1999 04-13MERIDIAN 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
Thomas Barbeiro.
OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg.
MacCoy: Good evening this evening on this Tuesday night the 13th
of April. First
I would like to start the evening off, we don’t have any special guests this
evening, so that means we will move right ahead this evening. We have a
change in our P & Z, Planning and Zoning Commissioners this evening. We
have Commissioner Mark Nelson has stepped down due to business and family
reasons and we are very sorry to loose him, he’s been a very good
commissioner, he’s been very straight forward, he’s down a lot of homework and
we really appreciate what he has done in the past with us. This evening Mark
you are here, come forward please. I’ve said he has really been an asset to our
group and we hate to see him go. Mark I would like to give you a certificate of
appreciation from the City of Meridian and unfortunately one of our
commissioners Byron Smith is missing. We would like to present this to you as a
memento to go on your wall and this to the fact that you were with us, when the
day comes and you can see—come back and see us, the door is wide open for
you. We would like to see you. Replacing Mark’s seat is our newest
commissioner, I guess you are going to go by Thomas? Okay, Thomas Barbeiro,
he’s got a good background in technical side, he’s got background in
construction and he is working presently on his Masters degree. We are glad to
have him with us this evening and to join our staff and we wish that he will be
with us for a long time. So lets welcome Tom in this evening. We are missing
one commissioner tonight, Byron Smith is away on business and will be back
with us next month. Our agenda, we have some different things now. They are
starting to reshuffle the deck on us, if you have picked up a copy back there, you
will see that it’s beginning to resemble that of the council, we have both changed.
We have Ada County to contend with and we had been putting that on the last of
the list before, but we’ve found a new way that they want us to do this, so they
put it up front. When I ask the commissioners, you’ve read the material, we can
do this in a block form. If I have a motion that either you do anyone or all at one
time that can be done at one clip. Either approve or disapprove that is. I’m open
for a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, shall we move on the minutes first?
MacCoy: Oh, thank you very much Commissioner De Weerd. I jumped ahead of
myself. We’ll just like the council has been doing, they have been picking off,
they say take one, two, five and deny four. So I asked the attorney and he said
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 2
that’s the way you should do it now. So I will go that route or we can take each
one. I don’t care. You are right, lets take care of the March 9th
of that previous
meeting. Do I have a motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes of the previous
meeting held March 9, 1999, as it stands.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Now we will move on to the Ada County material. I will entertain a
motion from somebody.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any comments on any of these items.
MacCoy: Okay.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we do a summary approval of each of the
items as a whole.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All right.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, before we vote on this, does staff have any comments
on any of these items?
Stiles: Did you all review these applications before they came in? I guess the
main one that I’m concerned with is Item No. 2 and to make sure that our
concerns about signage maybe at that location would be considered by the
commissioners.
Rossman: Why don’t we just pull that one off of the consent agenda and
address the other three summarily? Put that one at the end.
De Weerd: Is this the only one Shari that you have comments on?
Stiles: Yes.
MacCoy: Okay, do you want to back up then and…
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 3
Borup: I move to pull Item B2 off the consent agenda and put it on our agenda
Item No. 15.
(Inaudible)
Rossman: Amend or withdraw.
MacCoy: Or you can withdraw, you can do one of the two, amend it or withdraw.
Borup: I can’t withdraw it.
MacCoy: Tom you made the motion, so you want to withdraw your motion?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I wish to withdraw my motion at this time.
MacCoy: Withdraw the second?
Borup: Yes.
MacCoy: Okay, what’s the new motion?
Borup: New motion will be to take Item B2 off the consent agenda and put it on a
regular agenda Item No. 14.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second for that?
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor of that motion?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: That passes, we move Item B2 to Item No. 15 of our list tonight.
Moving ahead to Item No. 1.
Rossman: Just a minute you still need to address the other three.
MacCoy: That’s right, we didn’t do that did we. (Inaudible)
Borup: So we are back to Thomas’s original motion, minus…
Rossman: It would have to be a new motion.
MacCoy: A new motion.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 4
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we perform a summary approval
of Item 1, 3 and 4 as, line Item B.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor of that now?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Okay, now we will move forward. We will get this thing straight yet, I
will anyway.
Rossman: To clarify the order of the commission, that would be for Shari to draft
a letter recommending approval of those three items, is that correct?
MacCoy: That’s correct. That’s what she has in the past for these. That’s been
her correction to this to the county. All right, one off our agenda.
ITEM NO. 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR AN ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS
CHILDREN BY DONNA & THOMAS WEST-988 NW 13TH AVENUE:
De Weerd: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and
approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Barbeiro: Second.
Borup: You meant to make a motion I think.
De Weerd: I did. That was a motion.
MacCoy: That was a motion okay.
De Weerd: I move to…
MacCoy: You move to do that all right. Any discussion? If not, wanted to have a
roll call.
ROLL CALL: BORUP-AYE, SMITH-ABSENT, DE WEERD-AYE, BARBEIRO-
AYE.
MacCoy: All ayes have it. What’s the decision?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
determines that upon review of the applicable standards, goals, policies and
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 5
guidelines as set forth in section 11-2-410D of the Zoning and Development
Ordinance of the City of Meridian, the established record and applicable law that
the applicant met the requisite accessory use standards given the foregoing, the
subject application for family home, family childcare home accessory use is set
forth herein shall be granted and the use allowed subject to the conditions
imposed herein. The accessory use shall be subject to review by the city upon
notice to the applicant.
MacCoy: All in favor?
Borup: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED 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: Item No. 2 this evening has been requested and that reminds me, I’ve
got to make this statement tonight too, I forgot to start with. How many is here
for Item No. 2, 3, 11, 12 & 13? Okay, those Items tonight 2, 3, 11, 12 & 13 have
been requested to be pulled by the applicants off of this agenda and will be
revisited on May 11, at our meeting at that time.
De Weerd: The information that we are already getting in May is quite
substantial and to add these too on is going to make May quite a meeting.
MacCoy: That will be the staffs responsibility to juggle some of the ones down
the line. What is going to happen—May is full already, June we are working on
right now. It will be up to the staff and anytime we bring anything up like this and
have to move it back, then they take and look at what in May and they make
decisions there.
Borup: I think that was maybe the question there, is it fair to the people who
have got their application in on a timely basis for May to be pushed back by
people who didn’t do stuff earlier.
MacCoy: The staff calls them up and asks them. By our ordinance…
Borup: No, I understand that, but I think maybe the question is it fair to the
people on May’s agenda…
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 6
MacCoy: Well, you are jumping ahead of the game here, staff takes a look at
this—we may because our ordinance says that we have the 2nd
and 4th
Tuesday
of the month to sit for doing our work. It works out that there is not a movement
that can be made, then we are back on the line again for the 4th
Tuesday of the
month, or a special meeting if you want to put it that way.
Borup: Or can some of these be moved to June?
MacCoy: That’s the staff’s responsibility.
Borup: Right, okay.
MacCoy: Moving on to Item No. 4…
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, can we have those numbers again that were
continued?
MacCoy: 2, 3, 11, 12, & 13.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, do we need a motion on those?
MacCoy: Well, you can use one if you want to. This is either applicants that
have requested it, so it’s not our decision.
De Weerd: No, do we need to officially continue them?
Rossman: Yes.
MacCoy: I guess that would probably be a good motion to make.
De Weerd: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we continue the public
hearing for the request for conditional use permit by the Treasure Valley
Business Center.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 3: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SHERBROOKE
HOLLOWS SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY GEM PARK II – NORTH OF VICTORY RD
& EAST OF LOCUST GROVE RD:
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 7
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for request
for preliminary plat for Sherbrooke Hollow Subdivision No. 4.
Borup: Second.
De Weerd: Oh, to May 11.
MacCoy: Is that agreed to, Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Pardon?
MacCoy: She added the date.
Borup: To May 11 (Inaudible).
De Weerd: Date specific May 11.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 11: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING BY BILL & PAT GEYER –
NE CORNER OF WILSON & LOCUST GROVE:
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: These are all May 11, that’s what they have asked for. Have a motion
for Item No. 11. Do you want to do Item No. 11?
Borup: Lets just do it when we get there.
MacCoy: You want to do it then?
De Weerd: Yes please.
MacCoy: You’re discussion, you’re decision, fine got no problems.
ITEM NO. 4: 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: Is the applicant here by the way? Could you come forward? since we
are continuing this public hearing. Do we need to have a closer look? Yes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 8
BOB UNGER, PINNACLE ENGINEERS, 870 N LINDER RD SUITE B,
MERIDIAN, ID.
Unger: We represent Luna Visa Inc. who is the applicant on this project and the
developer. The project, I’m sure you folks have had plenty of time to review it.
We were here a month ago. We are requesting a 36 lot single-family residential
development and a rezone. We currently have an R-8 zoning on the property.
That zoning was conditioned for townhouse development only. We are asking
modification of that R-8 zone and that that condition be removed so we can
develop this as single-family lots. We are proposing—we have two common lots,
we have the Nine Mile Creek that runs right in this area here, that would be one
common lot. We originally proposed to pipe the entire length of that. Staff has
requested that that not be piped. So we will not be piping it. We will be piping a
very small section right in through here in order to tie our sewer in that area. We
also have a common lot right along the southern boundary—I’m not very good at
holding still here—along the southern boundary there, that is between the
development and the railroad right-of-way. Also, the Rutledge Irrigation Ditch
runs down there and there is also a maintenance road for the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District. Staff has in their conditions required a 20 foot planting buffer
between the right-of-way of the railroad and the lots. Since we have the—25 foot
easement on the north side of our southern boundary for the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District, we are somewhat hindered in providing a 20 foot wide planting
strip. We are able to provide a five foot berm and planting strip and I did bring
that to staffs attention today, so that is what we would be proposing. We have
sewer and water. Water is available to the site. Sewer we are going to have to
go along the Nine Mile Creek approximately 1,500 feet to the west and tie in at
the elderly, the assisted elderly center that is there on Pine. That is the closest
area that we can connect to sewer and still meet acceptable grades for the
sewer flows. The roads that we are proposing are--would be built to Ada County
Highway District and city standards which would include five foot sidewalks.
Along the northern boundary of the Nine Mile Creek, we are proposing a
pedestrian path, that was also a suggestion and requirement of your staff. We
are providing two drainage lots, one right here and one right down to here. We
will be able to discharge a run off into the Nine Mile Creek with appropriate pre-
treatment as required by Nampa Meridian. All the lots are of 6,500 square feet
or larger. We are proposing a variety of house sizes ranging form 1,001 square
feet to 1,301 square feet. We would like to disperse those throughout the entire
development and not just keep those instead of going 1,000 – you know 1,100—
1,200—1,300 we would like to disperse those throughout the entire
development. We are proposing a pressurized irrigation system that would be
owned and maintained by the Tremont Homeowners Association. We feel this is
a good infill project, to the east of this project, we have condominiums, triplexes,
duplexes development in R-15 zoning. To the west is currently vacant and to the
north, on the north side of Pine Street that is all pretty much all single-family
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 9
residential development. We have reviewed all the conditions of approval
prepared by your staff and we are in concurrence with them. We stand for
questions.
MacCoy: Okay, before we start that, staff? Do you have any comments?
Stiles: Chairman, commissioners, we have reviewed the revised application that
has been submitted through revised plat. There are still some major issues as
far as the water line that has been proposed, a six inch line. Bruce can address
that more fully. There is a possibility that the property to the west—there is a
small parcel there—will be part of a future application that they would possibly
have to give up some of the drainage area that is shown as lot #2, block #2 on
the plat to make those buildable lots in there. As far as the requirements of the
original rezone they did have the requirement processes as a conditional use
permit for a planned development and that’s why they have asked for—that’s
why it’s kind of confusing because it asks for a rezone, they are not really asking
for a rezone, it will remain at R-8, but they would like some of those conditions
that were placed on the original rezone amended and those conditions are the
conditional use permit is a planned development, the minimum house size in the
annexation ordinance or rezone ordinance required all the houses to be 1,301
square feet. I believe those are the two requirements and the fact that it’s not a
townhouse development anymore, those were the three requirements they are
requesting. The commission would have the option of any or all of those
requirements to modify as part of this rezone application. If the various house
sizes would be allowed by the commission, 50% of those would have to be 1,301
or more, 25% would need to be 1,201 to 1,300. 15% would be 1,101 to 1,200
square feet and 10% would be allowed to be between 1,001 to 1,100. Those
would need to be designated on the plat and the smaller house sizes would need
to be dispersed throughout the development. I’ll let Bruce address the public
works issues.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, probably the biggest
outstanding issue is the fact that the subdivision is being proposed to be served
by a six inch water main, a single six inch water main. We’ve got some concerns
about the adequacy of that and were—I haven’t had the opportunity yet to get
the hydraulic analysis done on it to determine whether that would work or not.
So that’s kind of up in the air. At this point in time I’ve got some real concerns
with the size of that water main. I have talked to Mr. Unger about that and he’s
aware of that concern. The other thing I just wanted to mention was the—I had a
homeowner in that lives on the north side of this proposed subdivision in my
office today and he was concerned about the ditch that provides irrigation water
to their lots. We haven’t really addressed that specifically yet, but this ditch does
take out down on the Rutledge and the southeast corner of the project. That will
need to be tiled close to it’s original route to provide water to those lots. The
historical flows. I understand that his particular lot he utilizes a pump to get the
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 10
water to his lawn. Some f his neighbors actually flood out of it. So some orchard
valves or something like that would have to be used. One thought I had was
maybe providing their water via the pressurized irrigation system that is going to
be put in and seeing if that may be a feasible option instead of putting in a bunch
of tile, if we could just provide service that way. That’s really about all I had for
public works. Shari wanted to add something.
Stiles: I would like to also add that the turn around system shown here be
approved by the fire department. If the frontage can’t be met because of that or
it can’t be used as a driveway, which they wouldn’t like it to be used as a
driveway in any form that there would be a non-buildable lot if that’s required for
their turn around. That the pathway be built along the Nine Mile Creek as the
responsibility of the developer and that detail landscape plans be provided with
submittal of the final plat.
MacCoy: Is that it? Okay. All right, Mr. Unger any comments on staffs report?
Unger: Sure. As far as continued—providing continued irrigation for the
properties to the north along here. We don’t have a problem with that, we can
either provide them with what they currently have or possibly bring them on to
our pressurized irrigation systems, which ever works for them and we will meet
with them and negotiate that and meet their needs. Certainly Idaho Code
prevents us from taking away their access to their water. So certainly we will
make sure that they do continue to get their irrigation water via one way or
through our pressurized irrigation system. As far as the concerns over the fire
water flows for fire protection, when Bruce can—when they can get their,
complete their review and study on that then obviously we will have to do water,
we have to do if they feel the six inch will not provide sufficient water. We will
address that when he has completed his review of that. Other than that, we
don’t have any problems with what was brought up by staff and conditions of
staff.
MacCoy: Commissioners do you have any questions for Mr. Unger?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a couple. You said as far as the size designation
was not a problem with square footage? One of Shari’s staff comments.
Unger: As long as we can disperse those throughout the project.
Borup: Okay, yeah, I think that said—then you are prepared to—your comment
on the turn around?
Unger: Right, this turn around it’s right there and it’s a shared, it’s two shared
driveways.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 11
Borup: At this point you feel it could accommodate okay without having to
designate a non-buildable lot?
Unger: We believe it can, we will go back to the fire chief and review that with
him.
Borup: You did have a—you were designing a pathway along Nine Mile Creek
also?
Unger: Correct, it’s shown right along there.
Borup: The other question I had was for Shari and or either one could answer
that was Shari’s comment on the property to the west about being non-buildable
lot and needing to give up some other—could you expand on that a little bit?
Why would it be this applicants responsibility to make someone else’s property
buildable?
Stiles: This kind of came in together somewhat together at one time.
Borup: 97’ yeah.
Stiles: The point was that it were to be developed together at some point or at
least with consideration for this other property when they came in. There are
conditions on that property right now, the same that were on this property that it
be developed as town houses under a planned unit development with a
conditional use. It’s my understanding at least that they will be coming in later
with a similar application. Because the property is only 130 feet wide by 80 feet
deep, at least with the proposed stub street that they are showing there, it
wouldn’t meet the minimum lot size requirements for single family dwellings.
They would have to have 65 X 100 foot deep and that was the reason for that
comment was just considering that adjacent property and what their future
development plans were. That’s why I brought up at the beginning that they
were proposing to actually use part of that drainage lot to deepen those lots so
they could in fact come in later with an application for the single family homes to
be consistent with what they are proposing here. That was the reason for the
comment.
Unger: We have—we do have a client, the folks that own this piece of property
right here…
Borup: That’s where the street alignment was redone to accommodate access
to his property.
Unger: Exactly after you met with them after last months meeting, we met with
them out here and we did this realignment and actually turned out to be a much
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 12
better layout than what we had. They would like to develop four lots right in this
area here, which that application has yet to be submitted. It will be submitted in
approximately two and a half weeks. What will have to happen is that they will
need to pick up 25 feet of this drainage lot. Now that drainage lot is more than
sufficient to handle the drainage that would come off of that portion of the
development.
Borup: So this is something that your client is open to? Okay, I was just
concerned about making a condition on somebody for somebody else’s property
and…
Unger: No, that would be a separate application that will come in at a later date
and you folks will see it at that time. I think it will clarify things a lot better at that
time.
Borup: That’s all I had right now. Thank you.
MacCoy: Is that it Commissioner Borup?
Borup: That’s all I had.
MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: I had a couple of questions. More on the common areas. On the
common area No. 13 in block #3. It says the fence will be at the north boundary
of the common lot, so you will have the fence and then the common lot and then
nothing. Why do you have the fence on the north boundary?
Unger: Okay, you are talking about right along here?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Unger: We are proposing to put the fence along you know, along the boundary
of those lots and then we will have the five foot, the proposed five foot planning
strip and then there is—that whole common lot is pretty much all easement for
the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We have the Rutledge ditch in there and
also a maintenance road in there.
De Weerd: So that’s going to be five feet of landscaped area?
Unger: Yes.
De Weerd: Then how much of the easement then?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 13
Unger: You are going to have 20 feet of easement that’s to the—that would be to
the property line.
De Weerd: Will you finish that off or is that just going to be a dirt road?
Unger: We can’t finish it off it’s—Nampa Meridian Irrigation maintenance road.
It’s their maintenance road and we can’t do anything. In fact, we are pushing to
put five feet of landscaping along the edge of their easement.
De Weerd: Then on the Nine Mile Creek, how is that going to be finished off? Is
that all going to be landscaping or you just putting in the pedestrian pathway?
Unger: Well, we will be able to do some landscaping along here along the
northern part there along with the path. The balance of this is going to be left
open and there is a maintenance road right along in this area. Now this is piped,
we will be able to do some landscaping in that area and then—or an area right in
here will be piped and we can do some landscaping there, that would be the
extent of the landscaping we could do there since we have to—staff wants us to
leave the (Inaudible).
De Weerd: So this common area is not necessarily usable common area?
Unger: No, our original proposal was for it to be piped and all that to be a
common open space to be used for park recreation, whatever the case for the
residents of the subdivision. Staff is requiring us to leave it open so we will do
that.
De Weerd: Okay.
MacCoy: Anything else?
De Weerd: Not at this time.
MacCoy: Commissioner Barbeiro?
Barbeiro: Mr. Unger, what is your proposed time to complete the plat?
Unger: Actually we would like to start preliminary construction in June.
Barbeiro: When do you see the sidewalks, asphalt, everything completed?
Unger: We are probably looking August. Probably final plat September or
October.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 14
Barbeiro: What is your proposed time to fill in the—you have 36 buildable lots in
here—looking about two in a half, three years (Inaudible).
Unger: Depending on market, two in a half, three years, five years.
Barbeiro: All of these are to be owner occupied units?
Unger: They are single family residential. They certainly—we can’t dictate that
part. You know, we could put it in our covenants, etc. I don’t believe it’s
proposed that they all have to be owner occupied. That is our preference and
that’s what we are going to be pushing.
Barbeiro: Is there any proposal to have this as a subsidized subdivision
anyway?
Unger: No.
Barbeiro: Okay.
MacCoy: Any other questions?
Barbeiro: No.
MacCoy: Now we invite the public, anybody who is in favor of this project can
speak at this moment. Seeing none, anybody who is against this project may
speak at this time.
CHARLES STUART, 821 W PINE, MERIDIAN, ID.
Stuart: I won’t say that I’m against the project, I just have some concerns. One
of mine is that my property boarders the northeast corner and I’ve used out that
ditch for 30 years that I’ve lived there and I’m not sure that I’m willing to
participate in the upkeep of a pressurized system because I paid for my water
and the ditch is provided to me and I clean it and I’m not sure that I want to help
upkeep a pump and so on the subdivision for their benefit, because I’m satisfied
the way things are now. If I’m provided with—when I’m provided with water, I’m
concerned about it having, there will obviously will be a fence from my property
line and I’m concerned about my access to it being on my side of the property
line so I don’t have to go on somebody else’s property to access my water each
time. The other concern is if this is being built in the summer time, the water that
is turned into that ditch when the water becomes available and is left in all
summer for our access, because the ditch company won’t turn it in as each one
of us needs it, like the farmers have done for years. I’m wondering how we are
going to get our water as it’s being piped and construction is going on during the
watering year. Those are my concerns thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 15
Borup: Mr. Stuart?
MacCoy: You have a question for him?
Borup: Yes, I have a couple.
MacCoy: Okay.
Borup: You said your preference is then that the ditch would be on your property,
on your side of the property line?
Stuart: No my access to the ditch. Like if it was a tube, if they are going to
provide me with a…
Borup: I thought you said you didn’t want it on the other side of the fence.
Stuart: No, I don’t want my access to it being on the other side of the fence.
See for me to have to crawl over the fence to turn on a valve for me to get water.
Borup: Where is the ditch presently located on your property or the other
property?
Stuart: It’s on the other property. My fence line is maybe three feet from the
center of the ditch.
Borup: Maybe it would be easier to put it on your property and there wouldn’t be
a concern there.
Stuart: Well, you are going to have to get permission from Talsman with the
welding shop there to move all of his stuff.
Borup: How many—our plat shows about four properties, is there more than that
that accesses it?
Stuart: My property is here this is Talsman’s welding shop, this is (Inaudible) the
ditch starts here, comes right down to here, cuts across this corner and goes
over and dumps back into the…
Borup: You say that ditch has water in it continuously all summer long?
Stuart: Yes sir.
Borup: So there are three residences that are watering off of that then?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 16
Stuart: Yes sir.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions for him before he leaves?
Barbeiro: Mr. Stuart, if the developer were to offer as a condition on this
particular lot that you have access to it and were to put in a lock gate, with the
lock on your side, would that be an idea that would work for you?
Stuart: And that I did not have to participate in the upkeep of it. That’s my other
concern is if the pump goes out and I have to put out a percentage to maintain
the pump, that is not an expense that I have now and I, you know as I’ve said
before, I hate to change my lifestyle so someone else can profit. I’ve comfortably
lived there for 30 years and things have worked fine like they are. I am not
against them developing it, if they can provide me with water, then I’m perfectly
happy.
MacCoy: Any other questions for him? I guess not, thank you very much. Is
there anyone else who wants to make a statement? Seeing none, will the
applicant come forward please Mr. Unger?
Unger: Do you want me to just to respond to his concerns?
MacCoy: Right.
Unger: First of all, we certainly if he doesn’t want to participate in the
pressurized irrigation systems, we can provide him with his irrigation, we can
provide him with the box that he can access on his property as long as he gives
us permission to put that on—you know, gives us permission to put the box on
his property so that he can access it, that will work out fine. We have no problem
with that. As far as his continued receiving water during construction, we will
make sure he gets his water. We all live in Idaho and we know how precious that
water is and we will continue the flows even during construction.
MacCoy: Staff, Shari do you have something to say?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners I just had a couple more items. The 20
foot planting strip is a requirement per our ordinance, that will need to be either a
planting strip or some other arrangement as approved by the commission. The
five foot that I discussed with the applicants representative today was the area
which they could actually place trees, but the 20 foot planting strip is an
ordinance requirement and will be required to be approved by the commission as
part of this plat and would need to resolve how that was going to be constructed.
One other item that I’ve been made aware of is that the Nine Mile Creek is
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 17
controlled by the US Army Corp of Engineers and for the proposed crossing they
have shown on their plat, is that already piped there?
Unger: It’s piped on the eastern boundary but not on—it’s piped here but it’s not
piped over here.
Stiles: (Inaudible) Okay, Bruce tells me in order for these utilities to be continued
down the street there, they will have to have a Corp of Engineers permit, it’s not
strictly limited to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District’s approval.
MacCoy: Is that it Shari? Bruce do you have anything else?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, this is a subject that has
been debated for quite awhile. Nampa Meridian claims jurisdiction, Corp of
Engineers claim jurisdiction and it’s one of those things that you are going to
have to fight through Bob, I’m sorry to say, but Corp definitely you will need to
make contact with them and get that permit going.
MacCoy: Anything else you want to answer to or discuss?
Unger: That’s fine, we can work with those conditions and we’ll get the
appropriate approvals for anything we do in the Nine Mile Creek.
MacCoy: Anymore, Commissioners do you have anything else for Mr. Unger?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, the railroad right-of-way. How close does that come
to this property?
Unger: The railroad—I believe we are 45 feet.
Borup: It shows the easement is 45 feet, does that go from your property to the
right-of-way, I couldn’t really tell by looking at the plat.
(END OF TAPE)
Borup: So at this point they’re 45 feet between the railroad right-of-way and
subdivision.
Unger: Right, their right-of-way, but then the actual tracks are even further away
from…
Borup: Right, and you know how far away—well, but I think I was looking at the
city ordinance and it is talking to the right-of-way. Shari, do you know the
reasoning behind the ordinance? I assume it’s to keep some buffering between
residents and railroad? Is that the purpose of the ordinance?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 18
Stiles: Yes, that would be—they do show that the southern boundary there is the
railroad right-of-way, so they would be 100 feet from that property line to the
center of the railroad right-of-way and that is meant as a buffer and part of the
requirements for the planting strip at least with our Meridian Comprehensive Plan
is to beautify that area in case it ever becomes a railway, multiple use
(Inaudible).
Borup: So the planting strip is not necessary for the subdivision it’s for the train
passengers. If there ever are any.
Stiles: Could be both, dual purpose.
Borup: What I was getting at is if part is to get the distance and it’s a 20 foot,
that’s not anticipating a 45 foot canal right-of-way in there. There is some
distance here that is not necessarily normal when you are talking about that
buffering right-of-way.
Stiles: The way the ordinance…
Borup: It sounded like you eluded to that, but maybe there is a little bit of
flexibility on that—is that what he is talking about on the five foot buffer and
getting the trees in that area because we’ve got some at a distance here?
Stiles: It would still be beyond the railroad right-of-way the 20 foot requirement,
but the ditch that’s (Inaudible).
Borup: Well, there is 45 feet right now, but it’s (Inaudible) it’s the ditch.
Stiles: The ordinance doesn’t have anything to do with right-of-way. It only—the
planting strip requirement excludes any road right-of-way or utility easement. I
guess you could say that is a utility easement, the 45 feet that is there.
Borup: At this point it sounds like a five foot strip for the trees to be in was—met
your qualifications and…
Stiles: The actual trees within that five foot easement, but it’s still a 20 foot
planting strip requirement. I believe Bob…
Borup: What’s supposed to be planted in that other 15 feet?
Stiles: That’s where the access road is going to be, right directly over the top of
that.
Unger: That’s where it currently is and we have to leave it there.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 19
Stiles: That’s where you tile and you need that much…
Unger: Right, we might be able to work with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
maybe—I mean if we keep the trees out of their easement we may be able to
pick up another five feet of some sort of (Inaudible) something low—something…
Borup: Often times if it doesn’t interfere with their road and their access, they will
grant an encroachment agreement.
Unger: Right, but I don’t think they are going to give us a full 20 feet there.
Borup: Well no, that’s what I was trying to get in my mind, are they able to
comply with what you said it needs to be without giving up 20 feet of their lots.
Stiles: What’s the pipe size requirement for that Bob?
Unger: Oh, goodness, I believe it’s just going to be 12 inch, it’s not that big of a
ditch running through there.
Stiles: They—I would think they would be able to get an encroachment
agreement if it’s only a 12 inch pipe. If they have 45 feet…
Unger: Well, we don’t have 45 feet.
Stiles: Twenty-five.
Unger: We have 20 on the north side of our boundary and the other 45 feet is on
the south side of our boundary. So we have 20 on the north. That’s what we
have is 20.
Borup: The total easement was 45, they have 45 feet to get their ditches in.
Unger: Right. Generally speaking, they like to have their—they like to have 10-
12 feet for their maintenance road.
Borup: Maybe, I guess what I really should have asked Mr. Unger, is there any
confusion in your mind as to what you need to do or any concerns or is
everything okay?
Unger: We understand what staff is saying, we are not sure that we are going to
be able to get a full 20 feet of planting strip along there, we will certainly make
every effort we can to do that but I believe Nampa Meridian is going to prevent
us from getting a full 20 feet there.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 20
Borup: That was my concern. If the purpose is to have trees growing for the
railroad to see, if they can get that in five feet (Inaudible). If the other purpose is
to have some distance between the railroad tracks, the distance is already there.
I don’t know if there—if any type of waiver or anything on 20 feet, but I think that
would certainly take care of the spirit of (Inaudible). I don’t have anything else to
say.
MacCoy: Is that the end of that? Okay, anything else for Mr. Unger here? If not,
you can sit down I guess. Commissioners I will entertain a motion on the public
hearing.
De Weerd: I just have one more question for staff. On that pedestrian pathway
on the Nine Mile Creek, is the reason why they are keeping that open because of
the Corp of Engineers?
Stiles: The primary reason is because it is a creek and it functions also as a
drain in the city. Although it’s not, I’m not sure that it’s this Nine Mile Creek is
specifically designated as multiple use pathway. It’s really not in the city’s best
interest to pipe those. I mean they have a lot of habitat, there’s existing
vegetation. It’s very hard to fill those in and really know how big of a pipe to put
in because of the flood control and the drainage that it does accept. You know
as development takes place, it could be more important that it’s being left open,
but it is an existing natural feature that should be designated as a pathway and
developed as that and used as a natural resource to enhance the project instead
of covering it up and loosing that. The problem is trying to be able to enhance
that and beautify it, if you’ve seen Western Pines or Sunrise Rehab center just to
the west of there, they had a very difficult time trying to do anything with it. So
they had a very nice facility back off of Pine Street, but it’s covered with weeds
and it’s not an amenity, but hopefully they will be able to come to some
agreement with Nampa Meridian and be able to develop that as a nice amenity
for the project.
De Weerd: Probably that’s the reason I asked because of the (Inaudible).
Borup: The problem is the depth. The depth of the ditch is the problem.
Stiles: Very deep and steep.
De Weerd: Okay, thanks.
MacCoy: Okay, what about the public hearing?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 21
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Recommendation for Item No. 4?
De Weerd: Well, I had in there several items that I would like to see apart, I
know that it’s mentioned in the staff report but it could be expanded on. That
would be to definitely pursue the agreement with Nampa Meridian to allow them
to enhance the natural area around Nine Mile Creek and to make that a more
amenable asset for the pedestrian path. Also to pursue the encroachment
agreement with the Nampa Meridian to enhance to at least get a minimum of ten
feet on the planting strip for the buffer area. It seems like Mr. Unger thought that
they could at least get an additional five feet, so if we could put—and then I
believe they would probably need to pursue a variance, is that right? If that was
reduced from 20 to 10?
Stiles: We would probably want to look at whatever plans they have for that
area, what is going to be road, what is going to be planting strip. It may be if
that’s going to be piped the entire length there, the fact that that may be able to
be used as a pathway would offset that. I think it is piped back behind the
Sunrise Rehab Center and as the property in between develops it could be that
could even serve as a pathway clear to Linder Road.
Borup: So that’s something you would workout with the applicant you are
saying?
MacCoy: You want to put that in a motion here?
De Weerd: I just have a couple more things. I guess from what Bruce told us,
they would need to pursue the appropriate approval with Nampa Meridian and
the Corp of Engineers for the piping across that creek. One other item, I guess it
should be also mentioned would be the water main line and after staff has
reviewed it that they can guarantee that sufficient water would be available and
my last one would be that the continued irrigation to the neighbors to the north
that they would guarantee water during construction and would agree to meet
with neighbors to find a suitable system that they would agree with.
MacCoy: Okay can we address, this is Item No. 4, which is a rezone
requirement and Item No. 5 is a preliminary plat, so we’ve got to make the
definition of what we are asking for here now.
Borup: Good point, I think we’ve combined things again.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 22
MacCoy: Well, we do that every so often we get carried away and look at the
total project and that’s the reason we keep these things separate.
De Weerd: Well yes, but some of these the townhouse development, the square
footage and the planning and development, this is all issues of a planned unit
development.
MacCoy: First he has asked us to rezone it so they can do that. Then they were
going to talk to No. 5 about all the remaining parts of this.
De Weerd: Yeah, but these were conditions of the rezone right or the original
zone?
MacCoy: I’m just saying keep that in mind when you make your motion. That’s
my point to you.
Borup: I think those are all items brought up were raised—does the staff feel all
those need to be incorporated in a recommendation, or do you feel that your
comments address most of those? Probably faster for us to just move on and
raise them again and then we are covered. How about that?
MacCoy: That’s a good point.
Borup: Lets move on.
MacCoy: Okay, what do you want to say?
Borup: Okay on Item No. 4…
De Weerd: Did you get an answer from staff?
Borup: She shook her head.
De Weerd: Yes or no?
Borup: Yes to move on. Okay, I just want maybe can we clarify the three
conditions that changed was being released from a PUD, the square footage
sizes on the house and going to single-family residences rather than townhouse.
Okay. I would recommend that—I move that we recommend approval of rezone
9.838 acres from R-8 with conditions for townhouses to R-8 without conditions
for proposed Tremont Place Subdivision.
De Weerd: Not without conditions.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 23
Borup: Yes, without the conditions, you want those elaborated? I thought it was
in the application we don’t have to read the whole application do we?
MacCoy: No, I didn’t think so.
Borup: Okay, I’ll mention that to delete the PUD requirement that the square
footage requirement should be as outlined by staff and be approved for single
family residence rather than townhouse.
De Weerd: But the other conditions would still remain.
Borup: Yes.
De Weerd: I would second that.
MacCoy: Any discussion now?
Barbeiro: The question that I have is as the subdivision and request for a rezone
is written now, does it include the home size of 50%, 25%, 15% and 10%?
Borup: No, it doesn’t. Do you mean the previous zone? The previous
approval?
Barbeiro: The request for a rezone as it is written now? Or is that a part of the
preliminary plat, Item No. 5?
Stiles: When this property was rezoned, the condition was that all the houses
would be a minimum of 1,301. Our ordinance does allow the varying sizes 10%,
15%, 25% and 50% as I outlined them earlier that is existing ordinance and if
you would remove that condition, they would have to comply with the existing
ordinance.
MacCoy: That’s what your book says. Any other discussion?
De Weerd: Was removal of those part of your motion?
Borup: Removal of which?
De Weerd: The percentages of square foot?
Borup: No, the motion was to include that. The square foot percentages are
included in the new. The previous zoning did not have that.
De Weerd: It didn’t?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 24
Barbeiro: My concern is that as the request is written now, that are we approving
this as written, or are we approving it as we have amended it?
Stiles: You would be approving it—if you have my memo of March 5, 1999, do
you have that in your packet?
Borup: Your staff comments?
De Weerd: Yes.
Stiles: Item No. 1 under general information includes conditions of the original
rezone that the applicant has requested be removed. That included that the
conditional use permit as a planned development that the minimum house size
must be 1,301 square feet or higher and that they would develop it as a
townhouse development. Those are the conditions they are asking to be
removed so that they can have the differences in the square footage, so they
don’t have to do it as a conditional use under planned development and not have
to do townhouses. So they are wanting to just meet what the ordinance requires
and not have that specific requirement that 100% of the homes be 1,301 square
feet.
MacCoy: Okay, any other discussion?
De Weerd: So they want it treated like a planning development? No.
Borup: That’s what it was previously.
De Weerd: But they do not want their minimum house size to be 1,301 and
above only.
Stiles: Right.
MacCoy: All right, we’ve got everybody settled (Inaudible).
Rossman: There is no way that I’m going to be able to draft the
recommendations on these, I’m sorry I’m good, but not that good. Let’s have a
little better crafted motion here.
Borup: What was the question on the motion?
Stiles: Keith did a good job on his motion I thought.
Rossman: I need a motion that sets forth what the conditions of your approval
are and what you are removing from the previous…
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 25
MacCoy: I thought Keith had it there for a moment. I’m not sure Keith even
knows right now.
Borup: That was a long time ago.
MacCoy: Do you want to start that over again or what? (Inaudible)
Rossman: Withdraw that one please.
Borup: How about I just repeat it?
Rossman: Withdraw that one and restate it.
Borup: Clarify it?
Rossman: That’s fine Keith.
MacCoy: All right, whatever.
De Weerd: I’ll withdraw my second.
Borup: Let me try again. Move that we recommend approval of request for
rezone of 9.838 acres from R-8 with conditions for townhouses to R-8 without
conditions, those conditions…
Rossman: Setforth in paragraph one of the staff report?
Borup: There we go—well, no I think that needs some little bit of clarification.
The three conditions that we are modifying are one that the square footages will
meet present city ordinance, that—I put my notes away, that it would no longer
be required to be a planned unit development, and that would be single-family
residences rather than townhouse.
Rossman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Are you satisfied with that one now?
Rossman: I’m extremely satisfied.
Borup: It’s the same thing I said the first time.
Rossman: Well, not really.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 26
MacCoy: Any other discussion right now? All right, I’m going to call for a vote.
All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 5: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREMONT PLACE
SUBDIVISION BY LUNA VISTA, INC.—BROADWAY & 8TH STREET:
MacCoy: Do you have any comments or do you just want to continue this all on
from what you heard before?
BOB UNGER.
Unger: We’d like to just reiterate what we’ve already said in Item No. 4 and ask
for your approval.
MacCoy: All right, thank you. Staff do you have anything that you would like to
add for Item No. 5?
Stiles: We would like our testimony from the previous public hearing to be
incorporated.
MacCoy: You say we, is that both of you? We staff. We’re getting punchy
already and it’s not even late yet. Anybody would like now again to since it’s an
open public hearing or a continued one, would anybody like to speak in favor at
this point again? Seeing none, would anybody on the negative side like to speak
again at this time for the Item No. 5? Seeing none. Staff? Do you have
anything else you would like to add to that is a point?
Stiles: No sir.
MacCoy: Commissioners?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
Barbeiro: I had a question for Bruce.
MacCoy: Just a question. Yeah we can do that. The public hearing is closed
you can ask a question of staff.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 27
Barbeiro: Bruce you mentioned the concern about the six inch water line as it
exists now, how does that fit into our approving this tonight?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the standard procedure
for the public works department is to run a hydraulic analysis on any
development that goes through. We just haven’t gotten to this one yet. The six
inch line size that is in there now—my concern is just that it’s not going to be
adequate to provide the required fire flows, domestic, plus fire flow. I don’t see it
as something that should really hold things up, what they may end up having to
do is put in more off site water main than what they may have originally
anticipated to get back to a line of larger diameter so that they can bring more
water into the project, but I don’t see that it’s something that would hold it up at
this juncture.
MacCoy: Look for a motion now on Item No. 5.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the preliminary plat for
Tremont Place Subdivision and I would like to include staff comments and
perhaps emphasize a couple of them. Those would be Items I’ve already
mentioned, but I would be glad to mention them again.
MacCoy: Would you please.
De Weerd: That would be to, after staff review on the water main line that they
would provide sufficient water and adhere to staff recommendations on that.
That they would guarantee continued irrigation to the neighbors to the north as
well as during construction as agreeable to the neighbors as far as how that
would work. That they will pursue the appropriate approval from Nampa
Meridian and the Corp of Engineers to run lines across the Nine Mile Creek.
That they pursue agreement with Nampa Meridian on the common area on the
Nine Mile Creek and appropriate design of the pedestrian path. That they
approach Nampa Meridian on an encroachment agreement to do a minimum of
ten feet planting strip along the common area. Lot 13 on the south side and that
would end my motion.
MacCoy: Very well said. Do I hear a second?
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any other discussion? If not, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 6: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF LOTS 8 & 9 OF BLOCK 8 OF
MERIDIAN GREENS SUBDIVISION BY CHARLES FULLER—EAST OF
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 28
MONTEGO & SOUTHWEST OF MARTINIQUE LOCATED IN MERIDIAN
GREENS SUBDIVISION:
GLENN BENNETT, CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, 1530 W. STATE,
MERIDIAN, ID.
Bennett: Civil Survey Consultants representing Chuck and Norm Fuller. I
believe that this is supposed to be a request for vacation of easements between
the lots.
Stiles: Not the lots.
Bennett: What we are doing is two—the owner of lot #1 of block #8 and the
owner of lot #9 of block #8 had requested to do a lot line adjustment so they
could increase the size of their lots. They were going to split a lot. The
ordinance doesn’t allow diminishing of size or number of lots I mean. So we
talked with Shari and her staff and came up with an agreement that we would do
it through deed restriction where we would apply the restriction to the deeds to
those two lots so they couldn’t sell each of those individual lots in the future for a
building lot. So it would always be carried with lot. To do that we had to vacate
the existing easements down the existing subdivision property lines. That’s what
this is about here tonight.
MacCoy: Is that all you had to say?
Bennett: Yeah, that’s all I had to say.
MacCoy: All right, stay right there for a moment please. Staff comments?
Stiles: As he said, this is only so they can adjust that lot line—a lot line
adjustment does not vacate the easements or move the easements as a part of
the recorded plat and if you will look at—do you have this? It shows the old lot
line configuration and the new lot line configuration they are proposing that will
make this a much nicer lot with a better frontage and as he said, the two lots at
the intersection of Martinique and Montego would be combined and a deed
restriction put on them because one person wants to purchase both lots.
Unfortunately this is the only way we have to accomplish this the way the
ordinance presently reads.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Bruce do you have any comment?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I was just reading through the packet and I found the
letter from Gary Smith dated October 23, 1998. It looks like he’s kind of laid out
the whole process for (Inaudible) and it looks like the forms are in the packet
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 29
from the various utility companies and I really don’t have anything in addition, it
looks like he’s got it put together.
MacCoy: Good, I’m glad to hear that. All right, commissioners do you have
anything you want to ask the applicant right now? This is a public hearing, is
anybody here who would like to speak in favor of this? Seeing none. We’ve got
a fellow come? Okay, I thought you were leaving the room.
JACK FULLER.
Fuller: I’m actually the owner of the one lot, I requested a lot of this and I came
to see if there were any questions or anything that maybe I could answer, it might
help it out a little bit. I own the lot on Martinique and I’ve asked to buy the one
behind me.
MacCoy: Is there any questions from the commissioners?
De Weerd: So which lot do you own? Lot 8?
Fuller: Lot 7. I’ve asked to buy lot 8, or part of it.
Borup: Then the triangle piece is going to Lot 9.
Fuller: Yes.
MacCoy: My only question that I had earlier is—I think I found out the answer,
that one applicant would be the possessor of the one complete lot and for a
building lot and not for something else.
Fuller: You are talking about maybe the part I’m going to do, we’ll just plan on
using it for an extra yard, larger lot more room.
De Weerd: I have no questions.
MacCoy: Anybody else who would like to make a statement at this time? If not,
commissioners what about your public hearing?
De Weerd: I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 30
Borup: I just had a quick question for staff. You say city ordinance prevents
combining of lots after they have been platted? Is that essentially…
Stiles: We don’t presently have any provision for combining lots. As Ada County
I believe has this same problem that when you plat a subdivision and you
typically show a five foot easement along the interior lot lines, a lot line
adjustment does not remove that easement.
Borup: I understand that part because the easement is there.
Stiles: So that is why they are asking for the vacation of that easement.
Borup: If there was an ordinance allowing combined—your original statement
was there is no ordinance that allows combining of lots. Isn’t that essentially
what has happened here though?
Stiles: That’s why they are applying for the vacation of the easements in the lot
line.
Borup: So that would be the procedure to combine lots then.
Stiles: That’s all we have.
Borup: I don’t know how you would make it—how you would do it otherwise with
the easement in there.
Stiles: Sometimes, apparently not…
Borup: Is there an easier way. Do other municipalities have it easier?
Stiles: Boise City allows just a simple relinquishment of easements that you
would go around to all the utility companies and bring back recorded copies
relinquishing that easement. Nampa, I believe they actually put notes on the plat
that say a lot line adjustment also will adjust that, those easements.
Borup: That’s something that could be cleaned up in the future of Meridian.
MacCoy: The public hearing is closed.
(Inaudible)
Borup: I was mainly getting to if that’s something to look at to clean up a little bit
sometime for a new ordinance.
MacCoy: Okay, we may have to do so.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 31
Borup: I guess it doesn’t come up that often though, does it?
MacCoy: I don’t know, we’ve had about three in the last six months. I’m waiting
for a motion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Item No. 6 public hearing
request for a vacation of lots 8 & 9, block 8 Meridian Greens Subdivision by
Charles Fuller.
Borup: Just a clarification of the motion, I believe our agenda was typed
wrong…
De Weerd: Vacation of easement.
Borup: Right, vacation of the easement rather than vacation of the lot. Is that
what your motion was?
Barbeiro: I stand corrected.
Rossman: So amended.
Barbeiro: So amended.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 7: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY
DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS CHILDREN B VICCI L SNYDER – 2747 S
VELVET FALLS WAY:
VICCI L. SNYDER, 2747 S VELVET FALLS WAY, MERIDIAN, ID.
Snyder: I have several children that are in high school and middle school and
we had a surprise two years ago. Family is very important to me, so I wanted
her to have some playmates as well. I wanted to open a family daycare. A
friend of mine needed someone to watch her two sons because she has gone
back to work. I thought this was a great opportunity for me, she has playmates
and these two boys needed someone to care for them. I didn’t know it was going
to be such an ordeal to watch my friend’s children. I don’t plan on having a lot of
children, I just want a couple of playmates for my daughter, until she is able to go
to school. Is there any questions?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 32
MacCoy: Before we start with them, lets ask the staff—staff do you have any
comments on this right now?
De Weerd: Since we didn’t prepare comments we would just like the comments,
the ordinance prevail in the requirements for this and also to inform you that the
definition of childcare would be children under 14 years of age, in counting the
number of children.
MacCoy: Which also includes your own children. I think you realize that.
Snyder: Yes I do.
MacCoy: That’s a total number of five or less. Anything else staff? Okay,
commissioners?
De Weerd: I guess, how many children do you have under 14?
Snyder: I have five children under 14, but they are gone at school, they are not
even home during the day. They are gone before the daycare kids get there and
because of their activities with basketball, track, and drama and everything else
that teenagers are into, that the daycare the two boys are gone before they come
home.
De Weerd: You mentioned in your letter your hours of operation were 6AM to
6PM.
Snyder: The two boys actually come somewhere between 7:45AM and 10AM
depending on whether mother or father brings them and they are usually gone
between 4PM and 4:30PM.
De Weerd: Okay, I did notice in your drawings you have a fence and they are
adequately locked or opened and closed…
Snyder: They are locked, there is a sub-fence that is also locked to keep them in
the direct backyard so they are not running off onto the side yard.
De Weerd: That’s a four foot fence?
Snyder: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay, do you have any water features in your backyard?
Snyder: Yes, there is a faucet.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 33
De Weerd: I mean like a pool or fountains.
Snyder: No.
De Weerd: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions from the commissioners?
Borup: I have none.
MacCoy: All right thank you. Is there anyone here who would like to speak in
favor of what you have just heard about a daycare center? Having nobody stand
up for that, is anybody here who would like to speak on the negative side of this
daycare center? Seeing none, commissioners?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, point of clarification we have a couple of letters in here
in the file from a Cheri Moore and a Vicci Snyder, do we want to incorporate
those into the record?
Barbeiro: Vicci Snyder is the applicant?
Rossman: Cheri Moore, but there is also a letter from Vicci Snyder do you want
to include that in the record?
Borup: Yes I do.
De Weerd: Yes, since I’ve already brought information into the testimony on that
letter.
Rossman: Move that they be added to the record.
De Weerd: I would move that the two letters be added into the record.
Borup: We haven’t made the motion yet have we?
De Weerd: Well actually we have a motion on the floor to close…
Borup: Oh, I’m sorry, because it wasn’t in the public testimony. I understand.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 34
De Weerd: So we need to do that before we close the public hearing?
Rossman: You can do it now.
De Weerd: We have a motion on the floor to close the public hearing.
MacCoy: Hold it right here, staff wants to say something here.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, I would just like to point out that the way
the ordinance is written, it’s the number of children cared for throughout the day
that is determinative, not the number that are there at one time. So if the
applicants testimony regarding her children 14 and under they’re throughout the
day those five children would have to be included as part of their five.
Borup: Is this consistent with the passed application?
Stiles: Yes. It’s the number of children cared for throughout the day.
MacCoy: What if they are not home?
Stiles: But they are still cared for sometime throughout that day. That means
you couldn’t have five children come in the morning and another five children
come in the afternoon.
MacCoy: I understand that, I was just thinking about her own children that leave
in the morning and don’t come home till…
Borup: Off to school.
De Weerd: Who wrote that ordinance.
Stiles: You are responsible for that ordinance.
Borup: I don’t think that’s something that has come up in the past.
MacCoy: Not that way it hasn’t anyway.
Borup: This is the first time I think it’s been mentioned in the 14 years of age.
MacCoy: Usually the applicant has small children so it’s easy to lump those all
together because you just count noses. We haven’t had somebody that I can
remember that has come forward as teenagers.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 35
Borup: I don’t think it’s been mentioned either way. That’s the problem. I mean
the small children have been, under school age, it’s always come up, but school
age children I don’t think it’s been an issue.
Rossman: Well, I’m not sure Shari’s interpretation of the ordinance that is there
is incorrect. There are days of perhaps inservicing days when all the children will
be there. There are, even though on an average day, they are not all there, I
think it is designed to anticipate any days where the particular homeowners own
children will be there as well as the additional children.
MacCoy: Spoken like an attorney.
Rossman: All though I didn’t draft the ordinance.
Borup: So question for staff, do we have any options to try and help
accommodate Mrs. Snyder here?
Stiles: Not the way the ordinance is currently written, I don’t see how.
De Weerd: Does this ordinance follow state guidelines?
Stiles: I’m not sure what the state requirements are, it might be 11 or 12 that you
can leave a child home alone and not be committing a crime.
Rossman: What, I don’t think you are right on that one.
Stiles: This is health and welfare, not state code.
MacCoy: What you are telling us is there is no way we have any leeway to put a
variance in this thing based on conditions. Is that what I’m hearing from you?
Stiles: The way I read the ordinance, I don’t see how.
MacCoy: I’ll give it back to the attorney, how do you see it?
Rossman: I see it that if the ordinance, if that’s the way the ordinance reads as
Shari has described it, we can take a look at it, but assuming that is the way that
it reads, you can’t ignore the ordinance. You can’t create a variance to an
ordinance requirement.
MacCoy: Commissioners hearing from staff and from the attorney, do you want
to table this for one month and have it reviewed?
Rossman: That probably would be advisable to allow me sufficient time to
review the ordinance and see if there are any alternatives to denial.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 36
Barbeiro: Shari, can you define (Inaudible) one more time. It is five children that
can be cared for?
Stiles: A family childcare home is for a maximum of five children. You have your
ordinance or want to refer to it later, it’s basically under the definitions that are
contained on page 8 for a family childcare home and directly from the ordinance
it says it should be noted that in determining the type of childcare facility that is
being operated, the total number of children cared for during the day and not the
number of children at the facility at any one time is determinative.
Snyder: Mr. Commissioner, I have some information that may help.
Rossman: Public hearing hasn’t been closed. If you want to withdraw the
motion.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: You drop the second.
Borup: Yes.
MacCoy: Okay, the public hearing is still open and you can talk.
Snyder: The two boys that I watch have older siblings that are also in middle
school and for the days that there is no school, the older brother watches them
and they do not come to my home.
MacCoy: So it’s not a double up situation, it’s not just your kids plus them no
matter when it comes.
Snyder: No, no. When there is no school, the older brother watches them.
MacCoy: All right.
Barbeiro: What’s involved in the difference between a family childcare home and
a group childcare? That seems to be the step up for her to allow for those.
De Weerd: An R-4 only allows the accessory use doesn’t it?
Stiles: It’s the zoning, the R-4 zoning is a lower density and only allows a family
child care home, they don’t allow the group child care home.
MacCoy: Do you have any children over 14?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 37
Snyder: Yes, I have a daughter that is 15.
MacCoy: You still have a total of five?
Snyder: I have a total of six children.
MacCoy: A total of five under fourteen and under, right?
Snyder: Yes.
MacCoy: All right, do you want to table this one month so we can get this thing
straightened out?
De Weerd: We could see if there is any option that we have.
MacCoy: Yes, I think we sitting here—we are in a muddle right now. I would like
to give the attorney a chance to review this.
Borup: I’m sure there is plenty of them around this town that are in the same
situation.
Rossman: Let’s table it and let me take a look at that, because there is nothing
in there that spells out, to my review that spells out whether or not your own
children have to be included or not. Let me take a look at it and lets table it for a
month and I’ll provide a report in the mean time.
MacCoy: Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing again so we can do this.
We can’t—we want to continue the public hearing, then make a motion about,
yeah.
De Weerd: Does the applicant understand why we would postpone it another
month? Okay. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we continue the
public hearing for the accessory use permit for family daycare with five or less
children.
MacCoy: To what date?
De Weerd: To May 11th
.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 38
MacCoy: To the applicant, it will be to your benefit that we’ve done this because
we are going to look into the legality of this and see if there is a way that we can
hopefully support your request.
(END OF TAPE)
ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING
OF 5 ACRES (FOR L-O ZONING) BY LOMBARD CONRAD ARCHITECTS—
1985 BLACK CAT:
MacCoy: …request for annexation and zoning of a five acre, it says four L-O
zoning request by Lombard Conrad, an architect. Would the applicant come
forward please, or a representative?
Simmons: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Steve
Simmons with Lombard Conrad Architects, 1221 Shoreline Lane, Boise, Idaho.
We have read the conditions that staff has outlined and take no exception to any
of those.
MacCoy: All right then. Hold on a minute. Staff do you have any comments
now at this point?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, in our application it shows this as being
one parcel of land. The assessor’s map that’s been provided to us shows it as
two separate parcels. I just would like some clarification on that and ask that
they comply with all of our requirements in our memo dated April 9, 1999. As far
as the comment number one on our memo, we have since received a legal
description that meets our requirements so that is not an issue any longer.
MacCoy: You want to answer the one parcel versus two parcels?
Simmons: Sure Mr. Chairman. That was the first I’d seen of that so it is kind of
confusing and I agreed with Bruce when we talked earlier that we’ll go ahead
and have the engineer investigate that and try to clarify that for staff, and we
don’t have a problem with that being added to the conditions, because certainly
we’re as curious as they are about that.
MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant?
Borup: My question has been answered.
MacCoy: All right, thank you. Commissioner De Weerd?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 39
De Weerd: Just for staff. In this kind of situation I do know we’ve seen the
building and that has nothing to do with zoning, but will we be seeing this site
plan again or not?
Stiles: Not unless you wish to. You could make a condition they could be
required to have a development agreement. As part of the annexation you can
put conditions on that annexation, but if this is zoned L-O with no other
conditions attached to it, it would be a permitted use within the zone, and they
would just come in for a building permit.
De Weerd: But you would see them and have to approve them, would you not?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: So like such items such as landscaping and interior parking lot
landscaping those kinds of things would be addressed at your level?
Stiles: We would review that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Stiles: We would review it in accordance with the current ordinance in place
today.
De Weerd: Oh, thank you for that clarification.
MacCoy: Do you have any questions? All right, thank you. Is there anyone
here that would like to speak in favor of this request for annexation and zoning?
Seeing no one, is anyone here that would like to discuss or bring before the
Council – all right come forward.
Zaremba: My name is David Zaremba, I live at 2540 N. Crooked Creek Way in
Ashford Greens, which is right across the street from this request. Unfortunately
I have to make a choice of whether I stand up for or against and –
MacCoy: You’re in the middle of the road then?
Zaremba: Yes. The difficulty is that much of the information that you all have on
which you make your decision the public doesn’t get. So those of us who live in
the neighborhood of this project are actually ignorant of what is being proposed
there.
MacCoy: That’s the reason we have this public hearing.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 40
Zaremba: I know. I was hoping there would be a presentation showing perhaps
a site plan and a few things like that. My comments in the blind then would be in
reading what the L-O zoning is, one sentence speaks of it as a transition
between residential uses and heavier commercial uses. My personal feeling is
the L-O use itself if this is going to be a professional office or something like that
is not a difficulty for me. Black Cat of course is our access road in and out of
Ashford Greens and we will all be coming and going that way. The difficulty
which of course this applicant has no control over is what’s next if the property to
the south of that then is going to become commercial just because this transition
is there between residential and what could be much heavier. Then I would have
an objection.
MacCoy: Let me put your mind at ease. This request is for a church.
Zaremba: Good. Well in that case –
MacCoy: And it fits in with the category of the level.
Zaremba: In that case, I am very happy to sit down. We welcome a church to
our neighborhood.
MacCoy: God bless you. Does anyone else here have anything to add to this?
Okay, staff do you have any other comments at this moment?
Stiles: I don’t.
Borup: I missed part of that last because talking a comment on this.
Hypothetically if this was annexed L-O and the church wasn’t built, I mean could
a change be made an office building be put in?
Stiles: Item number 19 of our comments, our recommendation was that the
annexation should limit the use of the property to quasi public and public uses.
Borup: Okay, so with that condition, that would limit that.
Rossman: Are you going to define quasi public uses?
Stiles: It’s defined in the zoning ordinance.
Rossman: Good. Fabulous.
Borup: That’s all I had.
MacCoy: All right. We have addressed all the subject matter. We have a
person that wants to come back. Thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 41
Pearson: My name is Gary Pearson, I live at 4631W. Moon Lake Drive in
Meridian. I’m not sure the question was answered. Is this transitional and can
even a church or not, can they still build a more of the heavier construction? I
mean can they put a -- I can’t think of the –
MacCoy: Not according to the ordinance. It would a church, a school.
Pearson: It doesn’t transition into some –
MacCoy: Into light industrial, no.
Rossman: Sir, what she was indicating was that would be condition of
annexation, that it be either public or quasi public.
MacCoy: Anybody else have any questions now on their mind that they would
like to ask? All right, you can come back up again.
Zaremba: The part that I think that we are both expressing is not really the part
that this applicant has control of, but since L-O is expressed as a transition is
there any thinking that the area south of it which is not their property, if this is an
L-O, L-O would open the way for heavier commercial to be the next thing without
it coming up for hearing as being right next to residential, so if there any way to
control that having the church there does not mean that south of it, it does not
act as a buffer that allows commercial south.
MacCoy: I’m going to ask staff, Shari would you answer that question?
Zaremba: It’s the buffer and transition part that we’re questioning, not what
they’re doing on that property.
Stiles: I think the primary reason that the L-O was requested the zone is that
churches are only permitted in three zones in Meridian, outright permitted and
that would be the L-O zone, a C-N zone, which would not be appropriate here
and O-T, Old Town, which obviously is not appropriate here. That was the
reason for the request is because they wanted the permitted use so that if they
had to come in for an expansion later or you know any kind of building permit
something like that, they’re not having to go back through a conditional use
process for the use. So as far as a commercial use being acceptable adjacent to
this with our current Comprehensive Plan it’s designated single family residential.
Of course that would not be acceptable. It’s not meant as a buffer expecting
higher densities to come. It’s just a function of the permitted uses within that
zone.
MacCoy: Thank you. Does that satisfy you?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 42
Borup: Any zoning change would come back before here. Traditionally most of
the churches have been in residential areas and I think that’s consistent with
what the city seen in the past. I for one wouldn’t be approving an industrial or
commercial use there.
Rossman: Not without a change in the Comprehensive Plan.
MacCoy: That’s another thing that’s going to lock him in too. Okay we’ve
exhausted I think the public hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, since we’ve had two people inquire about this, would
it be appropriate that he explain what this rezoning and what will go on it?
Borup: I thought we just did, didn’t we?
De Weerd: Well we do have drawings that they still have not seen.
Borup: I’ll give them mine if they’d like to have it.
MacCoy: Are you speaking of the public now or what?
De Weerd: Yes.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Okay, it sounds like everybody is okay.
Simmons: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, it is very similar to a
project that was completed just last June on Locust Grove. There’s one under
construction now. This is a little bit larger and I would be more than willing just to
answer the question about will it be built? We have working drawings waiting for
this process so we can submit those for building permits so it will be built and we
also have full landscape plans, site plans for anyone who wishes to see those.
I’m more than willing to give small copies of those. I can mail them to anyone
who is interested. There is no secret here, so we’re very much open to any of
that.
MacCoy: Yeah, there will be another public hearing when that comes up anyway
and you’ll have your material here to show to everybody.
Simmons: Absolutely.
De Weerd: Only if that’s part of the condition; is that correct?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 43
MacCoy: Well then make it a part of the condition if you want to be sure.
De Weerd: Okay.
Simmons: And that’s not a problem.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. I didn’t think it would be. We seem to get a church
about once a month. Today we have two. Are you ready to close the public
hearing and move on?
Borup: I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I’d like to second the motion please.
MacCoy: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: What about a motion now? Are you ready for a motion?
Borup: Yes. I move we approve this request for annexation and zoning of five
acres to L-O zoning by Lombard Conrad Architects and incorporate staff and all
comments made in the hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Rossman: Staff comments particularly are the conditions?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rossman: Okay. There wasn’t any testimony in the hearing you want to make
as an additional condition.
Borup: No, just the staff comments as conditions.
MacCoy: Any other discussion? If no, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: It’s now 9:00. We’re going to take a break for about ten minutes and
we’ll be back here again to pick up on item nine.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 44
ITEM NO. 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING
OF ONE ACRE (FOR R-15 ZONING) BY ALICE CULVER—911 E PINE
STREET:
MacCoy: We’re going to reconvene. We’re over our time already and we want
to be able to get out of here tonight all of us. We’re on item number nine. It’s a
new public hearing and request for annexation and zoning for one acre for an R-
15 zoning by Alice Culver, and is the applicant here to bring it forward to us?
Thank you.
Culver: Hi, I’m Alice Culver. My address is 6100 Pierce Park Lane, Boise. I’m
here to try and get this acre rezoned and annexed. I’ve read the staff report. I’m
in perfect agreement with everything on it. I don’t have a problem of any kind.
MacCoy: Staff, do you have any comments now?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we did get the legal description today and
Bruce has checked that. That’s fine. As our conditions state, we ask that any
development proposals be processed under the conditional use permit process
and that way you’d have the opportunity to review any of the development plans
for the parcel.
MacCoy: That’s good. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions
at this time?
Borup: Yes, I think I do. That’s on the zoning designation on the R-15. This is
the one that I got right before the meeting, but isn’t there – don’t we have some
other things that need to be complied with in an R-15 like open space, etc?
Stiles: That would be listed under item 2 of our comments.
Borup: How does this address – what’s the destination of Pine? It’s not arterial
or collector or is it a collector? So it’s okay there. How about the park and open
space or is that a concern?
Stiles: We don’t have any plans so we can’t determine today that they do have
direct access to a park. They are immediately across the street from what’s
zoned L-O today, and thought it may not be considered direct Five Mile Creek is
expected to be a multiple use pathway on the north side of Pine.
Borup: Okay, there we go. That was in your last sentence, wasn’t it? Well that’s
an area that I don’t think this would be an inappropriate use. It’s an older section
of town and then with L-O on one side, I think you’re looking at this is probably
an appropriate use. I don’t have any other questions.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 45
MacCoy: You don’t?
Borup: Not at this time.
MacCoy: Okay, any other commissioners? No, all right you can sit down.
Thank you. Is there anyone here since this is a public hearing that would like to
speak for this annexation and zoning to R-15? All right seeing none, is there
anyone here on the other side of the fence who would not like to see this be
processed for an R-15? Okay, seeing none, back to the Commissioners, what
do you want to do? This is a public hearing and we have nobody who wants to
talk.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know if this is an appropriate question, but can
we ask what their intended use is?
MacCoy: You can do that. You want to come forward?
Culver: I would like to build apartments on the property.
De Weerd: On this one acre lot?
Culver: Yes.
De Weerd: But you don’t have any plans at this time.
Culver: No, not at this time. The septic tank on this parcel failed, and we went
before the City Council to hook it up. I asked that we annex it and rezone it,
which we’re doing. We did hook up to the city sewer, the existing house that’s on
it, so that’s been done. It was already hooked to city water, but once this is
rezoned then yes I will go get an engineering firm and we’ll put together a plan
and I’ll be back before Planning and Zoning and the City Council to have that
approved at that time.
De Weerd: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Mrs. Culver, so there is an existing house on the property?
Culver: Yes.
Borup: And would that house stay on the development or you’d be –
Culver: It’s in a corner of the property. I would think so, but I don’t –
Borup: So it’s split off fairly easy then.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 46
Culver: Yes, I don’t know that it would be worthwhile economically. I think that
would be up to an engineering firm to determine.
Borup: And when you say apartments, are you talking a large apartment
complex or like four-plex, duplex units?
Culver: I’m probably talking about a four- plex and maybe a triplex unit. I don’t
know exactly what the parcel will hold and come under your zoning designation.
You know without the engineering being done, so I can’t tell you that, but I’m not
looking at anything bigger than four-plexes, no.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much.
De Weerd: Shari, this would come in front of us any development under a CUP,
right?
Stiles: Yes.
Rossman: Well except for three-plex, I mean if she’s asking for three plex, it
shows as a permitted use. Anything above three plex would come in on a
conditional use.
Stiles: Or more than one building on the lot.
De Weerd: Okay which there is already building on the lot so it would. Okay,
thank you.
MacCoy: All right I’m going to close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just clarification. Shari you said if there’s more than one
building it would be under conditional use permit or if it’s over a three plex. Is
that correct?
Stiles: Yes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 47
Borup: One other or both. Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move that we recommend the request for
annexation and zoning of the one acre for Alice Culver to include staff comments
as conditions of the annexation. Do I have a second?
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
LAKES AT CHERRY LANE NO. 9 (44 SINGLE FAMILY BUILDING LOTS ON
14.78 ACRES) BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT, INC.—SOUTH OF USTICK
ROAD & EAST OF BLACK CAT ROAD:
MacCoy: Is the applicant or representative here? You want to come up here
and talk about this?
BECKY BOWCUTT, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, 1800 W. OVERLAND, BOISE.
Bowcutt: The applicant is Steiner Development. This is the Lakes at Cherry
Lane No. 9.
(Inaudible)
Bowcutt: The parcel here is 14.78 acres. The golf course surrounds it here.
That’s what you see here. Originally this came through I think as Wilkins Ranch
a year or so ago, I believe and at that time they had some townhouses or type
dwellings that were proposed and they had far greater units than what you see
here. There’s not a lot that can be done with this parcel. We’ve got Moon Lake
Drive that terminates here at the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 4. Moon Lake Drive
that comes in right here out of Ashford Greens. My client also owns this parcel
here. We have redesigned it and we’re bringing it in as a separate application in
two different segments. A street will come through here and enter right here at
this open space lot. That’s why I’ve got that open. We’ve also got the Eight Mile
Lateral. It comes out of the golf course traverses us. It would have to be piped
or in a box culvert, go under Moon Lake Drive and then it exits the property here.
That’s what you see in blue. The density for the project is 2.98 dwelling units per
acre. We’ve also got these four common lots, landscaping island here and then
an elongated cul-de-sac with a landscaped island located here and then we’ve
got this area here adjoining the lateral. As staff indicated in their staff report we
do exceed the maximum cul-de-sac length which is stated as 450 feet under the
ordinance. This particular cul-de-sac is I believe approximately 475 feet from
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 48
center to center. We will need approval from the City Council for a variance on
the cul-de-sac length and then the block length. Under your ordinance I think the
maximum is 1,000 feet or 1200 feet and because they count all the way around
we would exceed that. I’ll move on to address staff’s comments. Staff
commented on the Eight Mile Lateral. The applicant would like to leave the Eight
Mile Lateral open as it goes north of Moon Ridge Drive. Other developments
that we’ve had the Eight Mile Lateral go through it, it was one of those facilities
that was too big to pipe exceeding a 48 inch. I have not received confirmation on
this section of the Eight Mile Lateral. It may be different. I have recommended
to the applicant that when the Eight Mile Lateral enters our common lot that they
pipe it through our common lot and then obviously it would be piped under the
roadway. That would give us far more flexibility in that common lot and allow us
to create an open corridor that looks into the golf course as one would come
down that north/south street that would be proposed off of Ustick Road. The
applicant agrees that he will need to fence the Eight Mile Lateral. Staff’s
comment was that they would like to see a pathway along the lateral if we
choose to leave it open and unpiped. My response to the staff is we will need
approval from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and I’ll pursue that them to put a
pathway within their easement. It does require a license agreement. We have
battled back and forth with the district about trying to create multi use facilities
along these laterals or drains, and this is an issue they have not given up the
fight on. So one of the things that I mentioned in my comments back to the staff
is would it be appropriate that the path be on the south side of the Eight Mile
Lateral or should the path be on the north side since my client owns the property
north, we may have more flexibility there to put the pathway if by chance we can’t
get Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to allow the pathway to encroach within
their easement. So between now and the time we go to the City Council I’ll meet
with Nampa Meridian and get their input and see if we can obtain their
cooperation and they will grant a license agreement. If they say absolutely not, it
will have to be outside of our easement then I feel we should probably swap it to
the north, because those lots that back up to the Eight Mile on the south side do
not have the depth to pull the lots back and put a pathway between the
easement and the rear lot lines, and we are confined because there’s sewer
already installed through there, so that street can’t move one way or the other.
Lastly on site specific requirement number 12, staff indicated that there is a gap
in public right-of-way on Moon Lake Drive. According to staff it was kind of an
oversight. Some adjustment was made to Ashford Greens concerning a lift
station and all of a sudden there is a gap between the improved public right-of-
way and the subject property there on the west end. Staff has asked us to get
with the developer of Ashford Greens and try to get that area dedicated and
straighten this problem out. We would like the city to obviously assist us in doing
so. That’s what we call a spike strip. Those are not allowed under most
ordinances. Almost all of the ordinances I’ve ever seen, no one is allowed to do
a spike strip to keep another property owner from making a public street
connection to an adjoining property owner, so we’d appreciate the city’s support.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 49
Between now and the time we go to the City Council, I’ll try to facilitate some
type of meeting and get the Highway District involved here too. I don’t know if
we can get their cooperation. If they won’t cooperate, we might need the city to
step forward and ask them to do what’s right for the community in the best
interest of public street and transportation. Do you have any questions?
MacCoy: Excuse me, Becky. Do you work with Larry on the –
Bowcutt: Larry Sale? Yes, sir.
MacCoy: Okay, he’s pretty good at working some of that stuff out and I’m sure
you have worked many time with him.
Bowcutt: Yes, I have.
MacCoy: I think he’s a straight forward individual. All right before we go up to
here, Becky, staff do you have any input?
Stiles: Nothing in addition to our comments.
MacCoy: Okay thank you. Commissioners?
Borup: I have two Mr. Chairman. One staff comment on the Eight Mile Lateral
pathway said to continue the pathway. Is there an existing pathway either in
existence or in planning stage at this point?
Bowcutt: Not to my knowledge, sir. I was puzzled by that too.
Borup: Shari.
Stiles: As part of the planned development for the Villas at the Lake, Steiner
committed to providing a pathway along the same Eight Mile Lateral and that
was a condition of their conditional use permit.
Borup: Do you know if that was on the north or south side?
Stiles: I believe it was on the south.
Bowcutt: So it would not link to us. One would have to go through the golf
course.
Stiles: Yes.
Bowcutt: Okay.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 50
Borup: Well you’ve got your common area I guess you could switch sides of the
lateral at that point, huh?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: Now isn’t the lateral within – isn’t that on your property? When yours, I
mean the developers?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. There is a 50 foot easement 25 feet from centerline in both
directions.
Borup: Maybe it’s time for the developers to let Nampa Meridian know this is
their property and it’s time for them to start doing what they want with their own
property.
Bowcutt: Obviously Commissioner Borup you haven’t dealt with Nampa Meridian
lately.
Borup: Well obviously I have. That’s why I make that comment. It’s time for
someone to stand up for them. This might just be the one to do it. Then the
other question was on was this property was this the section that was originally
planned as a phase of Ashford Greens?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir it was.
Borup: So this developer bought the property from Brighton Corporation?
Bowcutt: Correct and it was previously –
Borup: So why did that spike strip get in there when it was the same ownership?
Bowcutt: Good question.
Borup: Comment from –
Stiles: This property was not purchased from Brighton. It was not optioned –
Borup: Okay it was an option they didn’t pick up.
Bowcutt: That’s correct.
Borup: But they must have anticipated tying the roads in if it was going to be an
additional phase even though they didn’t pick up the option. That does seem
kind of –
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 51
Bowcutt: And your sewer runs through there.
Borup: The sewer runs through?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir, the sewer is already in Moon Lake Drive and water too.
Borup: So you’ve got water and sewer through a part of a lot that’s not in a right-
of-way?
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Freckleton: I believe there is an easement in place for it.
Borup: An easement through there, but not a road easement, just a sewer
easement a utilities easement.
Freckleton: Right.
Borup: And when you – this spike lot is the first time I’ve ever heard that
terminology. Is it pretty just like it’s shown on the overall plat we got, it the corner
that lot angles down to a corner?
Bowcutt: Are you looking at the map?
Borup: I’m looking at this little one.
Bowcutt: Yeah, you can see it.
Borup: And that’s the way that lot was platted. Oh, that’s not a lot.
Bowcutt: That’s not a lot.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: That is a gap.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, --
Borup: Oh, that’s the gap. I thought the gap was just in the roadway. There’s a
whole section of land there that’s not –
Bowcutt: 50 feet.
Borup: That’s owned by?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 52
Bowcutt: Brighton.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: Commissioner Borup, this piece of property the history on it just to
go a little bit, the City of Meridian needed property from Brighton Corporation to
build a sewage lift station out on Black Cat Road. At the time the preliminary plat
was laid out, not enough property was set aside for the lift station. When Public
Works went back to Brighton and was negotiating for this piece of property for
the lift station, they had to gain property for the lift station, and what they ended
up doing was burning one lot and kind of moving them down in order to give us
adequate room for the lift station, and what happened is in that shift that’s how
we ended up with this “gaposis”.
De Weerd: Is that a word?
Borup: That’s an engineering term.
Freckleton: Technical term. I don’t believe that this was any kind of intentional
spite type thing. I think it was just an oversight, a rigmarole.
Borup: So has –
Bowcutt: It functions as a spike strip though.
Borup: So has Brighton been contacted about correcting that?
Bowcutt: Not by us. Has the City informed them?
Borup: Okay, then it’s not a big deal yet.
Freckleton: I believe Gary Smith has talked to David Turnbull about it, but the
point I just wanted to make is this was not an intentional –
Borup: So it’s not a problem of yet.
Bowcutt: We hope.
Borup: Yeah, okay. Well that’s all I had. Thank you.
MacCoy: Okay any other questions? Okay you can sit down.
Barbeiro: I’ve noted here that there’s four common lots and are you counting the
island?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 53
Bowcutt: Yes, sir. Yes, the islands must be counted as a common lot.
MacCoy: All right. Is that all you had? Thank you. Is there anyone here that
would like to speak in favor of what Becky has just presented? Seeing there’s no
one to come forward for this, this is a public hearing.
Rossman: I think there are some opposed.
MacCoy: Yes, I was just getting around to that. Thank you. Moving on to the
other side of the fence, anybody here would like to make some statement or ask
questions about the negative side or the opposed side? This is not a church by
the way.
Zaremba: No, I was going to ask. We haven’t seen the plan. Is it a church? I’ll
sit down. I’m David Zaremba, I live at 2540 N. Crooked Creek in Ashford
Greens. First off I would like to thank the commission for their hard work. I think
there’s many people here that don’t know that you volunteer and I’ve been to
some other meetings and you work long and hard and put a lot of hours in and I
welcome the rookie to the group. Someday you’ll have a brown sign like the rest
of them. Thank you all for your service and so forth. I actually would also like to
thank Steiner and their representative. When this did come up as a part of
Wilkins Ranch before I spoke very strongly opposed to what they were planning
to do at the time and I would like to thank the developer for listening and for
having presented in this area essentially everything that I think that our group
was asking for earlier. We’re very happy with that and on that piece of it, I’d like
to speak in favor of it. Unfortunately I have a few items that don’t appear to be
part of it that I think we do need to address and I’ll try and run through them real
briefly. One of them is the Moon Lake roadway. As I am in my house which is
I’m right here and my back windows face out this way. This is my view looking
this way. I already see quite a bit of traffic coming from previous development
across this dirt road to access Black Cat. So we already know that Moon Lake is
going to become pretty much a thoroughfare for these people. It’s interesting to
know that there’s a little division there called a spike strip. I don’t think any of us
intended to take spite with that, but what we would like to seek ways to slow
down or redirect the traffic and one of the suggestions I would like to make is that
perhaps as a condition of approval of this, that the developer be required to
complete the proposed road. I know Wilkins is going to come up again as a
separate project, but it does have a road in it that was already mentioned. I
would like to suggest that it a condition of approval for this be that that road be
completed before any foundations are laid in here so that when people do move
in there, that they focus on going to Ustick Road. I know that there are some
people that will still find this more convenient, but finding a way to redirect them
or slow them down or get them trained to go the other way before they start
coming through Moon Lake and down Silver Leaf which neither one are
designed to be quite adequate to carry that kind of traffic. I’d also like to make
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 54
another suggestion on the same lines. Since you’ve already been talking about
pedestrian walkways along what I thought was a canal and I now learned is the
Eight Mile Lateral, that as a condition of approval for this. We’re worried about
traffic which is going to seek to go to the new clubhouse. Their most logical path
is Moon Lake, Silver Leaf and some of them will be Crooked Creek which is a 37
foot wide street and not really prepared for a lot of traffic going to the clubhouse.
It would seem to me in line with the city wanting to have pathways along that
some of these people might choose to walk to the clubhouse. It’s a very short
distance and it will be on at that point the east side of the lateral and if there were
a walkway along the lateral, some of the people who are planning to golf may
choose to walk instead of drive through Ashford Greens, and so I would also like
to suggest that as a condition of approval that they work out whatever they have
to work out with Nampa Meridian Irrigation to also make a pathway along this
canal that connects from the part that you’re asking them to do here and the part
that you’re asking to do on some other subdivision so that people can walk to the
clubhouse if they choose to do so. Another point that I would make and again I
hate to lay it just on this subdivision because what they’re doing there is actually
fairly pleasing to most of us. But I have become aware that when you take the
whole picture from Ustick Road to Cherry Lane and from Ten Mile to Black Cat
over here, this one developer is responsible for a lot of different developments.
Most of which have come in thirty homes at a time or forty homes at a time.
They at this point have already built more than 400 and by the time they’re done
here there will be some where in the neighborhood of 800 to 1,000 that they’ve
added to the City of Meridian and I link that to some things that are in the
Comprehensive Plan about developers needing to mitigate their impact. The
Comprehensive Plan has some things that are stated as goals, such that there
should five acres of park for every 1,000 citizens. If you use the average of 2.6
people per household which the Comprehensive Plan mentions, what this
developer has already built has added 1,000 people and the things that are
proposing to build is going to add another 1,000 people and it would seem to us
that somewhere in there they owe the city and/or their own residents 10 acres of
park, and I bring that up with the thought that whether or not it can be made a
condition of this one, they need to be thinking of making this less dense. While I
appreciate the fact that this is not going to be town homes, I assume that they’re
still when they plan this going to be asking roughly the same area density.
They’ve probably shifted the number of homes they want from here to here and I
would like to speak against that because somewhere in there, there needs to be
enough parks or otherwise the City of Meridian as a whole is moving backwards
and I would like to suggest that they and the commission begin thinking that ten
acres of park should come in here some place for their own use and of course
when they build houses around the park, they can charge a lot more for them so
this should not be a great economic loss for them. Who wouldn’t pay more for a
house facing a park? But that’s just a thought. There are similar things when
you add that many people that need to be mitigated. How many policemen do
they owe us? How many firemen do they owe us? Those kinds of things that we
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 55
hope you will consider and not just approving this as itself, but considering
everything that this developer is responsible for. Another point then, this is just
kind of a minor point that we’re all struggling with. This is represented as being
the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9 now instead of being part of Wilkins Ranch and
my question would be, where’s the lake? We are all struggling with the fact that
the operator of the golf course who is suppose to be providing lakes isn’t and I
feel that it’s up to the developers who are presenting to the people who are
buying these homes that there are going to be lakes to put some pressure on the
golf course operator to produce those lakes, and if you’re going to have a name
that says, The Lakes at Cherry Lane, I think there should be a condition on them
that they push the operator to provide the lakes. Let me go one more here.
One of the other things that we noticed again, because has been separated off
from the Wilkins Ranch and is now a separate issue, getting back to the traffic
issue and mitigating the traffic that will come through here, one of the things that
happens because they have this development if you approve it and I hope you
will with some conditions we now have a situation where when they go to present
this, none of it is within 300 feet of anybody in Ashford Greens. Therefore
although if we read the paper every day and get your agendas every day, we
might discover that it’s coming up for hearing this part. None of us will get
noticed and my feeling is that since these people are going to need to use
Ashford Greens street no matter whether they are 1,000 yards away from us or
not, they will need to be using Ashford Greens streets and particularly Moon
Lake. I would like if it’s possible to do legally to make it a condition of approval to
this that when they present this they give the certified notice at least to our
residents on Moon Lake. So that we can have the opportunity to consider what
this is going to do to our Ashford Greens traffic, so there’s another suggestion
that we’d like to ask for. Where do we go? The other thing and this is just again
something that they probably may very well plan to do. We have not seen what
their CC&R’s are going to be or what their plans are. We appreciate that they
are going for single family dwellings in here. I’m sure many of you are aware that
the Ashford Green properties are some very valuable expensive homes and
many of these will be within our view now, and I don’t which way to do it whether
you (End of Tape)
Zaremba: …all these must be at least 2,000 square feet or that they all must be
of a certain value $200,000 or something like that, I’m not sure if that can be
done as a condition. But in order to be in keeping with the neighborhood again
surrounding a golf course, they shouldn’t have any problem profiting from those
properties. Essentially those are the points I care to bring to your attention and I
thank you all for your consideration and again I want to thank the developer for
the steps they have taken.
MacCoy: Is there any questions for this speaker before you run away?
Zaremba: I’ll be right here.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 56
Barbeiro: As it sits where we have the intersection with greenbelt and Moon
Lake Drive, your concern is that as it exists now as a dirt road you have people
plodding through there.
Zaremba: It’s already being used but I’m not sure what the number is but this is
a Steiner Development that’s being built out over here and these people are
choosing not to wind their way through several twists and turns to get over to Ten
Mile. They are choosing to go across what’s now a dirt road at pretty high
speeds and they continue at high speeds on to our paved portion. There are a
number of houses in here now that have small children and that’s a little bit
scary, but yes in spite of the fact that this is not paved, not improved yet, it has
been plowed or leveled or whatever as a function of having put the sewers and
so forth in. It’s visible as a road, dirt though it may be and it is being used and
used at high speed.
Barbeiro: Would it be sufficient as this is built to put a stop sign at the corner of
greenbelt and Moon Lake Drive to slow the traffic.
Zaremba: Tell me where greenbelt is?
Barbeiro: There’s only one intersection there at the T.
Zaremba: Oh, this is greenbelt?
Barbeiro: Yes. A stop sign there would stop the traffic at a point.
Zaremba: Well actually my suggestion might be to put the stop sign at Silver
Leaf. (Inaudible) because this is a T-intersection at Ashford Greens –
MacCoy: You better use the mike there. We’re not picking you up.
Zaremba: My suggestion if that is a possibility would be to put the stop sign for
the Moon Lake traffic at Silver Leaf. We do have a problem with people coming
– this is a T-intersection, Silver Leaf ends at Moon Lake and we do have a
problem of people who are driving up Silver Leaf having to deal with some pretty
fast traffic that’s already got a head of steam even though they’re coming off a
dirt road and it’s only paved for like 50 feet at that point. They already have a
head of steam crossing and if a stop sign is a possibility, Moon Lake and Silver
Leaf would be my suggestion.
Barbeiro: You also mentioned the building of a road going into the unplatted
area just north of that. It’s not likely that that road is going to be a straight road,
that it would be meandering road with a number of possible stops. It would not
make it more convenient for people to exit.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 57
Zaremba: I don’t know whether it will come out this way, and this is part of the
reason that I hope at least our Moon Lake residents will be noticed when this is
going to be up for a hearing. On the previous request when it was all Wilkins
Ranch, there was a pretty wide road, wide enough to have islands in it similar to
some of the entrances off of Ustick, two developments as you go east, pretty
wide road with islands. It looks like two lanes on each side of the island that was
either here or here. The applicant would probably have to clarify that. I’m
assuming that the roadways and maybe that’s a wrong assumption are going to
stay in the same place that the only discussion about is how the lots are divided
to face the roadway and my thinking was if the roadway that was in the old
application is a fixed and done deal, my request was that it be installed as it
previously showed before these are built. I may be wrong, there may be no plan
at all which means the roads don’t exist either, but assuming that there will at
some point be some kind of a road, I still think it would help to train these people
to go that way. Just a suggestion.
MacCoy: Any questions?
Borup: Maybe one comment. You’re assuming that everybody wants to travel
west to Black Cat. That’s not the experience that I’ve noticed. I think the
majority of the traffic is traveling east.
Zaremba: I’m not assuming that everybody will, but I am assuming that a large
enough portion will that it’s going to make Moon Lake and probably Silver Leaf a
little bit difficult.
Borup: Well it looks to me like the bigger problem is going to be for the people
over in the subdivision to the east that’s going to have more traffic from people
coming down Silver Leaf, traveling down their street to get east.
Zaremba: Well unfortunately it isn’t convenient to go that way. Black Cat and –
Borup: There’s not a lot of facilities on Black Cat for people to go to.
Zaremba: No, except that people are beginning to discover that it’s the quickest
way to get to the freeway, Black Cat to Franklin and down Meridian is much
quicker than any other direction into town or through town and not only are our
own residents are using Black Cat and Franklin to get to the freeway if they need
to, even the people that have to drive across the dirt road are already
demonstrating, it seems to me that will be a choice.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Just a thought.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 58
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. I am assuming that the present speaker speaks for
most you and so he took up the majority of the time, so – no that’s okay, you can
be the principal speaker of the group, but I’ll ask if there’s anybody else, anything
else they wanted to add please make it short please. Come forward.
LEONARD ASHENBRENNER ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION
Ashenbrenner: My name is Leonard Ashenbrenner. I also live in Ashford
Greens. The comment I want to make is about bike paths. I happen to be a
director of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We are not that hard to get along
with. We’ve (inaudible) from everybody. We have a contract with the city laying
on their desk to be signed. Liability, until that is done we’re holding our ground.
We cannot accept the liability for our own taxpayers. We did sign one contract
with them on Fothergill pathway, the first one. The City of Nampa went to the
very same thing for four years until they realized we were serious. Then they
signed it and we’re getting along very well with them. All we have to do is get
together with the City of Meridian and get them to sign this thing. It’s been on
their desk how long Will?
Berg: It’s a liability issue.
Ashenbrenner: About three years? We’ve been talking about three years.
Nampa took four years. We’re not against bike paths, but we have to have some
control over where they go. Now you’re speaking of this lateral up here. On the
driveway side where the ditch rider has to go we are against that. We can’t have
them. It has to be on the off side. The drainage system, we’re more lenient
there. We don’t go through that much. But our ditch riders every day at least
once drives these pathways. Now when you speak of liability, there will be a lot
of little kids running up and down this pathway and if they fall in the water which
they are prone to do who is liable? We’re not going to be. We’re not inviting
them in there. The City is when you put the bike path there, so consequently you
must assume the liability.
Borup: Has this been a big problem with kids falling in and—I mean has the
(inaudible) sued in the last ten years? I don’t know the answer, I’m just asking
the question.
Ashenbrenner: You remember this, I think he was a dentist in Twin Falls that
stole a car up here on Federal Way and walked into the Riddenbaugh Canal.
They are suing Nampa Meridian right now. This man was drunk as pitch dark.
He hasn’t got a chance to beat us, I know that, but they will sue.
Barbeiro: We were talking about children.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 59
Ashenbrenner: You don’t believe that we would be sued (Inaudible).
Barbeiro: I see the greater problem being the kids leave their bicycles along the
road while you are trying to (Inaudible).
Ashenbrenner: That’s another thing. They are walking them now, they are
trespassing.
Borup: My question still is just how big of a problem has that been in the past?
Ashenbrenner: Well, I can—the amount of people that have drowned in these
ditches?
(Inaudible)
Borup: Amount of people that have sued.
Ashenbrenner: They will, we are not going to expose our selves to it, because
when you (Inaudible) wait a minute now, at the present time how many people
are on a ditch bank compared to when you put up a paved pathway there. It’ll be
100 to 1 or more. The risk of drowning then is going to increase 100 fold. We
are not going to be liable for this, we can’t do it. We’ve talked with the city
before.
Borup: So the answer is no one has been sued yet. No one has sued you yet.
Ashenbrenner: Not that I can recall, I’ve only been on four years. I’ve only been
on the board four years, but what I’m saying at the present time, anybody that is
on the ditch bank now is trespassing, it maybe one in a mile, you put a bike path
on there and there will be 100 of them in there, you know that. So the risk of
somebody drowning—kids is going to increase. We are not going to expose our
taxpayers to this. It’s that simple.
MacCoy: There is a suit that was filed last summer a boy climbed over the fence
got into the canal and drowned. His parents are suing…
Ashenbrenner: Which canal was it? Do you know? It could’ve been a project
area.
MacCoy: I read about it and I know I serve on Ada County Board that was
brought up to the fact…
Ashenbrenner: But it will happen.
MacCoy: Yeah, it will happen.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 60
Ashenbrenner: We’ve got a lot of taxpayers and you people are all taxpayers
through Nampa Meridian.
Borup: Accidents happen, sidewalks, roads, streets, it doesn’t matter, it’s going
to happen.
Ashenbrenner: Our problem is the number of people that will be using these will
be so much greater than walking down a weed bank.
MacCoy: Well Keith you and I serve on a CAC Board and we hear this about
pathways all the time.
Ashenbrenner: We are not against pathways, liability is what we are against.
MacCoy: I know we discuss that the fact that it’s a pathway, it’s a bike way, it’s a
means of travel and we don’t disagree with you, we know that’s a problem. The
question we’ve been handling or trying…
Ashenbrenner: Fothergills is a beautiful pathway. There is going to be one going
through from Meridian Road clear to Linder on the Five Mile Drain. We haven’t
determined which side it’s going to be on. I think the north side. Now you speak
of this one out here being on the east side, I don’t think so, it will have to be on
the west side, this canal, because our roadway is on the other side.
Borup: On this project.
MacCoy: That’s not something that we can settle tonight anyway.
Ashenbrenner: I realize that, but I just had to throw that little two bits worth in
there. We get bad-mouthed and I for one am getting tired of it. Anyway, that’s all
I have to say.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. All right, is there anyone else who has any comment
to make here at this time? We’ve got a couple coming up.
LARRY CHRISTIANSEN, 2848 N SILVER LEAF WAY, MERIDIAN, ID.
Christiansen: I need to tell you that I have a vision impairment and I can not
point out where I live, I know how to get there, but I can’t show you where. I
would simply like to state that I concur with the concerns of the first speaker and I
would like to additional state that we have a tremendous view out of our
backyard, one of the reasons we purchased this property and I would be
opposed to any structures on the other side of the green, or the fairway rather
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 61
that would obstruct or hinder the view of the Boise Mountains as we now know it.
Thank you.
MacCoy: Anyone else? Another one coming up.
GARY PEARSON, 4631 W MOON LAKE DR., MERIDIAN, ID.
Pearson: I don’t want to rehash everything that Dave went through but we live
on W. Moon Lake and that is going to be the collector and we are very
concerned about the amount of traffic that is going to come through. He is a lot
more gracious than I am. I am a lot more, I guess I’m thinking that maybe
building it the way they are building it now with this one phase and not building
the phase above where the other road would be going through first, possibly is
going to cause problems and is going to cause more cars coming down through
our area. I would agree with Dave that we do need that road, we would like to
have that road to come through first, or along with the construction of this phase
and we would like to have the housing be $200,000 and above if possible, I
agree with that also. Lastly, I guess that’s all I have.
MacCoy: Before you leave, any questions for this man?
Barbeiro: Did you make note on the plan that there is a 1,400 square foot
minimum on these to require homes to be in the $200,000 plus range, I would
imagine that a number of people who want to live around a golf course are going
to be shall we say empty nesters where a $200,000—2,500 square foot home is
what they are trying to get away from, it’s not practical.
Pearson: But we are empty nesters, my wife and I and we have one in excess of
that. So you know, we bought to retire there and we see that traffic that
everybody is talking about on the dirt road. They do come down quickly and
that’s just through a dirt road, what are they going to do when there is a real road
there. I would like that stop sign there at the corner of Silver Leaf and West Moon
Lake also, but you know, 1,400 square feet means that the homes are going to
selling for $140,000 which is going to lower the price of mine, immediately as
soon as they build their first house.
Barbeiro: That’s a minimum and I don’t believe that you are going to see that be
the rule more the exception.
Pearson: Well, the ones on the golf course—for the ones on the course
themselves may be more expensive because they are going to try and make the
money off of it. On the average, if they are saying their minimum is 1,400 I
believe our minimum is around 1,800 I’m not positive on that, but it’s right about
1,800. If their minimum is 1,400 then yes we are going to be seeing homes that
it’s going to bring the value of our houses down.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 62
MacCoy: Do you belong to a homeowners association?
Pearson: Because of the number of homes that have been sold in the area it is
still controlled by the builders. As soon as they—I’m not sure what 50% or more
are sold, something like that then we can, but we are the homeowners
association in the future.
MacCoy: All right, if you want a traffic stop sign someplace, you can get
signatures of those people who live in that same vicinity and take it over to the
police department here in the city and they will go to bat for you and get a sign
put up for you. We do this on a very regular basis. So you do have something in
your hands to go do. So just make a reminder to you.
De Weerd: Although ultimately ACHD I think is in the stop sign patrol person,
since I’ve been trying to get one myself, I know the procedure.
Pearson: If you can’t get one, we are going to have a great time. I was thinking
that possibly we could make those bike strips higher so they would be harder to
(Inaudible).
MacCoy: Well, Bill Gordon will champion our cause and he has done it for about
three or four already for us and we’ve got some more coming up that he is very
open about the fact that get the signatures and I’ll get your sign for you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think a number of issues have been raised in the
public testimony probably should be addressed as far as what we can do and we
can’t place conditions on other properties and that sort of thing. Perhaps even
Shari or City Attorney can perhaps clarify that for you.
MacCoy: I would like to bring up Becky again and have her answer…
De Weerd: But there is more testimony Mr. Chairman, but I thought at this point
if Eric or Shari can bring some clarification it might help them in what they to say.
Rossman: That’s a good point, I mean there is a lot of discussion about
requiring a mandatory road through a property that is not really before this
commission at this time. We are talking about preliminary plat approval for this
particular property. I’m not sure it’s real appropriate to address whether or not
another road is necessary. Now you can address whether or not, what the traffic
impact is going to be with this particular development. This commission doesn’t
have the authority to say you have to put a road through a property that is not
really before this commission at this time. Further more, this commission on a
preliminary plat approval I don’t believe has the authority to put a minimum
requirements for home sizes and home values in a preliminary plat approval. It’s
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 63
just not something that the ordinance provides and I’m not aware of any
ordinance that would provide such a limitation, unless it’s expressly stated within.
Maybe Shari might have some further comments.
Stiles: Nothing but to agree with you. As part of a preliminary plat, they are
meeting the requirements for the R-8 zone, you can’t really request more than
that, R-4 sorry. Ashford Greens Subdivision has a minimum house size of 1,400
square feet, I don’t think that people are going to spend this amount of money on
a lot and build a 1,400 square foot home.
Pearson: Now Ashford Greens is also James Place, where James Place—are
you talking 1,400 square feet in James Place or 1,400 square feet in Ashford
Greens?
Stiles: 1,400 square feet for the entire development was the minimum.
Rossman: I think Shari’s point was that the market place dictates a higher value
there because of the lot prices.
MARTY PEARSON, 4631 W MOON LAKE DRIVE, MERIDIAN, ID.
M. Pearson: I also am concerned, I really agree with what has been presented to
you so far. I am concerned about if there is no other road and you say you can
not put that kind of condition, but I am concerned as to the dump trucks and
things like that are going to be coming up and down that road. The tractors and
things that are going to be coming up and down that road, as well as I don’t know
how the—I don’t know how these roads go back and through in there. I need to
take a walk, but I’m concerned if these are windy roads back in here, if the
people are now coming from these housing developments and using our road as
a thorough fair which they are, this must be windy. So that means in my mind,
I’m going to have more dump trucks and all kinds of things coming up this road.
We want little children here and we’ve got families who live here. Some of these
homes aren’t built—I mean aren’t lived in yet, but they will be soon. So that’s—
we are going to be fighting for more and more with all this traffic coming through
here, I’m very concerned about it. Go ahead, you can stop me, what is it?
MacCoy: We’ve heard a lot of this the Attorney has already said that some of
this we have no control over, so we are getting kind of far field here.
M. Pearson: Okay, I guess my concern is that I live right there. That’s my main
concern. I have one other quick thing. I didn’t know what’s going in here, is this
going to be residential? Is it going to be a school? Is it going to be another
church? That’s the kind of thing I don’t know. I would like to request that since
we are so close that we do get notice or somehow notified of the meetings here.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 64
Rossman: That’s another issue, this commission can’t require that more notice
be provided than what is required in the Ordinance. You are just going to have to
watch the newspaper if you are not within the requirements of the ordinance.
You are just going to have to watch the newspaper if you are not within the
requirements of the Ordinance.
MacCoy: Which is 300 feet.
Rossman: Don’t take my comments wrong, all I’m saying is this commission
doesn’t have the authority to require a road run through a piece of property that
is not before this commission at this time. This commission can and should
consider the traffic impacts within the development as proposed today.
MacCoy: The reason I want to get Becky back up here again so she can answer
some of this material and that would quiet some of this I think.
Bowcutt: I’ll just start with the last lady that spoke asking what is going on out
here. There is an elementary school site right here on Mr. Ashenbrenner’s
parcel. Pardon?
(Inaudible)
Bowcutt: Well, it runs right here.
(Inaudible)
Bowcutt: In the southwest corner, it’s approximately a little under 13 acres
(Inaudible) I think.
Rossman: Sir, please do not interrupt you are going to have to come to the
microphone if you want to talk.
Bowcutt: Around 12 acres, the Meridian School District has purchased the
property and the school is one of their schools that they call on their priority list
and a bond issue will be required to construct the school, that’s what they have
told me in the past. Over here, single family dwellings, the first phase of Dakota
Ridge is under construction now, the second phase will probably be under
construction later this year. It’s a two phase single-family project. When we got
this project, I read through the controversy that transpired on this and this parcel.
The comments that were made in the public record from you people here and
recommended to the applicant that based on the fact that it backs up to the golf
course, these are very nice lots. Single-family was the highest best use for these
particular lots. Plus the compatibility issue with your lots over here. For the
commission’s knowledge, their lots lie over in this area here, I did measure the
distance, it ranges from approximately 200 feet to about 250 from the back of
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 65
these lots to the back of their lots. So when we are talking preservation of their
view corridors they have the Boise front, take into consideration that you are
going to have that distance of the golf course between the two. With that kind of
distance we should be okay. As far as limiting the homes, you know here,
nobody limited whether your homes are one story or two story, it’s not part of the
Ordinance. I have always been an opponent of that because I think it’s a right
that everyone should enjoy whether they build a two story or one story home,
that’s the way the Ordinance is written. The size of these lots are consistent with
the size of your lots. I measured your lots, they are between—they are around
80 feet in width, some are a little larger and between 110-115 some are a little
greater in depth over in this vicinity here. These lots here are consistent, they
are all at least 80 feet, some of these we even made larger. Just for your
information, we dropped a lot out through here just to make these a little wider
and improve this view corridor here. What you see here, the number of lots we
have since we submitted this, eliminated one of these lots through here to
enlarge these even further. The size of the lot will dictate the size and the value
of the home. These lots in here are going to probably range anywhere between
10,000--12,000--11,000 down here these two lots are in excess of 22,000 square
feet. To purchase a 22,000 square foot, you are looking at—I priced one the
other day, it was over $60,000. So a $60,000 dollar lot nobody is going to put a
$125,000 house on it. You are going to be up in that $200,000-$250,000 range
most likely unless we see an extreme decline in the market. We feel we’ve got a
good quality project, the comment was made, well, you dropped your density
here, you are just shuffling it to here. Not the case, not the case. My
recommendation to the applicant was that we come in and drop the density in
here. We have sketched this out in a redesign. We have not submitted it to the
city. As far as the streets being absolutely set, no they are not, to answer your
question. Are we going to continue a collector street through here, yes sir. The
way this property lays, that will be necessary to feed the traffic out. One thing
you guys need to look at is the maps. I don’t know if they sent you one in your
mailings that you received, but as you can see there are collectors coming out of
here, the question is going through the Lake At Cherry Lane, is that a zigzag
inconvenient way to get out to Ten Mile, no it’s not, they just head directly east,
they go south and they enter a collector that feeds them right to Ten Mile. There
is also a collector running through Ashford Greens. Moon Lake Drive is one of
the accesses out to Black Cat, when one purchases a home or a lot, and they
happen to be on an entrance street of a subdivision you will bear more traffic
than say the cul-de-sacs or maybe a loop street. The number of homes that are
going to go through there, typically you find that it splits as one of the
commission members said, you will find some traffic is going west, some traffic
going east. Some of the residents that are your neighbors may go east and pop
out to Ten Mile through the Lake At Cherry Lane. They may bear the burden of
some of your traffic. It’s kind of a win-lose situation, but it goes in both directions.
The best that we can do here is try to provide easy convenient collector access
out to Ustick Road and that’s what we are trying to do in this design. The most
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 66
convenient route for them will be to take the collector and not to cut through
there, but technically, it’s not cut through traffic because this is a continuation of
Moon Lake Drive, because these developments were built around that golf
course, these streets are very long and they don’t take a lot of bends, which is
not good, because people can drive fast. The appropriate way that we try to
design our subdivisions is to put 90° turns in the streets so people have to slow
down. Create some four way intersections that have a four way stop, so
everybody slows down. My recommendation is I don’t know if you want a stop
sign or will in the future, you are probably going to want to be one of those
streets that the neighbors want speed humps, the way it looks on paper and if
people drive the speeds that you claim that they do. It’s happened throughout
the county and the highway district doesn’t like to put them in, but if you want it
or you agree to pay for it, then they will assist you, that’s what I’ve been told. I
don’t know what to do about this site, there is just not—we have no flexibility with
the sewer, the water already being in a Moon Lake Drive, there was no other
deviations other than to reduce the density, which we’ve done. As far as building
the street to the north right now, can’t be done, this project—this property is not
annexed, nor is it zoned. So therefore, the hearing process for this will take a
long time. This property here was a separate parcel already annexed, already
zoned, therefore that’s why we split them apart. We realized this would take
more work, would process far longer than this. It’s just not practical to say you
can’t –you can’t make any connections to these public streets. As far as
construction traffic, we can recommend that construction traffic not come down
your street and track mud and so forth up and down the street. We’ve done that
where we’ve had the developer put up signs that says you know, any
contractors, you know please don’t use that street. Try to get them there another
way that they don’t disrupt it. I will discuss that with the developer and see what
can be done so we don’t burden you with the construction traffic. As far as the
notice, as the city attorney indicated the state law it’s not just the Ordinance, but
the state law has that 300 foot rule and they don’t deviate from it. I guess lastly, I
just want to thank Mr. Ashenbrenner for speaking tonight, because it’s hard for
us to get the districts opinions across to the cities and the counties and I hope he
wasn’t offended by what I said about the district, the district is not difficult to deal
with, the district just doesn’t like when the cities and the counties won’t listen to
their concerns and the liability issue has been a problem. I get into trouble when
a city dictates to me that I shall do a pathway, or I shall put in a pedestrian bridge
and hen I have to go to them and say but they are making me. I’m caught
between two jurisdictions with two concerns and this liability issue has been a
burden. I would recommend to the city to please try and solve this issue so we
are all working as a team. I hope I didn’t imply that the district is against
pathways, they are against accepting the liability of the pathways as Mr.
Ashenbrenner said, so I want to clarify that, thanks.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 67
MacCoy: Thanks. Where are you going Becky, are you leaving some place?
First place, commissioners do you have any questions or discussions or
something with Becky here before we let her go sit down.
Borup: I have none.
MacCoy: Now we still have a public hearing and you raised your voice.
Unidentified: First I just want to repeat that this drawing is everything that we
asked for last time. Again, we are concerned about property that the same
owner owns, that we are asking for some other things on. The question that I
had though is the City Council meeting of October 6, 1998, Item No. 6 was a
public hearing annexation and zoning of 36.71 acres for proposed Wilkins Ranch
At The Lakes Subdivision by Steiner, that was not only this 14 acres, but the
other 30 some that goes all the way to Ustick. At that time, the entire 36.71
acres was annexed, was zoned R-4, so that part of the process has already
been done, they approved it.
Stiles: The property has not been annexed into the City of Meridian. The
Ordinance…
Unidentified: They approved it at the meeting.
Stiles: At a City Council meeting?
Unidentified: Yeah.
Stiles: There is an Ordinance on there?
Unidentified: 36.71 acres for the proposed Wilkins Ranch At The Lake.
Stiles: Is there an Ordinance number there?
Unidentified: This is October 6, 1998, I don’t know the number.
Rossman: You are looking at an agenda sir, was it approved? Do you have an
ordinance number?
Unidentified: Yes it was. I did not write down the ordinance number. There were
three items that came up at the same time, the annexation and zoning, the
preliminary plat and the conditional use. They passed the annexation and
zoning of all 36.71 acres, they denied the preliminary plat and they denied the
conditional use, but they did annex the whole 36.71, I think.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 68
Bowcutt: I can answer that question, after that happened, he is correct, that is
what transpired at the meeting, the discussion then arose is it appropriate for us
to—what are we going to put in the development agreement if we have no
preliminary plat or development plan attached to this annexation and rezone. I
believe Mr. Gigray wrote a pretty long memo recommending that either one the
City Council not annex it or two that the applicant get with staff and come up
with some type of compromise and resubmit something. I was retained to go to
the City Council, we basically stated that we felt, I felt it was inappropriate to
annex and zone at the R-4 without a development plan, I asked that they remand
us back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and that we would pay all the
necessary processing fees and we would completely redesign it.
Rossman: So an Ordinance hasn’t been approved?
Bowcutt: An Ordinance was never approved. It was technically kicked back to
you guys. We have yet to resubmit.
Rossman: So what she is saying when the City Council hears the application
they may indicate at the hearing that they are going to approve it, but until they
approve an actual Ordinance it is not an annexation, which the Ordinance has
not been done.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: All right, we’ve come down to the end of the public hearing, it looks
like, back to the commissioners. Do you want to continue the public hearing or
do you want to close it or what is your desire?
De Weerd: Does staff have any further comments?
Stiles: I don’t. No.
De Weerd: I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: What’s your motion for action?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend approval of request for preliminary
plat for Lakes At Cherry Lane, incorporate all staff comments.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 69
MacCoy: And anything else?
Borup: Not unless someone has something to add.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Public comments will be included in the findings, but I don’t know
(Inaudible).
Rossman: Public comments are made part of the record, we are talking about
conditions of approval at this point.
MacCoy: We are just taking care of what you think we’ve been talking about
here. You’ve made your statement, is there a second to this statement?
De Weerd: Could you attach to that the noticing that construction vehicles will
not…
MacCoy: That’s pretty hard to do.
Rossman: Hard on a preliminary plat approval.
De Weerd: Okay.
MacCoy: We turned that thing down once before on another job here about six
months ago.
Borup: I think things can be done to maybe recommend, but to require it,
that’s—you can’t control that many different …
De Weerd: Okay, to recommend.
MacCoy: Okay, you can do that.
Barbeiro: So that would be a recommendation to the developer in the
conditional permit? I second the motion.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Borup: Was that an amended motion? Did we add that to the motion, what did
you second?
Rossman: It was an amended motion to include the recommendation that they
require construction vehicles to take an alternative route.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 70
MacCoy: It was added to yours, now there is a second made on what you said
and what (Inaudible).
Borup: So we are ready to vote?
MacCoy: If you have no more discussion, yes.
Borup: I have none.
MacCoy: All right, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Thank you Becky for your lengthy discussion and our guidance and
keeping your cool. The public is leaving, thank you all for showing up today and
making your statement.
ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING BY
BILL & PAT GEYER – NE CORNER OF WILSON & LOCUST GROVE:
MacCoy: This item is to be moved to the May 11.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for the
request of conditional use permit for Bill & Pat Geyer to May 11.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING
OF 6.15 ACRES (FOR R-40 ZONING) FOR PROPOSED COBBLESTONE
VILLAGE BY STAMAS CORPORATION / IONIC ENTERPRISE INC. –
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE & FRANKLIN:
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for the
request for annexation and zoning of 6.1 acres for the proposed Cobblestone
Village to May 11.
Barbeiro: I’ll second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 71
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY, 96 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING FOR
PROPOSED COBBLESTONE VILLAGE BY STAMAS CORPORATION / IONIC
ENTERPRISE INC. – SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE &
FRANKLIN:
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for the
request for conditional use permit for a multi-family 96 unit apartment building for
Cobblestone Village to May 11.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 14: SIGN REVIEW: RC WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS – NE
CORNER OF FRANKLIN RD & EAGLE RD:
MacCoy: Is the applicant here to talk for RC Willey?
DAN CONNELLY, 6528 SUPPLY WAY, BOISE, ID.
Connelly: I didn’t know what to expect from a sign review, I didn’t know what
exactly to bring as far as preparation to show the commission.
De Weerd: Do you have the sign?
Connelly: Do I have the sign with me? It’s in my car. I did take some time to do
a little survey of the location surrounding Franklin and Eagle there. I don’t know
if I could submit these photographs for review or not?
MacCoy: If you do then they become property of the city.
Connelly: You can have them, I have a copy.
MacCoy: Let him have them first.
Connelly: The first picture is a photograph of RC Willey’s location, their sign that
exists in Salt Lake City. It is a 58 foot pylon sign and I submitted that specifically
to show that they are not asking for anything out of the ordinary, that they don’t
have at other locations currently. I think RC Willey is being pretty considerate
with the size and location and the scale of the landscaping, the building, the
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 72
showroom alone is 100,000 square feet, the landscaping they’re going to—
approximately 90 trees. The two roads that will represent access to the building,
I know they’re for the building and for commercial, future commercial
development. I don’t know exactly the percentage of the bill that RC Willey will
be footing for those roads, but I know that they are taking a substantial
investment to build those roads. I think by representation of those photographs,
you can see the visibility problem that that location presents, kind of sunk down
on the hill between Franklin and Eagle.
MacCoy: You are planning on having a sign similar to this on the face of that
building by the way?
Connelly: The only other sign that I know of on the building right now that they
have planned is being done by the developing contractor which is Laten City.
They are, there is a giant archway in the front of the building, they are going to
put, basically it’s kind of similar to a billboard. It’s a (Inaudible) that’s going to
arch over that. That’s the only other sign that they are going to have. They
would like this large pylon sign somewhere situated near the corner of Franklin
and Eagle and they would also like to have two smaller directional signs at the
entry way of Lanark Street and also Godians Street.
MacCoy: All right, staff?
Stiles: Dan could you tell us what the difference between the elevation is
between where you are proposing to put this sign and where the building is.
Connelly: Directly at the corner of Franklin and Eagle—the setback required,
what they want to do is from center line, ITD is requiring a 70 foot setback off of
Eagle Road. Until you get to 150 feet north on Eagle Road, it jumps up to 100
foot setback from center line on Eagle, which would basically push the sign
almost into the parking lot. So they don’t want to go back further than that 150
feet. They would like to stay approximately at 100 feet if we can, which would
drop the elevation from the corner to that 100 feet they probably would loose
approximately 15 feet in elevation. I don’t have a topographic map to really.
Barbeiro: 50 feet elevation?
Connelly: 15.
Stiles: I would just like to point out that although a development agreement was
never entered into, a development agreement was required as a condition of the
annexation. There was also another interesting condition of the annexation was
that besides the site plan review which is why you are looking at this now, site
plan review was a requirement. They also agreed as part of the annexation that
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 73
they would comply with the amended Ordinance that has never been amended,
but they agreed to comply with all those conditions whatever they might be.
Connelly: I guess my question would be to that is how can they comply to an
amendment that doesn’t exist?
De Weerd: Perhaps we could create on tonight.
Borup: Ready for questions?
MacCoy: Not yet, I’m waiting to hear. Shari do you have anything else?
Stiles: Other than to request an emergency moratorium on these types of signs.
MacCoy: Okay, all right, commissioners?
Borup: I don’t know if you know the answer to these, but these are a couple of
height relationship questions I have, in the photos you gave us, one you showed
the billboard that was on the north side. Do you know what the height of that is?
Connelly: The approximate height of that I couldn’t tell for sure, I would guess it
is about 40 feet.
Borup: That’s to the top of the billboard? Do you know the height of the pole
that is holding the signal lights?
Connelly: Most poles I believe for traffic signals are 40 to 45 feet.
Borup: That’s to the top of the pole, not where the signals are?
Connelly: To the top of the pole.
Borup: What’s the elevation difference between what the signal pole would be
and where your sign would be located? Is that the 15 feet you were talking
about?
Connelly: As far as the setback from Eagle or Franklin?
(END OF TAPE)
Connelly: Setback from Franklin Road heading north, they are requesting a 100
foot setback.
Borup: You said the elevation drops…
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 74
Connelly: It’s approximately 15 foot a drop.
Borup: About 15 feet?
Connelly: Uh-hmm. That includes the…
Borup: That would put the sign about five feet above the signal pole.
Connelly: Approximately yeah. They would loose that 15 feet, so basically they
would have from the elevation of the intersection, they would have a 45
(Inaudible).
MacCoy: This one here, these are the small signs here.
De Weerd: So from street level it’s 45 feet high?
Connelly: Approximately yes. I think the consideration that they are looking
for—I think you can see through those photographs, the building is basically
invisible until you are right on top of it, in any direction. Heading south on
Franklin is probably the best visibility that you are going to get. Approximately
1600 feet down the road is when you first start to see the building. The only sign
that is really visible front of the building is visible from the intersection, looking
southwest.
Barbeiro: Granted that you weren’t involved in the design of the building, but
certainly they were overly aware of the big drop.
Connelly: They were, and they did do their homework, they investigated the sign
code, which realizing there was none, I think they could’ve asked for a lot more.
They just kind of asked basically for what they were accustomed to for their other
locations. Not being a sign code, I don’t think they saw that that would be a
problem. Initially I called Meridian City and spoke with Brad and Shari both
before dropping off the application, because I wasn’t sure I wanted to bid on it. I
wasn’t sure if it was going to work. I didn’t get any negative response at all.
They said submit it and we will see what happens. I think with RC Willey what
they did, they did do their homework and looked up and found out that there was
no sign code, they didn’t see a problem with getting a sign that they were
accustomed to getting at all their other locations.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? Is this illuminated then?
Connelly: It is illuminated, the top pylon (Inaudible) is illuminated with fluorescent
tubing interior.
De Weerd: Do you feel it’s compatible with the neighboring developments?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 75
Connelly: Existing, no. I mean it’s a large sign, representing a very large
development. I think kind of what I mentioned basically the two roads that
they’ve put in to accommodate traffic for this location. With those roads going in,
the back area there, which is now agricultural is without a doubt going to be
commercial in no time at all. I know that is a future consideration, probably not
pertinent right now.
Barbeiro: Are you—will the sign be on during all evening hours?
Connelly: No, it will basically run on a timer and it will just come on when it’s
dark. Dusk to dawn.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman we have a number of homes in that area and since this
is if I’m not mistaken a fairly bright sign, I don’t believe any of those residents are
aware such a large bright sign may be going up in their backyard.
MacCoy: I realize that, that’s what you are here for to decide that. You say it’s
neon lit…
Connelly: Fluorescent tubes sir.
MacCoy: Fluorescent tubes only, it’s not going to be…
Connelly: There is no exposed neon, it’s not…
MacCoy: No flashing signs, no—we’ve had our take on that over that Texaco
Station. We don’t know how that got in there, but we don’t as a committee…
Connelly: As a reference, that Texaco sign is 72 feet.
MacCoy: We realize that, because Chevron has come back with a 100 foot.
We are researching that one right now too.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: I remember during the discussion with RC Willey that we had talked
about monument signs of the type because we didn’t have a code which we told
our displeasure with large pole signs and so on. They listened, they said what
can you recommend? We went back and said again, pylon signs type of thing.
Your smaller sign is 3’ 6” and that kind of fits in that category. So that’s not a real
problem to us. Of course the location of those don’t appear to be too bad either.
I think our big problem is going to be the tall sign, which you probably recognize
that to begin with. I just got a question from the standpoint that you have that tall
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 76
of a sign on Franklin—that sign is to what, just traffic on Franklin the fact that you
see them coming up on Franklin going west?
Connelly: I think considering traffic on Franklin and Eagle both, the building is so
hard to see down on that little cubby hole, there really is no representation for
anybody, until they are right at the intersection almost.
MacCoy: I beg to differ with you, if you come up Franklin going west I can see at
a pretty good distance away and I look at the face of that building which we had
assumed, and we had heard there was going to be a sign in front of that building.
So right there I can see the building. It’s when I get to the last couple hundred
feet to the intersection that it becomes out of view. At least by the time I’ve seen
it, I know where I’m going, so I’ll go back down. If you are coming down on
Eagle, because of the location and we have discussed this in great detail about
the location of that building, we had at one time a commissioner who wanted to
move the building up deeper towards Eagle-Franklin area. We as a commission
said no we agreed with your company, or the company that is building this that it
would be better if it was sucked back away as you came off of Eagle, it was like a
gem right there, with that thing lit, you couldn’t miss it. So we felt right away he
had a real good mark for education of everybody who was driving that way that
that’s who he is and that’s where he is located. So monument signs seem to be
appropriate for that. I’m not sitting here to tell you yea or nay, because that is
going to be a commission decision here, but I’ll just tell you that the pole sign of
the type here, 60 ft in height is going to be a problem, we are going to have to
review and to understand how that fits in.
De Weerd: May I ask a question? Who are you trying to attract? The people
just coming off the freeway, or just the traffic driving by?
Connelly: RC Willey is an enormous store, the show room alone is 100,000
square feet, landscaping, parking, they’ve got their storage, they’ve got a
installation area for stereos and things like that. The size of the location, the
amount of volume they are going to have to produce to support that, I mean,
every Saturday and Sunday there is going to be flyers in the paper, you are
going to see people coming in from Ontario, Payette, Twin Falls, there is nothing
like this in the area. This is an enormous location. So I believe what they try to
represent not only as a marquee, which is their corporate identity, it’s this large
pylon sign. I mean they don’t have to build the large pylon cover for the pole, but
that’s the identity that they have. By doing that, at that corner, there is no entry
way to the location. All the locations are down the road approximately 1,000 feet
either direction from where the sign is going to go on Lanark and then I think it’s
Godians. So there is no way to note those entry ways. If you just have a small
marquee, people are going to drive by and probably be looking for the location.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 77
De Weerd: Without changing any width or anything, does it necessarily have to
be that high if it stood out about the size of the traffic arm that the lights are on,
perhaps a little bit above that, would that not be adequate?
Connelly: I think RC Willey asked for 60 feet simply because they wanted that
visibility in all directions. They want a large marquee sign for the investment that
they have put into the building. I think they have definitely shown a willingness to
compromise, they are not looking to push anything—like I said, you know when
they originally saw that there was no sign code, they could’ve asked for the sky
and the moon.
De Weerd: Not when you say that it has to be compatible with the surrounding
areas. That’s kind of the point that we can make our decisions on if it’s
compatible.
Connelly: I know, I know that, but RC Willey’s initial thought process on what
they were going to do for signage, they didn’t see a sign code, so they just
assumed they could use their existing sign criteria that they had used at their
other locations.
De Weerd: You have to start somewhere huh?
MacCoy: I have a question about—talked about seeing it from the freeway,
which freeway are you talking about now? You have to remember that ST. Lukes
is where it is right now…
Connelly: I don’t think there is any freeway visibility.
Borup: I think he saying traffic coming off the freeway.
Connelly: I think there is going to be a lot of Eagle…
MacCoy: Where is that going to be? That’s Eagle. You are heading down that
hill and as soon as you get to that intersection you see that building, you can’t
miss that building.
Connelly: There is a photograph in there from 100 foot back from the
intersection, you can see the top of the building, at 100 foot back. So if there is a
wall of traffic there, which there very frequently is, you are going to move through
that traffic before you even see the building.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman may I ask a question of staff? Shari, if we want to play
compatibility, just down the street a new Shopko is going in, do we have a
request for sign from Shopko as a comparison?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 78
Stiles: They do have several pylon signs that were approved as part of the site
plan there. They have agreed to limit those signs to no more than 25 feet.
Barbeiro: What I’m making note of, just by chance you happen to have Shopko
in the background of the sign. What I’m seeing is Shopko on a couple of poles
versus this, which is a larger and if we were to put a sign up on poles where you
don’t have that large structure, but you have a sign. I’m trying to get a feel for
that.
Connelly: I know the original location was in Laten City. Laten City has a sign
criteria of you can not have exposed poles. They have a pylon cover rule, similar
to what Boise has. I think they just built upon that.
Borup: Do you know the height of that Shopko?
Connelly: That one is 45 feet—of the Shopko sign? No, I have no idea.
De Weerd: That sign is 45 feet, which is, that’s street level.
Connelly: So basically if we moved it back 100 feet north on Eagle and then our
70 foot ITD setback toward east on Franklin we’d probably have about a 45 foot
sign by the time it was visually—from the intersection.
MacCoy: Of course on your side of the fence, I have to agree that by building it
this way, it’s more of a balanced sign than setting this big top on a pole. To me it
would be appealing itself. I’m more in favor, if you were to look for a sign is to
have it on a pedestal of this type, but I think our problem is going to be the
height.
De Weerd: That’s a good thing that you have a big building so it doesn’t hide
behind your sign.
Connelly: I think there is going to be a lot of trees, I haven’t seen the exact
placement for the landscaping. I talked to Brad about this as well, if RC Willey
would be willing maybe to incorporate some of the landscaping around the
bottom of the sign.
Barbeiro: You could plant some Sequoias.
De Weerd: I think it’s too high, I would like to see it scaled down as far as the
height goes, so that it sits perhaps a little bit above the traffic arms. Do you know
how high that is? Do you know how high the traffic arms are?
Connelly: The actual arms I believe are pretty much parallel with the top of the
sign. So I would guess between 40 and 45 feet.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 79
Borup: No, he meant the extensions.
Connelly: The extensions.
Borup: I mean if the overall is 40, it looks like the lights may be about 20, if
that’s close to proportion.
Connelly: I thought they were kind of reasonably equal.
Borup: It looks like it’s half way up the pole. The comment that I would have Mr.
Chairman, there is over 2,000 feet of frontage here and they are only asking for
one sign, unless you count the 3.5 footers, which aren’t, those are directional
signs. As far as, I compare this and look what you’ve got on 2,000 feet of
Cherry—Fairview coming into town as far as the amount of signs.
MacCoy: Doesn’t say you have to like it.
Borup: I know, but I don’t know that it’s out of place for this big of a location. I
do think they need something that is going to be able to be seen away, I don’t
know that we need 60 feet necessarily. As Tammy was saying, something that
would get above the light. Another ten feet less I think would be still be as
visible. I don’t know that it’s out of proportion with the size of property that they
have here and figure 2,000 feet of frontage and some landscaping around the
bottom would soften that a little bit too.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman would it be inappropriate to request that the sign be
turned off at midnight or is that out of our realm?
MacCoy: We do have some leeway, we told some places, in fact this recent one
down in Crossroads, we said no more trucking after a certain hour. So there is
that possibility we can put stipulations in there.
Borup: I think that the concern—I think from a residential aspect would be if the
brightness is over so many—is it lumens or foot-candles?
Connelly: The foot-candles.
Borup: Is that going to be in the new sign ordinance?
MacCoy: Yep.
Barbeiro: We have an expert here on foot-candles from a distance.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 80
Connelly: I really couldn’t really tell you exactly how many foot-candles this
sign would produce on the residential. I think the corner-northwest corner has a
residential building on it. Then there is the new commercial location on the
southwest and then there is a vacant lot on the southeast and then RC Willey of
course on the northeast. So I think the only person or area that would be
effected by it would be that northwest corner.
Barbeiro: My concern going back to the northwest corner, having built a Target
in Utah and the resident just below the sign of the site light asked us to all come
to his home after dark and closed the shades and it was as bright as daylight in
his house and we had to go back and change all the lights and the sign.
Borup: What type of lighting was that?
Barbeiro: It was parking lot lighting along with the Target sign.
Borup: What type of sign was that? Was that a back lit, interior lit? Lighted
sign?
De Weerd: Well fortunately these residents aren’t going to see the parking lot
lights.
MacCoy: They are down below.
Barbeiro: The concern that if they come back and say that is awfully bright and
they ask you to go to their house at night and it’s like daylight.
MacCoy: Well I worry about that very fact out there (Inaudible).
Connelly: I think, I mean RC Willey, like I said they have shown a willingness to
compromise as far as a willingness to compromise as far as setback. They want
the 60 feet, I’m sure they would compromise a little bit on that. If there was a
certain amount of time during the evening that you want the sign shut off, say
midnight to 4:00.
Borup: Is that an option?
Barbeiro: You can build that into your sign.
Connelly: You can put a step down transformer in there which would run off a
switch which would drop the illumination, because everything is 277, so if we ran
a step down to 110 we could possibly do that.
De Weerd: So it’s dimmer during those periods. Okay, I’m ready.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 81
Borup: We’ve been looking at them (Inaudible).
De Weerd: Okay, so do we need a motion on this?
Stiles: Yes I would like that.
De Weerd: I guess I will state my intentions first, so if anyone wants to discuss it
they can. I would like to see a reduction in the height of 10 feet so the varied top
is not 60 feet, but 50 feet. That would put it 35 feet above street level, which is
somewhat consistent with the billboard down the street. That there would be
landscaping around the base and that the illumination during the midnight to 5:00
would be reduced to 110.
Connelly: Commissions recommendation, I’ll just run it by RC Willey and see
how they feel. I don’t think they will have too much concern about it.
Barbeiro: Nothing on the pillar is illuminated, right? It’s all painted?
MacCoy: What is it? Sheet metal?
Connelly: It’s actually (Inaudible).
De Weerd: So how does it sound commissioners?
Borup: That sounds good to me. I think that’s a good compromise.
De Weerd: Staff do you have any comments?
Stiles: Including the 100 foot setback that they proposed so it’s not right at the
corner?
Borup: I thought that was what they were already proposing.
(Inaudible)
Borup: So make them do what they want? You are right, it’s not on the plat.
Shari’s point is that it’s not drawn on a plat that way, isn’t that it?
De Weerd: With a 100 foot setback or the recommended setback, whatever that
was.
Connelly: 100 from north bound, then 70 was the ITD setback that we had gone
off of from the center line of Eagle.
Barbeiro: Wow, this is going to set a major precedence.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 82
MacCoy: Wait a minute, let me see. You’ve got on your map here it
shows…you’re speaking of setback is down on Eagle side.
Connelly: Uh-hmm, heading north on Eagle 100 feet. (Inaudible)
Borup: The setback for the 100 feet from Franklin 70 from Eagle.
Connelly: 70 feet east from Eagle and then 100 foot north from Franklin.
Stiles: From the new right-of-way.
Borup: I thought it was from the center line.
Connelly: The 70 foot…
Stiles: That would be at the property line.
Borup: Oh, that’s true. Repeat the setback again.
Connelly: 100 feet north from Franklin.
Borup: North of what?
Connelly: North of Franklin.
Borup: North of the Franklin?
MacCoy: Property line I guess.
Connelly: From the property line.
Borup: So it would be north of the Franklin right-of-way.
Connelly: Then 70 foot east from Eagle. We marked off from what ITD gave us,
which was center line.
Borup: You’ve only got 30 feet written there. I’d put it down the street.
Stiles: It hasn’t made a setback.
Borup: But you are saying 70—what’s, 70 feet from the right-of-way on Eagle?
Connelly: 70 feet from the center line on Eagle is what ITD requires.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 83
Stiles: That’s a right-of-way line. That’s the edge of the property, that’s no
setback.
Borup: You are saying you are proposing putting your sign 70 feet from the
center line?
Connelly: That’s what I went over with ITD and that’s what they agreed to and
that’s what I marked on the site plan. I haven’t heard anything about extended
setback from that as of yet.
De Weerd: Which is 30 feet then from the property line?
MacCoy: Looks like a property line here.
Borup: Edge of road and right-of-way are not the same. I don’t know what there
is on Eagle.
De Weerd: But we need to get this right for our motion. So…
Connelly: I’m sorry, so is that 70 foot from ITD, is that to property line?
Borup: So that’s a 140 foot right-of-way on Eagle? Okay. So are you sure ITD
wasn’t saying you’ve got to be beyond 70 feet.
Connelly: That’s what they require, that’s what they asked me.
Borup: Oh okay, yeah, because you are out of their right-of-way, they don’t care
what happens beyond their right-of-way. Well, the question is how far from your
property line.
MacCoy: He says 30 feet here.
Borup: No…
Stiles: If it falls over it won’t hit anyone.
Borup: That says 30 feet from the center line on the plat.
Barbeiro: Property line—I think property line is ambiguous. What we can all
visualize is edge of pavement. Can you tell me where the sign will be from…
Connelly: From edge of existing pavement, what I walked off when I marked off
the site plan was 100 foot back…
Borup: From the pavement?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 84
Connelly: From the pavement on Franklin.
Borup: Oh on Franklin, I think we are okay on Franklin.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: We are trying to figure out Eagle.
Connelly: I will listen to commission on that, I don’t know what your required
setback is going to be from ITD’s required setback, which is public right-of-way.
Barbeiro: What is your current proposal.
Connelly: Right at ITD’s setback.
Borup: So you are saying right on the property line?
Connelly: I thought that was the conditioned setback, I didn’t realize that was the
property line there.
Barbeiro: So the way that you have it laid out now, how far off of edge of
pavement from Eagle Road will the sign be?
Connelly: Approximately 30 feet.
De Weerd: So 30 feet from the property line? From the pavement. What if the
pavement edge changes?
MacCoy: It’s going to change.
Stiles: It will, they are going to have to put in sidewalks too.
Borup: They are talking, they are proposing an urban interchange there.
Barbeiro: The urban interchange was on (Inaudible) Eagle…
Borup: The discussion on this intersection came up way before Fairview.
De Weerd: What is the landscaping buffer?
Stiles: 35 feet.
De Weerd: From what?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 85
Stiles: From the new property line. That’s all landscaping, a minimum of 35 feet.
De Weerd: So if they wanted to put it in the middle of that, they would have to be
at least a minimum of 15 feet setback from the property line.
Connelly: So it would be the 70 foot from center line and then another 15?
MacCoy: This is the one you are talking about aren’t you?
Borup: She is saying that would be a minimum.
Stiles: Or you could acquire another 35 feet, there is nothing to say that we have
to allow a (Inaudible) within the 35 feet.
Connelly: That puts us like at the middle of the parking lot almost.
De Weerd: But if we want it in the middle of the landscaping with trees to soften
the base, it really needs to be placed in the landscaping.
MacCoy: Directional sign.
De Weerd: What is the drop for your landscaping?
Connelly: The landscaping drop is pretty significant. Once you get off the berm
from the road kind of comes in and it really drops down to the parking lot area.
They have excavated that whole area, really carved it out. So there is a pretty
significant drop.
Borup: We’ve had a topo here before when we looked at a landscaping plan.
That would’ve been the time to have the sign, when we looked at the
landscaping and everything.
De Weerd: Well, because we want to make sure that drop wherever the sign is,
is 15 feet so we don’t have 15 additional feet.
Borup: I think it’s going to be more the way this is going. Can we state it that we
are talking top of the sign at 40 feet from the intersection grade?
De Weerd: We have it at 35 feet. If you drop it 10 feet and it’s 15 feet to the…
Borup: We started at 60 now we’ve dropped to 15, okay, 50—yeah 35 we are at
35 right now then aren’t we? You’re right.
De Weerd: So placement could be dependent on the height of the sign. Does
that make any sense?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 86
Connelly: So basically, if we move it another 30 feet east we might as well have
a monument sign.
Borup: No, we are saying if you move it another 30 feet east, we will let you
raise it.
De Weerd: Just no more than 35 feet above the street level.
Borup: No more than 35 feet above the intersection height.
Connelly: Is that too hard to administer?
Borup: No, I mean you take an instrument out there, shoot it.
MacCoy: Survey it.
Borup: It’s not that big of a deal.
De Weerd: Yeah, if we get it far enough back, then you can have your whole 60
feet.
Borup: So are we saying we want it to be 15 or 20 feet inside of the property
line?
De Weerd: Well no, because we don’t know what kind of grade that is.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Does anybody have a file here with the topographic plat?
Stiles: They didn’t plat it. Oh, Porky Park.
Borup: Several months ago we saw it.
MacCoy: What’s the sign width being faced with 26 feet? What’s…
Connelly: What was the standard for that? Just their existing signage that they
have at other locations.
MacCoy: Pretty good sized sign.
Borup: ITD’s setback standard, are they looking at a vertical distance that they
want outside of that right-of-way or the base, or was that even discussed?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 87
Connelly: That would be to the edge of the sign to that right-of-way. So basically
the sign, the way we have it proposed now the sign…
Borup: That’s not much different—that’s only two feet different than what we are
already talking.
Connelly: Yeah, because basically the edge of the sign and the center of the
sign is 13 apart.
(Inaudible)
Borup: You are saying at least 15-17.5 to be in the middle of the landscaping
buffer?
De Weerd: I was just talking height at street level.
Borup: No I mean you were talking about having a sign within the landscaping
setback.
De Weerd: Well yeah, if you are going to soften it with trees you have to have…
Borup: So that wouldn’t be in the middle of that 35 feet?
De Weerd: It would need to be at least so the trees don’t overhang into the right-
of-way.
Connelly: Pretty much where it is now it’s basically centered in the landscaped
area.
Borup: 15 feet from the street right-of-way is only two more feet than ITD
requires. Does that sound workable?
De Weerd: So what is that?
Borup: 15 feet in to the center of the sign, that’s only two feet more than ITD’s
requirement. That gets you good solid in the berm or in the landscaping setback.
By the time you move in that far, you don’t know what the grade will be, so this
35 feet above the intersection sound reasonable, then the sign can be adjusted
to whatever it takes to hit that grade. Visually that’s what we’ve all been looking
at is grade above the intersection and 35 feet is going to get it above the stop
light arms and below the top of the post.
Barbeiro: It’s going to be more visibly (Inaudible)
Connelly: The only thing I would be…
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 88
Borup: Depending on how far, the example that I would look at is a McDonalds
sign over here E. 1st
going out of town, I never notice that when I’m driving down
the street, the only time I see it is from the freeway, because it’s too tall.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Driving down the street, those are the ones that you see, the tall ones
you don’t see when you are in town. I think this sign, I think you are looking
somewhere in between the two, you are not looking at the freeway far distance.
Connelly: The reason they are asking for so many feet is because of that
setback and the drop in the landscaping. I think one of the concerns that I might
have with what we are talking about now is the fact that we put the sign up and
you tell me it’s 45 or it’s 40 feet above the intersection, you’ve got to drop it
down. It’s going to be pretty tough without doing a full blown schematic on the
location to figure out where to set it as far as elevation.
Barbeiro: Once you decide where to set it, you pick your point…
Borup: Then you adjust your height.
Barbeiro: You know your elevation of point, you know your elevation at center of
intersection, subtract that, add 35 and your there.
Connelly: I’m saying visually I’m sure we can get it very close, but I mean is it
going to be—you are asking for 35 feet and it comes up, somebody goes out
there and surveys it and it’s 36.5.
De Weerd: Then you are in big trouble.
Barbeiro: No, but I don’t think this is a difficult problem, because when you go to
set your pylo—or your base, you will know top of base…
MacCoy: You will have to.
Barbeiro: That is an absolute elevation, you will know your intersection point. So
you tell your concrete guy to set me a base at—assuming that your intersection
is at 100, that base would be 65 because I can’t go any more than 35 feet above
that…
De Weerd: Okay, we are ready to take a stab at this motion Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: What do you want to say?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 89
De Weerd: Okay, I would like to move to approve the RC Willey sign with the
following conditions that it be 100 feet off Franklin right-of-way, 15 feet from the
property line on the Eagle side, have landscaping at the base, reduce the
candle—
Barbeiro: Brightness.
De Weerd: The foot-candles to 110? To reduce it…
Barbeiro: Dim the lights.
De Weerd: You dim the lights between—unless anyone has any comments on
that, midnight and 5. Limit the sign height to no more than 35 feet above street
level at the intersection.
Borup: At the intersection of Franklin and Eagle?
De Weerd: Um-hmm.
Barbeiro: You did include 35 feet?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: I second that. There may be some flexibility on the hours, I don’t know if
it does any good to have a lighted (Inaudible) from 5 to 6, whose around that
cares then? I assume her motion be assuming no earlier than 5.
MacCoy: You can do it even from a standing point of store hours, if the store
stays open to midnight, which I don’t think they are going to do that, they
probably close at 10 when the store closed, they could dim the light.
Connelly: I would imagine if they at a rare point they had like a 24 hour sale or
something like that, they may be able to leave it burning.
MacCoy: That would be a good indicator for them.
Connelly: It would be a pretty rare circumstance I would imagine.
Borup: But you still have got traffic till midnight.
MacCoy: I was thinking from the standpoint that would be a marker, you could
say when the store hours…
Borup: So long after the store hours close, one hour, two hours.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 90
De Weerd: Well, did I get a second and is this part of the condition, do I want to
amend my motion, or did you second? Okay, well if in discussion you want me to
amend to store hours, I would certainly be willing to do that.
MacCoy: I just made a suggestion.
De Weerd: It’s a great one.
Borup: Well, I would say two or three hours. Two hours past closing time.
MacCoy: You could say one hour, what’s two hours (Inaudible).
De Weerd: Well, the whole reason they want their sign.
Connelly: We don’t know what the store hours are.
Borup: I don’t know if it matters that much.
MacCoy: It may.
Connelly: If they have a sale, they say store hours are till midnight, then what?
De Weerd: Then it’s lit till midnight.
Connelly: No, if you say two hours after closing or one hour after closing, it’s till
one or two o’clock. I think they are going to turn it off. They are not going to be
open on Sundays.
Barbeiro: There is more money for you.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: I have no more discussion. Question.
MacCoy: Okay, you made a motion, got it seconded. You have had your
discussion. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Borup: Is there any questions on that for you?
Connelly: 100 foot back from Franklin right-of-way, 15 from the ITD right-of-way
off of Eagle, landscape base required, reduce light from 12-5 o’clock and then
approximately 35 feet.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 91
De Weerd: No approximate.
Barbeiro: Top of sign.
De Weerd: I said no more than.
Borup: If they can’t get it within a foot, you better get another contractor. What if
a building was foot off on their footing?
MacCoy: Okay are you ready to move to do number B2?
ITEM B2: 99-24-CU: GIUSEPPE VENEZIANO:
MacCoy: What is your desire on this one?
Borup: Question I had was what is the fire departments problem?
MacCoy: Not consistent if you look at this. There is one other one here and they
had something that’s not very far away from where this one is and they said
there is no problem.
Borup: It doesn’t look like a very good site for a coffee spot?
De Weerd: I thought that too.
Borup: But that’s up to them.
Barbeiro: Unless there is a lot of people there at the nursery are just looking
there for some coffee.
MacCoy: I just counted the fireman’s piece in here because of what I just said
about the property.
Borup: It is all commercial? That’s the proper zoning? It’s a county zoning.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: Staff, we want your comments on B2.
Stiles: Besides Mr. Voss’s eloquent remarks there, we are—I guess my biggest
problem would be the possible signage that might be popping up along Victory
and Meridian Road, it is an entrance corridor to our city. I’m thinking hand made
A-frame signs and…
MacCoy: Like we have for the exhaust people and pollution guy.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 92
Stiles: Espresso this away, or something like that.
MacCoy: We could do the same thing we did with the one that went into
Intermountain that was the same type of thing. It was self contained and we said
no signage. Signage would be strictly on the building.
Stiles: I don’t see anything that they’ve proposed anything. This is the existing
Joe Up and Go that’s down—that’s currently at Meridian and Overland Road.
That’s the only thing that I’m concerned is to write them a letter expressing our
concern.
Borup: Is he adding one or is he moving?
Stiles: He is moving, county took him to court, they’ve got an injunction against
him, they’ve got to move.
Barbeiro: Is this where the nursery is.
Borup: Maybe he ought to keep the thing on wheels so it will be easy to move
again.
MacCoy: He had better luck going into Intermountain parking lot.
Stiles: I can’t really tell from this whether they are proposing another access out
onto, they are showing a maintenance easement, but …
Borup: They are showing access onto Victory.
Stiles: I know but I just didn’t know if they since they do have some kind of an
existing driveway up there if they are going to be using that too or…
Borup: It looks like they are just tying in to me.
Stiles: I guess that’s up to the highway department to worry about. That’s the
only thing, along to—with to pass on the fire departments comments to say that
we are concerned about signage and ask that they not permit any temporary
signage on the property. All we can do is ask.
Borup: Temporary mean like the movable A-frames.
MacCoy: No A-frames, no sandwich boards.
Barbeiro: But he can put it on the building or on…
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 93
MacCoy: On his building, only his building.
Borup: So he wasn’t talking about unapproved construction going on in this
location, he was talking somewhere else down the street?
Stiles: No, he is talking about this location.
Borup: That’s had buildings that’s been added without permits?
Stiles: I think that little pump there is some kind of pump…
Borup: A pump house?
Stiles: No, it’s a pump sales or, I can’t remember what that name of that is.
Borup: Next to the nursery?
Stiles: Some kind of pump supply place.
MacCoy: Is that part of the nursery?
Stiles: It’s the same property, yeah.
MacCoy: This guys is really going out isn’t he?
Borup: I missed that one. They need a better sign.
De Weerd: So are they not in compliance even with county?
Stiles: I don’t know. I mean they rezoned it just in the last five years. It is a C-2
zone. I don’t know where they got, they must be getting building permits from
somebody, but maybe hasn’t signed off on the (Inaudible).
Borup: Oh, he’s just saying it hasn’t been approved, he’s saying that the county
hasn’t run this by the city maybe.
MacCoy: Not yet.
Borup: Well, they just started doing that within the last year.
Stiles: He had some issues with the fire requirements out there.
MacCoy: I don’t think the fire requirements are a problem, we should just say
something about the signage…
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 94
Borup: Sounds like Shari is all ready to do that.
Stiles: So we can direct staff to, order staff…
MacCoy: What do you want to say?
Borup: Do your sign thing.
De Weerd: I have to do a sign thing again?
Borup: No, Shari does.
MacCoy: It’s a—tell them what you want.
De Weerd: Please submit your regular sign letter. Please send them your
regular sign letter. You know like the school district does.
Stiles: This will house 40 more children.
MacCoy: Come on, I’ve got to have a motion here, what’s going to happen.
We’ve got to finish this off.
De Weerd: I move that we direct staff to submit a letter on this particular
application to address signage concerns.
Borup: Second that.
MacCoy: No discussion? None, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Did you get that Shari?
Stiles: Yes I did.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move we adjourn.
Barbeiro: I would second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:25 P.M.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1999
PAGE 95
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
_________________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK