1999 05-11MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 11, 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, Thomas
Barbeiro.
OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg.
MacCoy: Good evening. It’s now a little past the hour and everybody is in their seats
finally. Welcome to the City of Meridian’s Planning and Zoning meeting for the May 11th
1999 date. Commissioner Byron Smith will not be with us this evening. He’s on
company business and has been asked to be excused this evening. We still have a
quorum so we’ll continue on. On the agenda which you have probably picked up at the
door there I want to make two comments about these things. Item C has been
withdrawn by the company themselves, and item 2 has been withdrawn by the people
involved in that operation too. We don’t know when the future will be for either one of
these. So they will not be discussed this evening, so if you’re here for any one of those
two, well that’s one song for them right now. I’d like for all you people that are here
many of you may have been before this Planning and Zoning Board, and I’ll give you
the ground rules that we live by. I’ll go through and I’ll read off the agenda what the title
is and the means. I’ll request that staff to give us their input which everybody can hear
that. We have copies among us here, but I want you to hear what is pertinent for that
item and then we’ll ask the applicant to come forward and we give him 15 minutes
maximum to tell his story, and then after that has happened and we as commissioners
will ask him questions at the time. Then he’ll be seated and after that then I’ll ask for
those people who are for the agenda item and then when those people have been
forward, each of those people have five minutes to say their piece and I will ask that
you keep from having redundancy. If somebody is all ready said what you want to say,
you can forward and just say well I approve or I will go with so and so and let it go at
that. It will make our evening a lot easier that way because we have a long agenda
tonight and those then that are against that item will then be asked to come forward and
do the same thing. We’re going to take a break around 9:00 – 9:30 this evening and at
that time the commissioners will be polled as to how we look at the rest of the agenda
and we’ll come back and I will state how the rest of the evening will go. We’d like to
have this thing end between 10:00 and 10:30 and no 1:00 in the morning and we’ve
been here as commissioners at that time literally until 1:00 in the morning and nobody is
good at that time in the morning, neither you nor us. I’d like to do a fair job for
everybody. All right moving on looking at our agenda as posted. Item A part of our
consent agenda is the minutes of the previous meeting held April 13, 1999.
Commissioners, is there any corrections to this set of minutes?
Borup: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 2
MacCoy: Having no corrections, what’s the motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I move that we approve the minutes as presented.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: Item B on the consent agenda we have Ada Development Services. These
are new to us since the first of this year based on our state laws and item 1, let’s see.
I’ll give you a brief description as we get it from the County. It’s a 300 foot private road
to provide access to a future one time division of the property. The property contains
4.58 acres and is located at 4225 W. Cherry Lane in Meridian. Commissioners.
De Weerd: I have no problems with it.
Borup: I have none. I do have a question and staff has got a comment on that.
Because on that first item I did have a question mark. The other two – so that’s one we
may want to especially if staff has got input. We’d want to pull that off the consent
agenda and then proceed with the others.
MacCoy: Let me see if we have any comment right now.
Stiles: I guess my only comment if these are on the consent agenda, why are they not
just all approved right now? I mean if somebody wants to pull something off, but I
thought that was why it was the consent agenda so you take care of all of those at the
same time with one motion.
Rossman: Shari is absolutely correct. They’ve been put on the consent so that you
don’t have to address them and address the particulars of each one of these
applications and if someone wants to pull one off the consent agenda and seek staff
comments or seek input on it, they certainly can. But otherwise the intent was that we
just address these one at a time and without any additional comment absent someone’s
request to pull it off the consent agenda.
MacCoy: Thank you. That’s what I would like to do, but waiting for the attorney
decision. Okay, looking forward out of the consent agendas for B1, 2 and 3 is there any
of those that are a problem and you want to pull off?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to pull off number 3.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 3
MacCoy: Do I hear a second for that one?
De Weerd: Would you like to know why?
Borup: I don’t think she needs a second.
MacCoy: I don’t think they need a second either. I’m just going to say I would like to
know –
Rossman: She doesn’t need a second. It will be pulled off.
MacCoy: Yeah, just a matter of letting it go. All right then items B1, and B2 are no
problem with any of the commissioners?
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: Okay, what’s your position?
De Weerd: Well the staff direct a letter to Ada County saying we have no problem with
them.
MacCoy: Very good.
De Weerd: Or just no comment at all.
Rossman: Leave it to staff’s discretion I assume.
De Weerd: Yes, thank you.
MacCoy: Thank you. We’ve already mentioned C. We move on to the regular agenda,
item 1 –
Rossman: Mr. Chairman we need a second on that on her motion.
MacCoy: Oh, that one.
Rossman: Yes.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you Commissioner Borup.
Rossman: Then you need a vote.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 4
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: If that’s the way you want to work fine. We get used to new procedures all
the time. All right moving on to regular agenda item.
ITEM NO. 1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE
PERMIT FOR A FAMILY DAYCARE WITH FIVE OR LESS CHILDREN BY VICCI L
SNYDER—2747 S. VELVET FALLS WAY:
MacCoy: And since this is a continued public hearing, we have it open to the floor. Is
the applicant here that has anything she wants to say in that respect right now before
we move on?
VICCI SNYDER 2747 S. VELVET FALLS, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
Snyder: My little girl needed a playmate and my friend was going back to work and we
thought it was a perfect opportunity for the both of us but I spent the last nine months in
red tape through everything so that I could be up to ordinance just to watch her little
boys during the school year. We’ve got two weeks left and school is out and that’s the
only time we planned on doing it. So I don’t know what else to say. Do you have any
questions?
MacCoy: I don’t think so. All right you can sit down then. Is there anyone who would
like to make a comment for that before we move on? Anybody want to make a
comment against that? Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the attorney was to review the ordinance and
let us know his interpretation on whether the applicant’s children count in the five or if
they don’t.
MacCoy: That’s correct. We’re going to do that in a moment here, but we got a public
hearing which since we’re down to that, we can close the public hearing and then we’ll
hear the attorney’s statement.
De Weerd: If it’s possible I’d like it to stay open so that the applicant might have a
chance to respond.
MacCoy: That’s fine. I don’t have any problem with that. Okay, we’ll go ahead with the
attorney.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 5
Rossman: When this application was continued at the last public hearing, the question
that arose was a legal issue regarding the interpretation of the section 2-403 of the
Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. Particularly the definition of childcare
facility within that ordinance and the particular question that arose was whether or not in
determining whether or not a particular facility qualifies as a childcare facility under the
ordinance, whether or not the applicant’s children should be included in the number of
children within the definition, and my reading of the ordinance and that’s all I can
provide. There isn’t any history and there isn’t any case law interpreting the ordinance
obviously. All I can do is read the ordinance and provide a legal interpretation from the
plain language of the ordinance and that is the first paragraph of that ordinance
indicates that any home, structure or place where non medical care, protection or
supervision is regularly provided to children under 14 years of age for periods less than
24 hours per day and this is the important part of the definition while the parents or
guardians are not on the premises. There are three types of childcare facilities, a family
childcare home, which provides care for five or fewer children throughout the day, a
group childcare home, which provides care for six to twelve children throughout the day
and a childcare center, which provides care for more than 12 children throughout the
day. There is a paragraph at the end of the definition that says that it should be noted
that 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 one
time is determinative. That in my opinion relates to a facility that has children at
different times of the day. For example some morning which are then going to school
and then some afternoon children, which it varies throughout the day. From reading
this ordinance, it appears on its face to me that the definition when we’re counting the
number of children within a home whether or not it qualifies as a childcare facility or one
of the various care homes identified in the ordinance, I don’t believe from reading this
ordinance that it is intended to include the children of the applicant. Particularly that
portion of the first paragraph where it says while the parents or guardians are not on the
premises. That implies there are somebody else’s kids that the applicant is caring for.
That from the face of it tells me that it does not include the applicant’s own children.
Now whether that is how this ordinance has been historically interpreted by the
commission is another issue and I’d have to defer that to Shari or other staff, since I
certainly haven’t been here throughout the history of this particular ordinance. Does
anybody have any questions in light of that? I know it was kind of an exhaustive
statement of my interpretation of the ordinance.
Stiles: The five children including the children of the caregiver have always been
included in the number. When we have Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that’s
where it was more detailed in what the requirement was where they did spell out
including their own children, but whether that’s something this Planning and Zoning
Commission wants to reconsider –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 6
Rossman: And it certainly is ambiguous enough that we can defer to how it’s been
historically interpreted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council
obviously. I would offer as well that my understanding of the Idaho State regulations,
childcare regulations for licensing for facilities under state law the definitions do not
include the particular caregivers own children from my understanding.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the only concern I think I would have is a situation perhaps
where the operator had several children that were not in school that were home during
the same time, and I can see a concern there where that would a problem with properly
taking care of all of them, and this situation she just has the one child at home. The
others are school age and high school and junior high. I think in my mind the concern
would be on limiting that number. It would be to proper care. I mean you know a family
could have three children under five years of age theoretically and to have five more in
addition to that one person, it would not be feasible to handle.
Rossman: And if I may add to that, we can’t this commission or the City Council can’t
interpret this ordinance in a manner that is not uniform between the applications. In
other words, if an applicant comes before the commission and they have one child, the
Council can’t choose to interpret it as not including that particular child and then when
the next applicant comes with seven of their own children interpret it the other way. So
you have to keep in mind when you’re interpreting this ordinance that you have to take
into account all potential applications of the particular interpretation that you provide to
the ordinance, and in this case it’s one child. But you also have to consider the next
case where you may have seven or eight children.
Borup: That’s the way I’ve been interpreting it. I may have been wrong, but on
previous ones, if they’ve had – I think we’ve had some that had two children and they
realize they could only have three more. So that’s been my interpretation. It may not
have been right, but that is the understanding that I had voted on things in the past with.
De Weerd: Were those kids in school at the time or were those kids that would also be
a part of the childcare?
Borup: I’m saying not in school would count towards the number, and perhaps even
half day. I think a full day of school is what would count there.
Rossman: And that’s correct. I mean I don’t think there can be any interpretation that it
doesn’t apply to children that are in school, because the definition specifically says in
that paragraph that 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 as determinative. So anytime during
the day and that’s identified in the first paragraph for periods less than 24 hours per
day, so I think it would apply to school age children and non school age children. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 7
question is do the applicants own children, are they included in the ordinance or are
they not and my interpretation is that they are not but whether it’s been historically
applied that way I don’t know.
Borup: And I may be wrong again I’m repeating myself how I thought we were applying
it is that their own children count if they’re young enough not attending school. If they’re
older, it hasn’t counted.
Rossman: I don’t think you can provide that interpretation on there. I don’t think
whether they’re in or out of school –
Borup: Well you asked how it’s been interpreted. That’s my understanding how we
have in the past.
MacCoy: Okay, Shari do you have anything else you want to add to this at this
moment?
Stiles: If I think I heard what he said, historically it has been interpreted that way. You
also need to consider what happens if there are several grandchildren, foster children,
where do you end the definition of their own children too.
Rossman: Well the definition speaks for itself. It says parent or guardian, and whether
the person is a parent or guardian that’s a legal issue and it certainly can be – you know
there’s no ambiguity in whether someone is a parent or guardian. If they have legal
custody of the child, then they’re the parent or the guardian. I don’t think that’s a
subject of ambiguity in the ordinance there, but according to Shari if it has been
interpreted in the past to include the applicant’s own children, I certainly couldn’t argue
with that, and it certainly wouldn’t be inconsistent with the ordinance in light of the
ambiguity that is there.
MacCoy: Okay, Commissioners, are you ready to make a motion and then a vote?
De Weerd: This is still a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to
comment?
MacCoy: Well we’ve already gone through that. Is there a hand that went up I see?
Unidentified: I was just going to say –
Rossman: Step up to the microphone sir.
MacCoy: Identify yourself please.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 8
Rossman: Name and address.
DAVE TUCKER, 4014 HARBOR POINT
Tucker: My name is Dave Tucker and I live on Harbor Point, 4014. I see why your
meetings take so long. I don’t know why you just don’t give this lady what she wants.
She’s been asking for a long time. Whatever you decide, tell her that’s what it is and
that’s it. Let’s move on.
Borup: We were getting ready to do that before you stood up.
Rossman: You have to understand it’s not that easy. You don’t just make decisions
flippantly without thorough consideration. This is something that we can’t interpret
ordinances inconsistently. It may be very easy to just say –
Tucker: She is saying she asked months ago.
Rossman: Sir, it may be very easy to say give her – accept her application in this
position, but then this council has to consider what kind of precedent that’s going to set
for the next person that comes through the door. They’ve got to interpret these
ordinances uniformly and they’ve got to thoroughly consider each of them, and they
haven’t wasted their with this particular application. Is there anything else you have to
offer?
Tucker: Yeah, I hope the rest of it moves a little faster.
Rossman: Well we’ll see.
MacCoy: But to answer your question, the reason she was carried to this time was the
fact that because of the legal implications the commissioners which are all professional
people felt that we wanted a legal decision, so in her behalf which was in favor for her
because if it taken the vote before we would have had probably to do something
different. I don’t know what it would have been, but –
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Well I can too, but we’re also we explained to her last time we were carrying it
forward for the standpoint of a legal decision.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. You know this application came in front
of us just last month, so this is the first we’ve seen of it. She has five children under the
age of 14, which are all in school but one. When you can only have five kids in a home
daycare like she’s applying, we are trying to find the fairest way for this applicant, and in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 9
doing so we needed an interpretation of our own ordinance because as our ordinance
reads, she cannot have more than her own kids in her home. So we are trying to be fair
to her and giving her that consideration. So that’s what this is all about. We’re trying to
find a way that she can care for her friend’s two additional kids.
MacCoy: All right commissioners, what about the public hearing?
Borup: I move we close the public hearing and let’s move on.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: Public hearing is now closed. What’s the discussion between the
commissioners if any?
Barbeiro: I am inclined to follow Eric’s recommendation that it is interpreted as children
that are not her own. Yet the frustration is how do we resolve that with how it has been
interpreted in the past and do we have the right to change that interpretation here
today?
MacCoy: You are going to have to base your decision personally on how you
understand the way the material has been read by the attorney, and how this affect this
case and it’s up to you to make that decision.
Barbeiro: And could you please define if we vote yes, then we vote in favor of her
having a daycare in her home?
MacCoy: That’s correct, yes.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess Mr. Chairman the concern is what kind of precedence we’re setting.
In this particular case I would like to see this accessory use permit granted, but will the
next applicant then have five kids and want five additional kids? That puts it in a whole
different category. So can we deal with this Mr. Attorney on a case by case basis.
That’s how I would like to see this happen.
Rossman: You can’t deal with it on a case by case basis in the sense that you develop
an arbitrary standard that is not in the ordinance. For example that someone with one
of their children in the home is acceptable but then someone with seven of their own
children is not acceptable. The ordinance doesn’t provide for that kind of an
interpretation. You have to either decide whether it includes their own children or
whether it doesn’t and apply it uniformly.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 10
Borup: What was all the discussion about historic interpretation then?
Rossman: Because the ordinance is ambiguous enough that you could decide either
way is what I’m saying. There’s not a clear answer that says yes, they’re included or
no, they’re not included. My reading of the ordinance is that they’re not included, but if
you have historically interpreted it in the way that they are included, then there’s
certainly something to be said for uniform application of an ordinance. But the question
is whether you include them or you don’t include them. There’s no other ambiguity
involved.
MacCoy: Do I hear a motion?
Borup: Mr. Chairman I move we approve this application for accessory use permit for a
family childcare facility.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second?
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: I think we would have both liked to have added one – maybe not, I’m not sure
what Tammy was leading to. I would like to approve it.
MacCoy: All right go ahead. You want to make a recommendation for a correction?
Borup: My recommendation would be for no more than four children outside of her own
family.
MacCoy: For this one here?
Borup: Yes, and I believe that’s what the applicant was intending all along. That’s what
she said in her letter of application.
MacCoy: Okay, do I hear a second his –
Borup: So I think that’s consistent with what she was – I don’t know if it’s necessary,
but –
MacCoy: Well you can still make it that way.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 11
Borup: Yeah, I’d like to amend my motion.
MacCoy: Okay, is there a second to the amended motion?
Barbeiro: I’ll second the motion.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, this is the last hearing on this so we do need to ask for
Findings from our City Attorney.
Rossman: No, I believe this still goes to City Council. Oh, this is accessory use. Yes,
we will do findings. You’re right.
De Weerd: Do we need that in a motion?
Borup: Yeah.
Rossman: It will come back before the Commission. Make a motion that we prepare
Findings, and they’ll come before the Commission next month.
Borup: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we request the City Attorney to prepare Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this application for approval.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS SUBDIVISION NO.4 (5 SINGLE FAMILY
BUILDING LOTS ON 3.98 ACRES) BY GEM PARK II—NORTH OF VICTORY RD. &
EAST OF LOCUST GROVE RD:
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we withdraw number two, the continued public
hearing for request for preliminary plat for Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision No. 4.
Borup: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 12
MacCoy: Let me ask the attorney about this one because the letter we received is that
they’re pulling it off entirely.
Rossman: They’re withdrawing their application in its entirety?
MacCoy: Well they’re certainly entitled to do that. I don’t think it’s appropriate to
continue it. It’s just a –
MacCoy: I don’t either.
Borup: Wasn’t that the motion to withdraw it?
De Weerd: Yes.
Rossman: Just to withdraw it in its entirety and it won’t be brought back before the
Commission.
MacCoy: No, it won’t come back, so it’s a continued public hearing and they’re asking
that they – what they’re telling us they’re solved their problem. They don’t need the
thing to go on.
De Weerd: Right, so I moved to withdraw.
MacCoy: Second on that.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: I’m going to stop here for a moment . I want to ask the question from the
audience. We have a full house here. How many of you are here item 15? I suggest
that at this moment in time we move item number 15 forward to the next slot so you
people can get a chance to get this completed and go home. Otherwise you’ll be here
until at least 10:30 tonight. Some of you people are standing up. I don’t think you want
to stand that long.
ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE, PARKING LOT AND TEMPORARY
CLUBHOUSE BY CHERRY LANE RECREATION INC—4200 TALAMORE BLVD:
MacCoy: Staff what do you have to say about that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 13
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, Commissioners, we have reviewed the application that was
submitted. This permit application was required because of the fact that a clubhouse is
not a permitted use in the zone. In fact the golf course is not a permitted use in the
zone . There was temporary conditional use permit granted for the modular home back
in 1982. Apparently the conditions for the future site have just become ready for them
to have access to it and have the sewer and water. Those areas are just now being
platted. They apparently do have sewer and water to the site at this time. But though
the application itself doesn’t indicate the temporary building, it doesn’t indicate
anywhere in the narrative that they’re requesting a temporary building. It is shown on
the site plan, and so if there was any misunderstanding by any of the people out here
that may have reviewed the application and only looked at the written portion of it. It
would have been confusing to you, but that’s basically where we stand. We have made
comments as far as our recommendations for some modifications to the site, and I’m
sure you’ll hear lots of other testimony here tonight about what they would like to see in
their neighborhood.
MacCoy: Thank you. Bruce, do you have anything? Okay, is the applicant here? Oh,
great. All right, we’ll start off the other way then. Not having an applicant present, all
those who would like to speak in favor of the request, you can come one at a time
forward.
JAMES A. YOST 2638 N. SEA COVE, MERIDIAN, IDAHO
Yost: My name is James C. Yost. I live at 2638 N. Sea Cove. I would like to speak in
support of the operation of the permit to allow them to move their temporary clubhouse
to the construction site of the new clubhouse and then we can get the new clubhouse
constructed and then the temporary clubhouse can be removed and we’ll have us a
new clubhouse and we’ll finally have everything where it belongs having a Cherry Lane
Golf Course. I know that it’s been difficult for some folks out there. I think the traffic
situation will be much better with the access coming in to the golf course and a parking
lot that’s paved and more functional. If it comes in from Black Cat Road. Right now
Interlachen is about the only way to get in there. I think the traffic will be much easier
on everyone once we get that new parking lot built over there. I think it’s something that
needs to be done and I know there’s been a lot of struggle with getting power to the
site, working with the irrigation districts, working with the power companies, the gas
companies and everyone. I think we’re finally in a stage to do that. I recommend that
you support this and allow the operator to get on with finishing up that facility. It will be
asset not only to the community that we live in there, but to the entire City of Meridian.
I think it will be something that we can be proud of. It will generate revenue to the city
and those of us that constructed in the area waited a long time for an 18 hole golf
course to be constructed. We waited a long time to move out of that temporary facility
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 14
where it is, and we’re anxious to get a new facility constructed and do away with the
temporary things and get back to a permanent life there. Thank you.
MacCoy: All right, stay right there a moment. Commissioners, do you have any
questions of him?
De Weerd: I have none.
Borup: None.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else who would like to speak in favor or
support of this applicant? Okay, let me turn it around the other way. Anybody here that
would like to speak in the other direction? Yes, go ahead.
MIKE KESLER 3450 W. WOODMONT DRIVE, MERIDIAN
Kesler: My name is Mike Kesler. I live at 3450 W. Woodmont Drive, and I’m opposed
to the temporary structure. I’m certainly not opposed to a permanent structure on the
new site. I first looked at Cherry Lane Village 11 years ago, and oh you bet. There’s
going to be a permanent facility there. It’s going to be there just a few years. Well it
was placed in ’82 by this P & Z Commission and is still there and it’s going to get moved
again and it may be there for the next 15 years. So maybe whoever buys my house will
have the same cherishable rights that I’ve had just dreaming about a new clubhouse. If
it is moved, I think there should be some very strict requirements that is replaced within
“x” months. I certainly wouldn’t go out years. It only takes about two hundred days to
build the clubhouse. If they can build a house in 120 days, I’m sure they can build a
clubhouse in 200. So I’m opposed to moving a temporary facility. I suggest that the
person that individuals or company that has the use of that the rights of that golf course
proceed with a permanent clubhouse to match the rest of the zoning in that area, which
his permanent. We do not allow movable residences in the areas. So why should we
have a movable clubhouse?
MacCoy: Good point.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Sir, then are you proposing to leave the
temporary trailer where it’s at until the new clubhouse is built or close down the golf
course?
Kesler: I don’t know when they have to have that build by.
Borup: I’m not sure, but they need to operate out of something. What’s your proposal
besides – I understand what you’re saying. Let’s not have another temporary thing
there for going on forever, and that makes –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 15
Kesler: There is a temporary you know to meet other – I can’t understand why the
planning was done for the other plat before this was done. I guess I could ask that
question, Mr. Borup. Meaning it’s kind of the cart before the horse. It’s almost like the
residents out there you know you’re dog gone if you do and dog gone if you don’t.
Borup: Well no that’s what I’m trying to figure out is what do you see as the ideal
solution to keep the course operating while the new building is being built?
Kesler: Certainly and I think the thing is that there is a restriction of no more than so
many days and certainly less than a year to have normal construction done. We’re
coming up on the prime construction months as you well know.
MacCoy: We don’t disagree with that, but we’ve understood that I’m going to have the
applicant has been called. He’ll be here quickly that Steiner Corporation which owns
that property has asked them to be moved out as of the last of April and now we’re into
May already and we’re living or they’re living on a borrowed time situation. That’s the
reason the temporary situation has come up to light because now –
Kesler: How long ago was the occupant notified that he had to move?
MacCoy: I’m not sure. I’m not sure of the details. I was hoping that they would have
somebody here that can answer that question because I hear various things.
Kesler: It’s a good way to chase the commission.
MacCoy: Well we look at it as this is a new commission compared to what the date on
this thing is because they’ve had this thing in operation 17 years, and we’re wondering
come it took them this long to wake up the fact that they had to get moved, so we had
our problems too.
Kesler: Right.
MacCoy: Okay we’ll get some answers. Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Kesler, I had a question for you. So that I can clarify your opinion, you do
not object to the moving of the temporary clubhouse to its new location on the premise
that a permanent be in place within one year.
Kesler: Less than one year.
Barbeiro: Okay thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 16
MacCoy: I understand now my message that the applicant is here. Will he come
forward? He or she, I don’t know who is going to speak. Is Wally here?
WALLY LOVAN LESSEE OF CHERRY LANE GOLF COURSE, MERIDIAN
Lovan: I would like to try to answer the question someone has. I came here this
evening to ask for a temporary permit to move the clubhouse existing clubhouse to get
our parking lot going. That is the number one thing to move the clubhouse. We have to
have the parking lot done and to also start construction of the new clubhouse. I would
like to have Mr. Dick Brown be my speaker. He knows all these things. He’s been
working with me for almost a year now. He is a surveyor and has a company that does
some of the engineering for him so he’s very, very knowledgeable of the technical
things that you people might want to ask. I’d be most happy to try to answer any
questions that anyone has now.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would just have a question as far as what is your
time frame?
Lovan: My time frame right now here the first of March, I had all my subcontractors
already lined up.
Borup: Have you applied for a permit? It looks like you got a full set of construction
plans. Have you applied for the building permit yet?
Lovan: Yes.
De Weerd: No, I just wanted to know the time frame when you think construction will be
completed.
Lovan: I would say within four months of the date of starting.
De Weerd: And that’s the parking lot and the building itself?
Lovan: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay, that’s the only question I had.
MacCoy: Okay, Mr. Lovan just to clarify in my mind here, I have read some material
and I have heard about some of this where you presently have your trailer, Steiner
wants that land back and he indicated that he had given you an eviction notice the end
of April.
Lovan: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 17
MacCoy: And you’re living on borrowed time now.
Lovan: I am.
MacCoy: Is he willing to let you sit there a little longer because I hate to move a
temporary unit. I’d like to see you build the new unit where it is and we don’t have to
fiddle with the temporary unit.
Lovan: I would prefer not to move the unit. I’m not sure that he would wait as long as
another four months or so.
MacCoy: He wants that land back I guess to build on is what he’s talking about.
Lovan: He has already started part of the construction.
MacCoy: Oh, he has.
Lovan: He’s constructing the roadways now.
MacCoy: I’ve seen equipment out there. I was wondering what was going on. So the
reason you’re asking to move your temporary operation is because the very fact that he
wants you out of there and otherwise you would be preferred to stay where you are until
you finish your final building, right?
Lovan: Yes.
MacCoy: Okay, I just wanted a clarification.
Lovan: One of the reason the clubhouse itself is now sixteen, seventeen years old, but
it is wired so that we can do our rental carts, and all we have to do is move it and have
it hooked up and we can service in all our rental carts. We have 52 rental carts now.
MacCoy: We’re working to actually a legal case here from the standpoint that you’re
going to have to move it because of the owner of the property says you must be off of it.
Lovan: Yes.
MacCoy: So that’s the reason the board will have to look at making a temporary
change to a permanent change. Okay, can Mr. Brown come forward?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 18
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe I’d like to just reiterate maybe what Mr. Lovan has said.
At this point, your application, your building permit is applied for. Is it ready? Have they
approved it yet or are they still reviewing?
Lovan: I really don’t know.
Borup: But it’s in the process? So it’s your intention then would be to start construction
as soon as you have approval from the city to begin?
Lovan: Yes. My number one thing is to get the parking lot done, and we have all the
plans in. We have the –
Borup: You need that done to even use the temporary building.
Lovan: Yes, right.
Borup: And then as soon as the city has approval on the plans and the building permit
received then you’re ready to start immediately on construction.
Lovan: Right.
Borup: I think that probably would answer a lot of their concerns that other people here
have.
Lovan: I guarantee you that as soon as we get the new clubhouse open that we will get
rid of that mobile home.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup, we have a staff comment coming up here.
Borup: Okay, I think that is all the questions I had.
Stiles: I just wanted to clarify for you no building permit has been submitted for
anything on this project. The plans we got the revised plans that you got in your
packets which are dated May 1999 we got Friday. So this has not gone – they would
need to have a certificate of zoning compliance before they could start processing the
building permit application, and they can’t get a certificate of zoning compliance unless
they receive a conditional use permit and they comply with those conditions.
Borup: So you’re saying they can’t even turn it in until it gets through this process?
Stiles: Right.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 19
Stiles: Once it gets through your possibly once it gets through Planning and Zoning
Department, it goes to City Council prior to findings. There’s a possibility that they may
consider starting to process it based on all of the conditions of approval but we don’t
know what those conditions are right now so we can’t issue a certificate of zoning
compliance.
Borup: That makes sense. So you’re saying if everything looks good, they could
maybe start on the parking lot. Perhaps not the building, but get the parking lot going.
Stiles: Well at least once they get through at least through the council at their public
hearing.
Borup: Right, okay.
Stiles: Which normally we would wait clear until the findings were done and approved
so that would save them some time.
Borup: So the faster this gets approved, the faster they can start building.
De Weerd: Shari, does that mean probably July until it gets through the process?
MacCoy: It’s hard to tell.
Stiles: It could be June or possibly the first meeting in July.
De Weerd: Okay.
MacCoy: All right, can we have Mr. Brown come forward please.
Lovan: I would like to ask one question. If we cannot get this done and Mr. Steiner
gives us an eviction notice, what do we do then? How do we operate the golf course?
MacCoy: Well that’s what we’re trying to work out for you from our side here, so we’re
not disagreeing with you. We’re trying to get the job done for you in the proper format.
DICK JOHNSON
Johnson: My name is Dick Johnson. Dr. Brown is my golf partner. My address is 9225
Chinden Boulevard and I can try to answer any questions you might have or we can go
through the conditional use permit whichever you wish.
MacCoy: The items that – you’ve received the staff’s comments?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 20
Johnson: Yes, we have.
MacCoy: Okay, all right let’s start with those.
Johnson: On the CU comments themselves, we have no problems with items 1 and 2.
Item number three, the sewer and water, if I may put my glasses on here. No utilities
are shown on the site plans and how the temporary structure will be serviced (End of
Tape)
Johnson: …permitted, installed, inspected and all approved prior to this meeting. It
happened about three months ago that we put in the utilities for the temporary
clubhouse structure. The gas, power and telephone are not in place. They are
pending the power company’s time table. The telephone company has said they would
put in a temporary phone for us. Item number four we have no problem with. Item
number five as far as signage, there is a sign proposed on the drawing. It’s a 4 x 8
redwood sign. It is out of the site area for the traffic. There again it would be four foot
high. A request will be made for a future sign at the intersection of Talamore at Black
Cat Road which we anticipate to be a stone an engraved stone set in the median there
if we can get that approved. There’s an existing sign on Cherry Lane indicating where
the present clubhouse is. We would like to leave that in place for sixty days. That
would give us time to notify the public that the clubhouse has been moved. And
drainage plans for item number six are complete and ready to be submitted. We’re just
holding under the outcome of this meeting.
MacCoy: I’m looking for a diagram of the sign.
Johnson: Oh you want to see a picture of the sign?
MacCoy: Yes. We need that to take a look to see what you’re going to say.
Johnson: Yeah, it just say Cherry Lane Golf Course.
MacCoy: We have to know how big and what it looks like and so on.
Johnson: Okay.
MacCoy: Go on.
Johnson: That was under conditional use comments for general requirements. There
again for items number one, irrigation ditches what have you, we agree with that. Item
number two domestic wells, we agree with that. It’s not applicable for this project.
Number three the off street parking will be provided in accordance with the local
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 21
ordinances. We concur with that. The parking lot, landscaping, lighting, drainage,
traffic flow, what have you are all designed and ready for submittal. Items 4, paving and
striping, we agree with that. That is shown on the plans.
Borup: Mr. Johnson, I don’t want to interrupt you, but at least for my benefit, I would
rather you just went through and mentioned items that you maybe didn’t agree with.
Johnson: Items we don’t agree with.
Borup: Or something you had a concern with because we’ve read all the others, so if
there’s any --
Johnson: Site specific, I had one question on the 45 trees required. In a previous
conversation with Shari Stiles, we talked about the tree count including the area around
the clubhouse lying east of the Eight Mile Lateral, and I wanted to make sure that was
still part of the tree count.
Stiles: If we can count what is shown on the plan, east the Eight Mile Lateral takes in a
lot of territory over there, so –
Johnson: No, only within the bounds of the project. The line shown in there, Shari.
Stiles: If they meet our requirements for a three inch caliper tree. The spruces would
not be included as meeting that requirement. They need to be at least six to eight feet
high. No conifers of that size, three inch.
Johnson: We have no problems with that. My next question would be with the
sidewalk. There’s a comment in here about installing number 8, providing 5 foot wide
sidewalk in accordance with the city ordinance. This project is already part of the Lakes
No. 4 Subdivision and they are required to put in curb, gutter, sidewalk, full street
restoration through there. We are prepared to get with them and widen the sidewalk to
five feet. That’s not a problem.
Borup: They should already be five feet.
Johnson: Pardon?
Borup: Aren’t they already five feet?
Johnson: The ones on Talamore are. Talamore is constructed. On Harbor Point Drive
that is not constructed. The plans were signed February –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 22
Borup: Okay, you’re saying that the developer is putting in streets, curb, gutter,
sidewalk and you’re doing the developing within the site. Is that what you are saying?
Johnson: The developer of the Lakes –
Borup: Yes, is doing all the roads.
Johnson: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
MacCoy: He’s required to put in five foot as it is.
Barbeiro: Mr. Johnson, when will the W. Harbor Point Drive be operational?
Johnson: I tried to find that out today, but they didn’t have a time schedule that they
could tell me. Hopefully –
Barbeiro: Within a year?
Johnson: Oh, yes. Plans have been approved and everything. They just preparing for
construction now.
MacCoy: Okay moving on what else did you have comment?
Johnson: We don’t have a problem with anything on that. I just wanted to clarify the
points on the tree count and the sidewalk. As far as Mr. Lovan's comments about when
we’re ready to start construction, the parking lot is designed, ready to submit this week
upon approval of that, we’re ready to start paving. Like I said we have the underground
utilities in for the temporary site and there was a comment in there about six months
maximum for the temporary clubhouse. We feel that’s more than enough.
MacCoy: Okay you’re saying that you wouldn’t have to have it that long in other words,
right?
Johnson: Well we would certainly hope not. It depends on the approval process.
MacCoy: I understand that yes. That’s the part you can’t control and neither do we.
Johnson: And how soon he gets kicked off the current site.
MacCoy: Yeah, I realize that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 23
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, one other comment I would like Mr. Johnson to remark on
would be the fire chief’s comments.
Johnson: Regarding the fire hydrant?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Johnson: There’s an eight inch currently stubbed out to the property line. That eight
inch in order to be taken over to the east side of the canal has to be engineered
showing the valve structures and the bends in the pipe. Once the pipe is over there we
just put the fire hydrant on it right there and then once the clubhouse is actually
operational we remove the temporary clubhouse then that eight inch line will connect to
the existing clubhouse with the backflow prevention valves and we’ll have sprinklers in
the clubhouse.
De Weerd: But you will have an adequate hydrant for the temporary?
Johnson: Yes, yes.
MacCoy: And you understand the requirement for sprinklers in the building?
Johnson: Yes.
MacCoy: Basement.
Johnson: Yes, it will be throughout the building both levels.
MacCoy: That’s for your protection as well as the code.
Johnson: Sure.
MacCoy: You got anything else on that? Staff, do you have anything at this moment?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I just wanted to make a couple
of points of clarification. Site specific comment number three, we talked about
repayment of late comers fees. I learned today that the clubhouse area was not
included in the late comer service area, so they will not be subject to those fees. So
just want to clarify that point and then on site specific item number seven the sidewalk –
those sidewalks are included in the planning for Lake at Cherry Lane No. 8 so they will
be built.
Johnson: That’s correct. I did say number four, didn’t I?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 24
Barbeiro: Mr. Johnson, assuming that you had a building permit tomorrow, how quickly
could you have parking and clubhouse constructed and ready for operation?
Johnson: If we had the building permit tomorrow, the contractor is prepared to start
tomorrow on the parking lot. Once the parking lot is in place, we can move the
temporary structure over. We’re ready to break ground if funding is available and you
know we have to have the approval of the actual building plans, but then we’d be
underway and we are hoping for four months from beginning to completion.
Barbeiro: 120 days of construction from – that’s for the building alone. What I’d like to
know is it’s a bare piece of land now, parking lot, clubhouse operational. If you had
your building permit tomorrow for everything.
Johnson: Maximum five months.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
MacCoy: Staff do you happen to have a set of drawings yet other than the stuff we
have right now? Okay how soon will we –
Johnson: Which drawings is that, sir?
MacCoy: Well all I have so far is this set right here which is very difficult one to read. I
am looking for a set of drawings that we can take a look at, the building material, the
structures and everything else. So I’m looking for when can we see something like
that?
Johnson: We will approach or get a hold of the contractor or the architect right away
and ask him for a full set of 24 x 36 (inaudible).
MacCoy: Ship them down to the Planning and Zoning Department.
Johnson: Oh yeah.
MacCoy: All right thank you. You can take a seat I guess now at this point. All right,
where were we? Is there anyone else that would like to make a statement for this? Let
me go back to that point right now since we interrupted our run. Okay, anybody else
here would like to make a statement to in the opposite direction against this operation?
PAUL NEWCOMB 3837 W. HARBOR POINT DRIVE, MERIDIAN
Newcomb: I’d like to make several points on this. I’d like to start when I first received
the notice from the City about this hearing, I concocted my own letter and spread it out
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 25
amongst the area residents and spoke with numerous residents and request they give
me their written were they not able to make it to this meeting. I’d like to submit these to
the commission for your perusal at a later date. Now absolving myself as the
spokesman for those people, I’d like to change my hat back to Paul Newcomb, zealot
and make a few points here. The contract between Cherry Lane Recreation and the
City of Meridian was nudge, nudge, wink, wink signed on the 3rd
day of October, 1978. I
believe at that time the director of Cherry Lane Recreation probably had an inclination
that he needed a structure to operate out of and a conditional use permit was let in
1982 allowing the current trailer house to be sited at its current location and for the last
17 years, the trailer house has been the primary operating facility. The information that
was given by Cherry Lane Recreation tonight makes me extremely concerned. They
seem to be very evasive as far as a start date. The question that was posed to them
numerous times was how long from the day that you have your building permit in hand,
how soon will you have a structure made. Well it depends on funding, it depends on
this, it depends on that. I would question the commission on a couple of issues. I’ve
reviewed the conditional use permit. There is no mention in it anywhere of a concrete
time line. They will have the temporary structure out in 120 days. They’ll have the
temporary structure out in 180 days. There is no mention of that anywhere in the
conditional use permit.
Borup: Mr. Newcomb a permit hasn’t even been issued yet.
Newcomb: In the application, excuse me.
Borup: This commission would put restrictions on it.
Newcomb: I understand that. It just occurs to me that this process has been drug out
seventeen years through conditions and circumstances which Cherry Lane Recreation
has really done nothing to mitigate and it would very much be my request that were the
commission to approve it that they put extremely strict time lines and if possible a
monetary bond be put up or a monetary fund be enforced should that time line be
violated. My personal preference is here is that the City take the opportunity to right a
wrong that was written on October 13th
of 1978 allowing me a moment to read the
paragraph three from the agreement of lease between the City of Meridian and the
Cherry Lane Recreation regarding rental. In lieu of paying any monetary rental until the
second nine hole golf course is constructed and leased to the lessee, lessee shall at its
own cost and without any obligation liability or indebtedness of the lessor, and within a
reasonable time operate, conduct and carry on a golf course upon the leased premises
for the use and benefit of the public generally in accordance with the objects or purpose
of its incorporation. Lessee, meaning Cherry Lane Recreation shall pay the sum of
$6,000 per year in advance as rental. This annual payment shall first become due on
the first day of October next following the date upon which an additional nine hole golf
course shall have been constructed by or on behalf of lessor and leased by it to lessee
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 26
herein on substantially the same terms and conditions as contained in this agreement.
Since the day the Cherry Lane Golf Course was opened, Cherry Lane Recreation did
not pay the City one single dime in revenue in any way, shape or form. It was not until
the second nine was opened up that the rental clause in the lease actually came into
effect, and I believe that was September of ’97. Would someone please correct me if
I’m wrong. I believe that we as a city have the opportunity to correct this wrong. I can
tell you the obvious not having figures to recite, but having researched it to some
degree, $6,000 for an 18 hole golf course is a lease payment that anyone would love to
have, myself included. But it’s not realistic for a municipal golf course to only be
receiving $6,000 in rent. I would request that the Commission deny the conditional use
permit application, allow the golf course the current lessor to be evicted from the
temporary facilities, allow the golf course to be shut down, which would cause the
lessee to be in default according to paragraph nine page 4 of the agreement of lease
and at that point, the City would be able to take over ownership and management of the
Cherry Lane Golf Course and receive the monetary reimbursements that are due with
an 18 hole course for the City. Any questions?
Borup: Just a comment. Do you realize you’re talking to the wrong body? We don’t
have the authority to –
Newcomb: You do have the authority to decline – you have the authority to recommend
that the conditional use permit not be granted. At that point then it’s up to the rest of us
to go to the City Council.
Borup: It goes to City Council and they’re the ones that negotiated the lease and the
whole thing anyway.
Newcomb: I understand that. All we’re looking for is your recommendation that the
conditional use permit not be granted.
Borup: So your recommendation is to shut down the golf course essentially.
Newcomb: No, my recommendation is for you to –
Borup: I mean your preference is for the golf course cease business and a new –
Newcomb: My preference was to allow the golf course to shut down to correct an error
which could have been fixed 17 years ago, and allow the City to number one take
control of the revenue which the golf course generates.
Borup: Again those are issues that we can’t address, so as far as
(Inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 27
Borup: You’re asking us to deny the request.
Newcomb: Yes, I am.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Newcomb, what would that – your recommendation to deny based on
what?
Newcomb: Based purely on the fact that the city has the opportunity to –
De Weerd: I know but we can’t take that into account. We can’t look at those factors.
What is your recommendation?
Newcomb: Cherry Lane Recreation had a conditional use permit granted in 1982 that is
17 years ago. Cherry Lane Recreation has a history of ignoring the obvious. They
know the conditional use permit is conditional. They have ignored the obvious that
they need to have a permanent structure. Not until they received an eviction notice
from their landlord did it actually inspire them to actually do something to mitigate the
problem. It is my opinion that given the opportunity Cherry Lane Recreation would
move the trailer house to the end of what is now number two and leave it there for
another 17 years. I would recommend that this commission does not take Cherry Lane
Recreation’s application as it currently stands. As there is no enforceable way to
prevent them from leaving it sit there for another 17 years as the application is written,
there is no enforceable way to prevent them from leaving the temporary structure there
for 17 years.
MacCoy: Let me tell you a little bit here. We have the date that you talk about. We
have it in stacked here. We have the history, we have everything and this commission
is a different commission than allowed this to happen before and we have been in
consultation for the last couple of months on the legality of all this and how we can
straighten it out. We agree with a lot of the people here that it has been 17 years. That
should never have happened, and so we can’t talk about the history. We can talk about
the future and that starts now.
Newcomb: I am merely that as the P & Z Commission, you have an opportunity to
make a recommendation to the City Council and then you leave it to us to go to the City
Council and make our views known to them in the same light.
MacCoy: And you will because that’s the way the system works.
Newcomb: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 28
Barbeiro: Mr. Newcomb, speaking from the present and the future, it’s fair to say that
you have little faith in the word of Cherry Lane Recreation.
Newcomb: Yes.
Barbeiro: Your recommendation is not necessarily one that is operational, but one that
is procedural. It is your recommendation and correct me that we decline the temporary
use permit, that procedurally that would not allow the golf course to continue operations
under the lease with Cherry Lane Recreation. At that point Cherry Lane Recreation
would be in default of the lease and would allow it or open it up to either the City or
other bidders to be –
Newcomb: According to the lease, if the lessee is in default, it automatically reverts the
City’s ownership and management.
Barbeiro: Okay that opens it up to either the City operating it or the City putting out to
bid shall we say and which would also allow Cherry Lane to be amongst the bidders to
operate the facility.
Newcomb: Correct.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Rossman: I think it’s important before we have any further testimony to keep this
proceeding from exploding into issues that are not relevant for this proceeding, and
relevant issues for this proceeding are whether or not this application for a conditional
use permit for a temporary clubhouse and a permanent clubhouse comply with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning ordinance and are compatible with the standards set
forth within the ordinance regarding conditional use permits. Whether or not the golf
course is an efficient outlet for the City of Meridian is not a relevant issue for this
proceeding. Is the clubhouse and the application consistent with the standards and the
ordinance are the only relevant issues in this proceeding, and obviously delay as to
whether or not they are going to actively construct this facility once the zoning is
permitted and the building permit is issued is certainly a relevant issue.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: Mr. Kesler.
MacCoy: Do you want to come forward here?
(Inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 29
MacCoy: Wait a minute. You got to get up to the mike here, because it’s got to be
(inaudible).
Kesler: Okay, just one question. You were going to wait to answer and that was when
was the eviction notice provided to the present tenant?
MacCoy: You’ll have to ask them, but my understanding was that it was in the month of
April and it gave the date as the end of the month of April. I don’t know when they
received it. I don’t have that information.
Rossman: The City didn’t issue that notice, sir.
MacCoy: Steiner issued it because it’s their property.
Kesler: Okay.
MacCoy: All right come on up here.
Tucker: I agree with Mr. Newcomb, but what I’m concerned about is the parking area.
It shows an entrance or exit on the W. Harbor Point. I don’t know if you have the same
drawing.
MacCoy: Excuse me, would you state your name again for the record.
Tucker: Dave Tucker and I live at 4014 W. Harbor Point. This schematic that I have of
the – is this what you have? It shows the parking area and the main entrance is on the
boulevard, the Talamore Boulevard, but it shows another entrance or exit on W. Harbor
Point. What I would like is that eliminated because on W. Harbor Point, there are
retirees and down the street if people go that way and there will be a lot of traffic.
There’s a lot of little kids down there. But if you eliminate that entrance or exit from that
parking area on Harbor Point, all traffic will be on the boulevard.
MacCoy: Okay good point.
Tucker: Very good point, thank you.
Borup: I have a question Mr. Chairman. Yes, you were saying there’s – where are the
residents on Harbor Point? I assume that it’s further down the street north and east.
Tucker: If you go east on Harbor Point, there’s no homes right there just east of the
canal yet, but there will be. But as you go east on Harbor Point, there are a lot of
retirees who bought homes –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 30
Borup: Well I guess my question would be why would that other exit put more traffic on
W. Harbor Point?
Tucker: I’m saying if you get rid of that, there will be no traffic on Harbor Point.
Borup: Well yes it intersects down there with Talamore. The same cars can still go.
Tucker: Right, but that’s the boulevard and they will be heading out towards Black Cat.
Borup: And so if they turn in on Harbor Point, they won’t go to Black Cat if that’s where
they want to go?
Tucker: Well they may, but they might turn right too, so what I’m telling you is as a
citizen I don’t want that there.
Borup: Well I’m saying it’s not going to make any difference. People are going to go
where they want to go.
Tucker: Yeah, that’s true.
Borup: And if someone lives on W. Harbor Point, they are not going to drive to Black
Cat and come around –
Tucker: I’m not talking about the people that live there, and I think you know that.
Borup: But people are going to go the shortest and most convenient way, and whether
they have to come out on Talamore and circle around to W. Harbor, they are still going
to go there and I don’t know, maybe I – there may be some – I think there’s probably
some other issues on the amount of exits that are required on a project this size.
MacCoy: Yes, I think there is. We have to take a look at that, but he’s raised the
question so it’s fine.
Borup: Most of the homes are to the east though. Is there anything directly across the
street was what I was wondering really.
Tucker: On Harbor Point? No.
Borup: Okay thank you.
MacCoy: Anyone else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 31
SHIRLEY TUCKER
Tucker: My name is Shirley Tucker and I’m at 4014 W. Harbor Point, and I just want to
clarify something that my husband had brought up. What we’re talking about is on W.
Harbor Point Drive all the houses face the road. We have a setback of I don’t know
what it is.
MacCoy: About 20 feet.
Tucker: Yeah. We all face the road. We have children, we have family things going on
there. Talamore does not have any houses facing the road. It’s a boulevard. It’s all
just a greenway through there. What we were thinking is if they could open up if they
closed this and open up another exit here, it would naturally flow all the traffic or the
majority of the traffic towards Talamore and back on Black Cat. Now you get someone
who lives there, they’re going to be aware of the way the houses are on W. Harbor
Point Drive and they will go slow. We have a problem with speeding now, but it’s mainly
the construction guys. So we’re kind of looking at people who get lost, people who you
know, it’s a very easy thing just to come in Talamore and if the exit flows back out
Talamore, they won’t get lost where it goes out Harbor Point, they’re going to sit there
and go now which way did I come in? I don’t know maybe men don’t do that, but
women do. And so we were thinking that it might just be a better traffic flow if you had
them come in and go out another exit right on the same boulevard where there no
houses facing and less chance of children running out there. Thank you. Any
questions?
MacCoy: I guess not. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak at this time in our
open public hearing?
JACK FROST
Frost: My name is Jack Frost. I live at 2200 Oak Hills Drive. I’m wearing two hats here
tonight. The first one is I’m president of the Cherry Lane Homeowners Association 3, 4
and 5, which is (Inaudible) and Oak Hills and Woodmont and (Inaudible) and Birdie
Drive and Tupelo and all that area in there. Speaking for the president and not of all the
homeowners, what I’m concerned about is making sure that we do have a professional
and good clubhouse and outbuildings that are new. That’s our biggest concern so that
our property value stays the same, not increases and it’s a beautiful area out there and
we want to keep it that way. I know there are new homes going in on Lake Harbor or—I
think that was the street and on Talamore and all that area out there. We do—we are
concerned about that and want something professional in there. A long time coming
and we’re glad to see the clubhouse is going to be built. My other hat is an individual
on Oak Hills Drive. I do approve and would approve a conditional use permit, but I do
not approve of moving the trailer house over there. I don’t even see how it’s going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 32
make it when they (Inaudible). To answer the question, what’s the alternative, I don’t
know what the alternative is. He’s had 17 years to think about this and so that’s—I
don’t know, but if you do approve it and let him move that trailer over there, there better
be some restrictions for removal within 60 days, or whatever. I’m with the gentleman
who was up here earlier. If there—if he does not comply with the building conditions in
four months, or five months, whatever it is, but that (Inaudible) clause be included. It’s
a long time coming, nothing personal against Mr. Lovan, I like Mr. Lovan and a lot of
people that work there, but I think we ought to move on and let’s get that sucker built
and make it professional.
MacCoy: We agree, maybe to ease your mind, one of the things I just asked for earlier
was the drawings because we agree collectively that we want a quality place out there,
if we are going to have a house, let’s make it right.
Frost: Yeah, Mr. Lovan showed me the drawing and it looks real nice.
MacCoy: Yeah, we still have a lot of questions yet. We are going to be looking at it
pretty tightly. Any other questions for him?
De Weerd: I have none.
MacCoy: Any other person out here who would like to feel inclined to come up and say
something? Come ahead.
GORDON MARGULIUX, 2040 INTERLACHEN WAY, MERIDIAN.
Marguliux: I’m actually less than 50 feet from the clubhouse right now. My concern, I
just got here, I don’t know what else other people have mentioned. My sole concern
right now, because it’s actually to my benefit because the traffic will cut down drastically.
We often have traffic parking on our street for the golf course, so I’m glad to see they
have a lot of parking over here. There is a lot of things that they’ve done well, but my
concern is the noise that will come from the new clubhouse, not in the sense from the
golfers, but from the sense—the fact that they have a new clubhouse and will want to
have things in it like parties and things like that. Over the course of ten years where we
have lived we have had a couple instances where the golf course has had parties and
in those cases we’ve felt the brunt of the vindictiveness of the Lovans for our concern
about the noise that they generate. A number of times we’ve had to go out there after
midnight to ask them to turn down their amplifiers, and we’ve done it nicely, we’re not
ranting and raving out there, but we have gone down and found Wally and asked him.
I’ve had, I’ve felt the vindictiveness the following day from Wally, my kids have felt the
vindictiveness, my wife has felt the vindictiveness. At one time, they even had a
wedding which the police came, we didn’t call them, but the police came and had to
break it up because of a fight between the bride and groom, but what we did in each
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 33
case, the following day or following week, we’ve gotten some (Inaudible) from the
Lovans showing their discomfort with our apparently in being there, as in the case with
the wedding, which we didn’t call at all. There is no as far as I know, no noise
ordinance in Meridian—there is now? We called on the second time, since they didn’t
seem to want to do anything about it. We called the police and they told us that there
was no noise ordinance and because they owned a liquor license they could go a lot
later than 12:00. So my concern is that in the middle of the summer time when the
weather is really nice out there and they open the doors and they come onto the golf
course and the band is playing and the school children who have to go to Chaparral, a
year round school and trying to get some sleep and they could care less. This is an
open golf course, there is no barriers. They are going to build this thing six feet above
the ground. My fence can’t be over six feet above the ground, but they are going to put
this thing six feet above the ground and taper it off in the direction of the golf course, or
across these houses. I can throw a golf ball from where they want to have it over to the
first house on Lot 18 on Harbor Point. My concern is that they don’t care, they haven’t
cared in the past, and they won’t care in the future and if you give them a nice golf
course clubhouse, they will want to do that. What my proposal is that they use sound
deadening material which is not specified right now in there that they make the windows
smaller, they have big pane glass windows which will just carry that sound through
there, that they will have a curfew that at 10:00 which is not unreasonable, that 10:00
there will be no outside activities at the golf course, I don’t care if they play golf, that’s
never been a problem, but I think if you look at the plans, their plans are set up with a
dining area that faces that lake, which there is no noise barriers there. All they have
that keep—is used as a buffer, they have three trees, three inch diameter Ash trees that
they are going to have in there. So that’s my concern. Any questions?
MacCoy: No, anyone else? Come ahead.
DICK JOHNSON.
Johnson: I just have, I have to comment on a couple of things that have been said. It
keeps coming back to the 17 years of this clubhouse being there. In 1982 at the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, Mr. Lovan said he would move that
clubhouse the day the road was in and utilities were there, that happened in 1997. We
have taken a year to do the design. We are ready to start. The parking lot was not
owned by the city until 1995. Therefore, no construction could have been started in
there prior to that time. Parts of the clubhouse site (Inaudible) were not deeded to the
city until 1997. Thus establishing a complete clubhouse site. Just one other thing
about that old clubhouse, believe me, Wally and every player out there wants it gone as
soon as possible. Once we are allowed to start our construction, we will get in there
and we’ll get it done and we will get rid of that clubhouse.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 34
Borup: Mr. Johnson, the site that this application is for, is that the site that had been
planed for the clubhouse from the beginning?
Johnson: Since 1975, yes.
Borup: Okay, so it was just waiting for the roads to get in?
Johnson: For the roads to get in place and the infrastructure as far as power, sewer,
water, that became available in the fall of 1997, we started on the project in 1998.
Borup: So this was the original site that was planned all along? Thank you.
Johnson: Yes, we just didn’t have parking or the area for the parking lot.
MacCoy: Somebody back here wanted to have a say.
LOREE LOVAN.
Lovan: It’s probably not for the benefit of the commission here, just for my own
knowledge, I work with ReMax professionals, we’ve had to have party permits and
noise permits and that. There is a noise ordinance at 11:00 P.M. So I just wanted to
clarify that for those of you who don’t know—if a permit is issued by the police
department, that is when you shut down and that’s when we have always shut down out
there, if not before, as in the case of the wedding and that was a half an hour before at
10:30.
MacCoy: Anyone else at this point? Do you see anybody else? Here comes Mr.
Grant.
GRANT KINGSFORD, 4304 W. WHITEASH, MERIDIAN.
Kingsford: With regard to—I didn’t come in at the very beginning and I don’t know
everything that has been said, but this has been a project that has been a pain in the
butt probably for everyone involved. For most the people surrounding the golf course,
and I can assure you it was a pain in the butt for myself. We have a situation here that
in 1977 when the first nine was built, the developer was going to build a clubhouse and
he was going to exercise his options, build the next nine all of which would be deeded
to the city. At that time, I had just got elected to the council, I didn’t start to serve till that
January, this was in November. The economy went up side down, and that developer
bless his heart went back to Seattle, which I could think of a few places that I would’ve
rather he gone. But any event, the project was never able to be built, the clubhouse
and those sorts of things because we didn't own the land where it needed to go. Mr.
Borup is exactly correct, it had always been planned and designed to be where it is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 35
going to go now. We didn’t have those other nine holes and the area that the
clubhouse will occupy, those things didn’t take place until 1997 and 1998. Really the
Lovans nor the City of Meridian had an accurate legal description as to where it went
until this year. So to have that project go forward, while everybody has been frustrated,
I think the Lovans have been as frustrated as anyone. Certainly, of the things that I
tried to do while I was at this city, I’ll have to admit this was the most frustrating. It was
a situation where the city owned a piece of land, we had a developer with the original
nine that had some control over that, the Aires to Lewvitt—NuPacific, you had a pair of
old farmers that owned some land, you had developers that then optioned those pieces
of land, some of those options had switched hands during that time. I’ll tell you, if you
could have a legal and real estate nightmare, there is one there, but I don’t think you
can hoist that off to the Lovans. I think probably if there were errors made, maybe the
city made them. When we annexed that property, the design was to be annexed for a
golf course, that whole section of land was designed, prior to my occupation with the
city, while I was teaching school here but hadn’t moved into town, it was designed and
annexed to be a golf course, an 18 hole golf course. The owners of the property that is
now being developed as the back nine both came to me and said the development, the
economy is up side down, let us build some other things, let us have a nursing home,
let us have a hospital, let us have a racquet and swim club and I said let us have what
you annexed the property for, a golf course. So we stuck to our guns and finally some
twenty plus years later, we have an 18 hole golf course. Hopefully, we can have a
clubhouse that people can check in and have a sandwich, on rare occasion maybe
have a beverage after they played. Certainly an issue, let’s not be pointing fingers at
who is to blame, probably I would like to point fingers at attorney’s, I always like to pick
on them. Surely, don’t like him and I don’t even know him. I used to sit up here and
really bash him. I’ve gotten out of that habit. I think what we have is a situation where
we have new legal counsel in the city and the reason that the lawyers do so well is
there is so many of them. We used to have one in town, boy I tell you he could barely
live and they got two and they did a little better and now my God, they are doing real
well. I think the issue is now we have a different legal counsel and they are saying the
zone is not right. It was right as early—as recently as a year ago, but we have a
different attorney. So things have changed, so don’t be pointing fingers at each other,
let’s get the damn thing zoned and built. Thank you very kindly for your indulgence.
MacCoy: Is there anyone else who would like to add to this?
De Weerd: Was Mr. Kingsford for or against?
MacCoy: We are trying to get this thing finished correctly, go ahead.
Lovan: I would like to get this thing consummated too. It’s been one of the most
frustrating things I’ve ever had happen to me. To stand up here and listen to people,
some are for it, some are against it. (Inaudible) That is not the issue, the issue is that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 36
this thing has sat under being there in 1975. That’s when it first started, it was a dream
of a couple of farmers there. I became involved in this thing in (End of Tape)
Lovan: I finally took over this golf course and I was going to operate it because
nobody else wanted to do it. The city had no money, the one percent thing went on the
ballot, there was no money anywhere. I did not want the thing to go by the waste side.
Every good city must have a good golf course. I’ve done my best to make it a good golf
course. I think I have done a pretty good job. We are right now, in the later years of
getting this thing finished. We need a little push right now. The place where I’m at right
now, Mr. Steiner, he wants to develop it. He’s wanting us off of there. In order to make
it work for him and for me, I would like to move that mobile home for another four
months or so. At that point in time, I will have built a club house of about 8,000 square
feet and this was never in my lease agreement. I’m doing this now for my town. You
better believe it, this is my town. I went to school here, I sent my kids to school here, I
have my granddaughter going to school now and it is all of our towns. There is nobody
here who has worked as hard for so many years tried to do something and make our
town better. So all I need now is just a little help to get us through this little period here.
Mr. Steiner who owns the property that our clubhouse is on now, he would like to
develop it. So all I’m asking for is the club house, temporary clubhouse that I have right
now. I agree with everybody, it is getting tattered now. It was never supposed to have
been used as long as it has, but I’ve been moving as fast as I possibly could to have it
completed. It will be completed by the end of this year if I have cooperation. That’s it.
MacCoy: Thank you very much, any questions for him before he walks away. Anyone
else? I think we’ve pretty well exhausted the material. Staff do you have anything you
want to add at this time? Commissioners, what is the verdict? What do you want to
do?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would like to ask staff a question. Shari, during the
testimony I believe the Tuckers brought up the suggestion to close off one exit and
perhaps add another curb cut on Talamore Boulevard, is that a possibility? I guess I
should be asking the developers as well.
Stiles: It would need to be addressed by Ada County Highway District, there is also the
issue of the landscape island that exists in that road or is planned to be in the road. It’s
there? That would make that hard to do unless you removed part of it.
De Weerd: Have we received comments from ACHD? Perhaps Mr. Johnson can
answer that.
Johnson: Ada County Highway District required 24 foot paved entry on Talamore and
on Harbor Point each place, and it’s also for fire access for access for the fire truck to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 37
come in (Inaudible). This was approved by Ada County Highway District about a month
ago.
MacCoy: Sounds reasonable because the code requires two entrances.
Borup: Mr. Johnson, it looks like the design is indicating that the entrance exit on
Talamore would be the major entrance. It looks like it’s designed that way and that’s
the intention?
Johnson: That is the intention, that’s the highest traffic count road, so that would be the
main entry.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd did he answer your question?
De Weerd: Yes, thank you.
MacCoy: Okay, all right, the commissioners, do you want to continue the hearing or do
you want to close the hearing or what do you want to do?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close this public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: What’s your motion?
Barbeiro: I have a question if I may. As I read here their request says conditional use
permit for a golf course clubhouse, parking lot and temporary clubhouse. If we approve
this, we are approving all three.
MacCoy: That’s what you are doing yes. So how do you want to phrase it? You can
break it up, you’ve been given this as one item, but you can break it down.
Borup: I think there is one staff recommendation that seems to be well in line with what
most of the public testimony was and that is the time frame. Shari’s suggestion on item
no. 12 that maximum time frame of six months on the temporary clubhouse. Most of
those who talked were talking even up to 12 months. The letters were saying, that we
read, that were 6-12 months. The six months seems to be in line with what the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 38
applicant says would work for them. I think that would be an appropriate condition to
leave in there, to include in…
De Weerd: Do you want to finish reading that paragraph because the rest of that also
addresses some other comments.
Borup: IT says the maximum time frame of six months needs to be established for
allowing the temporary clubhouse, prior to moving the temporary clubhouse a letter of
credit or cash should be received by the City of Meridian as guarantee for completion of
permanent clubhouse and parking lot. The applicant did say that they had no problem
with any of the conditions and that was one of them, so I guess that was included. That
was one of the site specific. I think the only thing that needs to be worked out with staff
is the amount of the letter of credit or bond.
MacCoy: As long as you put that in your motion.
Borup: The motion will include all staff comments would handle that.
MacCoy: Let’s make sure that come in there.
Barbeiro: Okay, my concern is that according to the owners representative, the building
and parking lot could be built in no less than five months. The permitting process based
upon their having a complete set of drawings available today would be two months.
There is seven months. (Inaudible) itself, this could not be built from today, where it sits
today in six months.
Borup: I had the same concerns, in fact I wrote down a note that six months from the
time of issuance of building permit. Maybe we need to put a timeframe on that too on
when the permit is applied for. They have testified they are ready, they are needing the
approval before they can submit for the permit.
De Weerd: It’s too bad that we didn’t ask someone out there if they could give us an
idea of when that trailer needs to be moved. I was going to ask it, but didn’t want to put
him on the spot. It would be nice to have that information.
MacCoy: When they are going to move the trailer? They can’t move it anyplace
because there is no agreement to move it.
De Weerd: When that trailer needs to be off it’s current spot.
MacCoy: Well, their eviction notice is already passed. It’s like off now. That’s one of
the things that has been concerning the Lovans because they are at a point of shutting
down the golf course.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 39
De Weerd: Well, as I read it, it’s six months after the approval of this CUP. It sounds
like they can do that. Shari, what kind of time frame is it to get a building permit?
Stiles: Commercial building permits I think are typically taking them about 4-6 weeks
from the time that they start the process.
De Weerd: And do they need a building permit before they put in a parking lot?
Stiles: They need to have an approved plan.
Borup: Approved by the building department?
Stiles: It goes through the public works department.
Borup: For the parking lot?
Stiles: But the use itself is not currently permitted.
Borup: I think what Tammy is wondering can the parking—construction of parking lot
can start prior to the issuance of the building permit on the building?
Stiles: It could. I mean once it goes through City Council. If council directs us to do
that.
Borup: Then commissioners, is the question is when does the six months start? Isn’t
that what you were leading to as a problem?
De Weerd: That would certainly be my question.
Barbeiro: Well, as I read it, it says six months and I’m reading it from the day that we
approve the conditional use permit. We’ve already established that there is no way they
can build this in six months.
Borup: Right.
Rossman: But you are not really approving the conditional use permit. You are
recommending approval. What I think the staff recommendation is directed to is six
months from the approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by the City
Council.
Borup: I think Tom is wondering if that’s…
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 40
Rossman: That may not be sufficient, that’s up to you.
Borup: Well if you are talking six weeks for a building permit, now we are down to four
in a half months.
De Weerd: They said they could build it in four. So lets go, lets do it.
Borup: You know how some of those contractors are.
MacCoy: I know Keith. You have the best feel for that, where do you want to sit down
for timing?
Borup: I think six months from the issuance of the building permit gives plenty of
leeway there. Then maybe we need to say six or eight weeks from the approval to
have the building permit. Or just go eight months from the time of approval. That would
be a month and a half or so for approval of permit and six months to have the
construction.
Barbeiro: In addressing the letter of credit or cash, do you want to continue with a
specific recommendation? We can do a performance bond, we could do a…
De Weerd: I would prefer to leave that up to staff.
Borup: Me too.
Barbeiro: Okay.
MacCoy: Okay, do you got a motion?
Rossman: Please include within any motion if there are any staff recommendations that
you don’t want to—well, just what your direction is with regard to the staff
recommendations.
De Weerd: Such as omitting three and seven of site specific comments.
Rossman: That’s fine.
Borup: Oh, something else just hit me on how this…
De Weerd: Were those right Bruce?
Freckleton: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 41
Borup: Staff recommendations were no more than six months for the temporary
clubhouse. The temporary clubhouse wasn’t going to move in my understanding until
after the parking lot was built. Is that correct?
MacCoy: That was said, but he is going to have to move that.
Borup: He’s not going to move it until there is parking at the new site. Was the
testimony that I heard.
MacCoy: That’s what happens, if he’s got a house out there, a temporary house, and
he can’t park the car, he’s stuck anyway.
Borup: Okay, so then I don’t know that six months is a problem. That’s after the trailer
is moved, you are talking six months. Isn’t going to move until the parking lot is built.
MacCoy: Well that’s what he said anyway. We’ve got a limbo state here that has been.
De Weerd: I’m hoping the powers that be are working it out back there.
(END OF TAPE)
Borup: Well I believe that was how I heard earlier, so I don’t know that we needed to
change anything on staff comments other than what was already mentioned. We are
not talking about six months from now, we are talking about having the temporary
clubhouse for six months and that time doesn’t start until it’s moved. Isn’t that correct?
We are not talking about giving—so the six months will start from the time that the
clubhouse is moved and how fast that happens is going to be up to…
MacCoy: It’s a chain reaction.
Borup: Well no, but they’ve got some control there. So I don’t think we have a concern.
De Weerd: Well it first has to clear tonight, let’s just get this going.
Barbeiro: Yeah, what I see as a problem and I’d like to ask the staff this, as it stands,
we do not have permits or anything operational available for them to build the parking
lot yet.
De Weerd: No.
Barbeiro: So we need a parking lot first and then they can move the temporary building
to it’s site, we are still two months out before they can even have a parking lot going.
Borup: That’s what they are going to have to work out with their landlord or sit down.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 42
MacCoy: We have no control over that.
Barbeiro: Now established a time frame, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve a conditional use permit for a golf
course clubhouse, parking lot and temporary clubhouse to omit comments site specific
comments 3 and 7 and to underline comments number 12.
Borup: Your motion was to recommend approval? Okay, second that.
MacCoy: Discussion?
Barbeiro: Point of clarification, there has been a discussion of the operations of the
new clubhouse that perhaps if I were to infer that it is operational during daylight
operations only during the time that active golfers would be on the course and returning
off the course. Do we have the right to establish the recommendation that the
clubhouse be operational during daylight hours or golfing hours.
MacCoy: I don’t see where that comes into our jurisdiction.
De Weerd: Does Bruce have a comment?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I just wanted to make one
small point of clarification on site specific item no. 3. The latecomer fees is the only
portion of that comment that we need to strike, the requirement for the…
De Weerd: Entering into an assessment agreement. Okay.
Freckleton: Still needs to be in there.
Borup: Actually we probably don’t need to strike that, it says may be charged, it doesn’t
say will be charged anyway.
De Weerd: Okay, well I would amend my motion to include site specific comment no. 3.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any more discussion now?
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: Okay, I’m going to call for the vote. All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 43
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: All right, thank you for coming this evening and putting your two bits in. It
makes it easier for us believe it or not. It’s 9:00 let’s take a break right now and
reconvene in 15 minutes.
(BREAK)
MacCoy: The commissioners and they’ve decided to go the distance tonight so we may
be here till along time, we request that you work with us and we can get this thing done
fast. Item 3 now, having completed item 15, it’s a continued public hearing.
ITEM NO. 3: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A MULTI-BUILDING
COMMERCIAL OFFICE INCLUDING BANK FACILITY WITH DRIVE-THRU
(TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER) BY CLARK DEVELOPMENT—
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE RD & FAIRVIEW AVE:
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, we did receive a revised plan, we got that late
Friday and was put in the packets and put in your boxes on Monday I believe. I have
not had time to review it. I feel like they are perfectly willing to meet all their
requirements, however, without having any time to review it, I don’t feel comfortable
making comment on the adequacy of the existing plan. Apparently we still do not have
any utilities shown. Bruce has indicated that he does need to see that. The response
was that the utilities are existing, but we don’t know where those are, they are all private
lines and I think as part of Bruce’s review he does want to see that and I’m not sure
whether waiting till the building permit application is submitted is adequate. Other than
that, without having like I say the actual time to do a review of ordinance requirements, I
can’t comment that I would recommend this to go forward tonight.
MacCoy: Bruce do you have anything? Is the applicant here, after all this? Come
forward and state your name.
BILL CLARK, 479 MAIN STREET.
Clark: Commissioners based on what Shari just told you, I wonder if you might want to
wait until she has had a chance and the rest of the staff to review the revised plans put
together. Just as a general comment I think that we have complied in these revised
plans with the concerns that were brought out in the initial staff report and with respect
to the utilities, these utilities are part of those that have already been approved and
installed for Treasure Valley Business Center who are simply hooking in to those and so
those have already been approved and reviewed and accepted by the highway district
and City of Meridian. I guess that’s our view of it. It would be something that we would
expect to be dealt with at least for the portion to be developed onto our site to hook into
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 44
those utilities and streets would be part of the building permit process. I know that you
have a lot of things on your agenda, so I don’t want to take a lot of your time. Just in
summary, we are talking about a 14 acre project, office, retail facilities. This has been
reviewed by the highway district. There is some question as to whether or not the
highway district is going to be able to acquire the right of way that they’ve requested.
We have submitted as staff did request of us a revised plan that shows the required or
our site plan with the ACHD required right-of-way which is quite extensive as you may
be aware, they are on both Fairview and Eagle to accommodate an overpass of
Fairview Avenue.
MacCoy: That’s right. Is that it for you? Commissioners do you have any questions?
Borup: I think he just answered one of the main questions that I had. The other would
be –sir the revisions that you made, was that mainly to accommodate ACHD’s
comments and requirements or was it some from city staff that the revisions were
made?
Clark: City staff requested that we revise the site plans to show the ACHD
requirements.
Borup: So that is what the revisions consisted of?
Clark: Yes.
Borup: That was what I was wondering. Shari said she hadn’t had a chance to review
it and I wondering what had changed from the first one? Apparently just the ACHD
requirements. I think that answered my questions.
Clark: The effect is to take away about an acre and a half of the site or would be if they
do and go ahead and acquire it. What it’s result on us is to reduce the amount of
buildable area. As far as the overall site plan goes it really doesn’t effect anything our
two main access points, which we already have as deeded access points remain and
would remain under the ACHD requirements. They are not taking those away. It’s just
a slimming down of the side on both Eagle and Fairview sides and it tapers in—the
greatest area taken is as you get closer to the intersection. I have a couple of boards if
you would like me to show it on…
De Weerd: Mr. Clark, how does that effect the landscape buffer? Will you still have the
35 foot desired buffer?
Clark: Yes, there is a…
De Weerd: I can’t tell on the drawing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 45
Clark: The simple answer is yes. It is a gateway area where you are requiring a
degree of landscaping. We did submit a landscaping plan separately from this as well
as a signage plan requested by staff.
De Weerd: So you have submitted those?
Clark: Yes.
De Weerd: And your landscape islands and the parking, how wide are they?
Clark: Is that a trick question?
De Weerd: No, it’s not. I can’t tell.
Clark: I could find out for you, but I don’t know off hand. Unfortunately our architect
couldn’t be here tonight, but that is included and dimensioned in the landscape plans
we submitted.
De Weerd: Well, we didn’t get a copy of those. Can you see how wide they are?
Barbeiro: This is the southwest corner.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess if the applicant is okay with giving Shari some time to
look at the revised plans, I’m okay with that.
MacCoy: Well this is a continued public hearing, you thinking about continuing this till
next time?
De Weerd: If that is staffs recommendation.
MacCoy: Okay, Shari, how do you feel about this?
Stiles: I would like to review it, Bruce would like to review the utilities. He has no idea
what is existing out there right now. We still have the entry way corridors, we have
asked that at a minimum that 20 feet be on the new right-of-way line be established
along Fairview and they are showing 15. I think at least to be consistent with what is to
the—what’s been approved to the east of this property, we need to at least try and
make that consistent as far as the—that’s going to change their layout some as well. If
Planning and Zoning Commission has some issues as far as setback that are shown,
any issues such as that that you might want to give him that information now and not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 46
wait to a future date, so they could be working on those things. If you have any
concerns at all about the layout, or about the building construction. They do have
setbacks in here that are ten feet it appears from the right-of-way, though they are doing
this as a planned development, the typical setbacks would be 35 feet from the right-of-
way. I think it seems to be overall a nice plan, lots of landscaping. Again, I just don’t
feel comfortable commenting on it.
MacCoy: I need more questions for the applicant from the commissioners. You can sit
down I guess is what it amounts to right now. While we are waiting for the
commissioners to continue review materials, anyone here who would like to speak in
favor of what the applicant is requesting right now, which is a conditional use permit for
the new addition. All right, lets work it the other way, since I have nobody standing up
for that, does anyone here want to object to what he is requesting? Well, since nobody
is coming forth, everybody has other fish to fry here.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: No, we would want to continue it.
Barbeiro: Oh, excuse me.
MacCoy: That’s what you are looking at right now, because what Shari was just telling
you is that we want to continue with material. So we need a motion, unless you want to
discuss anything else right now before.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I have a question for staff. Shari, what were the landscape
buffer requirements for the family center across the street.
Stiles: I’m pretty sure they were a minimum of 20 feet beyond the right-of-way, beyond
the required right-of-way, future right-of-way for both Fairview and Eagle.
De Weerd: What did we finally settle on?
Stiles: I think it was 20 feet beyond the required right-of-way. There is going to be
extensive landscaping, beyond the future right-of-way just because the area is available
and they don’t want it to just be dirt, so it will look like there is a lot more but that will be
taken away in the future. So they are making sure all their trees are planted beyond
that future right-of-way so they won’t be ripped out.
De Weerd: I have no further questions.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup do you have anything that you want to discuss or look to
or what?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 47
Borup: I have nothing at this time.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I did have one, in the ACHD requirements, they
mention an alternative transportation program. Will the site accommodate that kind of a
site, or has the applicant looked at accommodating that recommendation?
Clark: This is becoming a standard requirement of ACHD and all commercial projects
virtually, that is a transportation management plan, an alternative transportation, they
are setting up an office within ACHD or they have to work with property owners and
major users in developing these things. A lot of them are in the way of what they call
soft programming, which is helping with ride chairing and van pools and information on
public transportation. There is no requirement here that at least I’m aware of or
something such as a park and ride line. I haven’t heard anything like that, I don’t
interpret it that way. So it might typically lead to requirements for specified locations or
priority locations for van pools or car pools, preferred parking and that kind of thing,
which would be—or at least as we understand the ACHD requirements here and as we
work with them elsewhere (Inaudible) working with those requirements. Of course
those are enforced by ACHD.
De Weerd: So they have nothing specific in mind at this point?
Clark: No, not that I’m aware of. Other than trying to develop those things that I said.
They are quite serious about those, but as far as a specific requirement, that would be
something that would be required of us when we go forward for building permits in this
case.
De Weerd: Okay, thanks.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I had a question for Mr. Clark. Did you have any comments on
any of the staff comments? So you got a copy of this, this was back in April.
Clark: The April 9th
one?
Borup: Yes. I read there are 22 items. I only underlined two that would probably, looks
like—I don’t know that it was included in. One was the sign details and the other was
the utility easements etc, which I think Bruce has already mentioned.
Clark: We did this for illustration, we did submit to Shari the sign information as
requested.
Borup: Oh, that’s in our packet, I’m sorry.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 48
Clark: Excuse me, as far as the utilities go, we need to make sure that the city engineer
is familiar with the utilities that are there because we are not anticipating constructing
any new utilities to service the site. Certainly the site will have to connect to those
utilities, but they were originally sized to accommodate this kind of use. They are in
place and I think they will find that they are satisfactory…
Borup: They just need to be indicated on the plat is all, on the plan then.
Clark: They are not on the plan, that’s true.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Would you like to, commissioners make a motion here?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the conditional use permit for multi-
building commercial and office, including bank facility with drive-thru to June 8.
MacCoy: What is it? June 8th
, is that what it is?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I second the motion.
MacCoy: Okay, any discussion? Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: I would like to request the commissioners to look at that sign material so we
can get that resolved next time too.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? On the last agenda item, I would like to bring up some
discussion, just make some points on the utility issue. Treasure Valley Business Center
was developed, utilities were installed in the major roads, however, the lots that border
Fairview and Eagle—well, take that back, border Fairview and some of the internal lots
in the development didn’t have services at that point in time. I know a number of years
ago, maybe five years ago, the developer went in and installed some services. I don’t
have any documentation as to where those service lines were, but to my knowledge all
they were were service lines. They weren’t main lines. So, that’s what I would like to
see on paper is what is out there. I know where the main lines are that were part of the
public sewer system, but I know there are some private service lines out there
somewhere. When you have multi-buildings on a site like this, I’m really doubtful that
private service lines are adequate to handle it. That’s what I would like to get nailed
down.
MacCoy: You understand that what he is after?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 49
Clark: Message received.
ITEM NO. 4: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
APPROXIMATELY 8,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING BY BILL & PAT GEYER—NE
CORNER OF WILSON & LOCUST GROVE:
MacCoy: Staff what do you have on this one?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, again we have received some additional
information on this project as well. The site plan although not conforming to our
ordinance requirements I don’t think it’s impossible for it to conform, however, the main
issues that I’m concerned about here are some kind of—we need to really pin
something down on what kind of signage we are going to have there and what is going
to be approved by this commission for recommendation to the City Council. We are
concerned about the driveway widths. They are not providing the driveway widths that
are in accordance with ordinance and with such an expanse of a building, continuous
building, it’s going to be very important that that access be provided with garbage
trucks, delivery trucks, a lot of service area in the rear of the building here. Most of our
other requirements were met.
MacCoy: Is that it? Okay, Bruce do you have anything? Is the applicant here? Right
in front of us, will you sign in please.
BILL GEYER, 967 PARK CENTER BLVD, BOISE, ID.
Geyer: I guess as you see, it’s a continued item, subsequent to the continuation of the
last meeting, myself and my contractor, and the architect met with Mr. Freckleton and
Brad of Shari’s staff and we went through the comments, which was like a bad term
paper. A whole bunch of red. Anyway, we’ve gone through each and every line item
and I believe that we have covered just about every base. I did want to draw your
attention to the fact, just to make sure you know, I discussed it with (Inaudible) prior to
the hearing. This is clearly a two phase project. The first phase being the one closest to
Locust Grove, we just don’t have the economic fire power to do both in one shot. IN
fact, the first phase is being done specifically for a tenant that is Interstate (Inaudible)
Corporation, who will operate an Eddy’s Thrift Bakery Store on the 6,000 feet closest to
Locust Grove. That’s kind of the (Inaudible) genesis for this project. As far as the—I
think the three outstanding issues, the sign, unfortunately I had to rely on someone else
to come up with that sign design and they were not able to finish in time for the hearing
tonight. I’m well aware of the kind of pet peeves of the City of Meridian. I’ve been
involved in this thing, the D & B Supply going back five years. I was also involved in the
Hollywood Video and Wingers. I’ve gotten a real good idea of what works and what
doesn’t work…
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 50
MacCoy: I would say so.
Geyer: You will see in the top, not really the top, but the left hand corner of the site plan
we have, I don’t know why he calls it a monumental sign, it’s not meant to be
monumental, it’s just a monument sign. Scouts honor it won’t be more than 65 square
feet total, which isn’t that big, it’s about the same size of the Wingers sign, which will
have individual spots for the tenants to have their names so they can have some
visibility hopefully from Fairview. Then we also plan to put some size restrictions on the
actual size that they would have over their front doors. I don’t want to commit to an
actual square footage now, because I would want to measure the actual space in front
of the front doors, it’s like 24 foot widths, but you know there are going to be maybe a
couple feet high by four or five feet long and they will be back lit or lit with down lighting
from the front. That’s something that I intended to have here for you, but I just—I was
relying on somebody else that didn’t get their job done. So that’s a sign issue. We
have an issue with the trash enclosures not being in the area that may be as accessible
for the trash hauler as Shari would like to see. Although I will tell you that the (Inaudible)
that we have designed now, has been designed around and improved by the major user
which is going to be Eddy’s. They will be bringing in a step van, their main loading truck
is a tractor trailer rig that I think is about 40 feet long. They have looked at this and they
have determined that it is no problem for them to get in there, unload the racks of bread
and get out again, but again, we’re willing to work with staff to try and stretch that out a
little bit without compromising the overall size of the (Inaudible) of the building too
much. Then thirdly, Shari what was the last one?
Stiles: The width of the driveway?
Geyer: The drive isle, the width. That kind of goes hat in hand with the (Inaudible).
Borup: That’s the service drive on the south of the building that you are referring to?
Geyer: Yes. So I guess at this point we’ve been continued once and rightly so, I guess
we just flat weren’t prepared, but we think we are now and we respectfully request that
you approve this so we can move on to the City Council. I’ve got a very tight timeline
for handing keys to these guys if they are going to open for business. Any questions?
MacCoy: Any questions commissioners? Well, while they are thinking. Shari has
something? Shari do you want to say something?
Stiles: I was wondering if Bill brought up his proposal for phasing this project. Although
you have a full building before you, he is proposing to only make the improvements on
the property…
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 51
Borup: West half?
MacCoy: Yeah, the west half.
Stiles: He explained that to you? And is phasing the improvements as well, as far as
sidewalk, landscaping.
MacCoy: We haven’t asked him that question yet, but he might as well answer it now.
Geyer: My intention is to my sidewalk and the landscaping, that will all line up with what
is existing already been improved to the north at the Hollywood Video and to the east at
D & B. I need to stop at phase one with the improvements. The additional—it’s a
legitimate a argument, you know, is it cost effective to not do it now when you are doing
all the rest of the stuff. I think you could argue both sides of the fence. It is an
approximate $18,000 additional expense to—not only do I have to build the sidewalk for
you guys, but then I’ve got my buddies over in Garden City at ACHD they are saying by
the way you can finish the street there too Bill. It just gets to be vary expensive and I
have a budget that I’ve already submitted to my lender and these guys don’t like
changes. The only person whose pocket that is going to come out of would be mine. I
just—I know that I’ve got—I’m going to have some other surprises somewhere along
the line, that’s the way these projects go, I need to leave myself a little cushion and
that’s one area where I’m looking for some help from you folks to give me a little
cushion so I can make this an economically viable project, because you know I’m not
doing it for my health. I want to be successful here.
MacCoy: Let me ask you something on that. You own the whole property. (Inaudible)
You do have, I would think by the way you’ve drawn it up here, you have the intent of
completing the project down the road. Do you have any idea how soon that would be?
Geyer: You know, I can’t, Commissioner MacCoy I would be blowing smoke if I said I
will do it in a year or two years, I don’t know.
MacCoy: All I’m asking for is a stance…
Geyer: Honestly, I don’t know, it will be when the next guy that comes along and says
Bill we love that location and we are willing to pay you to be there. I don’t know that I
would take on this as just speculative development unless I had something else going
on with one of the other properties that okay, it’s a good time to build that and I’ll just go
ahead and roll the dice. We don’t have a specific…
MacCoy: I’ll accept that. In fact I understand why you don’t want to continue on with a
lot of amenities that we are asking for having been in that business, a lot of this stuff
damaged when they try to do the construction and then you’ve got to go back and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 52
repair it, that’s additional cost. I would like to ask you about the building, what type of—
you told me what type of business is going in this part anyway, but what type of building
are you going to put up there? What’s the…
Geyer: Face block along all the major view corridors and then a plain (Inaudible) on the
back of the building.
MacCoy: What’s the color going to be?
Geyer: Like a brown.
MacCoy: Reddish Brown?
Geyer: Like a red-brown and then some accent ribbons going through the panels on
the side along with some additional landscaping to soften the massive building on the
Locust Grove side.
MacCoy: Okay, what about the roofing, what do you want to do for a roof?
Geyer: It’s a flat roof.
MacCoy: A regular flat roof?
Geyer: Slope roof, slopes to the back.
(END OF TAPE)
MacCoy: Where are you going to put it?
Geyer: I think it’s going to be (Inaudible) I would have to defer to (Inaudible) for that
one, because I’m not sure exactly (Inaudible).
MacCoy: Okay. Wondered. The signage you say, I don’t see a picture and you say it’s
not available to us yet. I would like to see that before we approve your signage. For
the time being I’m going to pass, commissioners, anything else?
Barbeiro: Mr. Geyer, there appears to be a built up roof for the plan here.
Geyer: I’m assuming, I’m not real familiar with the specific roof types.
Barbeiro: Then you are going to have a metal standing (Inaudible) room with split face
to the sides, standard block to the rear aluminum store front in the front and then will
that be Ethus highlights? Kind of a stucco highlight?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 53
Geyer: Correct. What I call a Drivot.
Barbeiro: It’s very similar to what Hollywood Video has right now, which is…
Geyer: The colors will match and coordinate. There won’t be an eye sore there.
MacCoy: You are not going to use stucco, you are going to use Drivot?
Geyer: I don’t know if it will be Ethus or….
Stiles: We prefer it not match Hollywood Video.
MacCoy: It makes it’s own statement. A lot of times you get stuck with the Drivot that
it’s a maintenance situation as far as I’m looking at and Stucco at least if you were, a
colored Stucco in there that’ll last you a lot longer than Drivot will.
Geyer: Our intention is to own the property for some time to come.
MacCoy: Yes, you should look for maintenance and that I just have had past
experience with Drivot and…
Geyer: It doesn’t work?
MacCoy: No, you’ve got problems within a couple of years. You are going to end up
painting it or repairing it.
Geyer: That’s bad, especially after two years.
MacCoy: I can’t help it, I tell you from the standpoint of construction. I wouldn’t allow it
on the new firehouse.
De Weerd: I just had one other question and do you now conform to the 10% open
space that is required?
Geyer: Right now the land of course is vacant, but 10%open space being open you
mean like landscaping?
De Weerd: Yes.
Geyer: Oh yeah, in fact I think we exceed it. Yeah your—the open space required is
2,944 square feet on the first phase, we are providing 3,399 square feet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 54
De Weerd: Did you change that? Is that why, Shari is that why this was a staff
comment? Has that been revised?
Stiles: They were only at the six percent before. The required amount would be of the
gross land area. That would include half of the driveway, but according to their
calculations, it would still, the 3,233 they would exceed that. We would not include
walkways as part of the common area, landscape. Those are a separate requirement
and don’t—are not counted towards common open space.
De Weerd: So where are we at? Are we at 10%?
Stiles: They still meet, according to their calculations, if you will look at the gross
ground area which is the first line and then on site planter, they would exceed the
minimum of 10% slightly.
De Weerd: In their landscaping, a number of trees, has that been fixed too?
Stiles: I believe so, we will have our landscape architect review this to make sure it’s
what we want. We are not, we wouldn’t indicate it this time that we are approving this
landscape plan that has been submitted, but we will work with that during the building
permit.
De Weerd: So your concerns for not conforming to the ordinances were the driveway
width and what else?
Stiles: There is an ordinance requirement that no part of the parking area can be closer
than four feet to an established street or alley right-of-way. They don’t meet that on
Wilson Lane, they do however show—I’m not sure how big that is—here is an
architectural scale, I don’t have that. I think it’s about five or six feet.
Geyer: Five.
Stiles: If this is correct that they would have that, they would have to get a license
agreement with Ada County Highway District in order to be able to landscape that, we
would have to have proof of that before we process the building permit application. We
could probably live with it in this case, because that area if they end up with six feet,
could support 3 inch caliber trees, however we can’t relax on the driveway requirement.
The fire district does require a minimum of 20 feet clear distance the entire way around
this building. So it will require some kind of shifting to accommodate those driveway
requirements.
Borup: The plan is showing 19-10, is that correct? 19 feet, 10 inches.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 55
Stiles: Yeah. The zoning ordinance requires driveways be 25 feet.
Borup: Oh, 25 feet, okay, I thought you said 20.
Stiles: The fire, the fire department Uniform Fire Code requires 20 feet.
Borup: So that was your concern on the driveway with that back service you say needs
to be 25?
Stiles: Twenty gets pretty skinny as far as service trucks, garbage trucks. Probably
most critical location would be right there at that corner, where the trash enclosure is.
Borup: That was the spot that I thought was going to be a concern was on the corner.
I’m sorry, Shari still going?
Stiles: No.
Borup: Mr. Geyer, what does that do to your plans if you need another five feet on your
service driveway.
Geyer: I think we can make the adjustment. I don’t know if we are going to be able to
get the whole five feet, but we certainly can get to 20. It’s not…
Borup: Well yeah, that’s only two inches.
Geyer: Every inch counts—I don’t know that we are going to get to the 25 feet. The 20
feet that’s kind of the no brainer. We will fool with the walkway in front of the building.
We think we can probably take a little of that out, that’s an excess of 10 feet and just
slide the building forward a little bit.
Borup: You say Eddy’s felt they could get a semi back there on that service drive?
They can pull in and out, but they wouldn’t be able to pull around the corner would
they?
Geyer: They don’t plan to. They are going to back and then right back out again. This
plan has been circulated from here to Phoenix, to—I think they are in Omaha is where
their headquarters are.
Borup: But how about a vehicle that needed to drive clear around the building such as
fire trucks?
Geyer: Well, we have to meet the requirement, if that’s 20 feet, we will get there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 56
Borup: I guess that would be up to staff. From my standpoint, if you can get a semi in
the 20 feet, that would probably be adequate for most other delivery trucks. I would still
have the same concern as Shari is the corners. Being able to get something around
those corners. It may just take some revising of that area rather than the whole way.
Geyer: We are more than willing to work with staff to get that issue resolved to
everybody’s satisfaction.
Borup: I don’t think I have anything else.
MacCoy: Okay, anything else? You can sit down now I guess is what it amounts to. Is
anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this project? All right, seeing nobody
answering, anybody care to speak against this project. Looks like you’ve got a good
house today. All right, commissioners, what is your direction?
Borup: Question for staff, you feel—Shari, you felt (Inaudible) working out any other
details with the applicant on this as far—you said most would be taken care of in the
building application stage, etc.
Stiles: Some of the items could be—I’m not going to, I mean all I can tell him is what
the ordinance requires. If he wants to do something different than the ordinance
requires, of course he is going to have to get a variance from that ordinance.
Borup: That was specifically the service drive?
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: The variance would be request through what body?
Stiles: City Council. I just had another question, sorry for the applicant, did you close it
already?
De Weerd: No.
Stiles: Where are they going to keep their service vehicles? Are they going to have,
there is no on site area for parking vehicles, are they going to park inside the
warehouse?
Geyer: Yes, their little step van delivery vans that they use to make the deliveries to the
stores, their vendors, their customers, excuse me, their customers not vendors. There
will be—I think there is room for, I think they determined they can fit four or five of those
things in the warehouse.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 57
Stiles: So would they be willing to make that a part of their conditional use permit that
they are not having these bread trucks parked out on the street.
Geyer: You know I can’t speak for them. Isn’t Wilson Lane a public street, can’t they,
couldn’t they park out there if they needed to?
MacCoy: It’s not a very big street. You park on that you’ve got one lane traffic going
one direction.
Geyer: But is it a no parking street?
MacCoy: Not yet.
Geyer: I would say that I’m not going to speak for Eddy’s, we’ve had so many other
troubles working through ACHD that I’m just in no position to do that. However,
obviously you reserve the right as you have just indicated that anytime in the future that
that parking on the street became a problem, mark it no parking, then I’m not the bad
guy.
MacCoy: With your client.
De Weerd: But there would be no parking in the service drive.
Geyer: There is—no, absolutely not. They get towed if they do that. I don’t mind doing
that.
De Weerd: So Shari, our ordinance states 25 feet then?
Stiles: For driveways.
(Inaudible)
Barbeiro: I would like to ask Mr. Geyer, it appears to me the way that you have your
driveway set up it might be to your advantage to move the exit on Wilson Lane to be in
line with the doors for your warehouse…
Geyer: No can do, it’s too close to the corner. We’ve got that as close as we can get it.
Borup: The other choice would be to change the floor plan of the building.
Geyer: No tenant.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 58
MacCoy: I guess you can sit down again. Okay, are we ready to make a decision here
what to do?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor of that?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: What’s your motion?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve with staff notes as offered (Inaudible).
MacCoy: What about signage?
Barbeiro: I would move that we have signage as a separate item since we do not have
an illustration of the sign.
MacCoy: So you are approving without the signage.
Rossman: So what would you propose be done on the signage? What are we
expecting here, design review or are they going to have to come back before the
commission?
MacCoy: I can do it with Shari.
Rossman: Staff review?
MacCoy: Staff review, yeah. We just did a couple of them that way.
Rossman: That’s fine, we just need to spell it out.
MacCoy: We don’t have any signs in front of us, we are not approving the sign.
Barbeiro: Do you need me to amend my proposal?
Rossman: No, it’s been clarified.
MacCoy: I don’t hear a second yet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 59
De Weerd: Well, so how does that effect the service drive then? That it would be the
required 25 feet?
MacCoy: Well, you said…
Borup: We don’t have any choice on that.
MacCoy: You said with staff note.
De Weerd: They would have to apply for the variance if they want it different.
MacCoy: You’re backing up.
De Weerd: I second.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I think Shari may have had a comment concerning that motion.
MacCoy: Okay.
Borup: I don’t know, her hand was moving.
Stiles: Since the applicant has volunteered that he will go with 65 square feet or less as
a monument sign and the remainder of the signage would be only wall signs, could you
make that part of your recommendation?
MacCoy: Well, I haven’t seen a sign yet, so I don’t know what he is going to put up.
De Weerd: Just that he mentioned you are talking about?
Stiles: I would hate to get to the point where just because you said your going to review
the signs, you haven’t put any conditions on the signage. If they come in with a 100
foot pylon sign, we are back to another project.
MacCoy: Put the fact that we maintain the sign…
Borup: Do you want to add that a 65 square foot monument sign, maximum 65 foot
monument sign?
Barbeiro: Then I would amend my motion to include a 65 foot square foot monument
sign as a maximum allowable size.
Borup: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 60
MacCoy: All in favor of the motion?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Okay, all ayes have it thank you very much, thank you for coming sir.
ITEM NO. 5: CONTINUED 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:
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners we did also receive a revised site plan I believe
Friday on this project. It appears most of our comments were addressed. We did get a
letter from Ada County Highway District today stating that they were not asking for the
60 foot right-of-way on Franklin, they were going to stick with their 48 foot requirement.
The applicant has indicated his desire to use that portion of the Five Mile Creek
incorporated into his project as an amenity. There are—they have incorporated some
trash enclosures, they do show two on the site. They’ve indicated that number is based
on their desire to limit the trash areas because of the aesthetics of those areas. They
would need to coordinate that with sanitary service and see if that was going to be
adequate for the project. The other major issue that I see remaining and that I’m sure
the applicant will address tonight is the buffering of the adjacent residential use.
(Inaudible) Parking clear to the property line and with the two story structures within five
feet of the property line which would not meet fire code requirements or building code
requirements, I guess. With those remaining issues, we would like you to consider the
rest of our comments and include those as conditions of the applicant or this
development.
MacCoy: Bruce do you have anything?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Just looking at the utilities as
proposed, the applicant will be required to comply with the to and through requirements
along Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road, that meaning that water mains would
have to be extended along the entire frontage of the project in those two roads and the
sewer would also be extended up Locust Grove, their entire frontage. That was—Shari
had one other thing.
Stiles: One other thing that I’ve noticed on this plan is the sign is shown in the future
right-of-way, that would need to be relocated onto the property and we would need to
review the details of that signage as well.
MacCoy: Is that it? Is the applicant here? Would you come forward please?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 61
BRYCE PETERSON, 1104 E. BRIGHTWATER, BOISE, ID.
Peterson: I am here representing the Stamas Corporation and Ionic Corporation which
are applying for this application. Just to give you a little history, those two corporations
are owned by my daughter and her husband, Paul and Debbie Stamas and they are out
of the country right now, so I’m speaking for them as best I can. If I may, with your
permission, put a drawing of the project on the wall over here. We have been planting
grass as the hearing has been going on tonight and didn’t quite get it all done, we will
continue to plant that grass and get it ready for you. This is a project, that has been
proposed—this is a project of 96 units that are being proposed on the property located
at the southwest corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Road. The property as you may
recall is the property owned by—you might know it better as the property owned by
Monty McClure. It has a slope from the southwest to the northeast toward the
intersection. I have designed this project in a way to take advantage of the views. We
have placed as you might note by the site plan, we have placed all the buildings on the
contours and they all look forward to Deer Point. This is not a double loaded project. It
is a single load looking straight forward to the northeast. It I think is well designed, I
enjoy using water in my projects and as Shari had indicated we are liking to use a water
that is already existing on this property. We have read the staff report and concur with
all the requirements. In an effort to keep this as short as possible I will stop my
presentation now. If you have any questions I would be happy to answer them.
MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have any questions for him?
Borup: I have none.
De Weerd: The staff mentioned a couple of things, the structure setbacks and I guess I
was curious as to what—how you were buffering the south property line.
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, I would be glad to answer that. I
propose to put a masonry fence on both the south and the west boundary. It will be six
foot tall. We are planning to add additional landscaping as of this afternoon. More than
what we show now. We will give you a more definitive landscape plan. Also, since this
afternoon, we heard that ACHD was loosening up their requirements on Franklin Road
that will allow us to spread the project back out again as we had designed it earlier and
we’ll be able to accommodate any setbacks that are desired along the south boundary.
MacCoy: What do you mean by loosening up your requirements on that?
Peterson: As Shari indicated, she received a letter from ACHD today saying that they
no longer were requiring 60 feet on Franklin Road from the center line, they were
requiring only 48 as they had originally told us. We had—when we got the word about
60 wide we tightened it up on north and south and now that we’ve heard that they are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 62
going back to the original one we will redesign it again, loosening the project up, giving
more setback from the south property line.
MacCoy: Let me ask Shari. Shari is that—Franklin Road has been earmarked for five
lanes, is that going to take care of it?
Stiles: Forty-eight feet from center line is what they typically require on those section
line roads. I want to make sure I’m looking at the right plan here. This latest sight plan
I have only shows 48 feet from the center line.
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to Shari and staff for the late arrival
of this site plan. It is not my way of doing business and I am truly sorry that it
happened. If the one that she is looking at is the 48 foot center to the edge of the
property, then that would show the setbacks as we had originally had intended to make
it. I think that with this additional 12 feet given back to us that we will have adequate
room to do what needs to be done there.
MacCoy: I’m just concerned because I’ve been in meetings for months about the
Franklin Road being expanded to three to a five and so on.
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, this letter that we got today is still wet.
MacCoy: Well, it may be, but…
Peterson: It may well be changed tomorrow because it was changed yesterday.
MacCoy: We’ve just done Franklin Road from 1st
to Linder and that’s being carried
through all the way back into Boise. Well anyway, we will let that one fly for the time
being. Any other questions from the commissioners?
Barbeiro: Mr. Peterson are these intended to be units for sale or for rent?
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, commissioner, they are for rent, they will not be sold. This
application is for an apartment project, apartment house and will not be a townhouse or
condominium.
Barbeiro: Is there any plans to have this as a subsidized housing unit?
Peterson: It will depend a little bit on how the financing is arranged. There is not
(Inaudible) there is nothing like that involved. However, if bonds are sold to finance it,
that is—as a matter of fact, that is what my son and law are doing right now in
Washington DC, if bonds are used, there will be a requirement to have some of the
units at a certain figure and that certain figure is market rate in Boise, because they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 63
figure they allow is only so high. I want to be honest with you, that there will be a ceiling
on some of the units, but that ceiling is equal to market. Would you like a further
explanation Mr. Chairman?
MacCoy: I know what you are talking about. Is there any other questions for the
applicant right now?
De Weerd: Not right now.
MacCoy: I would like to ask if there is anyone in the audience who would like to speak
in favor of this project, come to the podium right now.
JIM BOYD, 9272 CHELAN AVE, BOISE, ID.
Boyd: I represent the property to the west of this proposed development known as the
Medimont Subdivision, it’s a light industrial subdivision. I know myself and Mr. John
Barnes the owner of the Medimont Subdivision have visited with Bryce Peterson and I
think that as I’ve heard him say this evening that he plans to put a block wall on the
west side of the development as well as the south side, I think—I appreciate that
comment and in doing that I think it provides an excellent buffer between the multi-
family development as well as the residential. It also provides an excellent buffer
between the family residential and the industrial uses. I know when we were—before
you, several months back on the industrial, there was concern in requirements to have
a buffer between the industrial and residential and one buffer was a 20 foot strip of
densely landscaped area that in a few years those trees will have grown up to create
almost a hedge, because I think they were 15 feet apart to create that buffer between
the industrial and residential. I think going the extra with the block wall provides that
buffer as well, so I appreciate what he has done there and support the quality of work
and I think it will be a nice project for Meridian.
MacCoy: Thank you, any questions for this gentleman here? Okay, thank you very
much. Anyone else like to speak in favor of this? Anybody else? All right, lets change
the tide to those who are against this program right now. Do you want to get up now?
ALAN FOX, 1840 CADILLAC DRIVE.
Fox: My comments here will also tie into six, so I won’t have to get up again. Rezoning
this so they can build apartment buildings is going to be nothing but chaos. You try and
get on Franklin Road at 7:30 in the morning. If you are heading east you have a long
wait, I’ve been backed up, or my wife has been backed up to north Nola, which used to
be Locust Grove. Can you imagine from there with a stop light to try and get to Eagle
so you can get out. You can’t. You allowed a trucking outfit to go down in on Pine,
used to be called Pine and Nola, those come out and go east. They come in from the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 64
east. This right now, if you rezone it, this is worse than 65 homes that they wanted to
put in on this 6.5 acres and the 13 which industrial park that he was talking about, which
they tried to come in with first. They wanted to put 65 homes in that area. That was
shot down and went to industrial park and left this corner open. Just up the road from
this on Locust Grove is 80 acres, which has been sold and I’ve been told by a fairly
reliable source that they want to put three homes to the acre on that. So if you take
those homes plus these 96 units which is going to come up in 96, I won’t be able to get
out on Locust Grove down onto Franklin. There is all sorts of computer manufacturing
chips that has been authorized to go in at Locust Grove and the freeway. They want to
start off with by what the newspaper said with 500 employees and raise that up to 2,000
employees. All of those employees will use Locust Grove to come down to Franklin, it
won’t go across Stoddard and go out that way. So there is more traffic on a dead end
road there is only one way out. The housing this apartment building is not compatible
per say to the housing that is in there. Just up east on Franklin you have Green Hill’s
up there which is a one acre subdivision. I’m off of Locust Grove on Bentley and
Cadillac which is back in to the east of Locust Grove by the Freeway, those are all one
acres. You have people right next to this 96 units so if they want to rezone so they can
put in, they are on two and two an a half acre lots. Everything around there is housing,
except for the industrial park land, this apartment building will not fit in with the type of
housing that we have and keep our values up. That’s about all I’ve got.
MacCoy: Any questions for him?
Barbeiro: Mr. Fox could you show me on this plan, approximately where you live here?
Fox: I live down about right here. No, excuse me on this side. Off Locust Grove, make
a left on Bentley, the subdivision that sits off (Inaudible) and it’s about 200 yards beyond
Bentley is the dead end at the freeway, that’s where the computer chip manufacture is
going to go to the west that they are building.
Barbeiro: We are not referring to Jabil?
De Weerd: Yeah.
MacCoy: Yeah we are, that’s what he is talking about there. Alan you are aware the
fact that Franklin is going to five lanes and Locust Grove is also going to go to five lanes
and that is in the near future because of…
Fox: I don’t think it’s near enough, they will have the apartments built and we will still
be wondering. When I moved in there in 1972, Locust Grove was going to cross the
freeway too, that’s been 27 years now and it still hasn’t crossed the freeway yet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 65
MacCoy: That’s true, but we in Meridian have not had our share of action until this past
year when we had a team of people from the city that have really put our heads
together and put our shoulder to the wheel sort of speak and I’ve just seen the latest
ACHD and the Idaho Transportation Charts and the first page is over half of those are
Meridian jobs to be done within the next few years here and that’s where the money is
going to go. We are going to get an overpass at Locust Grove and we’ve got one down
the road which will be at Linder, we are asking for a lot of things now and we’ve gone
through all the hoops and channels and has now come down to the final and we are still
on top of the list now.
Fox: We may be, but I sure would like to see this put on hold until we are five lane both
ways so the traffic is eased. Like I say in the morning and evening when I come home
at 6:00.
MacCoy: It’s a mess.
Fox: If I get (Inaudible) behind the trucks coming there, he has a hard time making a
corner, especially the truck with trailers. If there is cars parked there, to come around
and make it go down north Nola so he can go into the truck depot down there at Pine
and Nola.
MacCoy: We’ve tried to get Oak Harbor to move out on Franklin so they had direct
(Inaudible), but they didn’t want to do that.
Fox: That’s a big tie up, a big tie up on that road right now.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Anyone else that wants to get up and speak on the negative
side here.
ROBERT R. SMITH, 335 S. LOCUST GROVE RD.
R. Smith: I own two and a half acres that’s approximately south of that probably three
acreage’s. I agree with what Mr. Fox has said and I have voiced this to Mr. Peterson
when we met with him earlier. First of all you try and access 96 cars coming out of their
on the corner of Franklin and the corner of Locust Grove when and if they ever become
five lanes, which also I’m a resident and my frontage is two and a half acres and no one
has approached me to buy any right-of-way for this access. When we talked to Ada
County earlier this spring when Jabil made their road cut out onto Franklin, they are not
aware of Locust Grove ever being widened for the next 15 years they said in their
planning, nor Franklin. Franklin is to be widened first of all from Five Mile to Cloverdale
in the next proceeding that they tell us about. Secondly, when all this traffic is trying to
turn in and out of there, the nightmare becomes as bad as it is right now at Eagle Road
and Franklin where they are building this complex there on that corner that you can’t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 66
access in and out of it while that traffic is backed up at the time early in the morning and
late in the afternoon when the traffic is coming by. I don’t care if you’ve got a 15 lane
road, you are not going to clarify that on those corners when you let this kind of thing
happen. It gets too congested and too complex at the time. Secondly, Mr. Boyd made
a comment, we fought severely to get a block wall to isolate us from Mr. Barnes project.
It was never done, now he compliments Mr. Bryce about this nice block wall that he is
going to get from his people and that beautiful landscaped piece of junk that we’ve got
behind our homes I would like for you to come out. I’ve asked the mayor many times to
look at it. We were supposed to get six foot trees and back of my place they just
planted three foot. They didn’t excavate or take care of it, they hydro-seeded it, they
won’t mow it or take care of it. We are continually fighting with you people to get out
there to police that and we got it mowed twice last summer. The weeds got over six
feet tall, we’ve got weeds in our yards, all over, we fought and fought. This is what
happens, you guys get the ordinances out there, but nobody polices it. We have to
police it as citizens and you impose all this on us and aggravation of what we have to
go through. It’s been a real bad joke, I’ll tell you. We are not happy about what you
have imposed on to us. I notice tonight with all the opposition to what happened before,
you all agreed to go ahead with what happened over there at the golf course. We seem
to never get you to listen to our side of the story when we bring up all of these problems
that happen to us. I live there for 35 years and all of a sudden you are imposing a lot of
problems on me through your—we’ve reasoned with them to stop the problems and it
never happened. Thank you.
Barbeiro: Don’t leave yet Mr. Smith.
R. Smith: You got some shots?
Barbeiro: Oh no, I did want to comment that after I had my discussion with the
gentleman that made the impassioned plea with regards to the golf course that the
notes that were on the conditions were satisfactory to him. So, those notes—you were
not aware of them, nor were the other members once I showed him those notes, as well
as those that were read, he was satisfied with that. So it is not correct to say that we
did not listen, if the man who represented the tenants group and was the most
impassioned was satisfied with it, certainly I think that is satisfactory for everyone.
R. Smith: Well we have never had them listen to us and we’ve been here many times
with these very problems I’m talking about.
Barbeiro: With regards to…
R. Smith: The development of Medimont No. 1, we fought that, he is now adding a
second portion of that. I’ve called the mayor three times, he is to meet with me three
times out there, he has never been with me. I was—we were supposed to have passed
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 67
as water master on that irrigation ditch, the agreement of the irrigation system that was
supposed to be put in to be taken care of us. We never got that passed, we never met
with—Gary Smith was supposed to come out with Gary Lee, it never happened. We’ve
tried and tried to make an agreement and now they say it was passed 100% or 87%
passed, we found out the other day and we wrote a letter, a registered letter back to
him. All of us that were on the ditch were not in agreement with the way the irrigation
system was put in.
Barbeiro: I have little doubt that your passion and mannerism were done correctly.
Those items are apart from anything that myself or any of the other commissioners can
address directly. Although I will acknowledge the past and the opportunity here for you
to address this to everybody, I don’t doubt that this will come up again and again and
that we need to get those things taken care of within the staff of the city. On this
particular item I wanted to address more of the questions that had to do with traffic flow.
You say that you have two and one half acres south of this existing project. What are
your plans for your land and how would you use your land? Would you wish to develop
your land or would you wish to have anything done with your land…
R. Smith: I want to live there—I wanted to live there and retire there, but I am forced
now to look out further and I want to get out of Ada County from what I’m seeing
happen to my—I’ve lived in Meridian my entire life. I’ve never seen such a mess as
what has happened in Meridian. Now it’s being imposed on me, I thought I was kind of
in a pretty good comfort zone. The interstate wasn’t in out there when I built. It was
nothing but farm ground, an entire mile, an entire section was nothing but farm ground
at the time that I built out there. It’s transposed into all of this, plus what Mr. Fox said,
Jabil is now going in there, that traffic pattern is going to increase at such a rapid pace
that the roads aren’t going to catch up, they are not catching up anywhere in Meridian.
I happen to know from a very good source, I’ve retired from Idaho Power 40 years of
seniority as a line crew foreman and I know a lot of what is going on around here. I’m
now a consultant for H & H line construction. I know that Ten Mile is the priority to begin
with, once those dollars are spent, it’s going to be awhile before anymore dollars are
going to be spent to enlarge any of these other roads, because the dollars are just not
there. So what happens next, we probably are going to be faced with what he is saying
with the traffic congestion on Locust Grove because it is an old two lane road, it doesn’t
even have a center line. We have a problem right now with speeders on it. There is a
35 mile per hour speed limit on it, I’ll guarantee 90% of the people travel anywhere from
50-60 miles per hour by the time they go by my place.
MacCoy: We can’t control…
R. Smith: I absolutely agree with you, but the traffic flow gets worse. The traffic pattern
becomes worse and again there are other developments going in.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 68
MacCoy: Well, we are working a lot of things. We understand you, but we’ve got to
move on in this project right now. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just a question for Mr. Smith. What do you feel would be an
appropriate development for this property?
R. Smith: That’s not my call, that’s (Inaudible) by you people every time. That’s not my
call, if this project exactly what he said was turned down, two years ago by the
Planning and Zoning and also by the school district, because they didn’t feel the influx
of children they could handle from just this kind of a project right on that corner without
building more schools, so they turned it down two years ago.
Borup: Who turned it down?
R. Smith: The Planning and Zoning did.
Borup: Yes, I was here.
R. Smith: You are the only one left here.
MacCoy: No, I was here.
R. Smith: You were here and I think he was too.
(Inaudible)
R. Smith: But that happened and that was what turned the tables on it.
Borup: So you are saying you should leave it bare ground?
R. Smith: Until those roads are made different. I’ll tell you, the complexity of what is
happening there isn’t funny. That’s why I say you are getting the cart ahead of the
horse.
MacCoy: The unfortunate situation that we are faced with in all of our communities is
that ACHD will not increase the road or improve the road unless you have 65+ percent
of the ground utilized with people, not farm land. So if people that sold their operation
for Jabil decided to keep it in farm land, we wouldn’t have had them here either. So a
lot of your compadres have been selling and that’s where these people are coming
from, use that land for other reasons. That’s what makes ACHD work is when we fill up
the land, we collectively people wise.
R. Smith: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 69
JIM WITHERELL, 215 S. LOCUST GROVE, MERIDIAN, ID.
Witherell: I have a different (Inaudible) to take on this. The neighbors are sort of—
usually we are in here as a block and opposing it. We are sort of fragmented now,
because this has some excellent points and it’s got some very bad points. The bad
points for us being that concrete wall is our fence, or the masonry fence. I’d like to
know more about this, we’ve had two meetings with him now. Things sound good, but
then I find out it’s not section 8, but it’s going to be subsidized housing, or a chance of
subsidized housing, that hasn’t come up. He also said that—he did agree to the
masonry fence, but how far is the setback, he didn’t know the last time we talked to him.
When the original high density was put in there, was requested for in there, they came
up with a masonry fence right on the property line, Shari skinned them alive. I don’t
know what the setback is supposed to be. Can we ask for continuance this is more
settled down, just for another meeting?
(END OF TAPE)
Witherell: …For sale condo’s. There is a beautiful piece of engineering and
landscaping, but it’s so dense right next to one acre, one and a half acre houses.
Those are my only comments.
MacCoy: You had good comments. Thank you, anybody like to ask him anything?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, I wasn’t—sir I wasn’t quite sure on your question on the
masonry fence.
Witherell: On the original plan that was presented, it was actually five years ago. They
were going to put a masonry fence down the west side all along the residences. Shari
said they can have a masonry fence, but it had to be setback 20 feet from the property
line and be part of the transition. This is again right on the property line. I don’t know
what the transition is. As of last night when we had our meeting with the developer, he
didn’t know yet either.
Borup: So you are saying the fence is too close to the property line?
Witherell: I think so, it’s not my property line though.
MacCoy: While you are standing right there, Shari do you have anything to add to this?
Stiles: Are you talking a 20 foot setback from Locust Grove Road?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 70
Witherell: No, Preston had—Preston whatever Subdivision Mark 3, he was going to put
a concrete or masonry fence along, next to the residences that it abutted. You said he
had to have a 20 foot setback, the fence could not be right on the property line.
Stiles: We did ask for a planting strip between the uses. Similar to what we’ve done
with the Medimont and by the way just to respond to Mr. Smith, hopefully Mr. Boyd is
working with the developer to try to get these issues taken care of. We have written
them a letter and our next step will be citations in court. So they have pretty good
incentive, it just does take some time as far as that is concerned. My biggest issue with
this is buffering of the adjacent residential. Obviously five feet between the property
line—from a property line to a two story building does not even meet building code. So
there is going to have to be some revisions to that, whether it’s going to be actually 20
feet…
Witherell: I guess that’s my point because they said it had changed again today
because of the ACHD easing up on it, the pressure on the front end of it. He doesn’t
have to compact them quite so much now. So we, the effected parties don’t know
actually the layout of it at the present time.
Stiles: Actually they don’t have the extra 12 feet. The latest site plan that we do have
only shows 48 feet. So there is no leeway in there. They’re just meeting what we’ve
asked for is the 48 feet from the center line, plus an additional 35 feet for a landscape
setback on Franklin and Locust Grove. So…
Witherell: So the landscaping buffering is still an issue then?
Stiles: Yeah, I think that’s probably in my mind the biggest issue is the buffering
between the single family residents there and the high density there. I was hoping that
more of your neighbors would be here tonight to indicate how your discussions had
gone and…
Witherell: We are all here.
Stiles: All of you?
Witherell: All effected parties except my wife (Inaudible).
(Inaudible)
Witherell: Same old…
Stiles: Okay, I didn’t see the Robertson’s up here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 71
Borup: That was all. I just needed clarification on that, thank you.
Witherell: My only parting remark is that developers have been offering us cookies for
years. For the first time, Bryce gave us some and we ate them.
Rossman: Where are ours?
MacCoy: Anybody else who would like to make a statement now? Nobody else wants
to get up?
JERI SMITH, 335 S. LOCUST GROVE.
J. Smith: We were in, as far as Shari is concerned, she said two story buildings. Now
there were three story buildings discussed, has that been changed? She said two story,
but the developer was discussing. The footage has been changed, perhaps they have
changed it?
Stiles: Profiles, the elevations that were submitted with the application and are part of
this process are two story.
J. Smith: Oh, all the buildings are two story now?
Stiles: I don’t see—perhaps the applicant should get up and clarify that. What I have in
my packet is two story buildings.
MacCoy: Anyone else? Okay.
MARIE ROBERSON, 185 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD.
Roberson: We have the property next to where they want to put this Cobblestone
Village. I guess I’m not clear on what you said the ordinance is for the setback. Is there
a certain feet, 8 feet, 10 feet, 5 feet, what is the…
Stiles: Without a determination from the building inspector as to what he is going to
consider front and rear on this, because of the way it’s situated. The building code
would require a minimum of five feet per story for fire wall issues and the construction
that they would have to have there. I can’t give you an exact answer about that
because I don’t know what he is going to consider to be the rear and the side on this
property.
Roberson: I think it was going to be—a quarter of that was going to be five feet from
the masonry fence. I think one of our concerns also is the fact, what happens when we
decide to sell our property if there are only five feet from the masonry fence? Where
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 72
does that put, is that going to be okay and if we have to go five feet on our property, will
the buyer for our place be happy with that, is that (Inaudible), you know what I’m
saying? Do we need more of a setback than that? Apparently there is not an
established amount of feet.
Stiles: It would depend on what zone you were requesting, what your overall plan was,
as I said, the five foot that they are showing from the property line now can’t be done,
they are going to have additional room between that property line and the building to
meet fire code requirements. I just don’t know exactly what those are, depending on
what zone you are in. The single-family zone, if you had like a R-4 for a subdivision, it’s
a five foot setback per story from a property line.
Roberson: Okay, that’s not very much. Thank you.
MacCoy: Anybody else? Do you have anymore statements staff? I guess not, okay,
commissioners? What do you want to do?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, you were mentioning the time frame with the street
improvements for Franklin and Locust Grove, what are those time frames?
MacCoy: Because of—you speak of Locust Grove, Jabil is going in right away. They
have told us that Locust Grove will be—has to be redone within the next two years
because it just wont stand it, the trucking will kill it. It’s also going to be too small, it’s a
two lane road. By the standpoint of Jabil coming in, that is going to force ACHD to do
something now, instead of doing it five to ten years down the road, which they had
planned on doing. So we move forward, we are continuing to hit hammer on the fact
that we need this stuff now, and you know, give us the money for this.
De Weerd: Well, I’m concerned about the south property line and the setbacks and the
amount of buffering there. I am concerned about the density before the road
improvements are made. We put in Jabil and I think we are expecting too much from
that roadway. I would be against—I think this is a great proposal and if those streets
were already under construction with the improvements, I would be in total support of it.
But at this point, I can not—I personally can’t support that. The traffic is really bad out
there. So you have heard from me.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I must say that Mr. Fox and Mr. Smith did present a very good
argument. The idea that a 65 home division was rejected and now they are putting in
96 units is incompatible, that a multi-family unit is going next door to an established
industrial is incompatible, that a multi-family unit is going into an area with one acre or
more home sites is incompatible. That a multi-family is going into an area where an
industrial Jabil complex will be is incompatible and that the existing traffic and the
addition of no less than 300 trips per day from this spot is incompatible and that the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 73
Meridian School Districts recommendation against the 65 homes would then also show
that this is incompatible with this multi-family and I can not approve this in good
conscience.
Borup: I think just clarification for Tom I believe that 65 unit was a manufactured
housing project, not a stick built housing project. My recollection seemed to be a major
objection to that was for that reason.
Barbeiro: It was not the number of units, but the type of units?
Borup: That was my recollection, a lot of the big, I’m sure the number was a concern
too, but it was an upscale mobile home park.
MacCoy: It was a number of things where they’re just not there. The total complex was
not compatible with what we wanted to see.
De Weerd: Just for clarification, the school district did recommend against it, but they
have not done that on this proposal.
Borup: They recommended to approve this one, isn’t it?
MacCoy: Yeah, I was surprised at that, I couldn’t believe it.
Barbeiro: With a note that the school is already overcrowded and they approved?
MacCoy: Well, (Inaudible) time and time again, they say that’s a normal letter.
Borup: But they’ve got new schools coming up they say that will ease that.
De Weerd: Yes.
MacCoy: They are this next year.
Rossman: We still have an open public hearing.
MacCoy: Right, I’m waiting for an answer here. Do you want to continue it, or do you
want to close it? That’s the first stage. You got enough information to close it down or
do you want something to be brought in or more time to look at it? How do you want to
do this?
Borup: Well, I’m still not sure what—I mean this is not an area that you are going to
build a single family low density subdivision.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 74
MacCoy: Not next to a…
Borup: Who is going to move there. No one wants to live that type of setting with that
type of—with a low density. I mean you’ve got traffic of Franklin Road there.
Everything to the west is mostly commercial development. Across the street is going to
be commercial development.
MacCoy: That’s right. Our direction…
Borup: Maybe this isn’t what needs to be, but it’s not going to be quarter acre or third
acre lot subdivision.
MacCoy: No, but our guideline has always been between industrial and R-4 housing
should be apartments or something, but then the next question comes up is the density
of that type of thing. You could be apartments, but it could be something in between of
what we’ve got here.
De Weerd: My concern is more we do not have the infrastructure in to support this kind
of development at this point. I think you know, what they have done here is very nice, I
would be concerned about the setbacks and the buffer between the multi-family and
single-family. My primary concern is the roadway and the traffic that this is going to
create in addition to what has already been placed on Locust Grove with Jabil and so
there is my…
Borup: I think Malcolm has already addressed that, ACHD is not going to build the
roads without the traffic count. Otherwise they would be putting roads out in the desert.
The traffic, the traffic count has to be there first. It does lag behind immediately, but it
comes first and then the roads follow. They build the roads where the people are
wanting to drive or needing to drive. I think the only, I think that’s probably the way it
should be, the only thing that would help is if they could react a little faster, which
doesn’t happen. That’s probably my concern too is the—I think the buffer on the south
is probably well, pretty much non-existent. I don’t know in my mind opposing it because
the roads aren’t in is going to get the roads in any faster. If we want the roads in faster
is approving more projects is the way to get the roads built.
MacCoy: I’m afraid that’s true. Since we have still an open public hearing we have a
hand up here who would like to speak to us.
R. Smith: I would just like to address what Commissioner Borup said. The problem lies
there, look at the complexity of what happened to south Eagle Road, the length of time
it took to get that and the problem was there. It took forever. The right-of-way has not
even been assessed on this yet. To get the right-of-way settled, it’s the same situation
that happened on Curtis Road. Curtis Road is still under a lot of controversy because
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 75
the right-of-way hasn’t been bought. Before you can build that road you have to have
that right-of-way and they haven’t even tried to assess buying the right-of-way. I know
that’s a problem because as I said I worked for Idaho Power for 40 years and we have
had right-of-way problems that you won’t believe. Idaho Power just rebuilt this line
down the road that we live on to access the new water ways out tip. They paid for that
line. Jabil will hook onto that line. They didn’t even buy the right-of-way over far
enough because they contacted Ada County Highway and Ada County Highway told
them it wouldn’t be for 15 years. I talked to the engineers because I come out there
when the engineer was working and I said gosh guys they are going to widen Locust
Grove Road. Why put those poles there and two weeks you’ve got to move them over
40 feet? They didn’t do it and it’s not been done. I’m just trying to confirm what you are
saying. Before these things get done, you’ve got to have the right-of-way and I have
not—nobody has contacted me and I talked to everybody on the road and nobody has
contacted us on Locust Grove about buying any right-of-way.
Borup: I’m sure they will contact everybody at the same time (Inaudible).
R. Smith: I agree with what you are saying to one extent, but look how long Eagle
Road took and that’s only second because I was a Trouble Man for 15 years that was
the only access that I had as a power company employee to get on the north side of the
river or else you had to go clear into Boise. There just wasn’t any other roads to get
across the Boise River until they widened Eagle Road and what a relieve that was to
access trouble when we got across there. The north south laterals across here right
now are really in serious trouble. I was elated when they said they were going to put
Locust Grove clear through to Chinden Boulevard as a five lane road. It ain’t
happened.
MacCoy: Well, all I can tell you is that I’ve been siting on committees for the last couple
of years and we have been jamming this thing down their throats Locust Grove and it
was 15 years down the road, then it was 7 years and then it was 5 years down the road
and we continue to say we are not satisfied. It’s going to have to be and we put Jabil in
there and we are running it down their throat because Jabil is in, people are in, we are
beyond your percentage, do something now. They have actual admitted to us, here in
Meridian on our committee that we are the only city—they gave us this thing two weeks
ago. We are the only city that has actually come forward and put together a plan and
they are going to buy it for us. So I figured we will see. We’ve done a lot of talk, we are
going to wait and see what comes out of this.
R. Smith: My mom comes from (Inaudible). The other thing that I would like to bring up
to you Keith is that I don’t live in the dark. I see that they are taking all the test holes
now for that 80 acres to be developed and they are digging all their test holes which is
just south of me about 250 yards and across the road. He is getting all his test
procedures done. I was informed pretty confidentially that Peter O’Neil has already
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 76
contacted Shari and this thing is a go going over there. So there is 80 acres of housing
going in there and I hear it’s going to be like Witherell was saying, it’s going to be real
high density. There is a lot of traffic going to be there other than the 96 units that is
going to be on a corner. Where a corner is terrible place to access 96 and that’s a
minimum of 96 vehicles to come in and off of both Locust Grove right at the corner, and
right at the corner of Franklin Road. That’s my concern as bad as it can get there.
MacCoy: We understand that. What about our public hearing here? What do you want
to do here?
Rossman: I think the developer wants to add one more piece.
MacCoy: We’ve got to get this thing done eventually here. We still got a half of a night
work. Okay, I hope it’s quick sir.
De Weerd: Take as much time as you need.
MacCoy: Please Commissioner De Weerd we’ll be here till three in the morning if we…
Rossman: Well Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of public testimony and he has only
had one small opportunity…
MacCoy: I realize that, go ahead.
Peterson: I would like to respond to some of the comments. Is that alright?
MacCoy: You are right, you have the chance to do that.
Peterson: Thank you. The Chairman has gone to some length to explain to you how
things get built, he’s absolutely right. The amount of impact fees that Jabil is going to
pay, and the amount of impact fees that this property is going to pay is going to go into
the pot. That goes a long ways toward paying for roads. The taxes that ACHD collects
is not a major thing. If we depended on taxes which we did prior to the time that the
impact bill was passed, you know it was much worse then. The impact fee bill, which I
will tell you I am the author of, I wrote it, I lobbied it for four years and got it passed.
That’s been the greatest thing that has ever happened to Ada County because we’ve
got more money flowing into ACHD now than ever happened before and it’s coming in
earlier than it ever happened before. You see it comes in at the time you buy the
building permit. It doesn’t come in based on taxes that are way down years and years
later. It comes in right up front. Can you imagine the amount of money that Jabil is
going to pay and the amount of money I’m going to pay to (Inaudible) that piece. That’ll
do a lot to Locust Grove. It’s two lanes and it’s very inadequate. That will be solved to
a great extent a whole lot faster. Bob Smith indicated that everything is always behind.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 77
It was a whole lot farther behind before the impact bill was passed. (Inaudible) Well,
you are wrong, I would be glad to show you the numbers. We do know that Locust
Grove is going to be widened. Mr. Smith seems to have different kinds of information
than the rest of us have. He says it will not be widened for 15 years. We have different
information on that, I would like you all to know that. His testimony is not necessary
accurate. I would like you to also know that I have a great desire sir to reduce the
number of vehicular traffic trips and I’ve put this project in the middle of an industrial
area, right in the middle of it for that very reason. I would like these people to walk or
bicycle or do whatever they want as much as they can. I believe that you will find good
planning demonstrated that that is the way to do things. Put your residential apartment
uses right in the middle of your big employment centers and there are some big
employment centers going right there. Don’t you think it would be a good thing not to
have people jumping in their cars and going to all of these intersections of these
horrible, horrible things that have been described to you tonight? I think it would be a
very good thing. We are proposing to do just that. I think this is the most compatible
thing I can put on that dirt. It is a beautiful piece of dirt. The way we intend to develop it
will even enhance it more. So I think it is the most compatible thing I could do. I think
the school has not indicated that this is not an acceptable project to them. Okay. You
have a letter to that effect. I would like for you to just look at how things really work.
The way that they really work is that the developers pay a whole lot of money in impact
fees. I wrote the law that says you do it. That’s how roads get built. It will never
probably be up to speed because as Mr. Borup said, it’s always behind. The schools
are always behind. The government is always behind, but you don’t stop building so
that the roads can get built, you don’t stop the building process because what are you
going to pay for the roads with. You have to have a tax base, you have to have impact
fees. You have to have the money so that the Ada County Highway District can use it
for roads. All these things are in the works and they are not 15 years away. I plead
with you to approve this project, but I also plead with you to please change your way of
thinking, because your roads will never catch up. Your system will never catch up if you
don’t let people come in like Jabil and people like that to create employment basis and
then I follow those people and I create shelter for the people who work (inaudible) that’s
my job. I don’t go ahead of Jabil, I go behind it. Okay. Thank you very much Mr.
Chairman, I hope I didn’t take too long.
MacCoy: No, that’s fine. In fact what your say is very true and the standpoint that the
only time your roads will ever catch up with your population is when you have an
economy drop and everybody moves out of your territory. All right, commissioners what
is up now?
Borup: I have a question for Mr. Peterson, if he had any specifically any comment on
the residential buffer and perhaps the overall density on the project.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 78
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I would be glad to as I indicated as I
testified earlier to spread it out. I think if you would allow me to redesign. This is been
my proposal. I would spread it out from north to south so there is adequate setbacks
and you know that I wouldn’t build anything, I wouldn’t even propose anything that
wasn’t properly setback. I’m sorry that those documents got delivered without me
seeing them. I apologize as I apologized earlier. I think in order to maintain the density
and to have the project still be very compatible, I can loosen it up from north to south
and I would like to be able to put two and a half story units on the back line next to the
industrial park. I believe that with your cooperation I can do both of those things.
Borup: So you are saying that two and half story would spread out the buildings a little
more open space (Inaudible). So your proposal is that you would like to come back
with the revised?
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, may I? I would like to come back with a proposal that is
accurate. I would like to know if it is going to be received on it’s merits or if it’s not. I
don’t want to waste your time. If you are totally against the project and tell me now. On
the other hand, if you are for the project, I would be glad to keep working with you.
That’s the kind of people I am.
De Weerd: Mr. Peterson, in your conversations with ACHD I am assuming this didn’t go
to public hearing.
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, madam commissioner, yes it has gone through the hearing
process and was acted on by the commission.
De Weerd: Okay, have you asked them when those road improvements would be
made?
Peterson: In response, I would say that your chairman knows more about the timing
than I do. But they do, they are going to happen within the next two or three years we
understand. I would venture to say that it will be less than that. It will be immediate. It
will be more immediate if they have money to build them with. The right-of-way is not
an issue. That is not an issue as Mr. Smith tried to describe to you.
De Weerd: That’s not an issue with me. My concern…
Peterson: It’s not an issue with anybody and I don’t want him to be testifying to that
effect because it’s inaccurate.
De Weerd: That’s not my concern, my concern is the traffic flows and the location of
this particular parcel being on the two corners of two very busy roads. I do understand
the concept that development needs to come so the roads will. In this particular place,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 79
it’s just not well placed for that traffic until those roads can be improved. That is my
personal opinion. I think you have a very nice development. That is not my issue, my
issue is the traffic. I’m one vote.
MacCoy: Well do you want to continue this or do you want to close it?
Barbeiro: Mr. Peterson has asked us to vote on it. He wants to know a yes or no, yet
he also wishes to present us with an amended set of plans.
MacCoy: I think he makes a very good point, why should he waste his time if you are
going to turn him down. If you are willing to work with him he is willing to have you add
some more time to it and he will work with our staff and put out material that is more in
keeping with what you would like to see. I think it’s been pretty straight forward.
Borup: I think what he is saying, if minds are already made up to the point that it
wouldn’t make any difference in what a revised project looked like, why proceed. I’m
not ready to approve it the way it is right now, but I’m not opposed to something going
there. I guess I would look at a revised project on it’s merits. Again, I’m one vote.
Revising the project is not going to change the traffic.
De Weerd: I guess I would have a question for staff. That would be is there any
chance that you can get any kind of feed back from ACHD on this particular road
situation and what are your feelings on this? That’s why you are the professional.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, we do have the staff report that has been acted
on by the commission that requires the 48 foot right-of-way dedication. Franklin Road
is listed in their five year plan list of unfunded projects. Locust Grove is not currently on
their plan in their five year plan. However, because of Jabil and because of the
development that is going to be taking place north of Franklin Road, they have already
dedicated the right-of-way for Locust Grove to go straight through. Locust Grove and
Franklin will be a signalized intersection. As far as timing I have no idea of what is
going to happen. They are going to have to have—they do their counts and at the time
they call a warrant analysis when the traffic meets that level, that is when the light will
be installed. As far as the rest of it, they are the agency that deals with the roadways
and the construction of the roadways. I didn’t see anywhere in the report that they
recommended it not be approved because the roadway system couldn’t handle it. They
do make that statement in some of the projects that we have. They have accepted a
standard of a level of service C for most all roadways, that would be an acceptable
level. I don’t see anywhere in the report that they said this will cause it to go to a D or
an F. There is no indication from them that the roadways can’t take it. So, as that is
their responsibility as agency over public roadways, I’m not going to second guess them
on whether the roadway there is adequate to serve this development.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 80
MacCoy: Let me add one more comment to this the material that I’ve been talking
about is in it’s final draft stage, they won’t have a final answer they will see in print until
October as to changing of dates. Though we have been given the indication that the
dates are being changed, will be changed.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, after this evenings discussion and comments of the neighbors
and developer, I would be willing to listen to the developers revised plans. He has a
great deal of information here based upon what we have discussed and what the
neighbors concerns are. Where the developer may have the opportunity to discuss
face to face their concerns and address those in a more specific manor and present us
with a revised plan. I would be open to listening to a revised plan and would like to
continue the public hearing.
MacCoy: All right, make a motion here then.
Barbeiro: I motion that we continue the public hearing to our next planned meeting.
MacCoy: The date is June 8th
.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Rossman: Keep in mind that the next public hearing is not a forum for us to get up and
testify to the same material that we testified to tonight. If you do show up at the
continued public hearing, you show up with new information if you intend to testify.
Thank you.
MacCoy: Thank you for coming this evening and expressing your views, because that’s
how we make our decisions. We will move to Item No. 6 which is a continued public
hearing request for conditional use for the same material.
ITEM NO. 6: 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:
MacCoy: Well I think we are going to have the same things that we are going to
continue this same thing. Mr. Attorney do you think they need to do that? Since we are
going to get the same material.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 81
Rossman: Well, lets open the public hearing. I agree with you though, it is proper to
continue it to the next June Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Lets open it
tonight and then move to continue.
MacCoy: We are opening, we are not opening it, we are continuing the public hearing
which was from last months hearing and is for the same program, project. The
applicant, if you want to come forward and make a statement to the effect that you want
to carry your material forward.
BRYCE PETERSON, 1104 E. BRIGHTWATER, BOISE, ID.
Peterson: I appreciate the comments that have been made by the commission. We
would like to have it continued. We would like to respond to the comments as was
suggested and if you would be so kind as to continue it along with Item No. 5 we would
appreciate it.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the public hearing for request for
conditional use permit until June 8th
.
Barbeiro: I second the motion Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 7: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP—4375 W CHERRY
LANE:
MacCoy: Staff do you have any additional comments that you want to put on the floor
right now?
Stiles: Just to refresh the commissioners, this was tabled again because of a
paragraph in the Comprehensive Plan that said development may be considered at
densities less than three per acre if they would do it as a planned development and
offer a cost benefit analysis. I have a little bit different interpretation of that, but that
statement does exist in the Comprehensive Plan. Still dealing with the issue of a 30’
driveway that accesses a five acre parcel to the south. Other than that, I have no
further comments in addition to what we’ve already commented on for the annexation
and zoning and the plat. That’s going to Item No. 8.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 82
MacCoy: Bruce?
Freckleton: I have nothing further to add.
MacCoy: You have nothing. All right, over to you Mr. Manship.
JEFFREY MANSHIP, 4375 W. CHERRY LANE.
Manship: I have agreed to all of the Meridian site specific comments. I met with ACHD
and agree to meet with their comments too. Just going on since December and would
like to finalize a decision on it tonight. That’s all I have to say.
MacCoy: Any questions for Mr. Manship.
De Weerd: Did they have in their comments that you need to increase that from 30’ to
40’ feet?
Manship: No.
De Weerd: Oh.
Borup: So Mr. Manship, you did agree with all the staff comments? There are quite a
number of things. The dry line sewer and the pressurized irrigation system that needs
to be shown on the plat and streetlights and everything.
Manship: Correct. ACHD had two driveway approaches that I agree upon to. We met
two Monday’s ago and talked about that and I agree with them both.
De Weerd: Have you talked with the other property owners and worked out anything
with them?
Manship: No, I haven’t.
De Weerd: You haven’t.
Borup: Could you say why not? Wasn’t that how it left last time was that was supposed
to happen.
Manship: Yes, they’ve had a couple interested buyers and they backed out and they
have another one, so I never know what is going on. I’m trying to work on this. I’m not
worried about what their plans are for the property to the south.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 83
Borup: Refresh my memory a little bit, were both these properties under one ownership
at one time?
Manship: Correct.
Borup: You bought the front section and the person you bought that from retained a
section of the back, is that the way that worked?
Manship: No.
Borup: The other way around?
Manship: The people who had the original parcel split it with a one time split.
Borup: Sold it to separate parties.
Manship: Correct, then they split off another five acres in the back, which the other
party is to the south of me.
Borup: Okay, I thought staff had one other request.
Manship: Wasn’t there a question here about a copy of the road easement or
something?
Borup: I didn’t underline that, so now I’m not finding that.
Manship: I think at the last meeting was a conditional use and a cost benefit analysis,
which I have completed both.
Borup: Item No. 13 says please provide a copy of the recorded easement for review.
Manship: That was submitted with the preliminary plat.
Borup: You say that was submitted with the preliminary plat?
Manship: It was part of the legal description.
Borup: Okay, that was on her original comments that she requested back in December.
When was that turned in? Shari was that not intended to be put into our packet or do
you know?
Stiles: I don’t believe we ever did get the actual easement. We did get a legal
description that just mentions. It said subject to that easement. We didn’t have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 84
anything about the actual conditions of it. We have—it’s in the title report, isn’t it, it just
refers to an instrument number, we don’t have that instrument.
Borup: So do you have an estimate of how many of these conditions still need to be
complied with that you don’t have the information on yet? I mean there is several here
pertaining to the plat items and…
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup are you waiting for an answer here?
Borup: Yeah, I was just asking Shari if she had an estimate of how many items are
still…
Stiles: Bruce is looking for the legal description. I have a hard enough time
remembering what happened last week, yet alone six months.
Borup: Are you comfortable that you received enough of the items that you requested?
There are no concerns in your mind?
Stiles: We still would like to get a copy of that recorded easement which is—would be
that instrument number, if you could just get us a copy of that. Just to make sure there
aren’t any problems involved with that. Ditches, I don’t know if that has been
addressed to Bruce’s satisfaction. Are there existing easements on there Jeff?
Manship: Nampa Meridian Irrigation requested to tile those ditches, because some of
the are open. I’ve agreed to do that.
Stiles: The ordinance covers us as far as requiring that piping and State Code as far as
delivering irrigation water to the historic users. I really think the main issue was—it’s
going to be a policy decision for the council to decide if they are going to allow this type
of development without hookup to sewer and water. There has been discussions about
40 acre piece at the southeast corner of Franklin and Black Cat there, that they may…
(END OF TAPE)
Stiles: …into the existing sewer system. It doesn’t have anything really to do with this
project. If that were the case, it could be that a stub street could be provided from the
west property to this back parcel. Without any applications being filed, I can’t state
when that might be or—we would still, staff would still support the no more than four
homes be built on a 30 foot roadway. I would also like to ask that we didn’t make any
conditions in here as to the maintenance of that roadway, what the construction would
be. I know that the fire department has indicated that it would have to meet their
standards as far as compaction and construction. You might also consider that as part
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 85
of your recommendations to go to council on what standards you want that 30 foot road
to meet.
Borup: What has been the process in the past? How about some of these others been
to ACHD standards. Hasn’t that been the wording, other than the width, but as far as
the base?
Stiles: I don’t know that we’ve ever approved a private road that is proposed to be
gravel.
Borup: Well not in the city, no. Some of those county projects we looked at.
Stiles: Yeah, I don’t know. If they are in our fire district, they have standards to support
(Inaudible). Bruce indicates that it would be a HS20 loading.
Borup: HS?
MacCoy: Highway loaded. What is that 70,000? What is that? Something like that.
Borup: You don’t have to know, just act like you know. Just throw out a number and if
no one else knows then. Well, where are we at on this? We’re waiting for some more
public testimony?
MacCoy: I thought you’d asked Shari if she was satisfied with what you had received
and what else did you need?
Borup: I think she needs everything she had listed. It sounds like she is satisfied that it
would have to come along some time before the fully developed. Is that true?
Stiles: I don’t think it’s critical for you to make your decision, but I would like to receive
those as soon as possible so we can have that before we go to the City Council
meeting.
Manship: So the instrument number of the recorded easement?
Borup: I think she wants more than the instrument number, she wants the recorded
easement itself.
Stiles: If you could give me a copy of the actual recorded document.
Manship: Not a problem at all.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 86
MacCoy: We could pass it on to the council with the stipulation that all it has to be
provided before being allowed.
Borup: I’ve changed my attitude, I mean before I felt concerned about property to the
south and thing just hit me, that thing was split, both parties knew what they were
buying at the time they bought it.
MacCoy: Yeah, we had that discussion.
Borup: Maybe that’s what we need to worry about. There would’ve known the
limitations at the time they bought the thing. If that wasn’t acceptable, it should’ve been
split differently. That’s all I have right now. We are not ready to make a decision until
the public hearing is closed anyway are we?
MacCoy: Well I’m going to open—it’s a public hearing, so if you finished with Mr.
Manship, he can sit down and we can move it on. All right, thank you. All right,
considering what we are looking at here, is anyone here who would like to speak in
favor of this project.
CHERYL BROWN.
Brown: I don’t know if I’m in favor or not. I don’t have a problem. I own the back five
acres of this property. I’m the one who talked the owner into splitting it off from the
Kruels about five years ago. We were going to build our home out there and the Kruels
were going to stay at the front property. They are an older couple, this is where they
were going to stay. We’ve owned this property for five years now and then sometime
later Mr. Manship bought it. That’s where I just wanted to let you know that we didn’t
know this was going to happen, but you never know. What I’m concerned about is the
roadway. I was told today that Mr. Manship said he was putting in a 50 foot roadway, I
don’t know if he is going to or not. That’s where I’m concerned because if he doesn’t
and you approve this on a 30 foot roadway he can put his lots in, then I’m stuck if a
developer—which developers have been approaching me and Mr. Manship on this
whole parcel, which would be wonderful if we could work together on this. If we don’t
and he does his thing and I have developers approaching me saying we want to put
four houses at least back there, we can’t on a 30 foot roadway. We need 50. Then I’m
stuck. That’s my concern. I don’t oppose to what Mr. Manship is doing putting houses
back there. I just don’t want to be stuck with where I’m at either.
Borup: But that’s something that you should have thought about five years ago, isn’t it?
Brown: Yeah, I guess I didn’t at the time. We’ve decided, we didn’t build our home
back there, we went on the golf course, but—so now my property is up for sale. This is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 87
what I’m hearing from developers. Now am I going to be able to sell this or am I going
to be—have a five acre piece of ground that is landlocked.
Borup: You can get one house on it.
De Weerd: Two.
Brown: There is one building permit available on it right now. I’m zoned county and Mr.
Manship just got his zoned city. So I guess I can ask you, I’m concerned about the
roadway.
Barbeiro: Mrs. Brown, who owns the land, this appears to be to the west of this lot?
(Inaudible)
Barbeiro: Why I asked who owns the land to the west is if you have 30 feet here, you
could pick up 20 feet off the other side if you were to work out something with the
people over here and allow you to get—wondering if the developers will want that land,
likely want this up here too.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: Well he has a barn that is 40 feet from the property line, so if you widen that
to 40 feet, he would be within one foot of his barn. That is not doable.
Borup: The time to work something out with Mr. Manship is probably not here at this
meeting. That needs to be done elsewhere.
Brown: It does.
MacCoy: If you remember Commissioner Borup that this is the reason that this has
been continued each time we come to this same crossroads and we say you know we
continue it so that they would have time to work something out. I think we are at a point
now that we pretty what need a fish or cut bait here.
Borup: Question for Shari. It appears that the original application was for zoning and
annexation, the application before us today is just for conditional use permit. Did the
zoning application ever take place? That was (Inaudible).
Stiles: You recommended approval of the zoning. It hasn’t gone to City Council yet
because they want to see the plat.
Borup: They want to see everything, okay. That’s what we were thinking.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 88
MacCoy: Well, was anybody else who would like to make a statement for this, I’ll
continue that situation while they are discussing their positions. On the other side of the
fence, anybody who would like to state anything on the other side, the negative side? I
guess not. All right commissioners.
De Weerd: Well I’m looking for something.
Barbeiro: Mrs. Brown may I ask a question please. You had said it was a requirement
to access the property that you have should the developer wish to take it that you would
need 50 feet. We can pretty much establish here that short of Mr. Manship tearing
down his barn that 50 feet is not available solely on his land. For you to access your
property with a 50 foot right-of-way, it would still require you to go into negotiations with
the property owners who own the property directly west of Mr. Manships property. As I
see it, Mr. Manship is not going to tear down his barn, nor would I expect you require
him to do such a thing, so where am I missing what you want him to do?
Brown: Well I guess what I was told through my realtor talking to Mr. Manship is that he
was splitting off the house and barn separate. Then the next time I talked to her she
said he had all of it up for sale. I guess I’m unclear really what he is doing and if he is
going forward with this, am I going to be locked back there. If he is allowed to do the
two acres, the two splits up front, am I going to be able to do the same in the back?
Barbeiro: Are you required to come off of Cherry Lane, or do you have access to your
property off of Black Cat?
De Weerd: No, she is landlocked, she is right behind Mr. Manship.
Brown: We have the easement, an ingress/egress easement for both properties. I’m
right behind him.
Barbeiro: How do you access your land right now?
Brown: Coming down the 35 foot—well there is nothing there right now, but coming
down that side.
Barbeiro: Essentially a dirt path.
Brown: Right, right.
Borup: I know that I’ve asked this question before, but what was your understanding of
who had access to that easement?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 89
Brown: Both of us.
Borup: That’s the way it was written and recorded.
Brown: Right, and that we would share maintenance on it and any other expenses on
it. We don’t have a problem paying for half of this roadway or anything, we just don’t
know where we stand right now.
Barbeiro: As it stands now, it just goes in as it is, you will still have access to your land.
So the only concern exists now, should the developer wish to come in, how will they
access your land?
Brown: They need to come down that roadway. That’s the only way in.
Barbeiro: My question was, if you have the land back there, what possibilities are there
of having access to that land through an easement on a property that parallels Black
Cat so that you have access to your land through Black Cat, not off of Cherry Lane.
Brown: Well, we are not even, there is nothing. There is 40 acres next to us between
us and Black Cat. We are not that close to Black Cat.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Thirteen hundred.
De Weerd: So Tom in essence a 30 foot easement would only allow four lots and so
Mr. Manship is developing two so she would be limited with her parcel of developing two
lots.
MacCoy: Well commissioners would you like to close the public hearing? What do you
want to do next?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: I second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Public hearing is now closed. What is your desire?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 90
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, if I may make a comment. I reviewed the minutes from the
December meeting, the January meeting and the March meeting. I don’t see anywhere
in there where your recommendation for annexation and zoning was made by the
commission. Shari do you know when that was done?
Stiles: The annexation?
Rossman: In January it was continued to March to allow a conditional use permit to be
submitted in conjunction with the request for annexation and zoning to be heard in
March. I look at the March minutes and it was just continued at the request of Mr.
Manship, I believe.
Stiles: I don’t have my agendas with me. It was recommended for approval.
Rossman: Okay, I just want to make sure of that before we act on a preliminary plat
and a conditional use permit. I just want to make sure it’s part of the City of Meridian
that we are dealing with.
Stiles: Well, it won’t be until the council acts on it anyway. It won’t be final decision.
De Weerd: Well the rezoning was along with the request for preliminary plat. We
continued the preliminary plat, so I can’t imagine how we separated out the rezone from
the preliminary plat.
MacCoy: You could’ve, but I don’t remember. So what do you want to do here.
De Weerd: Doesn’t it have to be zoned before we approve a CUP?
Stiles: No. The commission is only making a recommendation. It won’t be zoned until
the City Council zones it.
Rossman: But Shari does it make sense to send up a recommendation for preliminary
plat and a conditional use permit when in fact the City Council won’t have a
recommendation for zoning, unless….
Stiles: I’m fairly certain that it has been acted on. As much reassurance as that can
give you.
Rossman: I don’t know if Mr. Manship wants to come back next month again. I guess
he would have to either way.
Stiles: It’s already zoned R-3 in the county. This use would be permitted had they had
any access and they would have to go through the city anyway to actually plat this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 91
property. That’s why they are requesting annexation. It’s actually zoned so he could
have done this in the county. So there was no question about the annexation and
zoning, that wasn’t the problem.
Rossman: Why don’t we act on the preliminary plat and the conditional use permit and
if in fact there hasn’t been any recommendation to the City Council for or against
annexation and zoning, I guess we can see if we later discover that that hasn’t been
acted upon, City Council certainly can should they choose to act on.
Berg: Just a response about the annexation, on December 8, 1998 the Planning and
Zoning moved to recommend approval of annexation and zoning for property to R-2.
Rossman: Fabulous, that was on December 8?
Berg: Yeah. That is still kind of hanging there until we get the other stuff.
Rossman: You’ve answered my question if it’s been approved a recommendation then
we will send it up.
De Weerd: On what page?
Berg: Page 54.
De Weerd: Not that I’m doubting you.
Rossman: Mine starts on page 55.
Berg: I have it in my annexation and zoning file and you have it in your preliminary plat
file. It’s at the very end of that page of 54.
Rossman: That issue is moved, go ahead.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend and approve the conditional use
permit for the development density below three units per acre for the Cherry Lane
Estates.
MacCoy: Now wait a minute. We are on Item No. 7, preliminary plat.
Barbeiro: Allow me to amend that. I move that we approve the preliminary plat for
Cherry Lane Estates.
Borup: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 92
MacCoy: Any discussion? Okay, all in favor?
Rossman: Before you vote on that, what do we want to do with staff recommendations.
Are they included in the motion?
Barbeiro: If I may amend the motion that we include all staff recommendations in the—
in our approval.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second on that?
Borup: Second.
De Weerd: As well as any ACHD comments, which we don’t have.
Borup: It’s a private road, ACHD doesn’t…
De Weerd: What about requiring him to have two approaches that’s what he testified.
MacCoy: I don’t have that in my file.
Borup: Approaches from where to where?
De Weerd: I have no idea, I just wrote down what he said.
Rossman: That’s fine, you can make it a further condition that if there are any ACHD
requirements that be complied with.
Barbeiro: Allow me to amend my motion to include any ACHD requirements for
(inaudible).
MacCoy: Okay, you going to second that?
Borup: Second, yes.
MacCoy: All in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: Nay.
MacCoy: Nay?
De Weerd: I didn’t say aye, you didn’t give me an opportunity to vote.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 93
MacCoy: Oh, I thought you said aye or whatever it was. You said no. Okay. So I’ve
got two to one. Sorry I didn’t pick up on that. That’s the reason I say what I say about
everybody (Inaudible).
ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A DEVELOPMENT DENSITY BELOW 3 UNITS PER ACRE FOR PROPOSED
CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFF MANSHIP—4375 W. CHERRY LANE:
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Nothing further.
MacCoy: Excuse me?
Stiles: Nothing further than beyond what was on Item No. 7.
MacCoy: Okay, Mr. Manship, do you want to come back here again? What do you
want to say about this?
Manship: I’m just zoning it below what it is called for. Just put some variety into the
development. That’s all there is after doing that.
MacCoy: Okay commissioners do you have anything else you want to ask of Mr.
Manship?
Manship: I have reasoning for that because Central District Health won’t require septic
system with a lot size of one acre or smaller. You need one acre or larger to have a
septic system because there is no sewer access at the moment.
De Weerd: I still like that density. I just don’t like the road situation. What was it that
ACHD wanted you to do?
Manship: I have the requirements in my briefcase if you would like me to take it out.
De Weerd: Well, if you would submit it for the record.
Manship: I think that Brad Hawkins-Clark got a copy of them too, we met together.
Rossman: Is it a final report or a preliminary?
Manship: A final report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 94
Rossman: Did you submit it to the clerk?
Manship: Yes.
De Weerd: Mr. Manship, is that a copy so—or do you need us to make a copy?
Manship: I would like a copy please.
Rossman: If it’s just a draft, it’s not much good to the commission.
Berg: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, this is a draft but it does state on
here that commission date is for May 5 at 12:00 noon. So we may have to do some
further research to see what the final approval was, if that is okay. We will make a copy.
Do you have the draft in your file?
MacCoy: Okay, do you have any questions for Mr. Manship while he is standing here?
Okay, you can sit down then. The question is since it is a public hearing, is there
anybody here who wants to speak in favor of this action? All right, anybody here who
wants to speak on the negative for this action? Seeing none.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Okay, what do you want to do?
De Weerd: Just for the record, I do like the low density, but I hate to see another
property owner effected by limited access created by the limitations because of the road
size. That’s my only comment.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of the conditional use
permit for development density below three units per acre for Cherry Lane Estates.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: Two ayes, one nay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 95
MacCoy: One nay, right?
De Weerd: Exactly. Nay.
ITEM NO. 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF 7.265 ACRES
FOR CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE II (FROM R-8 TO R-15) BY WILLIAM & LUCILE
LEAVELL—END OF 5TH, NORTH OF CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE I & SOUTH OF
FAIRVIEW:
MacCoy: Does staff any questions on this or comments on this?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, do you have our memo dated May 7, 1999? It’s
my understanding that they are appealing some of Ada County Highway District’s
conditions, mainly the extension of public roadways to and thru the property for that
reason and other issues that need to be addressed on the site plan, we felt there was
going to be a significant redesign and did not perform a review of it, but they are here
tonight to make any presentation and answer whatever questions you might have.
MacCoy: All right, is the applicant here to speak this evening?
LARRY KNOPP, 355 S. 3RD
STREET, BOISE, ID.
Knopp: I’m the architect representing Mr. & Mrs. Leavell in this project. As Ms. Stiles
has stated we are appealing the decision from ACHD. They were requesting some
public streets through this project and we are designed it phase 2 in conjunction with
phase 1 for private streets. A development agreement with—when this project, phase 1
went through in 1992 required that the Leavells have a rec facility and some
amendments that are in conjunction with phase 1 and this is what they are proposing in
the phase 2, clubhouse, swim pool, some amenities that go along with it. We have
private roads as you can see from our preliminary plat that are preliminary site plan that
we have the units spread out. The rec building is in phase 2, all the streets that are in
phase 1 and phase 2 are private roads. We would like to maintain that quality of
development. I do have a letter also from Captain Bowman that he gave us today in
regards to the safety of public streets in a private development that I would like to
submit to the commission for their review. I’m not sure what the appeal date is with
ACHD, but I’m assuming it’s within the next week or so. Ms. Stiles also had some
comments about the Nampa Meridian Irrigation Five Mile Lateral that goes along there.
Their comments to the city were at this point they have no comments. They don’t make
comments on a rezone, but I did talk to Mr. Hensen today, this afternoon, he is with the
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. He had stated to me that they had no comments,
but also they were willing to work with us on an easement that is on that lateral. There
is 50 feet of right-of-way both sides from the center line of the ditch and the Leavells
have talked to the people prior and they have indicated that all maintenance was done
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 96
on this ditch from the east side and not the west side where this development is. So
that that easement and in deed for that 50 foot easement on the west side was not
needed and that they would be more than happy to work with us on a reduced
easement for the (Inaudible). A land use change would have to—application would
have to be submitted within. Also, an encroachment agreement of which we would
have to get with them. We also have to work with them as far as the storm water goes
if we want to use this project and use Five Mile Creek for storm run-off. There is some
areas that we will have to work with Nampa Meridian to make this project happen from
that standpoint, but as Mr. Hensen had indicated they’re more than happy to work with
us on it. I’ll answer any questions you might have at this point.
MacCoy: All right staff, commissioners?
Barbeiro: Mr. Knopp, as it stands now a number of items will be changed in this prior
to construction phase.
Knopp: A number of what?
Barbeiro: A number of items, if I’m not mistaken, Shari was telling us that you
(Inaudible) addressing a number of concerns of ACHD and the problems with Five Mile
Creek. This will be redesign?
Knopp: No, the only thing that would have to be redesigned on it is if the appeal with
ACHD we’re not successful in that and they require public streets to go through, which
requires—the public street that, one of them that is in question is Badley Avenue, east
west. ACHD also had a question and also wanted to go with a public street from
Fairview to access down to Badley. They have changed their mind. What they would
like to have and what they would like to see is a joint use or access, a cross access
agreement with the property to the west that is undeveloped next to Fairview so that
they can limit the amount of egress/ingress that they have on Fairview Avenue. So they
have backed off and have not required public streets from Fairview down to Badley. So
the only one now that we are discussing with is Badley Street, east and west. The
Leavells on phase 1 was required by ACHD to improve Badley and have another
ingress/ egress on phase 1 and they went through considerable expense. I think it’s
about $58,000 to improve Badley and extend it beyond so they could do phase 1 and
that was under the assumption of a private street, not a public.
Barbeiro: I have no further questions.
MacCoy: I've got a couple of my own. I realize you have made a private arrangement
here. It just seems like the space between the buildings where people are going to
drive is 25 feet. It’s going to be pretty tight. These are two story buildings, so it’s kind
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 97
of like a canyon. I’m also questioning the number of parking stalls. If you had visitors
come into the place. How would that work out with your parking?
Knopp: We have ample parking to meet the city ordinance on all the units. We have
parking, some covered parking, we have garages and we have parking areas located
throughout the project.
MacCoy: How come some of these stalls are covered and others are not?
Knopp: Some of the units have garages and some don’t. So we are trying to provide
some protected or covered parking for the units that don’t have garages.
MacCoy: Oh, I see. I didn’t see you had garages for (Inaudible). What is the
construction material for your building?
Knopp: They will match pretty much in like what phase 1 is. They are wood framed,
they are asphalt shingles. They are a combination of hardboard siding and some
Stucco.
MacCoy: Okay, anything else commissioners?
De Weerd: No, I have a question for staff though. If a redesign is going to be
necessary if ACHD doesn’t grant their appeal and we have moved it forward, we won’t
see that redesign, is that correct?
Stiles: Correct.
De Weerd: Okay.
Barbeiro: Mr. Knopp, the A, B and C units are garage units, D units are not garage
units, is that correct?
Knopp: Yes, I believe that is correct.
Barbeiro: Will these be rental units or sale units?
Knopp: Rental.
Barbeiro: Will there be—will this be a subsidized housing project?
Knopp: No.
Barbeiro: No further questions.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 98
De Weerd: I have no further questions.
MacCoy: You can sit down, thank you sir. Is anyone here who would like to make
comment in favor of this?
FRED SHOEMAKER, 815 W. WASHINGTON.
Shoemaker: I’m attorney for the Leavells. I wasn’t going to speak, but I heard some
questions that I thought maybe I might better answer than Larry. I was the attorney that
represented the Leavells back in 1992 when the original 44 unit project was approved.
We kind of regarded tonight’s meeting as an architectural slash design focus, not a
legal matter. I heard commissioner De Weerd ask some questions that I thought maybe
warranted some discussion of the history. This really is an extension of a 44 unit project
again that was approved in 1992. The city imposed on the Leavells a development
agreement that is actually recorded over phase 1, the 44 unit project non-subsidized,
market rate project, not incidentally a project that pioneered a high end apartment
project for Meridian at the time. The battle then was convincing our bankers, the
Leavells bankers that they really could enjoy or receive the rents that this quality of a
development would demand, in any event. So what we are doing really is just
extending, if you’ve been in that area, go down 2 ½ avenue or 2 ½ street, it’s a high end
very nice existing edition to Meridian and this phase 2 that you have before you tonight
is just simply an extension, a mere copy cat if you will to the north of phase 2. It’s what
the Leavells were required to do. They are not—it’s not a wealthy institution, it’s a
family operation. They couldn’t afford to build anymore than just the 44 units that were
constructed in 1992. The city at the time said well that’s great, but since you can only
afford to build 44 units and we want certain amenities you’ve got to promise us that
when you get around to developing phase 2, you will put in either a clubhouse and
either a pool or a tennis court. The Leavells signed and recorded in 1992 this
development agreement. Again that’s incumbent. I think it was only about the second
development agreement had imposed. Although I know that is fairly common now. So
in any event, they have an obligation to replicate on this property with 64 units and type
and design and with quality at least equal to or greater than in the terms of the
development agreement that already exists for the 44 units. Again to repeat it, but
that’s why they are required to build that clubhouse and that moreover is why they are
insistent on the private driveway as you can imagine. If this project was required by the
highway district to have public street bisecting it Badley Avenue. It would be the first
and worst high end apartment project with a public street running through it and that’s
why it’s not much of a surprise to see your Meridian Police Department Captain say no
that would not just hinder, not just dampen the amenities, but create a hazard for kids,
people running from the south end of the development accessing the pool going as
residents of the proposed phase two in the north end having to access the laundry
facility which is the existing amenity on the 44 units that exist today. So, I know
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 99
Commissioner De Weerd that you were concerned about not being able to see a
revised plan if we didn’t get the exception that we are seeking on a hardship basis or for
whatever reason from the Highway District. I can submit to you that this project won’t
go ahead without private streets. It’s just not workable. We would loose for economic
reasons 12 buildings, or 12 units three buildings. So all of a sudden you’ve got 12 or 52
instead of 64 units to support if you will or subsidize relatively expense common area
facilities like a pool and a clubhouse. I’m pretty confident. We’ve already made some
progress, Larry and I have with the Highway District staff. I’m confident when we
explain to them what I’m trying to explain to you tonight that we are under an obligation
to build these improvements that planned from day 1 or at least in 1992 was to have a
connected integrated unified 108 unit project that they won’t impose on this
development a public thorough fair right through the middle of. What I would like, even
though I know Ms. Stiles initially thought maybe a deferral would be in order, what we
would really, with respect would ask from the commission tonight is a recommendation
for approval of both of the agenda items and I think it would be fair for you to comment
on or perhaps reserve subject to satisfying the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District which
is one of the only two issues that abound. The other issue is subject to satisfying the
Ada County Highway District and by the time that recommendation gets to City Council
we will have resolved the highway district requirements. In any event your
recommendation will be subject to satisfying the highway district requirements. I hope
that I added some clarity and not too much additional time. Any questions then Mr.
Chairman?
MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much for your time. Anyone else like to speak in favor?
LOREN ROSS, 1383 LINDER WOOD DRIVE, MERIDIAN, ID.
Ross: With the close proximity of the project I think I would like to see some type of a
solid fence six foot fence along the west and north boundaries of the project as it
stands. Couple of reasons one of them being human nature is to take short cuts. Town
is on my side. So that means bicycles and foot traffic and possibly motor cycles cut
through. It wouldn’t eliminate it, but it might discourage it.
MacCoy: Wood fence is what you are looking for?
Ross: I think wood or chain link with wood slats something that wouldn’t rattle, certainly
wouldn’t want a noise factor. Also in relevance to a fence, if it could be built in the early
stages of construction it would be appreciated. There is going to be a lot of commotion
and containers and a lot of different things. We are in pretty close proximity. We’ve got
40 families that live there. The other thing I believe that I would like to see, if they could
maybe move the trash bin a little bit south or east. I think the way it is positioned is
pretty close to some of my residents in the mobile home park. Am I correct on that?
That’s pretty much to the north west corner of the project, is that correct? Other than
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 100
that I think it would be a nice addition. Just a few things that I don’t think the plan
shows.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you for your comments. Anybody else who would like to make a
comment on the side of the plus? Anybody here want to make any negative comments
about this moving in here. Seeing none, okay. It’s back to you commissioners, what do
you want to do?
Barbeiro: I would like to ask Mr. Leavell a question please.
WILLIAM LEAVELL.
Barbeiro: With regards to Mr. Ross’s request for a chain link fence with slats or a wood
fence, it appears to be about 1200 lineal feet of fence.
Leavell: That’s no problem at all, we told him last night that it would be done too. My
wife talked to him on the phone. Yes, it will be done. Probably before we start building.
If we start building.
Barbeiro: Mr. Ross you are aware of this then?
Rossman: Mr. Ross, we can’t record you from back there, you will need to step up to
the microphone.
Ross: I had that conversation about 8:30 last night. I told her it was just a matter of
record that I come and speak my piece. Go down in the annuals.
MacCoy: You have any other questions?
Barbeiro: No, I have no further questions.
Borup: Mr. Leavell, do you have a fence around your phase 1 project?
Leavell: Most of it yes, three sides.
Borup: Okay, so you would just be continuing the same fence essentially. I guess
that’s a good question, type of fence that you’ve got up there now?
Leavell: It is a six foot slat wood.
MacCoy: We are still working on Item No. 9 for rezone, that’s the first part of this, from
an R-8 to a R-15, what is your desire?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 101
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Can we end up with….
De Weerd: I’m concerned, I don’t see any staff comments in here. You don’t have
any?
Stiles: There are none.
De Weerd: I’ve never seen that happen before.
MacCoy: Item 10 you’ve got a letter in here, or comment in here.
Stiles: Just a letter requesting that you continue the public hearing so that we will have
a chance to review it and comment on it.
MacCoy: That’s not—that’s number 10, right?
Stiles: That’s both of them.
MacCoy: Because we didn’t have it in the other one.
Borup: We had it in number nine.
Rossman: Shari what is the purpose that you think the hearing ought to be continued?
Stiles: Not be continued?
Rossman: Did you say that there is a letter indicating that staff request that the hearing
be continued?
Stiles: Yes.
MacCoy: May 7th
letter, but it’s in the package for Item No. 10, not in the package for
Item No. 9.
Borup: Mine is in No. 9.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 102
MacCoy: Is it in 9? I don’t have it in mine. I do too, there it is there. I do have it. I just
didn’t get this one opened up.
Barbeiro: After our discussions with the architect Mr. Knopp he is under the impression
that there will not be the need for significant redesign of this project. I would like to ask
staff if they have that same belief?
Stiles: No I don’t, staff fully supports the extension of Badley as a public street. The
letter submitted for Mr. Bowman, the police chief told me tonight that it was
inappropriate that he commented on it. He is not, is in no way involved in the land use
planning and Chief Gordon did want that known that the letter was inappropriate. So
staff does support Badley, I’m not sure about the other public street coming in from
Fairview, but we would have numerous comments on this project. There is an existing
billboard on this site they are proposing to use as their signage. You know we haven’t
even begun to make any comments regarding this site because fire department
supports this street, public works department supports this street, planning and zoning
supports this street. It’s obvious by looking at the plan, if our recommendations are
taken into account and you agree with them, the site plan, we would be wasting our
time to review the site plan.
MacCoy: All right, you closed the public hearing, do you have any problems with that
as far as zoning or do you want to back track?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, allow me to back track based upon staff’s notes, I would like to
continue the public hearing to our next scheduled meeting.
MacCoy: Of June 8th
. Do I have a second for that type of…
Borup: Question, was it anticipated that they would have a response from ACHD prior
to that or in enough time for staff to review?
MacCoy: What by June 8th
?
Borup: What subdivision is Badley coming—that’s tying into a subdivision it looks like.
We don’t have…
Stiles: Sterling Creek Subdivision, it came through as Elvira.
Borup: Oh, okay, I remember.
De Weerd: I second that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 103
MacCoy: To open the public hearing again.
Barbeiro: I asked to continue the public hearing.
MacCoy: I know, I’m waiting for the second.
Rossman: Technically the motion should be to reopen the public hearing and continue
it.
De Weerd: I would second a motion to reopen.
Barbeiro: I stand corrected, I wish to reopen the public hearing and then continue it to
our next scheduled date.
De Weerd: Which is June 8th
.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Barbeiro: I thought for sure no comments were attributed to the architects fine work.
ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT 16 FOUR-PLEXES WITH POOL AND CLUBHOUSE FOR USE BY
PHASE I & II (PROPOSED CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE II) BY WILLIAM & LUCILE
LEAVELL—END OF 5TH, NORTH OF CREEKSIDE ARBOUR PHASE I & SOUTH OF
FAIRVIEW:
MacCoy: We’ve already heard from—staff do you want to say anything about Item No.
10?
Stiles: Nothing further.
MacCoy: Does the applicant want to have anything to say at this time for Item No. 10,
which is the conditional use permit, nothing more than just to say that your comments
can be carried further.
LARRY KNOPP, 355 S. 3RD
STREET.
Knopp: I have nothing to add to…
MacCoy: So you want to carry your remarks forward to Item No. 10 in other words.
Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 104
MacCoy: Do you have any questions for Mr. Knopp at this point?
De Weerd: No, but I would move to continue this to June 8th
.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Okay I guess we are going to get that taken care of too. Any discussion?
No. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: All ayes have it No. 10 will be continued.
ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF .323 ACRES FROM
R-15 TO L-O) BY MATTHEW & DANITA HARTZ—1990 N. MERIDIAN RD.
MERIDIAN, ID:
Stiles; Mr. Chairman, commissioners, you have our staff report dated May 7, 1999.
This is an existing residence on Meridian Road. It’s zoned R-15, they are proposing to
rezone it to L-O to allow use for music instruction and sale of music supplies and
instruments. With the conditions that we’ve outlined in our memo, staff recommends
approval. I would like to do detailed signage review and hopefully that could be
handled at staff level. If it was something that we didn’t approve, we would get your
input.
MacCoy: Is that it for you two? Bruce do you have anything?
Stiles: We did need a new legal description to match up to the center line of the road.
MacCoy: Bruce is still figuring this out or what? Okay, is the applicant here then?
Please come forward and state your name and address.
MATTHEW HARTZ, 1990 N. MERIDIAN RD., MERIDIAN, ID.
Hartz: I do understand that a realtor worked on it yesterday and found three more
existing surveys on the property that one of them. I should if I don’t have that then I will
get a surveyor to come out and do that, that’s not a problem at all.
MacCoy: Anything else you want to say about your project or your property?
Hartz: Other than my wife and I specialize in music construction, violin especially. The
house is a 1905 structure with a lot of original cabinetry on the inside that has been
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 105
preserved and it really, really fits that vibe real well. The project lends itself well to
teaching facility because of the multiple bedrooms and things like that and everything.
MacCoy: Did you research this the standpoint that it’s 1905?
Hartz: Yes.
MacCoy: I was going to ask you what kind of vintage was you are buying here. Is it in
pretty good condition?
Hartz: Yes, it was completely—well, other than me remodeling the kitchen a little bit
with my father, it was completely redone before I moved in, by the owner who I bought it
from in November of 1997.
MacCoy: It’s nice to find old homes that have stood the test of time. Do you have any
problem with the general comments or…
Hartz: No, none at all. The one I guess question that I have when you know as far as
dedicating the 48 feet of right-of-way is that I will have the 20 foot setback for the
landscaping. When and if that does happen after hearing about all this, if I have to
have another 20 foot setback, from another 18 feet, that’s going to put that pretty close
to—I’m worried a little bit about modifying my parking situation a little bit, but not much.
MacCoy: What about signage for your place?
Hartz: We are going to do a real nice just a pole sign. There are existing—not a pull
sign. (Inaudible) There is a little iron gate over the entrance of the property right now.
We are just going to put just a small hanging sign right there.
MacCoy: Would you please give us a diagram of that so staff can do that?
Hartz: Yes, that will all be provided.
MacCoy: Commissioners do you have anything you want to ask him?
Barbeiro: I peddle by your house every week, I think it is fabulous that you come up
with an innovative way to make use of the property.
Hartz: Well, the one thing that—it just, we found out by living there, it doesn’t work as a
residence anymore just because of the high volume of traffic and the lack of the
residences around it. Mr. Evans to the south, he is all for this. Right across the street is
L-O too.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 106
MacCoy: You can sit down then, since this is a public hearing is there anybody here
who would like to support his request? If not, is anybody here wishing to state that they
don’t care for him to rezone his place? I don’t see none of each. Back to the
commissioners again. This is a rezone from R-15 to L-O. What do you want to do?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend—Close the public hearing first.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: I would like to have that happen. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Thank you, now go ahead.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend the approval of rezone of .323 acres from
R-15 to L-O to include all staff comments.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Okay, any discussion?
De Weerd: Nope.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Okay you can go home and be happy with that one. You waited a long time.
Good luck to you.
ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT BY WES WORCESTER D/B/A SANTEE
CONSTRUCTION—SOUTH OF E PINE ST & WEST OF N RALSTIN ST:
MacCoy: Staff what do you want to tell me now. Us?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, we have reviewed this application and you have
our comments dated May 7, 1999. Had no major problems with it, I think most of it
could be (Inaudible) in the building permit review process because we will be watching
him really closely.
MacCoy: All right, would the applicant take the stand.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 107
WES WORCESTER, 10065 WESTVIEW DR., BOISE, ID.
Worcester: We concur with all of staff’s comments. I have had the site plan redrawn
for the fifth time trying to incorporate some of those items. I’ve got that (Inaudible) look
at it as I comment on the items that we’ve already addressed if you want to.
MacCoy: Is yours different from ours? We had a…
Worcester: This one’s got all those clarified. I’ll go over what we’ve got so far. I’ll
address those items. (Inaudible) No utilities are shown on the site plan details indicate
how building three will be served. We’ve had the architect extend the main lines to the
third building that is on the end there. They are not designated on the plans you’ve got
there. We don’t have a detail for signage, because we are not going to have any. The
only thing we will have is numbers on the buildings for each individual space and wall
signs. Pinnacle is doing the civil engineering and he is going to be addressing all the
other comments from staff. We did have a problem with landscaping and the existing
irrigation drainage easement to the rear of the property. What we did to ease that a
little bit is we are proposing to move that building number three to the north and to the
east and line it up with that 20 foot planting easement. Two reasons for doing that is
that the architect in my opinion have put that building too close to that easement and he
also put some trees in that easement. So we are going to loose the trees and I would
like to move that building to enhance that planting area for the use of the entire complex
and also give us a wider driveway on the south side. On that particular first site plan we
listed 33 three inch caliber trees. I’ll work with Shari on that. We don’t want to have the
trees in that easement for that irrigation district. All right now, I think on the revised site
plan they are down to 28. I think we are still within the ratio. If we are not, we will put
more trees in. On the—when we were moving that one little building around, we also
are suggesting that we move the one trash enclosure into the rear of the property line
and that would give us better access to it and better utilization for building number
three. If we do that then we are going to loose the sidewalks bordering on that one side
which have no utility what so ever to the project. We better service for the vehicles. On
the screening fence we concur, in fact that is what we wanted initially and the architect
was overzealous with the tress, arborvitae trees. That’s not a very effective screen nor
security for the folks that are going to be occupying that. We would propose to replace
the arborvitae screen with a fence with slats. I think by doing so, with more Maples
going up over the screen fence that would break up the profile of the building a little bit
better.
Barbeiro: Where are we talking?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 108
Worcester: We’re on to the arborvitae trees and the—originally the architect was going
to screen the project with arborvitae trees and more Maples and there was no fence
there at the time.
Barbeiro: So we are on the south side of the property?
Worcester: Yes. We are going to go entirely around the project with a fence with slats
in it for screening purposes and for security purposes.
Barbeiro: A six foot chain link with slats.
Worcester: Yes. The arborvitae’s wouldn’t give us very good security. There is also a
maintenance factor there. We are going to loose quite a few of those and then we are
going to be continually replanting them. We elected to do away with the arborvitae
trees and put the fence with the slats around the project. The more Maple trees we are
hoping will be larger, well they will be large enough to go up over the screen so that will
break up the profiles of the buildings a little bit more.
Barbeiro: Is that compatible with the existing city’s landscaping requirements?
Worcester: That was staff’s recommendation No. 8 on general—I’m sorry, site specific
comments.
MacCoy: Do you have clients for this already?
Worcester: Oh yeah, on building number three that is fully occupied. It’s not occupied
yet, but it will be once it’s built.
MacCoy: What type of people are going in here?
Worcester: The ones that are going in the back is a heating company, heating and
cooling.
De Weerd: Are they nice?
Worcester: Sure.
De Weerd: I’m sorry, it’s getting late. Malcolm asked what type of people.
(Inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 109
Worcester: The other thing I note was that the architect was (Inaudible) was the 26 foot
driveway ingress/egress and the property is going to have to be changed to 30 feet.
That’s an ACHD requirement. We will concur.
De Weerd: Shari is that what you wanted with the chain link fence with slats?
Stiles: You mean did I request that?
De Weerd: Yeah.
Stiles: No, the landscaping requirement is met with the trees that they are proposing.
Sure would be nice to see the landscaping, the sod and trees. I think what he is
worrying about is security of the building. I’m not sure he needs that kind of security in
the…
Worcester: We don’t need the slats, but I think I would prefer to have the fence around
it yes.
Stiles: Does the Plumbers Union already have some fencing already in place there on
the property line?
Worcester: I think it’s the Plumbers Union, there is chain link fence in the area. That’s
what we were going to go along with. As I recall, there is also chain link fence on the
property to the south too. I don’t think they have slats in theirs. I think it’s just chain link
fence.
Stiles: Our requirement is just to have screening fence around areas where they have
outdoor storage of equipment and materials. I don’t think they will have any outdoor
storage of equipment and materials. They don’t have room to put any back there.
Worcester: You’ve got a ten foot easement back in there and I was frightened for that,
but I want to go to property line, but architect suggested not to do that because of the
property line walls that would be required. We know how to get around that, but he
convinced me to have that little ten foot space back in there with a man door for
utilization for the folks that are going to be in the spaces for break rooms or whatever
the case may be. I concurred with that, but as far as I’m concerned I could just go right
up to the property line and the opening is allowed and have a tight (Inaudible) building,
but I don’t think that’s what we want to do. I don’t think that would enhance the project
to do that. I think it would better enhance to have a screening fence surrounding the
project for two purposes, one for the screen of course and then the other is for security.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 110
Stiles: It’s actually a pretty nice design I think for an industrial area, it’s an industrial
subdivision.
Worcester: We want to do a split face block which you folks have discussed earlier and
then I want to put a regular gable roof, truss assembly on it. I’ve chosen green color,
there is one over in Nampa, it’s really striking, the green really offsets the split face
block and by having a four, twelve slope that accentuates the roofline and green is
pretty good color.
MacCoy: You’ve got a what green asphalt roof?
Worcester: Yeah, it would be a green architecture shingles, (Inaudible). Then on the
gable ends I’m going to put a green metal.
De Weerd: Then you should have your green trees.
Worcester: Then we’ll have green trees. We’ve got more Maples that will only be
green in the summer time I guess.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I did have some questions of Mr. Wes. What color is the
installation going to be?
Worcester: It’s going to be pink.
Freckleton: Wes used to be a building inspector for the City of Meridian.
MacCoy: Is that right?
Freckleton: Yeah, so we’ve got to dig at him a little bit. Seriously I did have a question,
type of construction. I’m sure you’ve considered your occupancy types with what kind
of a water main you’ve got going in there (inaudible) too much water line going in.
Worcester: That six inch—I think you’ve got a six inch main there for a fire hydrant and
a two inch main for water usage. We are going to go with a type 3 N or a type 3-1 hour
depending on what type of flow Skip tells me I’ve got out there. If that doesn’t work,
then what we will do is sprinkle the building. As far as water mains are concerned, the
fixture counts can be pretty minimum. Each space is only going to have a his and hers
restroom. So you are going to have only two fixtures per space. Two fixture count.
Freckleton: He’s only got, unless I’m just not seeing it. He’s only got a one two inch line
shown going in here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 111
Worcester: Right, that may change, we may run two, but I don’t know what you’ve got
out there. What I was told is I had access to one two inch line, but that was in the
comments from, I believe it was public works you did that. Tell me what you’ve got out
there and we’ll get her in there.
Freckleton: See me tomorrow.
Worcester: It has provisions for an one six inch fire line and a one two inch domestic
service. On the two inch line, how many fixtures can I have on it?
Freckleton: I don’t know, we are going to have to check flows and pressures out there.
Worcester: It sounds like I’ve got more there than I need if I have a six inch main
coming in.
Freckleton: That’s all I had.
MacCoy: Any more questions.
Barbeiro: Wes…
Worcester: Wooooster, you are on the right track. I thought you were going to say my
last name, maybe you weren’t.
Barbeiro: After that weekend in Vegas I could call you by your first name.
Worcester: Tom and I were in construction management class together at BSU, we
went down to a tournament down in Vegas.
Barbeiro: (Inaudible) remember. You are going to build building three first, that’s the
one that you have leased and then you are going to build others as you lease them or
will you build them all?
Worcester: I think we are going to go through the whole project in it’s entirety. I may
phase the split face block bit I want to put all the improvements in and at least the
footings and foundations and if there is a stagnant period there, then I’ll hold off going
up with the walls, but everything else is going to be there.
MacCoy: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Is there anyone—since this is
a public hearing, is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of this
establishment? Okay, anybody here wish to speak in the other direction of this, they
don’t care for this building? None. Okay, that takes care of the public hearing.
Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 112
Barbeiro: Mr. Commissioner, I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: What are you doing?
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Commissioners, what do you want to do?
De Weerd: I move that we approve—that we recommend approval of the conditional
use permit for multiple buildings on one lot.
MacCoy: What about the comments from staff?
De Weerd: Include all comments submitted regarding this.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? I guess not. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Thank you Mr. Worcester.
ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A BANK WITH DRIVE-THRU LANES BY OLSON & ASSOCIATES (HOME
FEDERAL)—SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRANKLIN AND MERIDIAN ROAD:
MacCoy: Is the applicant here? As he is walking forward, staff do you have any
comments at this point?
Stiles: Well, I guess I’ll explain something. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, this is at the
southeast corner of Franklin and Meridian Road, currently there is a JJ Recreation
building there. They did come into our office and went over the plan. We asked them
to provide the 20 foot across the street from the mobile home park, which they did, they
had room to accommodate that. I know that we’ve been asking for anything from 20-35
feet on these, what we’ve termed as our entry way corridors. In this case because of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 113
the landscaping and the plan that they did provide we had no problem going down to
what they show at 7’ 8” on Franklin Road. That was primarily considering there is zero
landscaping to the north. Kitty corner from this site they had been approved to, I
believe go down to ten feet on Franklin Road. The fact that the mobile home park, it’s
not a mobile home park, it’s an actual subdivision on the southwest corner has no
landscaping so, it’s a nice plan, we did ask for the landscaping all along the frontage of
Meridian to be completed with this building. I still don’t have any response to our
comments as part of their presentation. This is my bank and I want you to hurry.
Rossman: Thanks for disclosing the conflict of interest.
De Weerd: Good thing you don’t have a vote.
MacCoy: I hope the architect cleans his drawing up. He’s not really sure where this
building is. Okay. Applicant?
STEVE PAVLICK, OLSON & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, 1789 BROADWAY.
Pavlick: Home Federal will be moving across from their current location on E. 1st
and
Franklin to this new location. Their access will be off of Franklin Road, their main
access which will be a common access for a future development to the east also. Their
secondary access will be off Meridian Road which is approximately 250 from the
intersection. ACHD would not allow an access on their property directly on their
property so they have another access off of Meridian Road, and that landscaped area, I
think Shari was talking about was the piece that Home Federal would not own and
which they’re probably not in agreement to go ahead and landscape. They would not
go own it or have any way to landscape it or maintain or anything like that. Utilities on
the project will be all located on the rear which is the south part of the building. Gas,
water and power will come off of Meridian Road, and they’ll be underground and the
meters will be on the back side of the project. Drainage will all be kept on site. There
will be a drainage swale on Meridian Road side with retention fit. A retention fit on the
entrance into Franklin. The landscaping plan that we show include 11 trees which
meets the city’s requirements for three inch caliper trees, and the other issue that came
up was providing more landscaping along the drive through area to the east and the
reason there wasn’t any landscaping shown there was for security purposes on that.
Bob Golley from Home Federal is here and could express that in more detail if you
would like. If there’s any more questions from the Board, I would be more than happy
to answer or Bob also.
MacCoy: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That access road from the south, you say that is south of
the bank’s property line then?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 114
Pavlick: Yes. We show it colored right now. That is their property line where the
coloring stops.
Borup: What’s the situation on the road to the south then?
Pavlick: That would be a common access.
Borup: Owned by?
Pavlick: Owned by the seller. The people that they’re buying the property from. They’ll
have access from that owner across that property to Home Federal.
Borup: Okay, so he owns additional property there.
Pavlick: Yes, the owner who is selling this parcel owns from Meridian Road to E.1st
,
that whole ½ block.
Borup: I’m talking about to the south.
Pavlick: (Inaudible)
Borup: Okay, and it’s the piece between that access road and Meridian that the
discussion was on landscaping that.
(Inaudible)
Borup: But apparently you’ve worked out some agreement on the access road though.
(Inaudible)
Pavlick: Franklin Road may become a right in / right out in the future, so they would like
to have a second access off there to their property and ACHD would not allow us to
have a curb cut on the property because it was too close to the –
Borup: Right, it would be. Well maybe – one of the staff’s questions on landscaping
along that easement I think maybe the question in my mind would be and maybe I need
some more input from Shari, but if you can negotiate across an access in there, an
access road, probably something could be negotiated on taking care of landscaping in
there too. That’s just going to be a graveled weed patch along that area then?
Pavlick: It will be fine graded out. The access will be paved asphalt.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 115
Borup: No, I knew the road would be, but –
Pavlick: We’re not sure what may happen in that future development of that may
change that the way that access happens there. That may become a parking lot or so
forth.
De Weerd: So you think you may not have that access?
Pavlick: No, that access will stay, but I’m saying how it comes in may get changed.
There’s a possibility that it could change.
De Weerd: I think Commissioner Borup is asking if you can get that access, that area
between the access road and Meridian Road, why can that not be landscaped? That
would be my question if that’s not Commissioner Borup’s.
Pavlick: You’re asking Home Federal to landscape someone else’s property and then
maintain it.
Borup: Who is maintaining the access road?
Pavlick: It would be up to Home Federal. It would be a brand new road they’re paying
to put in now.
Borup: But that’s just what you just got through saying.
Pavlick: The access will be –
Borup: Home Federal would be maintaining that access road that –
Pavlick: The little maintenance that there will be on there.
Borup: I don’t know if anybody asked Home Federal to maintain it. Maybe they did.
Maybe the present property owner needs to.
De Weerd: I have no questions at this time.
MacCoy: This is a public hearing. Anybody here would like to speak in favor of this
project come to the podium. All right, anybody who is not in favor of this project come
to the podium now. Seeing that nobody wants to get up, back to the Commissioners
again.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we suspend the public hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 116
MacCoy: You mean close?
Barbeiro: Close.
MacCoy: The hour is late. Okay, do I hear a second?
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: What is your desires?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of the conditional use
permit for a bank with drive through lanes, including staff comments.
De Weerd: Well do you want to do something with the site specific comment number
five where it asks for additional trees to screen the drive through lanes?
Borup: That’s the one they said was a security problem.
De Weerd: Right, I know. Would he like to strike that? It’s your motion.
MacCoy: I don’t hear a second.
De Weerd: I want to know what his intent is before I second.
Barbeiro: I wish to amend my (End of Tape)
Barbeiro: … to strike five of the site specific comments, which reads “landscaping of 20
foot wide strip adjacent to Meridian Road needs to be provided south of the proposed
property line as part of this development. Additional trees to screen drive through range
are desirable.”
MacCoy: Shari.
Stiles: You’re proposing to strike that entire thing?
De Weerd: No, just the last sentence.
Stiles: Oh.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 117
Barbeiro: I amend my –
De Weerd: Before you amend anything, I have another question. Number nine, the 17
foot parking spaces, have you gotten resolution on that or is that still an issue?
Stiles: No, I think that’s okay since they do provide additional sidewalk area. They’re
going to have the overhang anyway, and it should function just fine.
De Weerd: Okay.
Barbeiro: With Commissioner De Weerd’s –
MacCoy: You want to either restate this or how do you want to do it?
Barbeiro: I would like to withdraw my motion and defer to Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: That’s what I get for trying to be specific. Okay, well I would move that we
recommend approval of the conditional use permit for a bank with drive-thru lanes and
to omit the last sentence of site specific comment No. 5. Also to disregard No. 9 about
the 17 foot—well, I don’t need to do that. This last sentence clarifies it. Okay. That
was really easy Tom.
MacCoy: Still waiting for a second though.
Rossman: I have a question, where you say just strike the last sentence of site specific
comment No. 5, in other words are you requiring that they landscape the 20 foot wide
strip that they don’t own?
De Weerd: I would certainly like to see them pursue the possibility of doing that.
Rossman: Okay. That will require a further, I guess easement agreement with the
owner of the property.
MacCoy: That’s what I gather. A motion is still on the floor, do I hear anything or are
we going to die for something else.
Borup: Shari what would happen with our little no mans land there then as far as
maintenance of the—just under city ordinance as far as weed control, etc.?
Stiles: There is no other use of the property except for landscaping. They are using the
driveway, they are accessing their development from that driveway. It doesn’t make
sense not to improve it now. It is not going to change.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 118
Borup: Which they would need some type of agreement with the present property
owner.
Stiles: I’m not sure the lot has even been split yet, it’s not a—like I say, it’s just section
land. It’s never been part of a plat. Even if it were just grass, it would be better than dirt.
MacCoy: Somebody has to mow the grass then.
Borup: I would think that Home Federal would be concerned about their image,
someone driving through an area like that.
MacCoy: I agree.
Borup: Did we have a second? Did we get a full motion?
MacCoy: Yes, she gave you a full motion.
De Weerd: I just struck that last sentence about….
Borup: I second.
MacCoy: Second, okay. Anymore discussion? If not, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR SPECIALTY RETAIL MUSIC STORE BY JOHN BEAGLEY—NORTH OF
OVERLAND ROAD, BETWEEN S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD & S. EAGLE ROAD
(2400 E. OVERLAND RD):
MacCoy: Staff?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, our staff report dated May 6, 1999 we ask that
you incorporate those comments. Probably could look at something more than a 64
foot monument sign on the freeway there. We would like to see some details of the
signage here. This property was originally annexed when St. Luke’s was annexed. It
was all part of the same process. There is a development agreement required as a
condition of the annexation and I’m sure there is some future use of this property
because there is a whole lot that is still open there but they have come back with their
revision to show a 35 foot landscape strip on the freeway and on Overland Road. I
believe they realize that all the parking and driveway areas will need to be paved. I
would like them to maybe think a little bit more about the design of their southern
exterior elevation there. It makes it look a little difficult to know where you are going,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 119
but maybe so the appeal from Overland Road is as much as it is from the freeway side.
Other than that, I had no particular concerns with this project. There are no utilities to
the site at this time and I believe that the applicant realizes that they would not be able
to get building permits until those utilities were brought to the site.
MacCoy: Is that it? Okay, is the applicant here?
JOHN BEAGLEY, 667 W. CONVULT, EAGLE, ID.
Beagley: We are looking to just apply for the—what’s the word, for a conditional use
permit to put a retail music store on that location. We think—we’ve read the report of
the staff and concur with all the changes that are necessary on the preliminary plans. I
think it would be a very big asset to the City of Meridian and we’d like to go ahead and
move on from here.
MacCoy: What made you pick a site like that?
Beagley: It was the smallest of all the freeway. Well, we have several relatives and
close associates in the music business as well who have done very well placing their
retail locations very visible from—on a freeway location like that. We’re currently in the
Town Square Mall in Boise and we would like to relocate and have a freestanding
location outside of that area.
MacCoy: I was just curious. Okay, when you get around to deciding on a sign, wish
you would put it into our staff so we could take a look at it. Anything else you want to
say about your business?
Beagley: No.
MacCoy: Okay, commissioners any questions?
De Weerd: I just wanted to know what the natural state is. It says to remain a natural
state. What does that mean? Is it in weeds or…
Beagley: The remaining property?
De Weerd: Yeah, the property that you don’t have detailed. It just says to remain in
natural state and I was just asking what that meant.
Beagley: Yes, there is an existing home and a shop on that property right now that we
will more than likely be moved and we haven’t made any plans for the additional
property at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 120
De Weerd: But is it in grass or weeds or bark or, what is the natural state?
Beagley: Dirt.
De Weerd: So how will you maintain that area in the natural state?
Beagley: Dirt.
De Weerd: You will keep weeds down and you know, it’s not going to be unsightly.
Beagley: Yes.
De Weerd: It’s not going to be unsightly. You know, I did have a suggestion. I couldn’t
figure out where your entrance was. So you know, you can always come up with some
ideas, but you could landscape a little bit more over in that direction so it leads people
over there.
Beagley: We will take that into consideration.
MacCoy: Using the general or the existing site driveway.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: The house…
Borup: The other side isn’t it?
De Weerd: Yeah, it’s over here.
Beagley: At the moment yes.
MacCoy: The original existing house still sitting there. So they do have the driveway off
of Overland.
De Weerd: I did notice the guy waiving, but you know, he’s not going to be out there all
the time is he?
Beagley: Holding the sign up, 50% off of furniture.
MacCoy: Boy it’s getting late, we are in bad shape. Okay, do you have anymore
questions of the applicant? If not, you can sit down and we’ll ask the other questions
since we are all in the hilarity here. Any applicant here wish to stand up and (Inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 121
onto his job? You have no help here do you? Wait till I ask the other half of the
question. Anybody here who is against this? Watch everybody stand up.
De Weerd: You are all here for moral support at 2:00 in the morning? You are true
friends.
MacCoy: Either that or they are all family. I don’t know which. Okay, it’s a public
hearing, if nobody else wants to talk, what is the motion?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Well no, I think we should discuss this building.
Barbeiro: You are serious?
De Weerd: Yeah, if Byron was here I would be letting him down…
Borup: Someone’s got to take over Byron’s job.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Are you talking about the south elevation Tammy?
De Weerd: Yeah. Well, and not knowing where exactly the entrance is once you get in
the parking lot.
(Inaudible)
Borup: I would agree, but the building is not close to the highway, not close to Overland
Road, there is landscaping between Overland and here.
MacCoy: Would the applicant…
Borup: I think if the applicant—I mean if his customers have trouble that’s kind of their
problem.
MacCoy: Would the applicant come forward please. You’ve been sitting too long
anyway. I’m curious as to what you are going to make the building out of?
Beagley: Split block.
MacCoy: That’s what I thought from looking at it. Roof, what kind of roof? Slope, flat?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 122
Beagley: Flat roof. Yes.
MacCoy: What do you mean yes, what?
Beagley: Water resistant. Piano’s don’t take too kindly to water dripping on them. We
will have proper signage addressing where people need to go as they come up to the
building.
MacCoy: Are you looking at a split block of a color? Are you going to have a gray or
what?
Beagley: Kind of a gray, not really, I think we were going to do a two tone. We really
haven't choose the color yet, but it will.
MacCoy: Someone’s definition to conform.
De Weerd: Green is nice.
Beagley: Green with pink insulation.
MacCoy: You’ve been here too long, I can see that. Anything else that you want to say
about the building? It’s just a building as far as you are concerned.
De Weerd: You will have landscaping to break that up, I assume.
Beagley: Yes. Yes. It will be clearly defined how to get into the building, once they get
there.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Any other questions for the applicant?
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: I guess you can sit down now.
De Weerd: Just the comment that it would nice with some landscaping or something.
MacCoy: Well, he’s going to have to show it.
De Weerd: Okay, I move we close this public hearing.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 123
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: Okay, public hearing is closed. Okay, what do you want to do?
Barbeiro: MR. Chairman, I move that we approve the, excuse me, recommend
approval of the conditional use permit for a specialty retail music store with staff
comments.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: All right sir, you are free to go. What other thing can we do now?
Borup: Let’s do No. 15 again.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, somebody very unwisely did pull one of these consent
agenda items that…
Borup: Yes, it’s right here on the desk.
De Weerd: Not unwisely.
Rossman: Must be addressed before we close this public hearing.
MacCoy: No. C is that it?
De Weerd: I asked to pull B3, because our ordinance does not allow two dwellings on
one lot.
Borup: That’s within our city limits.
De Weerd: Yes, but we have also recommended against other proposed issues like
this.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: We’ve turned them down before, we’ve recommended against them before
because it doesn’t conform with our ordinance, so are we going to change it now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 124
Stiles: If they are going to remove a manufactured or mobile home and build a new
home and they put some kind of restriction like 20 days after occupancy…
De Weerd: Yes, but they said after applying for a special exemption, then they are
going to apply for temporary living with no stated time frame. That’s going to—they are
going to keep that out there for their parents. They are going to move into the house
and give the parents…
Borup: You want to throw the parents out in the street?
De Weerd: No I don’t, but I’m trying to be consistent with what we’ve done in the past.
Stiles: They could apply for a temporary living quarters.
Borup: That’s what they said they would do. Isn’t their a special deal for family, related
members.
Stiles: This temporary living quarters which is more of a hardship type of thing and
basically they have the requirement that as soon as people die then they…
De Weerd: What if they live like Wally Lovan’s Clubhouse did?
Borup: Does the county have a special related—same thing, temporary living quarters?
Stiles: Well we don’t have a temporary living quarters.
Borup: No, but the county does.
De Weerd: Well, my comment was to be consistent with the rest of—I know that we’ve
done one or two others of these to recommend against it because they were not
consistent with our ordinances.
Stiles: I’m sorry, I didn’t see that in the application. I thought they were just asking for
the temporary, asking to leave that building there until they got their other house built.
De Weerd: They were, but then they were going to come back once they moved into
the new home to request temporary living quarters for his parents, his disabled parents.
Borup: So she wants to throw disabled parents out on the street.
De Weerd: I’m sorry, I’m just trying to be consistent. Hey, I’ve made a lot of friends
tonight, I tell you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
May 11, 1999
Page 125
Stiles: That is a little different. Just tell them that we could support it—what do you
want me to write we would support it as long as the temporary was removed as soon as
the house was built. Tell them to build big enough so the parents can live in the same
structure with them?
De Weerd: So moved. That sounded good.
Barbeiro: Second.
(Inaudible)
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:26 AM
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
______________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
__________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK