive
around different areas. The only traffic that we do get is like you said first thing in
the morning when the high school backs up. It backs up on Pine. They try and
come through our subdivision. They hit State Street. After about two weeks,
they realize that when they get to Linder, they’ve got to go through both lanes of
traffic to get to the high school and it doesn’t get them anywhere, so they find out
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 37
that it’s easier to go ahead and wait in line and go through the stop signs. So the
traffic I don’t think is really an issue, except for maybe that first month or two
when the school starts, but I’m here in support of the daycare.
MacCoy: Thank you very much. Okay is anybody else want to speak in favor?
Go ahead.
JENNY PETERSON, 1355 W. STATE STREET, MERIDIAN, ID.
Peterson: Jenny Peterson, we’re at 1355 W. State Street. We actually live right
next door just to the north and just saying we’re all for it, testify to the West’s
character and think that there won’t be any problem at all, traffic, what can five
cars do that all the rest of everybody else has talked about as far as you know
having any problems with disorderly children or anything. I don’t think they’ll
have any problem. I’ve seen Donna with her own grandchildren in lots of
situations and we’re all for it and we want to support them and that’s it.
MacCoy: All right thank you. Anyone else who wants to speak in favor? All
right, seeing none, anybody wants to speak against this? Come ahead.
BRAD BLOOMER, 990 NW 12TH
AVENUE, MERIDIAN, ID.
Bloomer: My name is Brad Bloomer, I live at 990 NW 12th
Avenue.
Rossman: Spell your last name please.
Bloomer: Bloomer, B-l-o-o-m-e-r. Excuse me I’m fighting off a little flu bug and I
want to pass out—(Inaudible – off the microphone) or anything like that I think
the point is when everybody bought a house in that subdivision, they signed off
on the covenants. If they read their covenants. I think a lot of people don’t, but
anyway the covenants state that you can’t own business out of this subdivision.
Myself I personally bought a home in that subdivision because I didn’t want
businesses in there. Well I have young children. I like them to be able to ride
their bikes up and down the street. I have a little bit of traffic subdivision traffic
you know, I hate to be the bad guy here, but our subdivision really doesn’t have a
homeowners association that’s worth anything. It hasn’t really accomplished
much. There’s already businesses that are being run out of there illegally. I’ve
brought this up to people on the board and on the homeowners the office, the
elected officials and they just kind of turn a deaf ear. In fact a couple of them are
some of the people that do have the businesses. Anyway where the Wests live
and like I said again I like the Wests. They are very nice people. They have a
beautiful home. They take good care of their house. I don’t think that’s the
question. The question is that me and several other people that live on the other
side of the block are objecting to this. They’re not here tonight because of the
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 38
fact that it’s against the covenants. I mean they’re putting the cart before the
horse here.
Rossman: Sir, do you understand that this Commission has no authority or
power to enforce covenants? Your enforcement is confined to the document
itself, the covenants. There should be enforcement provision within the
covenants. Either by a private right of action or through a homeowners
association, but this Commission is confined to the ordinance as to whether or
not this application is permitted under the Meridian City Ordinance.
Bloomer: Okay let me ask you this question if I may. I’m not an attorney. What
they’re wanting to do is get an accessory use permit. Is that true?
Rossman: That’s correct.
Bloomer: Well it’s against the covenants in our subdivision.
Rossman: But the question is, is it against the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Ordinance?
Bloomer: What rules the day here? Does the home owners covenants, are they
worth nothing?
Rossman: Well you’re going to have to read your covenants. There should be
enforcement provision within your covenants.
Bloomer: But anyway like I said I still think that they should have gone to the
homeowners and had a homeowners meeting and sat down and talked to
everybody and explained what they wanted to do and then let the home owners
rule on it and gone from there, so I object for several reasons. Number one is a
safety reason. Number two that there is already businesses being run out of
there, and who is to say that there won’t be six, seven, eight more homes that
want to run a daycare out of there? It’s a profitable business. I moved into that
subdivision so I didn’t have to deal with that. I guess what we’re talking about
here is what I’m saying is in the air because it doesn’t have to do with what
you’re going to decide on. So does that mean that we have to go get a civil
action if you approve their permit? Do we have to get a civil action to stop them?
Is that it?
Rossman: I haven’t read your covenants. I’m not going to advise you on that.
You’re just going to have to review them yourself or consult an attorney. The
covenants are just an irrelevant issue. Now if you want to talk about safety and if
you want to talk about compatibility of this particular application with the
neighborhood. Those are relevant issues.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 39
Bloomer: --that is on 13th
Street. It’s a shortcut to the high school. There’s
some people that live on a corner lot there that have young kids and they’re
constantly playing soccer and riding their bikes. That corner right there is used
as a spot where a lot of young children roller blade and ride their bicycles, jump
over ramps. We don’t need any more traffic there. As far as that safety issues
goes, there was a girl killed in Caldwell last year because she ran in between two
parked cars. If you have five people there, who is going to count? Are you going
to go over there and count the children every day? I don’t think so. I don’t think I
am either. So they’re asking for a permit to use for five people, but who is going
to watch over that? So between the safety fact and the fact that I don’t think
businesses should be run out of subdivisions, I guess I have nothing else to say.
Do you have any questions for me?
Borup: I have one Mr. Chairman. Again it may not be pertinent but sir you
stated that you thought that there should have been a meeting of the subdivision
and then are you saying that the majority would vote in favor of this, then that’s –
Bloomer: That’s the way the covenants are written up. They can change the
covenants –
Borup: I think tonight we’ve had about ten that’s already spoken in favor of it.
Bloomer: I realize that. It’s because they realized there was going an objection
to it so that’s why they rallied the troops and got them in here, which is fine.
Borup: I can say from past experience that it’s a lot easier to get people
speaking in opposition of something than it is in favor.
Bloomer: Well nobody knew about it.
Borup: Ten to one is quite unusual.
Bloomer: Nobody knew about it. The only reason I found out about it is because
I read it in the newspaper that little Meridian paper that they throw in your
driveway. Nobody went around. There wasn’t a homeowners meeting. The only
people that were contacted were the neighbors –
Borup: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: Is there anyone else who would like to speak at this time on the
negative side? Okay, you want – this lady over here had her hand up first.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 40
Hein: The way our covenants are, again it’s a covenant issue not an issue with
the Planning and Zoning Commission. With the covenants, if there is a dispute
on one of the covenants, the person can come forward to the committee and
then we can hold a meeting, but it was never brought to our attention as a
covenant issue and once it is brought up and we do hold a meeting and make a
decision on it. Then we can vote if enough people are in favor of changing the
covenants, it can be changed, but again the issue was never brought up to the
home owners association. We do have a homeowners association right now, but
we do not have a president at the current time. As far as Mr. Bloomer, he has
been invited to many homeowners meetings, but made a comment to me one
time that he does not do meetings and has never been present at any of our
homeowners meetings, so I would just like that for the record.
MacCoy: Okay thank you. I got a hand over here too.
DAVE WHALEY 939 NW 13TH
AVENUE
Whaley: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Dave Whaley, 939 NW
13th
Avenue. As far as the covenants, again I have a copy of the covenants.
They’re sitting right here. It’s not an issue here before today. Again I would say
that the covenants are to be reviewed by homeowners associations and
attorneys, which I just did about two weeks ago. I had an attorney review ours.
Ours at best are weak. These were turned over to us less than a year ago by
Ted Hepper saying okay now the homeowners association, this is yours. We’re
just going through the process of trying to be a homeowners association, which a
lot of us have never been but as you see here tonight we have testimony on an
issue that we feel very concerned about. We’re not going to allow junk yards and
everything else into our subdivision. That’s not what it is about. The eight or
nine children that play across the street, only two of them live there on that
corner. The rest of them come from the rest of the neighborhoods around us.
We can’t control children and where they play. So I think the safety issue is a
moot issue there. There’s a speed limit sign posted. There’s a stop sign
posted, and that’s an issue with the law, not of an issue of where children can
play.
MacCoy: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Unidentified: As far as the homeowners association, when they came around
and started I was the president of the last homeowners association. I involved in
it for two years. You have to – it’s a job that I didn’t want to do. When we
discussed the homeowners association, people were going around do you want
to do this? Who wants to be this and this that and the other thing and I said I’d
rather not get involved. I just left a subdivision where I was president. It can get
kind of messy if people don’t obey the covenants, so that’s why I’m not interested
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 41
in being involved in the association at this point in time which a couple of three
weeks ago when I did read the letter in the paper, I went and saw this gentleman
right here who is the president of the Board of Directors? Chairman of the Board
of Directors, who has the house right across from the west the chipped
windshield business he has there and I asked him what his feelings were and he
said he thought it would be an okay deal and at the time I don’t think it’s going to
be a good deal and I said why don’t we have a meeting of the homeowners and
discuss it and he said well, there’s no president to call a meeting or something
like that and then I said well you’re on the Board of Directors, let’s have a
meeting and you can nominate me to be president and we’ll start taking care of
the problems in this subdivision.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Anyone else that wants to make a statement before
we close this? I’m going to come back to that okay. If not the applicant you want
to say anything at this time? All right thank you. Commissioners?
De Weerd: I would move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: I’m impressed how many people you have come out to support your
application. Mr. Chairman I’d like to move that we approve the accessory use
permit for a daycare of five or less children by Donna and Thomas West and to –
that’s it.
Borup: Did you just recommend approval? Is that what? Okay I second that.
MacCoy: Eric, --
Rossman: You’re going to have to refer it to the next meeting for approval of
Findings, since it will stop here. This will not be – accessory uses under the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Ordinance will not be reviewed by the City
Council. This is final action by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission so
we’ll have to come back in a month and review written findings.
(Inaudible)
Rossman: It’s a written document that constitutes an Order by the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission that says it is approved here by approved
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 42
basically and it recites what the Meridian City Ordinance is and what the relevant
issues leading up to that decision were.
Borup: So would you like to revise your –
De Weerd: Do I need to request Findings then?
Borup: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay, I would move that we direct the attorney to prepare Findings of
Facts on our accessory use permit.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Okay all in favor?
Smith: Don’t we ask you to approve them recommending approval or denial?
Rossman: Not on accessory use. What you do is you make a motion somewhat
like Commissioner De Weerd did and just move that the accessory use be
approved and that we set this over for approval of written findings. Just like we
used to before.
Smith: So that’s basically what the motion said.
Rossman: Yes. Written findings indicating approval of the accessory use. You
will review those next month and if acceptable approve them and that will be final
action.
Smith: Aye.
MacCoy: All right we have three ayes. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM NO. 14: SIGN REVIEW: CHEVRON / MCDONALD'S SIGN BY EAGLE
PARTNERS—NW CORNER OF EAGLE RD AND MAGIC VIEW:
MacCoy: All right thank you very much everybody for your comments and
moving on to item 14. We have a sign review which is not a public hearing. But
you’re welcome to stay. It has to do with a Chevron / McDonalds sign by Eagle
Partners. Northwest corner of Eagle Road and Magic View and staff.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 43
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, Commissioners, when the Eagle Partners project was
reviewed and approved, one of our comments was that detailed signage plans
must be included as part of this application for review and approval. At no time
were any plans presented. The approved site plan that they showed did clearly
indicate two locations for signage, but just by the symbols that were used on the
plan indicated more of a monument type sign than the 100 foot pylon sign they
are proposing now. I put it on the agenda for you to review to discuss what might
be the appropriate plan of action, whether we need to go to a public hearing.
This is a good example of why conditional use permits should not be approved
with no signage included as part of their application. I guess –
MacCoy: Is that it? Bruce, do you have anything to say? Okay, is the applicant
here?
De Weerd: For the record, I didn’t have anything to do with this one.
MacCoy: The applicant is not here I guess. Okay do you want to come forward?
Clinger: My name is Bob Clinger. I represent the applicant. I’m with Idaho
Electric Signs, and –
Rossman: Sir, could you spell your last name?
Clinger: C-l-I-n-g-e-r. 6528 Supply Way, Boise. We submitted the application for
the sign usage a couple of weeks ago. As of last Friday, we were informed that it
would be going before the Planning and Zoning Commission without any formal
information, notice or what have you so we’re a little bit inadequately prepared so
I apologize for that. Our main premise is and I’ve been involved in this project
ever since it’s infancy and I understand the sensitive nature of the project. We
have issued sign information to the City Council on high signage from the
beginning. We never initiated a monument type signage. It was always a
freeway oriented type business and because of the sensitive project we realize
there’s also legal information action pending on it. With the Planning and Zoning
Commission we understand that you’re facing nothing but the city ordinances.
There appears to be no portion of your zoning ordinance which would prohibit
the signage that’s been requested. As a city the sign ordinance is based on the
Uniform Sign Code. We find also there’s no section of this code that would
prohibit the signage. This also been requested. It’s been – there’s numerous
signage in the city that’s been allowed. 100 foot signage, McDonalds on
Meridian Road and just basically what our premise is at this point. The square
footage is less than what’s in existence with the existing Texaco Station. We’re
not asking for any electronics, flashing signs. The location of the signage at the
height we feel would be more apropos for the neighborhood. Being higher, it’s
going to have less light. It’s going to have more freeway exposure. Rather than
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 44
being front right on Eagle Road as far as the high rise sign. The Eagle Road
signage being proposed is a 34 foot free standing sign which we feel is
adequate. It’s not excessive, it’s not under signage. Let me I have a blueprint.
Like I say we weren’t expecting – we thought this was going to be a completely
closed session and this was what the information we were given, but this is the
signage on Eagle Road. 34 foot free standing sign modest, Chevron sign and
modest McDonalds signage. The signage on behind the property at 100 foot tall
gives the applicant modest exposure to the freeway for east and west
orientation. Naturally the City Council has given the use permit I’m not sure the
gal is use permit to proceed with this property, but the signage with the P & Z
Commissioners to look at the ordinance itself permitting the signage is complete
modest as you can see compared to the other signage (inaudible) the freeway.
Smith: Sir, where exactly does this 100 foot sign? It’s not on my site plan.
Clinger: Let me show you. Initially we were planning on the high rise sign going
on the Eagle frontage. We took our – we did a complete survey east and west of
the location using the 100 foot boom truck to see where the best exposure would
be with the absence of looking at the new addition of the hospital with the Texaco
signage to be able to have adequate exposure. Here we have Eagle Road.
Right on Eagle Road here we have the 34 foot monument sign being proposed.
In the very back of the property gives us the best exposure for the 100 foot free
standing sign.
Smith: You just said 34 foot monument sign.
Clinger: (Inaudible)
Smith: So right behind the trash enclosure. The 100 foot sign is going right
behind the trash enclosure at the southwest corner of the property.
Clinger: Now if you look at it, initially we wanted it right here. If you put a 100
foot pylon right there that gives direct lighting and exposure to the residents.
Putting back farther up 100 foot up back of the trash enclosure, gives not only
the business the best advertising but it also obscures the lighting and signage
from the neighborhood.
MacCoy: Is the lighting for that internal to that sign?
Clinger: Yes, it is.
MacCoy: Okay so it just makes it glow instead of having spotlight, is that what
you’re saying?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 45
Clinger: Yes.
Rossman: Sir do you have an extra copy of the site plan you’re showing the
Commission now or do you want to make that an exhibit?
Clinger: I’d be more than happy to submit our blueprints. Let me see what I
have – like I say we’re not really prepared basically because of the notice that’s
been given to us. We really didn’t feel that we had adequate notice at all.
Unless I made a phone call to the Planning and Zoning Department, we wouldn’t
have been here tonight. But let me ask you this. I’d be glad to give you all the
information you requested by tomorrow morning.
Rossman: That’s fine. We’ll make it part of the record tomorrow if necessary.
Clinger: I believe it is submitted in our original application.
MacCoy: It’s the same one?
Clinger: Pardon me?
MacCoy: What you have here is the same thing you gave to our Planning and
Zoning Department.
Clinger: Yes.
MacCoy: Okay.
Rossman: The blueprints that you’re referring to?
Clinger: Well yes.
Smith: The site plan that indicates all the signage not just half of it like we got in
our packet.
Clinger: The complete sign package, canopy signage, building signage, was
included in our application.
Smith: Which shows the 100 foot pylon sign.
De Weerd: Which application was that? Originally?
Clinger: The application that we’re meeting here this evening.
De Weerd: Okay, but not when you –
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 46
Clinger: The original application we submitted high rise signage in several
designs that was proposed. Nothing was in discussion in what the applicant was
suggesting or what it was requesting nothing was formally submitted at that time
because what my understanding was the Council and you’re probably involved in
it originally which precedes my involvement with the architects and the principals.
The signage has been discussed thoroughly. I can guarantee you that.
Borup: Some of that might have been with City Council.
De Weerd: Shari, this wasn’t part of the conditional use permit that P & Z saw.
Borup: I think part—the plat we have, I think just the top part of it got cut off in
photocopying. I think that’s why it didn’t show the sign. Mr. Chairman, I did
have one question for the applicant while he is up.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Do you know the height of the Jackson’s sign next door, is that also 100
feet, or is that—do you know what that height is?
Clinger: The Jackson sign I believe is 75 feet and probably 500 square foot, with
electronics, the flashing lights. We are not suggesting or proposing animated
electronics, just basically minimal identification for McDonalds and the Chevron
business.
Borup: Thank you.
Clinger: Would you like the site…
MacCoy: Yes we would, would you give it to our city clerk please?
Clinger: Do you have the colored designs of the sign proposed?
MacCoy: No, our are black and white.
De Weerd: Do you Shari have the colors?
Stiles: Angel has those in the file.
MacCoy: Okay, we do have them.
Clinger: Let me leave you with an extra set for your own records. Let me dig
that out and I’ll bring right back.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 47
MacCoy: This is not a public hearing, so we are not asking for anybody come
forward and make pro or con on this. Commissioners what do you want to do?
Borup: Did staff have any concern on this?
MacCoy: Yes they do. Go ahead Shari, go back and reiterate.
Stiles: I would just like to point out that there were some misstatements about
what the conditions of the conditional use permit were. It didn’t merely refer to
the sign ordinance, it said there would be conditions in addition to those
contained in the sign ordinance. Commissioners can put any condition they
want, if you say there is no signage, you could require no signage. It is part of
the conditional use permit. They didn’t submit any information, nothing was
approved. I think even the sign on Eagle Road is totally inappropriate. We’ve
limited signs on Fairview Avenue to a total height times width of 72 square feet.
This is over nine times that square footage requirement. I know it’s not a
monument, but even the little Chevron and the pay part are 142 square feet. It’s
huge. I don’t think it’s appropriate for someone to try to get freeway exposure for
a property that does not have any frontage on the freeway. RC Willey will be
coming in next, they would like to have a huge sign that you can see from the
freeway. There has got to be an end to it somewhere and there are some people
from the neighborhood here tonight and I indicated that it was not a public
hearing and they wouldn’t be able to testify, but I think it’s appropriate if—the
applicants representative is going to be able to testify, maybe we should have a
public hearing on this so they can modify their conditional use permit as this was
never included as part of it.
De Weerd: Well, I would agree with that, if it’s—usually signage is part of a
conditional use permit, residents would have a chance to have their say during
that public hearing. I would think it would be appropriate to have their input since
they were not given the opportunity before. Unless they were at City Council.
Did I understand that this was shown to City Council?
Stiles: No.
De Weerd: No.
Smith: Nobody has seen the signage before. Shari has the architect talked to
you about specifics on what you would like to see for signage on this project, or
have they just…
Stiles: No, they have submitted a sign permit application and that was all we
had.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 48
De Weerd: What is the normal procedure?
Stiles: Normal procedure is if it’s a condition of the conditional use permit, that
they get it approved, they get it approved first. Rather than submit for an
application.
MacCoy: The other thing is our sign committee who we used to have no longer
exists, so I’ve requested that it go through Planning and Zoning, it’s got to have
some type of surveillance that goes on. That’s the reason you are seeing this at
this point.
Stiles: I would just like to read the two sections out of the development
agreement that were included addressing signage. Section 5.1-.23 no signage
details were submitted. Detailed signage plans must be included as part of this
application for review and approval. That was never done, so we assumed there
was no signage. As 5.1.31, all signage shall be in accordance with the
standards set forth in section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinance. No temporary signage or flashing signs shall be
permitted. Submission and approval of all signage plans including but not limited
to pole signs, reader boards, banners, etc. and specifically any golden arches
type signage associated with the McDonalds, and any outside signage
associated with the Chevron Gas Stations. Now, it’s a little vague the way that’s
worded there and that’s where their attorney has taken liberties to think that
meant there were no conditions beyond our ordinance. It says these conditions
shall be in addition to the requirements of the Meridian Sign Ordinance. That
doesn’t mean that they can just submit anything they want and we approve it as
they submit it, but that you can set any requirements you want as being
consistent with the conditional use permit and being harmonious with the
neighborhood and all the other items that you have to find in order to grant a
conditional use permit.
Smith: There is also a credit union on this site, I would assume maybe
incorrectly so that they were going to have a sign too. So this isn’t even a
complete sign package submittal for that. If you assume all facilities on the site
are going to have a sign.
MacCoy: You are correct.
Smith: I understand that the gentleman from Young Electric Sign is probably
only been contracted to do the McDonalds and Chevron.
Clinger: Idaho Electric.
Smith: Idaho Electric, I’m sorry.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 49
Clinger: Our understanding is that the credit union will only have building
signage, no free standing signs will be applied for.
MacCoy: Should’ve been stated then on the document then…
Clinger: I understand that’s two separate parcels too. Let me ask you this, since
we are really not prepared for this meeting this evening, because of the time
concessions and notification. I was wondering if we could possibly postpone it.
Defer it to the next meeting where we could have adequate information prepared
by the clients and architects and so on and so forth. Let me ask you, I’ve been
here between the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council and City
Council is well aware of signage that has been proposed. Naturally, signing
permits can not be applied for and I’ve tried to submit signage a year ago myself,
which was not accepted because use permit has not been approved.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
MacCoy: Sure.
De Weerd: How was the City Council aware of this through public testimony?
Clinger: Through public testimony. We had renderings, we had ideas, concepts,
nothing concrete, but what the applicants ideas were in signage, nothing
flashing, nothing—I think what we are submitting right now is very…
Borup: So you are saying all this testimony was prior to…
Clinger: City Council has…
Borup: So there should be minutes available for that?
Clinger: Exactly.
Borup: Do you know what month that was?
Clinger: I couldn’t give you the date, but more than happy to—the architects and
applicant would certainly have that information.
De Weerd: Would it be—Mr. Chairman…
MacCoy: Yes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 50
De Weerd: Since the applicant wants to come back and have a chance to
present this, would that be appropriate to have a public hearing at that time?
MacCoy: We could it’s our choice.
De Weerd: I certainly think it would be appropriate and perhaps we can have
any prior testimony available too to see what has been said.
MacCoy: Are you saying this—these go through a conditional use process?
Stiles: It should have been part of the conditional use process.
Smith: Are you saying that it is not anymore? Or that we are…
Stiles: Well, because it was a detail—it was a condition of their development
agreement, it was a condition of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,
nothing was ever submitted. I think if signage were submitted and reviewed by
council, it would’ve been reflected in this development agreement, that yes there
were signage plans submitted. That is not what the record reflects. I think if the
applicants representative has the opportunity to come in and try and state his
case, the neighbors need to have that same opportunity.
Smith: Right, right, I want to make sure that the applicant knows exactly what he
is supposed to be applying for and that the public hearing is based on that. Just
that all the I’s are doted and T’s are crossed.
Rossman: This would be an application really for a modification of the
conditional use permit it’s not and with that there is an entitlement to a public
hearing and the residents are certain. This does sound like it’s a material
change to the original conditional use permit. That process should be followed
and I don’t know if that calls for a separate application process and whether it’s
realistic to expect that this would come before the commission in April, I don’t
know. It would have to have proper notice and the proper applications filed out
with the Planning and Zoning Staff.
MacCoy: So you are saying that timing is our problem with this one, April 13th
?
Stiles: It would be May before they could get a public hearing.
MacCoy: We are already booked for April.
Clinger: Mr. Commissioner, members of the commission, let me address one
issue. The freeway oriented sign—freeway frontage. Well, who has freeway
frontage? Jackson’s Texaco does not have freeway frontage. They are not right
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 51
on the freeway. There is a Holiday Inn--there is a parcel right in front of it which
is being built that’s not freeway frontage. We are asking for probably a 25%,
75% less square footage in signage than what the Texaco Station has. It’s
minimal square footage, the height on it is basically to oversee the residents and
also have the exposure and advertise two business that they are representing.
We are not—to exaggerate that the furniture store on the other side of Franklin is
going to have a freeway sign, is ridiculous. That’s complete exaggeration. I’m
not here to argue the point, I’m here to represent the client and basically we—I
was here to take the information to see exactly what the outcome was. They
have no representation here this evening and I’m asking for a formal…
MacCoy: I understand, I think we understand what your position is and we are
looking also from the standpoint of we want some more time too, because we
have some things to consider. I don’t think there is any problem with that and I
think our attorney raises a very good point that we have that position anyway so
that we can have a motion here which would then bring you back at the proper
time and we would have a public hearing out of it. So…
Smith: Before the motion is made, I would like to encourage the applicant to
meet with staff and appropriate parties to review what is being proposed and
exactly what it is that the—obviously the city has a lot of problems with this
application as submitted and I think whoever the architect is or designers of this,
that’s responsible (Inaudible) signage, get together and find out what the issues
are and address them.
Clinger: I appreciate that recommendation.
MacCoy: Can we have a motion then?
Borup: I just had a couple questions that I would like to get some clarifications
on. Maybe understanding which way the city desires to go on signs.
MacCoy: You are going to be on that committee.
Borup: That’s later, this is now. So we need to address this now, specifically the
sign on Eagle Road, are we looking at requiring, or encouraging the monument
sign. Does that seem to be one of the main…
MacCoy: I think you are a little bit premature because there is discussion going
on presently with the mayor…
Borup: No, I don’t think I am. If the applicant is expected to design something,
they need to know whether we are talking a pylon or a monument sign. How can
they even present anything if there is no…
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 52
MacCoy: Who’s going to say that when you’ve got a committee that is now being
formed that includes, will include all of you and you don’t have that yet, the
mayor is involved and the council is involved and some other people are involved
and there is nobody with the same answer.
Borup: Shari is back now, maybe I could ask her, my question was which
direction are you looking at going? First of all on the Eagle Road sign, is your
desire monument sign along that location, rather than a pylon? Or no sign at all?
Let me clarify that in my mind.
MacCoy: I don’t think that’s a fair question for her really.
Borup: She said she was opposed to the sign.
MacCoy: She is one of several in the group, you can get her to say yea and
someone else says nay and then what are you going to say for your answer.
Clinger: Mr. Commissioner, what is the definition of a monument sign. You can
have a monument sign five foot tall, or you can have a monument sign 30 foot
tall. What is the definition of a monument sign?
MacCoy: Well, I think it’s one of our discussions. What is a monument sign? A
monument sign you can go along Fairview and see examples of various sizes of
monument signs.
Clinger: That’s exactly right.
MacCoy: A good example is from a different one, on that is three feet tall, or four
foot tall versus the one at Snake River Yamaha down by Eagle and Fairview.
Clinger: That’s classified as a monument sign.
MacCoy: They did a real clever thing by putting the middle of that a time and
temperature sign, which got them what they were after too. I think they skirted
the issue at the time when they did that because they were granted a smaller
monument (Inaudible). Yes there is all different types.
Clinger: On a four lane state highway, which is definitely down the road become
very much commercial, I think a 10 foot, 15 foot monument sign, quote, end
quote is completely inadequate for exposure in advertising for the business.
MacCoy: The thing hasn’t been decided yet, so we were making a statement
that we often make statements sitting here, because a couple of us architects
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 53
and engineers. We understand your position very well, expect I think if we are
going to take your offer and table this thing so you get a chance to come back
and you will be fed some material before you come back anyway. So you won’t
be blindsided in other words. We’ve got to do some homework, so I think it’s fair
for both sides.
Clinger: Any other questions?
Borup: Just one other observation. I’m not sure (Inaudible) but, the comment on
the freeway sign—I have noticed on the other one there, on Meridian Road they
referred to, when I’m driving down East 1st
or East 1st
, I never notice the sign, but
from the freeway I sure do. When it’s up there tall enough, I think it’s a lot less
intrusive in a near proximity than if it were shorter.
MacCoy: That will be a discussion we will have in our meeting.
De Weerd: Can I ask Shari a question please? Now, back to the question of
how to go about this. Do they need to file an official application to modify the
CUP or do we table this so they can give proper notification of a public hearing,
or what procedure do we follow on this?
Stiles: I was hoping that you would decide on that.
De Weerd: Do you want me to?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: I would suggest that we just have a public hearing and just get on
with it.
Rossman: I think we will probably need to go through a formal application and
with proper…
(END OF TAPE)
Rossman: …modification of a conditional use permit. Hopefully you understand
sir that these people—this is the first time this has been presented, they didn’t
have an opportunity to testify regarding the signage, because it really wasn’t
presented to City Council, so they should be afforded the opportunity.
Smith: Modification, or completion?
Borup: That’s my question, how do you modify?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 54
Smith: They were told to submit complete sign package for review, before this
board as part of the conditional use permit so…
Rossman: And did they do it?
Stiles: No.
Borup: So is the conditional use permit being modified or are we just proceeding
ahead with it?
Rossman: That’s the question, if you are just proceeding ahead then there is no
entitlement to a public hearing because it was already provided for in the prior
conditional use permit. This sounds like it rises to the level of material
modification—material change to the conditional use permit in light of the issues
involved with this particular signage.
Borup: Can this commission solicit public input even though it’s not a public
hearing?
Rossman: I don’t see anything in the ordinance that would either permit or…
(Inaudible)
Borup: …information gathering, isn’t it, if we wanted to ask someone out of the
audience (Inaudible).
Smith: It wouldn’t be properly noticed so.
Rossman: If you want the city attorney’s view point, I would prefer that we
proceed in accordance with the ordinance. So if the ordinance provides for
modification of a conditional use permit, fine, I can’t really advise as to anything,
any procedures that aren’t identified within the ordinance. There is no ordinance
that provides for solicitation of public input, outside of a public hearing.
De Weerd: Well, if this is a review, can’t we get opinions?
Rossman: Your guess is as good as mine on that.
De Weerd: I’m not an attorney.
Rossman: I am and I’m confined by what the ordinance says. I can’t (Inaudible)
beyond that.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 55
Borup: I would have the same—I think we need more information and we need
some input. I question whether it’s modification of the conditional use, or just
fulfillment of it.
Rossman: I don’t have the original conditional use permit in front of me. We
can’t really make that judgement from as we sit here today and whether or not it
was permitted under the original conditional use permit or whether we have to go
with modification.
De Weerd: Personally I think if the only way we can get a public hearing is to
say it’s a modification, then it’s a modification. That’s my personal thought.
Rossman: The point I was making is I don’t think you are violating the ordinance
by determining that. What you are involving here is something that was not
presented at the original public hearings with regard to the conditional use
permit. The public has not had the opportunity to provide testimony regarding
that issue and it is an important issue with regard to this application. I don’t think
you are stretching beyond your ordinance by requiring a modification.
MacCoy: I agree with that—I think he is right. So you can make your statement,
your motion.
Smith: I’ll make it.
MacCoy: All right.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until
our May 11th
Planning and Zoning meeting to allow modification of the conditional
use permit and to allow public testimony for the signage review for this project
Chevron, McDonalds and the Credit Union and that we encourage the
applicant’s architect or designer or persons responsible for the signage package
to meet with the city and discuss an appropriate design direction.
MacCoy: Is that it?
De Weerd: Second, unless you want to finish it.
MacCoy: You got a second on it. Any discussion? If not, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Rossman: The procedure to be followed would be to sir, meet with the Planning
and Zoning Staff after sometime in the near future about making sure the proper
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 56
application documents are prepared and we need to ensure that the proper
notice is provided for the public hearing.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we are going to take a break at this
point it’s 9:30 when we come back, we will be going into a whole list of Ada
County Development Service Agreements that we have to take care of by state
code.
(BREAK)
MacCoy: We are now on Item No. 15.
ITEM NO. 15: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 99-14-CU
BRUCE SCOTT:
ITEM NO. 17: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 99-06-CU
CHARLES SUNDBY & GLORIA BEATTIE SUNDBY:
ITEM NO. 18: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 99-02-ZOA:
ITEM NO. 19: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 99-10-PDR-
NF/99-05-PR THE WEST PARK CO. INC:
ITEM NO. 21: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 99-05-V TRIS
YERRINGTON & CAROLYN BRAMMER:
ITEM NO. 22: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 99-06-V TIM
& LISA PETSCHE:
Borup: There has been some unofficial discussion on would a consent agenda
move this along any faster? Is it too late to do that?
Rossman: It’s not too late, it’s solely up to—the chairman can direct how he
wants to deal with these.
MacCoy: I’m trying to deal with the two attorneys right now, so I’m trying to be
sure that we are correct. So I don’t get myself (Inaudible).
Borup: I would be open to some type of single motion on all items except for 16
and 20.
Smith: I concur with that.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 57
Rossman: That’s fine, I don’t see any problem with that. If that’s what you want
to do go ahead and do it.
MacCoy: Okay, does anybody else have any different numbers to put in there?
Well, I think 16 and 20 are both ones that I don’t like anyway. Item 15…
Smith: 15, 17,18, 19, 21 and 22 that’s what we want to…
Borup: Do we want to recommend approval?
MacCoy: Okay, you said you want approval on 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22, is that
everybody’s concurrence?
Stiles: Approval or no exceptions taken?
MacCoy: No exceptions taken.
Borup: No exceptions taken.
De Weerd: No exceptions taken.
Rossman: Someone raise a motion and…
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we put on a consent
agenda items no. 15, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22 and direct staff to respond to Ada
County Development Services that we take no exceptions to these items.
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 16: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 99-01-V JIM
JEWETT:
Borup: I’ve had the same question/concern as staff and that is on the road
width, I don’t know if I do or not, I’m not sure if I understood the whole thing. I
don’t necessarily have a problem with it being a gravel road, a gravel road can
be just as beautiful as a paved road, if it’s developed right.
MacCoy: What about a 20 foot, versus a 30 foot.
Borup: The question I had on that is there an option for any further development
down that road? If there is any option at all, then it should be a wider right-of-
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 58
way, it don’t necessarily have to develop the road to that full width, but I would
think a wider right-of-way would be appropriate.
MacCoy: You have four houses on the road, if you left it at 20 feet, it would be a
bothersome thing…
Borup: It’s our second plat that shown coming of that cul-de-sac, is that the
private road going down? Is that what that is indicating?
MacCoy: You mean…
Borup: That’s not the road between the first cul-de-sac up there between block 1
and 2 and this second cul-de-sac is it? Which four lots are they talking about? I
want to know if I was a 100% clear on it. I’m kind of assuming at first, I can’t
read any dimensions. That first one is a developed street with the full right-of-
way. Rustler Lane, but it’s also a private road. Rustler Lane shows a private
road and this other thing to the south of that does not even have a name. So my
questions is if this Rustler Lane private road is the four lots that they are talking
about, there is another four lots to the south of that.
MacCoy: It says here Rustler Place is a public road and that…
Borup: How about Rustler Lane? Is Rustler Lane, is that the application before
us is Rustler Lane? If that’s the case, the way I read this, there is also four more
lots further to the south of Rustler Lane. If they ever want to be developed and
then we are stuck with a 20 foot right-of-way?
MacCoy: That’s what they are saying.
Borup: Well then there is no way to ever access those other (Inaudible).
MacCoy: That’s right, you can’t by code, according to this thing, you can’t go
more than four.
Borup: My recommendation would be to require a 50 foot right-of-way.
MacCoy: Not a 30 foot?
Borup: Right, but that the construction of the road would not need to be more
than the 20 foot. I don’t know that they would need to improve it, the road
improvement, I don’t know if it would need to be improved out that far, but having
the right-of-way there, if in fact there is property to the south, would definitely be
appropriate. Otherwise that property is landlocked, isn’t it?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 59
MacCoy: Well, you read the comments from the fire department didn’t you?
Borup: Well, they are concerned about…
MacCoy: Size, width, and the road base.
Borup: He didn’t—I don’t know that he was concerned about future property
adjoining this.
MacCoy: Well, you read the thing from Gary about the 30 foot.
De Weerd: I think the width is more important than the gravel or the pavement.
Smith: They are also talking about Walking Farm Lane, which is on the west
periphery of the property, west and south.
Borup: So right now, Rustler Place is a 50 foot right-of-way, is that what we are?
De Weerd: Where’s that?
Borup: That’s one up at the top.
De Weerd: No, where is Walker—Walking Farm Lane?
Borup: To the left.
Smith: Application for nine lot subdivision and private road with three lots taking
access from Walking Farm Lane.
Borup: Okay, the other is from Amity, so one—they don’t really lay it out.
Smith: This is real difficult to figure out what is going on here.
MacCoy: it’s too small of type to read, that’s what the problem is.
Smith: Well and you can’t—that’s tough.
Borup: They’ve got all this room, why are they so worried about cutting ten feet
off their easement?
Smith: At the bottom of this variance application, it says—item 3, why can’t you
comply with the zoning ordinance requirements? “The 20 foot wide road
currently exists on a 20 foot strip of property owned by the applicant and the two
adjacent property owners are not receptive to granting the additional 10 foot
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 60
easement required to Ada County Code. So he doesn’t want to put the 10 foot
additional easement on his own property. He wants to get it on the other
property…
Borup: No, it says the two adjacent property owners are not receptive.
Smith: Right, if he can’t put it on theirs and he doesn’t want to put it on his, he is
going for a variance.
Borup: Oh, so he could put the whole thing on his if he wants.
Smith: If I could tell where his was versus the other property owners.
De Weerd: That’s an assumption then.
Smith: Rustler Road is running through there (Inaudible) property.
Borup: There is four lots, does he own two of them?
MacCoy: Who knows?
Borup: Well, apparently the county would approve it if it is a 30 foot? I move that
we make recommendation to stay at the 30 foot. I guess I wouldn’t get
anywhere with the 50 foot probably.
MacCoy: I think 30 foot is valid.
Smith: I second that.
MacCoy: Okay, is everybody in agreement?
Borup: I guess the motion be that we recommend denial of the application for a
variance and that recommend staying with the 30 foot easement.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Rossman: Shari will direct a letter indicating that?
De Weerd: Yes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 61
MacCoy: Where is Shari, yes.
ITEM NO. 20: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: RE: 99-04-S/99-
04-PR/99-09-ZC MICHAEL K. & BONNIE LEE RICE:
MacCoy: Okay what is your desire on 20? (Inaudible)
Borup: (Inaudible) just a four lot subdivision on a private road again? Five acre
lots.
De Weerd: You met with them and you didn’t have any problems with this Shari?
It said somewhere in here…
Borup: That’s county.
De Weerd: The City of Meridian has also been consulted regarding this
subdivision. Neither meeting has indicated any up front problems or concerns.
MacCoy: Okay, what’s your desire for number…
Borup: They are just asking for the subdivision approval.
Smith: What was the question you had Keith on the…
Borup: What is the fire flow—it says fire flow policy to be required. Is this
within—how come this has never come up before in some of these other acre
things? The way I read this is they required to have a sprinkler system.
Smith: No, they are not required to have a fire sprinkler system, if you look at the
last page, they are required to have a water flow of 500 gallons per minute, say
on section two here. Structures 1501-3600, water flow 500 gallons for one hour
or have a fire sprinkler system.
Borup: Okay. If their well would put out 500 gallons per minute?
Smith: I think they would have to have their well tested for their…
Borup: Is that even in line for a normal well?
Freckleton: That’s a big well.
Borup: That’s what I was wondering. That’s not a normal residential well.
Freckleton: No sir.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 62
(Inaudible)
Smith: Specifically Ada County or if this is part of the Uniform Fire Code.
(Inaudible)
Borup: I think Ada County has that in a rural fire department, this is the first time
I knew it came up in Meridian, that’s why…
Stiles: This is a rural fire department.
Borup: I didn’t mean a rural fire department, I meant Ada County—what do they
call it, the rural (Inaudible) has some of the same fire requirement things. Now
Canyon County has essentially the same thing on this size, probably the same
sizes, but they allow people to exempt, to self exempt just by signing the
statement.
(Inaudible)
Borup: I don’t know how they are going to build anything out doing a firestation
on that, 1500 feet including a garage. That’s every house out there.
Stiles: If you are going to buy five acres, yeah.
Borup: That’s 11,000 square foot house with—that’s…
Rossman: Discussion time is over.
Borup: Discussion time is over, well then what is our recommendation?
Smith: I would say let the county deal with their fire flows. I think the subdivision
is fine.
Stiles: What do you think about changing from R-R to R-T?
(Inaudible)
Stiles: What they are proposing is that they go from an R-R zone, which is 10
acre. Is from a ten acre minimum to a five acre minimum. Everything that is in
our impact area, in our urban service planning area was automatically rezoned to
an R-T which is a five acre minimum. This is outside of our—half of it is outside
of our urban service planning area, that’s why they are zoned R-R right now,
because it’s a ten acre minimum.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 63
Borup: I think you are going to have a nicer looking property on a five acre than
a ten acre a lot of times. People take care of it better.
Stiles: No, apparently they have properties on both sides.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: Well, there is a road that runs down the middle of it.
Borup: You’ve got property on both sides of the road.
MacCoy: …was split.
Stiles: Well, I don’t know if you have any thoughts about that. I did talk in
generalities about a five acre subdivision in the R-T zone, but they never
mentioned that they were also proposing to rezone our property to R-T.
Smith: My package doesn’t even have information which shows which is R-T
and which is R-R.
Borup: This big one here or the little one here.
De Weerd: That’s R-T.
Smith: So whatever is on the…
Borup: West side there, that west side is R-R.
Stiles: That’s our area of impact line.
(Inaudible)
Smith: (Inaudible)
Stiles: You just want to say to meet fire—rural fire district requirements.
De Weerd: Yeah.
MacCoy: Yeah. Make that motion somebody.
De Weerd: So moved.
(Inaudible)
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 64
De Weerd: We move—we would like to direct that Shari write a letter to support
this application as long as it meets the rural fire requirements.
Smith: You want to also say all other county requirements.
De Weerd: And all other county (Inaudible).
Borup: County is going to do that anyway aren’t they.
De Weerd: Did you get that motion?
Borup: If we could change the county policy…
(Inaudible)
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: I move to adjourn.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:12 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
_________________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 1999
PAGE 65
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK