1998 12-08MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 1998
The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order 7:03 P.M. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Tammy De Weerd, Keith
Borup, Mark Nelson.
OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Will Berg.
MacCoy: It’s now a few minutes past the hour. I welcome you all this evening to
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. The reason we are a little late
starting is we have a new security force in operation tonight so we had to do a
few things little different to get here. So we are starting about three minutes after
the hour. Before we start, I’d like to welcome this evening Troop 5, Boy Scout
Troop 5 from our Meridian area, and their leader is Glen here this evening. We
are glad to have them here, they are working on some of their merit badge work
and a good chance to see how their city operates. So welcome to this evening.
First item of business this evening is our last planning and zoning meeting that
took place on November 10th
, at 7 PM in this council chambers. Commissioners
what is your comments?
Smith: I have none.
Borup: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Nelson: I have none.
MacCoy: Can I have a motion?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we approve the minutes
of the November 10th
meeting as written.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 1: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR A PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO BY MARK
D. WIARS – 860 E. FINCH CREEK:
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 2
MacCoy: Commissioners, what is your desires?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman before we vote on this, can I—I would like to ask staff
if they had any changes to the comments that were submitted in these findings?
Okay, thanks. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
Smith: Second.
ROLL CALL: Borup – aye, Smith – aye, De Weerd – aye, Nelson – aye.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
determines that upon review of the applicable standards and guidelines that set
forth in section 11-2-410D of the zoning and development ordinance of the City
of Meridian the establish record and the applicable law that the applicant met the
requisite accessory use standards, given the foregoingness (sic) subject
application for home occupation for home occupation accessory use is set forth
herein shall be granted and the use allowed subject to the conditions imposed
herein. The accessory use shall be subject to review by the city upon notice to
the applicant.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 2: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
AND ZONING OF 7.84 ACRES BY PAUL A. HOFFMAN (MERIDIAN
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) – SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MERIDIAN ROAD
AND USTICK:
MacCoy: Since it’s still a continued public hearing, the door is open for the public
and is there anyone here who would like to make comment on the positive side
in support of that at this present time? You may come up.
PAUL A. HOFFMAN, 3235 N. MOUNTAIN VIEW DR., BOISE, ID. WAS
SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Hoffman: Ladies and gentlemen, you may recall that we spoke at length last
month on this issue. I’ve visited with Steve Snead sitting over here from ACHD, I
believe that he can address or attempt to clarify some of the issues that were
brought up at that last meeting and perhaps he can speak at this time. Then I
would like to follow up with that regarding some of the other issues if that’s
appropriate.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 3
MacCoy: It is.
STEVEN SNEAD, 318 E. 37TH
STREET, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Snead: After review of the staff reports of Strauser Farms No. 2 and of the
impact fee offset agreement file and talking to staff, Ada County Highway District
at this time does not recommend the sidewalk or would not recommend the
sidewalk to be placed because of the house and the irrigation ditch. That portion
of Ustick Road is currently within the five year work plan, but currently listed as
an unfunded project. Because of the park going in, staff would request to the
Planning and Zoning Commission to possibly request to our commissioners to
move that up in the process, therefore they could utilize the road (Inaudible) for
the sidewalk that has been placed. At this time, if the funds are not to be utilized,
those would be refunded by request back to the applicant in October of 2002.
That’s the stance of the highway district, is there any questions?
MacCoy: Commissioners?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Snead, I think there’s—was there any clarification of the exact
right-of-way?
Snead: Yes, Mr. Hoffman did present that 1991 right-of-way easement and upon
further review again of the file for some reason, the actual right-of-way deed was
not ever executed by Mr. Strauser. At this time, I have prepared a new deed and
presented it to Mr. Hoffman and according to Mr. Hoffman they are going to go
ahead and execute and dedicate that 33 feet of right-of-way at this time. Now
that does not include the full 45, I believe and speaking with our right-of-way
department, we did not want to encumber our right-of-way with that house. So
what we will do at the time that we widen Ustick Road, we will pay to relocate
that house out of future right-of-way and the limits of the construction onto the
private property.
Borup: So intention of 90 foot right-of-way on (Inaudible) road.
Snead: I believe it’s 33 at that portion.
Borup: Presently?
Snead: Presently…
Borup: You are saying presently 33 from the center line.
Snead: Correct.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 4
Borup: (Inaudible) on section line road would be 45 from the center line.
Snead: It would normally would be, but because of that house, we would be
encumbering that. We did not want to do that.
Borup: And that’s the only reason, so the other would be…
Snead: If you do have a plat in front of you, it’s just that small lot on the corner, I
forget the actual linear footage, but the majority say about 600 foot we do have
the, I believe it’s the 45 foot right-of-way. It’s just that small piece, we only have
a 33 where the lot is presently sitting.
Borup: Okay, I don’t think that was clarified, at least not in my mind on the other
lot. So it’s just the lot that has the small house on it that is the 33. The rest you
already do have the 45?
Snead: That’s correct.
Borup: That was acquired in 91’ also?
Snead: No, I believe that it was done in 95’ when the plat of Strauser No. 2
was—that plat came through.
Borup: Okay, I don’t think that was mentioned last month.
De Weerd: No.
Borup: That was the only question that I had.
De Weerd: I have no questions.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson?
Nelson: I have no questions.
MacCoy: Commissioner Smith?
Smith: None.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: Yes you may.
Hoffman: I’m sorry about the confusion about the right-of-way. We were a little
uncertain when Steve and I met, kind of got it cleared up.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 5
MacCoy: We thank you for that clarification.
Hoffman: So in summary at least in terms of the building and the sidewalk, the
owner would like to request that those improvements not be placed until such
time as the highway district improves the road. If we did put the ditch, if we did
pipe the ditch at this point, it’s ACHD’s policy to move it out of the right-of-way
anyway. So, they would have to rip it up and relocate it. We have an easement
in addition to the 45 feet that comes on to our property that is ten feet wide. It’s
specifically for drainage. So, everything is in place, the church structure, the site
plans and improvements have all been setback to allow for that. It seems to me
that the logical step is to wait till that happens at which point we already have the
money in for the sidewalk, etc. Regarding a couple of the other issues, we would
like to propose a L-O zone for that site. I think Shari Stiles might have some
comments on that, but because it is a permitted use, that would seem to be—
and because the property that the city owns across the street is also L-O that
would seem to us to be the logical zoning district. The owner would not object to
connecting existing house on the corner to the city water system. I wasn’t sure
what their stance was on that. If we can agree to—mutually agree to some of
these conditions then they wouldn’t have any objection to doing that and proceed
right away. The house is already connected to the city sewer. I think that
basically covered the issues and…
MacCoy: Before you leave the podium, any questions from the commissioners?
I guess not. Thank you very much.
De Weerd: I have a question for Shari, on not tiling the ditches, the applicant
would have to request a variance from City Council, is that correct?
Stiles: Yes.
MacCoy: Continuing the public hearing, is there anyone else here in the room
who would like to get up and speak for the application. Okay, let me turn the
tables the other way, is there anyone here who wishes to speak in defense of
something else of the negative viewpoint for actually doing this job? If not,
commissioners what is your desire? Do you want to close it right now or what do
you want to do?
Smith: I’m ready.
MacCoy: Well go ahead, make a motion.
Smith: Are you folks ready? I’d like to make a motion that we close the public
hearing.
Nelson: Second.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 6
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Is there any discussion?
Smith: I don’t personally have a problem with passing to City Council a waive
requirement for tiling the ditch and that the sidewalk not go in until the road is
improved.
Borup: I would agree with that. I think it’s also a good idea to encourage
whatever we can do to encourage ACHD to move up there time table to
designate this as a funded project. Even doing that, the timing is years down the
road. So now is the time to start.
MacCoy: Anything else?
De Weerd: I have a question, since we are not doing findings, will staff …
MacCoy: I want to ask that in a minute here, that’s a question I’ve got.
De Weerd: Will staff comments be revised to—in regards to comments five and
six, well four, five and six. Five and six need a request for a variance and four is
regarding the home that is currently sitting on the property.
Stiles: Staff would request that all of our comments stand as submitted.
Smith: We can make our own motion.
MacCoy: While we are still on the table here, is there anything else either one of
you have to add to our discussion right now?
Stiles: We do still need a legal description that has been stamped, we have—it
appears the one that was submitted that wasn’t stamped is probably alright. I
have a problem with this project because of the use that currently exists on the
property. It does not fit within any one zoning designation. The area is
designated to single family residential in the Comprehensive Plan. I’m afraid if it
is all zoned limited office, then the applicant will take that as an invitation that
they can put offices there, which would be a permitted use, so I would ask that if
that zoning is permitted for an L-O that it be conditioned that somehow
everything would have to be a conditional use on it. I don’t know how else to do
it because single family home which is two of them currently exist on it are not
permitted in that zone. I don’t think the Comprehensive Plan is the intention of
the Comprehensive Plan is for it to be a commercial area. It may be appropriate
for two different zones to be requested, one for where the existing house is and
another zone for maybe where the church is, but we would just ask that you
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 7
consider all of our comments and I still have the question of why they are
requesting annexation if they don’t want to comply with any ordinances. That’s
it.
MacCoy: I have a question for the attorney. You heard Shari talk about the
zoning, do you have any comments to or any words of wisdom for that.
Rossman: Well really that is Shari’s call, she is the Planning and Zoning
Department and her comments are certainly well taken regarding whether or not
this application falls within any of the stated zoning districts. That certainly up to
you to determine and for Shari to comment on. From a legal aspect, there is
nothing in the ordinance that will prevent you from granting the application or
denying the application on the basis that Shari has indicated. Is that what you
are asking, or is there a legal question that you have?
MacCoy: No, that’s—I’m just wanting to see what you had in the same field of
information that we are talking about . The other thing is we normally go to the
findings of fact and this last month you said we didn’t have to do that, but it
seems in this case here that it would be beneficial to do that.
Rossman: What you can do is what—because Planning and Zoning
Commission is not issuing the final decision on these applications, these
applications were all going to the City Council for final determination, therefore
the City Council should be the body that drafts and approves the Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law. What this commissions duty is under the ordinance is
to provide a recommendation to the City Council after a public hearing. Now
what we typically do on these is when you raise your motion to make a certain
recommendation to City Council, it’s usually just a written recommendation as
drafted and sent directly to City Council. What we can do is make your motion
with a certain recommendation. We can prepare those recommendations and
we can set this over to the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
for the approval of the written recommendation of the City Council.
Smith: I don’t understand, could you clarify for me—to me that seems like extra
work that is not necessary. Could you clarify for me why you think we need to
start doing findings again and why we would want to add this extra step for the
applicants?
MacCoy: Are you asking me that question?
Smith: Yes sir.
MacCoy: Well, I’m looking at the standpoint of having—if you’d been here a
council meeting, or two ago, they—we stepped into that process here based on
our attorneys view point and then they received a couple of items that we had
taken care of and next week they had it on their docket and they didn’t know
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 8
what to do with it, because they didn’t hand recommendations in their hands and
they had the same line item that we had and they didn’t have a public hearing.
They said how do we handle that?
Rossman: What happened there is that those applications got set too quickly.
What’s supposed to happen is you have your public hearing for example today
and a recommendation is made. That recommendation should not go to City
Council the next week, we have to wait for the appeal period to pass and we
have to draft a written recommendation to go to them. So it should have gone to
the next month and that—by doing that, it will prevent that type of
miscommunication from happening.
MacCoy: I wanted that from record reasons this morning—or this evening for
that, so thank you for that. So as long as we can get our recommendations
placed into an order that they can read them and know if we have passed on that
and we have made recommendations and they can follow those. That’s my only
concern. I don’t care how we do it, so that we get our motions put on paper and
they get a chance to read them and work off of that (Inaudible).
Rossman: Written recommendations are always going to be available hopefully
within two weeks after the public hearing. I don’t know that you want to require
commission approval of the written recommendations, cause then what you are
doing is adding another stage so you have four stages for the applicant.
MacCoy: That’s not my point.
Rossman: But if you want to review the written recommendations, you certainly
can and there will always be written recommendations on annexations and
zonings and on conditional use permits that go to the City Council, similar to the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that you’ve seen in the past. It’s a
recommendation, it’s not an actual order or Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.
MacCoy: Just as long as what the commission comes up with is to
recommendations and it is printed and they have a chance to review those and
we don’t end up with a glitch in the system. I don’t plan to make extra steps out
of this, but I do want the thing for the record.
De Weerd: Then we need to be specific with our motions.
MacCoy: That’s right. Now that we know how the system goes.
De Weerd: I do have a question for Shari. Shari, what is the difference if we do
a L-O versus an R-8? I don’t have a problem putting in there that a conditional
use permit would be needed for any additional buildings, why would we assume
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 9
that they would do that? What are our other churches designated at, at this
point? Has that been a concern in the past?
Stiles: The newer developments that are coming in would be typically the L-O
and R-8 might be possibly more appropriate. It’s still not going to comply with
the ordinance because it doesn’t—I mean, it doesn’t meet any zoning ordinance
requirements.
De Weerd: That would be tiling of ditches, the sidewalks?
Stiles: Setbacks, number of buildings on a single lot, yeah the tiling of the
ditches if they are willing to tile the ditch now, and say they will do it in the right-
of-way and make Ada County Highway District come in later to relocate it out of
the right-of-way, what they need to do is get it out of the right-of-way right now
and tile it on their property, if that’s what they are willing to do. I mean if they are
willing to tile that ditch, it doesn’t make sense for them to say they’d tile it out in
the right-of-way and then force Ada County Highway District to rip it up and
relocate it on their property. That doesn’t make any sense to me. I still feel
strongly that that house that is there or that’s in the existing right-of-way needs to
be removed now. It’s never complied with any setback requirement. There have
been building improvements made to the building knowing full well that it needs
to be removed. I just have some real concerns about this project. Possibly R-8
would be a better choice, but when they—if they have to come in for a building
permit, they’ve got to realize that they’re still not going to be in compliance with
anything and they would have to do a conditional use permit for any kind of a
permit. I don’t know if that’s something that they want to do, you know,
expansions of the church or…
De Weerd: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions? If not, what is your recommendation?
Smith: There seems to be a lot of loose ends. I don’t feel comfortable zoning
this L-O when we’ve got undeveloped, or developable land where the house is
sitting now that could go into offices without any kind of review. I don’t know, I
don’t have the same concerns that Shari does on the tiling of the ditch or the
sidewalk.
Borup: Was it determined that we could do a L-O with conditional use?
Smith: I think we can do that, yeah.
Borup: Which would take care of the concerns on future development.
Smith: Right.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 10
Borup: From what Shari was just saying, everything needs to be conditional use
anyway because of the conflict in uses. To tile the ditch out of the right-of-way,
the building has got to move. That’s not really—at least the ditch along the
roadway. That wasn’t—there was also a ditch going back to the back of the
property which talked about last time was not sure they where they were going to
go because they didn’t have master plan for the back part of the property as far
as ball fields or what they were going to do. That was there reasoning of not
tiling those at that time. I think most of us agreed that made sense for that back
there. I don’t know how much we had talked about the ditch in the front. Well if
we can do conditional use limitation with a L-O zone, I think that would handle
any future concerns. Again, I’d hate, I don’t know how much money is in the
trust fund for the sidewalk, but I would hate to see that go anywhere else but to
the sidewalk too.
Nelson: I’m not quite sure why the applicant initiated the process that required to
be accepted from the process he’s requested to participate in. You know what I
mean. This seems like an awful lot of paperwork and a lot of things happening to
make an exception so it’s just the way it is. Personally I don’t see any value in us
zoning it and the applicant just not waiting until ACHD builds the road and
everything falls into place in one step. Unless others can justify going through all
this work,(Inaudible).
Borup: Well, the applicant stated last time they wanted—they felt like they were
a Meridian Church and wanted to be part and for all intent and purposes, they
are a part of the town of Meridian. As far as location and whether it stays in the
county or stays in the city, they are still using the city’s sewer and water. Getting
the city’s services, doing everything but paying city taxes.
De Weerd: I guess my question would be to Shari, if we denied this and any
future developments would be needed to be approved by Ada County, is that
correct?
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: We have already seen that they don’t really follow the ordinances
that we have, so…
Nelson: So we may have greater potential to control that (Inaudible)
Smith: You are ready to make a motion aren’t you Keith?
Borup: I’m ready to second yours. Eric was saying earlier that our motion needs
to include modifications from staff comments, is that what you were saying?
Rossman: If I am to draft a written recommendation to City Council, the only
thing that I can put in that written recommendation is what has been—what I’ve
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 11
been directed to put into that recommendation by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. So, when you make your motion, I would like you to take a look at
Planning and Zoning Departments comments and also the ACHD comments and
any of those that you do not want incorporated, let that be know in your motion
and if there are none that you want to exclude, just indicate that in your motion
including those comments of city—or of P & Z and ACHD. Otherwise, what I’m
left with is taking your recommendation and then putting in extra conditions that
you haven’t discussed or commented on.
Smith: I don’t see anything wrong with leaving in staffs comments. That doesn’t
waiver what our recommendation is.
Rossman: Commissioner Smith for example in this case, you have staff
comments for example in paragraph three about the zoning compatibility of an R-
4 zone, you have the tiling issues, you have the church removal issues, I mean,
if you don’t want those included we need to have that said.
Smith: I don’t have any problem with them not being included, or having them
included, because we are going to make our motion and recommendation to City
Council regardless of what their comments are.
De Weerd: Well, I guess what he is saying…
Smith: Their comments are their comments and we make our recommendation
based on the information that is presented to us at the public hearing, part of that
is included as staff comments.
Rossman: Well if you don’t want any, if the only conditions you want in your
recommendation to City Council are those that you state on the record, that’s
perfectly fine, I’ll draft it that way. ON a lot of these you recommend approval
and the assumption is—and when we were preparing Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, we were putting all of those conditions into those Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and you were approving them. So I assume that
you wanted those in there. If you don’t want them, let me know and I’ll keep
them out.
Smith: I see your point.
Rossman: See what I mean, I need some direction on those.
Smith: I caught up.
MacCoy: Okay, do I have a recommendation?
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 12
De Weerd: I’ll move that we deny the application based on the ordinances that
can not be complied with and that they go forth to City Council to request
variances. Can I do that?
Borup: What good does it do to get a variance on a denied application?
De Weerd: Well, how can we pass it if with everything that is on the staff
comments has to be appealed?
Rossman: You are not passing, you are making a recommendation to City
Council.
De Weerd: Okay, how can we recommend this when it doesn’t comply with any
of our ordinances and everything it doesn’t comply with needs a variance? I
don’t have a problem annexing in a church, but the problem is the non-
compliance to our ordinances.
Borup: You are talking about the ditch ordinance.
De Weerd: The ditch ordinance, the right-of-way.
Borup: Which right-of-way?
De Weerd: With the house as it sits.
Borup: Well, it’s an ACHD right-of-way, they don’t have a concern.
De Weerd: Do we have anything in writing that states that?
Borup: That it’s an ACHD right-of-way?
De Weerd: Ah-huh.
Borup: That was a good part of the testimony last week, we have a copy of the
right-of-way easement that wasn’t recorded.
MacCoy: Well, I’ve got a motion on the floor and I’m waiting for a second or a…
De Weerd: I think it died.
MacCoy: Well, no second, so is there another motion?
Borup: I’ll make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman, I move that (Inaudible) commission
recommend approval of this application with an L-O zone with conditional use on
any future development that—that the home be allowed to stay until ACHD
widens the roadway and constructs the sidewalk—with, I’m not sure what we can
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 13
say about the—well, the applicant needs to be aware that they need to request a
variance for tiling the ditches. I’m not saying that’s part of the motion, maybe
part of the motion to be that we recommend to City Council consider that. What
did I leave out?
MacCoy: Is that it?
Borup: I mentioned the sidewalks would again be not required until widening of
the road. I would highly urge that to be within a five year funded project. Also
like, keep all the other staff comments in tact, whatever is left. Concerning the
sewer and water connections and that type of item.
Rossman: What about the ACHD comments?
Borup: I think, you mean as far as (Inaudible) comments tonight?
Rossman: Do you want the ACHD comments included in your recommendation?
Borup: Yes. Well everybody, lets include them all.
Rossman: That’s what I wanted to hear.
Borup: It’s information isn’t it, the more the better?
Smith: Second.
De Weerd: I think he should repeat it.
MacCoy: Any other discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one nay.
MacCoy: Just a comment to the public tonight, you are seeing a work in
progress, because after the past couple of meetings, we will go to council as well
with us, we are all facing the same thing. All the changes in the law system in
the State of Idaho that we are having to comply with and are stepping up to a lot
of things that we are having to ask to do it correctly, so we don’t get taken to
court for it. Okay, moving on.
ITEM NO. 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
OF APPROXIMATELY 4.296 ACRES FOR PROPOSED SCOTTSDALE
SUBDIVISION BY WOLFE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, LLC – SOUTH SIDE
OF WEST FRANKLIN ROAD:
MacCoy: Before we open the public hearing to the public, liked to have the staff
make any comment at this time.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 14
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, did you get a copy of some
comments, a response to our comments? Dated today?
MacCoy: Yes, it came tonight in the box.
Smith: Haven’t even read them.
MacCoy: We just got them before we stepped up here.
Stiles: We had some yesterday, they’ve made some minor corrections and I
believe it’s basically the same one that they submitted yesterday. They have
responded to our comments as requested. They do take exception to our
comments in our memo dated December 4th
, they take exception to items six and
seven of the site specific comments. This 4.296 acres is currently zoned R-15,
it’s surrounded by residential development. If you will remember the Dreamland
Education Center that was constructed on Franklin Road, this is the remainder of
that parcel. They are proposing limited office zone. As to Item number six., we
had requested a 35 foot common lot. Their response was it will be better utilized
as an easement that will be taxable with the City of Meridian. We have come
into some problems with designating those easements because while it would be
a taxable property, the person that buys the lot is a little upset that they have
purchased property that they are not able to us as they wish. Sometimes
improvements are made without the city’s knowledge. It causes problems with
that sewer line and particularly the maintenance access. The next item that they
were discussing, the 20 foot wide planning strip that is required as a buffer
between the two uses. The way our comment was crafted was it would be at the
option of the Planning and Zoning Commission and council whether they would
be required to build that 20 foot planning strip up front or come in on a lot by lot
basis and constructed according to a plan, an approved plan. They are asking
that either the 20 foot planning strip be done on a lot by lot basis or they suggest
that they would provide a ten foot wide planning strip prior to the building
permits. That the remaining ten feet of the 20 foot planning strip would be
designed at the building permit stage. I don’t have a particular problem with that
as long as an acceptable plan is presented to create a buffer between the
residential and office use. Do you have any questions of me about this project?
De Weerd: I have none.
MacCoy: Bruce do you have any comments? Okay, with that we will open up
with the public hearing. Is the applicant here?
VAN ELG, 1800 W OVERLAND ROAD, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 15
Elg: I’ll try and hold this up here for you. The project that Shari described is a
request for a rezone from R-15 which would allow for a higher density residential
development to L-O limited office. When we were discussing this concept with a
client, we discussed the fact that we’ve got a number of single family dwellings in
Finway Park No. 3 and No. 2 along the west and south sides of the project.
We’ve got higher density residential over here, townhouse four-plex type
development over here in Franklin Square Subdivision along the eastern
boundary. We’ve got Dreamland in this location here and there is a sprinkling of
commercial and other types of commercial development along Franklin. As we
talked about it, we recognized the fact that if we were to come in with higher
density residential as allowed in the zone, we would probably meet with
significant opposition from these folks here. Perhaps maybe even these and that
proved true as I discussed with a number of these owners, they did not want to
see more apartments behind their project. These folks, all of them that I talked
to preferred the limited office type development. The nice thing about the L-O
zone is that it does as described in the ordinance kind of provide a transition
between uses. We submitted a copy of—or some pictures and I believe that—I
hope that I can keep this board, every time I bring these you guys kype them
from me, but these things are all in your staff package, all of these original
pictures are there too, I made two sets, gave one to you. These are buildings
that the client has taken pictures of around Boise, if you are familiar with Ustick
between Cole and Five Mile area. You’ve probably seen some of these
commercial developments right there and see what they look like, they are very
attractive and well maintained type of buildings. This is the type of building that
he plans on allowing in that and they are currently finalizing there CC&R’s to
ensure that that type of development, that type of building is constructed there.
We submitted some draft CC&R’s for review. I don’t know if the city attorney’s
have had a chance to review those or not yet. We’ll finalize those and resubmit.
The—prior to the hearing, we recognize that Meridian doesn’t require a
neighborhood meeting, but we submitted some 70 or 80 letters, certified letters
to surrounding residents and businesses and asked them to provide comments
regarding the development. I had a number of phone calls, people who were
concerned, wanted to make sure what was happening. I believe some are in the
audience tonight.
(END OF TAPE)
Elg: As we discussed it with them, I don’t believe anybody was opposed, there
was some concern about buffering and we will be getting into that. At the time of
the neighborhood meeting, one gentleman appeared Gene Mallary I believe his
name was and he had no objection to the project at that point. We’ve got a
statement from him. The only comment that I really received was from—that was
of concern was from a couple of these folks in the four-plexes and some with the
single family wanting to ensure that there was some sort of buffering. These
four-plex units—I think you have a letter from a gentleman adjacent to there in
your staff packet. Spagnelli, or something to that effect. Indicated that he was
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 16
concerned that the second store units of these four-plex units would be able to
look down on these businesses and he was concerned what we were doing to
solve that. I think you can see from what those buildings look like that that’s not
going to be much of a problem. Having said that, the client still agreed that some
sort of buffering would be acceptable. When we read the staff report and they
asked for a 20 foot wide buffer, we recognized that with the setback and
constructing the buffer to that width right now these buildings will more than likely
be pushed back to that setback line. If we attempt to build all the landscaping
and buffering up to that setback line, or that 20 foot buffer. We are going to have
some difficulty when they try and come in and build the units. They are going to
rip it up. So as perhaps a compromise and it works out good for us too, because
I think to make the lots more marketable Gary Benk, the broker for the project is
here tonight also and he may be able to speak to this better than I. To make the
project more marketable, this buffer strip we suggest that we compromise to a
ten foot wide buffer strip along here with some trees and we will submit a
landscape plan to show you what type of vegetation will be there. That could
allow us some flexibility and some elbow room when they come into the
construction stage of this project. The other option is to eliminate it completely
and let the individual lot owners come in and apply for their own individual
landscaping. That would be preferable, but I think from a marketing standpoint
we will probably in fact end up building some landscaping there just for
marketing. So I think reducing it to ten feet would be acceptable to us. With
that, I think I’ll open myself up for any questions. We did ask that—oh, I guess
one other item is this seepage bed and sewer area right here. The staff
suggested that we dedicate this as a separate lot, 35 feet wide. That either the
homeowners association or ACHD be required to maintain. We suggest that an
easement will still work very well in here particularly with the layout that we’ve
got. We submitted a concept layout and it shouldn’t interfere with anything that
we’ve got going on in this area even if it were an easement. We would like to be
able to utilize that area. Whether it be fore asphalt for parking perhaps over the
top to increase the parking area, some landscaping. We recognize that if we
grant ACHD an easement we’ll have to go through them before we can do any of
that and get approval from them. We could certainly leave the sewer line alone
and leave that clear and free. I don’t think we have any difficulty with that, even if
we wrote an easement that said, stated something to the effect that nothing
could be planted or placed in that easement without the express permission of
the City of Meridian. That would be acceptable, it’s right along the property line
anyway. We are not going to build any buildings adjacent to that or right up
against that. So we would ask that you leave those as an easement if possible
and I guess one other point is that we thought about making these larger lots, but
if we did that, we would significantly change, I think we would significantly
change the design of this and these buildings could have gone up to two story
units but then we would be restricted with parking. We would have all kinds of
parking problems because as you go up we still have the parking requirement of
one space per 400 square feet and there simply isn’t that. So we shrunk these
buildings down and it will probably, I just don’t see how we are going to get
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 17
anything higher than a one story unit on any of these with the available space for
parking. So I think that should help solve some of the concerns that you are not
going to have two story units. It’s very unlikely that you will have any two story
units here. With that, I’ll open myself up for any questions.
Rossman: Did you say the separate copy of these photographs have been
provided to staff?
Elg: Yes. Shari you still have those in your packets still don’t you?
Rossman: The photographs?
Elg: The photos, you still have those in your packet. We sent in a copy of those
photos. They were mounted on 8.5 X 11 sheets.
Stiles: City clerk may.
Elg: If not, we’ve got the negatives, we can make another set.
Rossman: I would just like to see if we have those that is already in the record.
If not, we will probably need to confiscate your…
Elg: Kype it again.
Smith: Clarification, you are going to market this thing and sell these individual
lots to individual buyers?
Elg: Yes.
Smith: Who will in turn higher their own engineers and architects to design their
buildings.
Elg: Yes, but they will have to comply with the CC&R’s.
Smith: They have to comply with your CC&R’s and you realize that that city
would be putting it’s tail in a legal predicament to—if we even gave the
impression that we reviewed CC&R’s.
Elg: But it is a requirement.
Smith: What?
Elg: CC&R review.
Smith: It’s my understanding that we don’t do that, that we don’t want to do it,
we are not supposed to do it.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 18
Nelson: We still require, but we don’t have any enforcement of those.
Elg: I think what you…I think what happens you take them in and make sure
they comply with the basic elements of the Meridian zoning ordinance and that
they don’t violate that and then we are bound by the terms and conditions of the
zoning ordinance. The owner has indicated to me that there is some possibility
that he may construct one or two of the units perhaps as a—for marketing and as
a start for the project. I don’t know if that’s solidified or not. I suspect that they
will be sold individually without buildings.
Smith: I guess where I’m going with this thing is—well first the question, lots 3 &
4 is the only lots that you don’t have any footprint indicated on, are those—is
there a reason for that?
Elg: They were narrow and left to lot to be—anything that we put on there we
hesitated even submitting the concept plan because we didn’t want anybody to
feel that plan was locked in. I think Shari made the comment and we agreed that
these designs were purely conceptual. We hesitated sending in pictures
because those tend to lock us in too. I believe that we can make a statement
fairly surely that the design will resemble those.
Smith: In other words these will be developed lots.
Elg: Oh, they will have all utilities and services, is that what you mean?
Smith: They will be devel—marketed and sold as a developable lot.
Elg: Yes, as a developable lot. Right.
Smith: Where I was going with this CC&R thing is, I’d like to see these things
before they’re built.
Rossman: I don’t have a copy of them in my file, I believe you said you
submitted them.
Elg: Yeah we submitted a draft copy of some that we have used in the past.
Keep in mind that the CC&R’s may not dictate a whole lot more as far as building
design, they may specify they have to be a wood shingle. I haven’t been privy to
the attorney’s final draft of those. There may be some building material
requirements in that I suspect that there will be. Typically they aren’t extremely
binding. So there is some flexibility on that, I suppose.
Smith: That’s why I want to review it again.
Elg: But you know, you get that with any project.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 19
Smith: (Inaudible) CC&R’s I don’t want to review, I want to review the proposed
design (Inaudible).
Elg: I guess that’s probably the place where there is room for growth. I don’t
know what the design review process is—well Meridian doesn’t have a design
review process really, do they Shari? So, I guess I’m telling you I don’t know if
the CC&R’s are going to give you any great burst of knowledge or tremendous
reassurance.
Smith: I don’t even care about looking at the CC&R’s. I don’t care what they
say. I’m more interested in what is actually going to be proposed and
constructed. That’s all my comments at the moment.
Rossman: I suppose we should make sure we are confining any determination—
I guess even discussion at this point to annexation and zoning, since there are
two public hearings designated and the first being the annexation and zoning,
second being subdivision permit approvals. So, I guess we should address them
in order.
MacCoy: Correct.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, just one question at this time for Mr. Elgs. You said you
did hold a neighborhood meeting where you sent letters.
Elg: We did hold it.
Borup: You did hold it and you had one person show up?
Elg: Yes.
Borup: That was out of 70 letters?
Elg: Between 70 and 80 letters.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions on the applicant about annexation and zoning?
Okay, we thank you sir. If you have no more comments, you can sit down.
Public hearing, is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this
project? Looks like he said it all, didn’t he. Anybody here wanting to get up and
speak in the other side, the negative side? I guess not. Commissioners what is
your decision for public hearing?
Rossman: Perhaps before closing the public hearing, maybe we ought to get
any comments by staff on the record so that the applicant can have an
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 20
opportunity to respond in an open public hearing if in fact he deems that
necessary. Don’t you think that will move a little smoother?
MacCoy: Staff do you have any comments now at the end of his comments?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission on this issue of item no.
6 site specific with the common lot requirement by staff, three or four years ago
Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian came together on an
agreement as to how to handle the public right-of-way drainage when they want
to put it outside the right-of-way. It was the city’s feeling that public road right-of-
way should be handled in the public right-of-way. By putting them outside of the
public right-of-way, it does give a little design flexibility and we finally came to an
agreement if there was a common lot created for the seepage beds and a
blanket easement was granted to the highway district for heavy maintenance of
that facility, that it would be acceptable. That was an agreement, like I say we
came to about four years ago. So that kind of addresses the seepage bed issue.
As far as the sewer main, we just, we have to maintain full access to our sewer
mains for maintenance and when we have a situation where you’ve got two cul-
de-sac that come back to back and you have an easement down between them,
you’ve got a manhole in each cul-de-sac, it’s not as critical because we can
access both manholes. In this case, you have an angle point in the sewer line,
at the back lot line. We need to be able to access that manhole at all times.
Therefore, we’ve always, it’s been our policy to require a common lot over the
sewer lines. So, hope that…
MacCoy: Okay, I understand your point.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we better—commissioner De Weerd has
stepped out, certainly we should wait till she gets back to continue any further
testimony. So that she can have the benefit of that in making any determinations
that she may make in this application.
MacCoy: You are correct.
(BREAK)
MacCoy: All the photos are on the record then, good. Thank you. Where did
we leave off here?
Smith: We were waiting for staff comments.
MacCoy: We just had those, so it’s up to you people for discussion. What did
you want to say before to close the public hearing or discuss?
Smith: We were going to have the applicant respond if he had any response to
any staff comments.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 21
Borup: I had some questions on some of the staff comments.
De Weerd: Yeah, before the applicant comes forward.
Borup: Sure, Bruce this was on the drainage easement, are you saying that all
drainage easements outside of the right-of-way in Meridian have been on
common lots? In the last whatever time period since it’s been enforced.
Freckleton: Yes, that is true, residential and commercial.
Borup: And is that—I guess it doesn’t matter what ACHD is doing else where
does it? Which was my other—the other question that I had was the comment
on the applicants comment and maybe I just need some education here that
having it as an easement lot would--how was that worded, it will be taxable within
the City of Meridian. Is a common lot not taxable? Is there any difference? No?
Freckleton: I don’t believe that homeowner associations or property owned by
homeowner associations is taxable.
Borup: Is not taxable.
Freckleton: Not taxable.
Borup: Then, I don’t think there was any comment, Shari do you have any
comment on the buffer to doing it ten and ten, rather than 20 to start with?
Stiles: I would like to see that actually shown on the plat as a ten—20 foot
landscape setback, but it’s perfectly reasonable to develop it the way that they
are talking about, providing within that ten feet they have a pretty good plan in
place for the buffering.
Borup: Okay, thank you. That’s all I had.
MacCoy: That’s all you had, will the applicant come forward before we close this
so you can make your rebuttal. If you want to call it that.
Elg: Yes, I guess that I will emphasize again that we would like to be able to use
that landsc—or drainage area. It is going to be a subsurface, so it will be
completely covered over. It seems a shame to have to let it sit there and there is
a seepage bed there, but it’s not a pond and it would seem beneficial to be able
to use that and maintain it as taxable property, but if we have no other options, I
guess that’s what we will have to do. With respect to the buffering, we would ask
that you make a specific motion when you act on it to—of course we are just
doing the rezone right now, aren’t we so let me pull that back.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 22
MacCoy: You are getting ahead of the game.
Borup: I guess my question was too.
Elg: I have no other questions regarding the rezone.
MacCoy: Any questions for the applicant?
Borup: No, mine was already premature.
MacCoy: Yes it was, okay thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have one more for staff. If we rezone this to L-O and
this is still treated as one development, so is there site design site review, can
that be built in there, or? I guess I don’t understand how the process goes on
that when it’s just in all one project. It will—you have design review lot by lot, or
can you build that in, Commissioner Smith had mentioned that he would like to
see that kind of thing in there, but can it be a condition?
Stiles: Planning and Zoning Commission and council can put whatever
conditions that they want on a rezone, you can require a development
agreement incorporating those requirements, you can make it a condition of
rezone that they come in for site plan, or design review on each parcel, which I
would hope that maybe you didn’t do. You can make specific requirements
maybe if you want to see that ten foot, how they are going to landscape that ten
foot piece that you review that at one time. As a condition of the rezone, you can
place a lot of requirements on that. You have the ability to do that. I didn’t
specifically make that a comment that you could require a development
agreement. I’m not particularly happy with the way the development agreement
process is going right now, but we could certainly do that in this case.
De Weerd: Are there any frontage requirements or anything like that? As far as
each parcel would go, for landscaping or you know, entrance or anything like
that?
Stiles: Just a setback requirement. There is a 20 foot setback requirement on
this street if it’s designated as a local street. There is a 25 foot setback on
Franklin Road that I requested that that all be landscaped because it’s an
entrance corridor. Other than that...
De Weerd: So there could be curb sidewalk and then asphalt. There is no
landscaping requirements for each parcel?
Stiles: They would be required to have a minimum of four feet per ordinance on
the front.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 23
De Weerd: Okay.
MacCoy: Public hearing is the point of order now. What do you want to do?
Borup: I move that we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Smith: Any discussion that I have would be on the next item.
MacCoy: Remember we have annexation and zoning on this one so, what do
you want to do?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to City
Council to approve this request for annexation and zoning to L-O.
Borup: Second.
Rossman: Point of clarification, is the motion to approve it with the conditions set
forth within staffs comments and the comments of the…
Freckleton: Just wanted to make another point of clarification, this is a rezone,
this is not annexation.
MacCoy: It’s listed as an annexation and zoning piece on our paper. It’s a
rezone huh?
Freckleton: It’s a rezone.
Borup: That’s right, it’s currently zoned R-15.
Smith: Let me withdraw that motion.
De Weerd: Keith do you withdraw your second?
Borup: Yes, I don’t think there is that many comments pertaining to the zoning.
MacCoy: Okay, then we will back to the beginning again.
Smith: The six and seven, I’d…
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 24
Borup: That’s to the preliminary plat.
Smith: Modify that?
Borup: No, that’s on the preliminary plat. I don’t think any of the staff comments
pertain to the zoning, then the site specific.
Rossman: If they don’t, then we just need that direction and we will save the
comments for the plat approval.
Smith: All right, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend
to City Council approval of this request for rezone from R-15 to L-O.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Okay, any discussion? None. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
SCOTTSDALE SUBDIVISION BY WOLFE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, LLC
– SOUTH SIDE OF W. FRANKLIN ROAD:
MacCoy: At this time staff do you have anything to comment on?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, I guess I addressed most of the
comments for the plat in the previous hearing.
MacCoy: All right, thank you. Bruce do you have anything?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, there was one thing that
I thought of that could possibly solve this drainage issue. That is if they would
redesign there drainage seepage bed under the sidewalk instead of in a common
lot, they could gain 20 feet there that they could use in their lot.
MacCoy: Good point. All right, he’s thinking. All right with that I’ll open the
public hearing, will the applicant come back to the podium and you can do as
you have done before and say that you want all your comments commented in…
Elg: Oh no, I have a 30 minutes speech prepared, I’m kidding. I’ll incorporate all
the testimony from the previous hearing into this one, if you have any questions I
would be glad to try and answer then for you now.
Smith: Could you comment on Bruce’s suggestion on…
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 25
Elg: I suspect if we’ve got that flexibility that maybe we modify that condition to
say something to the effect design the seepage bed to comply with public works
standards or something and if we put it in the side there, I suppose, if I’m reading
you right, it sounds like we are going to end up putting a lot in there. We could
probably investigate putting it under the sidewalk and eliminate that lot. We’ll still
have to have an easement for the sewer though, or a lot Bruce says. I guess for
the record we need to indicate how big that lot has to be if it is for sewer Bruce.
Freckleton: Twenty.
Elg: Twenty feet.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I had the same question that I think that Bruce had
mentioned is why wasn’t the seepage bed just designed in the right-of-way and
then you won’t have to worry about that problem.
Elg: I don’t know that right off hand. I’ll have to discuss that with Dean Briggs
who is the engineer for the project.
Borup: So by doing that it sounds like you could gain 15 feet.
Elg: Yeah.
Borup: Are you aware of any projects been approved in Meridian in the last
while where they did not, where they allowed an easement for a seepage bed?
Elg: You are bating me, aren’t you? No I’m not aware of one.
Borup: It sounds like it’s being consistent with Meridian’s policy. Is that policy
different in other municipalities? I don’t know if it makes any difference, but I’m
curious.
Elg: I deal with a wide range of municipalities, but yes there are places that will
allow just easements.
Borup: On a seepage bed?
Elg: Um-huh.
Borup: It sounds like a redesign of that would solve that problem.
Elg: Would ask if that be the option, that we not be stalled by bringing it back to
P & Z, we can address that issue with staff if necessary.
MacCoy: I don’t see why not.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 26
Borup: I don’t think that will effect anything that we need.
MacCoy: Anything else for him?
Borup: Any other comments on the buffering? You had talked about developer
putting in ten feet and each lot owner doing the other ten.
Elg: There is a total of a 20 foot buffer there. We don’t disagree with that, I think
that’s fine, but like I said, if we put the ten foot in, if we put a full 20 foot, it’s going
to get torn up. If the individual lot owners say that they have a building and they
want to put a patio or a walkway back there, then we are altering that landscape
plan for that 20 foot buffer, it may not—it may or may there maybe some conflicts
with his actual site design. If we leave a ten foot area, then it gives him some
flexibility to put in his lawn or bushes or trees or whatever it is that he wants to do
back there on his—on the rear of his lot. It still gives us some marketability, I
think. I think that’s why the owners agreed to that ten foot strip.
Borup: Was it your intention that the ten foot would have the trees and other--
most of the trees and plantings would be in that ten foot? I think that definitely
does give flexibility to the site.
Nelson: I think Shari wanted to document that the 20 feet was okay. Document
the 20 feet and on the plat…
Elg: That’s basically the setback anyway.
Nelson: So if we could just comment that on the plat when it goes to City
Council. That’s all we want to do.
Elg: We could show that on the preliminary plat. I think it’s already shown as
a…I guess we don’t identify it as a buffer.
Borup: No, it isn’t.
(Inaudible)
Borup: And the landscaping on Franklin will be indicated on the plat?
Elg: Yes. Point of clarification, you mean the landscape buffer will be shown on
the plat, right?
Borup: Well, yes on both Franklin and the perimeter.
Elg: Right.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 27
Borup: I think Franklin is not necessarily a buffer, more than an entrance
landscaping.
Elg: Correct. The plat probably won’t show the individual trees that would have
to come through a separate plan probably. Maybe we can show some landscape
and some vegetation on that if that’s acceptable to you Shari?
Borup: That was my next question then, it won’t be on the plat. That will be
reviewed by staff then? Planning and Zoning would review their landscaping.
That’s all I have.
MacCoy: Any other commissioner have any other question for the applicant?
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: All right, you can have a seat. Rest a little bit. Is there anyone here
now as we talk about this part of the project for the preliminary plat that has a
good words for the point or the project. If not, is anybody here we would like to
get on the other side of the fence and have some comments about the project.
Okay, I guess not.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close the public
hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: All right, with that is there any discussion?
De Weerd: I have none.
Smith: The only thing that I would like to see is that we review all these
individual projects. I’m a little skeptical on what these buildings are going to look
like.
De Weerd: I don’t need to.
Rossman: I guess the only purpose for design review would be to—the only
thing that you can review it is to ensure that it is complying with the standards
and provisions in the ordinance. They are not asking for conditional use permit,
they are asking for subdivision preliminary plat, which is certainly less
encompassing than a conditional use permit. I guess if you send it over for
design review, your flexibility on design review on this application would be a lot
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 28
more restricted than it would be on for example a conditional use. You
understand what I’m saying?
Smith: Is there the option that ask for conditional use.
Rossman: No, you can ask for a development agreement, I guess.
Smith: Or I could take the attitude that I can’t see it from my house.
Rossman: I suppose you could do that too.
De Weerd: Well they have to sell the additional parcels so I’m sure they have a
vested interest of what they look like.
Smith: I can drive you around the valley here and disprove that theory in about
five minutes.
Rossman: I guess what I’m saying is without an ordinance revisement (sic) or
amendment, your flexibility is not there on a subdivision like this where it’s
compatible use. As long as they are complying with the ordinance and their
CC&R’s then that’s the extent of your flexibility.
MacCoy: What is your desires commissioners?
Borup: I have the same concerns as Commissioner Smith I think, but I’d hate to
see us getting into design review on each individual lot. We’re not doing that in
any of the other subdivisions. Maybe we need, maybe there can be some
stipulations on there as far as design, I don’t know how, to what detail you want
to view it. The only concern I have, I think is all the pictures I believe that were
shown were single story. Testimony was that it was anticipated that they would
be single story because of the size of the lots. Unless it states that in their
CC&R’s I don’t know that they are limited to that.
Smith: We can make that a part of our. That was a part of a motion that I could
go along with not doing a review on each project.
MacCoy: Make your motion then.
Smith: That all mechanical equipment be strained from view from adjacent
properties.
Borup: That’s usually not the quite the problem on the small building, I don’t
think.
Smith: Right, all these buildings they showed had pitched roofs, but…but once a
flat roof goes up there’s these slapping units up there probably.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 29
MacCoy: Unless you put them on a pitch, you know and put a well in the middle.
You can do that.
Smith: So, I can, I would be willing to make a motion.
De Weerd: Then do it.
Smith: Okay.
Nelson: Before you make a motion can we discuss real quick the issue of the 35
foot, we kind of discussed making that—giving them some leeway to change that
design slightly.
Smith: I’ll make that as part of…Before I make this motion, I just verify that this is
a request for a preliminary plat?
Rossman: Also please keep in mind in your motion staff comments, assuming
that you may or may not want those included, also their recommendation of
storm water management and also recommendations of the Meridian Irrigation
District. If you want them included just include that in your motion please.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to City
Council approval of this project with the following modifications. The
incorporation of staff comments with the modification of site specific comment
number six, that the applicant redesign the drainage seepage bed to comply with
Meridian City Ordinance in accordance with recommendations or suggestions
made by Bruce Freckleton tonight and that item seven under site specific
comments a 20 foot wide planning strip be modified to state that the developer
install a ten foot wide planting strip and that the owner of each lot be required to
have to add the extra ten foot to make a total of 20 foot landscape planning strip
as a buffer between the office use and the residential use. That the—
Borup: That the 20 foot be designated on the plat.
Smith: That the 20 foot be designated on the plat as landscape, as a planning
strip buffer and that the Franklin Road corridor be designated as a landscape
areas and that all other agency comments be incorporated in our
recommendation to City Council.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 30
ITEM NO. 5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR ROARING SPRINGS A FAMILY WATER PARK BY REED J.
BOWEN, JR -- SOUTH OF I-84 & WEST OF HIGHWAY 69:
MacCoy: Before the public hearing, staff do you have any comments at this
time?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, this is quite a little different project
than we have ever seen before in the City of Meridian, for a water park
immediately adjacent to Boondock’s south of the interstate and north of
Overland. You have our comments in the memo dated December7, 1998. We
would request some of the fixes to the site plan that have been submitted. The
major items that we would like to see would include the traffic impact study. I
believe one has been prepared, they are working out the details with Ada County
Highway District and maybe Mr. Snead can speak to that. Some additional
information on the water usage. We have an existing permit, apparently well #14
would supply the water for this project. They have an initial requirement of I
believe, of 1.5 million gallons. They would coordinate the filling of that initial fill
with the public works department, we just need to have the applicant submit a
letter from the department of water resource. Bruce tells me we would modify
that comment about the request of the applicant to get the letter from the
department of water resources, the City of Meridian will get that information and
make sure it’s appropriate before any filling is done. That would be number 23,
site specific. They will need to vacate the road, private road and the utility
easements, I don’t think they have a problem with doing that. They’ve got a
pretty aggressive schedule that they have requested that any help they can get
on expediting this they would appreciate. We do understand that you know that’s
not your responsibility and that you want to give this careful consideration and
consider everything that needs to be done. I have every confidence that the
applicant will comply with everything that the city asks of them. I think it’d be a
great addition to the City of Meridian, it will have an impact on the traffic, but it
will also be a great draw for people from throughout the northwest, I’m sure.
They’ve got, as far as my part of it, I think they’ve got a very good landscape
plan within the parking lot. They didn’t hesitate to do a nice design there. You
have some of the copies that the elevations on some of the buildings that they
had there. My major concern which is the buffering along the interstate and the
appearance of the park from the interstate. If Bruce has anything else.
MacCoy: Bruce do you have anything? While you are thinking, I have a
question for you since we did not receive in our package any document which
said how much in some type of quantity that was—I thought was exacting how
much water they would be using, and how much water they would be using per
month and so on. We didn’t get that from either staff or from the water
department I can’t be able to find it so far.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 31
Freckleton: Chairman MacCoy, members of the commission we’ve had some
preliminary meetings with the applicant, what a month ago or so. We’ve got
some preliminary numbers on consumption, 1.5 million gallons was the initial fill,
then they have a maintenance volume that I believe was around 60,000 a day.
They do have a pretty ingenious method of replenishment. They have a
perimeter, they call it the lazy river, if I remember right. They would fill that at
night and then they use water from that lazy river to replenish the slides during
the day. So that lazy river acts as a reservoir. In our comments we did talk
about setting up a pretty restrictive schedule as far as volumes and rates of the
fill and the maintenance of volumes of water. We’ve talked with our consultant
and we don’t think that is going to be a problem working that out. We do, we
would like to see some more exact calculations on the consumption and I think
that their consulting engineer has been working on that.
MacCoy: What you are say is that you feel comfortable with what you have
presently and that you are going to receive the rest of it and going to receive the
rest of it in due time. So if we make a decision we are not putting ourselves and
the city out on a stick out there under the false assumption that we have
everything in the area we can supply and turn around and find out that we’ve
made a mistake some place. That’s my only concern is the fact that it’s a
quantity of water, we are supplied by wells in this city and that is our prime
source and as stated in one of your comments there, that is the one source for
the city is there is the water to the households and then everything comes
second. I hate to think that we are going to short shoot ourselves someplace
down the road.
Freckleton: Gary Smith our public works director has been in contact with—he’s
going to—today he made contact with a consultant, hydro-geologist that is very
familiar with the water situation in Meridian as well as the whole valley.
Discussed the project at great length. Gary also attempted to make contact with
water resources to talk it over with them too. We don’t, from the information that
we’ve been provided and from what we are hearing from our consultants, it’s just
not sending up any huge red flags at this point. I think there are some concerns,
but I don’t think that they are anything that are going to kill us, at this juncture.
MacCoy: All right, thank you. With that, I will open it up to a public hearing, will
the applicant please step forward. Looks like you have a dog and pony show
tonight.
ROGER SMITH, PINNACLE ENGINEERS, WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Smith … represent the owners. I work with Pinnacle Engineers here in
Meridian, 870 N. Linder. Chairman MacCoy, Commissioners, we’re real excited
to present this project to you today. We think that Shari that it’s going to be a
tremendous draw for the City and an excellent opportunity for recreation for the
people in the local area. We’ve looked at a number of things on this site. Shari
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 32
said it’s between Overland Road and the freeway and it’s just immediately east
of Blue Marlin Lane, right next to Boondocks just on the west side of the
Sandman Motel and the rest of the development that’s right there on the Kuna
Meridian Highway, Highway 69. We feel that we’ve got a really workable plan
here. It’s something that we’re working with topography the environment. We’re
working with the existing utilities that are here. We have a tremendous amount
of ground and providing a lot of open space, green space. We think we would be
meeting you know the attractiveness that we’re looking for both from Overland
Road from the freeway that it’s a very good project. We’re working with about a
15 acre site here. The owners have an option on the 11 acres of ground that are
immediately east of this project so that area will be open at least in the short
term. It does provide an area for expansion for the park. Also expansion parking
if required so we think this is a you know we’ve got a lot of room to work with.
This is as Shari said it’s going to be a traffic issue. We do have a traffic study
under way. The traffic engineer has been working with Ada County Highway
District on it. Most of the issues are related to turning movements. One of the
things that’s in the staff report from you from the City is a request for a
deceleration lane which we’ve included on a current plan. The most recent
version. What you are looking at here is slightly different I think than what the
plan was that we submitted about a month ago. We juggled around the
attractions inside the park a little bit, but the overall make up the number of rides,
those kinds of things have stayed essentially the same. One item that I think
would be interesting to note is that on the original projection for this
development, based on the number of lots that are in here and the type of
commercial development when the subdivision was done estimated around
7,000 trips a day for vehicles. Our park we expect to – well ACHD views this
park as generating a maximum of 3,000 vehicle trips per day so we see that as a
significant asset. We’re only taking up 60% of the developable ground in here
right now so you know that would be 4200 trips a day roughly that would have
been generated before actually a little more than that. So from a traffic
standpoint, we think that this use might be a little bit better than would have been
in there previously. To elaborate on the parking a little bit, we do have enough
parking for a little over 700 cars right now, and as I said there’s a little bit of room
to the east where we could expand the parking lot if necessary. That provides for
the maximum vehicle the expected maximum vehicle trips per day of 3,000, a 4
to 1 parking ratio and that would assume that everyone was there at the same
time, which we really don’t expect to be the case. We expect to be a drop or
youth groups and those kinds of things where people probably come in bunches
and certainly for families and corporate parties, those types of things, so we feel
that we’re adequately parked. The experience of the people that we’re working
with a couple of companies, an engineering firm and a slide developer out of
Canada indicate to us that the parking we have is typical of what they’re doing in
other areas for type of facility. As far as the structures go, I do have some slides
or at least something for you to look at. As you’ll see as this is passed around
the construction of the buildings is going to be a split face masonry with seam
metal roof. The coordination of the structures will be constructed similarly so that
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 33
there will be a continuous theme throughout the park. We feel that we’re going
to you know we certainly want to provide an attractive appearance for our guests
and clients, so it’s something that we’re going to want to do is to make this place
very attractive and have people enjoy their time there. There will be two
mechanical buildings besides the cluster of buildings that you are looking at
there. The upper portion of the plan has an entrance ticketing building, two
locker room buildings and then a merchandizing and administrative building
that’s behind those, so that’s what you see when you enter the park is looking on
the right hand side of the drawing that’s on the easel. There are two more
buildings that you can see in the lower left hand side of it that are mechanical
pumping rooms. One of those the one that’s further to the right is the taller of the
two buildings, that’s a two story structure, but half of that is in the ground. So
we’re not going to be presenting a tremendous silhouette against the hillside with
that structure. We do have a building the one that’s to the west that’s going to be
the closest to the freeway. It is set back far enough from the 20 foot easement
that we’d like to have for the landscape buffer. There will be an access drive
down in there so it’s not all going to be landscape, but it’s set off of the freeway
right-of-way by about 33 feet at its closest point. You either get area of
landscape that’s there, we feel that’s going to much more than compensate for
any green space that might be lost by the access drive.
MacCoy: Do we have this for our file?
Roger Smith: Yes, if you’d like a couple of other perspectives. Something that
you don’t see off of the drawing that’s on the easel is the amount of elevation –
the elevation difference as you drop down the hillside there. There’s about 20
feet of drop from where the building pad will be to where the lowest pool area is.
So we’ll be obviously using that to provide some fall for the slides but we’ll also
be having a flattened out area at the bottom that provides for I guess the
(inaudible) or larger bodies of water that we won’t need the drop for.
MacCoy: All right thank you.
Roger Smith: Those are also yours to keep. Just so you know we have several
different kinds of slides. You can see the varying configurations up there. The
slides the descriptions that we have here on the floor are not represented to be
exactly those, but things will be similar to what’s going to be within the park.
There’s the speed slides where they drop straight down the hill and you know
kids can race each other. People can wind up in one shot and go down at the
same time together to see who beats who to the bottom. There are the twisting
turning slides that provide a different ride obviously. There’s a large area in the
bottom. Bruce has already referred to it that is called the Lazy River that is a
large just free floating column water area for people to just relax and take a float
around the lower portion of the park. There are activity pools and a children’s
area. Essentially children only area with structures within the pool area that they
can play upon and there’s also a wave pool which is the largest pool that you see
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 34
down at the very bottom on the lower left. As I said we have a lot of open space.
We expect to have picnics and parties, get togethers, those kinds of things on
the open grass areas that are within the park. Lastly the utilities are available.
There is water on essentially three sides of this project in Overland Road and
Blue Marlin Lane and then a 8 inch water sub that runs down what would have
been another road within the subdivision and there’s some discussion about
vacating that. Something that we will be doing the gas sewer, there’s gravity
sewer at the lower extremes of this project area, and we feel that we have
adequate services to work within. We’ll be connecting obviously the utilities up
within the park and working those details with staff as indicated in the staff’s
letter. I do have the detailed numbers for the water consumption that Bruce is
looking for. We’re actually looking for a little bit less than, not significantly less
than, but a little bit less than the 1 ½ million gallon of water for fill. There’s some
flushing and kind of thing that’s included in those numbers and the 60,000
gallons of water a day make up water is accurate and we will be working with the
City of the times that we can do that and not impact the rest of the City’s water
demand. Subject to your questions, that’s all I have.
MacCoy: I’ve got two questions for you. Are you in any way affiliated with the
slide that was here about two years down –
Roger Smith: Wild Waters.
MacCoy: Yes.
Roger Smith: No.
MacCoy: That’s a different operation. And the other question I have is this just a
seasonal thing? Are you going to work all year round?
Roger Smith: Expect it to only operate on the order of three to four months. The
warm weather months of the year. It won’t be a full time operation as far as the
park goes. At least that’s not projected currently. The temperatures particularly
on a day like today, we wouldn’t see much activity.
MacCoy: You wouldn’t have ice slides or anything.
Roger Smith: No.
MacCoy: Then is there any questions from the commissioners?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clarify your comment on the traffic. I
think staff had mentioned earlier their only main two concerns was traffic study
and the water usage. You’d mentioned the figure of 6,000 vehicles today. You
say that was the anticipated traffic ACHD came up with when this area was first –
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 35
Roger Smith: I think and I’m kind of quoting off of some information that we’ve
been given that it was 7800 vehicles per day.
Borup: 7800.
Roger Smith: Right. I think I said 7000 previously, so prorating that to us having
60% of the ground in here now.
Borup: That 7800 that was on the 26 acres. 15 plus the even that you optioned?
Roger Smith: I believe so. It might include Boondocks and those parcels also.
Borup: So this subdivision was approved at that time based on that type of traffic
count.
Roger Smith: That’s correct.
Borup: I think you answered the question on the water usage. How many
gallons – what’s the size of the river as far as the water gallons?
Roger Smith: I don’t have that specific number.
Borup: Apparently considerably more than 60,000.
Roger Smith: Yes, considerably more than 60,000 gallons.
Borup: So you’re anticipating –
Roger Smith: situation of several inches a day for the water that that would drop
from evaporation from people carrying water out with them when they exit pools.
Those types of things.
Borup: So it sounds like the 60,000 gallons which would be replenished from the
river is not really – doesn’t have much effect on it, you’re saying?
Roger Smith: No, it won’t have a significant operational effect on it.
Borup: Thank you.
Smith: The landscape plan overall that was submitted, this is all new proposed
parking.
Roger Smith: That’s correct.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 36
Smith: Okay and you mentioned that you anticipated that there be a lot of
groups of kids coming, and I would assume that they’d be on buses, vans, that
kind of thing.
Roger Smith: We would expect a certain percentage of that.
Smith: But there’s no provisions made on the site plan for any kind of parking for
those types of vehicles.
Roger Smith: That’s correct. We expect to if there is use of double stalls for you
know parking through two lanes of parking and perhaps a lower area of the
parking areas is something that the owners are expecting to accommodate.
Particularly if it’s a group and they can schedule in advance and make
arrangements for the kind of.
Smith: What would be the maximum height of one of these water slides above
adjacent grade.
Roger Smith: I think the tallest one is about 50 feet relative to adjacent grade.
Smith: Okay.
Roger Smith : Because we have fall, I think the tallest fall we have is seven.
(Inaudible)
Roger Smith: Because we are able to use the fall with the ground, we won’t
have to make them the full height obviously of the fall, so the towers are going to
be in the 35, maybe 40 foot maximum range adjacent to existing grade.
Smith: That’s all I (Inaudible).
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson, do you have anything? Question, I didn’t see
any handicap parking in your parking zone. Maybe that we were interested in
the preliminary form.
Roger Smith: I believe you have site plans, if you look at the—well, actually the
area in the lower right hand corner of the drawing that is on the easel. The
parking are is the same layout that you folks have now. There is a series of stalls
right adjacent to the sidewalk and the lower right hand corner of the landscaped
area where that one slide is. That is the area where the handicap parking will be
because it’s the closest to adjacent to a sidewalk that they can just directly come
on to the—be able to immediately access. We are considering the ADA
restrictions and those kinds of things.
MacCoy: You also got it for vans so they have side loads and so on.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 37
Roger Smith: The standard ACHD stalls.
MacCoy: Okay, if that’s the case you can sit down for a moment. Is there
anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this? Pretty quiet. Anyone in
here who wants to speak on the other side of the fences and find out if they have
some questions or if they have a negative they think they have, they might get an
answer for them. You may come up. Yes.
BEVERLY HAGLUND, 1287 E. STRUCKER, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN
BY THE ATTORNEY.
Haglund: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions, if the park is going to be
open up for only a few months of the year—my real concern with Meridian, my
husband and I bought our home a year ago. We like Meridian, but it’s growing
so fast, it’s kind of turning into an old redeveloped area and when I look at the
park, one of my concerns was what is going to happen in the winter time and
what happens if you are only open a few months of the year and—I mean I know
you all want to make this work, but if it doesn’t work, the last thing Meridian
needs is another abandoned building or something that never gets off the ground
like it should. What’s going to happen to it in the winter, what is it going to look
like? Is it still going to be attractive all year long as people come into our state
from the interstate, what are they going to see during the winter time? My
husband and I went to northern Idaho and we drove to Coeur d’ Alene and what
was that place?
Rossman: Silverwood?
Haglund: Yeah, that is the most ugly thing in the winter that I’ve ever seen. It’s
just right there on the freeway, it’s all this wood that looks like some structure that
is so unattractive that I was very,very disappointed because I heard it was so
beautiful up there. So anyway, my concern is it still going to be as pretty as the
picture even in the winter time? Is it something people want to go to and if it
doesn’t make it, what is going to happen? Can you make it work, is it going to
cost so much that it won’t pay for itself? Ends up to be abandoned in five years
and I don’t know what happened to the other water park by the freeway over
there, but it has stood there for a long time not being used. Eventually went
away. So, I’m just kind of curious about all that.
MacCoy: We’ll get you Nancy here in a minute. Is there anybody else who
would like to come forward and have a question say or whatever you want to call
them. Okay, if not, the applicant come back up here and you’ve got one question
to answer anyway.
Roger Smith: I guess just to answer as it relates to the wild waters park that was
in Boise previously that I guess some people know went away because of the
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 38
interchange that was done there and the reason it stood vacant was that they
were waiting to do the construction there. There wasn’t anything done with that
for a long time. It wasn’t operated because it was condemned by the state, or
the state bought it off, and that became part of the interchange. So that’s what
happened with that one. As far what this will look like in the winter time, the type
of structures that we are building are going to look, are meant to be very low
maintenance and look good year round. They are going to be reasonably
modern looking structure with an exterior that requires little to no maintenance.
The buildings will look like they do in the summer time, obviously the foliage the
grass is going to turn brown like it does in your yard and we will winterize the
park and drawing the water levels down so they are below, like any other pool
would, draw the water levels down so they are below the jet level and blow them
out so the pipes don’t freeze in the winter time. Other than that, that’s about all
the change there is. The trees will loose their leaves and the Pines will keep
there needles. That’s about the extent of what we will do.
MacCoy: Any thought to in the future trying to—since we have ice time here, low
temperatures, and so on, making it a slide for kids with ice lining, burlap and
whatever license?
Roger Smith: I think they would have to take a look at the liability aspects,
certainly, if we are ready to operate as a water park. I’m not sure that we are
ready operate as a snow slide.
MacCoy: Along with the same line that she was talking about, you know, you try
and look for other usage.
Roger Smith: It may be a possibility and I think the owners will consider that. I
think the future plans if this expands there maybe other options for winter time
use that will keep the whole thing open for more of the year. I think that is about
all we can address on that. From the standpoint of whether it will make it or not.
We’ve looked at the marketability and the demographics of the area. What the
previous park used as far as people and what the draw will be and certainly
wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think it would make it.
MacCoy: We have a lot more kids now days then we did two years ago.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. First would be what are
the width of your planting strips in the parking lot?
Roger Smith: They are a minimum of six feet at the request of Shari.
De Weerd: Around your park, do you have—what kind of fencing are you using,
or how are you?
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 39
R. Smith: There will be a – have you been to Boondocks? Are you familiar with
what Boondocks’ fence is? It will be something along those lines. We’re not
expecting to do a chain link, razor wire type of thing because it wouldn’t look very
good. You know nobody would want to be there. We’ll have it as something
that’s attractive. We would like to be a draw from the interstate. We want it to
look good. We want people to go by the thing on their commute from Nampa
and say boy, that’s a neat looking place. You know we want to go there. So it’s
a high priority for us to make this a really attractive draw from the street. We’re
going to do some low level lighting inside the park at night that’s going to – I
mean it’s not just going to be a black hole there at night. It will be a little bit of
security lighting and a little bit of I would call it mood lighting that enhances how
the place looks and provides a good looking appearance for us. So you don’t
have to drive by during the day to know that you want to go there.
De Weerd: I guess my last question would be do you have any response to
staff’s comments?
R. Smith: There are three items. I think Bruce and Shari have already taken
care of one of them. There are three items that refer to issuance of a building
permit or any permits prior to doing certain things. We’re going to be into this
thing as Shari noted before this is – we’d like to have this thing open in the
summer you know for Memorial Day or if not sooner, and that’s going to require
some very aggressive maneuvering on our part and for the contractors and
everyone else. We would like to put the stipulation that the rather than prior to
issuance of permits that those be changed to prior to certificate of occupancy.
We’re not going anywhere until we get those things done and we’re prepared for
that. There are a couple of items like the vacation of right-of-way and easements
that take a little bit of time. The process of getting responses back from the
agencies involved in any process takes some time so we would like those items
6, 7 and 26 to be adjusted to read prior to the certificate of occupancy.
Borup: Are you talking the site specific comments?
R. Smith: That’s correct.
MacCoy: While he’s looking, what are your hours of operation in the
summertime?
R. Smith: That’s been discussed quite a bit. We expect it to not open before
9:00 or 10:00 in the morning. Let it warm up a little bit in the day and then to run
to typical 7:00 maybe 8:00 at night. There’s some consideration of trying to just
hang with the daylight hours. As we said the liability issues we’re a little
concerned about operating actually at night because of people being able to see
what they are doing and you know the potential for injury, but that’s the general
ballpark of what to expect to run.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 40
MacCoy: I appreciate your comment about when the park is closed of doing a
nice job for lighting or low level lighting so it looks like it’s lived in and it has an
asset to it, instead of being a black hole. That would be a disadvantage to us.
De Weerd: So other than the permits, you have no other objections?
R. Smith: No, we have no other real issues with the City’s comments.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have anything? Mr. Nelson do you have
anything?
Smith: Just a comment I guess is from what was submitted, it’s impossible to
really to tell what these structures are going to look like. We’ve got some images
of some other parks here in front of us. The lady’s comment earlier about the
operation up in Northern Idaho that’s offensive to the eye, that does concern me
about just not knowing what it’s going to look like. So that’s just my comment,
you know you can’t tell from what’s submitted, so I am concerned about what it’s
going to look like.
MacCoy: I think you probably realize that in coming to this board you would
realize that Commissioners as well as the board members will after us will be the
same way.
R. Smith: I’m not sure that we have the actual – there are two what I would
consider taller towers that have slides coming off of them. But I think by most of
what you can see the circular tubes and the fiber glass slide is probably the
prominent structure that you’ll see. You know it will be in the air and you’ll see
some stairs going up to that platform where people jump in there. Like we said
you know the tallest one will be in the mid 30’s for height and the rest of them will
be smaller than that. Probably the best example is something over on the side
here that shows a slide that’s maybe 20 or so feet in the air.
Smith: Can you bring that up here?
R. Smith: As long as you don’t take it away from me.
Smith: I’ll let Will decide that. I guess these taller structures, what’s going to be
the structure that supports the tubes and the towers and so forth. Is it like a steel
structure? This tube over here looks like it’s some kind of concrete super
structure there.
Rossman: I guess if you are going to testify, we better have you identify yourself.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 41
JOHN RIDDELL, PRO SLIDE NOVA TECH ENGINEERING WAS SWORN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Riddell: Just a couple of comments. The color shown on the plan of the rides
are the actual colors or very close to the actual colors that the fiber glass rides
will be. So you can see the yellow and the black and the blue. The structures
themselves, there is three towers. This is similar to what the ride at the very top
would look like. It’s called a pro racer. The tower itself would a steel structure.
H beams, I beams with some cross bracing, stairs coming up, metal stairs with
concrete treads. The other slides would be supported by steel structures similar
to that intermediate supports along the rides of steel columns at the higher points
or round columns, basically the same color as the rides and as you get closer to
the ground and the columns get shorter, there would be concrete on concrete
foundation. (Inaudible) or metal roof is something (Inaudible.
Smith: Okay, that answers my question. Thank you.
MacCoy: Staff do you have anything you want to ask at this point?
REED BOWEN WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Bowen: I want to address the concerns of Mrs. Hagland. I think she raises some
good concerns. Those are concerns that I have too. I am currently in the
process of building a new home out by Foxtail Golf Course, and I’m sure that
someday that will be part of Meridian. I’m also the owner of Date Tel
Communications and own a business building directly behind the Pizza Hut just
off of 1st
up by the freeway, so this water slide will be right down in the area
where I do business and the one thing that I want to make sure is that when I
have people come to town that when they see that water slide that they see
something that’s very attractive and aesthetically pleasing to the City of Meridian.
I think that Meridian even though we’re growing that’s just part of what happens
to a city. I don’t think there’s any city that you can say we’re going to freeze our
growth, but what growth we do get we’ve got to make sure it’s appropriate and it
looks good and it helps to enhance the attractiveness of the city. We’ve taken
every effort that we can to make sure that what we’re developing out there will do
that. On a piece of paper 15 acres really hard to visualize. But when you stand
out there on the property and you see how much land we have, we’ve taken
great care in making sure that we don’t stack these slides on top of each other.
We want them to be a lot of open spaces, a lot of greenery, a lot of landscape
that adds to the beauty of the park. Water parks unlike giant wood roller
coasters like in Northern Idaho are very attractive. They are very colorful. The
giant wood roller coaster which Mrs. Hagland refers to is extremely displeasing
even in the summertime. Winter notwithstanding, but we want some place – one
of the things that our water park does is it’s our greatest marketing tool. If that
thing looks bad as people drive by, and it’s not pleasing to the eye, people don’t
come to your water park so great efforts have been made in the design and
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 42
development and the care of the park to make sure that it’s well maintained. As
we go through the winter, one of the things that is extremely expensive for us is if
we don’t continue to do the maintenance through the winter. If we just walk away
from it and expect to come back in the spring and have it fully functional and
ready to go, we could be in for a big shock so throughout the winter we’ll make
sure that it’s well maintained, that it’s pleasing to the eye with lights or whatever it
take to make sure that that continues on and that the park maintains its attractive
appearance throughout the winter. I think when we started to develop the park
what we felt that the Treasure Valley needed and why Meridian was such a
terrific location for this is because it’s so centrally located in the valley. And that’s
why we chose that piece of the freeway. We were looking for some type of a
recreation activity in the valley that could bring families together and give them a
place where they can come and associate with one another and interact with one
another. Going to a basketball game or a hockey game or a football game sure
you can get out with the family, but we all sit there in a nice long row and we
watch a football game. With the water park you can get out, play in the water
with your family, splash around and really develop those bonds that I think are
really important to any community and especially the community of Meridian. I
think it will go a long way to really putting Meridian on the map as the center of
the Treasure Valley. We’ve also made a conscious effort to spend the additional
money to make sure that the structures that we build are built out of steel that’s
painted. Perhaps you’ve seen water parks that are made out of wood. And after
a period of time they start to look extremely wood like. I mean they get that
graying appearance and they start to look old. We don’t want that. In fact we’ve
told them specifically that any cement that is in the project for holding up those
slides needs to be for footings only and the steel is to raise up out of the ground
and anything else is to be painted, so we’ve addressed those issues. We want
to make sure it’s successful. Financially I don’t want to put any money into this if
it’s going to go belly up and we spent – my background I spent five years with
Coopers and Libran, so I’m a CPA. We hired a company by the name of William
Harrelson and Associates out of Richland, Texas. They are the number one
feasibility study company in the United States for water parks. They do hundreds
of them over their life. They came back to us with a very conservative feasibility
study as what this valley ought to be able to do as far as the water park. We
didn’t want something that was out far on the edge that we couldn’t achieve and
that was only blue sky. We wanted to know you know best case worst case what
can we do. With what they came back with, we can break even at 45% of what
they projected we will do on a conservative basis. So we know the project is
viable. We know it makes in that short period of time I know that it might seem
like how can anything survive with three months, but we run a lot of people
through the park. That generates a lot of revenue in a very short period of time.
Keeping costs in line with that and recognizing that we don’t have the larger
costs of labor and those types of things through the remainder of the year, we
are able to generate a profit that sustains the park throughout the year. So we
went into this with the idea that we would expand the park on an every couple of
year basis keeping it new, keeping it current, not letting it run down. We want to
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 43
make sure that that part of Meridian is an entertainment center that brings people
to the City of Meridian, benefits not only us, but the other businesses and people
that live in Meridian. Thank you.
MacCoy: Thank you. Do you have any questions of him before he steps away?
Shari, you didn’t have anything left to say or any questions? Did I read that right,
or not?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, do you want to go through these
comments, the ones that we wouldn’t have a problem modifying, or is that
premature?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, that was my question, I think the applicant stated 6, 7, and
26.
MacCoy: Probably a good idea.
Borup: To change to issuance of certificate of occupancy rather than building
permit.
Stiles: Six and 7 would need to remain as is, because there is a sanitary
restriction on the property right now. Building permits can not be issued until that
sanitary restriction is lifted. I would encourage Jonathan Seal from—the current
owner of the property, W H Moore, if he could get that request in tomorrow so
that if this goes to City Council next week they can act on that non-development
agreement modification at the same meeting. That’s what it is going to take for
Central District Health to lift those sanitary restrictions.
Borup: Excuse me Shari, could you explain what do you mean by sanitary
restrictions, I’m not familiar with what that is referring to.
Stiles: When the property when the plat was recorded, they entered into a non-
development agreement for a portion of the property, in order that they didn’t
have to make all those improvements right at this time. Otherwise they would
have to complete all the landscaping and I’m not sure all the improvements that
would’ve been required at that time, but in effect a non-development agreement
places those sanitary restrictions on the property. There weren’t services
stubbed to each lot within this development which would happen in a normal
subdivision that was platted and recorded and did not have a non-development
agreement and because they didn’t know the nature of the development that was
going to occur, in the future, that’s why they didn’t want to complete those
improvements.
Borup: It looks like in this case, it was a good idea.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 44
Stiles: So it’s a simple process, but the effect of that non-development
agreement is that they don’t consider that there is sewer and water service to
each lot, so there are no building permits issued.
Borup: So those two items are now time consuming.
Stiles: No, not if they can get that in to us tomorrow, we can put it on the agenda
for the 15th
, if you recommend passing it on.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Stiles: The other item on 23, we would like to strike the part that says applicant
shall provide a letter from department of water resources. Strike that one
sentence, the rest of it would still be okay. Number 26, strike building permits at
the end of the sentence and replace with a certificate of occupancy.
Borup: That was all you had?
De Weerd: So those changes were just to 23 and 26?
Stiles: Yes.
MacCoy: Anything else Keith?
Borup: I have nothing else.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, Shari have you heard anything from ACHD this—what
we had was a draft and they were supposed to meet on December 2nd
. Are
there any changes or anything anticipated?
Stiles: Could I have Steve Snead from Ada County Highway District to address
that?
Rossman: You have previously been sworn, just state your name.
Snead: At this time we are still waiting as Roger Smith stated for traffic study
from the traffic engineer to make our final analyzes on the turning lane, the decel
lanes and so forth, so at this time, the staff report is in the draft status and it is
still preliminary. I do not actually have that and we will be finalizing that—I’m not
aware that it’s—Shari when was that before commission?
Rossman: That’s a good question, I was wanting to ask the same. Is it the
intention to put this up next week to City Council or, you mentioned if it goes up
to the 15th
, 14th
?
Stiles: If they act to recommend tonight, that is when it would go to City Council.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 45
Rossman: Typically these would not come up before the City Council until the
first hearing in January if it were decided tonight. That can always be expedited
by request of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I just need to know that so
we can get the written recommendation.
Stiles: Typically in the five years I’ve been here, they would go to City Council
next week.
Rossman: But typically has changed in the last few weeks with the new
procedures. It’s virtual impossible on all of these applications to have written
recommendations prepared in less than a week, if you understand what I mean.
Before they were going up after the approval of the written Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So they were
already prepared.
Stiles: You might be working a few late hours after you talk to the mayor.
Rossman: Well, that’s fine, that’s why I’m saying I need to know that so if the
Planning and Zoning Commission wants us to go up immediately that needs to
be put into the motion so that we can have that directive.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I had a question for Steve, were you familiar with the
traffic count from the previous annexation and subdivision do those numbers all
seem to jive with…
Snead: I do not have that information with me, I’m sorry.
Borup: Is that something staff had reviewed?
Snead: I’m sure it has, I’m sure it’s in the staff report and the original staff report
for interstate center. The original development and I’m sure it’s in the draft staff
report, but I do not have that information and I have not reviewed it.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, one more question. What time frame are you working
on?
Snead: I’ll be honest with you, I do not know. If it’s in a draft status at this time, I
would imagine that it would go to tech review probably this Friday to be before
our commission on the 15th
, that is only speculation, I do not know that.
(Inaudible)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 46
De Weerd: So your report would come out at the same time that the City Council
is looking at this.
Snead: If it’s on the 15th
, that’s correct. Excuse me, the 16th
our commission
meetings are on Wednesday, so it would be the day before. Any other
questions?
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Shari do you have anything else?
Stiles: No.
MacCoy: Does Bruce have anything?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close this public
hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Any discussion now as to what is next?
De Weerd: I have none.
Smith: I’m a little unsure, do we want to make this recommendation, even
though we don’t expect any ACHD final report till after? It looks like we are
expected to put some pressure on our attorney here.
Rossman: That’s no problem, I could easily prepare the recommendation, I just
need to know that I need to do it. So that City Council is not surprised.
Borup: In the past we have done things without, not very often but without the
ACHD making it contingent upon complying with all of their findings. I did find in
the ACHD draft it did talk about he 7800 units based on the 95’ approval of the
subdivision. If the preliminary report that they have is accurate then we are
talking less traffic than was approved three years ago. That makes me feel fairly
comfortable on the traffic aspect.
Smith: I agree with that.
Borup: It sounds like the water usage part, staff felt comfortable with that. That
was the only two concerns.
MacCoy: Recommendation?
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 47
Rossman: I guess I would just like to put in a point of clarification here, so I
guess if you did an act without final ACHD recommendations, how are you
suggesting that you would frame the recommendation that they comply with any
and all conditions and recommendations of the Ada County Highway District as
set forth in their final report subsequently to be issued. That’s perfectly fine too,
it’s just. Or do you want to address this preliminary. I don’t think it would be
appropriate to impose conditions that are in the preliminary draft report since it’s
not a final report. So maybe it would be better to do it that way. Just say that
they comply with the conditions requested by the Ada County Highway District in
their final report.
MacCoy: We have done that in the past once in a while.
Borup: Maybe we should have asked them specifically, but I don’t think the
applicant had any concern with ACHD report.
MacCoy: Didn’t seem to be. He’s shaking his head no.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we recommend the request
for a conditional use permit for roaring springs water park with the changes to
staff comments on number 23 to eliminate the sentence the applicant shall
provide a letter from the Idaho Department of Water Resources verifying that the
city’s permit number 63-11737 (well #14) will allow water to be…
(END OF TAPE)
De Weerd: …As well to change the end of number 26 to eliminate building
permits and in it’s place, replace it with the certificate of occupancy and to
comply with the conditions of ACHD’s recommendations.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
Nelson: I just wanted to make a comment that ACHD’s final.
De Weerd: Final.
Rossman: Another point of clarification, I don’t know, did you address paragraph
six and seven of the staff comments.
Borup: They stayed the same.
De Weerd: No, I didn’t.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 48
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: Did I need to add to that to expedite this so the council.
Rossman: Yes, you can raise a separate motion for that.
De Weerd: I’m sorry. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we direct the city
attorney to expedite the written recommendation to City Council so that it can be
looked at it at the next City Council meeting.
MacCoy: Do I have a second.
Nelson: Second.
De Weerd: Wait, the next meeting on December 15th
.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
(BREAK)
ITEM NO.6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING OF
APPROXIMATELY 3.86 ACRES FOR PROPOSED CHERRY LANE ESTATES
BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP – 4375 W. CHERRY LANE:
MacCoy: Staff do you have any comments on this one now before we start the
public hearing?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, from the public works
standpoint, probably the biggest issue that I would like to point out would be
sewer and water service to the proposed subdivision. Back when Cherry Lane
was rebuilt two years ago, I believe it was. There was a ten inch water main
stubbed into the 30 foot easement that transverses along the westerly boundary
of this project site. That water main stub was funded by Mike and Cheryl Brown
and their partners in the property that is south of this subdivision. Ownership of
that particular stub remains with them as far as I know until it is extended. So
that’s where that line stops right now. They’ve put it in to the right-of-way to get it
outside of the public street improvements for Cherry Lane in that road. Sewer for
the site, this would have to sewer to a future trunk line that would come up Black
Cat and then follow Ten Mile Creek. It’s our recommendation that a dry line
sewer be installed at this point in time in that 30 feet so that it would sewer, in the
future when the trunk line is there to the south to that trunk line. So as far as
sewer and water goes that’s about where we are at.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 49
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Shari?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, you have our comments that have
been submitted that are dated December 7, 1998 because we did get these
prepared so late, we requested that the applicant come prepared tonight to
address each of the items on this memo. It’s not typical that the city would
consider annexation and subdivision of a plat without provision of sewer service.
We would not like it to be a president to think that everyone within the city does
not have sewer available to them at this time would be able to just go out and
subdivide their property into one acre lots. Because this is pretty much at the
end of the line and such a small piece, I didn’t think it was particularly a terrible
idea, there are some issues as far as the 30 feet easement. We would like to get
a copy of that easement that accesses the property to the south to make sure
that they have the right to use it as a private drive for addition lots. The size of
the easement being 30 feet wide would not meet any public road requirements
and may restrict future development options for the enclave that would be
created at the south of this property. We don’t have any particular private road
standards, but have followed to so degree what Ada County requires is that
unless it is a public street, development would be restricted to no more than four
lots. With this development that there would be two lots on it already. They are
proposing, I guess, access directly to Cherry Lane from the northern most lot,
currently has access to Cherry Lane. There are ditches on the property that they
don’t show any kind of easements or how those ditches are to be handled. We
would like information on that. Pressurized irrigation system would be required
per city ordinance unless that is waived or a variance is applied for by the
applicant and granted by City Council. One comment that we have made is that
they would need to create a 15 foot wide easement adjacent to the south
boundary of Lot 1, Block 1 for a sewer service line to the house that is
immediately east of this proposed development. This whole little area in there,
probably due to the fact that there is not sewer available at this time is pretty
much all of it is an enclave, it would further make an enclave of the
approximately seven and a half acre parcel to the south. We ask for landscape
setback on Cherry Lane, there is live stock, currently live stock on Lot 1, Block 1.
If annexed, we would request that the right to that would cease to exist if they
didn’t use the property for that purpose for a period of one year and that
additional animals beyond those that are presently there not be permitted. A
development agreement could be required as a condition of annexation taking
care of some of these items at your discretion.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. We will now open the public hearing, is the applicant
here?
JEFF MANSHIP, 4375 W. CHERRY LANE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN
THE BY ATTORNEY.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 50
Manship: As you are noted, I’m currently proposing a two, one acre lots along
Cherry Lane. I’m on private road, current zoning is R-3 and zoned county. Kind
of down zoning to R-2 which would only be—there is not a R-1 with the City of
Meridian at the moment so, being that I’m only adding two new lots it would be
under zoned from the R-2 as is, which would be (Inaudible). I’d comply with any
comments that are, general comments and the site specific comments right now,
(Inaudible).
MacCoy: So you read the staff comments?
Manship: Yes I have, briefly, I just got them from Pocatello a few hours ago, so
I’ve generally gone over them.
Rossman: Once again for clarification, we are just talking annexation and zoning
at this point.
MacCoy: That’s right.
Manship: That’s correct.
MacCoy: Staff any questions? How about commissioners now? It’s quite up
here. All right, you can take a seat. Is there anyone here who would like to get
up and speak? Yes sir, come ahead.
DAVID RUNYAN, 2100 W. LUCERNE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Runyan: The reason why we are interested in this action tonight is we have
investigated, we are still investigating the purchase of that property that Shari is
talking about on the south. We have submitted a preliminary site design to Ada
County dividing that into four, one acre lots. We’d planned on just leaving part of
Ada County putting in subdeck and well. We are trying, like I said four weeks
ago we submitted a preliminary to determine if it was feasible and worth while
purchasing that piece of ground. It is for sale right now. I just bring that up just
in case there is any concern or anything. I don’t have any complaint—I don’t
really care what goes on, I’m just letting you know what the status of that south
piece and we looked in to the private lane and yes Ada County will only let us put
four residence on the that and it has to be a private lane and we plan on putting
in a paved private lane down to that site, (Inaudible) four residences. Anyway, a
little bit of insight.
MacCoy: Anybody else want to get up here and speak for behalf of the project?
If not, anybody ready up to speak on the other side of the fence.
CHERYL BROWN, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 51
Brown: I just have some concerns about what Mr. Manship is trying to do with
the two lots and the sewer system also which is going down the south side of this
property which is our and the water main, or the water line that we have stubbed
in across Cherry Lane at our expense. That’s all I wanted to say.
Borup: AT present time here, what’s your access to your property?
Brown: We have a 30 foot ingress/egress easement coming down off of Cherry
Lane.
Borup: Though Manship property?
Brown: Well, it’s kind of both of ours. I’m getting the deed, our copy of the deed
to Bruce this week. How it’s stating in the deed.
Borup: So is it a separate deeded property or an easement through his
property?
Freckleton Mr. Borup, when I read Mr. Manships warranty deed, it is an
easement. His property is subject to a 30 foot easement on it’s west boundary
according to his warranty deed. Cheryl and her file had some legals, they
weren’t recorded easement or anything, so that’s why I requested that she get
me some documentation of what she has recorded on her property as far as the
access to her property, so that we can take a look at that and see what that—you
know, maybe have legal counsel take a look at it and see what kind of legal
rights that legal easement granted them on that 30 feet. We need to look at the
language of the easement. I guess one of my concerns is what legal rights are
there for the Manships?
Borup: That was my question, if there is an easement there, who has access for
use of that easement? Is that strictly the Brown Property or is that?
Freckleton: That’s my concern, is who is that easement benefiting?
Borup: What was your understanding Ms. Brown?
Brown: That it was for us, since we have…
Borup: …And no one else could use it?
Brown: No, I think, you know Mr. Manship can use it too, but it was specifically
wrote in there for us, since that is our only way back to our property.
Rossman: Typically an easement will just grant Ms. Brown access. It’s not an
open ended easement that would grant the public—I mean it’s not a public road.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 52
Brown: Right.
Borup: How about the easement that the property goes through?
Rossman: The owner of the property that is granting the easement? Sure, he’s
got access. Unless it’s a deed, he’s not deeding the property, it’s just an
easement. Does anybody have a copy of it?
Freckleton: That’s what I’ve requested.
Rossman: It sounds like an easement.
Borup: At one time was this all one property?
Brown: Yes, it was. We split it off, we bought the back five acres and then they
eventually sold it off to somebody and then Mr. Manship came in and bought it
from them.
Borup: What was your intention of the water stub, that was to bring water back
to your property?
Brown: We needed to cross over Cherry Lane before we overlaid it.
Borup: Right, but is it your intention to bring water back to your property?
Brown: Yes, right.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions for her? Where did she go?
BRAD TURNER, 4365 W. CHERRY LANE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Turner: I don’t really oppose any of the development that can take place. I own
the one acre lot just to the west of Jeff. The only thing that concerns me is—you
know, they are talking four houses on the back five, he’s talking two. So you are
looking at six more houses on there running septic, not actually hooking up to it.
They are proposing septic, I don’t know if they are proposing well, but Ada
County allows, and I think Meridian does too, doesn’t it—a hookup if you are on
one acre to a well. So I’m on well and septic and without—do they do any kind
of studies on that kind of stuff as far as, you know, potential well contamination
and that kind of stuff. So that is my biggest concern.
MacCoy: Bruce do you have any comment to what he said?
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 53
Freckleton: Just address the water issue. City ordinance does specify that if you
are in the city limits and you are within 300 feet of a city municipal main, you
have to connect. There is no provision that I know of to allow them to hook to a
well when they are that close to a main.
Borup: With 300 feet?
(Inaudible)
Borup: That’s if you are annexed in the city limits. If you are part of the city limits
you said.
Freckleton: Correct. At the time Cherry Lane was rebuilt, service lines were
extended to Mr. Manships property and this gentleman’s property, on the
frontage of Cherry Lane, for existing homes.
Borup: Is Mr. Turner in the city limits?
Freckleton: No, he is an enclave.
MacCoy: Okay, is there anyone here who would like to make a comment at this
time? Staff do you have anything left you want to say?
Borup: I have a question for staff. Any comments on how this relates to
Comprehensive Plan?
Stiles: Comprehensive Plan I’m not sure the exact wording of it, if it says they
would be required to hook up to municipal services. It is in a R-3 zone, if they
would go through the county, it’s likely that they would get approved. I’m not
sure if you’d gone to the county or—I mean they have existing rights on the
property as far as the existing zoning. Our Comprehensive Plan in dealing with
the 5 acre lots, that is the minimum in an RT zone without hooking up to sewer
and water. I don’t know specifically what…
Borup: Since it’s already R-3 rather than RT then.
Stiles: Right.
MacCoy: Okay, we’ve got a public hearing open here, what’s the commissioners
viewpoint?
De Weerd: There aren’t any further comments?
Borup: Before we close the public hearing, I had meant to—I want to make sure
I understood Mr. Manships statement. I believe he said he had no problems with
any of the site specific staff comments. Can we verify that? The question was
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 54
that there are 17 site specific comments from staff. Did you state that you had
no problems complying with any of those?
Manship: That was under the notion that we were going to discuss each one of
those. Is that going to take place now, or next…
Borup: Discuss that when we are talking about plat review?
MacCoy: We’re at annexation and zoning right now.
Borup: All right, then never mind.
MacCoy: It’s getting late already. What do you want to do?
De Weerd: I move that we close the public hearing.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: What do you want to do with this?
Borup: That’s what just thinking about. In the old day when we used to do
findings, we always tabled the annexation and zoning until the preliminary plat
was approved.
Rossman: I think you have it backwards. You can’t approve a plat until it’s
annexed.
Borup: Oh, okay. Never mind.
MacCoy: Told you it was late.
Nelson: I do have some concern about this whole access to the four lots in the
back being kind of…
De Weerd: That’s not in front of us though.
Nelson: I guess it’s an issue that…
Borup: That should have been addressed when it was probably split.
MacCoy: Well, you could table it for study for next time to get the answers
together if that’s what you want to do.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 55
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of annexation and
zoning of this property to R-2.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
CHERRY LANE ESTATES BY JEFFREY L. MANSHIP – 4375 W. CHERRY
LANE:
MacCoy: Staff is there anything you want to say at this point in the game?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, I guess major issue with this would
be the private road that they are proposing and how that is going to restrict the
property owner to the south. It would’ve been nice had the property owner to the
south joined in some kind of development with Mr. Manship so this could all be
taken care of at the same time, but—if they are proposing more than two more
lots to the south, although it’s not necessarily Mr. Manships responsibility to see
to it that they can get more than two lots, they would be restricted without
provision of a minimum 50 foot wide public street.
Smith: Excuse me, is that a county guideline, since you said we don’t have any
private street standards in Meridian?
Stiles: It is a county guideline.
Borup: So if the other property was annexed, how would that effect that?
Stiles: Staffs recommendation that they not be allowed to have more than two
lots.
Smith: Which we could ignore if we so choose to, or we could agree with it too.
Borup: What is the size of some of these public streets in some of these
subdivisions that we have approved.
Stiles: Public?
Borup: No private, I’m sorry. Have they been 40 feet?
Stiles: 42 foot minimum.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 56
Borup: 42? Okay, I was thinking 42.
De Weerd: So basically what you are saying is if you approve these two lots, the
owner of the five acres wouldn’t even be able to develop their own home? Is that
what you are saying?
Stiles: No, they have one lot there now. They haven’t subdivided, they are not
proposing subdividing at this point. They’ve got one lot, a seven and a half acre
lot.
De Weerd: But if you created three lots in the front parcel.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Two that access off the private drive.
Smith: Third one goes right off Cherry Lane.
De Weerd: You wouldn’t be able to have access to the back lot, or the back
parcel?
Borup: The access will still be there.
Stiles: They have access, they just wouldn’t be able to split into seven one acre
lots, I don’t think that would be feasible. Ada County Highway District standards
for private roads—the city has approved some 42 foot minimum private streets.
The basic construction of those streets is still to Ada County Highway District
standards. I think they probably have the sidewalk on only one side. But a 30
foot width would not allow sidewalk on either side.
Borup: ACHD has also allowed, I’ve seen some developments they’ve even put
in half streets.
Stiles: Half streets when half of the property is developing.
Borup: Yes, assuming that when the other side of the boundary line is
developed, the other half of the street goes in.
Stiles: They require that half of the 37 foot section plus 12 feet.
MacCoy: Do you have anything else that you would want to add to the public
hearing?
Stiles: No.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 57
MacCoy: Okay, we will open up the public hearing now, is the applicant here?
One more time.
MacCoy: Any comments or do you want to just say to include what you have just
gone through and make that statement.
Manship: Correct, we could address any site specific comments or general
comments at this time. One question that I have on site specific comments for
Bruce was the wording of number two, on second sentence, applicant will be
responsible to install a dry line sewer system within this development that will
drain to future sanitary sewer trunk line that will be installed adjacent to Ten Mile
Creek. Second to that, what that means, the dry line sewer just be installed
through the development or all the way to Ten Mile Creek.
Freckleton: You would just be responsible to construct it through your
development to your south boundary.
Manship: That’s my question on that.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Manship: No.
Borup: So out of all 17 that was the only one that you had concerns with.
Manship: Yes, I was concerned (Inaudible) Ten Mile Creek…
Borup: You don’t own that property.
Manship: That’s why I was saying that dollar figure is starting to add up.
Borup: So as far as dry line sewers and water line and all of that—easements
along the line to service a property to the east and…
Manship: Correct, no problems there.
Borup: That’s the only question that I’ve got. Pressurized irrigation?
Manship: Yes, my house is currently on a well. I would obviously abandon that
well and then that would be created into a pressurized irrigation system to
service lot 1 and the additional two that I’m adding. That’s all I have.
MacCoy: Okay, you can sit down now. It is a public hearing, so anybody who is
willing or wants to get up and say something in favor of this project, come up
now. If not, okay anybody who is on the other side of the fence can come up
now and talk.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 58
Borup: Does anybody else on the commission feel like they would like to ask
some questions to the Browns?
MacCoy: You can do that.
Borup: Mark had eluded to maybe some concerns to what happens to that other
property.
Smith: I guess first I would like to ask Gary and clarify, just for clarification and
Shari too. City of Meridian doesn’t have any guidelines on private street
construction, therefore this private streets can service no more than four private
single family home lots, that’s a county ordinance that the city usually goes by
just to use as a guideline lacking our own and therefore if the Browns decide to
divide their land into four lots like they talked about, we would not be under any
city ordinance restricting us from saying that we could have six lots serviced by a
private road, if we so choose to do so.
De Weerd: Right?
Borup: Is that a yes?
Smith: Okay, that’s clarification.
Rossman: You are only, your powers are limited to the powers granted to you
under the ordinance. So if there isn’t such restrictive language within the
Planning and Zoning Code, then you are right, the answer is yes.
Smith: To me that says they can divide it into four lots if they want to propose
that, that’s up to the commission and City Council to use their best judgement on
whether that’s appropriate or not.
De Weerd: But you would think they would have to annex in then.
Smith: Well, yeah, otherwise we’ve got nothing to talk about.
Borup: Other than that county is going to run that by us aren’t they? They are
doing that now with every…
Smith: If they stay in the county.
Borup: No, no if there is proposed development and they stay in the county.
(Inaudible)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 59
Borup: Maybe—well I don’t know if we need—that probably answers my
question whether we need to talk to Browns then if that’s the case. That can be
addressed at a future time.
MacCoy: You want to come forward.
Brown: My concern is the easement issue. I’d really like to take some time and
not approve this tonight so we can figure out if we need to be working with Mr.
Manship or he needs to be working with us so we can do this together or if he is
going to totally landlock our five acres in the back. That’s what I’m concerned
about is us being landlocked back there with the road—with only the 30 foot.
Borup: You are concerned that you need more than 30 feet you mean?
Brown: If he goes ahead and does what he is proposing, right. If in the future at
some time I want to subdivide that—am I going to be able to or am I’m going to
be stuck?
Borup: I think that was Commissioners Smith’s question, if this commission can
approve more than four lots and apparently the answer was yes.
De Weerd: That is only if you annex into the city. If you do it under the county,
then you would be landlocked.
Borup: So that might be incentive to get annexed.
Nelson: That only says we could, can’t make any commitment that we
(Inaudible). I think it would be appropriate to document an understanding
between everyone.
Borup: The city has also put their (Inaudible) to bring the water line clear down
to your property. That’s a few feet of water line that you don’t have to pay for.
There are some benefits both ways.
Brown: What if the council doesn’t agree to our annexation into the city and I
remain county? Then where do I go from there?
Borup: I don’t know.
De Weerd: That’s probably why Shari mentioned that it would be nice if this
came together as a joint proposal.
MacCoy: It would make it a lot cleaner.
Runyan: Just for Cheryl’s benefit, as a potential buyer for the property, she has it
up for sale, it’s more valuable to me if I can divide it into four lots and you know, if
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 60
we divide it into two, we’d probably walk away and look for some other property.
The question that I have is what do we do with the sewer? The closest sewer
we’re told is at Ten Mile right now, that’s ¾ of a mile—apparently we are not
going to be hooking into that anyway, we are going to be coming up through
Black Cat and across. Do we have to pay for that or can we go on septic? If we
decide like tomorrow that we are going to subdivide this and get this all worked
out, would we be allowed to go on septic until the sewer came in. If we annexed
into the city, we would have to be on sewer and water as I understand, what do
you do in the mean time?
MacCoy: I’ll ask Bruce to give you the answer there.
Freckleton: The city ordinance is pretty specific when services are available you
have to connect. Sewer is not available at this point in time and I think that
question would just need to be deferred to City Council as far as the septic issue.
We can’t serve it currently with city services.
Runyan: So that would be another issue that we would have to resolve at
annexation time?
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Question Bruce, this is coming through Ten Mile—now I forgot where I
saw it on here. Ten Mile Creek is proposing a sewer line there.
Freckleton: Correct. It’s a trunk line that would come down Black Cat Road to
the Ten Mile Creek and then it follows the Ten Mile Creek out to the south…
Borup: The site—or the area map that we’ve got looks like—is that Ten Mile
Creek that is just a small distance south of…
Freckleton: Cherry Lane?
Runyan: It’s just south of the south property there that we are talking about.
Borup: That’s what I—it’s just south of this property. It doesn’t look like more
than 50 feet or so. Okay. So he’s saying when the trunk line goes in there, you
would be within whatever that distance is, 50 or 100 feet.
Runyan: We’d be required at that time to hook up to the trunk, I would suppose.
Borup: Who does the stub from the trunk line to their property.
Freckleton: If this gentleman was to purchase the Brown Property and develop
it, he would be required as Mr. Manship is required to install the dry line sewer.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 61
Borup: Through his property to the south boundary.
Freckleton: Correct. Where it could—well, it would tie into the Manship’s dry line
sewer, so it would carry on through Brown parcel 2, to the Ten Mile trunk line.
Borup: Is that trunk line—no, if there is a trunk line, does that easement even
come—how close is that to this property.
Freckleton: How close does the trunk line come to their property?
Borup: I guess it doesn’t matter. Never mind.
Freckleton: The trunk line is planned to be on the north side of Ten Mile Creek.
It’s not that far from the top of the bank of the Ten Mile Creek to the south
boundary of the Brown parcel. I believe that property is owned by Western Ada
Recreation, down through that area, it ties in with Fuller Park.
Borup: Okay, thank you. We’ve got one application in front of us, that’s what
needs to be addressed.
Nelson: I would like to ask the applicant what kind of time frame he is looking at
and if it would be appropriate to table this until we could finalize some…
MacCoy: Would you come back up here so we can talk to you?
Nelson: I would be willing—or consider tabling this issue until we could kind of—
I know the Browns property is not part of this request. I think the circumstances
are such that they should be addressed so that we don’t imply that they could
possibly subdivide and maybe something we could do with a private road, maybe
not. I’d rather the whole situation kind of be resolved rather than—unless you
have some, Mr. Manship has some time restrictions that would cause some
problems.
Manship: Obviously you can’t pave in the winter time. Until snow clears up
probably March is when I look to be under way for construction as far as
installing irrigation, water mains, and the dry line sewer line. Probably won’t take
place until March, end of March till the weather clears up.
Borup: Any comments from you on working together with the Brown property as
far a development plan?
Manship: I’ve never been confronted by Mrs. Brown, I’ve never seen her face
until tonight. I’ve been at the address since August of 1996, as far as I know, I’m
going by myself to work on this and have no plans to involve anybody else at the
moment.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 62
Borup: Was that a problem if there was some joint? I’m not sure what—
obviously the only concern was the road. Well maybe not obviously, but that’s a
big concern.
Nelson: What she does with her property will effect you later. So…
Manship: She’s not landlocked she has an easement too, to access her
property. The way she, my recollection now, she is going to develop, she’s going
to need a water easement then 30 feet and that comes into play on my part if I
was willing to give up the extra ground, to have her access that.
Nelson: I would feel better if we table this and let you guys get together and at
least both understand how that is going to restrict her. It shouldn’t make any
difference other than…
Manship: I’ve got no problem…
Nelson: …having this discussion in about two years, or a year from now.
Manship: I would like to get this going in the spring time as far as construction.
Nelson: The purchasing person might be interested and having it cleared up
before he buys it. I would be inclined to, once the public hearing was closed—I
guess not closed public hearing, continuing.
Smith: I guess I would feel better if this easement was cleared up before we
took any action on this. I would be in favor of tabling it.
Borup: As far as whether it really exists? Or the legality of.
Smith: (Inaudible) there seems to be some confusion as far as what he actually
stated.
Manship: What I actually stated?
Smith: Not—I think it was Mrs. Brown that stated she was questioning easement
and had some additional documentation that she was going to make available to
staff.
Borup: That was going to change the size of it? I mean, Mr. Manship it’s your
understanding that there is a 30 foot easement through your property.
Manship: Through my property. I bought that with the notion that was and if we
are going into the legality standpoint of it, that would be a claim with my title
insurance company and so on and so forth.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 63
Rossman: I don’t think there is any question of enforceability of the easement
agreement. Keith had a question earlier whether or not it was in fact a deed. I’m
sure it would be a standard easement. We wouldn’t mind as long as we are
addressing access issues, we wouldn’t mind having a copy of the easement in
the record or in our files, review that, I assume it’s a standard easement granting
Mrs. Brown and any of her transferees and assign and whatever access over
that property.
Borup: That’s correct, that’s why I wasn’t sure what the question was on the
easement. There doesn’t seem to be any dispute about there being one.
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: I guess the question I have is what this will do to the accessibility, I
know that the lot or the Browns parcel will have access. Will that limit them on
how they can subdivide.
Borup: And is that our responsibility to worry about?
Nelson: No, but this is a good time—there is nobody who is in dispute really.
This is an opportunity to at least finalize an understanding between those parties.
That’s why I asked the question is there a time constrain? Was he willing to do
that sort of thing and if so, I would motion to continue to next month. If he said
no, we’ve got an agreement and I want to play it that way it’s fine too.
Borup: At this point, unless I understood wrong, they have no intention of plan
for annexation. They plan on doing the development through the county so. For
that five acres to the south. Did I misunderstand that?
De Weerd: I guess if we do this they would almost have to annex in in order to
have—otherwise they can’t subdivide. The county has an ordinance, we don’t.
We can set our rules, the rules are already set at the county.
Borup: It’s zoned R-3 in the county.
De Weerd: Yes, so they would probably have to do the same thing that Mr.
Manship is doing too.
Borup: Shari, didn’t you state earlier that they can go ahead and develop that in
the county?
Stiles: The county would likely restrict them to two lots…
(END OF TAPE)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 64
Stiles: …the plat would need to be signed by the city, even if they did go through
the county. They do need to get city approval for a plat within our impact area.
Borup: How much…I can see what Commissioner Nelson is saying, we’ve got a
responsibility to essentially not cause future problems. How much is our
responsibility to worry about something that is outside the city limits and stated
by—that they have no intention of even ask to be annexed.
Nelson: Well, what I would consider doing is if it’s not going to adversely effect
the applicant of this project, I would continue the public hearing and give other
effective parties at least a short period of time to weigh their options and if
appropriate, approach this applicant on any changes that they might want.
Which he could then…
Smith: Might be beneficial to the Browns to enter into an agreement with Mr.
Manship to increase the easement to 42 feet or whatever it is and then they don’t
have any question on having to annex what the county is going to do, what the
city might do. Another month not going to effect Mr. Manship's schedule by his
testimony that he’s not going to probably start working until March. So lets give
everybody a chance to get their heads together and next month, we can do our
thing and that would be, when would that be?
MacCoy: The 12th
, I think, isn’t it?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public
hearing until our January 12th
meeting.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Borup: For what purpose—can you explain that in your motion?
Smith: For the purpose of allowing the adjacent property owners to submit
additional documentation as to the form of the easement agreement and to allow
the adjacent property owners to meet with Mr. Manship and be able to come
back before this commission with a proposal that is—just to give them a chance
to (Inaudible).
Borup: I know what you are trying to say.
Smith: I’m trying to do this holistically, instead of piece meal.
Borup: No, I thought we ought to get the reason for the continuance. Thank
you.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 65
Smith: I’m not trying to—I hope that Mr. Manship doesn’t look at this as being a
burden on him, but I mean that’s kind of why I think Commission Nelson asked
you your time line, so don’t…
Manship: I want to add something, I work out of town during the week. My
weekends to my private time and I don’t conduct business on the weekends with
outside interest. I’m in Pocatello during the week on with my other business.
Time is limited as far as negotiations are concerned.
Borup: Maybe you need to adjust that policy if you want to get it done in time.
Manship: Yeah, well…
Borup: But that is up to you.
De Weerd: It is one of the main reasons that we are continuing the public
hearing, so you have that opportunity. So they have that opportunity to clarify
some of the easement details and how your proposal would effect their property.
Manship: Not a problem, not a problem at all.
MacCoy: Okay, we’ve got a proposal, any more discussion? Okay we are up for
a vote. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: (Inaudible) continued public hearing is still continued until January 12th
.
I’m trying to write and talk at the same time.
ITEM NO. 8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY’S LAND SURVEYING – NORTH OF
PINE & WEST OF LOCUST GROVE:
MacCoy: Staff, what do you have for comment? Any…
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, you have our comments dated
December 3, 1998. The applicant has responded to our comments and would
like to clarify that some of the response to item number, our comment that sewer
and water main shall be extended to and through the proposed development.
Their response was that sewer and water mains will be extended as shown. We
stand by our comment, they will be extended to and through the proposed
development, which means to the southern boundary of the property is where
the sewer mains will need to be extended and along the entire frontage length for
the water mains. Item number one under site specific comments similar
response that the sewer service would be provided as shown it will be provided
to and through the development. The response we got to number three was and
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 66
it may have been a misunderstanding, it’s not really responsive to what the
comment was, but just understand that we stand by our request for the extension
of the water service.
MacCoy: That’s number two isn’t it?
Stiles: Pardon?
MacCoy: That’s number two not number three.
Stiles: Right. Item number 13, the revised plat that we got did not have the
stamped signature and date of the land surveyor as required. Fourteen, unless
there is an error on the plat, the lots would not meet the 6500 square foot
minimum. Showing a 65 foot frontage with this 3.83 foot dimension in the rear. If
that’s an error, we need verification that that is indeed, that they all are a
minimum of 6500 square foot. When we ask for lot closures, typically what we
get is a computer calculation showing down to the 1/100 of what that square
footage is. Number 16, the note needs to (Inaudible) added—I mean they did
put part of the note that we requested, but we do want that to indicate that that’s
exclusive of the garage. Other than that don’t have any particular problems.
Would ask that you recommend approval of this with all staff and agency
conditions.
MacCoy: Shari, is that it?
Stiles: Yes.
MacCoy: Bruce have anything? Opening the public hearing, is the applicant
here. Boy you are in a hurry.
PAT TEALEY, 915 W. JEFFERSON, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Tealey: That is a typo on lot 27, that should be 65 feet all the lots are 65 X100,
we do show on the plat 6500 square feet on each lot, that is obviously a typo.
The water is as shown this preliminary plat is extended all the way through the
project. Matter of fact, it hooks up to a water main on Pine Street, can you see
that? So the comment about the water not being shown as extended through
there is not valid. We do show it extended through there. Do you see that
Shari? You can see that now?
Stiles: See the (Inaudible).
Tealey: Just to give a little background, this was originally part of Maw’s addition
preliminary plat approved back in 1992. The developer choose not to develop
this portion of it at this—at that time he developed the approximately 36 lots
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 67
contained in Maw’s No. 1 and No. 2 and is coming back to you now as part of—
to get the last portion of his property developed. This will actually make the
linkup between all of the Danbury Subdivisions, some 200-300 lots to the north
and west of this. It will provide the access point to Pine Street that we will be
improving North Adkins Ave. I don’t understand the comment about the sewer
going through the entire property. The sewer as we show it now goes down and
services all the lots that are in the subdivision, but there is really no reason to
connect it to the sewer—it flows back to the north true Danbury and there is
sewer out on Pine Street to service any frontage that would be on Pine. So I
don’t understand why we have to take it that much further. Have you got more
information or reason, Bruce?
Freckleton: Do you want me to address that now, or? Policy of the City of
Meridian is that you extend sewer and water mains across the frontage of your
property. The service line to lot 27 would be questionable, it would have to come
off of there at a pretty severe angle to service 27. I think I would rather see it
extended down further to the south to service lot 27. The requirement for the two
and through is a two fold deal. It also provides service to the adjacent properties
as well. It’s to get lines extended. There are two—there is property on the west
side of Adkins Lane that we have absolutely no idea what it’s future plans are, so
I don’t know if that helps you or not Pat.
Tealey: That type of service in lot 27 is done all the time. That type of angle is
done all the time on a cul-de-sac.
Freckleton: Are you at maximum length between manholes now, is that why we
are debating this?
Tealey: Very close. Just for your (Inaudible) there is a maximum length between
manholes of 400 feet. If we go too much further, that means we have to put
another manhole in. There really isn’t any reason for us to go any further with
this sewer, as far as our project is concerned, like you say any of the frontage
that comes off of Pine is serviced by that sewer off of Pine and—the only
consideration for it going any further would be to service the property to the west.
Borup: Isn’t it enough consideration in itself?
Tealey: Sure, if you want it to be.
(Inaudible)
Tealey: Maybe we could get some…
Borup: You are coming in off a line out of Danbury, what would’ve happened if
they would’ve stopped that line back a 100 feet?
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 68
Tealey: Yeah, I understand that. We are just showing this as we would have to
add another manhole in here.
Borup: That was my next question, you say 400 what--90 feet?
Tealey: We’d have to…
Borup: So what are you at?
Tealey: Four hundred. The sewer is at 400 foot now, the length between…
Borup: What’s the maximum?
Tealey: Four hundred boarder.
Borup: Oh, so you are there. Before you said pretty much, and real close.
Tealey: Okay, we are at 400.
Borup: That is real close.
Freckleton: We have pushed them longer than 400.
Borup: So you could go another 75 feet perhaps?
Freckleton: I don’t know, we’ll have to look at that. Another thing, another option
that we might have there is to extend it on out to the south and put a T type clean
out on the end of it. So that it could be accessed in the future. We’d probably
just need to kick those ideas around in my department and figure out the best
way to handle that.
Tealey: I think that is a condition we can handle it Bruce.
Borup: So they’re looking at either extending the 400 feet or doing a T to the
west? Was that your last comment on the staff?
Tealey: Yes, is there any other questions?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I still got one on lot 27. I still see a discrepancy there.
The two 100 foot boundary lines are not parallel. So there is some difference.
I’m not, I can never figure out which direction—you know where, which directions
(Inaudible) go, but I’m assuming that—I don’t know that the 63 is the right one,
but it’s not 65, unless one of those other readings are incorrect.
Tealey: What we have to do is adjust that lot 34, the common.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 69
Borup: That’s what I was wondering, slide everything down?
Tealey: Right, to compensate for that. That should have been 65.
Freckleton: It does appear Commissioner Borup that those two lines are
converging to the back so, it would be narrower than 65.
Borup: It’s just like 36 minutes difference. Somewhere close to that? 58 minus
21 or is that…
(Inaudible)
Tealey: They are in different quadrants so it would be more in that. You are
correct. I have to make the adjustment in lot 34 the drainage lot. The reason we
have the drainage lot in this situation is because—and we can’t put it underneath
the sidewalk is because of the location of the water line here, you have to be 25
feet away from a portable water line so it doesn’t give us the opportunity to put it
underneath the sidewalk, so we have to (Inaudible).
Borup: I ask that of clarification. I’d understood your statement saying that
everything was already corrected or something to that effect.
Tealey: We can correct it, there is obviously a typo on there.
Borup: Was that the only at this point then the only staff comment that you had a
question on was the sewer line? Item number one.
Tealey: I think the comments that Shari had were the sewer and water lines and
we’ve discussed those and the 6500 square feet. There is also a question on
our note.
Borup: Well, yes those are easy things to take care of.
Tealey: We say it’s got to be 1301 square feet. She wants to say exclusive of
the garage.
Borup: That’s all I had Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: Anybody else?
Tealey: I guess that’s a good question, staff made a comment in there about the
pressurized irrigation. This piece of ground doesn’t have any water rights and it
doesn’t have any irrigation ditches to it and the only place that may be available
for pressurized irrigation is Danbury Subdivision and we will have a discussion
with them to see if we can get on their pressurized system. Maws No. 2 and
No.3 didn’t have a pressurized system because the developer chose to do the
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 70
contribution to the I guess it was a well building program that was in force at that
time. I don’t think that is still available.
Borup: That’s what I was just going to ask.
Freckleton: Members of the commission, my understanding is properties that
were annexed in, just throw out an example, Meridian Greens. Meridian Greens
No.3 was annexed in and platted the whole project. At that point in time, they
opted to pay the well development fees in lieu of putting in a pressurized
irrigation system. That was approved. So every phase of Meridian Greens has
come on board since then, they paid their well development fees and brought it
current. I do not believe that new projects coming in have that option. But, I
guess the question I’ve got in my mind is when this property was originally
annexed, if that was a condition of this annexation. Do you recall Pat?
Tealey: This property, as I stated, this property was part of the Maws addition
annexation and it was just left out of the development until this time. So we had
to go back in and revive—bring a preliminary plat application before you, we
didn’t have to re-annex. It was already zoned the R-8 and it was annexed under
the same conditions that Maws No.2 and No.3 were annexed.
Freckleton: One thing that is kind of confusing about the original Maws addition
application for annexation was that it indicated that pressurized irrigation was
being provided and then once development got under way, things changed.
Tealey: Yeah, we made the contribution to the well development program. We
paid some $20,000 toward the well development program.
Borup: Really what I was leading to in my question was—it’s already stated, the
variance needs to be request of City Council, but is part of that—if that was the
way they went and chose to do part of their variance, can they require
contribution of well development fund? I guess they can do whatever they want?
Well, if that’s been done in the past, that looks like a better alternative than just to
give a variance and say not required.
Freckleton: Well certainly if a variance was granted by City Council to
requirement of putting that pressurized irrigation we certainly would be looking
for well development fees. Definitely.
Borup: Okay, that’s what I was wondering.
Tealey: I guess that I would offer if we can’t get our connection to Danbury
system, then our preference would be the well development fee, because there
is no reason to make us go back through a variance to—I think the staff was
under the impression that the variance was the only way out. If it’s not, I mean if
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 71
Meridian Greens can go through—of course they have kept their phasing correct
on the thing, but Meridian Greens…
Borup: This wasn’t a phase, you said, you stated earlier.
Tealey: It was original phase of the maws application and it was annexed at the
same time that Maws No.1 and No.2 were annexed.
Borup: I thought phases were platted phases. Am I misunderstanding the
definition?
Tealey: The whole—lets say 20 acres was annexed at the same time with the
same conditions, we develop the first two phases, then the developer chose not
to develop this third phase, and the time expired on it, three or four years ago.
So that’s why we are bring the preliminary plat back to you.
Borup: No, I understood that part. But a various, we don’t have any thing to say
about the variance anyway, they just go to City Council.
Nelson: Well as a, I live in Sportsman’s Point, which is filing law suits to deal
with their seven phase hodge podge irrigation system. I don’t have forced
irrigation, my neighbor does, but it is substandard. The whole issue for the
remaining few lots, my recommendation—unless they can tie in to the
neighboring subdivision and is that irrigation system ran by Nampa/Meridian
Irrigation District?
Tealey: I don’t know, something that big would almost have to be.
Nelson: Because if it was owned by somebody else’s covenants, or
neighborhood committee. I almost recommend that we—for eight lots or
however many that we are talking about that we did the city water (Inaudible).
Borup: Seven lots.
Nelson: Seven lots and not do anything fancy because in our subdivision we are
paying for that change in concept in the middle of a subdivision.
Borup: That makes sense to me too.
Tealey: Thank you.
Smith: Comment, this came before us a few months ago as zero lot line town
homes. I kind of expected to see that again, but I was pleased to see what you
are proposed (Inaudible).
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 72
Tealey: I wasn’t here for that, but evidently that didn’t make much of an
impression.
MacCoy: No, it didn’t. Okay, is there anybody here that wants to get up and
make a comment at this point, pro or con? Nobody is around.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we close the public
hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Discussion?
Smith: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: In my mind, you mean questions concerning staff comments that need to
be complied with. The sewer line was probably the only one—well, the main one
and then item number one was left open to discuss the design with the public
works department, as far as whether to grant an extension of 400 foot distance
or do a stub to the west to access that property. I think staff felt comfortable to
work that out with the developer. Is that your understanding too?
Smith: So that was the only one?
Borup: Well, and correct some of the stuff like the 6500 foot on lot 27, there is
still some discrepancy there. That’s stated in the staff comments that it needs to
be complied with. On the pressurized irrigation, but I think that is stated in the
staff comments too. Either hook into Danbury Fair or ask for a variance. So I
guess really—does that mean everything in the staff comments except for item
number one.
Rossman: Keith on the pressurized irrigation, I think it’s paragraph 17 all it says
is that applicant should investigate feasibility—how do you want that to read?
Nelson: I think it should read that they should on the pressurized irrigation if…
Borup: Probably like you said, it’s pretty much what Commissioner Nelson said,
if it’s something that is not feasible, then it’s not worth trying to do.
(Inaudible)
Rossman: That’s not really a condition, that’s more of a…
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 73
Borup: Well, the condition is if it’s not—if pressurized irrigation isn’t going in, a
variance needs to be applied for and city—depending on what—I don’t know
what City Council’s attitude is on…
Nelson: What are the options if it’s restrictive to tie into the neighboring
subdivision and there is no variance.
Borup: Put in the whole system for seven lots.
Nelson: Then what are we going to do, let them drill a well? That’s about all
they have access to.
Borup: Yeah, that’s not feasible. I think most people agree with that. That is not
feasible.
Smith: Let City Council deal with that. Would you feel good if should said shall?
Borup: Shall investigate? Yeah, I would. It’s not going to change anything. It
makes it a little more specific.
Rossman: City Council can address the various options (Inaudible).
Smith: So are we ready then? Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that
we recommend to City Council approval of the preliminary plat for Maws
Subdivision No. 3, incorporating all staff and agency comments with staff site
specific comments item number one to be amended to read applicant to work
with staff on termination of sewer adjacent to lot 27 and item number 17 last
sentence, strike the word should and replace with the word shall.
MacCoy: Is that it?
Smith: I think so.
Borup: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY TODD MASON D/B/A MOXIE JAVA –106
E. WILLIAMS:
MacCoy: This is the third meeting we’ve had on this, is anybody here to
represent them?
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 74
Smith: Mr. Chairman, a point of order, I’d also like to make record that on our
agenda that this be noted as a continued public hearing.
MacCoy: Yes that is what it was, we kept keeping this continued.
JENNIFER DONLON, 2407 SNYDER, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Donlon: First I would like to start by apologizing there has been a
misunderstanding as to where the tables would be placed. I’m asking permission
for two tables to be placed directly outside of the entrance doors, the left and the
right.
MacCoy: Only that right, just only that?
Donlon: Yes. I also need to address the parking situation. We only have five
spots. Right now I’m serving 85% of my customers through the drive-up
windows, so I do allow my employees to park there, which varies from shift 2-3
cars. I hope that the table and chairs will bring customers inside to sit down and
outside. If that happens, then they can park on the side streets and that will
make all five parking lots available. Also, regarding the appearance of the table
and chairs, I’m the manager of the store and I personally see to it that the inside
and the outside of the building stay presentable and liter free. Do you have any
questions?
Smith: The plat we have had the tables showing out in the landscape area by
the sidewalk. So you are talking the door is on the north end of the building, so
right outside that door in the paved area?
Donlon: Ah-huh.
Borup: So there really wasn’t confusion as much as you changed your mind
where to put them.
Donlon: Yeah. The grass is just not going to work.
Smith: I’ve been by the other Moxie Java over by Fred Meyers and there is
never five cars. I shouldn’t say never, I’ve never been over there when there has
been five cars.
Rossman: Well, there is some expert testimony.
(Inaudible)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 75
Nelson: There has been a lot of discussion back and forth about how much
traffic actually goes through there. Apparently your business probably has some
peak times. When does that all happen? What’s kind of…
Donlon: Between 7am and 10 am in the morning.
Nelson: How late are you open now?
Donlon: Till 11pm. 5am to 11pm.
Nelson: I guess a lot of your traffic at the tables will be local business men
walking over there on break.
Donlon: Yeah, I’m assuming in the afternoons.
Nelson: I think there is a letter from St. Vincent’s. I have no other questions.
MacCoy: Have you seen the letter from St. Vincent De Paul?
Donlon: I have.
MacCoy: Do you want to comment on that?
Donlon: We’ve never had any trouble parking over there. We don’t get too many
people coming inside like I said. So, I don’t think it will be a problem. If it
becomes a problem then I’ll have to address it.
MacCoy: I’d just like a clarification from you and talking to our police department,
at least when it first opened up, they had traffic backed up into the intersection.
Does that happen anymore.
Donlon: No. Well, the parade, but there wasn’t any traffic, there was just people.
MacCoy: Well that’s different, the normal shift.
Borup: So you don’t have a stacking problem now, in the morning, the first thing
in the morning?
Donlon: No, I don’t.
MacCoy: People learn I guess how to use the place. Will you stand right there
while I ask staff? Staff do you have any questions of her?
Borup: Moving the tables answer the safety concern you originally had?
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 76
Stiles: I’m glad to see that they would do that. It seems real awkward that it
would be out on the landscaped strip out there, but as long as they maintain a
five foot minimum for a walkway. I think you can appreciate that they certainly
improved the looks of that corner there.
De Weerd: I have nothing.
Smith: It looks like everybody has spoken that wants to. I’d be up for making a
motion to close the public hearing. In fact that is a motion.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Smith: I would like to make a motion that we recommend to the City Council to
approve the conditional use permit for outside seating be located immediately to
the north of the existing building. Two tables as stated by the applicant tonight.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 10: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 97-15-ZOA
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK AMENDMENTS.
MacCoy: Everybody is going home now, this leaves us with this stuff. I’m going
to go back to our attorney here and for items 10 through 16, they are all Ada
County and we have a conglomerate of things. How do you want us to handle
these things?
Rossman: Can I call Mr. Gigray? Just kidding. I think the reason that Bill
wanted these on the agenda in the first place was that Ada County was
obviously requesting our input on what goes on within our impact area and
certainly we have an interest in what goes on in the impact area and the way that
we handled these before is took a look at the applications and I understand there
is limited information within some of these applications and take a look at the
limited information that we have and we’ve been directing Planning and Zoning
Administrator to submit a letter indicating whether we approve or disapprove of
the particular application.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 77
MacCoy: Hold that thought for a moment. Shari, what do you want to say about
this now?
Stiles: Can I just quickly go through all of them?
MacCoy: We would be very happy for you to do that.
Stiles: Number 10, manufactured home park amendments really doesn’t effect
us at all, it just changes where they would allow manufactured home parks.
MacCoy: Well also, they talk about a date on there for (Inaudible). Go ahead.
Stiles: I don’t know that we have any interest in whether, where they are going to
allow manufactured home parks. I don’t know if that’s based on the new, well not
that new legislation regarding manufactured home communities or what. That
we shouldn’t even have a comment on.
Borup: Sounds like they are getting more restrictive, they want to take it off a
permitted use and added to a conditional use.
MacCoy: Shari and I went to a meeting here two months ago and it came up.
Borup: That sounds good, gives a little more control over where they can and
can’t be.
Stiles: To tell you the truth, I don’t think what they are doing here is even legal.
Because they are providing for manufactured homes as the principal permitted
use. Residential zones, they’ve got to permit them anywhere that they permit
manufactured homes. So I don’t know what their point is, but it doesn’t effect.
Borup: The way I read this is presently permitted use and they are changing it to
a conditional use.
MacCoy: I’ll just put this in, I’m going to go to that meeting, because I want to
find out what they are talking about, because what Shari says is true.
Stiles: I don’t understand what they are accomplishing there, but it doesn’t
appear to meet the state code requirement, but that’s there problem.
(Inaudible)
Berg: If you don’t think we should comment at all on this because a no comment
by such a such date means…
Stiles: What brought this up is that Ada County has—they have their ordinance
that says the Planning and Zoning or the Meridian City Council shall submit a
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 78
response and so they are thinking that is requiring us to submit a response. I
don’t believe that either. If we want to, we will, if we don’t…
De Weerd: You can always submit a response of no comment.
Borup: It says on there, no response would be considered no comment.
Stiles: I don’t necessarily think that a response is necessary and…
MacCoy: We’ve passed the deadline on some of these already.
ITEM NO. 11: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-27-PDC/98-87-
CU/98-24-ZC LARRY HANSEN:
Stiles: This is for a storage unit, some storage units out there on Ten Mile they’d
be immediately south of the railroad tracks and north of the Ten Mile Creek.
They’ve shown extensive landscaping, they meet all of our requirements as far
as the landscaping. They meet all of our requirements as far as landscaping,
they would probably exceed what we would require. They have gone to City
Council. City Council has approved extension of water line to serve this
development. It is in an area designated in our Comprehensive Plan as a
general industrial area. Council had no problem, if you see no problem, I will
write the letter.
Borup: Is this contiguous to city limits?
Stiles: No. As part of that approval of the extension and the provision of water
service, they agreed to the double hookup fees and future annexation when they
are contiguous.
Borup: Okay, that was the question that I had was why weren’t they asked for
annexation and where the location.
ITEM NO. 12: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-78-CU
RONALD THURBER & ASSOCIATES:
Stiles: Number 12 is not in our impact area, it’s in Boise. It’s not, we should not
have even received it, it’s not in our impact area.
ITEM NO. 13: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-90-CU WILLIAM
B. ADAMS:
De Weerd: I said okay.
Stiles: Somebody wants to build a garage.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 79
(Inaudible)
ITEM NO. 14: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-13-1 GREAT
SKY, INC:
Stiles: Number 14 is really an Ada County procedural.
De Weerd: I know it, splitting hairs.
Stiles: They allow—yeah they are splitting hairs I think on that, but you know,
that’s up to them. It doesn’t really concern the city whether they allow a one time
split or not.
De Weerd: I think we should say that we would support it.
Stiles: I would rather stay away from.
De Weerd: And that they rules are splitting hairs.
Smith: Is it no comment?
Stiles: I prefer not to comment on it.
Rossman: If there is one that jumps out at you that needs specific comment, lets
direct Shari to give comment, otherwise lets savor the work of having to put a
letter to them, otherwise…
Nelson: Would it be appropriate to—when we get these to send just one letter to
Ada County Development Services and say we have addressed these and hand
no comments and just—just to let them know that…
De Weerd: Let them know we are looking at them.
Rossman: We can do that if you want.
Nelson: One letter and then only comment on those—and don’t sent the
precedent of commenting one way or another unless we have to.
MacCoy: Some of these are past date.
Nelson: Might even send a letter one time and say that is going to be our policy.
Stiles: Saying that we will respond to ones that we have a concern about, but if
we don’t respond, it means exactly what they say, a non response is no
comment.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 80
Borup: Send a letter just assure them that we do review all of them and they are
not ignored.
De Weerd: These are the only ones that we have comments on.
ITEM NO. 15: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-94-CU STEVE
CAVEN:
Stiles: Number 15 is another detached accessory structure. They just want to
build a garage, who cares?
De Weerd: I say okay.
ITEM NO. 16: ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: 98-31-PDR/98-31-
ZC WALT WANNER:
Stiles: This one is a little bit different, this was a—this came before City Council
a long time ago and council denied it because there is a provision that if a
property is split by two different impact areas, they can only incorporate the
smaller portion with the larger portion if it’s less than 300 feet deep, or less.
When they initially proposed this project, I don’t know if you can see, how the
impact area boundary is cutting that. I can’t tell exactly what those dimensions
are. What the representative told me is that Walt Wanner did some kind of
parcel boundary adjustment to make it so it is 300 feet or less and that is why he
is proposing developing it now. That may be something that we need to talk to
legal council about or what. If it’s done legally and it meets what that provision is
in Ada County’s—
MacCoy: You’re suggestion to give it to the legal department to make the final
decision.
Stiles: To see if there is any problem. I just can’t quite tell what the dimensions
are in here, because of course this is not scaled.
MacCoy: No, but I couldn’t understand why it was denied.
Stiles: Who should I talk to Eric about that?
Rossman: Bill Gigray would be a great person.
Borup: What is the depth of one of those lots. Can you read the dimension of
the lot depths?
(Inaudible)
Stiles: One of them looks like it’s about 183
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 81
Borup: The street is 50 feet and there is not six streets in there.
Stiles: So they may have done what they indicated they—I can’t tell what the
dimension is of the parcels to the east of the road there. That would be the
dimension that I would need to see if that is 300 feet or less.
Borup: Obviously he complied with it, it’s my understanding that he even has
some other property that he didn’t develop because of that 300 feet.
Stiles: Well, I think this was the area that he wasn’t going to develop. At one
time he was just going to make that a park and apparently they rethought what
they were going to do and must have done—I’ll find out if they did some kind of
parcel boundary adjustment in the county to make sure that it meets that 300
foot requirement.
Borup: How was Driftwood handled? I don’t remember the name of the
subdivision, Driftwood Street?
Stiles: What’s that?
Borup: That’s where half of it is Boise, and half is in Meridian.
Stiles: Half is in Boise and half is in Meridian.
Borup: Where did the sewer come from?
Stiles: Both directions.
Borup: Both directions, okay that’s what I was wondering.
MacCoy: Is that the end of that one? I need a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a question first, I read the paper the other day
and I read that something is going on in Crossroads with Dakota Company and I
wondered if we knew what the options were?
Borup: I was wondering that too.
Stiles: What day was that?
Borup: Well, the headlines said that the developer may not have to build a
fence, the wall.
De Weerd: The wall.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 82
Borup: Which is the same thing we recommended on this committee.
Rossman: It did say that, I read the article.
Stiles: Well, they would have to have a revision to the conditional use, that’s a
condition.
Borup: The reason it said they weren’t was because it said the homeowners
were …
(END OF TAPE)
De Weerd: Durkin may do more landscaping back there than the wall. The
homeowners are going to vote on their options.
Stiles: It’s not a homeowner vote situation.
De Weerd: I just wondered if the city was included in that.
(Inaudible)
Borup: It may be interesting…
Stiles: Maybe Shari ought to send a letter to Durkin indicating that is a condition
and if there is any amendment to be made, it needs to be brought before the
commission.
Borup: It could come back and they end up approving what we recommended to
start with.
Stiles: Which was what?
Borup: To do some extensive landscaping on that wall.
De Weerd: Which was I think a recommendation, I know someone made.
MacCoy: I’m waiting for a motion.
Smith: Do you have a direction on what you need to do with each of these Ada
County things?
Stiles: Yes I do.
Nelson: So if the conditional use say required this wall and then later on after
the subdivision begged for it, changed their mind, then that wall is—they couldn’t
reduce that wall requirement if that was part of conditional use, is that right?
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 83
Borup: Without coming back to us again.
Nelson: I have another question for you. I read also in the paper that the
subdivision is going to fight ACHD on the road…
Rossman: Greenhill?
De Weerd: Eagle Partners.
Stiles: They filed for judicial review.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we adjourn.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
____________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK