1999 08-25MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING –
AUGUST 25, 1999
A special meeting to the Meridian Planning and zoning Commission was called to order
at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Tammy De Weerd, Richard Hatcher, Thomas
Barbeiro, Kent Brown
OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Eric Rossman, Angel Sims,
Will Berg
Borup: We’d like to open this special meeting of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission August 25th
. As this is a special meeting, we do not have minutes from our
previous so we will proceed right into the regular agenda.
ITEM NUMBER 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A MULTI-FAMILY 96 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX (PROPOSED
COBBLESTONE VILLAGE) BY STAMAS CORPORATION/IONIC ENTERPRISE,
INC.—SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOCUST GROVE & FRANKLIN:
Borup: Do we have a staff report or comments at this time? Is Brad handling that?
Okay.
Hawkins: Good evening Commissioner’s. I’d like to first just include testimony and staff
report that was given in the prior public hearing for this agenda item, so I won’t go into
too much detail since you are all ready pretty familiar with the project. Just as a
reorientation the project is these two parcels here that are cross hatched totals just over
6 acres bounded by Franklin on the north, Locust Grove on the east, Medimont
Subdivision on the west, existing county properties on the south. Due to the lateness of
the hour in receiving a revised site plan, this is what you all should have received this
evening. Staff did receive this a couple of days ago, but have not had the opportunity to
do an analysis of the modifications. I would just point, the personal modifications to the
site plan are the access drive from Locust Grove into the site, which has been moved to
the north slightly—a wider buffer has been provided along the south boundary of the
project. That was a request from staff based on public testimony and others from the
last meeting. The other is the modification is a greater landscape area with swales here
in the northeast corner of the project. This does include, reflect a modification of the
future right of way take on Locust Grove and Franklin. The property again was
recommended for approval by the City Council to be annexed to an R-40 zone at their
August 17 meeting, so this item is the conditional use permit application only. The
development agreement is still being prepared by the City Attorney. That is not
complete yet, but the annexation has been done. I think that completes the
presentation for this right now unless you have other questions later.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 2
Borup: Commissioners, any questions for Brad at this time? I do have one. You said—
our plats are dated, received August 25th
today. Did staff get an earlier copy? You
said—
Hawkins: Yeah, Commissioner Borup. There is a little bit of confusion as to the date of
the modification, but we had received this, I believe 3 to 4 days prior but had not had an
opportunity to do any in-depth review of it.
Borup: So the date stamp is (inaudible).
Hawkins: (Inaudible).
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Hawkins: If I could add one point to the report, is that as was mentioned last time the
city code in terms of making decisions on the conditional use permits can not consider
funding or the subsidized nature of the project.
Borup: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I guess my questions would be why did we get it right before
the meeting then. That is my concern. I do not feel comfortable even discussing this
until we have had a chance to look at it and this is—when I got here tonight—this is
when I got it.
Borup: I’d agree with that. I think –
De Weerd: They were a number of things that were originally questioned when this
application was here a couple months ago and I haven’t seen anything on it since then.
I don’t feel comfortable even going forward at this point without having a chance to look
at this. I don’t know what staff’s feelings are, but we haven’t really had a chance to see
what their review will result as well.
Borup: Do you remember what items you had questions on?
De Weerd: I have a list of them. But then again, I also missed the second meeting too.
I know there were some drainage issues, issues on the Five Mile Creek, lowering the
density, the block wall, the utilities. There was just a number of them, so I would like to
have a chance to look at the site plan and I guess I would like to recommend tabling
this till our next meeting.
Borup: Continuing it till next meeting? I think there is some merit there, but I think we
do have the applicant here and even though at this point we don’t have the staff report,
it may be appropriate to have a report from the applicant. They could probably explain
a lot of those questions that we may have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 3
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think the public hasn’t even had a chance to view any of
these changes, so I would see that it would be a waste of time.
Borup: That’s what I am saying. This is the best place for the public to get a chance to
look at it. We’ve got it on the map. The applicant is here and can explain.
De Weerd: Well, I remember an incident that we were told certain changes were made
on a site plan and they were not made and I do not feel comfortable acting on anything
that I have not seen.
Borup: I agree with that.
De Weerd: Okay. That’s my personal opinion.
Borup: Okay. I don’t think I asked for a vote. Do the other Commissioners—are you
feeling along the same line.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. I tend to agree with Tammy on the fact that neither myself nor
any of the other Commissioners nor the public have had a chance to review it.
Borup: Well, this is the place pretty much for the public to review it.
Hatcher: I understand. I think that we could take this opportunity and go ahead and let
the applicant bring his points up together, but I don’t I don’t see that there is any need to
do that in the fact that I don’t feel that we would be able to make a decision or make any
sort of recommendation to City Council tonight in this meeting.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: We have a public forum. I would like to have the applicant come up and
speak and I would like to allow the neighbors to speak on the applicants explanations,
but of course until staff report is available, and a complete review is done, it would not
be prudent to make a recommendation to City Council this evening.
Borup: My thoughts are, how much time we want to spend on this if we going to have
another public hearing. I would like to hear from the applicant through. The applicant is
here—would like to come up and present your project? Again, keep in mind other than
our new Commissioner, we are familiar with the project—so probably the things that
would be pertinent to us would be addressing those items that there was concerns and
specifically it looks like to redesign of the layout.
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, my name is Brice Peterson. I am representing Ionic
Enterprises, which is also owned by the Stamas Corporation. Debbie Stamas is my
daughter and Paul Stamas is her husband, so I am representing the applicant tonight.
The information that your referring to, and I agree and am sorry that you did not get it,
but I think that the information—the new site plan and things like that were delivered to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 4
the City Hall at the time of the City Council hearing. I do recognize that if you have not
seen it why that is understandable and I would not ask you to vote for or against
something that you have not had time to study. This is a very important to me and to
my family. I’d like it to get due consideration. I am not asking you to do anything that
your not comfortable with. I think you—and things happen. The director has been ill for
some time and I think probably because of that, things were not delivered over to the
P&Z, but those things happen and we are not going to be concerned about it. You have
not seen it, so I am not asking you to act on it. Is that fair? If you would like I have a
rather lengthily presentation that I’d like to make and –
Borup: Presentation concerning the revisions?
Peterson: Yes.
Borup: Okay. How lengthily is lengthily?
Peterson: I don’t want to bore you Mr. Chairman, but I do think that a presentation is
appropriate.
Borup: Well, yes. It is necessary.
Barbeiro: Mr. Peterson, could you move the microphone closer.
Peterson: I am at your pleasure Mr. Chairman.
Borup: I don’t know how long our agenda is going to last tonight, but I hate to keep
postponing things entirely. Again, in the future I would not expect to review everything
that we have all ready heard at previous meetings either. I’d like to go ahead and do a
presentation addressing those things where you’ve made revisions to address some of
the concerns.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Might I offer, we are missing one Commissioner here tonight
and if this is continued to the September 14th
date, he will not have the opportunity to
hear Mr. Peterson’s comments on these revisions and I just really strongly feel that we
should have chance to look at the changes, digest it so when Mr. Peterson gives his
presentation on the revisions, we will have –all ready know what he is talking about and
perhaps he can answer some of our questions during those presentation. Otherwise,
we will be duplicating what we’ll do tonight on September 14th
as well.
Borup: Mr. Peterson, I’d like to go ahead and give you about 10 minutes and I think that
would help us digest it better. Will you proceed.
Peterson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I’ll try to stay within that and what I am hearing
you say, and it is perfectly all right with me, that your going to postpone this again.
Borup: I think that is the direction the Commission (inaudible).
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 5
Peterson: It is perfectly all right. I would—I hope the same Commissioner is not absent
next month. Having served—
Borup: Let me mention—we do—and I should have made an introduction at the
beginning. We do have two new Commissioners here tonight. One of them is here
tonight. Richard Hatcher is—Kent Brown is the other Commissioner. He had a
previous appointment that he had made a month and a half ago before he was
appointed to the Commission and that is the reason he is not here. He is planning on
coming later tonight, as soon as his other meeting is over. We will see what ever time
that is though. Let’s proceed.
Peterson: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would just say that the project is located on the
corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Road. We did take this before the City Council and
the City Council did annex the property with an R-40 zoning. The things that we have
changed and I will go over this very briefly as it sounds like we are going to do it again,
so—if I keep practicing I’m going to get pretty good you know. The audience can see
the site plan that is on the overhead and there are substantial changes to the site plan
and I hope you find them favorable. If I might use this site plan here, which is a
duplicate of the one on the board—on the wall—I’ll read some dimensions to you that
might help. As you recall, when you enter off of Locust Grove in the previous land plan,
we had a row of buildings on the left hand side—in other words next to the south
boundary. With this chance, we have entered the project farther to the south and went
around the first row of buildings. The dimension from the south boundary to the closest
building in that row—the first row. It is okay or would you like me to point it out?
Borup: Any Commissioners have questions on that?
Peterson: 58 feet. If you –if there is any question, please stop me. 58 feet is the
distance. If you move the next dimension you’ll see that the closest parking stall is 16
feet. If you move to the west along that property line, you'll see the next dimension to
the closest point of the building is 36 feet. If you move to the farthest back building,
which would be in the southwest corner, you'll see that that dimension is 32 feet. We
continue to agree with the Robinson’s that we would be happy to put a major wall on
that property line to further help any sound barriers or anything that they may wish.
They requested that, as you recall, so we are simply agreeing to it. We have added a
substantial amount of landscaping along there and we have added some fountains and
ponds and signage to the entrance to indicate that it is the main entrance and that is the
one we want people to use. The (inaudible) has been designed to be all stucco. This is
a typical building. You know that there are different people who talk about whether this
is a 2-1/2 story or a 3 story –you choose whatever you—however identification you’d
like, but this is a typical building. Would there be any questions?
Hatcher: Mr. Peterson. You mentioned stucco. Is it stucco or is it EIFS?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 6
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hatcher, it’s stucco. We have added a lot of landscaping
to the previous site plan. We have done what we can do to loosen it up and to loosen
up the density. We have spread the buildings out and made them—all of them are 2-
1/2 or 3 stories whichever you want to call them. The buffering or—I think that was the
word that was used by the previous Commission, between the Robinson’s next to us
and our property has been greatly increased and the landscaping between the two
properties all of course on our side of the line have been greatly increased. We have
here with us tonight the traffic engineer who did the traffic study. I believe that that was
the other—as near as I could tell there was 2 items that I needed to address tonight.
One was the buffering and the other was the traffic. Jerry Flats with JUB Engineers is
here. With your indulgence and your permission, I would like to have his speak. Mr.
Tumora and I’d like to have him answer any questions if you have any concerning the
site plan or the buildings.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Peterson at this point? Maybe one question.
Back on the original staff comments from April, have you had a chance to review those
and do you feel that all those have been addressed within the new site plan?
Peterson: Mr. Chairman. Yes I do believe they have.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Peterson: In the sense of brevity if you don’t have another questions I’d like to—
Borup: Yes, we’d like to move on. Your traffic engineer you said would like to—I think
that was the other major concern from previous.
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I’d like to pass these out as information I was going
to present to you tonight. While you study the site plan, as you indicated that you
haven’t been able to yet, maybe you could look at this as well and see our positions on
each of the items as they relate to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Rossman: Excuse me Mr. Peterson, if you could run that through the Clerk and it
marked as an exhibit please.
Flats: Good evening. I am Jerry Flats. I work for JUB Engineers in Boise. I did the
short traffic impact study on this development. I’m not sure, well I am sure you might no
want to hear the whole story, but I’ll try to be as brief as possible. The traffic impact
study looks at a site and the first thing that we do is take this development and look at
the amount of traffic that that will generate. We do that from the ITE manual. In this
case, we had a—we look at the afternoon peak hour and that’s usually the most intense
hour of the day. We had in this case, 43 new trip ends that were generated by this
development—excuse me, 64. 43 enter and 21 depart.
Borup: What time period?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 7
Flats: The afternoon, one hour between 4 and 6 p.m. We take that new traffic that is
generated by the new development add it to the existing traffic that is there and also
add it to the traffic that would be caused by growth over the period of time between now
and when the project is fully developed. We distribute that onto the roads and then we
look at the level of service in this case, particularly at that intersection of Locust Grove
and Franklin. In this case, the –if I get to peek at the report here—we found that the
level of service is really a major of how much delay there is at the intersection. You
know what it feels like when your at an intersection and your delayed. The longer you
have to wait, the worse it feels and level of service is measured ABCDEF, kind of like
grades in school. F feels horrible and A feels good. A you don’t have to wait very long
and F you might be waiting a minute before you can turn. It’s a “T” intersection, you
make right and left turns and the level of service did not change significantly with the
new traffic. It was a level of service in the morning it was C and in the afternoon it was
C—the delay was 14.2 seconds average per vehicle that came in the morning and 17.6
in the afternoon. I don’t know if you have had a chance to look at the report. I will leave
you my extra copies. I would be happy to answer questions.
Borup: Are you saying multiple copies of the traffic report were submitted?
Flats: You know the last time you had the meeting, Gary Lee was here and I am not
sure if they were submitted or not. The report was done in July.
Hawkins: I think that went to City Council it did not come through this body.
Flats: Oh, well I will leave you as much as I’ve got.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners have any questions?
Barbeiro: Mr. Flats, with regards to your analysis of the traffic control plan, you
mentioned the idea that it would include the incremental growth. Can you tell me—right
now you have it listed as a C intersection—the additional traffic from the apartment
complex will not change it to a D.
Flats: Right.
Barbeiro: Did you take into consideration and is it in your report the expanded growth
that Jabil employee’s entering will take place and can you tell me if, with the addition of
Jabil and the addition of this apartment complex, will we reach D or E levels at those
intersections.
Flats: I can’t because when I took the growth, I called APA and got a growth rate per
year for the Meridian area and I used that growth rate. I have no knowledge of this
other development and how much traffic it will generate.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 8
Barbeiro: So, it is fair to say that since Jabil will likely be completed operational and
have employees prior to the completion and occupancy of this, that your report is not
effective with regards to this project.
Flats: I would say that my report does not include that other development.
Barbeiro: And since that development will be operational prior to this apartment
complex being occupied, how does that effect your report?
Flats: My report looks at the influence of this development on that intersection.
Barbeiro: With regards to traffic flow today, I need to understand how it will effect traffic
flow with regards to a new development that will be operational and occupied at the
time this project is operational and occupied.
Flats: It seems like, if that was the case, there should have been a traffic study done by
the other development also. You could combine those two pretty easily and take a look
at the future level of service and see how each development effects that intersection
and how they effect it together. It’s not something that I had access to. Anything else?
Thanks for your time.
Borup: Thank you. Do the Commissioners have any questions on the site plan for Mr.
Tumara or are we ready to move ahead.
De Weerd: I am ready to move ahead. I just had one observation. In looking at that
down by the entrance off Locust Grove, the parking area is only within—that buffer is
just like 12 feet, we do have a minimum required and that’s for the full side. I guess that
would be my only observation at this point. Without staff comments on this revised plat,
I just don’t feel that comments at this point are even necessary. I would move to
continue this until our September 14th
meeting.
Borup: Okay, we have a motion to continue this public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: This application will be continued to the September 14th
Planning and Zoning
meeting. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 9
ITEM NUMBER 2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
PROPOSED ENGLISH GARDENS SUBDIVISION BY PROJECTS WEST—CORNER
OF TEN MILE ROAD & CHERRY LANE.
Borup: Staff, do we have a presentation on this?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The English Gardens Subdivision has been
having problems working with the public works department on the sewer availability on
this site. You have staff comments from Bruce Freckleton, which I will let him address
in a moment. I will just take this opportunity to get you orientated to the site and the
project itself. Planning and zoning staff has not prepared additional comments based
on the public works decision of the unsewer ability and I have heard tonight that the
northern portion may be sewerable and I don’t know if the applicant will request action
to approve the northern half. If that would be the case then we would request a revised
plat to be submitted that we could review and prepare staff comments on. The project
is located at the corner of Cherry Lane and Black Cat Road. It is the southeast corner.
I believe it is Ten Mile Drain that runs through the project in here. The property is
currently annexed to the City and zoned R-4. That should get you at least oriented to
the project and I’ll let Bruce Freckleton take over comments at this point.
Borup: I believe that that was a main concern last time was sewer, if I remember, so.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Hopefully in your packet you
all have a copy of my staff recommendations. Your correct. The issue is a sewer issue.
There is a future trunk line that is proposed to come down Black Cat. It will come down
south of Cherry Lane till it hits the Ten Mile Creek. Then there is another line that takes
off and follows the Ten Mile Creek on the north side out to the east and south along the
boundary of (inaudible) park. There also in Black Cat, another line that continues
south toward the southern boundary of this project. At this point of time there is an
existing 12 inch line that is a temporary line that was installed at the time Ashford
Greens Subdivision went in. This 12 inch line is a lot shallower than what the ultimate
future trunk line will be and the proposal from the applicant for English Gardens is to go
ahead and run that 12 inch line on down to serve English Gardens. Grade wise, depth
wise the north half of the project that they on their site plan refer to as Phase I, which is
all that property north of Ten Mile Creek. Will gravity flow? It looks like it wouldn’t be a
problem. However getting across the Ten Mile Creek and serving the south side of the
project, is a problem. Depth wise they would have to fill a portion of the site
approximately 4 feet in order to get adequate cover over the sewer line. They proposed
to increase the diameter of the sewer line to 12 inch to be able to flatten it out. It would
also require an Arial crossing of the Ten Mile Creek. The sewer pipe would cross above
the creek. That crossing would also be below the high water mark of Ten Mile Creek
which throws in some issues with Corp of Engineers. I guess in a nut shell, that kind of
summarized it. I don’t know if anyone is here from Pinnacle that would like to give their
presentation, but I’ll answer any questions you might have.
Borup: Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Freckleton?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 10
Barbeiro: Bruce, was there any discussion of a lift station?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro there was. Let me find that. Brad
Watson Assistant City Engineer, did a response to a letter that they had written to our
department. Basically, his response was a lift station will not be acceptable at this
location. It would discharge to the existing Ashford Greens lift station, which may cause
excessive cycling of the pumps. Basically you have one leap frog type effect. One lift
station (inaudible) to another lift station.
Borup: Is there any approximate time at all on the other truck line?
Freckleton: Chair Borup, that is one of those crystal ball questions. I do not have an
answer. I don’t know of any projection.
Borup: Okay, thank you. If the applicant is here and would like to come and address
the commission. Do we have the applicant here? That makes a short presentation.
Commissioners, discussion or comments.
De Weerd: I guess my only discussion would be appropriate to continue this. With out
the applicant here there is not too many questions we can ask at this point.
Borup: It may be again looking ahead to next time. Maybe—anybody have any other
questions on this sewer. My understanding from staff then is your saying the north
section can be gravity fed and that is not a problem. But the staff does not recommend
their proposal for the southern part of the property.
Freckleton: That’s correct.
Hatcher. Mr. Chairman. Does the staff have any recommendation in being able to
provide services to the southern portion based upon any of the other recent projects
that were done related to the Black Cat Truck, i.e. I have noticed in several of the
documentation’s a lot of projects are inter-related to this future Black Cat Truck. I would
like to know from staff if there are any future plans. Again, the crystal ball question.
When is the Black Cat Trunk going in? Has there been discussion with a group of
developers? I know on one of the other projects the proposal was getting a group of
developers together to help fund this. (Inaudible) city and building so that they can do
their projects. I’d like to have additional information from staff in regards to what is or
isn’t being done in regards to the Black Cat Truck.
Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher, you are correct. There are several project that are
kind of dependent on this Black Cat Truck. I have not heard of anybody trying to get a
coalition of developers together to try to put the trunk line in. A lot of these projects that
are being proposed, they want to try to find alternate means of getting their projects
sewered, without putting the Black Cat Truck Line in. Definitely, the Black Cat Truck is
our preference to serve these projects. As far as a time frame on the Black Cat Truck
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 11
though, that is something that we just don’t have any kind of a time line. It is in our
facility plan proposed to be put in, but the city has not stepped up to the plate to put it in
and neither has any of the development community.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton, you mentioned there are several projects that would be affected
by Ten Mile, do you know approximately how many? Several could mean a lot of
things. I am just wondering if there is enough there that maybe it might warrant a little
higher priority. I don’t know how this compares with other areas that have a lot of other
projects also.
Freckleton: There is a fairly large project before you tonight—the Bear Creek project—
that is kind of dependant on this as well. Our department has had discussion with
numerous property owners out there that have inquired about sewer service ability of
this area. A number, maybe 5 to 10 parcels that are sitting out there waiting.
Borup: Right now the next trunk line planned is the northern—is it the no name or that
is the next one planned.
Freckleton: Yes, it is.
Borup: I realize that there is some urgency there to start expanding to the east, but I
am wondering which truck line affects the greater number of development lots.
Freckleton: The no name trunk certainly is going to open up a huge area. Basically,
our service boundary stop now at Ustick Road and until we get north of Ustick with the
no name trunk, we are kind of stuck.
Borup: That whole northern area. That’s probably why there aren’t projects being
proposed there because there never has been any sewer. These other areas have it all
around them, but maybe not on the specific ones that are left. Is that because the area
is kind of filling up so we are down to the last areas that aren’t quite being serviced and
that Black Cat is going to need to take care of. Okay, thank you. Commissioners. Has
everyone got their questions answered on the sewer. I think that was again really the
only question at least the major concern and since we do not have the applicant here—
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, when I read some of the staff’s comments I assumed that is
would be continued, so perhaps the applicant had assumed so as well.
Freckleton: Chairman Borup. I did have some discussion with Dave Bailey, Pinnacle
Engineers. My suggestion to him was that they submit a letter requesting that it be
continued so that they could consider their different options.
Borup: How they want to phase it or what they want to do.
Freckleton: Right. So they may still proceed with that northern portion but it is going to
take a little bit of redesign.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 12
Borup: Did he give any indication to you as a time frame.
Freckleton: No he didn’t.
Borup: Is he going to need more than one month? Don’t know? I think we can
proceed ahead without the letter and accomplish the same thing.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I would move that we continue the English Gardens
Subdivision request for preliminary plat approval until our September 14th
meeting.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Do we have a count of hearings set for September 14th
?
Borup: No we do not, but we just added to it. Whatever we got, we’ve added two more
to it.
ITEM NUMBER 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING OF
150.79 ACRES OF LAND (FOR R-4 ZONING) BY BEAR CREEK, LLC—EAST OF
STODDARD ROAD & SOUTH OF OVERLAND.
Borup: Staff.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. As all ready noted, this is another
project before you that has issues with sewerability. It is also waiting for the Black Cat
Trunk in order to be sewerable. It is a 326 single family dwelling lot subdivision on 150
acres known as Bear Creek Subdivision. It is located west of Meridian Road between
Overland and Victory Road. You should have staff comments from Bruce Freckleton
regarding the sewerability dated August 23 and I will turn the time over to him for
comments.
********END OF SIDE ONE*******
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The first time this was before
you we asked for complete sewer analysis on this area, since that time Brad Watson in
our office has completed that sewer analysis and the results of which should be in your
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 13
packets. It is a pretty extensive little report. Executive summary, page 1 of 6, last
paragraph, last sentence. The public works department recommends the denial of this
application based on sewer, the inability to sewer the project. I would just let the report
speak for itself. I will answer any questions you might have after the applicant has a
chance to address it.
Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland, Boise. I am
representing the applicant on this matter. This is north facing upward. Bear Creek
Estates is located just north of Victory and on the east side of Stoddard Road and just
south of Overland where you’ve got the Boondocks, the Roaring Springs and some
other commercial development on the northern portion. It is approximately 150 acres.
We are proposing 326 single family lots on the 150 acres. Our total density is 2.16
dwelling units per acre. When we started this project, we met with the Meridian School
District and we met with the Meridian Parks Department and we met with Public Works
and Planning and got input. We did not get a warm welcome from Public Works. It was
basically stated that they would not make the determination to accept the lift station to
pump into another trunk. That if that decision was made it would be a decision made by
the City Council. We did get a warm response from the Parks Dept. The 18.62 acres
will be donated. We provided your parks director with some examples of other projects
where the private sector has donated the land and funded the improvements. We
stated in the record that we submitted that we would provide sprinklers, we would sod it
and then we would also build this parking lot here and they we intend to do some
landscaping along the front so that we’ve got an continuation of that landscaping. In
exchange for that we would be getting some park impact credits and that is typically
how it is done and that’s what we discussed. How that works is the development
community plays the banker and they fit the bill up front and you have instant green for
soccer, ball fields, etc. Then over time as building permits are pulled, and they pay that
park impact fee, some of those monies goes back to the developer. Typically, they do
not recoup all of their expenses. It’s worked successfully in other communities and
that’s what we proposed here. One question that arose, we had a neighborhood
meeting about a week ago since there was so many people here with concerns and
opposition when it first came before you and was deferred, we provided them an
opportunity to look at the plan up close and to talk about it and try to answer as many
questions. One question that arose was you’ve got the park there, but what is your
density if you take the park out. It appears to be extremely high density. I did that and
we’re at 2.16 with the park in and that is typically how your density is calculated. If we
remove that park, we are at 2.47 dwelling units per acre, so we’re not even at 2-1/2.
This project has very low density. We are trying to provide an upscale community,
larger lots. Our smallest lot is just shy of 94—9500 square feet. Our biggest lot is
35,758 square feet. We have three different sizes of lots provided good depth in the
lots trying to keep a minimum of 115 feet to make sure these people have adequate
backyards. We have incorporated these micro pathways to make connections to the
park, so we’ve got good access. We kept them straight for visibility. We put what we
call pocket park back in that vicinity. That would be used for drainage and just a small
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 14
park. That is .88, just a little over ¾’s of an acre. Meridian Road is located here. This
is existing Elk Runs Subdivision you see here. Calderwood Street is stubbed to this
point. Calderwood is designated by Ada County Highway District as a collector. It’s a
60 foot right of way, 41 back to back. None of those homes front on it because it is
designated as a collector. There is a fence that runs across the rear of these lots, and
then there is about 4 foot of dirt and some weeds and sidewalk. This south side is
landscaped. It looks very nice. We provided buffering all along Stoddard and all along
Victory. Thirty foot is the minimum and then we bring our landscaped areas. We
oscillate them and create little pockets where we can put either water features or rocks
and what it does it breaks up that corridor effect as you drive down the roadway. If you
have ever driven down say McMillan, between Cloverdale and Eagle Road and if you
look at the Legends Subdivision, it has osolating birms and fences along McMillan and
it breaks it up and gives it a nice look. In some of the culdesacs we’ve got islands that
provide landscaping plus parking. One of the things that people state that live in a
culdesac is they wish they had some place for their visitors to park. We have provided
on some of these culdesacs, that amenity. We believe that this is a good project. We
understand the issue of the sewer. We have reviewed the report. We have talked to
the staff and discussed it. We did not cause this problem and we don’t want to be a
part of the problem. What we want to do is try to come up with solutions to solve it. We
are making that initiative. In my letter that I submitted to the Public Works Department
we stated that we would agree to a $1000 additional sewer assessment per lot. Above
and beyond the standard hook up fee, which is a little over $1700. Those funds
obviously could be utilized for trunk expansion to go in, work over the bottlenecks that
exist. The lift station that we propose we stated that we will install it design it and if you
don’t want—we pay to have you maintain it through our association dues. The City
would incur no costs. But if that is unacceptable, the alternative is through private
companies out there is that what they do, is maintain lift stations. I have provided
documentation to the Public Works Dept. on what the average cost for maintenance of
the lift stations runs. It is between $3000 and $5000 annually. It takes up about 2
hours per week for one employee to go out and visit that lift station and then they go in
and they spray it. The city of Boise is where the data came from. They indicated to me
that they’d pass on that maintenance to the homeowner with what they call a surcharge.
That is on their monthly bill for that lift station. We’ve done many lift stations in other
communities and it is typically done when you have an area that sewer is reasonably
available but the property will not gravity. Now, all cities have what they call trunk line
boundaries. This is one right here. This is the subject property that you see. As you
can see, the subject property the boundary comes through this parcel. Some of it is in
this Ten Mile Trunk which or Meridian Trunk which goes and dumps into the Ten Mile
Trunk. Some of it is in this Black Cat B Truck, which doesn’t exist. Now, what the other
cities have said, I talked to the City of Kuna and they said, well, we look at it first come
first serve. Everybody has limited capacity, on their lines, in their sewer plant and first
come, first serve. When they come in with their construction plans and final plat, at that
time we reserve that capacity for that development. My discussions with the City of
Boise on their trunk lines, I said what you guys utilize service areas. They said yes we
do. I said do you ever go over those service areas? They said all the time. It’s done to
continue the grown and pay for trunk extensions and plant upgrades. I said well what
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 15
do you mean by that? They said, well if you take great big trunk lines 42 inch, 36 inch
and run them at extreme depths, that is extremely costly to the city. If the development
community does it, they still have to reimburse –some of those dollars have to go back
to the development community. So they said with lift stations what we do is we are
maximizing our capacity. We are getting those hook up fee, we are getting sewer
assessment fees, but we are not putting out any capital expenditures in order to serve
them at that time and so we build up our reserve and then that basically funds the trunk
extensions and they view their lift stations as temporary. Any lift station I have done is
called temporary lift station. Temporary regional lift station, whatever. That is typically
what they are viewed as. Some of the—one particular project now has jumped over 3
different sewer service areas, so it’s way off from it’s service area. They stated we
designed at 70% capacity so we always have a little bit of room for some additional
service and this system has worked extremely well for us. In discussions I have had
with staff, I don’t think anybody has given me a definite number on what capacity are
they designing to. I’ve read the report and the report talks about CFS’s and it is very
complicated, but when you compare that with other reports that were written on
analysis, something does not jive. There is another project coming before you and it
has a bottleneck just like this Ten Mile Trunk, but yet, it’s been indicated that it is
satisfactory to dump into that particular trunk. Where do you draw the line. I have a
project that is within a boundary that we were proceeding with six months ago and we
were told don’t proceed on that cause we met with the staff before we started, so they
knew we were working on it. Don’t proceed on that because we don’t have capacity in
that trunk—that Nine Mile Trunk has no capacity. We stopped all work on that one and
it is within that sewer boundary. This is a juggling act. It is. If you read the report and
you look at the conclusions they are basically saying Ten Mile Trunk has 900 to 1000
home capacity. Eventually it is going to reach it’s capacity and we have a bottlenecks.
If you read discussions on the Nine Mile Trunk, they are stating it is at capacity. South
of the interstate we are reaching a problem where we’ve got some capacity problems.
We need to work on the bottlenecks or come up with some alternative solutions. The
statement was made earlier about a joint effort by the development community in the
City to solve these problems. Well we are working on one by extending Five Mile Trunk
across the interstate over in the Eagle Road area, just west of Eagle Road. That
extension would service a new high school on a project that I was involved in and the
cost of that extension is, I think we estimated approximately $300,000 and it is
(inaudible) the freeway. There is an instance where a group got together and came up
with a solution but there were statements that that trunk would be at capacity. In that
report it talks about the north side the north portion of the city is our priority area. I
understand that but I think that one thing that the city has to look at is balancing that
growth. Are we going to want to put 10,000 new homes between Chinden and Ustick
Road and Locust Grove or Eagle and Ten Mile. Are we going to want to put that many
people in that particular area where we don’t have a ten mile interchange. We don’t
have an overpass at Locust Grove. There is some big issues as far as infrastructure
that we’ve got to look at. And in the interim, like I said it is a juggling act. We would like
to try to solve the problem and we think that we’ve got some ideas that will work. I am
not going to dispute the numbers that they have provided. I don’t think that benefits
anybody. I am relying on their expertise and their testing of these lines, but I think
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 16
we’ve got to look—instead of just saying no, deny that, we’ve got to look at some
solutions. I think that we have some solutions and to say that well, $326,000 in a fund,
that’s a drop in the bucket. Well what about the almost $1800 that would be paid in
hook up fees in addition to the $1000. When you add the $326,000 and figure $1700
per lot, which is less than what the hook up fee is, it’s $880,200 monies coming into the
city at final build out. That is the other issue to, they always assume final built out when
you look at a project like this that takes place over probably anywhere from 4 to 6 years,
depending on the market. Lastly, in conclusion, this is a hard decision and I don’t have
all the answers, but I think we ought to start making headway to solve the problem and
this is initiating that headway to solve the issue of parks, to solve the issue of sewer
capacity in this area and looking at alternatives and fund raising to get these lines
where we need them. Thanks.
Borup: Any questions for Becky from any of the Commissioners. Any other parties like
to speak on –I guess maybe you do.
Johnson: My name is Greg Johnson. I reside at 2433 (inaudible) Road. I am a
managing member of this LLC that has submitted this project. I won’t talk about details
on the project, but I would like to address this sewer issue of Black Cat Trunk. From a
developers standpoint, I know that at the bottom of the report the recommendation of
staff as some consortium of developers will eventually come together and this 7 to 9
million dollar project will happen. Developers are a little like farmers. I haven’t seen
any of them get together on much of anything over the last 20 years that I’ve been
doing this. It’s very difficult. You are always trying to maybe out maneuver the
competition to be able to compete with a little edge, so to speak. For a group to get
together with enough property to do this, maybe it will happen in the next 20 years. I
don’t know. I think it is really unrealistic to think that it would. We have offered a
solution of collecting a trunk fee. We know that our project doesn’t fund the whole
thing, but if the projects to the north such as Ashford Greens, as an existing project this
is a huge trunk and it probably was unproportional for Ashford Greens to have to build
the trunk to and through their property like a standard procedure in Meridian. In most
development, you build the trunk to and through your property. That would have built a
substantial portion of this trunk. That was waved because it was such a huge trunk that
we should at least be collecting fees for that trunk. That project that was presented
earlier that would use this facility eventually, if they don’t build it at least collect an
appropriate fee so that somebody can build it. The City can use that to build it. In the
staffs comments it said that it would take 7 to 8 thousand homes in this trunk area
collecting $1000 per house to build it. That seems like a huge amount but did a very
conservative estimate of what is expected of 2.5 density for the area served by this and
there is 20,000 homes that will be served by this trunk, including the diversions from
Ten Mile and Nine Mile Trunk which are reaching capacity just as staff has told you.
Some of that development will happen up at the head of the trunk—up at the north end.
It all does not have occur here in Bear Creek and on the Ten Mile Trunk. If 2,000 or so
houses are provided on the south side of the freeway by revamping some pipes that are
undersized and other things in small projects, that capacity can continue and we can
continue to grow on the south side of the freeway and growth can take place on the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 17
upper end of the Black Cat Trunk and eventually it can be built. Just the first portion of
the Black Cat Trunk and a 24 inch relief trunk over to the Crestwood area would
generate substantial volume of permits that then could be built. If we are a few hundred
thousand short when it comes time that we’ve reached capacity to do that, one of the
solutions that I have reached in another community is we are building the facility which
the community can not afford and in return we are receiving sewer credits which we
will—we are receiving prepaid sewer permits, I guess is what is actually is. But when a
number gets down to say a quarter million dollars or so, then the development
community can figure out ways to fund those and help the city through a crisis and we
will eat this elephant a piece at a time. I think we have a wonderful project and it will be
a great benefit to the community. Maybe we need to have a committee to establish to
address how we get the Black Cat Trunk built and to actually establish a system. We
would be glad to work on that with staff or members of Planning and Zoning and
whoever. I think a serious problem that needs to be looked at is if the Black Cat Trunk
does not get built, and the figures are right with 900 homes, our statistics show that
right now we are building about 120 homes a year south of the freeway. That only
takes about 5-1/2 to 7 years. If it keeps increasing at the volume that it has been, it will
be about 5 years. If we don’t do something now, then all development stops there.
Boise is all ready sitting a quarter mile west of Cloverdale and pumping sewage in Rock
Hampton Estates. That developer has other land west of there. We have other land
west of there. If Meridian doesn’t continue to provide service to this area, the county
has stated that 10 years was a reasonable time, we will apply to Boise for those
services. We don’t have any choice. We’ve sat on the ground long enough and we
have to develop it and Boise is willing to take those things and the county will probably
say Meridian, can you do this. That would be removed from the impact area. It has
happened north of the freeway and it is starting to happen south of the freeway. I think
it is time that as a community we organize and develop a plan and then proceed with it
so that we can plan this community and continue with it. That is all I have to say.
Thanks.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Johnson?
De Weerd: Maybe a comment. Mr. Johnson we are right now updating our
Comprehensive Plan and
Johnson: We have a couple applications on that.
De Weerd: No, I mean as far as involving the public into that process, so I don’t think I
saw you at our first meeting but I would invite you to our second meeting.
Johnson: I’d be glad to come.
De Weerd: That’s September 15th
at Chaparral Elementary School. Some of those
issues are being looked at because this is a map for planning the future for Meridian
and those are the kinds of comments that we need to receive.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 18
Johnson: I appreciate that Tammy. I was asked to serve on one of the committees. I
told them I would. I was out of town when they had that first meeting. Thanks.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Freckleton, you mentioned you mentioned you may want to
make a comment after the applicants presentation. Are you still wishing to do that or
shall we proceed.
Freckleton: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. I just want to touch on a
couple items. Well, just really one. In Brad Watson’s report for the English Gardens
project, the previous agenda item, he is in the process of working on a Black Cat Trunk
line fee. He is going to finish up those calculations next week and put them before Gary
Smith, so that is something we are definitely at is to impose a fee on everybody in that
service area for this Black Cat Trunk line extension. That’s all.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of discussion with regards to
capacity’s and extensions. I do not know the existing capacity and the planned
extension. Can we get a little more information on that from Bruce and enlighten us on
how the capacities and extensions would effect this particular subdivision.
Borup: You talking information beyond what was in the report?
Barbeiro: I would like a highlight of the report. There is so much in (inaudible) and it is
a little hard to digest.
Borup: You didn’t digest all that? Okay. Did you understand the question Bruce?
Freckleton: I believe so. I will just try to summarize a little bit. When trunk lines are
designed, they are designed to serve a certain service area. The main lines or the
trunk lines are sized accordingly to serve those areas. The situation you have tonight is
you’ve got a project that is outside of it’s designated service area wanting to basically
pump back into another service area. In do so, what is does it eats up capacity of the
service area that has been designed to go to its proper trunk line. Also, in Brad
Watson’s report, he talks about the carrying capacity of some of those existing
mainlines, particularly in Elk Run Subdivision being overwhelmed by the flows. I don’t
know. Did you need anymore?
Barbeiro: The other question is that the applicant had discussed the idea of first come
first serve, as opposed to serving an existing service area. What is Public Works policy
of about ignoring a service area and jumping over that first come first serve basis. Is it
intended that we only seek to develop those areas in a service until a new service area
exists.
Freckleton: It has been Public Works position to try to stick to the service areas. That
has been our position. In our opinion it creates problems. The applicant talks about
this project solving problems and I don’t see it that way. I see that this creates problems
by having to have a lift station pumping into another service area. It is just creating
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 19
problems for the service area that is designed—the trunk line in the service area that is
designated to go to. Like I say, Public Works position has been that we stick with the
service areas and how they are designed. That is why we do the facility plans. We do
the studies to try to size lines for those service areas and that has been our position.
Barbeiro: The applicant went in on discussion about let’s all get together and solve the
problems. What solution to this problem has the applicant brought to you?
Freckleton: Commissioner Barbeiro Brad Watson in our office has had more dealings
with the applicant and their Engineering firm. Their proposal is to sewer via a lift station
back into the Nine Mile drainage area. That’s their solution. I have not heard of any
proposals for trunk line extensions or anything of that such.
Barbeiro: As they described the solution as you just stated, it is a temporary lift station,
so I guess the question with ( inaudible). What solutions have they proposed? How
long do they intend to have the temporary lift station and how would that temporary lift
station be disassembled and when.
Borup: Is that a question you would like to propose to the applicant before we proceed?
Barbeiro: Yes, I would like to propose that to the applicant.
Borup: I don’t know if they can answer that any better than Mr. Freckleton.
Barbeiro: The presentation was quite lengthy in let’s solve the problem. What’s
solutions does the applicant propose to let’s solve the problem.
Borup: Other than the $1000 surcharge.
Barbeiro: The $1000 surcharge is only money toward a solution. What is the solution
that the money would be applied toward.
Borup: Okay. Does the applicant have any comment on that?
Bowcutt: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro what we were looking at as far as
those monies was possibly start that Black Cat trunk or look at fixing some of these
bottlenecks. You’ve got older sewer lines, is my understanding that are smaller, and
then as growth continued on south then they have bottlenecks. Crossings along
freeways—this one happens to be in Crestwood. Nobody from the city is telling me it
will cost X number of dollars to fix this bottleneck or what other options can we take to
fix it at this point of time. We’d like a quick fix. I don’t know there is necessarily a quick
fix. These things take time. One thing that we did discuss was trying to form some
committee to look at this Black Cat trunk and say okay, eventually it is going to have to
be extended. It’s got to be extended because the staff has indicated in his report that
regardless of us, you’ve got 1000 unit capacity right now, but if we are out of the
picture, once those 1000 units are taken up, that line can’t service its designated area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 20
It can’t go all the way down that map as proposed. So it is going to divert into the Black
Cat trunk eventually. So is the Nine Mile trunk which has reached capacity. Eventually,
those two trunks have to divert to Black Cat, which is what our designated trunk is on
the majority of the property. We say this is a step to try to figure out what we are going
to do. The city is going to have to take this step at some point of time. The
development community needs to step up also. One of the other thoughts that we
brought before them that Boise is doing now, is off peak hour pumping. You have your
peak hours for your residential use when people are home. Like when the Super Bowl
is on, in New York it causes problems because everybody runs to the restroom during
commercials. There are certain peak hours. That’s a true story. Anyway, so one of the
things that Boise has looked at as you have a storage subsurface storage enclosure,
then on the off hours or during the night after 2 am, then the pumps kick on. There is
just a gradual small flow into the pressure line which pressures into the main, the gravity
line and then your big pump kicks on in the non peak hours. This increases the amount
of capacity that the trunk can take. This is –the line that they are doing this one is at
capacity. It is the trunk line that did away with (Inaudible) sewer district. Those are
some ideas that we have that we’d like the city to look at because we think that they are
viable. They talk about we don’t want you pumping into Elk Run. Well, we had two
options that we looked at. The closest was obviously to pump to Elk Run. If you go to
the north, the trunk line is in Overland Road in front of those homes across from
Boondocks. If you drive up the street at Boondocks at Overland. The trunk is right
there. I did that with Interstate Center and took the trunk up there and it put service
lines to those houses. The pressure line would run up Stoddard and hook into
Overland. We’d pick up water, pull water down Stoddard. We also had a spot that if a
well was needed there would be an area for a well site for the city.
Barbeiro: As Bruce has described, it is customary that service areas and those
developments that are outside an individual service area do not get priority within a
service area. There is some confusion on my part with regards to the service area that
this subdivision is in is part of Black Cat and a portion of it is out of any existing service
area.
Bowcutt: No sir. The majority of it is designated for the Black Cat Truck. The
southeast portion of the property is designated for the Ten Mile Trunk, or what they call
the Meridian Trunk which goes into Ten Mile. So a portion of it—it kind of cuts it out.
Borup: You’ve got a plat on the screen.
Bowcutt: Through this area here. That line is running through this property somewhere
in this location in this vicinity. So, this area is supposed to go into the same trunk that
Elk Run is in which is designated—this is very complicated and I apologize for this
being such a complicated application. The Meridian Trunk Line comes in and this is
what we looked at flowing into. This trunk line dumps in to the Ten Mile Trunk which is
going in a northwesterly direction. Meridian and Ten Mile Trunk are the same. There is
a line across this property, I am just estimating here, where this portion is designated to
go into this trunk or the Ten Mile Trunk. This portion (inaudible) north is designated to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 21
go into the Black Cat B Trunk, which does not exist. What I’ve talked about is the
option is the lift station would be located at a point where all of this gravitates to that lift
station. That some point of time when a trunk pumps across, that lift station could be
eliminated and that affluent could go on a gravity. We run a pressure line up here into
Overland and hook into the trunk. The trunk is up there. We bring it down there. As far
as you said what has staffs position been. Bruce is correct. Staff has, to the best of
their ability, tried to stay within the drainage areas thinking that we want to protect those
properties that we have designated. However, what we found is those drainage areas
are estimated. There are properties that are in drainage areas but can not gravity
sewer. We found that out. We have other properties that were on the fringe of that
designation and estimated that they couldn’t (inaudible) gravity sewer, but they could.
These lines are estimates. That is typically what we find with all other jurisdictions.
They are not a hard fast black line on the map that says you can’t go past that line.
They are not that way. This property is in the fringe. The line, that surface line, is zig
zaging like this so I am right on the fringe. I am not in the middle of the section trying to
jump into a line that is way over. I run on the edge and as indicated by the City of
Boise, when they have projects on the fringe they go to one or the other line, which ever
line gets there first. The fringe properties—that’s how they work it. They want the hook
up fees. They want the sewer assessments to build their infrastructure and the
temporary lift stations is how they’ve done it successfully. I’ve talked to Public Works
and begged them to talk with John Tenson with the City of Boise and have him discuss
how successful they’ve been with this strategy because the city is reaching a point
where you guys are growing fast. Fastest growing city in the state and we’ve got to
look at how we are going to serve these people. Thanks.
Borup: Thank you. This is a continued public hearing. At this point I would like to
invite—do we have any members of the public who would like to stand up and testify.
Adkins: My name is Jack Adkins. I live at 400 W. Victory. For purposes of where that
is, it’s that piece that runs right on the southeast corner of that development. North and
south on an 8 acre parcel right there. There is a number of issues that I don’t know
what the status is, but there is questions I want to raise with respect to those issues.
Having spent a number of years on the Idaho State Board of Accountants and having
been chairman of the board, one thing, we as accountants have this old saying that
says figures don’t lie but liars figure, and that is high density. That’s R-4. I know how
long my property line is and those are basically 8-10 thousand 11 thousand square foot
lots. That is high density. As high density, it is not really compatible with the
surrounding areas which are mostly acreage’s or low density. If you look at Pebble
(inaudible) Estates, that’s not development property. That is the size those properties
are going to be. My property is not development property. That is the size that property
is going to be. That’s pretty high density for the surrounding area without question.
Another issue would be traffic. I don’t know how many of you have tried to turn on to
Overland off of Stoddard during busy hours at this time, but it is pretty tough to do
because traffic backs up all the way from Meridian Road to Stoddard. Victory Road, as
you will notice right at the end of my piece of property, there is a big curve there. Quite
often we take people out of the field there. Take people out of the canal there, because
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 22
that is a pretty unsafe road there. Very narrow, very crooked. The Meridian Victory
corner is probably one of the worst accident corners in this county. It needs to be traffic
signaled there if there is going to be any development out there. Those are all things
that need to be addressed. Other issues—my property I have a pretty substantial pond
on my property right next to the property line there, which is certainly going to be an
attractive nuisance. It is certainly going to be an attraction for children. It is about 20
feet deep. I would like to see something done about fencing and birming in excess of
the required minimums. I don’t think a six foot fence is enough to take care of that
problem. Another issue of course would be, what are you going to do with the
agricultural run off. That area is the agricultural run off. Right along my property line to
the west is where the drain ditch runs. It runs right down my property across the north
boundary of my property and right along the east boundary of this property. I don’t
know what they are going to do with that. That is a lot of run off. I have no idea what
the plan is for this park. That is great that they have a park. I hope that it’s a deed
restricted park to the city before anything happens. The other thing that I would tell you
is, is that my property is certainly not an old farm house that is ready to be torn down
and developed. It is relatively a new home and I would certainly like you people to
consider the responsibility to make sure that the value of that property is not harmed by
this development. That is what I have.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Adkins? Thank you sir. Anyone else wish to
testify?
Rauch: My name is Chuck Rauch. I am a property owner off of Stoddard. I have five
acres which is just west of this development near the center area of the finger area that
comes down between the acreage’s on the property. One of the decisions that I made
when I was in the process of purchasing property was looking for property that was not
adjacent to a high density development. I looked at the Ada county maps and different
areas and understood that this particular area was a rural transitional designated for 5
acres or larger parcels to be developed. If that was to maintain that zoning, the
problem with the sewer would be greatly minimized versus the number of houses that is
proposed by this development. With the large number of houses that is proposed, it
has been mentioned that traffic is going to increase. There needs to be traffic signals
looked at, maybe being installed along Meridian, Stoddard, Overland—if this was
approved. I think there would have to be a lot of work that would need to be done by
both the city and the applicant. Taking a look at these issues and being able to provide
answers on how they would address those particular issues. Aside from the problem
that is created by development, with this number of houses with the sewer. A question
that I would have for the applicant and for the city also is if the park—with a park that is
proposed like this, I believe the applicant donates the land and gets it set up but then it
needs to be maintained by the city. If there is not funding for this park, then we –what
happens is you have a park that gets dried up and is really not usable and becomes a
problem for the city and for the surrounding neighbors. I guess just as a comment, I
guess I am opposed to the development mainly because of the problems that this
number of houses creates for that community and if you look on the applicants map,
this development basically divides some rural area almost in half, which changes the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 23
intent of the people that do own property there currently—what they have and what they
hope to have in the future. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Yerrington: My name is Kent Yerrington. I live at 8830 Morning Mist in Boise. I also
own a piece of property in Pebble Lane Estates. I just don’t think it is right with the
amount of sewer this is going to generate in your pumping it into another trunk line, your
going to cut the development to that trunk line was originally designed for. In the future,
if this trunk line is at capacity and your going to—other developments are going to have
problems in the future because they won’t have the capacity. That’s my thought.
Borup: Thank you.
Montgomery: My name is Jeannie Montgomery. I live right next to the canal. I have
not formulated any speech because I wasn’t planning on making one. I agree with the
statements that have been made. It is more or less reputation, but I want to emphasize
that I think we all agree with the speakers that we have had. We really don’t want this
built around us. We like the country. That is why we are living there. I know from my
limited experience with zoning that if you want to divide a big consideration is the
surrounding area. They are not considering the surrounding area at all. We have
space and that is a high density development. The traffic will be a real situation. It’s
difficult to get out on Overland or the Meridian Kuna Highway. At the meeting that they
mentioned, we expressed interested in one or five acre development and they thought
that would cost them too much money. I think there is a lot more at steak here then
their expense. Thank you.
Borup: Any one else. Thank you. Commissioners.
Hatcher: Yes Mr. Chairman. I’ve got a question. I think I’d like to address this to Bruce.
Just for my own clarification, based upon everything that we have heard tonight, if Bear
Creek Subdivision was to go ahead and implement the $1000 impact fee per lot plus
the hook up fee, so on and so forth, the money that is generated from those fees –
would that money off set the cost that would be required to fix or temporarily alleviate
the bottlenecks in the Meridian drain until such time as the Black Cat Trunk can be
generated. The second part to that question would be would there be any fees left over
after those bottlenecks were fixed to be applied to the Black Cat Trunk?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher, in Brad Watson’s report, page 5 of 6
down on the second paragraph under conclusions and recommendations addresses
that very issue. If you like I could read that so that we are all on the same page here.
An immediate solution is construction of a portion of a portion of the Black Cat Trunk
and associated off shoot of the lift station in Whitestone Estates. The constriction in the
Ten Mile Trunk would then be around 2.3 CFS existing in ’99 which would allow an
additional 1200 to 1300 hook ups into the Ten Mile Trunk. That portion of the Black Cat
Trunk would still be very costly as it involved approximately 3 miles of gravity sewer,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 24
construction of a large lift station on Black Cat Road and nearly a mile of pressure main
to the waste water treatment plant. Brad did not have a real concrete estimate but he
says several million dollars. I don’t believe there would be any left over money.
Hatcher: I’ve got another question. We were talking about this Nine Mile Trunk and
based upon what Becky was stating, that trunk stubs at the east side of this property
line, which is also—is that correct, first of all? Meridian trunk, yes. It stubs on the east
end of this development.
Freckleton: The Meridian Trunk Line comes through Elk Run Subdivision which is the
development, your familiar with that. Okay. There is a culdesac at the extreme
southern end of that. You can see a narrow lot that comes out back out to Meridian
Road. The Meridian Trunk Line at this point of time terminates at that culdesac. It is
proposed for it to come out through that narrow lot back on the Meridian Road where
then it can be extended further south.
Hatcher: But there is no extension to the west through Elk Run.
Freckleton: I believe there is a stub on Calderwood. In Calderwood there is a stub line
there.
Hatcher: So not to say that this entire facility or this proposed project can be services
by that stub, but it was obviously public works intention that that line eventually be
extended, even though that is the termination point to a different zone or area.
Freckleton: That is correct, and Becky’s previous statement about the service
boundary’s not being set in stone, that is absolutely true. When we look at the design
for a development, if there is still depth on the sewer lines at the point where they
determine such as this location, we will require that they go ahead and stub it to their
boundary. The purpose of that is obviously—it can be extended a certain distance
further and pick up some more land. The service areas –what our intent is, is to gravity
sewer. The service boundary’s are set up for gravity sewer back to the trunk lines. Not
pump, but gravity back in. That is a prime example. We had some left over depth at
that point and so we had them go ahead and put a stub in knowing that we could
probably pick up some additional property to the west. At that point in time when Elk
Run was developed, there was no proposal for anything to the west and so it was kind
of playing the devil’s advocate at that point of time.
Hatcher: For further clarification if you could answer or Becky could answer, how much
of Bear Creek on the northern portion for the proposed development can be serviced
through gravity of that existing stub. A third of it, half of it? What is the depth of that
existing stub?
Freckleton: Becky do you have anything on that. I don’t recall. If I remember right it
was five or six feet deep, but I can’t remember. Her statement was that she is guessing
maybe five to 10 per cent.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 25
Hatcher: So not a substantial amount. Only one more question and that is in regards
to this project. Obviously, it is kind of the cart before the horse, but the project itself is
more or less on the end of the Black Cat Trunk because the Black Cat Trunk has not
even been built yet up on Ustick and Black Cat. Seems to me a little ridged to expect
that this project be serviced entirely by Black Cat Trunk when the thing doesn’t even
exist yet. I understand the sewer problem. I am compassionate on both sides and
have no definitive feeling, but to just flat out deny the project because it is at the end of
a proposed trunk and it is adjacent to existing facilities, it seems to me that there is
some on-going communication that needs to be done between the development
groups, the engineers and the city. I don’t see that there is a resolution to this yet, at
all. There is no definitive direction. There is no proposed solutions other than denial of
a project that I think is favorable to the Meridian city. That is my two cents.
Borup: Tom do you have any comments you’d like to make?
Barbeiro: Based upon what Becky has said with regards to other projects in Boise that
they (inaudible) for projects to go into fringe areas. I can understand that the developer
would think that possibility exists here too. If the developer is also taking a risk knowing
that in the past, the City of Meridian has not necessarily gone outside of the boundary’s
of service areas. I think the developer has taken a risk here, knew the possibilities of
this project, would not go through and has read through a very lengthy report just to find
from our Department of Public Works that the project not go through. The developer
has then come forward and said we need to find solutions, but as offered no solutions
other than temporary lift stations. The developer again has taken a risk. I would rather
put it back to the developer that understanding the lengthy report that the Dept. of
Public Works has put together, it would be left to him to lesson his risk by proposing
solutions to the sewer problems, based upon the report that the Dept. of Public Works
has offered him.
Borup: Thank you. Tammy?
De Weerd: I think that the statement about being rigid in our boundary’s is true, and I
guess the risk that the developer took was giving us a development that we rarely see
sitting up here. This is a quality proposal. It’s a density we do not see up here. It’s
open space is a model that we also don’t see up here. I hate to go against
department’s recommendations because they do believe that they are the
professionals. They know the intricate part of the planning for the city, but on the other
hand, I think the city has to be flexible in a sense where we don’t know what future
developments are going to be and if we deny this because another cookie cutter R-4
would be denied because of that—I have a problem with that. There is no guarantee
what our future applications are going to be. I do know that this application has lower
densities in the areas that are up by Pebble Lane Estates trying to be sensitive to the
densities up there, while realistically I still have yet to see any developments that are
annexed into the city that are less then 3 per acre—even that. So, you know, I am torn
because I don’t want to go against the departments recommendation, especially when
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 26
they are the experts on this and they spend a lot of time in the planning. I would be
inclined to support this application.
Borup: Are we ready to close the public hearing and proceed with a motion?
De Weerd: If there is no further staff comments or comments by the application…
Borup: Well we can still get staff comments unless the applicant would like to sum up,
but I think we are ready to move ahead. Does the applicant have any final comment
before we close the public hearing? Have you been up here before?
Bowcutt: Just one statement. I understand Commissioner Barbeiro’s concern. What
permanent solutions have we come up with. I would like you to know that we just got
the final report faxed to us yesterday. I had a draft of it I believe a week ago, but it was
not final form, so as far as coming up with a permanent solution or –I have not had a lot
of time to do that. I’d like to go on the record.
De Weerd: Becky, I do have a question that I failed to ask you before. In my material, I
don’t see a ACHD report in here—the traffic impact.
Bowcutt: Yes ma’am there is a final report. I don’t know why you don’t have one.
Briefly, a traffic study was done by Dolby Engineering submitted to ACHD. The traffic
study was reviewed. ACHD asked us to build a center turn lane at the intersection of
Stoddard and Overland Road, which is off site, but they stated it was necessary, and
build a center turn lane all down Stoddard at our entrances. Each entrance would have
stacking room and turn bays and then construct along Stoddard, sidewalk along Victory
and then they asked for additional stubbed street other than what I show and asked me
to shift the stubbed on the northeast. That is basically what the report says. It did go to
the Commission. The Commission did approve the staff report and the project.
Barbeiro: Becky am I to understand that you have implemented those changes in this
existing plan?
Bowcutt: Does it reflect ACHD’s comment? The stubbed streets? No sir, no sir. If you
would like me to draw them on there, I could.
Barbeiro: It’s not necessary, thanks.
Borup: Tammy, that report is in with Item Number 4. Mr. Yerrington, did you have a
quick question?
Yerrington: Yes I do. I was just wondering is this going to set a precedence. I mean
the (inaudible) was a farm, I don’t know if it sold but it was for sale, just west of
Stoddard. So now that wants to be developed and be pumped into this same deal with
another lift station, are you setting a precedence by saying it is okay to pump into a
trunk line that was not designed for that area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 27
Borup: I don’t know if we can answer that. I know as far as I am concerned it does not
set a precedence. We look at every application on its own merits. I think most of the
Commissioners agree with that. No? Mr. Barbeiro does not agree with that.
Barbeiro: I don’t agree with it because what it does, apart from setting a president, it
leaves a potential developer with a sense of a lessened risk, because now since this
project, a fringe project has been approved, it now has a belief that this project is now a
part of the service area and the property next to it now becomes a fringe property,
which would fall into the same category as this property is today. You keep realigning it,
adding and adding fringe property and continue to add properties within a service area
that were not initially designed for that service area. I would say that what may not set
per say a precedent, it leave a potential developer with a sense of lessened risk.
Borup: Very well put. Did staff have any final comments. Go ahead and do it now.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I did have one question for the
applicant. Becky, when you were sketching up there, you had indicated that the lift
station was in the southwestern corner of the park. Preliminary plat I have shows it on
the northwestern corner. You also indicated that the pressure line would go north on
Stoddard to Overland and then connect in to the Ten Mile. My preliminary plat shows it
going through the property and tying in to the existing main lines in Elk Run Subdivision.
Borup: I think she gave that as a second alternative.
(Inaudible audience conversation)
Freckleton: Okay. In summary I guess I would just like to touch on Brad’s report a little
more. He states Bear Creek Estates should not be recommended for approval based
on the following reasons. Item number 1. Depending on lift station sizing, a 30 to 60
per cent of the remaining capacity in the Ten Mile Trunk would be used up, severely
limiting the ability of the city to approve on 500 to 800 dwelling units or commercial
equivalent in the Nine Mile and Ten Mile Sewer Service areas. Item number 2.
Approval of Bear Creek Estates would likely precedent setting and additional proposals
would be submitted to the city for development of areas in the Black Cat Sewer Service
area. Accumulation of lift stations would accelerate the depletion of capacity in the
trunk even more than normal development served by gravity sewer. Item number 3.
Additional lift stations would require additional maintenance and consequently
additional costs in personnel.
Borup: Thank you. Brad, did you have a comment too.
Hawkins: I would just like to say that because of these outstanding sewer issues that
were not having any resolution, Planning and Zoning staff has not prepared detailed
comments and we would like the chance to do that before the public hearing is closed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 28
Borup: Again, this current public hearing is on annexation and zoning only. We have
not addressed preliminary plat yet. Just a reminder for everyone. Commissioners,
what is your pleasure?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we continue both public hearings that being
one we have not opened, which is number 4, based upon two items. We now have
before us the Dept. of Public Works report. Based upon this report, the developer
knows that the risk he is taking putting this in a fringe issue has been not recommended
by the Dept. of Public Works. This would allow the developer the opportunity to
proceed with long term, permanent solutions that he could propose to our Public Works,
prior to the next Planning and Zoning meeting. The other is per Brad’s notes, we do not
have staff comments that he would like to include in this, and that again would also
allow the developer to address those staff comments and correct them. I move that we
continue the public hearing.
Borup: The staffs comments were on the preliminary plat, is that correct? The staff
comments we did not have was on the preliminary plat.
Barbeiro: Okay so that would be in reference to the next item. Regardless, I would
move that we continue the public hearing, based upon my first comments.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: Any discussion?
De Weerd: I would just like to respond to Bruce that I don’t think whatever action is
taken on this would set a precedent. I think each application is based on only that
application and the merits of that application. Again, I stated that all we can do is look
at what we currently have and how it effects future development. If it’s a value and an
asset to the community, it should be considered based on that. I believe that the
developer said that they would maintain that lift station through their homeowners
association or through a private contractor, so I think a couple of those have been
addressed. I would agree with Commissioner Barbeiro. Maybe this gives further
opportunity for the developer and public works to talk on this and I would look forward to
staff’s comments.
Borup: Maybe just one clarification on the motion. Was there a date in mind?
Barbeiro: I’d like to ask Bruce if in his opinion if 3 weeks would be sufficient time for a
developer to prepare something of a permanent solution after the temporary lift station
and it is my belief that 3 weeks is insufficient time.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barbeiro, I guess I would have to defer that question to
the applicant. You’ve heard our position. I feel the ball is in their court.
Barbeiro: Since we have not closed the public hearing may we—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 29
Borup: Right. Yes we can. I assume your not talking about a permanent complete
solution. Your talking about getting some ideas started and—
Barbeiro: As the developer said, we must make solutions. We must solve these
problems. (Inaudible) opportunity, but I don’t think 3 weeks is enough time to prepare
that.
Borup: Was that Greg that made that statement. He probably wishing he had not said
that now.
De Weerd: Well, the public hearing isn’t closed.
Borup: No. Mr. Johnson could you comment on that or Becky which ever would be
appropriate.
Johnson: We were all ready delayed 60 days because staff couldn’t get this sewer
report accomplished the first time. We would be glad to offer solutions if we could be
given an exact definition of what the problems are. The under sized pipes in
Crestwood, if we know the length of them and what size of pipes they need to be
replaced with, we can get costs for those things. Apparently, there is also some under
sized piping between the Landing Subdivision and the freeway crossing. If we get the
length of those and what needs to appropriately put in there, we can estimate what
those costs would be. I believe that with this development and with other developments
that is happening along the Black Cat Trunk that that particular bottleneck could be
resolved with the fees from this subdivision and if they will start collecting them from the
subdivisions being developed. This second solution is to build the northern portions of
the trunk and then divert additional flows from the Crestwood area. We don’t have
those facts from staff yet. If staff can get those fairly readily, yes we can provide some
concrete solutions. I think the main solution that we have offered is to establish a trunk
fee for this area. All the areas served by the Black Cat Trunk and start collecting the
fees so we will have funds to start fixing the problems as they come up and as we reach
capacity in the different areas. That is our solution to it. If we simply put our heads in
the sand and say we are going to build 900 homes and then we are done, then it is
never going to get built.
Borup: Did that answer your question?
Barbeiro: No. The question really—can a feasible between the Dept. of Public Works
and the developer be presented to us within 3 weeks.
Borup: That information is not available in the report? Brad do you have any input on
that pertaining to that question?
Hawkins: Chairman Borup. This report was prepared by Brad Watson.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 30
Borup: Oh! That makes sense. Different department. Mr. Freckleton, do you have any
comments on that?
Freckleton: I would only ask that the applicant put these requests in to writing and
address them to Brad Watson and I will get together with him Monday morning and we
will talk about these things. Brad is out of town this week. Becky just indicated to me
that some information that Brad submitted on electronic media was incomplete as well.
There is some things that we do need to look into.
Borup: Was that readily available. Your aware where the bottlenecks are and capacity
of existing lines and it’s just a matter of pulling that information off. It is not things that
need to be recalculated or anything to that extent.
Freckleton: I don’t believe so.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Barbeiro we are still waiting for a date certain to continue
this public hearing to.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. In regards to this issue of the sewer. I agree with
Commissioner Barbeiro that September 14th
is by no means enough time and I would
like to continue or table this issue until the following meeting but would like to know
when the next date is. October 12th
.
De Weerd: Unless we want another special meeting.
Borup: Right.
De Weerd: This has been continued before.
Borup: The application came—was that the April meeting? If anybody still remembers
that.
Barbeiro: It is then my proposal—let’s go ahead and continue it to September 14th
and
see what the Dept. of Public Works and the developer can prepare in the mean time.
My motion is to continue the public hearing to our next regularly scheduled Planning
and Zoning meeting on September 14.
De Weerd: I still second that.
Borup: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might..
Borup: Yes Mr. Freckleton.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 31
Freckleton: I would imagine that you would like some time to review the information
once it is put together. You don’t want to get the information the night before. You will
probably want at least a week to look at it. That only limits them to two weeks to get
this put together.
Borup: We certainly would like a week, but it has never happened yet. So we would
like it the Friday before.
Freckleton: I just throw that out.
Borup: Okay. What I am saying that would be a nice requirement, but is the staff willing
to put this requirement on themselves. (Inaudible)
Freckleton: As long as we get the request in a timely fashion and we know exactly
where we are headed with this thing and we can pull the information up. I can’t speak
for Brad, but Brad is the one who does the analysis on these, so he has been very
responsive in the past.
ITEM NUMBER 4: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PROPOSED BEAR CREEK SUBDIVISION OF 326 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
LOTS—BY BEAR CREEK, LLC—EAST OF STODDARD ROAD & SOUTH OF
OVERLAND:
Borup: I think probably most the comments probably all ready made. Does anything
they wish to add.
Hawkins: Mr. Chairman. No further comments at this time.
Borup: And you would like your comments from your previous application to be
included in this.
Hawkins: Yes, again Planning and Zoning staff has not prepared detailed comments on
this because of the outstanding sewer issues. We will prepare them for the next
meeting that it has been continued to.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Applicant wish to come forward and make comment.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, did Commissioner Barbeiro include Item Number 4 in his
motion to continue. I think he did.
Borup: No, he made reference to it with intention of doing it when it was opened.
Rossman: Okay so for clarification of the motion that was just decided to continue
related only to Item Number 3.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 32
Borup: Yes. I don’t believe we had any other choice, did we?
Rossman: Sure you did.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I would move that we continue the public hearing on the
preliminary plat for Bear Creek Subdivision to be continued until September 14th
.
Barbeiro: I second that motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: This would be a good time for a five minute break. Looks like a natural break,
so we will reconvene in five minutes.
ITEM NUMBER 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION & ZONING OF
20.35 ACRES (FOR R-15 ZONING) OF LAND FOR PROPOSED 300 UNITS OF
MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL FOR PROPOSED SUNDANCE APARTMENT HOMES BY
SUNDANCE, LLC—NORTH OF OVERLAND ROAD AND WEST OF LOCUST GROVE:
Borup: Staff, do we have any additional staff report.
Hawkins: Commissioners, if you recall this project you continued at your July 13
meeting again primarily for sewer reasons. Fortunately, in this instance Brad’s report
did come back suggesting that the project move ahead. That the sewer capacity in this
project should not be a reason to deny it, so there was not a thorough staff report prior.
That is what this is, so again, just a quick orientation. The project application before
you involves seven different parcels. You’ve got an existing CG. This sliver across the
north piece of the project adjacent to I84 is all ready annexed into the city. We would
like to request that all of our staff comments on the 8/24 report be incorporated into your
decision. This property is bounded on the northeast by natural gas company which has
a two story block building and the majority of it is used for storage and equipment and
tools. Locust Grove currently dead ends right here at the overpass of I84. I would point
out the Ada Planning Association at their last months meeting move the overpass from
their long range 20/20 plan to the transportation improvement program. So it is
basically a soft planning document to the hard planning document. I can’t tell you
anymore as far as specific dates, but that is a change as of last month on the overpass.
You currently have the Sportsman Pointe Subdivision across Overland on the south and
then a vacant piece here across Nine Mile. The project itself as you have in your
packets is laid out more or less in this fashion. I won’t go into details but will point out a
couple of things in our reports as well as the ACHD report has 3 things that are
important to point out. One is that they asked the applicant to move their drives about
30 feet from the intersection from where they are proposed. You’ve got an existing—
the main entry here, ACHD suggests 30 feet to the west and then another secondary
entry here on Locust Grove which again they suggest 315 feet from the intersection of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 33
Overland. That was one of ACHD’s. Another one was an emergency drive, which is
currently a gravel road here along the north part of the project. The obvious thing to
point out here is any kind of future overpass, that emergency access road will
disappear. A center turn lane on Overland Road was also requested by ACHD and staff
would certainly support that recommendation. Two things to point out, in the staff report
itself, the request that they come back and annex rezone that CG portion of the north,
that is on page 3 item 1. Page 4, item 5, development agreement we are not
suggesting that be a requirement for this project, assuming that you recommend that all
the conditions and forwarded on to the Council more or less in its current proposed
design. The other point on page 7, item 4,5 and 6 landscape buffers, staff has asked
for a 20 foot landscape buffer instead of the 10 shown here adjacent to the natural gas
company. We’ve asked for 35 feet since Overland is an entry way corridor in the
Comprehensive Plan—35 feet the full length here on Overland, not just at the entrance.
Again on I84 a 35 foot landscape buffer and of course they all ready show this. That
was brought up at the previous meeting in terms of the location of this to I84. I guess
that is it for a staff report right now.
Borup: Any Commissioners have any questions for staff at this time? If not, is the
applicant here and like to step forward.
Cook: Yes I am here and I’d like to step forward. First of all I want to say, I have been
doing this for a long time—a lot of Planning and Zoning meetings in my lifetime.
Borup: Could you say your name sir.
Cook: My name is Peter Cook. President of PSC Development Company. I was very
impressed tonight by the way with the comments that were brouigh up. I though they
were very detailed and very impressive. Thank you, I think for your service. I’m not
doing that with any hope, but I thought is was very nice. And staff, your in the middle of
a major problem here with the growth of the city and I think I can sense and feel the pull
on that and I also want to thank you. It is hard thing about growth. I brought our whole
team here tonight and we’ve got these great opportunity here to present to you some of
the solutions that were—you suggested to us. I think our presentation your hearing
tonight will be able to show you those were great recommendations and we’ve actually
adapted move of them. The only other thing that has not been mentioned here—there
is an affordable housing slice that we are or would want to develop in our business plan
here. We have all ready talked about financing agency about this and they would be
very excited to do something on this development with an affordable housing slice.
That always gets people nervous and it shouldn’t because basically in most cases it will
be 60 percent of medium income. I think it is great for the city because one of your
points here is the diversity in housing. As you grown and the opportunity for multiply
family dwellings gets more and more pressured, rents will increase and this is a great
opportunity to preserve it cause as growth comes your going to need people that can
afford to live here. Usually I like to do this at the end if there is questions after our great
team. Mark Cohen is here, one of my partners, any financial issues, Mike Hall is here
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 34
and Keith (inaudible). Then I would make the presentation if your to go to that kind of
format –not format but we could make that kind of presentation would that be okay.
Bennett: We received the staff comments yesterday. My name is Keith Bennett, PSC
Development. Working with Brad on those comments, we’ve tried in the last 24 hours
to address them as much as possible to show you that we have no problems with the
suggestions that have been made or the recommendations that been made and in fact,
maybe that isn’t the best way-- There were traffic concerns like Bradley brought up
which the previous plan did not address. This one does. For example, Overland Road
and Locust Grove were called for to be a full 96 foot right of way and therefore 48 foot
half width which we show reflected here as taking in to allow for that widening to allow
for the center lane, turning lane on Overland that was a requirement. The distances
therefore were not only from the property line but from the proposed new curb line in
each direction. The new plan and I have smaller copies to give you, will show that we
moved the entry over 317 feet, so it is beyond the 315 that was suggested and provided
the 35 foot landscape buffer all the way along both Overland and Locust Grove, full
length beyond, not the property line but the new proposed curb line. It is actually 23
feet plus 35 feet for a distance of both frontage streets of the landscaped area.
Additionally, along Nine Mile Drain, we have 35 foot set back now shown, 35 foot
setback totally across for the buffer on the freeway and the 20 foot setback that the staff
recommended along the neighboring property. So each of those have been
incorporated into the design. We took the recommendation and knowing now that this
is more eminent of the overpass that it doesn’t really serve as a secondary exit or an
emergency exit, that has been eliminated and would be maintained as open space and
therefore this becomes our secondary entry, which is what is what proposed before.
The only issue that we have that does not meet full compliance with staff
recommendation which I mentioned to Brad, was by widening the street and then
(inaudible) on 315 feet, we’d run out of property. We are at 305 still have a 24 foot
opening in that road, so we are 10 feet short of meeting the full intent of the report that
was given. Maybe, there can be a trade of this land versus gaining a little more
property here. I can’t commit to that at the moment. This is the boundary of the
property as it now stands, which gives us a 305 foot off set off of Overland Road from
the new set back line. We have accommodated the parking requirement, the set back
requirements, the building are within the limitations of the zone. The densities are
below the 15 units per acre that is proposed. The open space is extensive and we have
designed it such that we have interior courts that are green and open around the entire
space as well as in obviously our landscape buffers all around the entire perimeter.
Fencing was brought up as an issue for them. We are proposing a full fence on our
side of the creek to keep it safe from the residents and that would be at least 6 foot
high, solid vynal fence as well as along the freeway. Other fencing would stay as it with
an existing chain link fence. And then no fencing along the frontages. With regard to
any of their other concerns, we do not have any. We are willing to follow the staff
recommendations implement them into our design. Do you have any questions?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. The landscape buffer along Overland and Locust Grove, is
that a flat level or is that a birm?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 35
Bennett: Typically it is per the recommendation of what we need, to meet the
requirements of the city standards, be we do like to have some birming and interest to
the front, particularly windows become a full 96 foot wide road right of way.
Barbeiro So as the plan stands now, it is not a birm.
Bennett: I do not have a full landscape plan as of 24 hours ago, I received this , so no
our landscape that was submitted previously does not take into the fact that now we
have 35 feet to deal with, so we can design that to accommodate that.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you. Who is next Mr. Cook That is it on your
staff? Okay, I thought you had more. Okay, thank you. This is a continued public
hearing. Do we have anyone else who would like to stand and testify.
Henze: My name is David Henze. I live in Sportsman Point Subdivision. If you
remember at the last hearing we had quite a few of us. There is a few tonight also. I
just have a couple questions, if I might ask. What is the rent that they would expect
from this…The rent level. I did not quite understand what they were talking about, the
assisted living or assisted houses that was there. Is this a full rent community? What
level is this. That’s the questions I basically had. The comments I have on this is, well
if you go look at the traffic, which I think is the main issue, the plans that were made to
extend Overland to 5 lanes, to put an overpass on Locust Grove. Evidentially a little
farther down put an overpass on Linder and also down to Ten Mile with an exchange
If you see there is a big need took up both sides of the city. What I have heard from
several people I have talked to is that Overland has the potential, one of the worst traffic
problems and the estimates right now is about 2005 where that could be extended to 5
lanes. If that is the case, if this goes forward, I would suggest that maybe we don’t but
the cart before the horse, but we solve the problems (inaudible). The other thing is, if
you look and there is—if you can get into Sportsman Pointe off Locust Grove, I think
given the corner of Locust Grove and Overland your going to have people cutting
through the subdivision. Also there is another issue that I would like to bring up, is if
you recently saw Boise and the surrounded areas were routed in the top 20 or top 15 of
family and children friendly cities in the U.S. If you look farther into that study, some of
the reasons why is because of urban sprawl and more specifically, apartment buildings
being built outside of the city. If they want to be friendly to children, the apartment
buildings should be built more toward locations where those dwellers are going to be
working. That would be more in toward the city and toward business centers. This is a
very residential area out here. Lot’s of children. I would ask the people to drive through
our neighborhood and see this and then go back and take 300 units, this is going to be
about 450 cars, I would assume, adding to that. I would say, if your not going to fix the
first—I would say, fix the roads first if we are going to go forward, otherwise we take a
hard look at this and decide is this the best thing to go into this area. The last thing that
I would just say, I have 60 signatures right now. Half the people we talked to we got
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 36
Meridian Greens, Ravens Hill and all these—just barely heard about it. We took
Sportsman Pointe barely canvassed it. We’ve got more people that want to sign in, we
just did not have the time yet, because they just heard about it. There is 60 signatures
here opposing it. Lastly, I’d like to ask, in all seriousness if somebody lived in
Sportsman Pointe that was building this project, would they be seriously for this project
or not—if they had kids and knowing the traffic that is here. I think you need to think
hard about that. I think there is a better place to put this. Maybe across the freeway by
some business centers and so on. Thanks.
Barbeiro: Mr. Henze. The report prepared by the Joint School District No. 2, the
Meridian School District, tells us that this project would produce 99 elementary aged
children, 75 middle age, middle age school children and 68 senior high school children.
On the assumption that the pre school children would have about 50, they projected
300 children would be in this complex. I am sure that the developer planned it and is
aware of that. Certainly, he has designed a complex that is child friendly and child
design. Your statements are that it is not and it is (inaudible) and it would cause a
problem.
Henze: The apartment complex looks very nice from what we are seeing here. What I
am saying is the roads outside it are not ready to handle this. It’s just obvious that if
people can’t make that turn on Locust Grove on to Overland, they are going to cut
through Sportsman Pointe if there is so much traffic. I don’t think just a center turn lane
–even before this came in, you can correct me if I am wrong, I heard that Overland was
going to go to 5 lanes because of traffic problems. Then that brings up another issue
and that is elementary schools with all those kids.
Barbeiro: I misunderstood then. Your concern was not the apartment complex—
Henze: Not the apartment complex, the traffic around it. Yeah it looks like a nice
apartment complex.
Barbeiro: It is the cutting through Sportsman Pointe and the fear that the traffic would
impact upon the children’s life. Okay, thank you.
Borup: Yes.
Tima: Good evening. My name is Karen Tima and I live in Sportsman Pointe at 2122
Chesapeake. I am here to represent my family who are—we’re opposed to this project.
We opposed for a couple reasons. Emotionally I am opposed to it like most people
because apartment dwellers are typically very trenzie in nature. We worry about the
property values. We worry about the people that are going to be living near us that are
not the homeowners like we are. That is emotionally and we can’t base our decision on
our emotion feelings. Factually I am worried about it because of the roads and because
of the existing traffic problems out there all ready that is just going to get worse. All
ready there are so many approved subdivisions that are still developing out there. We
are going to have those influx of people then you add 600 cars all at once and this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 37
apartment complex and it just seems unreasonable that that area can take it. Usually,
in the mornings when I leave for work, I turn on Locust Grove right on to Overland and
get on the freeway. That is usually not too much of a problem because you only have
to worry about the one lane of traffic turning on to Overland. Tonight, coming here, it
was about 6:30 at night, I had to turn left on to Overland. That was a major problem. I
had to worry about both lanes of traffic. It took me 12 minutes, I timed it specifically
because I was coming here tonight. I timed it and it took me 12 minutes to turn from
Locust Grove on to Overland to come here tonight. This is just going to get worse. I
agree with my neighbor that we can not put the cart before the horse. That if we are
going to improve the roads and widen them to handle the traffic we should do that first
and then look at building a project of this nature. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Next. It seems we are finished with public
comment. Applicant like to summarize or Commissioners have any questions or
discussion before that comes up? Would you like to address them to them.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question or maybe a clarification from you. When I
was going through the documentation last, I could have swore I read some
documentation that the improvement for Overland Road was bumped up to 2002?
Does anybody else know where that documentation is or am I getting my facts mixed
up. I read something along the lines—
Borup: Did you find it there?
Hatcher: Yeah, Tom just showed it to me. Overland Road is improved with the two lane
street section with no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. Overland Road
between SH69 and Locust Grove is listed as funded in the district’s 5 year work
program for 2002. So, it looks like ACHD is all ready implemented the improvement of
Overland Road in 2 years. A funded project which means it is a go.
Borup: So your saying that maybe the horse is before the cart.
Hatcher: What I am saying through design considerations and through permit
processes, through construction time that the particular proposed development
probably will not even be occupied or occupier until the said time that Overland is also
improved. The traffic issue might be a mute issue.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Just for the record the quotation that quotation that
Commissioner Hatcher read is from the ACHD report on page 2. Would the applicant
like to make any final comment?
Cook: Mr. Hatcher, I think you (inaudible) on point because I wish I could build it
overnight. We are about a year and a half away, I think by the time—construction
time—all most two years. That is a very good point. The rental issue—there is some of
the things I wanted to tell the property owners.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 38
Borup: Mr. Cook, before you proceed there, as far as the city and commission, rental
amounts is not a factor and perhaps Mr. Rossman, would you like to expound on that.
Rossman: Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is not the first time this issue has come
before this Commission. The question of subsidy or source of funding or the type of
people that are going to be living in a particular project are not relevant issues for the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Their decision is to be based on the project alone,
irregardless of how the people are going to fund their monthly rent and if any of those
issues come before the Commission or the appearance of that being a issue is put
before this Commission, I would prefer that it not even become an issue during this
proceeding.
Cook: That is a very smart point to make cause you could be judged making a
decision—
Borup: What we’re looking at the project, the layout, the design that’s the things that—
Cook: Let me just speak to that real quickly and you’ve had a long night and don’t need
anymore talk from developers. One thing that I wanted to say is that we own the
development, so it is not like we sell this and move on. We have to keep and maintain
it. It is one of those things. (Inaudible) has done a great study on –and a lot of the
future planning issues on what apartment developments can do and how much green
space they can provide and how they can help and be very friendly. The design and
look here—this is my bias. I have looked at product—you will not see a product that
I’ve seen yet in the Boise area that will look this good. This will be very outstanding and
very well build development. When you see our elevations and renderings, I think you
will agree with that. It will be very much of an asset to your community. It will also be a
long term opportunity for you to grow with the community. Any questions.
Hatcher: I have one question. Do you have available this evening any color renderings
of the facility, particularly for the public.
Cook: I don’t, but give us 2 hours to go color.
Hatcher: We have ours in our information.
Cook: Do you want us to describe a little bit about that to give you somewhat of a
feeling. I think that is important.
Hatcher: I don’t think that is necessary. I’ve got a good feel.
Cook: It is high end stuff. Are you in the construction business.
Hatcher: Yes, I am a licensed architect.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 39
Cook: Well then you asked the important question before about stucco and ours is
(inaudible).
Borup: Mr. Cook. Could you repeat that answer for the record.
Rossman: It doesn’t get picked up on the microphone, so it needs to be repeated into
the microphone.
Cook: There will be culture stone veneer and cedar batton board. We will have no
synthetic stucco on the project proposed.
Barbeiro: Mr. Cook the point that you made about you intend to hold the property, it is
customary in many, many large scale apartment complexes to build it quickly, build it
cheaply, fill it up and dump it. I use that word openly. It is not your intend to do that.
You intend to hold the property as an investment.
Cook: Council made me require I can’t go into all my financial reasoning behind that,
but I will tell you this our profit margin is over the long term haul. By dumping it, we can
not sell it especially with the things we want to do. We can not sell it. Our profit is how
well we manage it and maintain it over the long period.
Barbeiro: Your aware that Mr. Henze brought us 60 signed signatures opposing your
project. While it is not left to this commission to tell you what to do, the mirror fact that
your going to hold the property would be an item that I would very much impress upon
the neighbors because they have all seen built, fill and dump properties in the past.
Cook: I have never been in a meeting yet where everybody’s has wanted an apartment
development. I’ve—and I feel the pain that people—I’ve been in every community that
you can think of over this issue. I can look at you straight in the face and tell you that
we have never—we’ve gone in sometimes with planning and zoning and city council’s
having a very difficult time and have shown them over the long period that we have
actually changed the viewpoint of that issue. It’s—right now you come up on some
trailers and what have you and sort of a –this is going to be a green looking very
impressive piece of property that will be maintained. It can not—I can feel their pain,
but I think that I can tell you that they will see a development that will be very beautiful.
I have not seen anything of this caliber as we have traveled through here. I know you
are contractors and I may have offended you. Just the outside looks-- I better shut up
now. Thank you.
Rossman: I don’t think Tom has any apartment projects on this agenda at this point.
Barbeiro: No we don’t do multi housing anywhere.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Cook?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 40
Rossman: I guess Mr. Chairman I still would make one clarification. When I said
funding was irrelevant to this issue, I did not mean developer funding was irrelevant.
Funding for the rental subsidy for the –the payment of rents by these particular people
that would be living in these facilities is a irrelevant issue. The source of the concerns
are (inaudible) in the Federal Fair Housing Act, if anybody has particular interest.
Henze: A clarification. We have not seen what they look like and I would say that we
need to maintain—if you go between Meridian Greens and Sportsman Pointe you have
to have certain roof designs between the two so there is continuity. I am only saying I
did not understand his first comments he was making. He said were having this
apartment complex and then he made some side note about rent (inaudible). I did not
understand what he was talking about. The thing is, are we going to have –is it going to
look as nice, basically.
Rossman: I was not singling you out sir. I was just –the developer did open the issue
and I wanted to make that clarification so the record is clear on that.
Barbeiro: With regards to the design, I want to ask Mr. Cook if he had some elevations
he could provide for the two residents right now so they could see what it is. Obviously,
it will not be in color, but--. Also, if I may I wanted to ask staff—Bruce, as far as you
know with regards to planning in that area do you know if a stop light there at Locust
Grove and Overland. Is that not in the—a part of that 2002 plan.
Borup: No it’s not or no you don’t know?
(?): We do not know if it’s in the plan to put that stop light in.
Barbeiro: Back to Mr. Henze. If a stop light were there at Locust Grove and Overland,
would that be enough to alleviate most of your concerns about traffic passing through
Sportsman Pointe?
Henze: My points on traffic is when it’s built let it come—or then we can see it. The
point is are we talking about possibilities or solutions. Do we have hard solutions here.
Are we talking about maybe this will happen.
Borup: Sir it is funded. The money is there.
Henze: I also heard it was funded but some of the funds will be taken for the Flying Y.
That is why a possibility of—
Borup: That’s two different entity’s. This is Ada County Highway District.
Henze: (Off and on inaudible discussion) Regarding the overpass—that was all part of
it—we make it better yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 41
Hatcher: I think what the public needs to know is that the widening of Overland Road to
five lanes is a funded project and is scheduled to be built in 2002. ACHD does not
apply funds to a project unless it’s going to be done, because their very strict with their
money. There is always a chance that things get delayed. None of us can prevent that.
The way things are set up right now, the way things are scheduled, that road will be 5
lanes in the year 2002.
Barbeiro: With regards to the overpass at Locust Grove, that is not in the seven year
plan.
Borup: It has been included but it is not funded. Just 2 weeks ago. It has been
included in the transportation improvement plan.
Barbeiro: (Inaudible)
Borup: Well it was added to the Ada County TIP, but again no date, but it has been
moved up. It is going to be soon than it was. There was one comment on the project
itself. Two comments I had. One on the project itself. The elevations we have are
probably some of the nicest I think this Commission has seen and the other comment
on the density, normally projects request an R-40. This is an R-15. They are not
looking at filling up the space and maxing it out. They’ve provided a lot of open space
and I think just by the zoning that they have requested demonstrates that. That was
one of the questions they had on the projects without being able to see the whole thing.
Commissioners. Any other questions or comments? We have an open public hearing
on—
Tima: Can I make another comment? I am curious that there is feasibility of doing a
study on what impact these additional families will have on the school system and the
schools that are currently being fed from that area.
Borup: The school has all ready done that.
Tima: And what is the results?
Borup: There is an impact. They are adding children to the schools. It is on the ACHD
report.
Barbeiro: Even though we are in a difficult position and need your help in dealing with
the impact of growth on schools, we will approve this development. Jim Carbury,
Administer of Support Services, Meridian School District. I did say the impact was 99
elementary age students, 75 middle school and 68 senior high school students.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We were just discussing the
2002 five lane improvement. Typically, ACHD will put a project on to the 5 year plan.
That doesn’t necessarily mean when they say 2002, that that road going to be built in
2002. They go into a design phase. They have land acquisition. Right of way
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 42
acquisition. Then they set a construction schedule. I don’t know exactly when it is
going to be built but I doubt that the 2002 date that they put in their report is actual
constructed.
Borup: I think that is accurate that the one difference here is in their 5 year plan, they
have funded and unfunded. The unfunded are the ones that really can get pushed
back. The one think that is does have in its favor is apparently in the funded category.
Freckleton: Right, right. But that is a point that maybe we should clarify through ACHD.
Borup: Yeah, that’s not saying 2002 instantly going to be there.
Freckleton: Additionally, I think that when a road reaches the level of serviceability that
it requires 5 lanes, I thin that you can anticipate that signalization at the intersections
and especially if we are talking overpass on Locust Grove.
Borup: That’s what I would expect too. I wish they were here to ask that, but I think
that is a good question for ACHD.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I was at a meeting just last week that ACHD committed to
the City of Meridian that Overland was a priority and that they would meet their plan
date if not better it. They do see it as a high priority. In fact, that is why they have taken
it off the truck route list. Until those improvements can be made, it’s left alone.
Borup: Okay. It all sounds encouraging—at least as far as the road. Okay
Commissioners. We do have an open public hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, if staff has no further comment I would move that we close
the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Commissioners, what is your pleasure.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I am –I do not wish to dismiss the 60 signatures and the
extensive work that the neighbors have done. I would request that the developer make
some efforts to go out into the neighborhood and to address—I believe the signatures
are public knowledge now or public record and the developer will have access to those.
Is that correct? While we can not require that he send out notes and explanations of
the project to each of the signatures, so that each of those people are aware of what
the project is. Discussions of what we discussed here today and that you could walk in
as a good neighbor as opposed to any sort of adversarial relationship that you may
have with the neighbors. Is that a reasonable request. With that I defer to the other
Commissioners for any other—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 43
Borup: Okay, comments.
Barbeiro: I wish to make a motion that we recommend this project with staff comments
and request of the developer acknowledge and address these people who have signed
a petition and recommend this to City Council.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman. If I may make two clarifications. One is I don’t believe that
your—that was a request that you put into your motion rather than a condition that they
contact these people.
Barbeiro: I don’t believe that we are allowed to do that.
Rossman: I would agree. Number two. We are just dealing with Annexation and
Zoning at this point.
Borup: That was your motion for the annexation and zoning?
Barbeiro: Yes Sir.
Borup: We have a motion. Do we have a second.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion and a second to recommend approval of annexation and
zoning. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Sorry to keep doing this. One item on the annexation and zoning that I
would like to direct to the applicant is the issue regarding the legal descriptions.
Borup: Oh, I wrote a note on that. I am sorry I did not follow through. Go ahead.
Freckleton: I would like to get that cleared up before we go to City Council. It just kind
of stream lines things through them with no hold ups. The City Attorney wanting to get
a hold of me wanting to know if I have received the proper legals, etc. If we can get
those ahead of the hearing, it really helps.
(Inaudible discussion)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 44
Borup: It is going to be at least a month. Sir you still have one more. We took care of
annexation. We still have a conditional use permit.
ITEM NUMBER 6: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 300 UNITS OF MULTI-FAMILY
HOMES BY SUNDANCE, LLC—NORTH OF OVERLAND ROAD AND WEST OF
LOCUST GROVE:
Borup: Staff any additional comments?
Hawkins: Request that our previous report be incorporated into this Item.
Borup: Thank you.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman if I might make one more comment. To clarify whether or not
as it relates to Items 5 and 6 whether the previous testimony at the previous public
hearing, was there a previous public hearing on this one? That that be incorporated
into this preceding.
Borup: Do you need a motion to that effect or just a statement.
Rossman: No, just needs to be put on the record.
Borup: Okay. For the record, we wish to incorporate all previous public testimony and
comment from previous hearings into tonight’s hearing. Thank you. Applicant, would
you like to come forward and—again you understood what we just did. The other was
annexation and zoning. Before we can do a conditional use permit on property, it needs
to be in the city.
Cook: Right. That is a good idea. Now we want to talk about the zoning issue.
Borup: Well no. We’ve handled the zoning now we are talking about the project itself.
We realize that you have all ready addressed that and the questions have addressed
that. I don’t know that there is anything new that you have to add, but this is your
opportunity.
Cook: Yeah, I have extensive notes here on that part! No I don’t.
Borup: Okay, you did not have anything more on the project then. While you are up
here Mr. Cook again this is relating to the previous one, but you understood Mr.
Freckleton’s question on the legal description for that other parcel. That is also a
zoning change on it. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Commission.
De Weerd: I had some questions about the project itself.
Borup: For Mr. Cook?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 45
De Weerd: For whom ever he would designate. They are on signage and on staff’s
comments, page 5 it refers to storage areas provided on site.
Bennett: Keith Bennett. Regarding signage, we are proposing just one monument sign
within the same 35 foot set backs on the corner of Locust and Overland that would be in
a monument setting in the landscape. Any other signage there may be signage for
addressing or whatever, but for project sign, that would be it. As far as storage, we
typically in other developments have not had a major requirement of the tenants to have
the storage we’re referring to in the report if I am correct, is Bone Camper Storage,
however we have designated when we did not continue this road an area that could
accommodate that and be screened off in the back corner for that purpose.
Hatcher: For a 300 facility, just from where I sit, seems a rather small storage area. I
would make comment or recommendation that you look at possibly enlarging that space
because your going to have a lot more RV’s and stuff –
Cook: Peter Cook. We handle that strongly through our CC&R’s and usually do not
allow that storage on site and ask them to find places to store that. We have found
when that does occur, no matter how much space you have, it never looks good. We
have a very clean, high profile. We have a hard time with how covered parking effect
the development, but we know a lot of people like it for the market value. So try to just
move that off site and don’t allow it in our CC&R’s. That is how we have handled it and
don’t try to solve that issue on that side, because—what do you think?
Hatcher: It doesn’t matter what I think. Well, not with the way you do your business. If
you can maintain the storage issue off site, I don’t have a problem with the limited
amount shown. I guess I would just have to rely on your work that that’s the way it is to
be conducted.
Cook: Again, if you take our trend—60 per cent, all most 85 per cent of our business is
curb appeal. I don’t want any really basically from the freeway, someone looking in and
seeing somebody’s old Winnebago out there and a bunch of junk. I don’t want to
maintain it. I don’t have to go through that process so I just say, thank you very much
and by the way that goes out of here. That is in their lease. That’s how we really
handle that issue. We don’t try to (inaudible) cause I don’t think you can.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cook you said CC&R’s being for a purpose.
Cook: Your right and I corrected myself by saying a rental agreement. That was a
good catch. You guys are tough.
Barbeiro: Maybe your going to turn them into condo’s and sell them. Now we’ve got a
whole new thing going. And your going to have a lot more neighbors over –
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple more questions for Mr. Bennett. It would
have in regard to lighting in your interior, pathways and you amenities.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 46
Bennett: There obviously would be site lighting in the parking areas and it would be
directly down as the staff has recommended so would not impede and cross into the
glare of I84 or the surrounding properties. Regarding our path system that we have
developed that meets the 5 foot sidewalk criteria, we would have interior pedestrian
level lighting that would meet there as well as each building would have it’s entry
lighting as well.
De Weerd: And you dumpster areas, are those screens.
Bennett: Yes there dumpsters. There are shown strategically placed throughout the
site. As you see, there would be a screen enclosure. Yes.
De Weerd: I guess my last question would be for staff for drainage issues. Have those
been adequately answered?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, the drainage issue has been
addressed in our staff comments. They are required to submit a drainage plan that is
designed by a licensed architect or engineer. There are certain guidelines that we can
provide to the applicant as far as what we require for separation criteria to ground
water. The Health Department also recommends using surface swales whenever
possible for pretreatment. These type of things can be designed into the landscape
features and actually look quite attractive. I think we are adequately covered and I think
we can work with the applicant on that.
De Weerd: Okay. And for Brad I guess did they respond to your parking issue—the
depth and the width.
Hawkins: Can you point out which number that is?
De Weerd: I don’t know. I took notes from the last meeting so I don’t know where it
would be in your comments. Oh, I believe that was a verbal reference by Shari Stiles, if
I remember right. I was not at that meeting, but was referring to the city requirement for
9 foot wide, 19 deep stalls which I think you may have reflected a foot short—18 or 17, I
don’t know if that was a overhang issue there.
Bennett: And in response to that I would say that we would meet all city parking
requirements. Meaning the 9 by 19 stall would be included in the design.
De Weerd: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Any other questions?
Barbeiro: Is it Karen Tima. I had a question for her if I may please. With regards to the
60 signatures from your neighbors. The discussions of the fears that the traffic passing
through Sportsman Pointe, the widening of the road and the existence of this project
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 47
with regards to the additional children in the school district. We do know the school
district, while reluctant, did give their approval for that. We do know that while it may
not be in 2002, very shortly after that, Overland Road will be widened. Be barely
assured, and this is an assumption, that there will be a stop light at Overland and
Locust Grove, based upon the amount of traffic especially with this addition of this item
here, you have an apartment complex that appears to be very well designed
architecturally, fairly low density architectural (inaudible) and a complex that is very,
very child friendly. Have the questions and concerns that you had been addresses in
such that your fears or concerns about this project have lessened a great deal or are
you still equally adamant about not having the project in your neighborhood.
Tima: I think my concerns were addresses adequately with reservation. I am still
concerned that the apartment complex will be built and ready for occupancy and filled
up quickly before the road gets widened by maybe a year. Mr. Cook has stated that
they are looking at maybe a year and a half. We are told that the road widening is set
to begin in the year 2000, but you can not necessarily count on that. I am thinking even
6 months to a year can be havoc. I worry about safety on the road. I have driven off
the road once and into the ditch because a car was passing a tractor that was going
down Overland Road and was headed straight for me and I drove into the ditch instead
of letting him drive into me. I fear that that type of thing will happen. I am concerned
still that the road will be not happen in time and that the apartment complex will happen
first. That is my main concern.
Barbeiro: Thank you. I have no further questions Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Any other Commissioners? Do we have any motions?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing. I withdraw my motion.
Henze: The other thing we need to look out for is I don’t know how apartment complex
have done next to freeways where now I get the idea it is a very high end high nice
looking apartment complex. But it sitting right on the freeway and I don’t know if I want
to pay top rent for an apartment building on a freeway. As a Commission and your
approving this I think you need to keep in your mind, what happened if it doesn’t get the
rent they want. They your going to see dilapidation. You going to see dump.
Borup: Your Mr. Adkins, right? No.
******END OF SIDE 4******
Hatcher: Depending on how the developer and his team address that very issue, they
could successfully or very inadequately deal with that problem. I would highly suggest
that you take a look at the residential subdivision that is east of Cloverdale on the north
side of the freeway. That residential subdivision is only 3 years old, I believe. It was
built with a birm and a fence and high density fast growing vegetation which is a very
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 48
effective sound buffer. In any subdivision Sportsman Pointe would benefit greatly
besides just the apartment complex itself.
Tina: I’m sorry, I though of one more comment. Is there any way that we can have—be
known from the developer what their record is of maintaining the ownership of their
apartment buildings. He states that their intention but I am in business and I have
heard that a lot. I was just wondering if there a way we can get some information from
them on what their record is.
Barbeiro: You’ve been fibbed to by a developer. Imagine that. What I might add to
what we had a provisos recommendation to City Council, I would ask that the
developers as a part of their information packet include a record of properties that they
have developed in the past and continue to maintain and perhaps even offer a
reference or two where they can make phone calls.
Borup: Mr. Cook you can leave that information and phone number and address for
something they can contact you.
Cook: What I am thinking—one more thing. I think what we are going to do is just
invite everybody around. Your right. I agree, a lot of business people tell you that. We
have a long reference of banks. A long reference of mayor’s, city council’s, planning
and zoning which we will submit for our references. We own over 2000 plus units and
never sold one. We’ve been in business 15 plus years. Not to deal with what the rents
are but the funding of this will be by Sun America. Basically what happens it’s a multi
billion dollar operation. It doesn’t matter. They won’t let it fail. That is our strong
financial suit. We don’t do into a local bank. We are supported by a major corporation.
One of the biggest in the country. That should make you feel better.
Borup: So at this point—
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. What’s next. Was the motion you started to make earlier?
Barbeiro: Yes it was.
Borup: Do we have a motion or discussion before. I like discussion.
De Weerd: I have no comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 49
Hatcher: I have none.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro, you’ve got to carry the discussion load.
Barbeiro: I want to reference back to the 60 people who signed off on a petition and
acknowledge those people. Acknowledge Mr. Henze and Mrs. Tima on their coming
here and their discussions and issues they brought before us that were very timely. Mr.
Cook, you have taken what amounts to a crappy piece of land and done some very
good work with it. It is amazing that you can put something so well set in a position that
is –I would never have envisioned putting something like that on the lot that you have.
My compliments to you on that and I do hope that you can work it with the neighbors
and come up with a very, very good information packet and make them feel better about
what you are doing. I’m also very pleased that you are not a build, fill and dump
developer. That you maintain your properties and take pride in your properties and
what it amounts to, certainly you want your children to say my father built this. My
father owns this. As you and you entire team seem to take a great deal of pride in what
you done. My compliments on that.
Borup: Anything else? Okay. So we can either sit here or make a motion.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve to City Council the recommend to City
Council the condition use permit for 300 multi-family home by Sundance, LLC with one
additional stipulation to what staff has all ready added. I would like the developer to
seriously look at and incorporate within his drawings the proper sound buffers along the
freeway. It is only to his own benefit that that be adequately done for his future tenants
and for the future value of the community and the area.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, is that a condition or a request?
Hatcher: If I could make it a condition, I would make it a condition.
Rossman: Sound buffering—nothing would prevent you from making that a condition.
If you want to make that a condition, you can certainly include that in you motion.
Hatcher: I would include in the motion as a condition for recommendation.
Borup: Their site plan shows solid plantings all along the freeway now.
Hatcher: Absolutely. They are talking about a solid vynal fence. They are showing
growth and not showing any birms. I think it is a minor issue that can be addressed
with going with a preliminary plat to final construction documents. I just want it to be on
record that it is a requirement and not go off of what we discussed tonight—just verbal
agreements.
Rossman: Sir, the public hearing has been closed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 50
De Weerd: I second that.
Borup: I thought I heard a nod from the applicant that that would probably be okay. We
have a motion and a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Mr. Bennett. Anything presented needs to be entered in for public record. It will
be here next time for you to use. It will go to the City Council along with the
recommendation. For the record, we’ve had one more Commissioner join us, Mr. Kent
Brown is not in attendance.
ITEM NUMBER 7. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR
TERRACE LAWN MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC. BY CLARK DEVELOPMENT/BILL
CLARK—4000 BLOCK FAIRVIEW AVENUE BETWEEN EAGLE ROAD &
CLOVERDALE:
Borup: Commissioners, I am sure that we all realize that we do have a special next
week to specifically address Comprehensive Plan changes.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman that is on September 30th
.
Borup: I’m sorry. I keep wanting to move that up a month. Next month, not next week.
Staff who is doing the presentation—Brad is? Steve, I mean. This double teaming gets
me confused, I’m sorry.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, this application before you at this time is
a request by Clark Development for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change land
use from single family residential to mixed residential. It is an 11.76 acre parcel. It’s
location is south of Fairview Avenue between Eagle Road and Cloverdale Road. To
give you a little orientation, Crossroad Subdivision is here to the west of the parcel.
North of the parcel is another proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment that would
expand the Family Center, which is currently being developed here. This area has the
Terrace Lawn Memorial Gardens in it. There is a large parcel to the south that is owned
by the Seventh Day Adventist Church and the parcel to the east is in the Boise impact
area, but is zoned or has a future land use designation as medium density residential
with 15 dwelling units per acre. It is currently vacant. The City of Meridian impact area
follows the line right here so the east edge of this parcel is also the east edge of our
impact area. You have before you some initial comments from staff which you just
received tonight as well as the applicant. I will briefly just hit the highlights for you. Our
current Comprehensive Plan designates this area as single family residential currently.
This proposal is to change it for mixed residential. Publics Works Dept. has preliminary
plans for a domestic water well in this area and Bruce Freckleton may want to address
that issue in a little more detail when I am finished. The applicant does have a
proposed concept plan for this parcel, which I am sure he will go into in more detail. I
will show it here. It is for multi-family dwelling apartment complex. There are pros and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 51
cons in staffs opinion to –this proposed application—we would point out that the
granting of this request would place higher density residential up against the
Crossroads Subdivision on the northeast corner of that subdivision. That would need to
be taken into consideration where it is currently zoned for a single family residential
only. On the other side, the area south of the freeway where Thousand Springs
Subdivision and Thousand Springs Villa Subdivision are that area was about 130 acres
that was intended for mixed residential that has been developed as single family
residential and approving this could offset some of that acres that was lost, that was
originally intended for higher density residential development. This type of a
development would most likely require an R-15 zone if it is annexed to the City and
developed as this concept plan shows. The R-15 zone in the zoning ordinance of the
City of Meridian states that it would require direct access to a transportation arterial or
collector and direct access to a park or dedicated open space corridor. This plan shows
the distance of approximately 800 feet from the south right of way of Fairview and
would meet the intent for direct access. The park issue is one that would still need to
be worked out. The Comprehensive Plan does have housing policies that would
support this application. I would just refer you to number 7 in the staff comments.
Finally, I would just state that there is as you probably aware, Idaho State Code that
states that the Commission may recommend amendments to the land use map
component of the Comprehensive Plan no more frequently than every six months. So,
if an approval or a motion is recommended tonight than no other changes could be
made for another six months. Therefore, staff’s recommendation is to continue this to
September 30th
the meeting where all of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments are
going to be considered and that is all I have at this time.
Borup: Anyone have any questions for Steve at this time? Is the applicant here and
like to present his application.
Clark: Yes I am. My name is Bill Clark. Clark Development. I believe you all have in
your packet a color version of that which I am going to put up a larger version of here.
It is the same thing for reference and discussing this.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, may I step in one minute. Sir, is what you have here in a
blown up portion, is that identical to what is in the packet. I just wanted that clarification
so that we can decide whether or not it needs to be made an exhibit.
Clark: That is fine. As you know you previously heard a presentation of by Family
Center for expansion to the property to the north of this. That property fronts on
Fairview. Ultimately, you’ll need to consider our application in combination with that and
whatever you decision may be on that. The other uses are the Crossroads Subdivision
here to the west, the Seventh Day Adventist property to the south. The existing
cemetery and some area for it to expand into about 3 acres, which is currently
undeveloped and to the east property in the city of Boise which is as Steve said is
designated for medium density residential, 15 units per acre. Our application is for
mixed residential and anticipating a medium density residential development. The
access to the site would be by an extension of Venture Street from Fairview Avenue,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 52
that is an obligation of Family Center. They have presented that to you all ready. That
they would be constructing that Venture Street to our northern property boundary. We
received an ACHD report. We sat down with ACHD (inaudible)Our intention would be
to continue that road through, maybe by a different name, but to the east over to
Cloverdale and although we are in two jurisdictions, that is the City of Boise and the City
of Meridian, we would see that property to the east is under the same ownership. That
we would be combining those developments in a similar concept to this and at
approximately at the same density-—15 units per acre which is shown here. As far as
relationship to the subdivision and the sensitivity of that issue, we’ve talked with all the
neighboring property owners, those that I have just gone through, with the exception of
the Crossroads Subdivision I’ve talked with the president of the homeowners
association and one of the other people quite active in the community. We have heard
from them that they have no objections from any of our property or any of the property
surrounding us, any of the owners. I don't believe you received any objections and to
my knowledge, there is not going to be any testimony in opposition tonight. This is an
application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, so we anticipate that we would be
coming to you with a request for annexation and zoning and there would be a
development agreement at that time to deal with. Design issues. I conclude my
presentation with that and will stand by for questions if you have any.
Borup: Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Clark? Mr. Brown.
Brown: Mr. Clark, how much property is continuous that is under the same ownership?
It appears from the (inaudible) survey that property to the east is --
Clark: Approximately 18 acres to the east over to Cloverdale.
Brown: Terrace Lawn property also.
Clark: There is actually two ownership’s. Same organization, sister organizations.
There is Terrace Lawn Memorial Gardens and there is Cloverdale Park, Inc. Same
exact ownership of the corporations but owned by the two corporations over to the east
it is owned by Cloverdale Park, Inc.
Brown: Was there any other approvals given in the county or cemetery being on this
property.
Clark: There is an existing conditional use permit. An expansion of an conditional use
permit dated 1995 for that use and for an expansion.
Borup: Any other questions?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I did not follow that. As it stands now, this property was
intended to be an expansion on the cemetery.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 53
Clark: Oh, excuse me. If that was the question, I misunderstood it. There are
cemetery’s out there. One in the City of Boise further to the east on Fairview by about
½ a mile as Cloverdale Park. There is funeral home connected with that. There is
Terrace Lawn, which is smaller. It does not have a funeral home associated with it.
Both of them were operating under condition use permits from the county. The
Cloverdale Park received an approval of an expansion in 1995 of its conditional use
permit from the county. There was no expansion of the Terrance Lawn at that time. We
are allowing and have separated from a larger ownership, 3 acres that would allow for
expansion of the Terrace Lawn Cemetery. (inaudible) This is presently undeveloped
and looks like it is part of this property. To allow for the potential of expansion. Now,
that property all of the Terrace Lawn Cemetery is within the Meridian City of impact.
Barbeiro: So again, the property that you are wishing to develop now, was it originally
zoned and intended for expansion of the existing cemetery and that your going to give it
a portion to expand on.
Clark: No. Excuse me if I took a long way to avoid your question but-- No. The
subject property of our application is not contained in a conditional use permit for the
Terrace Lawn Cemetery. Did we hit the nail there.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Mr. Clark, but the property to the east is. The property owned by Cloverdale
Cemetery to the east of you that is labeled as Boise City multi-family is –
Clark: Boy, I did confuse things didn’t I. I am sorry. It is owned from this property
boundary right here to Cloverdale Road is owned by Cloverdale Gardens, Inc. It is not
part of the conditional use permit for the Cloverdale Cemetery. There is approximately
10 acres on the southern boundary of the Cloverdale Park Cemetery which is
designated in the Boise Comprehensive Plan as open space which is part of that
expanded conditional use permit and that is why it is designated as open space,
because in the city of Boise that’s what allows for cemeteries to occur. The area
designated as multi-family between the eastern property boundary of this property and
Cloverdale Road is not part of the conditional use permit for Cloverdale Gardens.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: For further clarification, in reference to the Telies land survey, the proposed
development you have in front of us, that incorporates parcel 3 and 7. The expansion
for the existing cemetery is parcel 5 and the future development within the Boise impact
area is parcel 6.
Clark: I have a copy of that with me I’ll have to refer just to make sure. That is correct.
That parcel 6 is the ownership that extends over to Cloverdale which I was referring.
Hatcher: So 1 and 2 is what you reference to as the Family Center expansion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 54
Clark: That is correct.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: I have none.
Borup: One short question for Mr. Clark. Several times you have referred to mixed
residential. I am not sure what you mean by that. From what you said, it sounds like
your talking about multi-family.
Clark: I am referring to the Comprehensive Plan designation that we are requesting.
We would be following this up with a request for annexation and zoning and was stated
by staff, we would probably request an R-15 designation. Now the mixed residential—
Borup: I jumped ahead a little bit. You have answered my question.
Clark: If I could just build on that though but not respond to your question directly. I
think that the mixed residential designation the Comprehensive Plan is a good tool for
the City of Meridian from an urban planning perspective in that it allows, although it is
not defined in the Comprehensive Plan, it allows I think for application for different
density’s and designs that are appropriate to different locations. This particular one,
being behind the commercial and having a direct access on to Fairview, offers a nice
living environment that is not directly on a busy thoroughfare, but yet has direct access
to it. It has those advantages. Obviously, the Family Center if their increase is
approved will be up near a million square feet of commercial. Plenty of shopping
opportunities there and of course this is being near Fairview and Eagle Road, close to a
lot of employment. It seems to us in again accommodation with the Boise city
designation to be an appropriate location for this land use.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Brown.
Brown: Mr. Clark what market are you shooting for with your mixed use then.
Clark: With a target density of about 15 units per acre, we would assume that this
would be what I would loosely refer to and what we are trying to show in concept is a
garden apartment. I think that would be for –it could be –I am not going to say that it is
targeted only at empty nesters or seniors or young people. I think that will be to be
decided down the road. What I do think and you will have the opportunity to approve
this when it comes forward, is the character and density we are shooting for a I guess I
would call it an upper to middle apartment market. By nature of a garden apartment
type density. Whether that is older, younger or a mix the way we determine the density
here on take off was a mix of 1-2-3 bedroom units.
Borup: This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone that would wish to come up and
testify. Seeing none, I think Mr. Clark was right that there wasn’t going to be anybody.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 55
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we continue this
Borup: Before you do, I think Steve would like to make a comment.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one other comment related to this map that has been
submitted. These parcels that are shown on the map do not exist in the Ada County’s
assessors data. From all the research we have done, this is an illegal lot split system
that would need to be cleaned up with a plat at the time of development.
Borup: Yes, that would be consistent with what (inaudible). You did not have any
questions on that Mr. Clark. You understood.
Clark: I can help you understand why it exists as it does. The parcel at the top, parcel
1 is an existing legal lot under the ownership of Daniel Gibson. Parcel 2,3,4,5, and 6
are, let's see, 2,3,4,5 are under Terrace Lawn owned by (inaudible) Gibson. Parcels 1
and 2 are currently under contract being sold by Daniel Gibson and Terrace Lawn to or
under contract, under option to be sold to Family Center. The Family Center expansion
would be on property that they are selling to them, or will be selling to them. It is
contingent upon approvals by the City of Meridian. That property split will not occur
until the execution of that purchase or shortly before that. Parcel 4 I think it is, that
parcel that is immediately south of Terrace Lawn is a (inaudible) acre expansion that I
described that we had surveyed for purpose of putting together the legal description for
this application. So it allows for that 3 acre expansion. It is all under a single ownership
now. It wouldn’t be until we come forward I think at the time of an annexation and
zoning that we would complete those that subdivision.
Borup: I think Steve was just making note of it at this point. There will be survey on
those other parcels at the time of annexation and zoning. Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I believe that Mr. Freckleton has a comment.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I was just looking at the map
that Steve was referring to and basically if you will look at the Telie Land Survey map,
the I believe that is 40 acres (inaudible) that comes up against Crossroads Subdivision
on the west and the Boise city impact area on the east. According to Ada County
Assessors information, that is currently in two ownership’s. There are two legal parcels
in that entire 40 acres. The property referenced as parcel number 6, currently exists in
that very configuration right there. It looks like the question is that 40 acres.
Borup: That is what is looked like to me. Parcel 1 is one parcel and all the rest is
separate parcel numbers—the remainder is that what your saying.
Freckleton: yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 56
Borup: That is what he drew. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner De Weerd you were
ready to make a motion.
De Weerd: There is no further discussion? Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this
until the September 30th
meeting.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Okay, and again that September 30 meeting is when we are hearing other
Comprehensive Plan change applications. Thank you, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman can he take the blown up exhibit? I certainly don’t have any
objection to it because he has represented identical –
ITEM NUMBER 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
SANTEE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX BY PINNACLE ENGINEERS –LOT 3 BLOCK 2
OF RAILSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION:
Borup: Staff, who do we have. Brad or Steve.
Hawkins: I would like to take the next hour to present this project. I would request
Commission that you incorporate our comments dated August 20, 1999 which were
sent to the applicant that addressed both of these items, 8 and 9. Our comments
addressed both the conditional use permit and just for your reference, if you look at the
packet, this is an existing lot in the Railside Park Subdivision and what they are
proposing re-subdivision of the lot. They have all ready been approved for condition
use permit back in July to put multiply buildings on this lot, so the reason they are back
before you now is to actually plat the re-plat that lot. The majority of our comments are
of the standard comments and unless there is other things that the public works
department has I think that is it.
Borup: Did the Public Works Dept. have any comments?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. The only question that I had,
and this is a legal issue for Mr. Rossman, that is in regard to a condo or townhouse type
project and the articles or like the CC&R’s, isn’t there some kind of articles –isn’t is
basically a corporation. I recall that the last project that came through—there was a
project called Bridgewood Park Condos and they had to go through and do some sort of
article of condominium –something in Idaho Code that requires that and I could not –
Rossman: It has been a long time since I done it, but there is you have to do an Article
of Condominium’s and there is some other procedural requirements that have to be
met.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 57
Freckleton: I did not know how this would apply to this application, if it would at all.
Borup: Just a clarification. This is townhouse rather than condominium. That is what it
says here so the townhouse needs to have a separate lot under the building where a
condo.
Rossman: Are these all on separate lots?
Freckleton: Yes.
Rossman: Well perhaps the applicant can address that better than I. They are
townhouses and they are on separate lots, I am not sure the requirement for the articles
is necessarily there. We could certainly look into that a little closer, but as I sit here
today my best belief is that there is not requirement with regard to townhouses as
opposed to a single lot with multiple units within that lot.
Borup: Any other questions for staff? If not, applicant—Mr. Unger, are you going to be
doing this?
Unger: Mr. Chairman and Commission Members, my name is Bob Unger. I am with
Pinnacle Engineers. Our address is 870 North Linder Road, Suite B, Meridian, ID
83542. We represent the applicant on this project which is Santee Construction. I will
try to be somewhat brief on this. First of all, just to answer your question, since this is
townhouses, Articles are not required. It is only for Condos. We have provided staff
with a copy of restrictive covenants for the project which will take care of the
maintenance of the common areas within the project itself. We will kind of go through
this with you. We have 23 zero lot line commercial townhouses. Each one of these will
be individual units on separate lots. We have 23 of them. We have parking in this area.
Also our drainage will be in this area. We are providing landscape buffering along the
front. Some landscaping and fencing around the perimeters here. We have made one
slight change here. This is called—we originally showed this as a paved driveway back
in here. We are changing, amending that to be a gravel driveway area back in here
with concrete pads for these units to the back. This is the rear of these units not the
front, of course. We do have sewer and water available in Walston Street, right in
through here, and we will be providing services to each on of the individual units. As far
as staff comments, we reviewed them. We really have no problems with staff
comments and their conditions of approval that they have recommended. Certainly
have no problem with complying with them. That goes along with the conditional use
also, which follows this particular application in the agenda this evening. The zoning is
currently a I-L which is a appropriate zoning for the Railside Subdivision and our
proposal complies with that zoning. It also complies with the Comprehensive Plan and
the development also is compatible with the surrounding development that is occurring
within the Railside Subdivision itself. Not to stretch this out, we have gone through all
the conditions. We have no problems with them and will comply with them. At this
point we will stand for any questions you might have or concerns over the project.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 58
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Unger? Mr. Brown.
Brown: So the lot lines go to the (inaudible) parking. Is it a shared driveway or how do
they—
Unger: Right. The parking, all the parking in the driveway is in a common lot. The
actual lot lines are structures themselves.
Brown: And the parking, is that designated for each one of the units or—
Unger: The parking is within the common lot itself. We have provided sufficient parking
for each unit as required by the code. I guess they could specifically be designated for
each individual unit, if you feel that that is appropriate. We really don’t anticipate any
problems with anybody particularly claiming parking areas of their own. It would be any
parking in front of the unit would obviously be for that unit.
Borup: Any other questions. Thank you Mr. Unger. Do we have anyone else here who
wish to testify at this public hearing. Seeing and hearing none, Commissioners. Any
final summary from staff. Commissioners?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, does staff have any concerns about the gravel back on that.
Hawkins: The gravel was not depicted on the plan originally. The ordinance does not
allow a gravel for drive or parking areas. It would be required to be paved under
existing ordinance. I was a little confused—talked about a gravel area with concrete
pads coming out behind each of those proposed townhouses on that far left side.
You’ve got gravel drives or gravel base with several paved drives leading up to like a
warehouse door or storage door. Technically, that whole area would –continued to be
used for drainage too.
Borup: Mr. Unger will you clarify that a little bit. You plan indicates the majority of that
area is in Nampa Meridian easement line.
Worcester: Wes Worcester. Santee Construction. On these two units right here they
do have the garage doors that open on to the rear of this property. These over here
only have man doors that open to the rear of this property. The problem we run into is
there is a irrigation easement here. It is for a drain for ground water control and we met
with the irrigation district and if we pave this, we got to make arrangements for that to
be cut at any future time that they so desire. That was our problem with paving that
area in the back. Now we can if it is a condition of the
****Last side***
Worcester: to have a driveway here, because we have enough room here to –it would
only be 12 feet however. I am not sure what you minimum driveway width is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 59
Hawkins: The minimum driveway is, if your not going to provide parking back there,
would probably be at 20 feet.
Worcester: Twenty feet would be a problem because then we would be into this
easement that we are going to have to make arrangements with the irrigation district to
open it any time they desire. They are not even sure where this drain is at. They’re
thinking that it comes out of the property at an angle and then angles off over here at
this other property. This property right here is graveled in this area back in here for that
same reason that the irrigation district may have to –if they ever locate their pipe, may
have to have access to it. We are trying to get that located. We are hoping that they
put it on the property line. If they put it on the property line that is going to change that
easement back there. All the other units fronts are accessed the paved area with their
designated parking spots. These are their parking spots that are designated for this
office area. The problem we have of course is that the necessary here we had the
garage doors that access this back here.
Hawkins: What is the business to the north? It is vacant, correct?
Worcester: No. To the north? This area right here is a residential. That’s why we have
this twenty foot screen area as a transition from industrial to residential. This is a
vacant lot here. This lot over here just been constructed 649 Ralston, I believe the
address is, and they’ve got—the reason we came up with that gravel idea. That’s what
they’ve got in the rear of their property.
Hawkins: Of the residential property.
Worcester: No, no. This property right here is an industrial zone and it has a large
industrial complex on it. Their complex actually ends right in here. For that area back,
it’s gravel because of this same condition with the irrigation district.
Hawkins: Do they use that for vehicular traffic?
Worcester: There is a garage door opening behind it, yes. They have a very similar
situation. They have a garage door opening on to that gravel area and they’ve got an
asphalt ramp to access that gravel area. They have sloped it in such a manner that—
they put a retention pond back in here in this area for their drainage of that area. We’ve
talked to the irrigation district and that drain that comes through here, we’ve gotten
permission, but we have to get a licensing agreement to connect our drain directly to it
so we won’t have a retention pond. That is just mosquito haven. They suggested that
we go from a retention pond from here to draining into that drain that is running to the
rear of that property.
Borup: Anything else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 60
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. I’ve got a question related to this discussion. Can you clarify
why you have the overhead door on the back side of units 4 and 5 in building 3 and
none of the others.
Worcester: This is a owner that wished it to be that way. We had designed the entire
complex to front on to the driveway. He wanted more extensive office area. He’s got
the side by side offices here. Actually, he is going to have a mezzanine up above this,
so he is going to maximize out his office space, so he wanted to have access to the rear
of the structure versus the front of the structure so he could put that all into office space.
If he had the—these are 14 foot high, 12 foot wide garage doors. You have them in the
front of your property your only going to have this small area for office area. He wanted
more office area.
Hatcher: How are you proposing to adequate access to those door around back?
Worcester: Well you’ve got a driveway on the side here and that is adequate. I know it
is more than 20 feet, I can’t read that dimension, but that was adequate for him to get in
and out of this area in the past. Initially this was going to be paved, but then when we
ran into the irrigation problem, then we chose to duplicate what our neighbor to the
south had done. I was under the impression that that was acceptable. We would come
out here with a concrete pad to the edge of the easement and this goes at an angle. At
this point here is the closest point. It is 12 feet. That limited our apron. That is what we
were attempting to accomplish. We are being a copy cat. Looks like we goofed up.
Hatcher: Bruce, do we have city requirements that that access be paved?
Hawkins: I could look it up. The ordinance I believe is vehicular drive and parking
areas.
Hatcher: That would constitute a vehicular drive.
Hawkins: That’s correct. We can look that up for you. The issue of course principally
is—I don’t know if the Fire Marshall typically the fire department I did not see their
comments on this access. They don’t mention the drives. Just codes that need to be
met for the fire.
Worcester: We are going to sprinkle the buildings. They don’t have enough water
pressure there for service. We’ve only got 1500 gallons per minute, so we are going to
sprinkle the buildings to alleviate that concern. I may be incorrect, but when we were
talking to our neighbors, we were under the impression that in an industrial zone that
gravel area to the rear was acceptable. I don’t know. I am not familiar with that
ordinance.
Hatcher: It depends on their use.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 61
Worcester: I know they have the same use. They’ve got the garage door to the rear of
their property with an asphalt apron and then two going into gravel.
Borup: That is the lot directly to the south?
Worcester: Yeah.
Borup: And your saying essentially the same use that your proposing.
Worcester: Yes.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, I guess the point should be made that if it is a requirement
that it be paved, that that is a requirement that the planning and zoning commission has
to live with and they have to require that. I guess the applicant could seek a variance
from the City Council, but this Planning and Zoning Commission does not hear
variances. If the other lot owner is doing that and if, in fact a non conforming use, then
that is a code enforcement issue, but it is not—
Worcester: I am not raising that question. We were just duplicating what he had done
because we were under the impression that it was acceptable, because of the
conditions of this easement and the requirement of the irrigation district to access that
drain.
Rossman: I understand that and hopefully we can get that clarified as to whether or not
that is in fact a requirement under the Meridian City Code.
Borup: Wes, the irrigation’s access would just be incase of essentially emergency a
problem with the line, etc.
Worcester: Right, we would have to be—
Borup: That is probably pretty good odds that your not going to have—
Worcester: Right and I am not sure what we’d have to do. They are not sure. They
said we may have to put a condition within the homeowners association or the
association for legal and financial responsibility to uncover and recover in the event that
they have a clogged line. They aren’t even sure where that line is at.
Borup: At this point there aren’t even any clean up boxes that whole length.
Worcester: No, none that we could find.
Borup: How long is that?
Worcester: It is kind of a weird situation. It comes up comes over from Pine and then
right in here it heads
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 62
Borup: There has to be a box at the angle then.
Worcester: No there is no box at the angle.
Borup: Okay, but this is strictly drainage.
Worcester: Yeah, it’s ground water control.
Borup: It’s not irrigation or anything so it’s not like a irrigation water that gets plugged
up with weeds.
Worcester: They though that there was an access up here off of (inaudible)
Borup: Thank you. Brad did you find anything or should we continue on.
Hawkins: The wording does not state drive is (inaudible) off street parking areas. The
interpretation by Shari has been that office street parking areas include the driveways,
not just the parking stalls themselves. This could potentially left up to interpretation by
the Planning and Zoning Administrator to make in the case if this can be determined
and if that is the Commissions desire to be determined to drive area or not, that has
happened in other permitted uses that don’t come before you for a conditional use
permit that issue has been between the administrator and the application. If you so
desire, that may be one of those. But her interpretation most of the time has been that
even the ordinance says off street parking area shall be paved, that is included.
Hatcher: Wes. The property to the south, do they access out on to that like you would
be.
Worcester: Yes.
Hatcher: So they pull out of a garage –
Worcester: Overhead door. They have an asphalt apron. I personally would put a
concrete apron, but if that is a problem, hopefully what we can do is if we can locate this
drain if we can move this easement over, then maybe we can get—your saying a 20
foot driveway is the minimum. We could move that 8 foot, I don’t know if we can,
maybe we could do that.
Hatcher: I am just looking at maintaining compliance with the ordinances and my
suggestion would be granted there is a pending issue of locating the drain, but my
suggestion would be put in the 20 wide required asphalt drive and take the gamble—
Worcester: We would only have to dig up a portion of it because—at 20 foot—this is 12
foot right here, so if this drain was in fact within this easement here, we’d only have to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 63
take up 8 foot of asphalt at the most. We if could have the drive way coming back up in
here, that’s fine.
Hatcher: That would be between you and the irrigation district as far as what
agreement you can come up with.
(Inaudible audience discussion)
Borup: You’ve got 38 feet to your property line, it looks like.
Worcester: Yeah at the minimum point. This is wider over here.
Rossman: I would recommend that that issue be left for determination by the Planning
and Zoning Administrator and should the administrator determine that there is a paving
requirement, Mr. Worcester could apply for a variance with the City Council.
Borup: Not an issue we need to address. Commissioners. I am ready for a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. I did not know my last one would
be so lengthy but staff I am at a disadvantage because I’ve been working on a
landscape ordinance and now I don’t know what exists and what doesn’t. Is there any
interior parking landscaping that is required for this.
Hawkins: There is not. The requirement is one 3 inch caliper tree for every 1500
square feet of asphalt. They have exceeded.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: All in favor
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we recommend to City Council request for
preliminary plat for Santee Commercial Complex by Pinnacle Engineers Lot 3 Block 2 of
Railside Park Subdivision to include all of staff comments.
De Weerd: I would second that.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 64
ITEM NUMBER 9. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
TOWNHOUSE CONVERSION OF MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A 1 ACRE LOT BY
WES WORCESTER-RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION AT PINE AND LOCUST GROVE:
Worcester: We going to do a townhouse conversion. First on in Meridian for an office
warehouse complex. That is about all I have to say.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Worcester. No questions. Was this the plan you had
when you came in for the conditional use a few months ago.
Worcester: I was told that I would be more beneficial to take it one step at a time. The
multiple units was the first time it had been done in Meridian and then come back in for
the townhouse conversion because that is also the first time it’s been done in Meridian.
Also, it’s the first time it has been done in the state that I know of. Have you ever seen
an office warehouse townhouses in the state? We went to townhouses because of the
demising walls. We are going to have a full 2 hour wall between the units which would
give me better security and in a condo you only have to have a one hour wall to your
ceiling grid. Then you’ve got you draft stops, but to me that give very much security.
We going to go all the way up to the roof deck with our townhouse walls and that will
give us a better insurance rates too. We’ll see.
Borup: Thank you. Any one else wish to testify. Seeing none, any final comments from
staff. Actually I did not ask for staffs report on this so is there anything you’d like to
incorporate into Item 9.
Hawkins: Previous staff report. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: Thank you. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to City Council with staff
comments the condition use permit for a townhouse conversation of multi buildings on a
one acre lot by Wes Worcester.
De Weerd: I second that.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 65
Borup: Thank you. I’ve got one question I’d like to ask staff before we leave. Tammy
did you have something else though.
De Weerd: Yes I did. In lieu of looking at the September 30th
meeting with the
Comprehensive Plan, we do have a couple of applications that we have heard but our
two new commissioners have not. Would a workshop be in order to bring them up to
speed on those applications so we do have to do it one as a public hearing that has
been closed so—
Borup: Have you guys gotten any minutes on any of those meeting?
Hatcher: How far back?
Borup: It was last month, but it was concerning –the one we closed was on the Family
Center annexation. One was on the Comprehensive Plan change.
Hatcher: I have not documentation on that.
Borup: Would you like to have a work session or make sure you have complete
minutes and copies of everything on that.
Hatcher: If I have the documentation in advance before we hear it, I can bring myself
up to speed without a workshop.
Borup: The question I have is the minutes are easy to get how about the other site
plans etc. Do we have extra copies of those.
Berg: I can give somebody my copies. I could copy what I have in my file. I am
concerned about discussing a project in a workshop form that is a public hearing. They
can research and look in our files and see what was presented like anybody else from
the public but I don’t know if you want to discuss or converse anything with him about
the projects. Our attorney could advise whatever.
Rossman: My recommendation is that we certainly should not meet as a quorum in a
workshop session to discuss one of the projects. I guess they are called upon to review
the minutes, which are basically entire transcripts of the hearings word for word, and
any of the exhibits that were submitted and determine for themselves whether or not
they can be prepared enough to make a decision on the application.
Borup: Do we have enough exhibits or do we need—Family Center and Barnes project.
Is that the only two. Barnes is off Eagle Road by the new grade school. We will get
copies of everything. We will have all the minutes and I think we will have
documentation for that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 66
Berg: I think we can supply them with sufficient information that they can review and
determine whether or not they can make a judgement call or not.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman I certainly would not blame either one of them if they felt they
could not prepare themselves enough to sit on that particular application. There was a
lot that has gone on to this point.
Borup: One is not closed so it’s open—
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman it is imperative that at least one of them sit in on as I will be
down on Family Center.
Borup: Oh that’s right. We’ll still have a quorum. We will be all right. I have
something I wanted to ask earlier on the Bear Creek project, but felt I rather wait till
now. Meeting is still open. Maybe I could think of some good comments to make about
City Council or something. We were talking about the Ten Mile Trunk line. What I was
thinking about is amount of money in the sewer enterprise fund. Is that all at this point
pretty much earmarked for the no name trunk and some on going things and sewer
expansion. One time there was a nice amount. How much is available for that
expansion.
Freckleton: I think there is some on going discussions right now with City Council.
Correct me if I’m work will, but aren’t they talking about that trying to determine how
much of the no name to do and the funding for it. I have not been involved in those
discussions, but my understanding is that they are trying to establish the scope of the
project and the funding for it.
Berg: That is correct. Bruce is right there has been a lot of discussion at City Council
of which direction to go. The other concern is funding. There is certain designated
funds for certain areas that they have to put the money back into those areas. All the
monies that’s collected in the enterprise fund isn’t just for any future development
wherever in the city. There is some designated areas that it has to be. It is when you
pay your water and sewer bill, some of those fees into the whole fee structures is for
updating and maintaining certain lines. There is projects that we are going to have to
parallel lines, have bigger lines.
Borup: That’s what I wondered. Some of these bottlenecks they are talking about are
funds available for those items.
Berg: When you say bottlenecks—improving existing things and parallel lines yes
because those fee structures were structured for those areas.
Hatcher: How is it determined what’s done when with what type of money. I mean in
regards to Bear Creek. A quick fix. Not saying it is the right one. Just a quick fix would
be to fix those bottlenecks so that they could tap into the Ten Mile, because they are at
the end of the Black Cat. That way a project could go in. The city could accumulate the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 67
money from those fees. I roughly estimated their doing a $1500 hookup fee plus a
$1000 impact fee per lot, that is roughly a million dollars off of that development alone
that could be implemented to the Black Cat trunk.
Freckleton: And I think that the assessment fees are one of the fees that Will is eluting
to that I don’t think that assessment fees can be used for actual capital improvement
projects. Right Eric? (Inaudible) New mainline extensions, trunk line extensions and
that sort of thing. I think it has to be used for existing facilities maintenance upgrade,
things like that. I don’t think it can be used for future or new trunk line extensions.
Berg: I think you’ll probably get in to the philosophy of things because the direction the
Council gives to the Public Works Dept. of which way to engineer, which way to go is
sometimes up to their decision, but that’s also in the planning stage. To me planning
goes from inside out. Unfortunately, trunk lines, I was not here for the discussion of the
project, but trunklines at the end of the road, somebody has to plan to go from the plant
to get there. The City I don’t think right now is looking into funding a bunch of those
kinds of projects. We’ve always had developer driven mainlines.
Freckleton: Right. There has been discussion about the city getting some projects
started. I think that they kind of set a priority on the north corridor, the north quadrant.
In looking at Brads report, there are some things that could be done to alleviate some of
these bottlenecks and that sort of thing. I guess it all depends on where Council
decides to apply those funds.
Berg: One issue is the (inaudible) impact that the Ada County had given us some land
that we have some commitments to work on in the north quadroon of the city, especially
the northeast. Some of those things are going to have to be happening fairly soon.
Borup: So it sounds like the north trunkline is going to exhaust all the available funds
anyway.
Freckleton: It is a large project. A very large project. I think once—it will have a
snowball effect. Once the city gets the ball rolling, I think your going to see it carried on.
It just takes somebody stepping up to the plate to get it going.
Borup: Yeah because they know they’ve got something to connect on to and go with. I
wonder if the same thing would happen on the Black Cat Trunk.
Freckleton: Quite possible. But like I say the priority has been set in discussions I’ve
heard for that northern quadrant.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have just one more thing and that is on Cobblestone, if staff
can do a comparison of Jabils and Cobblestones traffic analysis for the next meeting.
Borup: A request for ACHD to do that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 68
De Weerd: Someone. I don’t know who would be appropriate, but –
Borup: Unless you get a traffic engineer, it’s got to be ACHD.
Freckleton: That would be my recommendation. I don’t think staff can make that
judgement call. The Ada County Highway District needs to look at the traffic study from
the Cobblestone project and apply the Jabil.
De Weerd: Well I guess my request would be could staff request that of ACHD.
Hatcher: Could we go back to them and just have them give us a logical deduction
based upon the review of both of those traffic studies so that we could have a overall
idea of what the total impact would be, not this and that and the other thing. Here it is
all lumped together.
Freckleton: Certainly. We can make a call.
Borup: Was there a study done on Jabil, a traffic study from ACHD.
Freckleton: I don’t recall seeing one.
Borup: That was (inaudible) okay but a staff report would talk about what traffic would
be generated on which road.
(Inaudible)
Freckleton: The Ada County Highway District in those staff reports they will try to
determine vehicle trips and levels of service.
Borup: They should have both. All they need to do is combine them.
De Weerd: Well then perhaps they could just come and address the Commission and
answer questions.
Freckleton: That may be the best solution.
Hatcher: Have some one call them and give them a fore warning if this is what we are
going to be asking.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Committee Special Meeting
August 25, 1999
Page 69
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I move that we adjourn.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:00 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
_________________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK