1998 06-17MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 17, 1998
The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 6:30 p.m. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Mark Nelson, Tammy de
Weerd.
OTHERS PRESENT: John Prior, Bruce Freckleton, Angel Sims.
MacCoy: Good evening to you. It is now 6:30, and we will start tonight’s meeting. The
first thing on the agenda, which is not shown on the actual printed document you have,
is we a little bit of in house we have to take care of. Jim Johnson, our chairman, has
retired, and we’re at a point now that I am serving as temporary chair this evening until
such time as we can take a vote, and it was decided among all of us that we didn’t want
to take a vote until all the commissioners were here present. Commissioner Borup was
out of town last time met, so we postponed that until tonight. I will now entertain a
nomination from the commission.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion. I know Commissioner Smith has
expressed interest, so I’d like to motion that he have an opportunity.
MacCoy: So you are putting a nomination in other words.
Nelson: Yes.
MacCoy: Is there a second to that or do we need one?
De Weerd: I don’t think you –
MacCoy: I don’t think either.
Smith: It’s just a nomination.
MacCoy: Any other person to be put into the line?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Acting Chairman, I would like to nominate Malcolm MacCoy.
MacCoy: Okay, is there anyone else to add a name in the line? Any discussion?
Borup: Yeah, I think it may be appropriate before we vote to run through duties and
responsibilities of the chairman. Whoever would be the most appropriate to do that.
MacCoy: Who should do that?
Borup: Maybe you might handle that.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 2
MacCoy: Well, I can. I talked to the Mayor of the City, Bob Corrie, and I talked to, I’ve
been invited to a meeting with Charlie Rountree who is the chair for the council, and
several attorneys and so on, and I’m told, also by Jim Johnson, that the chairmanship of
this commission is to of course chair the P & Z meeting which used to be once a month
and they are turning out to be twice a month. It also entails meetings with the council,
with the Mayor. Jim Johnson explained it to me that there’s actually about 20 to 25
hours of work per month that does not include the meeting we’re having tonight,
meaning the actual P & Z meeting. It entails answering letters from various people,
agents, contractors and what have you. It’s also having lunches and everything else
you can do to sit down with these people. It entails phone calls from the constituents of
our city, and since Jim has been gone and it was turned over by the Mayor to me to
chair his work this past month, I’m finding out that I have had to quit a lot of my work in
order to maintain Jim’s responsibilities when I was here. It was not explained to any of
us I don’t think in the beginning of what this entailed. So that’s about a thumb nail
sketch. If you have any other questions, I’d be happy to answer.
Smith: I’d just like to make a comment on – you stated that Jim Johnson stated that this
position requires 20 to 25 hours a week aside from the meetings.
MacCoy: That’s what he told me, yeah.
Smith: Well, I didn’t want to do this, but I did talk to Jim Johnson yesterday, and he told
me that he never made such a statement, that it doesn’t take 20 to 25 hours a week. In
fact if it require 20 to 25 hours a week, that would be over 80 hours a month, which is
more than the position of Mayor currently by ordinance requires. That’s a part-time
position, and I thought that should be a matter of record.
MacCoy: Fine, and I heard the same thing from Charlie as I heard from Mayor, Bob
Corrie, and I just also then have had to work this past two weeks, three weeks on this
material. So, I’m just saying as yet I don’t think I’ve come into the full play of it yet
according to Jim Johnson. So, you asked the question and I made a statement, and I’ll
stand by it. Anything else for discussion? Okay, if you will mark your ballots, and Angel
will pick those up and do actual work with it.
Prior: Angel, maybe for the record you could read them out one at a time as you open
them up, just we have a record of it, please.
Sims: Okay, for the record, Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Byron Smith, Malcolm
MacCoy, Malcolm MacCoy. So, for the record three to two, the new chairman is
Malcolm MacCoy.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 3
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Moving on to the next order of business, item one on the
agenda is – let me say this for the record tonight too, let’s see maybe I’ll wait.
ITEM NO. 1: R C WILLEY SITE PLAN REVIEW BY CSHQA – EAGLE & FRANKLIN
ROAD:
Shneider: My name is Jeff Shneider. I’m from CSHQA and I’m representing R C Willey.
Jerry is out of town.
MacCoy: Okay.
Prior: This is a planned review, Mr. Chairman. It’s necessary that the gentleman be
sworn in. It is only necessary that if he would just state his name and you’ve already
done that sir. If you would just restate your name for our administrative assistant.
Proceed.
Schneider: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission my understanding is that
considerable discussion took place at your last meeting relative to landscaping,
positioning of the building on the R C Willey site, which is the corner of Eagle and
Franklin. What I have before you is modifications of that landscape plan which reflects
some of your comments and I also on the back side of that I have profile elevations,
which were requested to be discussed, and I’d be happy to go over any of those or the
changes with you.
MacCoy: Go ahead.
Schneider: Okay, basically on the site plan, there was several issues to do with the
landscaping and particularly with the screening of the building from the roadways
Franklin and Eagle Road. What we have done is reconsidered the position of the
landscaping and took into consideration the request of the commission. We have
added landscaping along Franklin and Eagle. These are bunched into to kind of mini
groves of deciduous trees and landscape ground cover material inter-spaced with
evergreens, deciduous evergreens to form that kind of a rhythm along Franklin, similar
configuration then takes place along Eagle Road. Building is positioned very similar to
where it was when we presented it last commission meeting. We did discuss with
owners position of the site. One of the key reasons the owner did acquire this property
for this particular use was to get the view corridor of the front façade off of those high
traffic streets. The building will be a quite attractive building even it’s rather large in
scale, has a porta-core share entry that projects out. The profiles here, we’ve done a
couple view plains in 3-D, and we’ve also cuts sections through the site. Now keep in
consideration, what happens is the vertical scale and the horizontal scale are two
different. You’re talking about a ten to one ratio, so while everything looks very steep,
the only way to get that in a room like this, is literally take ten times this length, spread it
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 4
all out so you can see, but typically this is how the civil engineers look at it, so I just
wanted to make sure you understand, when we’re talking about a two percent slope,
looks rather steep, but two percent slope is almost inperceivable in a parking lot or
things. So there are three sections cut through the site. The long section that comes
across the diagonal is one that you see here. We put a person with a view corridor
position for perspective off his eye, off the nature grade. The dotted line is the natural
grade as it presently exists. The green highlighted and across the building element is
then the revised grade after the construction. What this shows is the concern is off of
the commission’s was to screen some of the parking with the building. Now what
happens is if you shift that building deep into the core, functionally we have some
severe problem on servicing the building and the direction and signage, but the
achievement is because of the vertical height of our building is just short of the chart
here. The building would come in, embed, and then project up, and what you would
see from the corner is some screening of the parking, but the fact is both of those
corners are high movement intersections. I think a more proper way of looking at that is
what you see after you move the corner either going either direction on Eagle or
Franklin. That’s why we cut the cross sections. And then what happens on the cross
section, as you can see, is that entire site somewhere where you are going to have the
parking lot, becomes wide open to the view, and all you are doing is really moving kind
of what you are screening and blocking. I think it’s important to understand the scale of
the project we are discussing here is certainly a significant piece of acreage, and
certainly our actual building mass of 150,000 square feet is what you call a large box.
The parking lot out here is also a significant amount of parking to service that. That is
just shy of 600 stalls. In this area, and then we have another just shy of 200 stalls for
future parking if we so need it with about in this area out of the total 590 stalls, 89 of
that is located of over here which would be using for employee parking. This in the
front area would be our main customer parking. With that I’d happy to answer any
questions of the commission.
Smith: Could you flip back over to the perspective views and maybe bring them over
here a little closer. I’m having a little hard time seeing them there.
Shneider: I do have a roll out exhibit here.
MacCoy: Any other questions?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a couple. I think this answers a lot of questions I had,
because I’m familiar with the site. I drive by there all time, and it is my feeling that you
would be looking down over the top of the majority of the parking lot, which in my mind
then are you going to have roof top mechanical equipment?
Shneider: Yes, sir.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 5
Borup: And I assume there’s screening planned for that.
Shneider: Yes, sir.
Borup: Are you talking wall screening or even screening over the top or is that even in
the design yet?
Shneider: We haven’t finalized the design. We will certainly have some major roof top
equipment and we normally screen that. The height of that screening, we could
certainly take a look at for the view corridors that you get.
Borup: This is a little different situation I think you usually come into. Most of the time
just a fence type screening usually handles it, but you’re not looking at a site that you
are looking down on the building usually either.
Shneider: I understand.
Borup: I think that in my mind the only thing that might affect the aesthetics of it. The
proposed building to the north, is that something that you would have proposed from
you company, or are you looking at it just being available for whatever business may
come along?
Shneider: R C Willey owns the entire site. And typically what they’ve indicated to us is
when they open a store, there’s certain other kinds of similar stores that like to come by.
So at the present time, they like to retain control over those, so that would be a future
development. Once a tenant is identified, that we would then bring forward. But their
intention is to keep it and not spin it off say for a fast food or something.
Borup: Okay, something they can keep control of whatever goes in. And another,
maybe more of a curiosity question, do you know why Eagle Road tapers in that section
there and then comes back out at the intersection?
Shneider: My understand is that requested right-of-way dedication which is what you
see the bow in there was done in a preliminary meetings on Friday of this week, we
meet with another tech meeting with ACHD, and Eagle’s under I.T.D. combination. So, I
questioned it myself because what I believe they are talking about a deceleration lane,
but the right-of-way doesn’t go actually to the roadway. If we do a deceleration lane, the
roadway will go to the roadway, but –
Borup: If a deceleration lane is in that tapered area, it doesn’t go to your entrance.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 6
Shneider: I understand that, but what that is represented is the request of the deeded
right-of-way, not where the roadway would go. We still have to – our civil engineers
would work out –
Borup: What were they trying to accomplish with that?
Shneider: I don’t know. I did not attend that meeting, and I can’t tell you. All I know is
when the civil and the boundary people came back, that’s the line of demarcation with
Eagle Road that they all agreed to, and of course, the owner it’s sixes of what they want
to do.
Borup: It doesn’t seem like they accomplished anything with just that short section
there.
Shneider: We couldn’t figure out is that where the semis pulled over for their snack or
what it was.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions?
De Weerd: I just wondered if Bruce had any comments?
Freckleton: Yeah, I probably need to see it first.
MacCoy: While he’s doing that –
Borup: Maybe one other comment. I really like what they did along the landscaping
there on Eagle and Franklin. A big difference, well at first didn’t have anything. Yeah, I
think that makes a nice entrance corridor area by landscaping it.
MacCoy: The comment I was going to make was off of Commissioner Borup’s
observation, which is very true. You are looking down on top of that building, so you are
going to see roof mainly, and then of course your façade on that main face is going to
look pretty good. But he’s right. When you normally look at a mechanical on the roof
with just fencing and so on, but I worked on some projects big projects where we’ve had
the same typical type thing and we had to ask the contractor, or he’s even come
forward with the designer and say what we’re going to do is put a slatted roof on there
so you have ventilation, but we end of having not that open pit situation, look down on
all the equipment. I think it does a disguising of what you’ve got in the box.
Shneider: Mr. Chairman, although this is the first time we’re working with R C Willey,
we did go down to Salt Lake and look at several of their facilities. They are what I call a
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 7
first class retailer, and I don’t believe you will have any problems dealing with the
screening. They obviously want to have as good a looking store as they can. We’ve
had some success on other projects like this where we’ve actually brought a not so
much a slat, but a chain design over the top that allows the maximum amount of
ventilation, but because of the angle you pick up that plain and it starts to look solid.
MacCoy: Good point. Bruce?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, the other thing I noticed on there
the two to one slope going up to Franklin. They’ve got a ground cover of grass, and I
just wonder about the ability to maintain that grass, mowing it with a two to one slope.
Is that a maintainable slope, Jeff?
Shneider: Mr. Chairman and Bruce, we have done similar things with that. What
happens is particularly you’ve got to look at the maintenance of the things as well as the
variety of the planting species you have in there, and in that case, I don’t know in detail.
We’ve done some longer grass on the heavier slopes, and you leave it kind of layered
down, looks quite attractive and particularly if you use I think it’s the fescues that kind of
tier as they come down because you need the plant growth to retain in there. Normally
we do special materials in the actual sloping so that you put in that the meshed retain a
base in the early stages when those things start to grow. But we have to done two to
one and held it. In fact we’re doing a baseball field in Boise in a cove right now, next to
Mountain Cove School that we’ve even got a little greater than that.
Freckleton: Thank you.
Borup: Isn’t that the area you’ve got designated as intermediate mowing?
Shneider: Yeah, that’s I mean. We’ve used the longer fescues that you have to trim it
or it just gets real, it’s like not having a haircut ever. But if you trim it at the right time,
then it grows and you allow it to cascade, so you’re not on there, you know, every week
like you would be a flat plain.
Borup: I’ve seen that in other areas.
Shneider: And we’ve worked with the Idaho Transportation District has developed a lot
of that seed variety, and we’ve found that they are a great resource for what works,
because they use it on the highways slopes. They studied it for about ten years.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple more questions. I noticed on your design
here, you had two inch and two and a half inch caliper trees, and I believe it called for a
three inch.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 8
Shneider: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner, let me speak to that because we feel very
strongly about that on the trees. What we’re talking about is required 180 trees and the
way your ordinance reads, it’s just a flat three inch caliper. What we in fact have on to
obtain the variety we have 241 trees shown on the site plan. 137 of those are the three
inch caliper deciduous trees indicated on the landscaping plan. You end up with the
fine selection. Those are readily available. You can buy them and it works real well.
The reason we moved to the two inch and the evergreen variety is if you notice the two
inch calipers are the ornimentals. Those are the Chanticlear Pears and things.
Commercially in the valley, you just can’t buy a three inch Chanticlear pear, so what
happens is if you stay with your three inch caliper requirement and stay true to it, it
moves us away from those flowering trees which we think really adds a lot of impact to
the site. And then the same thing with the evergreens. Typically you buy evergreens
by the height and that’s why we’ve indicated six to eight foot which is a pretty mature
evergreen from a nursery stock in there. And so you mix that up, and so we would
prefer to stay with this, if the requirement is to stay with it. We would sacrifice our
ornimentals, but I guess we’d do it regretfully.
De Weerd: I did notice that you added some more trees to the parking, and I appreciate
that. You’re efforts have been noticed. Your timely response is appreciated.
MacCoy: Any other questions from the commissioners?
De Weerd: I did have one more. In staff’s comments, they mention an issue on
lighting. I haven’t seen anything on the lighting. So, have you worked with staff and –
Shneider: Well, I guess we are probably experts on site lighting on large big box retail,
and we certainly understand every staff in America. We practice in about twenty states,
wants the lighting contained down, shielded so you don’t see the elements. We will
provide a detailed lighting plan and if you so wish, we normally do a photo metric chart
to verify all that anyway for the owner.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions?
Borup: I think Shari of Planning and Zoning staff would be reviewing that anyway. I did
notice that. I felt this is probably a site that has less concern about light interference
with residential than most areas because of the grade. It would be pretty hard to shine
on residential uphill.
Shneider: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Commissioner, the other thing obviously you need to
realize is kind of the urban fabric context that we’re in. I mean right behind us is Coors
Distribution and that railroad site. Our neighbors are other big boxes there, so
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 9
fortunately we don’t have a residential subdivision next to it. The land to the east is part
of the ongoing, I believe that’s part of Van Auker’s development which is also slated for
similar facilities, probably not as large elements, but that’s one of the reasons we’ve
worked out the joint roadway was to give access to his property.
Borup: Is it my understanding that Shari was looking for comments from this
commission? Are we looking at a formal –
MacCoy: Our staff is as well as our applicant is looking for comments.
Shneider: We’d like to move forward and spend a lot of money.
Borup: The next step here we’d like to get to what do we need to do at this point, then?
Prior: At this point, Chairman, you can entertain a motion. If you want to entertain that
motion for a site plan approval, and make it subject to certain conditions, you can do
that or you can entertain that you want to make a motion approval of the site plan, and
then you take the necessary vote. It does not have to be a roll call on this particular
item though.
MacCoy: You’re correct. I was going to make the suggestion that we ask for a
preliminary approval, because the standpoint is we’d like to see this thing when they get
some more details before it goes forward. It will be back before us later on.
Borup: What more detail do we want –
MacCoy: I’m not saying more – we gave him the ideas and we know what he has and
he knows what we have in mind, and he’ll go ahead and finish up the drawings as he
presents his material in the future.
Borup: Well, won’t that be going back to Shari and staff anyway?
Shneider: That’s my understanding.
Borup: The way I interpret this technically, she could have just reviewed this on her
own. She felt because of the size of this project that it merited more than just staff
review.
MacCoy: You’re correct, and she made that statement last meeting.
Borup: I guess I would be in favor and I see Bruce shaking his head that is the case for
the record, but unless the commission feels there’s something more specific, I would be
in favor of approving this as designed. Again with the stipulation of conditions that
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 10
Shari has discussed and that it be reviewed subject to her conditions, and then if she
feels there’s something more, then she can request that it come back. If not I think it
would be able to handled on staff level.
De Weerd: Was that a motion?
Borup: That’s a motion.
De Weerd: I’ll second that.
MacCoy: All right. Is there any discussion?
Smith: I just might add that Shari also mentioned last time that when this property was
annexed, one of the conditions for future developments was that it have site plan
review, and that’s why.
Borup: Yes, but I don’t think it mentioned who had to review it. She could have
reviewed it on her own.
Smith: I don’t know that.
Borup: My understanding.
MacCoy: That’s true, but she asked for support.
Borup: Yeah, and I think that’s appropriate on something this size and location, the size
and location.
MacCoy: Okay, is there any other discussion on this? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Thank you very much for a nice presentation this evening.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to tell you guys I appreciate what you’ve done
on this site plan. It really helps to get your input on something this large, and I think
you’ve come up with some really good suggestions, and we’ll see to it that’s it carried
through.
MacCoy: I want to make a point, if you will look at your schedule, items 12 and 13, are
the applicants, either one of those here tonight? You are? Which one are you? You’re
13. Okay, one of the suggestions that we have had among the commissioners is that
we move since it’s all public hearing, move 12 and 13 at number 7 position, and then
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 11
slide 7 and so on down from there. So, it’s all public hearing, but these two items
should be small and easy, we thought we’d go ahead and get that done so you wouldn’t
have to sit here until the middle of the night with us. So when we get down that, and
stick around.
ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 36.71 ACES TO R-4 FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES
SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK
INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY.
Bradbury: Thank you very much. Those of you who were here in April, and I think it’s
probably everybody but the new commissioner will recall that the original hearing was
held in April and at that time it was continued for the purpose of permitting staff to
prepare its comments. They apparently felt like they needed more time to review, which
seem reasonable. That report came out in May, and when we got it, then we asked for
a continuance so that we’d have an opportunity to try to address the issues that were
raised in the staff report. I guess we were here last week, and realized when we
showed up that we had forgotten to respond to those staff comments in writing, and I
appreciate you’re having given us an additional week to do so. In the meantime you
should have since received those comments. They were delivered on Friday to the city,
and so the purpose I think for the continued hearing tonight was primarily just to
address the issues that were raised in that staff report and by the Ada County Highway
District, and so it was my intention to just kind of try to hit the highlights or what at least
what I perceive to be the big issues and not try to go over the whole thing again. And if
that is acceptable to you, that’s what I’ll – where I’ll go.
MacCoy: It is.
Bradbury: All right. We also submitted a revised site plan, a preliminary plat to you as
well, and I’m assuming that you have that in your packet. But for purposes of the
hearing, I’m going to hold one up so that I can talk to you about it a little bit. I’ll start
with the Ada County Highway District and the comments that they originally made. The
primary comments made by the Highway District were that the Highway District wanted
to see a connection made to the property to the west, and they seemed to want a
connection to the property to the east. And so after those comments came out, we
went and met with the Highway District staff in a tech review meeting, and talked about
those issues. As a result of that meeting, the Highway District staff concluded that a
connection to the west made sense and on the revised plat, now you’ll see that there is
that connection. You’ll note that there is a cul-de-sac shown at the end of that Longhorn
Drive, and that would be a temporary cul-de-sac, which would then be removed at the
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 12
time that the property to the west were to develop. Now to the east, the Highway
District has originally misinterpreted the plat, or the intent of the plat, as was presented
to them, and they thought that what we were doing is we were trying to put in some
private street connections over there, and they were thinking, well, if you are going to
connect, let’s make them public so they serve a purpose of connecting. Well, that
wasn’t really the intention. The intention was not to put in connections there. The
reason for that was that we knew that in the Dakota Ridge Subdivision, there’s a road
that accesses the school site. Right here to the east and I guess kind of the southeast
is where the proposed school goes, and there’s a road that will parallel that lot line to
access that school, and it didn’t seem to us that it would make sense to have an
intersection so close to another intersection at a road where there’s likely to be a whole
bunch of school children and school buses going up and down that road to bring kids in
and out. After we explained what our thinking was to the Highway District staff, they
agreed. They thought, yeah, that doesn’t make any sense. We don’t think we ought to
have connections there. So we took the connections out at least for vehicular traffic.
What remains, however, is pedestrian connections so that school children living in the
subdivision can get to the school without having to go back out on to the main road.
The Highway District agreed that made sense to them. We have since had another
meeting with the staff and have been advised that this plan would be sent on to the
commission and you know, the expectation is that staff would recommend it and the
commission would approve it. So that’s the Highway District connections. The other
thing that we talking about, and the staff raised some concerns about, was the extent of
the common area. The requirement is for ten percent of the site to be placed into, you
know, open space common open space. And the plat as originally presented to you fell
short by some little bit, and so in the meantime what has happened – let me back up
and point out a couple of other things before I do that. Because we had to extend this
road out, that changed the configuration of the lots over here in this area. So what
happened is the configuration is changed and the common area has changed and
actually the size of it is a couple of thousand feet bigger for this common area in here.
Anyway the configuration changed. That common area grew. The common area that
was originally shown in this part of the project used to be here. It was a quite little bit
smaller, and it’s been moved over here to be more centrally located, and has grown in
size substantially. This common area is essentially the same. This common area is
essentially the same. This common area has also been increased in size here. Even
with all of that, we still came just a little bit short, and one of the other comments that
kind of folded into resolving this problem that was made was to have some landscape
strips along N. Wilkins Way, here. Well as it turned out when we met with the Highway
District staff again on Friday, just this past week, the staff noted that we were providing
a fairly sizable right-of-way along N. Wilkins Way, up to 80 feet wide, and staff said we
don’t want all that right-of-way. We’re not going to put a road on all of that right-of-way,
and it will end up being just undeveloped, unused right-of-way. So essentially at staff’s
recommendation, they’ve asked that the right-of-way be reduced down and that
additional space then could be used for these landscape strips, common area lot in
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 13
order to provide them separation between the road and those lots, and that we think
when we do that it’ll be 8 ½ feet wide in the portions of the right-of-way that’s 80 feet,
and it will be 4 ½ feet wide in the portions of the right-of-way that is 60 feet. All told, we
going to pick up we believe enough square footage to be able to meet the ten percent
open space, common open space requirement. And we think that the layout lends itself
pretty well to having space that’s available to just about every part of the project. We
tried to provide some area for everybody.
Let’s see that took care of the common area and the landscape lots. Another
issues that was raised was the density of this area that extends down in to the golf
course that we’re calling Green Brier. Staff expressed concern that having 33 units in
that area was perhaps too many, and after some reflection the developers agreed that
maybe that is, and so the proposal that is being to you now is to reduce those 33 units
down to 29 units. It look something along the lines of this. You can get a feel for what
I’m doing. The idea is to accomplish two things. One, produce the total number of units
and two, make these units appear as if they are large dwellings so that they have the
look and feel of larger homes. And so the concept then is to put in a series of two and
three unit, what we might call luxury townhouses, and these would be in the
neighborhood of about 5,000 square feet. So that you get the idea we’re looking at
larger buildings that will have the exterior appearance of a single large home. And it will
just so happen that they will be three families living in there. And then of course
because we’re grouping them, we’re able to get a little bit more separation between a
number of the units so that it doesn’t present a single flat wall all along the golf course.
Net result is that we get about – we get a net reduction of four units in that area from
what was originally proposed. Now, I’ve got something I’ll hand out to you to give you
an idea of what our vision is. I say our, I should probably say the developer’s vision is
for these things.
So that you have an idea what the developer wants to try to accomplish, is to
have the look of a larger single family dwelling. And yet be able to accommodate more
families in it. With the various roof lines and the elevation that doesn’t present just a
one flat plain and something other than having all – nothing but garages showing from
the street, and I can’t represent to you that this is what is going to be built there. But
this is a representation of what the developer’s vision for these units are to give you an
idea what he’s trying to accomplish. Over all these changes will result in a net reduction
of 11 lots from what was originally proposed. Why don’t I pass these out? In the
packets that you originally received, in the booklet that looks like this, you had some
charts that showed the number of lots that were each of the different sections of this
project, and I’m just going to hand you out an updated chart that shows you how many
lots there are. In the Meadows area, there’s 9 fewer lots. In the Plains areas, there’s 2
fewer lots. Because of the extension, that added lot extension, this road, that added
some lots into what we’re calling the villages. It added 4 lots there. We have no
change in what we’re calling Moon Lake Park, which is this area here. And then there
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 14
will be a net reduction of 4 down here in the Green Brier, for a total reduction from what
was originally proposed of 11 units. So the density then of this project goes to a total
overall density of 4.8 units per acre. One other that comes to mind that was raised was
whether or not the lots in this subdivision would be subject to the golf course
development fee. And as we understand it, the property that was owned by – this is a
combination of properties. This, the more northerly property was owned by the Wilkins’
family and the more southerly portions of the property was owned by the Fuller family.
The Fuller property was included in that golf course impact fee area. So, all of the lots
that were in that part of the project would be subject to that fee. That’s a total of 64 lots
out of the total project, which comes out to some $38,000 in development fees.
Those were really the issues that I identified as being what I thought were
probably the primary ones, and please respond to any other questions that you may
have or if there are other issues that you want to talk about.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, who wants to start off? Mr. Smith do you
want to pick it up from here?
Smith: I’m not ready.
Borup: Maybe first, I did have a couple. Do we have any staff comments at this point
that might be appropriate?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I would like to respond to each of the
items that is brought up. The first item, private streets, we have in our packets we had
ACHD staff comments that was approved by their commission, April 15th
, ’98. In that
staff report it talks about all the extensions that Mr. Bradbury has mentioned. It also
talks about that no change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid
unless they are in written form, signed by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized
representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. I
haven’t seen anything. Doug had a letter tonight that he says that he got from Dave
Szplett. It wasn’t on District letterhead. It wasn’t signed. So I don’t know where we
stand with ACHD commission. Second item regarding common area, I guess our
original comment, we questioned usability (End of Tape)
Freckleton: -- private area. It doesn’t seem that the common area is usable to
everyone in the subdivision. Also, they are including the area of the Eight Mile Lateral
Easement through there as in their common area calculation. As Mr. Bradbury said,
they fall short of the ten percent required under the ordinance, which kind of leads into
the density issues, and that is that in reading the ordinance, the way I read it, there are
some special conditions where you can have a bonus density, and it doesn’t seem like
they’re meeting any of the criteria in order to qualify for the bonus density. They aren’t
providing the ten percent open area. They aren’t providing bicycle ways, recreational
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 15
areas. There’s many things here. So, I guess from our perspective I don’t think they’ve
done a whole lot with this design that changes from what we’ve originally reviewed.
Borup: Maybe a question for Steve, too, on the percentage density. What did you
come out with after you added that eight foot landscaping?
Bradbury: We don’t have a precise number there. We don’t have a precise calculation.
I can tell this, the intention of the developer is to provide the ten percent, and if it’s not in
the spaces that have been identified yet, once the final calculations are made, ground
will be added until it gets there. That’s one thing that you can count on having. The
intention is to provide it.
Borup: Bruce, you mentioned bike paths, recreational facilities, are those
recommended items or required? You give me –
Freckleton: They are not required, no.
Borup: Those are some of the types of things.
Freckleton: Those are some of the trade off things that they can –
Prior: Just for a clarification, Commissioner Borup, it needs to be understood that in
these planned developments, we do not give them the bonus densities. That’s not a
guarantee if they do these things. Mr. Bradbury and the developer can do all of these
items if they wish, and we can say we’re still not going to give you the bonus densities.
That is a may. Our ordinance says, “may” award bonus densities. We do not have to
award bonus densities. That is not an absolute requirement. It’s clearly up to the
discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission, if they decide to do that. It’s not
something that they are required to do. It’s something that is available to us if we
decide to exercise that option. That’s probably all I am going to say tonight.
Bradbury: I’d like to add a little bit to the comments about this common area. What you
are seeing, of course, is a preliminary development plan. What the developer’s
intentions are to provide these recreational areas. I mean that’s what these open
spaces are for is to provide recreational opportunities. There have been some
questions about the use of the Eight Mile Lateral, and of course, the intention there is to
improve that. Of course with the approval of the irrigation district and provide walking
paths and try to make what is otherwise simply a fenced off no man’s land area into
something that can actually be used. And provide a reasonably good both visual and
physical amenities not only to the subdivision, but to the city. Clearly the hope is to be
able to provide the city with those types of amenities that the city would like to see. I
acknowledge that in fact, I mean it’s a planned development. I’m not going to try to tell
you that you are obligated to approve any aspect of the planned development. Simply
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 16
it’s a matter of discretion. If the proposal meets the requirements of your ordinance,
then you’re obligated to approve the project, but the details of it. Certainly it lends itself
to a great deal of discretion. Our intention is to try to provide you with something that
provides a variety of housing for a variety of different needs and different types of
people and to do with in compliance with the requirements of your ordinance the best
that we can. We certainly look to you for guidance. We certainly want to try to provide
a product that appears to be something that there’s demand for.
Borup: That was one of the questions I had written down before Mr. Freckleton’s
comments, and that was on the common area and the usability and accessibility to it.
You know the green color on the plat, I don’t know that it answers that question to me.
What type – are any of those areas drainage retention ponds?
Bradbury: No, well, not to my knowledge. I don’t believe that any of – let’s see. I don’t
believe so. I hesitated for a minute because what I’m really focusing on are the big
areas. The landscape strips and stuff like that, we understand we are talking about
landscaped areas. These areas are not intended to be used for drainage retention.
These are all intended to be improved for – --
Borup: My way of thinking those three are probably the only ones large enough to
really use as a recreational or park like usage. The others are going to be pretty much
landscape, and the other accessibility question I had, and you eluded to that was the
Eight Mile Lateral. Is that under the supervision of Nampa Meridian I assume.
Bradbury: I believe it is.
Borup: Do you really expect to have much success there?
Bradbury: Nampa Meridian is notoriously tough to get along with as we all know, but
we had some preliminary conversations with them, but whether or not we can get it
done, I guess I don’t know, but that certainly is the hope.
Borup: There is some fantastic potential there. We’ve been saying that for years.
Bradbury: Absolutely, and I know that that’s one of the things that this developer would
try to like to do. I can remember talking about this issue, I don’t know, it’s probably
been four, five years since I’ve been coming out here going through this process.
Maybe longer than that, six years. But I remember it came up probably one of the very
first nights I ever came out here was the idea of maybe we ought to be starting to use
these things, and we’d like to try to do it. I think what Nampa Meridian is going to want
is a flat indemnification from the developer which is going to mean the developer is
going to have to be willing to absorb the liability for it, and the way you are going to do
that is by providing insurance, and I suspect that Nampa Meridian will require
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 17
insurance. You know, proof of insurance. It’s certainly doable. It would take a little
cooperation and frankly, if it’s something that you folks are interested in, it will probably
take some help from you to try to convince Nampa Meridian that this is a good – overall
good for the community.
Borup: Well something that I felt strong about for a lot of years, but it’s like running into
a brick wall. No one has every made any progress except for those who chose to
ignore Nampa Meridian.
Bradbury: Well, we’d like to think we’ll be able to do something.
Borup: If there is able to make some use there, I think that can be a very – some very
viable space if it’s just going to be a chain link fence and a weeded off area, which most
of the subdivisions have ended up having to do. It’s of no use at all.
Bradbury: I almost hate to say this, but the point’s worth it, weighed against the risk
that you’ll no longer believe a word I ever say, as I grew up in the San Francisco Bay
area, having said that I feel that I have to tell you the rest of this though, that is my
parents were actually raised in the Boise valley and my family goes back all the way to
the 1890’s and so although I grew up some place else, this is really home. Okay, I got
that out of the way. When I was a kid, our neighborhood butted up right next to an
irrigation canal, like the Eight Mile Lateral. When I was a kid, we used to sneak up
there and ride our bikes up and down the road, and it was kind of a place we played.
And we always got chased out of there by the ditch runners, because we weren’t
suppose to be there. I go away to college, come back and visit my parents, and all of a
sudden now there is a trail system where people are invited to ride their bikes and walk
and run along these same places that I was chased out of as a kid, and the reason I
point that out to you is to say, it can be done. It may not be easy, but it can be done.
Now, it’s a fabulous trail system that goes throughout that particular valley that I grew
up in.
Borup: We need to find out what they did to accomplish that.
Bradbury: In any event, that’s the vision.
Borup: I had one other written down that was the same question I asked last April. I
don’t it got answered, and that was the density of the Lakes at Cherry Lane.
Bradbury: Right.
Borup: You make a couple of references to the similarity between the two.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 18
Bradbury: Yeah, you’re right, and I didn’t tell you that, and I have those numbers. The
Lakes at Cherry Lane, the overall density, taking into account all the project is at 3.9.
So this one being a 4.8. What does that come out to? Eight tenths of a unit per acre
more, something like that.
Borup: How man of those were PUD’s? The whole project wasn’t, was it?
Bradbury: 5, 6 and7 was the PUD part. Because 3 and 4 were not.
Borup: That’s where I got involved.
Bradbury: Right. 3 and 4 were standard and then 5, 6 and 7 were the PUD.
Borup: You know about what percentage of the total project 5, 6 and 7 were?
Bradbury: Maybe. Let me see if I can figure this out.
Borup: Just approximate. I am not looking for an exact.
Bradbury: Well, I can tell you that in terms of acreage, I can matter of fact. On the 5, 6
and 7, which was 40 acres, the density there was 4.5 and then the other portions of the
property, I guess it must be 3 and 4 were at 3.29. So if you took 5, 6, and 7 at 4.5 and
compared it to this one at 4.8, it’s in the ballpark. It’s pretty close.
Prior: Chairman, can I ask you a couple of brief questions. I’m sorry I had to step out
for a minute. I missed something about the Eight Mile Lateral with the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation. I’m trying to keep notes. I need a clarification. Having dealing with Nampa
Meridian Irrigation on a regular basis, they require that you are going to enter into a
license agreement with them obviously, and do that, and they are going to require you
to maintain the liability insurance on that, because they are not going to do that. I just
want a confirmation from you and a commitment from you that the developer of this
project is going to maintain the liability insurance and not a homeowners association; is
that my understanding?
Bradbury: I think you can be fairly well assured that the homeowners association, once
the common area is conveyed to it, will also have the – since it will own the ground, will
also maintain the liability insurance.
Prior: So, it’s the homeowners association that’s going to maintain the liability
insurance; is that right?
Bradbury: I would expect so, sure.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 19
Prior: Commissioner Borup, you mentioned that you got involved with something. 5 , 6
and 7, you were involved in building?
Borup: No, that’s the first projects that came since I’ve been on this commission was 5,
6 and 7.
Prior: For a moment there, I though maybe you were involved with the construction of
some of those homes. I got a little warm here for a moment.
MacCoy: Is that it?
Prior: I’m sorry, Chairman, that’s all.
MacCoy: Okay, any other commissioners that have something to say.
De Weerd: I just had a couple of questions or comments. I’m assuming lot 17 ,30 and
93 are your pedestrian entrances into the Dakota Ridge Subdivision?
Bradbury: Right. Sorry I had to look.
De Weerd: Now, on the Eight Mile Lateral, I like Commissioner Borup, think that’s a
nice idea, however, it’s not too realistic. You have a pathway that will go to nothing, and
I do know of several different subdivisions that have pathways that don’t go anywhere,
and the frustration of the users of not being really able to use it and go anywhere. So I
don’t know how practical the use –
Bradbury: And I understand that too, and I look at this map and I have the same
reaction. It’s just well we got a path that starts no where and goes nowhere, that’s
great, but what are we going to do with it? And the way I – I take the next step and say,
but that’s today and hopefully tomorrow we have the next link and the day after that we
have the next link.
De Weerd: You might be setting a trend.
Bradbury: I guess you got to start some place.
De Weerd: My other concern was your lot 51 in the first development, and in the
second lot 68, those are in gated communities; is that what I understand?
Bradbury: I’m sorry, I don’t know where we are.
De Weerd: Your green spaces in one and two. How accessible are those going to be
to the rest of the subdivision outside of the people who live in those gated sections?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 20
Bradbury: I haven’t discussed that issue with the developer, and frankly it really didn’t
occur to me that it would be anything other than available to everybody in the
subdivision, but I’ll guess you an honest answer, and the honest answer is I don’t know.
Maybe you should tell us what you’d like.
Borup: The gate is just strictly a vehicle gate. It’s not a pedestrian gate?
Bradbury: That’s right. It’s strictly a vehicle gate so people will be able to come in and
out virtually at will.
De Weerd: I’m kind of disadvantaged. I don’t have anything other than your plat.
Bradbury: I understand.
De Weerd: Now, I’m a full believer in the multi-use and the mixed densities. The only
problem I have is it does go above the average was 3.7 in an R-4. In a workshop that I
did attend, they like to have the allowances of open space and larger lot sizes to
compensate for the higher density, and I don’t see a whole lot of that happening in this
development. The sidewalk issue, not being on both sides of the street, have you come
to a compromise on that or are you going to be doing it on both sides?
Bradbury: On the publicly dedicated streets, there will be sidewalks on both sides. You
know, assuming approved as proposed. In the private streets, the proposal is to have
sidewalk on one side only. Among the reasons that that sort of proposal is made is in
order to reduce the amount of pavement area. Number one so that it doesn’t – it’s a
relatively small community. And we don’t want to have too much area taken up with just
concrete and black top and then secondly from the standpoint of the need for it.
Because these are private areas, and they don’t extend to anyplace else, theoretically
the traffic should be less. There won’t be traffic, you know the through traffic. It’s going
to be the people who live there and their guests that are primarily coming and going and
the thinking is that because there would be considerably less traffic on these roads, that
the need to provide that additional sidewalk on both sides would not be there as well.
That is we don’t expect to see so many conflict between pedestrians and vehicular
traffic in these relatively confined areas.
De Weerd: However, you might if you’re going to open those pedestrian ways and you
have kids walking through your private gated communities going through there to get to
the school site.
Bradbury: Well, yeah, there’s no question that there’s going to be pedestrian traffic, and
what I’m trying to point out is I think there is less vehicular traffic in these areas,
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 21
because they come in and they go out. But they don’t go through and use these streets
to get to other places. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
De Weerd: You had mentioned that you will bring this up to the ten percent of open
space. But I kind of find it hard to look at something that you don’t know what you are
going to do.
Bradbury: All you need to do is make it, from my perspective anyway, simply it’s a
requirement of the ordinance. Your approval, simply would be conditioned upon
meeting those requirements. We’re showing you conceptually the layout here between
the time you get a – between the preliminary plat and the final plat, there’s always some
adjustments that are likely to be made. If the adjustments are so great that the
preliminary plat no longer conforms to the final plat, you’re not required to approve the
final plat. So what you’re likely to see in the event these numbers aren’t there yet,
you’re likely to see some of these existing areas grow, expand enough to cover it. Now,
Mr. Freckleton said a few minutes ago he made, I think a fairly flat statement, that it’s
not there. I don’t think – he perhaps misunderstood me. I acknowledged it wasn’t there
in the first plat that you folks saw. I think it may be there now.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry. I have a question for you. Do we see the final plat
or do we just approve on the preliminaries and assume that they will be taken care of.
Prior: Well, you’re not really going to see the final plat. Let me just –
MacCoy: I don’t know what’s final. We have had final plats, and then we’ve had them
change by the time we finish with them.
Prior: And just for a clarification for everyone’s sake, right now, we’re talking about an
annexation and zoning of the property at this point. That’s what we’re on, so we’re
jumping ahead of ourselves a little bit folks, and just real briefly and I guess I promised I
wouldn’t talk, but I’m going to have to. I’ll try to keep it to a minimum. We’re discussing
an annexation and zoning, and that’s what this testimony is really suppose to be about
at this point. Item number three regards a preliminary plat. We will not be ruling on the
preliminary plat today. It’s the city’s policy that we consider an annexation and zoning
and then we’ll consider item number four for a conditional use, and then at the next
meeting, we will consider the preliminary plat. That is the policy that the city has
followed, and that’s the policy we will follow tonight. You will look at the preliminary plat.
You’ll get an opportunity to –
De Weerd: Well, forgive me for my ignorance.
Prior: I’m not – by all means, and you’ve had – I appreciate you bringing up the issue
because I was concerned that we were getting ahead of ourselves, and I appreciate it
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 22
commissioner for doing that. I did have one concern. Bruce was there some mention
about ACHD about the public streets? Did they make any comment about whether their
preference was public as opposed to private streets in their recommendations?
Freckleton: In ACHD’s recommendations?
Prior: Yeah.
Freckleton: Yeah, they were talking about wanting a lot of these streets being public.
Prior: Was that a commission recommendation or was it –
Freckleton: Yes.
Prior: I don’t recall coming across that. That’s why I’m asking for my Findings when I
have to prepare them, Chairman. I need a clarification. So ACHD is recommending,
the commission is recommending that all the streets be public not private?
Freckleton: Yes.
Prior: Okay, and that’s all Chairman.
Freckleton: They talked about specific streets, and then they said or the applicant
should provide a public street connection to the east and to the west. They kind of gave
them the, I guess the design option of designing a street in there that would be public.
Borup: Just a clarification on that. I didn’t go through and follow which streets are
public and private, but my understanding ACHD didn’t necessarily completely object to
the private streets. They said it was not their practice to have a private road connecting
two public roads, which I don’t know if that affects the only private streets in here that
count or if that’s just a certain section here that it would apply to. Maybe Mr. Bradbury
could answer that.
Bradbury: I could try to clarify to the –
Borup: And I don’t know, it’s going to have to be – ACHD is the one you are going to
have to satisfy on that anyway, more so than us.
Bradbury: I think you’re probably right, and just so that we all know what we’re talking
about. The proposal is for this street here to be private, and these streets in here to be
private and the rest of these all to be publicly dedicated roads there, here ,here and
down in here. Well, this will be private. I’m sorry, I missed one, and this would be
private road down in here. When the Highway District originally saw this, they wanted a
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 23
connection to the west which we provided. Now they were talking about wanting to a
connection to the east, which was where the school site was.
Borup: Which would have been a private road connecting two public, so that’s the one
–
Bradbury: And the Highway District I think was a little bit –
Borup: And that was in the original design.
Bradbury: Since the commission saw this plat, we’ve met with the staff twice in tech
review and gone over these issues, and today because we kind of suspected this
question to come up, we asked staff at the highway district couldn’t get a quick letter out
to let you folks know that they’ve looked at this and we’ve talked to them about it and
they are satisfied with it, and a letter got faxed out today. Unfortunately, it comes not on
letterhead and it comes unsigned, which is just a much of a frustration for us I think you
can imagine as it is for you folks. But I guess I can represent to you being under oath
that we have worked with the Highway District. We’ve come to an understanding about
what the Highway District’s staff would recommend and what they think the commission
will approve. No question, there’s the next step. We got to go back to the commission
and get them to put their stamp of approval on it and our request to you is to simply that
fact, make it a condition of approval if you’re inclined to recommend an approval of the
project, and if the Highway District Commission doesn’t come through, well then we’re
back here or we’re back to the drawing board or we’re doing something else. What I
hope we don’t do is get ourselves into the never ending circle of chasing our tails
between agencies. It’s awfully frustrating. I’d like to provide to you folks a copy of the
letter that did come through the fax machine.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of more comments, but I’ll wait until item
number three.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I too at the request of the assistant city attorney will defer most of
my questions until preliminary plat, however, specifically to annexation and zoning, I do
have to state – it’s more of a comment than a question is that the year that I have been
on this commission, I have not seen one single subdivision proposal come through here
with a proposed density less than R-4, and I do recognize the fact that this property is
contiguous to other R-4 developments. However, I am very concerned about the City of
Meridian not having any variation in its residential development, any variety, and I think
we’re looking at becoming another Garden City if we don’t start encouraging some
development and some larger lots and larger homes. And with that I will pass.
MacCoy: Okay, you can sit down right now. It’s a public hearing. Is there anybody out
here that wants to comment now? Big crowd tonight. Okay, since no more questions
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 24
from the commission, and we have nobody coming up from the audience, let’s take it
back to us and what’s the proposal?
De Weerd: And we’re talking about annexation and zoning, right?
MacCoy: Correct, number two.
Smith: Is the public hearing still open?
MacCoy: Well, let’s see. Okay, I will close the public hearing at this time and request
from the commissioners a decision.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we have the assistant city attorney prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Okay, at this time, we are going to need a roll call. Is that right, or just a
straight forward?
Prior: That’s fine. All we’re doing is sending a recommendation Mr. – all you need to
do is there was a motion that the assistant city attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. I heard a second, I know somewhere. Then I believe all you need
to do Chairman is just, all in favor, all opposed and so on and then we’ll proceed.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 3: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION ( 260 LOTS ON 51.88 ACRES)
BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION
AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
MacCoy: Applicant, do you have anything else you want to add at this point?
Prior: Chairman, I think what we’ll need to do is we’ll need to continue the public
hearing on the preliminary plat.
MacCoy: Correct.
Prior: Until the next meeting at which time we’ll consider that after the annexation and
zoning and assuming you folks make a motion on the conditional use permit for the
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 25
PUD. And the next meeting there will be an opportunity for Mr. Bradbury address the
issues on the preliminary plat, and that will be taken up at that time.
MacCoy: Okay, you’re correct. Since this is a continued public hearing, is there a
motion at this point?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Prior, we’re going to drag this thing out another month before
they get any comments back from us on the preliminary plat?
Prior: Well, the only concern if I can address it, Mr. Chairman. It’s been the policy of
the city that we take the annexation and zonings and the conditional use permits and
address those issues and then when those have gone through, assuming that is one or
the other a decision, then we consider the preliminary plat. That has been the policy of
the city. That’s the way we do things, and the reason and the theory behind that it
allows the city to have some assemblance of control as to what’s being designed.
Otherwise what we are doing is we are in essence saying yes, we’re going to pass the
preliminary plat along to the city council for their approval, and we haven’t even voted
as to whether this land is even going to be annexed into the city as of yet. You folks
have not made a decision as to whether this will be approved for an annexation. And
whether you will approve my Findings one way or the other, that needs to come first
before we consider a preliminary plat, and that’s the reason behind that.
Smith: Well, that makes a lot of sense. I just guess these guys have been coming here
for about two or three months. And I’m just –
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might be heard on this.
Prior: You are probably going to need to be sworn in that, Steve.
STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Bradbury representing Steiner
Development. I think I agree with the city attorney maybe probably about 75% of the
way, and the place that I come short on is that it seems to me that it would be
acceptable for this body to take all of the testimony it needs to take on all of the issues
that are before it, and simply before you vote to approve the preliminary plat then you
ought to have first voted to approve the annexation and the rezone and I guess the
conditional use permit falls into that same category. I think that Mr. Prior is correct. You
got to get it in the right order, but my experience here has been that we don’t have to
come back month after month after month to do the public hearings. We handle the
public hearings. We get all the testimony taken care of, and you just order your affairs
for purposes of approval so that you get them in the right order. Otherwise, I mean you
are going to be annexing and theoretically zoning property into your city without
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 26
knowing what’s going to get built there, and that’s the whole reason why we bring all of
these to you at one time. So that you have an opportunity to deal with all the issues at
one time.
Borup: My interpretation is exactly what Mr. Prior said. At least how I interpret what he
said. So, I think we’re all in agreement.
Bradbury: I guess what I’m trying to say is –
Borup: We have normally been doing the other and taking all the testimony on the
preliminary plat and then just not voting on it until after we’ve read the Findings.
Prior: My preference just for a clarification, Mr. Chairman, is that and this is purely my
preference, and I would advise – I would request that the commission follow my
recommendation please that we consider the annexation and the zoning and the
conditional use permit and then Mr. Bradbury will be required to come back on item
number three for a discussion on the preliminary plat. That is my preference to do it
that way. Obviously you as a commission can do whatever you wish and go against
anything and act any way you see fit.
Bradbury: Maybe you can help us to understand why that’s necessary, Mr. Prior. Why
we can’t complete our public hearing tonight?
Prior: My preference is just from a liability standpoint, Steve. I don’t want any
possibility of any confusion whatsoever that we did not consider this annexation first,
then we considered the conditional use permit, then we consider the preliminary plat.
That is purely my preference from a legal standpoint. I do not want a developer or
anybody else coming in here and challenging me in court saying we did not follow
proper procedure. Now, if the commission decides to act otherwise they can do that.
But I’m telling them and from my comfort level my preference is that we do the
annexation and zoning, we continue the public hearing on this preliminary plat, we do
the conditional use permit. I will prepare those in that order and then the preliminary
plat public hearing will be continued until next month and considered at that time. That
is my preference folks, but obviously I defer to your authority.
MacCoy: That’s normally what we’ve done though in the past.
Borup: Maybe speaking to Mr. Prior’s comments. It might be reason for us to think
about how we handle this. On a project like this especially where it’s contiguous an
ongoing, almost an ongoing project, I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t have acted
on the annexation two months ago. I mean we continued the thing on because of the
plat. Not because of what we felt about the annexation, so maybe that’s something we
need to look at how we handle things as maybe move the annexations through in a
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 27
more timely manner, and then we can discuss the real issue that we’re concerned about
and that’s the plat, and in the case, the common area, density and everything else. I
don’t know that in some of these standard projects where we have to worry about are
we going to want to de-annex it later on.
Prior: My concern, if I could address that Chairman. Another concern, and I guess this
is all ties in is that if you annex property and provide them with an annexation on a
property and zone that property at the same time, such as let’s say we annex and zone
in R-8, and then you don’t immediately address the issues of the conditional use permit
at the same time, you’re losing at least a slight bit of the control over the particular
project, and once again the issue is the cities being able to control what goes in to a
particular site. So, that’s the reason I feel very strongly about this, just to protect the
city’s interest. And that’s why it is my preference.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you counsel. This has been done in the past. The way you’ve
stated it. History is such that’s fast. We got a meeting coming up next month or next
week and we’ll have a chance to discuss this internally with our commission and staff.
So I think that those of you who are concerned about it, put it on your agenda, and we’ll
bring that up then. And now I –
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I might also point out to the rest of the commissioners, we have
three more projects on the agenda tonight that all have request for annexation and
zoning followed by item for preliminary plat. I guess we’re going to follow precedence
on this one and put all those off until month too.
Borup: (Inaudible) Are we still trying to get passed item number three, Mr. Chairman?
MacCoy: We’re on number three right now.
Prior: You need to entertain a motion.
MacCoy: That’s what I asked for, yeah.
Smith: Well before that I’d just like to make a comment to the developer. It seems like
Commissioner De Weerd has some concerns on the plat. As she’s reviewed it, so far. I
have a number of issues that I’ve observed upon further review since we met prior to
the last meeting. And I would encourage you to sit down with us again and so you
might be able to expedite this thing and address some of these things prior to the next
meeting. Just a suggestion. You know, you are free to do whatever you wish, but there
seems to be a lot of things on the plat here that I’m going to bring up as concerns to
myself. That’s all I have.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 28
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I also have some additional questions on the plat itself. I wonder
if this wouldn’t still be the appropriate time to get them in the record so that the
information will be available for council preparing the Findings, and I think Mr. Smith
had some others. I think this is probably the appropriate time to bring them up rather
than bringing them up a month from now, and then having them go back and revise it at
that time. If that’s what –
MacCoy: Are you planning on listing those right at this moment and then we move on?
Borup: I’ve got one item that I’d like to address, and I think I need maybe some
clarification from Mr. Bradbury on some of my maps, and right now I’m looking strictly at
the density issue. The issue of the bonus area which I believe you say you can add up
to 25% by the ten percent, and we’re probably – they’re coming down to essentially to
the ten percent open space. And that’s probably the major item. And I’ve got to say I
like seeing a project with some variety. I really have a problem with cookie cutter
subdivisions where every lot is exactly the same size, and then you’ve got no options
for any other type of lifestyles. So I like that aspect of what you are doing. The
question I had on and maybe I need some help on my math here. You said the Lakes
at Cherry Lane – let me maybe clarify one thing. You said the non-PUD area was 3.29;
was that correct or did I write that down wrong?
Bradbury: Yes, that’s correct. That’s the numbers that I was provided, and I guess I
should probably warn you that I didn’t do the math.
Borup: That’s fine, and that’s about what I remember from past subdivisions is that
density’s normally come out give or take a point or two. It’s just seems like that’s about
what it comes out. Tammy had mentioned the figure of 3.7, which is even higher. And
I’m not sure – in fact that came from –
De Weerd: I asked Bruce about that today.
Borup: Well, let me ask Bruce about that then. Is that just a general off the top of your
head or is that an accurate average, or do you know?
Freckleton: That was probably more of a off the top of the head average across the
city. Granted there’s some developments that will be higher. There’s some
developments that will be lower depending on the design.
Borup: I guess right off I need to say I’m in favor of the PUD status and the bonus
density, but you were talking coming out about 4.8. If we take Lakes at Cherry Lane at
3. 29, I come up with, -- and add a 25% bonus, that comes out to about 4.11, if I did that
correct. Even at 3.7, comes out 4.6. So I guess my feeling is at 4.8 you may not be
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 29
above a 4 per acre density, but it would be above what’s a normal density. So it looks
to me like if that’s how we are going to judge on that criteria, you’d be above the 25%.
Bradbury: Yeah, I think I understand what you’re saying, and I guess what it comes
down to probably is the question of interpreting the ordinance as to what the bonus is
suppose to be.
Borup: The legal interpretation would be the 4 per acre. I don’t know.
Prior: It’s four per acre.
Borup: Even in the combination of all your Lakes at Cherry Lane, you are at 3.9 even
with the reduced density there. So I don’t think we have a project – in fact I don’t think
unless you had a straight grid subdivision, I don’t think you can get 4 per acre and have
8,000 foot lots. Theoretically you could.
Bradbury: Maybe, I don’t know.
Borup: I tried to do some figuring on that, and I think theoretically you could, but I don’t
there’s a subdivision in town that that’s the case. So I would like to see your density
down closer to the 25% on what’s a normal density. And beyond any other input than
that, I guess that would be up to the designer to look at.
Bradbury: The one thing that I think that you need to perhaps bear in mind, I don’t
know if it changes your thinking, though is that in the PUD portion of the Lakes at
Cherry Lane, which is only part of that project, --
Borup: It’s 3.9.
Bradbury: Well, that was an overall. But the PUD portion was 4.5.
Borup: Oh, right.
Bradbury: Okay.
Borup: Yeah, I had that written down. I didn’t multiply that one out.
Bradbury: Right, and the reason I point that out is because that I guess maybe to the
extent that precedence means anything.
Borup: (Inaudible). That’s all I had Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: Okay, does any other commissioner have any comment to make at this point?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 30
Smith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bradbury, I’m a little confused on the gated communities
and could you explain the concept of what you are proposing to do there with the gated
communities? Who you will be marketing these parcels to and you know what’s the
intent by providing gate there at those?
Bradbury: I can try and maybe a better – somebody who is better describing that might
be the people who actually have to – who are in the marketing end of it, but let me take
the first crack at it. The theory on these things is to provide both an additional measure
of privacy to the people who live in these gated areas, and an additional measure of
security to the people who live in these gated areas. Although pedestrians can come
and go, there is the protection of having strange vehicles come in and going out. I think
most people feel more secure and have that feeling of privacy. In terms of the
marketing, it’s the – these areas are designed to attract people who don’t want to have
large lots that they need to maintain. That may not spend their entire twelve months a
year here. They may be people that spend part of the time of the year traveling.
Although this is not designed to be marketed to senior as is the case in the Lake at
Cherry Lane. I would expect that you would probably see a fair number of people
without children living in these areas. It’s not exclusively designed for that. The idea is
to provide and to market to people who want something different than the typical R-4
8,000 square foot lot. The makeup could be anybody from single people living alone to
married people without children, or people who – empty nesters perhaps, all of whom
people that maybe travel a lot and so want to have that extra measure of security.
That’s what the aim is. That’s what the goal is.
Smith: I guess it just kind of seems to contradict allowing the pedestrians versus
providing the security. I guess the biggest concern with that is the access to the school
to the east, and then this sense of this is our green space. You outside the fence can’t
come in and use it, although it’s being developed for the entire subdivision here, and
we’ve got two thirds of the main green space areas are in these two gated areas. So
that’s a concern of mine. And another question I had was the Eight Mile Lateral is
shown extending through lot 46 of block 7. Now because of the size of that lateral, you
weren’t going to be tiling it in, which is – you know that would concur with all the
comments that have been made on the pathway and so forth. Although I think too
actually have a plan, we need to develop some kind of green space or green belt kind
of plan (End of Tape).
Smith: -- so that's the only portion you can tile, so you can develop lot 46.
Bradbury: Correct.
Smith: Then if – you could bring that one diagram out again that you had of Green
Briar.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 31
Bradbury: I think –
Smith: Well I don’t think, I know. Rendering is a little – it's a little misleading in that –
am I to assume that this rendering is just showing one dwelling unit and not the whole
building?
Bradbury: It's just showing a suggestion.
Smith: Yeah, it's a concept I mean it's – the idea is to give you the idea of what these
units will –
Bradbury: -- Exterior appearance of those units – that's right isn't it?
Smith: All three together or – okay, because of what you've shown on your plan there
shows the garage – the most prominent feature on the front elevation of the house of a
street side is going to be the garage. This kind of glosses over the actual treatment that
you're going to get for the garage door here and then it doesn’t show a garage at all on
the other side, it really only shows one garage and I mean I'm not trying to nit-pick this
but I'm trying to get to –
Bradbury: No I understand and the last thing in the world I want to try to do is be
misleading to you folks and I hope I haven't been because I didn't mean to be. We're
trying to present you folks with a visual concept and the details of it are far from worked
out at least in terms of exactly what the footprints are going to look like and how these
things are going to lay out and –
Smith: Sure, yeah I understand that --
Bradbury: -- And so if I gave you a view that causes you to doubt what it is that we're
trying to convey to you I apologize for that but the idea is we're trying to – we want to
present visually what the developer is envisioning, these footprints are the same thing,
their concept as well, I mean and they were prepared before that was prepared and you
know we've been kind doing this piece meal and I guess we're going to continue to do a
little more piece meal on it but I guess what I want to say to you, yeah, I recognize that I
mean the pictures that you get and the footprints that you have, they're not all coming
together exactly right and what we're conveying to you is the vision as opposed to the
execution.
Smith: Right, well if we could get back to the plan here --
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 32
Borup: I had the same question Commissioner Smith did, it looks to me like the
rendering is of a model home community where they don't have driveways going to the
garages, is that –
Bradbury: Yeah, that's –
Borup: I mean, so there's only a third of the concrete here showing that –
Bradbury: Well, and I don't think there's the entire building –
Borup: It could be, it looks like the garages are (inaudible)
Smith: There's triplexes and duplexes there so – but on the south end you've quite a
long – is that going to be a private drive?
Bradbury: Right.
Smith: I just would be curious how the Fire Department would react to that because
they don't recognize the fact that they have a reverse gear in their trucks so –
Bradbury: That would be something we'd need to deal with, I agree.
Smith: And then, on your breakdown of your spaces you've listed the zoning out off to
the right, is this the current zoning, because there's some rural transitional listed there.
Bradbury: Yeah, that's the proposed zoning throughout the project would be R-4, some
of the property that you're annexing into the city is currently zoned RT, assuming you do
annex it, the part that's in the county is currently zoned RT, the proposal is for all the
property once annexed to be zoned R-4.
Smith: I guess the only other, it's not really a question, it's more of a comment, is I
agree with Commissioner Borup, I'd like to see a variety of uses in a development and I
think it's good planning and there's been some very successful examples done in the
past, I guess the only thing that I'd like to see though is instead of everything being
more dense than an R-4 is to see some more – some densities that are less than an R-
4, you know maybe some larger lots and/or maybe some more larger, usable green
space areas outside of just the gated community areas. I mean I know that we've got
lot 9 in block 5 and I don't know that lot 11 in block 8 is really going to be of much
benefit to anyone and I guess I don't really understand lot 40 in block 7 and I don't know
if lot 9 was just kind of a leftover –
Bradbury: No, the intention there is to provide a real nice landscaped entry area to the
–
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 33
Smith: For?
Bradbury: For the Green Briar, for this – again, the idea is to provide something that
has a real nice, fancy feel to it for lack of better words, that's the idea, so those are
landscaped areas.
Smith: Okay. That's – oh, and on your plat map I was pretty impressed when I first
opened this up when the minimum lot size is five acres.
Bradbury: And you want bigger lots than that?
Smith: That's all.
MacCoy: Any other comments here? Mr. Nelson do you have anything, are you getting
ready to say something here?
Nelson: No, I don't have any further comments, I'll defer mine later.
MacCoy: Okay, is there any other Commissioners?
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess my other two comments, now that we're at the
appropriate item number, I wondered if the Fire Department has reviewed this and if
they've had a chance to look at those narrow drives into some of the lots?
Bradbury: I'm trying to remember if I have seen a transmittal back from the Fire
Department and I can't recall, I guess I'm assuming that in the natural course of things
the plats been transmitted to the Fire Department for comment.
de Weerd: I guess when Commissioner Smith had raised that one issue you know that
kind of was another question if they've really reviewed that to see if they can turn their
trucks around in those circle drives. I guess the last one would be in reading staff's
comments it talked about a buffer between your development and Dakota Ridge and it
indicated a twenty-foot planting strip and I don't see any comments or –
Bradbury: Right, well I'll tell you, a couple of things, one is that this developer now
owns or is acquiring Dakota Ridge and so that the ability to work something out in terms
of some sort of a buffer is likely to be considerably easier if in fact a buffer is something
that is going to be necessary. It certainly could be provided and probably the best place
to provide it is going to be on the other side of that line, the property line, because that's
where the road is and it's just a matter rather than cutting off lots, just move the road
over a little bit and figure out a way to provide it there if the City feels that it's necessary
I'm sure we can work it out.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 34
de Weerd: Well I guess I raise that because that is where your high density lots are and
their lots are supposed to be 8,000 square feet and –
Bradbury: Right, but in between the backs of these lots and the first Dakota Ridge lot is
this road that we were talking about that provides access to the school, that road
borders right up against that common boundary line and there certainly ought to be a
way to provide some sort of landscaping treatment along that road if that becomes
necessary and as it turned out it just so happens that Steiner Development is in the
process of acquiring that project as well.
MacCoy: Is that it?
de Weerd: Yes.
MacCoy: Bruce?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question on that issue. Hasn't that property, Mr.
Bradbury, already been sold to the School District?
Bradbury: I think it has.
Freckleton: So that road is probably already laid out, the property for the road?
Bradbury: Well you know I guess I don't know, I've had the idea that that was a public
road, that it was a part of the Dakota Ridge Subdivision and that the school actually
takes access more southerly, I mean the school access is actually off of a public road.
Freckleton: Okay, I guess where my question was headed was since that property has
been conveyed, do they have the ability to put a twenty-foot planting strip, do they have
the room, was it provided for when that property was conveyed?
Bradbury: To the School District?
Freckleton: Yes.
Bradbury: The School District doesn't own it, the School District doesn't own the
property that we're talking about, well wait a minute, I take that back, wait a minute –
part of it I guess – maybe we're getting ourselves crossways here just a little bit, let me
try – I guess I'm assuming that what -- we're talking about a twenty-foot landscape strip
is not that you're going to ask this developer to landscape, provide a buffer against the
effects of the school, I expect you're going to require the school to provide it's own
landscaping, right?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 35
Freckleton: The way I read Shari's comment was that when Dakota was going through,
this developer, Steiner, was requesting that they buffer for Steiner's property but now it's
a flip flop and –
Bradbury: No, no, no, no, we're still saying exactly the same thing, it's exactly the same
thing. The City Council, when this developer asked for a buffer strip to be provided in
the Dakota Ridge Subdivision, the City Council concluded that they weren't going to
require that so the Dakota Ridge Subdivision at that time wasn't, well now in the
meantime this developer's acquired the Dakota Ridge Subdivision and has the ability to
provide it.
Freckleton: Okay, the way I read Shari's comment, she has requested a twenty-foot
planting strip on the Wilkin's Ranch property, not the Dakota property.
Bradbury: Yes, I understand that.
Freckleton: And now in your written response you basically said that you didn't feel it
was necessary.
Bradbury: Well I guess at this point neither did the City Council apparently since the
City Council didn't impose it last time but if it becomes an issue and the Council
concludes – or this body concludes that there needs to be a landscape buffer there,
well the ability to provide it is by this developer exists because this developer owns the
Dakota Ridge Subdivision and will have the ability to provide that landscape buffer
where this developer thought it should have been placed in the first place.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, can I get a clarification, I'm a little confused on this, if I may.
MacCoy: Go ahead.
Prior: The City Council approved Dakota without the requirement of a buffer, is that
correct?
Bradbury: That's right.
Prior: Okay, first. Second, Shari Stiles and the comments for this particular Wilkin's
Ranch is requiring a twenty-foot buffer, is that correct?
Bradbury: Well to the extent that –
Prior: She is requiring a twenty-foot buffer, is that correct on this project?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 36
Bradbury: To the extent that she has any ability to require anything.
Prior: Well, she is recommending that the Commission require a twenty-foot – or make
as a condition that there is a twenty-foot buffer, is that right?
Bradbury: I understand the comments that she made recommended that a landscape
buffer be provided.
Prior: Okay. At this point, you are not required as a developer to put a twenty-foot
buffer at Dakota Ridge, is that right?
Bradbury: No.
Prior: So if we approve this without a twenty-foot buffer, what guarantees do we have
that you put a buffer in there?
Bradbury: Well I guess the guarantee that you have is that you'll have the final plat at
Dakota Ridge.
Prior: But doesn't it make more sense to require the buffer on this project though?
Bradbury: I don't think it does at all.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the whole idea on the buffer is
because that's a collector street, isn't that correct? And so the purpose of the buffer is
because – that's the same requirement the City of Boise has and collector streets in
residential area, they have a little more leeway, you can go twenty-feet or you can go
ten if some of it's – well anyway, they've got other options but I think the buffer because
of the collector street not because of the other adjoining subdivision, so if the street and
I don't know because we don't have a plat that shows that – is the street that she's
referring to right up against the property line?
Bradbury: Yes.
Borup: So the only way to get that buffer is to either take it out of Wilkins Ranch or
move the street over twenty-feet.
Bradbury: That's right.
Borup: And you're proposing which?
Bradbury: Move the street over twenty-feet.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 37
Borup: Okay, well I don't think you ever stated that and maybe that's why there's some
confusion here.
Bradbury: I apologize, I thought I did.
MacCoy: No, he did, he said that John.
Prior: Oh, did he? I'm sorry, then I didn't hear that.
Borup: I didn't either.
MacCoy: I did, because I had envisioned one way then I saw the other way.
Bradbury: I apologize, I was perhaps –
Prior: Now who owns the street?
Bradbury: Well, eventually it will be dedicated to the Highway District.
Prior: And the developer owns that street now?
Bradbury: Right.
Prior: But there's still no requirement that that twenty-foot buffer goes in there at this
point.
Bradbury: Perhaps we can do it this way by imposing a condition of approval on this
project that there be a twenty-foot buffer provided wherever we can find the twenty-feet.
Prior: That's off-site, you can't do that legally and you know we can't legally impose a –
Bradbury: No, I'm suggesting that you require a twenty-foot buffer as a condition of
approval for this subdivision wherever the twenty-feet can come from.
Prior: What I'm saying is that –
Bradbury: If we can't get it off-site, we get it on-site.
Prior: You can't legally require a twenty-foot buffer off-site of a project like this, that is
against the law. That's right, you cannot impose a twenty-foot buffer and require
someone on another piece of property and you know that it's off site, require them to
put a twenty-foot buffer in. The only way I could do this is to require that twenty-foot
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 38
buffer on-site on this particular property, otherwise you – I mean, case law says you
can't do that, I mean I can go back to my office and pull it up if you'd like.
MacCoy: I don't think you have to do that.
Borup: No, question then, Bruce, Mr. Freckleton, the collector street that we're talking
about is that approved to be constructed at this time? Is ACHD – I mean what's the
status of that street?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I believe that the final plat has been
approved on Dakota Ridge, I'm not sure what the status of the development plans are, I
know we did receive those, we reviewed them, the developer basically pulled the plug
on that project and it set.
Borup: But if they wanted to go ahead could they proceed ahead, put that road in and
not put in a twenty-foot buffer as approved at this time? So there's no way to stop that
from happening?
Freckleton: I don't believe so. Not if that current developer was to move forward.
Borup: It looks to me like the buffer should have come from the subdivision that puts in
the road, not from an adjoining subdivision.
Smith: Hypothetically, Mr. Bradbury could come back next month and say we are
proposing to move our street over twenty-feet and here's the legal documentation, we're
going through to amend out final plat to provide a twenty-foot buffer on the Dakota
Ridge Subdivision so that we don't have to place conditions on this project and we can
know that the twenty-foot buffer is being provided through another instrument somehow.
It's the same developer, he wants to move this thing through, he knows our concerns, if
that's – he can do it however he wants to do it, if he wants to take twenty-feet off this
parcel which obviously it looks like he doesn't have the space to do it, bring in whatever
documentation Mr. Prior feels is legally binding on the other project just as a point of
reference, not anything that has any condition tied to this project, just as another piece
of information supporting our plat. Hypothetically.
MacCoy: Anything else? Are we ready to move on?
Borup: I do have one and I'm sorry this is petty but I've got to ask Mr. Freckleton a
question on I got real confused on the block numbering, is – lots don't have to be
contiguous to be part of the same block?
Freckleton: Commissioner Borup, are you specifically –
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 39
Borup: Well, block 1, block 2 are separated by streets, I just had never seen that before
and I –
Freckleton: Typically, or legally, when you have a private street, it has to be a separate
lot, you'll notice that lot 16 –
Borup: Oh, that's why the lots are – that's why the streets don't separate because it's a
private street.
Freckleton: Private street.
Borup: Okay, that clarifies my question.
MacCoy: Okay, Is that it? To go back to the question about did the Fire Department
have a chance to see this and so on, I don't have anything of my documentation which
shows that they have had the chance to review it, otherwise we would have had a sheet
of paper which said what their view points were and I'm sure –
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I do have a copy but it was on the original plat.
MacCoy: Oh, well, what I'm concerned about is the fact that's already been raised, is
that –
Bradbury: It was dated 03/20/98 with no comments but it was on the original plat, it is
on the annexation but – never mind, that's true, it is on the annexation, it's not on the
plat, I apologize.
MacCoy: Because they always pick it up the fact whether they have a turning radius or
being able as Commissioner Smith says to go forward, not backwards. Just a matter of
clarification. Okay, what is the desire of the Commissioners here?
Prior: Mr. Chairman, if I may before you proceed, I just want to make a point that I have
a real concern about you folks closing the public hearing on a preliminary plat –
MacCoy: That's what I do too, I was going to make the mention that we don’t close –
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we continue the public hearing until our
July 14th
meeting on the request for preliminary plat for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: And we have a second, okay, all in favor? No opposed?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 40
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Move on to item #4, before we start that I'd like to interject we've been at this
thing two hours already this evening and if we continue the same pace we're never
going to get out of here tonight, so I'd like that both the audience which has had part of
this and the Commissioners have a lot a part of this, we need to start coming down with
more concise statements and move on forward.
ITEM #4: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE
LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK
CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
MacCoy: The applicant at this moment has the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add, I'd simply ask –
Prior: We need to hold it, unfortunately we need to go through the process all over
again, he needs to be sworn in on item #4, if he'd state his name and address again.
Bradbury: Steve Bradbury, 877 Main Street, Boise.
STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Bradbury: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Commission, I simply don't have
anything to add, I think we went over everything we needed to talk about, I'd simply ask
that the previous testimony be incorporated into this hearing.
MacCoy: Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience – this is an open public hearing
– have anything to add to this or ask questions of? There's not –
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question, when do you anticipate having
ACHD's commission approval of your modifications? Will that be in time for the July
hearing?
Bradbury: (Inaudible – away from mike)
Freckleton: Do you anticipate then revising this preliminary plat to reflect all the
changes that –
Bradbury: (Inaudible)
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 41
Freckleton: No, I'm talking about the addition of the open space you've talked about,
you've talked about a lot of things tonight that you intend to do that aren't reflected on
this plat, are those going to be changed for the next time we look at this?
Bradbury: I anticipate that they will, in direct answer to your question.
Freckleton: Okay.
MacCoy: Is there any questions for commissioner of the applicant?
de Weerd: I have none.
Borup: I have one comment Mr. Chairman and I guess just in case I didn't make myself
clear previously, and that's on the question of density, again I like seeing a variety in a
project and I think this does that but it's looking at a density greater – I mean that this
project as a whole is looking at a greater density than the specific P.U.D. smaller
portions on the Lakes at Cherry Lane and I think I probably do have a little bit of a
problem with that, I'd like to see the density down – at the very least no more than what
those were and maybe even down more like 4.25 or something which is what would be
25% over an average, again that's one opinion here. That's all, thank you.
de Weerd: I would echo that.
Prior: Chairman MacCoy if I may?
MacCoy: Yes.
Prior: Is it the, just for clarification, is it the and I assume that I'm going to be directed to
prepare Findings, at least I anticipate on item #4, is it the desire of the Commission for
me to prepare Findings without a final Commission ruling from ACHD on that particular
project? That may be something that Mr. Bradbury may want to address. If I'm to
prepare Findings on a conditional use permit without a final determination from ACHD's
commission, if you'd like to talk about that I'd be happy to hear what he has to say, if
he'd like to respond.
Bradbury: Sure, I'd be pleased to. Mr. Prior my feeling is that if this body is inclined to
make a recommendation for approval that it simply be made subject to the receipt of an
approval from the ACHD Commission which is consistent with their intentions and that
way if the ACHD Commission – if the approval or their comments out of ACHD
Commission don't square with what these folks are expecting then we're back to the
drawing board.
Nelson: How do you feel about that Mr. Prior?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 42
Prior: Pardon me?
Nelson: How do you feel about that?
Prior: It's your desire to do whatever you please folks, I'm here to please you.
Nelson: How does that affect putting together your Facts and Findings if it's pending –
we don't want to waste your time, time's very valuable.
Prior: I'm going to look at the ordinance and make a determination based on the
criteria, if there isn't a final determination from ACHD obviously that's going to be taken
into account and I'll prepare the Findings accordingly, I mean I'm not going to say one
way or the other, I need to delve into this a little bit and make an informed decision
based on what's been offered at the public hearing tonight. I think Mr. Bradbury in
honesty offers an option.
MacCoy: Well just so you feel better about it Counselor, we have done this in the past,
gone from the Commission for Findings of Fact and had said right of the Commission
desk here that it will be pending the acceptance of or receiving thereof the actual report
that we didn't have in our hands and then the burden falls to you to make that – you got
to hold up –
Prior: Obviously, I think my preference is that we have all of the things squared away.
Mr. Freckleton has made reference to a number of items, specifically on the preliminary
plat and some of the other things and there are issues out there that haven't been
addressed, the open space issue, there is intention on the part of the developer to
provide for the 10% space but it hasn't been provided. The densities don't meet – at
least in my mind they don't qualify under the P.U.D. for the bonus densities but I'd have
to look at it again and really consider it in this testimony but obviously it's –
MacCoy: Well the Commissioners can also collectively vote for continuing the hearing.
Prior: It's obviously up to your prerogative Chairman and the Commissions.
MacCoy: Well it's up to the Commissioners here.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I think that there's – personally I feel that there's enough issues
been raised here this evening by the Commission and staff that I can't see how we can
ask the City Attorney to prepare Findings at this time, I mean there's just too many
things up in the air it seems and as much as I hate to see the thing drug out another
month, I just don't know how we can move forward with this thing right now with all the
issues that have been raised this evening.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 43
MacCoy: Well, make a motion.
Nelson: Therefore, I'd like to make a motion that we continue the public hearing for the
request for a conditional use permit till our July 14th
meeting.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor? Any descending? Do I hear all four ayes?
de Weerd: Yes.
Prior: We may want to do that again, I'm not sure that was picked up Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: I don't think even I heard it. Alright, we'll start down at the far end then. All in
favor? Any descending?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Passes, it will be continued at the July meeting.
ITEM #5: TABLED JUNE 9, 1998: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW : REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 121.897 ACRES TO R-4
FOR PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST
DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH – NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF
EAGLE ROAD:
MacCoy: Is somebody here, the client able to speak -- (Inaudible)
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think it was explained to me at the last meeting that they
couldn't come up and comment because it wasn’t a public hearing.
MacCoy: Well that's – the Commissioners have the choice as to whether they have any
questions at this point, you've got the Fact from the counselor in your hands right now,
I'm assuming you do.
Nelson: I have no questions.
Smith: I have none.
Smith: I have comment though that I'd like to add a condition in the Findings of Fact
that the – this was brought up at the last meeting of the single story development along
South Zims Way and South Boiling Springs Way on the south side of the road, I feel it
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 44
would be good from a scale standpoint to provide a little transition there from a scale so
I would like to add to the requirements of the Findings that all the lots on the south side
of South Zims Way and South Boiling Springs Way be no more than single story in
height.
MacCoy: Is that a proposal?
Smith: That's a proposal.
MacCoy: Okay, do I hear a second for that?
Nelson: I second that.
Smith: Let me back up a minute, let me do this right. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a
motion Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these
Findings of Fact and Conclusions with the additional requirement that the lots on the
south side of South Zims Way and South Boiling Springs Way be held to single story in
height.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Borup – nay, Commissioner de Weerd – abstain,
Commissioner Smith – aye, Commissioner Nelson – aye.
MOTION CARRIED: 2 aye, 1 nay, 1 abstain.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
annexation and zoning as stated above and the conclusions for the property described
in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law and that the applicant be specifically required to meet all of the ordinances of the
City of Meridian and the conditions of these Findings and Conclusions and that if the
conditions are not met that the property be de-annexed.
MacCoy: Do I have a second?
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you. All in favor? Opposing?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 45
Prior: Just for a clarification Mr. Chairman if I may?
MacCoy: Yes.
Prior: Madam Clerk, if you could just impose that condition on the Findings if you would
for passage when it gets passed on to the City Council, I assume it's been done, that
look seems to tell me it's been done.
MacCoy: Do you want to challenge that?
Prior: No.
MacCoy: Moving on to item #6.
ITEM #6: TABLED JUNE 9, 1998: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (330 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 121.897
ACRES) BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH – NORTH OF
VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD:
MacCoy: What is the –
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend City Council approval of preliminary plat
for Thousand Springs Subdivision.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Alright, at this moment it's a quarter of nine, I think since we started at 6:30
this evening we're going to have to take a break for ten minutes and we'll be back.
Thank you.
(TEN MINUTE BREAK)
MacCoy: Continuing the Planning and Zoning meeting, it is now 9:00, we're starting at
item #7, it's a public hearing, I made a statement earlier that I would like to move item
#12 and #13 in place of – and move #7 etc. after item #13 so that we could get these
two out of our agenda and move on, so if you will now pick up in your packet item #12.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 46
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY WILD WEST BAKERY – 611 E.
1ST
STREET:
MacCoy: Is the applicant here for that this evening? Well that was pretty good. Alright,
we'll hold that later in the evening and we'll move on to item #13.
ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ARTIFICIAL
NAILS SALON BY DARLENE JEROME – 1324 MERIDIAN ROAD:
MacCoy: The applicant is here I understand so she can come forward.
Prior: Ma'am, would you state your name and address and spell your last name for the
record for me please.
Jerome: Darlene Jerome, 1324 Meridian Street.
DARLENE JEROME WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Jerome: I am requesting a conditional use permit for a nail salon in one room of my
current residence at 1324 Meridian Street. It will be a very small business, I will be the
only person working in the salon and it takes approximately one hour to do nails and
therefore I would only be doing maybe eight people per day. We've got our parking in
and we have been to ACHD and we're going to put in the sidewalk that they have
proposed that we put in, we will be building a wheelchair ramp with a sidewalk out to
meet the city sidewalk that we need to put in.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Jerome: I can't think of anything else.
MacCoy: Okay, Commissioners, anybody want to start with the applicant?
Borup: Maybe just a couple. Cross access agreement, have – are you familiar with
what they're asking you to do there?
Jerome: They want to get our neighbors permission –
Borup: Well first of all maybe let me ask one question, the retaining wall along the
northern part of your property, is that the property line or is your driveway the center –
Jerome: The center of the driveway is the property line.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 47
Borup: Okay.
Jerome: Yes, and I do know that we need to get our neighbor's permission, that's what
that easement is.
Borup: Well I think what they're saying is they want agreement giving you permission to
drive on theirs and likewise they to go on yours but they can't require that unless it's a
commercial business, you know they have no jurisdiction over residential so I assume
that's already, must be a verbal agreement or something with the neighbor, they're
talking about a formal agreement where it's a business so there won't be any problem
with that I think.
Jerome: There shouldn't be any problem with that.
Borup: Well no, I think where they want something in writing to state that and then
they're saying likewise if that property ever developed they would require them to do the
same thing provide it for you too and that's protection for both parties. Question on the
sidewalk, will you look at – were they requesting just a sidewalk or are they looking for a
curb – is there already curb and gutter there?
Jerome: No.
Borup: That's what I thought, so was it your understanding that ACHD just wanted a
sidewalk or also wanted curb and gutter, they don't mention that in the report.
Jerome: They just said sidewalk when we went to the meeting.
Borup: I guess I'm not sure if I see a full benefit of a sidewalk along one property when
there's nothing connected to further down the street, I do realize that is part of standard
requirements but I think in the past the City's maybe overlooked that in the past a little
bit in similar situations as this, I think the desire is to have the whole street sidewalk and
curb and gutter but I'm not sure how that happens piecemeal without having to tear the
rest of it out later, any comment on that Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I think that with a small commercial
site like this I think ACHD tries to get what they can at the time.
Borup: Is it your understanding that they're asking for a sidewalk with no curb and
gutter?
Freckleton: That's correct.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 48
Borup: And then if the future street is curb and guttered the sidewalks probably going
to be torn out anyway isn't it?
Freckleton: Chances are that if they tried to put the sidewalk in an alignment that would
be the ultimate alignment, the ultimate street section for Meridian Street it probably
wouldn't be grade-wise right and therefore it probably end up going. A lot of times what
people will do is do like a meandering sidewalk that's detached from curb and gutter,
that gives you some flexibility for vertical alignment changes.
Borup: That's what we see in the subdivisions.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Well I mean subdivisions on the major roads.
Freckleton: Right.
Borup: Again, I guess I'm not sure how pertinent that is in this type of application. I
guess nothing else at this time, maybe other than before we finish if there's some
direction we need to give the applicant on that (inaudible), I'd like to hear some other
comments. Thank you.
MacCoy: Next Commissioner.
de Weerd: I have no comments.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I just question on the sign, in the past these home based
businesses, what we've done in the past is put a condition that no signage is allowed
however Meridian Road is kind of in a transitional stage right now where your home is
and there are some signs up along there, I don't know how some of the other
commissioners felt about a sign at this location.
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I feel that since this is zoned commercially that a sign would
be appropriate. In the others it was a residential zoning and I guess my personal
feeling is it is zoned commercial so a sign would be appropriate.
Nelson: I agree with that.
Smith: So the dimensions on your sign is 3'x6', is that three feet high or is that just the
board itself?
Jerome: It's just the board itself.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 49
Smith: It seems kind of big.
Jerome: I don't have a problem with that, it could be smaller, I was just – we had just
gone to a couple of sign companies and got some information from them and it was just
kind of what we came up with.
Smith: Do you have an idea what the materials would be?
Jerome: I don't remember what they called it, I don't have any of the information with
me. It was a – I don't even know the name of the sign company that we went to. Vinyl?
Smith: Vinyl, okay. That's the only comments I had.
MacCoy: Mr. Nelson?
Nelson: I was going to comment on the signs also but I'm comfortable with the sign
being there, being that it's Meridian Road and as long as they're in a similar kind of size
as follows the rest of the street I guess it's pretty reasonable.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I might just mention that there is a sign permit that still needs to
be obtained so if there's any problem I would assume that it would – yeah, it needs to
comply with the sign ordinance also which I assume they check when they apply for the
permit so I think that would be covered.
MacCoy: Correct. Any other questions?
Borup: One other comment if we're getting ready to vote, if not –
MacCoy: Well not yet.
Borup: Okay.
MacCoy: Do you have anything else to give to use at this –
Jerome: I don't.
MacCoy: Okay, you can be seated and we'll – this is a public hearing, is anybody
present that would like to get up and speak for or against or information wise or
anything else here? None, okay if that's the case I'm going to close the public hearing –
Borup: I did have a comment that I think would be (inaudible) open and I guess I
should have asked the applicant that when they were here, if they had a strong feeling
one way or the other about the sidewalk.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 50
Prior: Ma'am, if you would come up, I need you on record.
Jerome: If the sidewalk's going to be ripped out I would rather not put it in to begin with.
Borup: I'm sure someday it will be but how many years down the road that is I don't
know that we know that. Mr. Freckleton, in the past hasn't the policy been
to maybe overlook these type of things a little bit. Maybe that's a dangerous question
but is there any relief or direction of your – to give to the applicant here?
Freckleton: Commissioner Borup, perhaps maybe the option of looking into road trust
or something for that improvement, maybe explore that option with the District.
Borup: This isn't going back to the District anymore for anything is it? Aren't these their
recommendations up to us to act on them or not or am I misunderstood on that?
Freckleton: Yeah, these are their conditions.
Borup: Well they do have a different – here it says requirements, in the past they've
said recommendations. (end of tape) – is that different? I mean I remember last time
that came up or a couple of times it's come up and we've looked at it and they've – it's
been specified as recommendations.
Freckleton: Perhaps if I could make a suggestion, maybe I could suggest that we – if it
is your desire to approve this, we approve it subject to us working that issue out.
Borup: I feel comfortable with staff working it out. I'd feel comfortable with that, I mean
I think you know we want that corridor to be aesthetically pleasing but I don't know if this
necessarily accomplishes that in any degree.
Freckleton: I think that would give us an opportunity to talk to Shari and some of the
other staff as well, you know there's public safety issues involved and things like that so
– I do think I would like that opportunity.
Borup: Okay, hopefully we can put that in our motion.
MacCoy: Before you leave up there, have you received a copy of the staff report?
Have you seen that?
Jerome: The staff report?
MacCoy: Yes, it looks like this. Do you have that? Have you read that and do you
have any questions about that?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 51
Jerome: No.
MacCoy: Okay, so if you do you can come in and ask them because they're not
unapproachable, don't feel that you have to just guess at some of this stuff, they try to
be pretty exact in what they ask for and they expect to have questions from you people
so don't feel bad about it, alright you can sit down. What's the decision of the
Commissioners?
Prior: Mr. Chairman, just for a point of order I think it's necessary that we close the
public hearing.
MacCoy: I will, yeah, okay, I'll do that first, I'll close the public hearing which we had a
moment ago and now we come up to the Commissioner's side, thank you very much
Mr. Counselor.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we instruct our Assistant City Attorney to prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this application.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor? No disapproval, that passes.
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MacCoy: Is anybody here yet from the Wild West Bakery? No, okay now we'll go to
item #7 on your agenda.
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.66
ACRES (C-G ZONE) BY KANTI PATEL – I-84, EAGLE ROAD, GENTRY WAY & ALLEN
STREET:
MacCoy: Is the applicant here for that material at this time?
Towle: Yes we are.
MacCoy: Can you come forward please.
Prior: Sir, would you state your name and address for me and spell your last name for
the record.
Towle: My name is Rocky Towle, my address is 2210 Broadway, Boise, Idaho.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 52
ROCKY TOWLE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Prior: Sir, you're welcome to comment if you wish.
Towle: Okay. We're looking at constructing a motel that is bordered by I-84 on-ramp,
Eagle Road, Allen Road and Gentry Road off of Eagle Road by the freeway. We have
gone through the process of doing the preliminary layout and design on it and have
worked with Planning and Zoning to try to achieve what they've wanted as far as
setbacks and landscaping requirements. A couple of items that have happened on the
site plan that you have there is that our (inaudible) columns extend into the thirty-five
foot setback as far as the landscaping area goes but if I can show you on one of the
plans we've provided additional landscaping for any encroachment that we've done on
that thirty-five foot landscaping area on it. We have had no response from any
agencies as far as changes that needed to be made on the plans we're looking at
bringing in both sewer and water and the utilities that we need to into the site. We have
been working with ACHD to try to do the development that they have wanted and I can
tell you where they're at, I don't know if you've gotten a report from them or not but they
want a 41-foot back-up curb down Allen Street, as far as what they're looking at doing
we are to develop to the west side of us along that property to do curbs, gutters,
sidewalks and a 24-foot paving strip to be able to meet what they're looking at on Allen
Street. Also, on Gentry Way, they want the same thing, they want a 41-foot back-up
curb and a 58-foot right-of-way on it which means that we would have to dedicate four
feet to them on Gentry Way and that's a dead end street that's really going nowhere.
We have approached tech review on having that vacated of which the previous owner
and applicant had gone through both the City here and ACHD to do when it got to
ACHD the ACHD said that that previous owner was to go out and get an appraisal on
that ground and that they would sell that ground to the applicant at that time, nobody
had said that before and I think the applicant went into shock knowing that he had to
buy it rather than it was just going to be vacated and split with the two owners that are
adjacent to that ground, since that time my client has bought the ground that's south of
Gentry Way, we have tried to contact the owner that has the ground to the north of
Gentry Way and to see if we could go back in to the possibility of making an offer to the
Highway District on it. Tech staff at ACHD has basically backed our position that they
would like to get rid of that so that they don't have to maintain that dead end road going
in there however the right-of-way department says the only way that you're going to get
that road is if you pay the full price for it so we're sort of in a catch 22, we've gone
through to do our design based on doing the development to meet ACHD's
specifications for that road if that's the last recourse that we have but if we can
purchase that ground at a reasonable price then we're looking at that option. The one
thing that we have done is that in working with ACHD, ACHD is wanting us to dedicate
to them four feet more of ground on both Allen and Gentry Ways, if you'll look at the
way that we have our site plan laid out we have met what we've talked to Shari about as
far as setbacks go and in doing this we found out that if we had to dedicate four more
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 53
feet that we have actually relocated the motel and I have a site plan here that shows a
relocation on that site if I could approach you with that.
MacCoy: Sure.
Towle: I wouldn't mind if everyone could gather around to look at this because the only
difference that there is between this is we moved this building to where we have a 24-
foot setback here rather than the 20-foot that we had and we've got a 16-foot setback
here where we had a twelve. The adjustment that this has made is that we've had to
bring our sidewalk around and we've narrowed our driveway to stay within the scope of
the 35-feet as far as the setback goes on it and other than that all of our parking and
everything has remained the same for what we have and we've been able to have it to
where we can go ahead and dedicate the four-feet here and the four-feet here to ACHD
if that need arises and I could see where it would here, on this we're still negotiating to
see what we can come up with on Gentry Way. Are there any questions? Do you want
me to leave this with you?
Prior: Sir, go back up to the mike if you would, we can't hear you in the court.
Towle: Are there any questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, a couple. The first I guess is on parking, have you reviewed the
staff reports?
Towle: Yeah, where we said that there is actually two employees – where we've got 69
parking stalls and 67 rooms, when we talked to – we do a lot of motel design and when
you look at motel design we've done everything from having one stall per one room up
to 1.25 stalls per one room in the motel design that we've got into. If you take and –
there's only one that I've had a study on is that when we've talked to Glenn Black that
has the Ameritel Motel down at the mall, he has come back and said that for every
room that basically they have .77 parking that they've gone out to do counts on it so
they don't even hit for every room rented having a car there, they say people come in,
they're doubled up, now there's a difference in that motel in that it's close to the mall so
that that can happen. What we've found out is that if you have maid service coming in
or employees coming in that basically by the time the business people get up and are
gone by 8:00 and by the time the maids get there at 8:00 we don't have any problem as
far as parking even on a one to one ratio for the units that are there. I don't know if
you've had or seen that there's even any problems here as far as the Best Western
goes here or the addition that's coming in on the new motel there but I know that facility
wise that I've never seen anything that's had a problem even when we've been down to
a 1-1 ratio.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 54
Borup: What would be the around the clock employee situation there, what are you
looking at without the maids and the (inaudible) ?
Towle: What's the maximum people that you'll have there, let's say at 9:00 in the
morning? Isn't that probably the maximum? Well how many people would you have –
Prior: Sir, what we're going to do is if that gentleman wants to say anything, I'd
appreciate if we put him on the record, it makes it difficult for us to cover transcript of
that.
Towle: Kanti could answer that question, he's the owner and would know more as far
as employees.
Borup: Okay, we may want to ask him that later then.
Towle: Okay.
Borup: Well ,the other and I guess you've answered my question on Gentry Way which
seems to be way up in the air right now and I'm having trouble following ACHD's logic
on the whole thing.
Towle: Us too.
Borup: Yeah, they don’t want it but they don't want to give it away.
Towle: Well, one department wants us to be able to buy at the department that has it,
doesn’t want to negotiate.
Borup: But doing that would give you a lot more flexibility on your whole site layout and
parking and everything and that's what you're trying –
Towle: Correct.
Borup: So I hear you are paving Allen Street back to Magic View?
Towle: No, what we'll do is ACHD's requirements is that from Magic View down to
where our property starts, down to Gentry Way, that we have to have a 24-foot asphalt
driveway, then from there on down we've got to have the 24-foot plus curbs, gutters and
sidewalk.
Borup: Right, okay so they're not asking for curb and gutter before Gentry.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 55
Towle: No, when that develops out then the owner of that or the developer on the
ground that's north of us or south of the Texaco would be the one that would be doing
the curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
Borup: So of course then the ingress egress would be out to Magic View and on to
Eagle.
Towle: Correct.
Borup: I don't have any other questions at this time.
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, most of my questions have been answered with the
exception of where are you going to have your trash area?
Towle: Actually what I'll have to do is if it's not on the plan typically we enclose it, we
make a contained area that will match the building as far as the materials go and we'll
have it enclosed and we'll meet whatever we have to as far as accessibility to be able to
get to it.
de Weerd: And you wouldn't lose any parking spaces by doing that?
Towle: Actually I'll have to look because I don't know, I hadn't thought of that. I think we
can work it in on it, I don't know that that's a problem but I – let me look at the site and I
can tell you.
de Weerd: Okay.
Towle: We could put it in here on the north side of the driveway here, we could possibly
work it in over here on this area and enclose it, we've got the possibility so I don't think
it would delete any parking.
de Weerd: Thank you, I don't have any further questions.
MacCoy: Mr. Smith?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, I did not get the elevations of the building in my
packet, I guess it's because staff knows that I usually don't like to look at that stuff.
MacCoy: Well don't feel bad, I didn't get the map or the elevations in mine.
Smith: What are you referring – when you say architectural shingles, what do you have
in mind?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 56
Towle: They're not the – they're the architectural grade asphalt shingles, they're not the
235's, we're going out so that they've got a little bit of differentiation in their depth.
Smith: Okay and what are you referring to by acrylic exterior finish system, is that a
drive-it?
Towle: Yeah, drive-it system.
Smith: So synthetic stucco.
Towle: We'll either do that or do Stucco, one or the two so –
Smith: Okay, and then I – is your dimension to the top of the roof is that thirty-seven
foot six, it's pretty small, I can't make that out for sure.
Towle: Yeah, thirty-seven foot six.
Smith: Thirty-seven foot six, and then the gondola or whatever you want to call it on
top, that's sticks up what another – I apologize, this is the first time I saw these –
Towle: It's up there about nine feet, a little less than nine feet.
Smith: Nine feet, so that would be 46.6, okay, and then as far as your siding of your
building was – you're interpreting – I mean, I'd interpret the front yard as either being off
Allen Street or Gentry Way.
Towle: To me the front is actually facing the on-ramp –
Smith: I guess what I'm getting to is the setback requirements, front yard, rear yard,
and so forth, front yard setback I think was twenty or twenty-five feet and the rear yard
is zero, I'm sorry, fifteen and zero.
Towle: Okay, on that, on the twenty feet what we'd done is we had maintained the
twenty feet off the front and when we'd done –
Smith: When you say the front are you talking about the side that faces the on-ramp?
Towle: Okay, then – but now I'm talking about Allen Street now if you –
Smith: Allen, okay.
Towle: Okay, on it what I've maintained on that and what we'd done is we'd kept it ten
feet on – or more than ten feet on Gentry Way because we're trying to get Gentry Way
vacated but we're also to the point that we had maintained twelve feet and then we'd
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 57
tried to boost that to sixteen feet if ACHD takes an additional four feet from us. Now if
I've got to move it a little more to be able to get fifteen feet because of a side street I
can probably do it but I haven't shown it in the plan of that.
Smith: And when you say you're trying to get Gentry Way abandoned, so are you
looking at it just going away?
Towle: No, what we're –
Smith: Because I guess what I'm getting at is you're vehicular flow wouldn't work then.
Towle: Well if we were able to either purchase Gentry Way or purchase half of Gentry
Way then the motel would move back, we'd have more room on the front or else the
motel would move back a little bit, we'd try to coordinate with the owner to the north,
see if we could do a driveway that we could go ahead and share parking coming in.
Now I don’t – I mean that's something that I can't say will happen or won't because
we've tried to make contact with the owner to the north and there's been no way. When
we talked to the Highway District about it basically Ray down at the right-of-way had
said well we'll send a registered letter, if he doesn't respond then we can do whatever
we want to it, we're not to the point that that's something that we can do as a neighbor
to him, you now I mean as far as saying we'd like to purchase this or not, you know, and
then the other thing that comes up on this is that we look at it and say if we build the
road in there to ACHD's specifications, get them to where they acknowledge it, turn it
over to them and then they maintain a road that goes in to dead ends that really
nobody's going to use on it and the tech staff doesn't want it but right-of-way's saying
well instead of paying us a dollar and a half a square foot you're going to pay us five
bucks a square foot for that, my owner's saying I won't pay five bucks a foot so then
we'll go ahead and put in the road and that's the one thing that is the unknown right at
the moment on it.
Smith: Maybe I was half asleep when – you said you were going to have two
employees at any one time?
Towle: No, that's what the report says. Kanti Patel will have to say how many
employees he will have.
Smith: Okay, because the ordinance calls for one space for every two employees and
you have the rooms covered here –
Towle: We've got the rooms covered but we don't have the employees but the thing
that we get into as far as motel management, we've done a lot of motels for a lot of
different clients and basically what they're saying is that for if you have one parking stall
for every room that you have more than enough to cover your parking for the motel, that
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 58
by the time you get your maids and all the people that come in to work, the people have
gone and left in the morning and so what we've provided is we've provided for a night
clerk in addition to the parking people there that want to come in for the dwelling and
that we feel is sufficient to it as far as it goes. I'd rather have more landscaping and
buffer than slide a couple of more stalls in there –
Smith: Sure, so would I. Okay, I don't have any more questions. Oh, wait one more,
do you have a color scheme proposed for the building?
Towle: Actually, all I can tell you is we're looking at going a natural tone, tans on it and
I'll have to get that from Holiday Inn Express on the colors, I've got a rendering here and
the way it came out on the color it came out yellow and I'm scared to show it to you so –
Smith: We've probably seen worse.
Towle: Do you got your sunglasses on?
Smith: No. That's yellow.
Towle: The tan that's there should be close to the color it should be.
MacCoy: Is it similar to the one we had down in Boise?
Towle: Yes.
MacCoy: The one down by the airport?
Towle: Yeah, it would be similar to the one down at the airport in Boise.
Smith: And I don't see any signage – oh wait, there is a monument sign there, so
you're not going to be asking for a big freeway pole mounted sign?
Towle: I have nothing to do with signs, the sign –whatever the owner wants to do we'll
have to come in for signs, I –
Smith: Okay, but right now all you've got on your site plan is the monument sign on the
intersection of Allen Street and Gentry Way?
Towle: Yes.
Smith: Okay, I'm finished.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 59
Nelson: I have no comments.
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question, well I guess two more, I'd like to
know what your plans are as to lighting, that is in a residential area and staff did make a
comment on that.
Towle: Basically the lighting would – we will have an engineer that will engineer all of
the lighting and all of our electrical on the job as far as the motel goes and as far as the
sight goes, what we've tried to do on all of our lighting is direct it so it maintains on the
site and on our own premises and isn't directed off of the site or across into any of the
neighbors.
de Weerd: Okay, Mr. Freckleton, do you have any comments?
Freckleton: Commissioner de Weerd, the only thing that I would say would be that the
cut off lighting is something that we have been looking at and it sounds like that's the
direction you're probably headed so what I would propose I guess is that we just take a
look at that when the plans come through and scrutinize it.
Borup: I had a couple more Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: Alright, go ahead.
Borup: I'm assuming that on the – at least I didn't find any overall plat maps showing
adjoining property, I assume we are contiguous to city limits on –
Towle: Yes.
Borup: Where is it contiguous, (inaudible)
Towle: Actually the freeway and the on-ramp is and then it goes across over to St.
Luke's.
Borup: Okay, that's right, that's what we did to get St. Luke's in. You had talked about if
you have to move in your revised plan, move over, did you say that reduced the
driveway size or –
Towle: Actually, if Gentry Way can be purchased – or is that what you're talking about?
Borup: No, just the Fire Department's concern on 20-foot driveways if you're still
planning on that and you'd still have driveway around the back side of the building even
if you did purchase Gentry Way there would be –
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 60
Towle: We have twenty-foot driveways so we can – yes – yes, we'll still double park so
we'll end up with a 24 or 25-foot driveway and if it goes to ACHD and they end up with it
we'll end up with a 24-foot driveway plus curbs, gutters and sidewalks.
Borup: Now I just had one last comment. It would be interesting on the layout – your
diagrams show two south elevations and two west elevations.
Towle: It was a late night. The south elevations --
Borup: I mean it's obvious which is which I just wanted to (inaudible)
MacCoy: You're a nice guy. The colored photo you have here, is that for us to keep,
some people would like to have one for their folder.
Towle: Actually what I would rather do is be able to get back to you the colors that will
be on the building rather than that.
MacCoy: Fine, okay, then if you do that be sure that we get a copy of that.
Towle: That'd be fine and we'll work with staff or whoever you'd like to make sure that
the colors are okay.
MacCoy: Okay. Any other questions for him? None, alright you may be seated. This
is a public hearing, is anybody here that has anything to say pro or con?
Yes ma'am, come forward.
Prior: Hi, would you state your name and address for the record, spell your last name
for me as well.
Buckert: Wanda Buckert, 971 Wells Circle, lot 20, Magic View Subdivision and I do use
Allen Road.
Prior: Ma'am, I just need to swear you in before you say anything.
WANDA BUCKERT WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Buckert: It's the traffic and I do use that, if they are only going to widen did I understand
right from Gentry Way to the curve on Allen Street, that lets in another at least 68 cars
plus employees, plus garbage trucks and the traffic. As you know on Magic View we
can't get out anyway on Eagle Road. I would like to ask can there be a light put up at
Magic View and Eagle Road?
MacCoy: We'll ask the applicant after you finish talking to come back up here and
comment.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 61
Buckert: Okay and I understand there is a road that had been approved at the light in
front of the hospital to go across lot 1 and 2 and connect to Allen Street but if we do
which I will change coming out on Allen and I will take Magic View and Wells Street but
when you get to where the new road is going to be the cross traffic going to the motel,
whatever development is coming in, I understand that there has been more property
sold to doctors, how are we going to turn left even there when we get a new road if
there's not a stop sign or a four way stop, a light or something but it's the traffic I'm
concerned about and I know someone's going to get killed at that corner, I've seen
many accidents and I just hope I'm not in one. Thank you.
MacCoy: Okay, is there anybody else here who would like to have a statement?
Nelson: I would like to comment for the benefit of the person who just spoke, the issue
of a light at that Eagle Road has come up before and so I don't think that's ever going to
happen but yeah I think it should be noted the intersection there of Allen Street and I
guess whatever street's going to meet there – yeah, Magic View, yeah, that is a valid
concern but yeah, I just thought I'd comment that Eagle Road's probably not going to
have a light for you.
Buckert: Then the people coming out of the hospital, you know they change their
entrance to the light and when they're coming out they're still using the old street and
they're making a left this way where all the traffic and we have to get out of Magic View,
we got one way, then they're making I think an illegal left turn where we're trying to
make a left turn to get to the middle and with all the traffic it is tough to get out there and
I think would it be possible for the hospital to put up no left turn, they can go to the light
and that would help a lot, alleviate. Thank you.
MacCoy: I will comment to as to you the standpoint that one of the things that ACHD
has commented, we have had the discussion as Commissioner Nelson has pointed on
several occasions that the Highway Department, one of the things that they're dragging
their feet on is the fact that when more businesses come in for development which is
what's happening here, they will re-address the issue of the streets and signs and
everything so we're king of in limbo at present for that so I just give that to you, it's not a
dead issue but I don't know what the answer is yet.
Buckert: Okay, I know development will happen, I'm not against it, I'm actually not
against the hotel, it's the extra traffic but what are we to do in the meantime that live
there? You know if we're not annexed or anything, we're just a few houses back in
there that we can't get in and out because of traffic.
MacCoy: Well we'll be addressing that subject directly and I'm glad to see we've got a
business going to come in there and build a building that we can then have a real chip
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 62
in our hands to go in and say look it's happening, you've been talking about this for
some time now let's address the issues of all the people.
Buckert: Good, thank you.
Borup: Mrs. Buckert, did you say you were in lot 20?
Buckert: Yes, lot 20.
Borup: So that's the one down at the end of Wells?
Buckert: Yes, with the circle.
Borup: Okay, it wasn't showing on this plat so well then does – is there a road there
that goes along parallel to the freeway, is that the one you use when you said you –
Buckert: I use that one and it curves onto Allen.
Borup: Is that a regular county road or –
Buckert: Yes, I believe it's called Freeway Drive.
Borup: Okay, it's not showing on this map, then again maybe for your information
ACHD is proposing another access up at the light that's there on the north end of the
subdivision but how soon it's going to happen we'll see but – if the project that's being
proposed there happens it will – have of that street will go in quite soon to my
understanding –
MacCoy: That's what I understand too, I think this has been an asset to you –
Borup: And they're talking about going back and tying into Magic View so that anybody
coming out of the subdivision can go up to the light and out rather than have to go out
on Magic View.
Buckert: This is true and I understand it, it's like I mentioned is the cross section there
and it will be running into the –
Borup: Yeah and that's why they're trying to get a road to where the light is.
Buckert: I understand sir but the one I'm talking about it will cross Magic View to Allen
Street, we're still going to have to make a left turn to get onto it and with all the extra
traffic coming in –
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 63
Borup: Oh, you're talking about a left turn onto the new street?
Buckert: Yes. There will be an intersection there and we're still going to –
Borup: Well yeah and whether there's a light there will depend on the traffic I'm sure.
MacCoy: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to make any statements
here? If not I'll ask the applicant to come forward if he can answer some of her
questions.
Towle: The only thing I can say on the traffic is ACHD didn't address it to us as far as
us going in there on it, if you look at – if you're putting in a convenience store, you're
putting in a Wendy's or a McDonald's or a Burger King, they're going to have as much
traffic in the noon time as what we're going to have for 24 hours at the motel or what an
office building would have as far as what we've got. I don’t know what's going to
happen there but I know that they didn't address it to us and we've left it as far as a stop
sign at the end of Allen Street before you get to Magic View or whatever there, I think
ACHD would look at their traffic studies and be able to do what is necessary on that on
it and then whatever they're going to end up doing as far as that development in the
area there and what company comes in commercially, I think that they'll end up with a
signal there sometime but nobody has said anything and we were in staff trying to work
out just Gentry Way and nothing was said on the other.
MacCoy: I understand. Thank you. Is there any questions of the Commissioners at
this time? Anybody?
de Weerd: No, I just have a general question or comment. I think we're all concerned
with traffic and the increased amount of it, unfortunately at the City level we have no
control, I think it's going to be very helpful for you to make your concerns known to
ACHD and if you need to pester them.
(Inaudible – away from mike)
de Weerd: Well good, continue to do so because they are the ones that do the
planning on the streets.
Buckert: I understand, but they did also that they had to have Meridian –
Prior: Ma'am, none of this is being picked up on the tape, you're going to have to come
up.
Buckert: Sorry, I'm not used to this. They said that Meridian City has to okay this too
on this lights and traffic and whatever, I have talked to them and they did say and they
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 64
did say that they were going to have a meeting with you and I called a month later and
they had not done it.
MacCoy: They're slow at times, many times but your Commissioner is correct though,
the squeaky wheel gets the grease and if you help we'll all be able to solve this
problem.
Buckert: Very good, any more?
de Weerd: Thanks.
MacCoy: Any more Commissioner questions for anybody? Anybody out there want to
make a comment? If not I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, what do you
want to do?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we have the Assistant City Attorney
prepare Facts, Findings and Conclusions of Law.
Nelson: Second.
Prior: That is the Assistant City Attorney.
Smith: Thanks for that clarification.
Prior: I thought it appropriate.
MacCoy: All in favor of the motion?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3
STORY MOTEL BY KANTI PATEL – I-84, EAGLE ROAD, GENTRY WAY & ALLEN
STREET:
MacCoy: Moving on to item #8, it's a conditional use permit for the hotel and we ask
the applicant to come forward to the podium please.
Prior: Sir, just state your name, address and spell your last name for the record if you
would.
Towle: My name is Rocky Towle, my address 2210 Broadway.
ROCKY TOWLE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 65
Prior: Just for clarification, if you'd like your prior testimony to be incorporated and
that's all you'd like to add that can be done just by making a request to that effect.
Towle: I request that.
Prior: Just specifically say you'd like it incorporated.
Towle: I would like to incorporate.
MacCoy: Thank you very much.
Prior: And that's it?
Towle: Thanks.
MacCoy: It's now open public hearing so is anybody here that would care to make any
statements and if you want to do the same as he just did, you can come forward and do
that.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out one thing, on the legal
description that was submitted for the annexation, the surveyor had noted that there
were some conflicts with monumentation on the ground versus his survey and indicated
that he was going to be actually preparing a new legal description based on field survey
and I would like to incorporate that new legal description in the annexation ordinance if
it's available.
Borup: I think that would be a real good idea, more than that. You're saying that that
just needs to be included in the Findings as a condition on the annexation?
Freckleton: Yeah, I would like to – well, it is under my comments, it's in item #1, so I
was just bringing that to your attention.
Borup: But you're hoping that that will be in the Findings of the conditions?
Freckleton: Yes.
MacCoy: It will be. Okay, is there anybody else here who wants to make a statement
on number 8 which is the conditional use permit? If not, I'm going to close the public
hearing and Commissioners?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we direct the Assistant City Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 66
MacCoy: Do I hear a second?
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you. All in favor? All opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7.58
ACRES (R-T ZONE) BY WESTPARK COMPANY, INC. – NORTH OF VICTORY & ¼
MILE EAST OF LOCUST GROVE:
MacCoy: Becky, you're going to do this? Shoot, you were a witness to the last one
earlier today, this evening, I hope you'll shorten your speech (inaudible) long one like
before.
Bowcutt: I will.
MacCoy: Thank you, I figured you would, you're a help.
Prior: Becky, would you just go through the spiel here, name, address, spell the last
name.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Brigg's Engineers, 1800 W. Overland, Boise.
BECKY BOWCUTT WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY
Bowcutt: For the record I would like my testimony on the annexation to be applied to
the preliminary plat application also so I'll just deal with all the questions and hopefully
answer everything up front.
MacCoy: Thank you very much.
Bowcutt: This drawing here is Sherbrooke Hollows, it was approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the City Council approximately about eight or nine months
ago, it consisted of approximately 140 single family residential lots and was zoned R-4.
The density on this one was 2.87. The property that you are looking at this evening
adjoins this project, the developer is the same as the Sherbrooke Hollows, that's why
we referred to this as Sherbrooke Village. This parcel here on this plat that says not a
part was purchased by Westpark Company, on the original plat we have provided this
stub street here for future development of that parcel. After getting our approval here,
the applicant came to us and said they had purchased this property here which is
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 67
approximately 7.8 acres and fits right up against the Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision.
One thing that we looked at was we had provided this stub street connection here but
we had not provided a second connection so luckily they came to us early enough in
the design of the Sherbrooke project that we could come in and provide another
connection and create this loop street and then bring this on out to Victory Road. This
particular plat that you're looking at comes up and re-plats just a portion, that's why the
annexation and the preliminary plat acreage are different, we are annexing 7.8 acres
which consists of this perfect rectangular area but the subdivision plat consists of 11.01
acres so we overlapped into the previously approved preliminary plat of Sherbrooke
Hollows. There is one existing home on the property that fronts right here on Victory
Road, the home will be retained, the Highway District has reviewed the project, they
have approved the existing driveway because that driveway has been in existence for a
considerable period of time and due to the orientation of the home and the particular lot
they realize that there's no way to internalize that driveway within the proposed local
streets. The streets within this development will be all public 37-foot sections, 5-foot
sidewalks both sides, the Highway District has asked for 45-feet of additional – well 45-
feet total right-of-way, I believe 20-feet of additional right-of-way. We have provided two
common lots here, both these lots are 30-feet in width that will be consistent with the
30-feet that we provided here next to Victory Road in the Sherbrooke Hollows, so we'll
be able to tie that landscaping and it will be consistent along that corridor. Highway
Districts required 5-foot detached sidewalks be constructed along Victory Road, this
particular development, the 31 lots is consistent with what we were proposing in
Sherbrooke Hollows. We've got 2.82 dwelling units per acre, the Sherbrooke Hollows
one was 2.87 I believe so we are consistent with the existing density. All the lots are
8,000 square feet, they meet the 80-feet of frontage, we have not requested any
variances, there is one – there is a small waste ditch that comes across this property
and then goes up like this, we intend to pipe that ditch and it goes over and works it's
way to the Nine Mile Drain so it will be relocated and piped probably up through this
area and over to the drain and we have been working on that with Nampa-Meridian. As
far as the groundwater, we have test holes surrounding this particular property, when
we did the Sherbrooke, Kleinfelder did an analysis of the soils, I think we had a total of
twelve or something like that, test holes out in this vicinity. We've also been
constructing our first phase of Sherbrooke Hollows on it's west boundary and we are
trenching 15-feet deep along this roadway here, sewer, and we have not encountered
any groundwater. The 31 lots in this particular plat – (end of tape) --
Bowcutt: The proposed addition of these 31 lots will connect to the pressurized
irrigation system in the Sherbrooke Hollow, so Sherbrooke Village will connect. The
pumpstation will be located here. Our secondary source is a shallow well. We have
received a permit from Department of Water Resources for that well as a secondary
emergency source. Our primary source will be Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, and
will be built to their standards, and will be turned over to the district for maintenance and
ownership, and we have entered into a licensed agreement with Nampa Meridian, and
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 68
have received a contract for them to take over this system. Currently we’re working
with Nampa Meridian discussing possibility of maybe making that a regional pump
station for this vicinity with a Thousand Springs Subdivision going in or proposed on its
east boundary. Do you have any questions that I could answer?
Smith: I just have one. It looks pretty straight forward. The detached sidewalk along
Victory, will that extend across the existing lot and the front side of Victory?
Bowcutt: Yes, they require that we construct that all along our frontage and obviously
there’d be like a curb cut in it so someone could drive in, but yes, they’ve measured the
distance in our ACHD staff report and it includes 640 feet of detached sidewalk. I don’t
know, did you guys receive a copy of that? The ACHD requirement?
Smith: Yes. That’s all I have.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Maybe just quickly on staff comments. You addressed the difference in the two
properties. Was this correct, a legal description still need to be of a specific annexation
site rather than the overlapping? Really my question is there wasn’t anything on any of
the staff comments that you had any question or problem with?
Bowcutt: No, sir.
Borup: That’s the easiest way to do that.
Bowcutt: Yes, I’ve read through staff’s comments. They wanted our legal description to
go to the centerline of the road, and we did give one to Bruce, and they are checking it,
but yes staff’s comments looked fine.
Borup: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, the only question I had was the comment by the fire
department that you needed to have a emergency turnaround on E. Macay. I couldn’t
tell from the map that I have.
Borup: He must have been looking at without taking the other Sherbrooke Hollows into
consideration.
Bowcutt: Yes, I believe that’s the case. I think he was looking at that we just terminated
without any connection.
De Weerd: And the only other question I have is the existing home, you’ve most likely
been in contact with them and they are okay with this development.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 69
Bowcutt: My understanding is the residents who own this home sold the property
including the home to Westpark Company; is that correct? Yes, at one time they were
going to keep the home, but they decided to sell it. And we did look at – and just for the
record, we did consider the setbacks to make sure that the new lot lines do meet the
setbacks for the R-4 zone, for the home.
MacCoy: Okay, Mr. Nelson?
Nelson: I have no questions.
MacCoy: Okay, you can sit down a minutes, Becky. This is a public hearing. Is
anybody here that would like to get up and make comment? Thank you. If there’s no
other person here that wants to make comment, anything else the commission wants to
ask before we close the hearing? Okay, I will close the public hearing at this time, and
what is your desire?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we have the assistant city
attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for item number nine.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED
SHERBROOKE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION BY WESTPARK COMPANY, INC. – NORTH
OF VICTORY AND ¼ MILE EAST OF LOCUST GROVE:
MacCoy: Becky Bowcutt has made statements already that she has done this so –
Prior: Let’s just do it officially.
BECKY BOWCUTT BRIGGS ENGINEERING WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY.
Bowcutt: Please incorporate all my previous comments concerning the annexation
application on to the preliminary plat application. I have no further comments. Thanks.
MacCoy: In keeping with the fact that it’s a public hearing, is anybody here now that
wants to come forward. If not we'll close the public hearing. Commissioners?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 70
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we would table this until after we review the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law to July 14th
.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor.
Prior: I’m not sure what you folks just did. Would you clarify that for me? Did you
continue the public hearing, or did you just table this until –
MacCoy: I closed the public hearing and he made the statement so I’m waiting to hear
a motion that if he wants it tabled, then we table it. If we don’t we open the public
hearing.
Borup: Don’t we need to wait until the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the
annexation before we go forward with the preliminary plat?
Smith: Yes.
MacCoy: I think that’s what we have been doing in the past.
Smith: So, we need to continue the public hearing.
MacCoy: We will have to do that. Okay, I’m going to reopen the public hearing. So
that it will stay open for the next meeting.
Prior: Folks, you can table it too if you would like. If you want to, you know, you can
close the public hearing, which is what was already done, table the consideration of the
preliminary plat until the next month.
MacCoy: Okay, now we will close the public hearing, and Borup would you make your
statement now and we will go back through the same steps again.
Borup: Table request for preliminary plat on Sherbrooke Village Subdivision until our
July 14th
meeting.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Smith: Do you know what we did now Mr. Prior?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 71
Prior: I think so.
ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
CONTRACTORS’ YARD BY DONOVAN HANSON d/b/a HANSON EXCAVATING – LOT
2, BLOCK 1 OF PLAYGROUND SUB.
MacCoy: Would the applicant come forward please?
DONOVAN HANSON 4601 N. FIVE MILE BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY.
Hanson: We’ve applied for a conditional use permit for a contractors’ yard on lot 2,
block 1 of the Playground Subdivision. Just looking for a place to park my truck. I think
you have all the information up there. I don’t have any here. I didn’t know I was
suppose to get up here.
MacCoy: Any commissioners have any questions of him?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Hanson. You said you were looking for a place to park your truck; is
that correct?
Hanson: Yes.
Borup: Is that the only piece of equipment you will be parking there?
Hanson: No, we have eight trucks and probably eight pieces of equipment and eight
trailers. We look like the neighbors next door to us, Sesco. We just buy it over there
and take over to the other side of the fence.
Borup: You said trucks, trailers and what’s the other equipment?
Hanson: Back hoes.
Borup: Okay, that type of machinery type of equipment.
Hanson: Right.
Borup: So, you are not looking at piles of scrap metals?
Hanson: When we wear it out, it becomes a pile of scrap metal, but no.
Borup: I mean it’s kind of a common thing in a lot of contractor yards.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 72
Hanson: No.
Borup: Left over material from other jobs and that kind of thing. I assume you are gong
to be renting the property; is that correct? And do you have a time frame about how
long you are looking at there. I realize that’s (inaudible)
Hanson: How long we’re going to be there you mean?
Borup: Yes.
Hanson: I suppose until –
Borup: I’m assuming if you are renting, you’re not looking at a permanent –
Hanson: Well, we might go permanent. Let’s consider both.
Borup: And then what location do you have you equipment now?
Hanson: We’re already parked there. We didn’t know we had to have –
Borup: Where did you have it prior to parking there?
Hanson: Prior, we were parked on the street. We parked in the subdivision where we
were working.
Borup: At night?
Hanson: Yeah.
Borup: So apparently that was a problem. You didn’t a permanent place.
Hanson: Right. Teenagers would go joy riding on the machines.
Borup: That’s all I have right now. Thank you.
de Weerd: Well I only have a comment. I believe that this property is in the corridor to
the entrance to Meridian and I'm not really sure if this is the most appropriate place to
park equipment. I do realize that there's a large equipment supplier right next to it, that
is a business, I'm just concerned with the aesthetics and feeling that corridor – it's going
to be visible on all four sides, both from Overland and from the freeway and I guess
that's my concern is what this is presenting Meridian as.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 73
MacCoy: Okay, Mr. Smith?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, make sure I don't make this mistake two meetings, Mr. Hanson, I
almost called you Mr. Donovan so – what type of fencing are you proposing to put it,
what height, got a color in mind?
Hanson: I guess whatever is appropriate, you say you may (inaudible), the same six
foot, we didn't have anything specific at the moment.
Smith: You didn't have anything specific in mind? Are you looking for us to make
recommendations?
Hanson: Right on!
Smith: And then I'm assuming that you're going to access your yard from this open
area here.
Hanson: Right.
Smith: Are you going to pave that or is it going to be gravel or –
Hanson: That front part is paved –
Smith: The parking lot's paved but the access back to your yard, will that just be gravel
or –
Hanson: Gravel, yeah.
Smith: And you'll have what a twenty-foot wide gate there?
Hanson: Oh, we don't need to be that wide.
Smith: Just a single gate?
Hanson: Yeah, because we go to the back of the yard and turn around, clear to the
back, we just use one corner.
Smith: And then the left side of my map was cut off on the Xerox there, I assume your
fence is just going to extend down that line like it is on the other sides. That's all the
questions I had.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson? While he's looking, do you have a copy of the staff
report?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 74
Hanson: Nope.
MacCoy: It's quite in depth and it's your guideline to things that they're looking for on
your property. (Inaudible)
Simms: I called and left a message (inaudible).
MacCoy: Oh, you've got to come in, where does he get it, at the front desk?
Simms: City Clerk's office.
MacCoy: City Clerk's office, you've got to go pick up your package I guess (inaudible) –
so there's quite a few things on this thing, it's a two page document and I'm going
through and highlighted my stuff but I'm just showing it talks about sewer, water,
fencing, signage, lighting, everything under the sun in here. -- Alright there you are, I
just want to make sure we're talking the same story for you. You asked for some
direction, there is some direction, back to Commissioner Nelson.
Nelson: Yeah, if you wouldn't mind just kind of for the record I guess, now to the west
of you is the RV –
Hanson: Yes.
Nelson: I'm at the right spot here? And then to the east of you is Cesco?
Hanson: Right.
Nelson: And your equipment then – I was organized a second ago – and your main
access for your trucks is going to be –
Hanson: Right in the middle of the lot. That's an existing access.
Nelson: I think as long as screening's taken into account, that's set back there a fair
distance as far as Commissioner de Weerd is concerned. I have no further questions,
I'm just thinking out loud.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Hanson, were you able to talk to staff
much, anything at all on this or just picked up the packet and filled it out? Did they talk
to you about landscaping at all?
Hanson: Shari did.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 75
Borup: Shari did, okay, because that's something that you did have in mind or have you
got to that point yet or –
Hanson: Not too much on landscaping.
Borup: And then, is there an existing berm along the freeway?
Hanson: We don't go back that far.
Borup: Yes, the plats we have goes to the freeway.
Hanson: No, no, no, no.
Borup: No?
Hanson: No.
Borup: Am I looking at the plat wrong?
Nelson: His property doesn’t.
Freckleton: It's on lot 2, block 1, it's the middle parcel.
Hanson: Yeah.
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry, okay. I'm thinking of the other next to you that had the driving
range. That this was the parking for the driving range.
Hanson: Yeah that's the parking.
MacCoy: That's the reason they have asphalt there. Cesco took over the driving
range.
Borup: Okay, I have no other questions other than before we (inaudible) maybe some
comments.
MacCoy: Any other comments on the Commissioners? Okay, you can take a seat and
is there anybody left in here that wants to get up and make a comment? Becky?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Brigg's Engineering, 1800 W. Overland, we got a new
address so I have to think about it, we moved.
BECKY BOWCUTT WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 76
Bowcutt: I'm representing the property owners just south of this parcel, they've owned
that property for quite a few years, it's also a portion of that property approximately 54
acres was sold to the Meridian School District for a high school and that would be
directly south of this parcel. So my client's have some concerns, those concerns are
aesthetics, if this is a temporary use as far as landscape is concerned whether it be
temporary or permanent, one should provide adequate berming, adequate landscaping,
sprinklers, etc. so that aesthetically when you drive down that Overland Road corridor
you get a good visual effect. Like I said, you have to consider that that high school's
going to be there, they anticipate constructing that within the next five to seven years
from what I've been told and they told me that a couple of years ago so it may be even
sooner than that, it will take a bond issue but obviously we don't want something that's
an eyesore you know right across a nice new high school and we have uses that we are
contemplating and going into the planning phases on the remaining fifty acres I think on
that parcel which would include something to the effect of possibly some office, possibly
some multi-family, we're looking at kind of a mixed use so the marketability of that
project would depend on the aesthetics of that corridor so please take into
consideration the fact that we want it to look nice and to protect the property values of
the adjoining parcels and the fact that that high school's going to go in there, they
wouldn't appreciate if it was a horrid eyesore either. Thanks.
MacCoy: Thank you very much Becky, that's a big help for us. Anybody else have any
comments here?
de Weerd: Well I would wonder if Mr. Freckleton had any comments.
MacCoy: Go ahead, Counsel?
Prior: Oh, excuse me, Mr. Freckleton do you have any comments? There was a
request, was there not?
de Weerd: Well I can --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner de Weerd, I have no further comments other
than what we've presented in our packets.
Prior: Sir, if you would just state your name and address, spell your last name for the
record.
Groves: My name is Craig Groves, address is 3920 E. Shady Glenn Court, Boise, Ada
County.
CRAIG GROVES WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 77
Groves: I've got a couple of questions, one I think might be directed towards Bruce, the
property in question here lies east of the Hunter Lateral and there's a main sewer
extension proposed to come across interstate 84, the property in question would sewer
into that drainage, they call it the Five Mile sewer drain, is there any conditions that
would require this particular property to participate in that sewer extension?
Freckleton: At this point and time the applicant has not requested any structures on the
site, this is simply for parking of equipment and that sort of thing so there are no sewer
and water services required at this time.
Groves: Okay, and then the second comment has to do pretty much with aesthetics,
that is a major corridor entry to the City of Meridian, in some respects my personal
feelings are that the corner there of Locust Grove and Overland going back to the
freeway, I'm not sure the highest and best use for that corner would be a contractor's
yard. On a temporary basis as long as there's proper landscaping and screening I don't
see too much problem with it.
MacCoy: Thank you. That's something we need to keep in mind is that Overland's
going to be a five lane road in a couple of years and Locust is also going to be driven
through to the other side of 84 so it's going to be a major section.
Prior: Just re-state your name sir if you would.
Hanson: Donovan Hanson. I seem to have a business that everyone wants to use but
don't park it next to my house. I don't know what to respond to.
Borup: I've got a question for you Mr. Hanson. Could you comment on the amount of
traffic in and out of the site on a daily basis?
Hanson: You know the site would probably have eight vehicles in the morning and eight
vehicles in the afternoon, late in the afternoon, they try to leave around 7:30, a quarter
to eight. Well, they'll come in with eight cars and take eight trucks out I guess so that's
sixteen.
Borup: That's what I figured you meant. Thank you, I think you answered my question
on that. I had the same question, Mr. Groves raised it and I guess it would be directed
to Mr. Clark if he felt this is the highest and best use of this property location. I don't
know if he'd care to comment on that or if that's even pertinent to what we're trying to do
here.
Clarke: Michael Clarke, 4098 N. Jullion Way, Boise, Idaho.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 78
MICHAEL CLARKE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Clarke: Your question was –
Borup: As owner of the property is this the highest and best you feel that you'd like to
have eventually achieve on this property?
Clarke: Well I don't think that's an eventual achievement, you know I don't think that --
at the present time I think that it's something that can be done with the property
because we're not prepared to develop it at the present time and it's something that can
be used –
Borup: Better than just letting it sit there and grow weeds or something.
Clarke: Right, and plus with Mr. Hanson using the property he keeps it pretty well neat
and tidy and he's done a lot of clean-up work on the property already.
Borup: Maybe why you're here might be and I think this other question would be
addressing both of you and I – my first impression I think was along the same line that
Tammy had, you know I don't know if this was a location for something like this but –
and that's why we have these testimonies I think so we can get information and change
our mind one way or the other and I have changed my mind, with some stipulations but
really the stipulations are saying the same thing that the staff report said and that
seems to be what other testimony said and that's on the landscaping which could be
kind of a major thing for a contractor's yard but is that something – yeah, could you
comment on landscaping (inaudible) ?
Clarke: Well I don't see too much of a problem with that I mean as I read through the
papers you know they want it fenced and so on – I don't see how that can be too much
of a problem and the fact of the matter is that his equipment is parked some 400-feet off
of the road as well and the property slopes away from the road and the equipment, I
mean if you think about it down Overland Road you got, you know CAT has a yard,
Arnold has a yard down there and of course Cesco and it appears that Freightliner's
going to be just on the other side of Cesco so as far as being incompatible I don't think
it's too incompatible with what's there but they have done a real good job of keeping
everything neat and tidy and you know you asked the question about scrap and that
sort of thing and –
Borup: Well when I say landscape, I'm talking probably in the 35-foot strip up on
Overland, something along there, so that would be an ongoing maintenance and I
assume by landscape we're talking more than a couple trees, you know you're looking
at (inaudible)
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 79
Clarke: Well most of that along there right in front of the property is you know you have
Cook Lateral running down there so there's not – we don't have a lot of options with the
landscaping because of that.
Borup: But that was one of the – in fact one of the staff comments was that a detailed
landscaping plan be submitted. Staff comment was prior to occupying, I guess it would
be prior to approving. So I don't know if there's been any discussion between the two of
you, who would be responsible for that if that's –
Clarke: We haven't discussed anything about any – you know at any length anyway,
we haven't.
Borup: And I realize if you're looking at something on a temporary basis you hate to put
a lot into landscaping unless you felt it's something that something could be used in the
future too but that is – hasn't been (inaudible) in the corridor (inaudible) –
Clarke: But I mean that's as I understand it kind of a requirement that there needs to be
some screening from the road and –
Borup: Well but – yeah I think they're talking about two screening, one is a screened
fence around the yard itself and the other is a beautification type screening.
Clarke: So they want us to put a hill in front of the property?
Borup: Well yeah.
de Weerd: That wouldn't be bad.
Borup: That's really what you see but I don't know if we're here to dictate what you do.
Smith: Can you move that pile of dirt and put it up in front of (inaudible).
Clarke: Well that's what they are, they're big piles of dirt we put in front of the
neighborhoods and so on.
Borup: Yeah right, (inaudible) I have no other questions.
MacCoy: Okay, anybody else?
de Weerd: I would have a question of him. The applicant mentioned that he would like
it there permanently, what is your time frame on this?
Clarke: I don't have a problem with that.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 80
de Weerd: Okay, well I do. I'm sorry.
Clarke: Well I don't know what your problem is and that but I mean you're going to have
a piece of property that's going to have a berm, apparently that's what's required, with a
fence and a fence completely around it and you've got equipment that's 400-feet off of
the road, I don't know what your problem its.
de Weerd: Well I don't know what the landscaping plan is, I don't know what the
fencing plan is, I cannot visualize it in my mind whatsoever and this is an important part
of Meridian, it is a corridor in our comprehensive plan and so it is a very important piece
of property, once you –
Clarke: Well I think the landscaping will be nicer than some backhoe sitting out in front
of the thing, I mean that's what you have down so much of Overland already on your
corridor, I mean you got backhoes and front end loaders and so on that are out there.
de Weerd: Well sir, I can't help what is there now and this is only my second meeting –
Clarke: Well I mean – you're saying that you're concerned about it but that's what's
already there, that's what you have in the corridor and what you're going to have here is
you're not going to have that.
de Weerd: So what I'm saying is aesthetically it is a concern, I would like to see
landscaping, you know, some kind of plan before I feel that I can approve something
like this and that's just me personally speaking, it's an important part of our corridor, if
you're going to –
Clarke: Yeah, well the fact of the matter is that it's already been demanded.
de Weerd: If you're going to irrigate your landscaping you're going to have some kind
of piping or drainage or sprinkler systems or water or something so that all needs to be
planned out I would imagine too so –
Clarke: Well I mean we're not asking for a building permit, we're just asking for a
conditional use permit.
de Weerd: Okay.
Clarke: So I mean -- and some of these things have apparently been you know by the
records that we have so far that those things have been -- you know that has to be
done to meet approval. Is that not what that says?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 81
de Weerd: Yes.
Clarke: Okay. So –
Borup: Just to clarify that for Mr. Clarke, that is something that needs to be done for
approval but if we don't see it, it's hard for us to approve it.
Clarke: I understand that.
Borup: So sometimes we have to kind of work around that.
de Weerd: Thank you, I wasn't clear.
Borup: But I think that's part of what she was trying to say.
Smith: We've had one or two applications in the past year that I've been on this
Commission that have been kind of incomplete in the information that's submitted so
maybe the appropriate time Commissioner de Weerd wants to make a motion that we
table this item and allow the applicant time to prepare a landscaping plan and a
proposal for fencing for our review so we have appropriate complete information to
evaluate this proposal on.
Prior: Just for a clarification, Commissioner Smith do you mean to continue the public
hearing to allow the applicant to provide further testimony or do you mean to table it and
all testimony provided will be stopped at this point –
Smith: No, to continue it, I'm sorry Mr. Prior, to continue it to allow the applicant –
Prior: It's Assistant City Attorney Prior.
Smith: It's Assistant Attorney Prior, to allow the applicant to provide us with more
information that addresses some of these – that addresses all of these issues that have
been brought up this evening.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Prior, if we have Findings prepared, that
can also be tabled couldn't it to the following month, following meeting?
Prior: You can table consideration of the Findings to the following meeting, yeah,
there's nothing that says you can't –
Borup: Okay, and I'd like to maybe make some comments on – I think we all have the
same concerns on the screening and the landscaping aesthetics but I think those are
standard requirements, if that's done properly I think this can be non objectionable. The
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 82
other thing, keep in mind that this is a conditional use, as the comments say it's subject
to review after ten days notice, when I first heard contracting yard I was thinking of a lot
of others that I've seen and boy we've got a nice one over on Fairview already, it's got
everything there, we're just talking equipment, I don't see big problem in that type of a
yard, it can be done neatly but I would recommend that we go ahead and still have the
attorney prepare Findings subject to having a landscape plan at the next meeting and –
Smith: I'm concerned about what type of fence we're going to put in or the applicant's
going to put in and how high –
Borup: (Inaudible) anything else and if that's a problem -- at the next meeting if
everything's fine we can approve it and not move on if it's not –
Prior: Commissioner Borup, there's a difficulty with that and that is what you're doing is
you're asking – what you're asking is that we close this public hearing –
Borup: Well I haven't asked that.
Prior: Well if I understand you correctly, you're asking to close the public hearing and
then allow the applicant to submit additional information as part of the Findings, you
cannot do that –
Borup: And we cannot do Findings with the public hearing open.
Prior: Correct, so it's either he provides for – if his desire is to provide further
information we can continue the public hearing, if his desire is not to provide further
information, we can close the public hearing, you can have me do Findings or you know
it's –
Borup: Can't we also keep the public hearing open and still provide Findings?
Prior: No.
Borup: We've done it before, you've done it before.
Prior: I don't believe I've ever done that.
Borup: You sure have. Well let me correct that –
Prior: I'm not going to get into a discussion with you on this but I'd like you to tell me
which one I did that on.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 83
Borup: Okay, I could find that but let me correct myself, you've prepared Findings prior
to the public hearing.
Prior: I have provided preliminary Findings.
Borup: Right and they were stated as preliminary or draft I can't remember how –
Prior: Preliminary Findings, draft Findings, that have been amended and you know
but–
Borup: Well some of them were, some of them were just like we did it, you did a good
job.
MacCoy: Are you ready to make some decisions down there?
Borup: Well no I'm just wondering if –
Prior: Why don't we ask what the applicant's desire is and maybe that might help.
Borup: That's a good question, I knew you'd ask that.
Prior: I think maybe we should.
Clarke: The applicant's desire is to go home and go to bed.
MacCoy: That's ours too.
Clarke: We're concerned with aesthetics, pretty, prettiness or whatever you want to call
it of the – along side the road, we have a irrigation ditch we have to consider, are we
looking for something like Cesco has next door? I want to see if I can afford to do this
okay, unless I can get some dirt from Keith. You got dirt?
Borup: I got dirt, don't worry about dirt.
Clarke: Provide a landscape plan, is that what we're looking for, trees, bushes?
Smith: And some information on what – the fence seems to be something that could be
a – you'd probably need to look at what would be in your budget and –
Prior: Sir, maybe it would be advisable that we continue this public hearing and you
look into the cost and assess that as to whether that's something you may want to
pursue and then we can keep the public hearing open and you can consider this at the
next meeting and we can go from there, you can request that if you'd like.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 84
Borup: Yeah, I'd like to comment on that too, I was just trying to move this along and
get the approval but one thing I realized and felt we need to take into consideration is
the equipment's already on site, by delaying this another month it's not going to cause
any hardship or problem on anybody I don't believe, is that correct? It's not going to
change what's happening so other than our time I don't know that continuing it would
really make any difference in the outcome so that makes a lot of sense to me.
Clarke: The thing of it is, is that I think we could tell you what we're going to do but I
think you need to see it on paper.
Borup: Yes sir.
Clarke: I think that's what you need to see. You need to see height, placement, fence
so if someone wants to make a motion to continue.
Smith: I don't think that's asking too much, I think that's – Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make
a motion that we continue this item to allow the applicant to submit additional
information till our July 14th
meeting.
de Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor? No, no's?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY WILD WEST BAKERY – 611 E.
1ST
STREET:
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we continue item #12 to the July 14th
meeting
and maybe request staff to give them a call or something.
Smith: Second.
Simms: I have called there twice and left a message, not with her personally but with
someone that she works with and they assured me that she knew about it, she never
came to pick up her packet and she's not here tonight so –
MacCoy: So are you going to call and tell her it's tabled till –
Prior: And the words tabled, it was continued, was it not Chairman?
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 85
MacCoy: It was continued (inaudible) we're still moving forward and she should come
here to put her two bits in. Okay, there was a motion and seconded and –
Prior: There was a motion?
MacCoy: Yes. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Borup: What was the motion? Oh, continue I'm sorry.
MacCoy: Didn't you make it? I thought you –
Borup: Aye.
Smith: Keith made the motion, I seconded it that's right.
Prior: Did someone make another motion?
Smith: I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn.
Borup: Before we do, I'm sorry to do this guys, but there is a couple other things I think
we do need to take care of. One is, two months ago we started continuing ordinance
consideration, I believe last month it was supposed to have been continued to this
meeting, it wasn't on the agenda –
MacCoy: That's right.
Simms: Continue it to the special meeting?
Borup: That's what I'm leading to, no it was continued to this meeting.
MacCoy: Well it should have been –
Simms: The special meeting – you wanted it continued to the special meeting, is that
correct?
Borup: I read those minutes last night and I forgot – is that what it stated? No it was at
the last – end of last -- well we started two months ago, I got through three of them,
apparently City Council didn't like them, is that correct Mr. Prior? You know the reason
it was delayed the first time was everyone wanted time to review it, I assume two
months has been enough time that everybody's reviewed it?
MacCoy: Yes but it hasn't appeared on the agenda.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 86
Borup: Well that's easy enough to handle but I’m not saying I necessarily want to do
this tonight, what I am getting to, last month you said that we'd be having a special joint
meeting June 30th
with City Council, I talked to the City Council President last night after
City Council meeting when they were announcing that meeting and they did not
mention P & Z so I went up and clarified that with them, they had a full agenda and they
said they had no intention of meeting –
MacCoy: We can still meet that night though.
Borup: That's what I would like to propose. I think we've got more than just those
things to discuss so I think it's a – this is all a pretty new commission, I think it would be
appropriate maybe for us to kind of lay out some guidelines and maybe policy that we
want to have in the Commission and then also – so I would just propose that, probably
three items, that for one, the other items that we want to cover with City Council when
we do have a joint meeting whenever that may be and then thirdly, maybe try to get
through those amendments and then fourthly, it may be time for us to look at a few
other things we may want to add, I've got a couple of things, talking with Shari on some
definitions that aren't in the ordinance, maybe discuss the consent agenda things, you
know I think we had a couple of things tonight that would have been perfect, the
hair/nail thing and then this espresso shop would have been to me good candidates for
staff approval with a consent agenda rather than going through a lengthy – well I guess
it wasn't lengthy but anyway those are some of the things that I propose for the agenda
Are we still looking at doing it on the 30th
?
MacCoy: Right now we are.
Borup: Does everybody here –
Smith: This is the first I've heard of it so –
MacCoy: Well see this is what Will was going to put out to us in a letter and he hasn't
done it.
Borup: Well I thought it came up during the open meeting last month.
Nelson: It was my understanding that when we ended up with a second P & Z meeting
this month that the third meeting in one month was kind of became in limbo – I would be
open to a third meeting but maybe what we ought to be doing is get a draft agenda and
possibly get all of us to kind of review it a few times until we're comfortable with making
it worth the trip out here.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 87
Borup: Yeah, I mentioned four items for the agenda, I just – well I don’t know, what's
the – we've been dragging those five ordinances on now for over two months, isn't that
something we need to get cleared up one way or the other?
MacCoy: We can put that on the next agenda for a regular meeting –
Nelson: That might be a help right there, I don't know.
Smith: But June 30th
is fine other than this is the first I've heard that that was back on,
I'd be open for –
Borup: Well I'd never heard that it was off so I just wrote it down –
MacCoy: Well I didn't either because I went to both –
Borup: Well I mean from whatever Commissioner Nelson was referring to.
Nelson: Yeah, I was led to believe that the special session was kind of –
Borup: Off because of the second?
Nelson: Because of this meeting but I'm open to another –
Borup: That would make sense too –
Nelson: But yeah, I'd like to maybe massage an agenda first before we call a meeting,
make sure we that we've all reviewed the agenda and we're sure that's worth a trip out
we could set a date.
Borup: Is this, obviously this room I assume is not going to be available if City Council
is going to be – or do they meet over there? Where is City Council going to hold their
meeting?
MacCoy: Well there's two rooms here, we can take either one of them and wherever
they – if they have a big unit here or they sometimes even go in the Mayor's office
which is now a new item so they could go there and we could go here.
Borup: Wherever the smallest – so that's not a problem.
MacCoy: We're both the same size really.
Borup: So the thing we need to decide is date and time if that's what we want to do.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 88
MacCoy: Well if the timing's still open I think we ought to continue it because I got it put
on the agenda a month and a half ago or two months ago with the Mayor and with Will
and they (inaudible) out and put it up and they were going to – Will was going to put the
letter out and we ended up in Corrie's office again with Will and everybody said yeah
fine, go ahead and we'll get together so until you told me –
Borup: Well obviously they didn't but I think it would be important, I think it would be a
good idea for us to maybe decide what it is we want to talk to them about, I think it
would be – (end of tape) have a meeting before we met with City Council –
MacCoy: I agree with you, I don't have any problem with that.
Borup: Rather than just – it seems like last time we went there with no real agenda of
what we were even going to discuss with them, we just kind of stood there and –
MacCoy: It gets me we've been asking for this thing for over a year and we still don't
get to first base with it. I had a heck of a time, every time they came around they said
oh, we had a conflict, we did this, we did –
Borup: We had a joint meeting two months ago.
MacCoy: I was gone probably.
Borup: Oh, I'm sorry, that's probably true.
(Discussion)
de Weerd: Mr. Chairman, can I add a couple things to your agenda, that would be the
site plan review, kind of the procedure for that and what Shari or staff would like us to
do and where it goes from there, that sort of thing and I would like to –
MacCoy: That goes both ways by the way.
de Weerd: Yeah. I would like to discuss possibly terms for the Chair position –
MacCoy: We're going to talk about that yet.
de Weerd: Okay, thanks.
MacCoy: I think that's what has to be done.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 89
Borup: Would it be appropriate to have someone from P & Z staff to maybe take a few
minutes to review some of that stuff with us, I don't know if – is that something that
would help or --
MacCoy: I think they should be with us in our meeting when we meet.
Borup: The whole time?
MacCoy: Well I wouldn't say the whole time but you know if the item we want them to
be there for –
Borup: Well yeah, that's what I'm saying but I don't know, is that something that Shari
would normally do Bruce or either one of you or send the new guy there?
MacCoy: She said she would.
Freckleton: I assume Shari would definitely want to be there if you're talking ordinances
and that sort of thing.
Borup: Well yeah, she'd want to present her ordinance so we could put that first on the
schedule and then maybe get into and have her do maybe the procedural stuff, the
things that we can help and then she could be dismissed, not have to stay the whole
evening.
de Weerd: Would it also be possible to get a copy of whatever you're talking about.
MacCoy: Well yeah, I think we should.
de Weerd: I find I keep finding voids on information so –
Borup: Is the copy machine still on, is it still warmed up?
Simms: It's off.
Borup: Because I've got a copy right here.
MacCoy: Do you? Do you want to give her a copy?
Borup: Well no, I don't have any extra.
MacCoy: Well I'll take mine and print if for her.
Prior: Maybe we could consider a motion –
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 90
de Weerd: Mr. Chair, can I move that we adjourn?
MacCoy: If Mr. Borup there has made his (inaudible)
Borup: Do we have a time?
Prior: Do we have a second on that?
Borup: Are we going to get a letter?
MacCoy: Yes.
Borup: I work far ahead on an appointment calendar and when I turn down
appointments and then find out the deal I turned it down for is something else that's
cancelled I –
MacCoy: I think a lot of us do. What we considered right now will go back tomorrow, I'll
do that –
Borup: There'll be a letter out – we're talking the 30th
, are we still talking at 7:00 or a
different time?
MacCoy: I don't know –
de Weerd: Seven sounds fine.
MacCoy: Seven? Okay.
Borup: That's late.
MacCoy: Well you want 6:30 or what do you want?
Borup: I'm usually at work till –
de Weerd: 6:30, 6:00?
Smith: That'd be great.
Borup: I usually don't leave the office till (inaudible)
de Weerd: 6:30 on June 30th
, Tuesday. Okay, I made a motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
June 17, 1998
Page 91
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:54 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
Malcolm MacCoy, Chairman
ATTEST:
William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk