1999 09-14MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
The regular scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Kent Brown, Tammy De Weerd, Thomas Barbeiro
OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Freckleton, Shari Stiles, Eric Rossman, Angel Sims, Will
Berg.
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to begin our Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting this evening for the city of Meridian. The first item on the agenda
is the consent agenda. Commissioners, only I have done the consent agendas and
minutes August 10th
and August 25th
.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the minutes for the meeting held
August 10th
and the special meeting held August 25th
.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I second the motion, please.
Borup: The motion second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
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
(APPROVE W/RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL)
Borup: Any opposed? Thank you. Item 1 is a continued public hearing conditional use
permit for a multi-family 96-unit apartment complex; complex proposed Cobblestone
Village by Stamas Corporation. Do we have any additional information from Staff? I
think what we had submitted the last minute last time was the new site plan. Shari,
w.e’re on Item No. 1. Cobblestone Village, and at the last meeting, we received this site
plan a few hours before the meeting. I think one of the reasons for the continuing was a
chance to study that and then any staff comments on the revised plan.
Stiles: Commissioners, did you receive the letter – the memo dated today? It was
prepared by Brad Hawkins-Clark, and that was based on his review of the revised plan?
They also submitted some new elevations. I think I have a new site plan for our
transparency for the new site plan if you want me to put that up. Make sure it’s the
same one. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the main issues that he had still were the
Five Mile Creek and make sure that is protected and accounted for as far as permits. I
believe you have in your packets new elevations that showed the buildings. There were
some elevations missing for some of the buildings, primarily the C and D. The deed
turned out they were the three-story buildings, so they have supplied that for Item No. 2.
As for at least a three-foot berm for the landscaping buffers adjacent to Franklin and
Locust Grove, it was recommended that the Building D that these three-story buildings
be relocated to another building location so that the impact on the adjacent property
owner would not be as great. Ask for some landscaping within the parking lots to
alleviate the sea of asphalt which by Brad’s calculations would result in the reduction of
four stalls and that would also require reducing the total number of dwelling units so that
they met the minimums or to get a barrience on that parking requirement. For planned
residential development, a maintenance building is also needed, and there is not
accommodation for storage areas for anticipated needs of boats, campers and trailers.
And that’s the only additional comments that we had. I believe the applicants here
tonight and has seen these comments and is prepared to address some of those items.
Do you have any questions of me?
Borup: Commissioners?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. Shari, can you show us where the adjoining neighbors are?
Where there houses are located in reference to the buildings you’re asking to be
moved?
Stiles: Locust Grove Road here, Franklin Road is here, the adjacent – well, where am I
at? They would be right here. This is where Medimont Subdivision is be marketed as
Stonebrige Business Park. These are all zoned light industrial along here. This is a
twenty-foot planting strip, and this is where the residential acreages are down toward
the south --
Barbeiro: And there’s one –
Stiles: -- to the South.
Barbeiro: -- residential house to the South?
Stiles: Right adjacent to this property is one residential house.
Barbeiro: And where is it located?
Stiles: It’s – I don’t know exactly, but since it’s a block – it’s in the back portion here,
and that’s where those three-story buildings were shown was back adjacent to that lot.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you, Shari. Is the applicant here this evening like to
address the Commission? JoAnn, is this the way you’ve just provided, is this the same
as what –
JoAnn Butler: It is. It is. It’s just for your reference. JoAnn Butler, 607 North 8th
Street,
representing the applicant. And, yes. What I’ve handed to the Planning and Zoning
Commission is exactly what the site plan that you have up on the screen and what the
Commission has had in its packets. Also what I handed out is a conditional use
compliance analysis that we did provide to the Commissioners prior to the last hearing
which was tabled until tonight, and that is also just for your reference. With me tonight
is Bryce Peterson, also representing the applicant. I’d like to just briefly go over the
conditional use compliance analysis. Some of the memo that you have from Brad that
Ms. Stiles referenced just a moment ago and answer any questions, and then Mr.
Peterson may also address the Commission and reserve some time for rebuttal. I’ll just
incorporate for the record the testimony from the May 11th
hearing, that is a time when
we went over this project in great detail. It was tabled at that time. At that time, you did
recommend to the City Council that this property be annexed and zoned. The City
Council heard that annexation and zoning and approved the annexation and zoning on
July 20th
of this year with the development agreement. And, at your May 11th
hearing,
you did table this until after the annexation and zoning and now we’re back again. Just
briefly, with regard to the conditional use compliance analysis, I won’t go over it in detail
since you have had the opportunity to look at it, but, the idea here was to provide you
with a synopsis of each of your criteria in your zoning ordinance to show why we need
the conditional use criteria under Meridian’s ordinances and its comprehensive plan.
Meridian did make the policy and legislative decision to annex and zone this property to
R-40. That has been approved and in connection with the conditional use, you have
already heard extensive testimony on the project, and we’re here tonight to answer any
final questions that you may have. Just briefly, the criteria that we meet under your
zoning ordinance, it does constitute a conditional use as determined by your ordinance.
It is in harmony with and it accordance with your comprehensive plan, and we have
addressed each of the elements of your comprehensive plan and provided a short
synopsis there. The location of this project does support your encouragement of a wide
diversity of housing types in Meridian. It is your goal under your comprehensive plan to
provide that sufficient choice of housing in the community to meet the needs. As was
previously described for, I think the Commission, and also the City Council, there is a
shortage of apartments in Meridian to meet that particular need for housing. The
project is designed and is proposed to operated and maintained to be harmonious and
appropriate in appearance with the character of the area. It is not hazardous or
disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. We had many discussions with
residences in the area and city staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Council on this with the idea of mitigating any potential disturbance. This project is
designed to help Meridian to foster its goals for compatible land use and design. It
assists the city in providing public services and facilities in your area of impact. As you
know, the City has made the determination that is going to serve all of the area of
impact within ten years. This project is located right contiguous to the city, now within
the city, and it enables you to extend services and facilities yet that much further into
your area of impact to help you meet that goal of a ten-year service within the entire
area of impact. The project did not create additional requirements of public costs for
public facilities and services. Because of – as you’ve had testimony in the past, your
ordinance does call for the timely provision of services, infrastructure, roads, and this
project helps you provide that infrastructure in a continuous outward growth of
development rather than in a leapfrog fashion. And, of course, the majority of the
facilities are paid for by the applicant. The project does not involve uses or activities
that are detrimental to persons or property in the general vicinity by reason of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, glare or odors. Of course, conditions of approval
that you may place upon this project would ensure that items such as lights would not
provide glare into adjoining property. You had extensive testimony at your last hearing
from your traffic engineer, Ada County Highway District and our professional traffic
engineer that the project would not unduly burden the road system. Under your
ordinance required to show that vehicular approaches to the property are designed so
as to not create undue interference with traffic on the surrounding streets, and with the
two intended accesses, both 400 feet, both to the west and to the south of the
intersection of Locust Grove, this design ensures that the traffic does not unduly
interfere with the existing traffic. Finally, the project does not result in the destruction or
the loss of any significant natural feature. The comprehensive plan obviously has
identified for the City what is to be in the best interest of Meridian for this area, and the
project is designed to be compatible and further the goals and objectives and the
policies of the comprehensive plan as adopted by this city to promote the public
convenience and welfare. As such, the project is in the best interest of Meridian. And
so we are, of course, respectfully asking you tonight to approve this conditional use,
discuss the conditions of approval with us and help us answer any question that you
have. With regard to the memorandum, I actually have a copy, a draft copy of the
memorandum dated yesterday, and so, Shari has indicated there might be some slight
changes to that, so if I make a mistake, Shari, to what is actually represented in here,
please let me know. The staff has included some additional site-specific requirements.
First of all, the need to comply with any requirements of the State Department of Water
Resources and the Nampa Meridian Irrigation districts and it’s our standard conditions
of approval, and, of course, we would comply with that. The staff asked us to submit
the ten copies of the building elevations which we have done for you tonight, and we
also had one – Bryce, maybe you could put that one elevation up, and we could leave
that up. I think it would probably fit underneath the site plan there so that if you have
any questions. It’s a larger version of the A Building so that you can at least refer to
that colored rendering in addition to the black and white that you have in your packet.
This also – there is another rendering that we have, and, Bryce, maybe we can slide
that last one too along the board. I think the last one showing the landscaping and the
wall. And Mr. Peterson can answer any question you have on this. I think that a
request of at least one of the commissioners was to provide some indication visually as
to the slope of the site and how the project would be viewed as you are looking from the
south to the north, and I believe that is going from the south to north, so it would show
the wall in the area. It also tries to capture the slope of the site which goes from the
southwest corner to the northeast corner which is the lowest point of the site. When
this was designed, the idea was not to create any fill on the site, not to level the site or
do any fill, but to work with the grade of the sites so that those buildings to the south
and west would be able to look over the roofs of the buildings that are going towards
the northeast corner; the idea to work with the site and to capture, allow those
individuals to be able to view over the adjoining buildings. Staff also recommended that
the proposed landscaping, which they know is double what is required by ordinance, be
moved around on site to help break up the parking areas and that will be done. We
don’t believe there will be any loss of – I don’t know that Mr. Peterson’s had the chance
to talk to Staff about this, but we don’t believe there will be a loss of any parking spaces,
and we wouldn’t be asking for a variance in connection with any parking spaces. I’ll
have Mr. Peterson speak to the fence along the south side of the property and why that
is appropriate. I think there was a question about the height of the building. The height
of all buildings are 33 feet. They are 2-1/2 story on one side, and that again, because
of the slope of the property, they are built into the hillside; so 2-1/2 story on one side,
three story on the downslope. There was a comment, I think from Staff, that no
apartment or clubhouse or maintenance building was shown. That has been
consistently shown on the site plan and Mr. Peterson can probably point to that, and I
think you’ll see that readily. That is an existing house that is on the property that will be
remodeled to provide for the maintenance and for the clubhouse. And so with that, I’ll
reserve some time for rebuttal and turn the microphone over briefly to Mr. Peterson to
address some of the architectural elements and any questions that you may have.
Thank you.
Peterson: May I take advantage of this microphone?
Borup: Please do.
Peterson: Thank you. Good evening. My name is Bryce Peterson. I represent the
Stamas Corporation in this instance. The Stamas Corporation and the Ionic
Corporation are made up of the same principles; they being my daughter and son-in-
law. I am going to represent them tonight, and I’m also going to represent the builder
tonight which is HomeCo, my building company. I would like to fortify the record, if I
may. The chairman mentioned that we’d only submitted the site plan a few hours
before the last meeting, and in fact, I want to make it a record that we did submit that at
the time of the City Council hearing, at which time the project was annexed and
rezoned. So, I just want to be sure that the record is straight. We received word today
that the – that there were some revisions that were requested, and so we met with Brad
this morning, and I’ve done my best in this short period of time to give you the exhibits
that you’ve requested. I think we’ve done pretty well except for one. And the one we’ll
try to explain. May I put this up? I can’t see you, but I assume it’s okay if I –
Borup: We’re here.
Peterson: -- if I don’t hear you say “no.” I know that the audience probably cannot see
this as well as we would like it, but we do have handouts for the Commission, and Ms.
Butler has already given those to you. The site plan has been revised again, and I
hope that you can see it. I’d be glad to pass this around if you’d like it, Mr. Chairman,
but we have here demonstrated that we can and will do the landscaping that you – in
between the parking bays as requested in the report that I received this morning. And if
you’d like to have it, I’d be glad to give it to you. As Ms. Butler mentioned, this house
has been here all along. It has always been labeled as the clubhouse and
maintenance, and the garage, you know, is just perfect for a maintenance building, and
the clubhouse, or the house, is a walk-out basement, which is just ideal. And so we’ll
be remodeling the inside of that to accommodate those uses. I talked at the meeting
last time. It was a brief meeting, but I did talk about how Mr. Torrell had, I thought,
successfully moved the buildings towards the north giving substantial buffering on the
side next to the Robinsons. We hope that you’ve seen this. Have you seen this? We
handed it to you. We gave it to City Council and then I gave it to you again last
meeting.
Borup: We’ve got it.
Peterson: Okay. And you can read on your copy the distances of each building.
They’re about 32, 35 and 58 if I remember right. Now, I would like to just emphasize, if I
may, the slope of the ground, and I would like to use these two exhibits if I may in doing
that. The reason that I was so taken by this particular piece of property was its
contours. And you may not be able, I know you can’t see it from where the audience is,
but I know that you have them on your drawings, and I know that you can see them on
your drawings. But, there is 16 foot of elevation change from this corner to this corner.
Now, 16 feet happens to work out perfectly to have a building, the third floor being
above the roof of this one, and this one being above the roof of this one. It’s just
perfect. And so each person who lives on the third floor will have the vista of Deerpoint.
Deerpoint, you know, is right here. You look in a northeasterly direction. And if you will
take particular note of your drawings that are in front of you, that the contour, the
contour lines – they’re on your drawings – fit this particular drawing perfectly. There are
some steeper areas, and that’s where the buildings are. There are some less steep
areas, and that’s where the parking lots are. And so, it -- the ground was made for this
project, I believe. Are there any questions so far? Okay. Now I think it’s important to
show that on this drawing. All of the buildings – now, this is one thing that was in the
staff report that I was confused about, and I want to answer any question that you may
have. All of the buildings are three-story. The information, obviously, that the staff is
working with have – we’ve gone back and had previous submissions, you know,
previous applications, and then we come back with different ones. Well, the latest one
that the staff had showed all of the buildings being three stories, and the reason I know
that is because the staff has this cellophane on the overhead, and they all are three
stories. There is some difference in the Buildings A, B, C and D, and if you’ll look at
your floorplans, you’ll see that there is the bay windows and some of the areas are
protruding out farther than others, so it isn’t like a repetitious copy, cookie-cutter project.
But yet, there is some (inaudible); it hangs together. The siding is all stucco, the roofs
will be the same, the windows will be the same. So, I always heard that you had to
have five things in common to keep a project a project. Well, we’ve done that, but yet,
we have made some various changes in the buildings so that they’re not monotonous. I
assume there are no questions, and unless there are, I think I should not take anymore
time.
Borup: Any questions from the commissioners?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Mr. Peterson, can you show us where the sidewalk would be along the exterior
of the development on Locust Grove and Franklin?
Peterson: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Brown, yes, I’d be happy to. The sidewalk will be
placed right along here which is – you see, when Franklin and Locust are developed to
their full width, they will have the ground to here; at least they’ll own it. Whether they
use it or not, I don’t know, because sometimes they don’t use it all. But, we’re placing a
sidewalk right here, and likewise here, which is the extent of their desires and the
widths of their streets.
Brown: So, is it two foot within the right-of-way they way they normally do that?
Peterson: I believe that’s right.
Brown: What do you plan on doing from – I imagine those are both collectors or
arterials from Franklin, and how do you plan on treating the rest, where the sidewalk to
the street or to the asphalt? Have you taken consideration of that?
Peterson: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Brown, yes. It’s our intent to grass that
area and maintain it. Sprinkle and maintain it until such time as the Highway District
wishes to take it over.
Brown: So you’ll (inaudible) in with a license agreement?
Peterson: Yes. I believe that that is part of the development agreement, but I’m not
positive. Anyway, we’ll commit to that anyway.
Brown: Along your southerly boundary, there is discussion about a fence or a wall. Is it
a fence or is it a wall?
Peterson: It’s a wall.
Brown: So, if I read this right, it’s a six-foot high block wall?
Peterson. Yes, sir. I’m not sure that it’ll be block, but, Mr. Roberson requested that at
our very first meeting, and as far as I know, he still wishes to have that. That is
demonstrated, by the way, on this drawing.
Brown: Mr. Peterson, you’re familiar with where the Robersons’ home is? Is it directly
in alignment with that southwest building?
Peterson: May I use this? Mr. Chairman, Mr. Brown, yes. Again, going back to this
one, I believe their home is 50 feet plus from the property line and in about this location.
I think it’s important to mention that we have moved these buildings over, as I stated
earlier, 30 plus feet from the property line. We have also, there are no windows on this
end, on the ends of any of the buildings, and we have indicated and will stand – we’ll
enter into the agreement that indicates that we will screen the south side of each of the
patios that are on this side, or deck, whichever the case may be.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Thomas.
Barbeiro: Mr. Peterson, in our last meeting, you presented us with a traffic impact
study. In the traffic impact study, as I asked during the engineer’s testimony, is a
projected turning volume for the year 2001. When I asked the engineer if that projected
turning volume for the year 2001 took into account the inclusion of Jabil, his answer
was “no.” I still stand that this is an incomplete and not a viable traffic control plan for
your intersection at the time that your apartment complex is open for operation. Did you
have additional traffic control plans prepared that are in keeping with the projected
turning volumes of the year 2001, as addressed here in the traffic control plan?
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, anticipating your question, we have
the traffic engineer here, and he has updated his report. However, again for the record,
may I say that you approved the Jabil project before this application was received, and I
do not believe that we should be held responsible for the traffic that we generated by
Jabil. However, we have updated the report, Commissioner Barbeiro.
Borup: Any other questions?
Barbeiro: Do we have that report?
Borup: Well, yeah. I think we’ll have a chance to hear from that. We also have Larry
Sale from ACHD here. That maybe will shed light on this. We hope.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes. But yes, we want to get through these questions first and then go on with
that.
De Weerd: I have just one question, and that is on Locust Grove, once you allow for
the ACHD right away, how far is the setback? Closer to the main entrance into your
complex?
Peterson: Let me – if I don’t answer those questions, Mr. Chairman, Ms. De Weerd, if I
don’t answer the question properly, please ask it again. But I’ll attempt to. This – the
sidewalk, as I indicated earlier, is the amount of ground that ACHD intends to use some
day. And so, the sidewalk is placed on that line, and the distance that you’re asking is
from where to where, please?
De Weerd: From that line to the innermost point of your parking lot, I would guess. No.
You have a setback requirement before you’re – Shari, perhaps you can help with that
question. Do you know what I’m trying to ask?
Stiles: The setback for the buildings from the future required right-of-way would be 35
feet on Franklin Road and I believe 20 feet on Locust Grove Road.
De Weerd: Oh. Is it only 20 feet?
Stiles: Yeah.
De Weerd: And I assume that that’s 20 feet?
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, I believe it successes that. To – it’s
58 feet from here and this looks like it’s probably twice that.
De Weerd: No, I would go to the A Building there.
Barbeiro: Oh. To this one?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Peterson: Yes.
Barbeiro: That one’s not scaled.
Peterson: I’m sure it’s in excess of 20 feet; yes. I’ll vouch for that, but it doesn’t have
the measurement on it, on this drawing at least. It may have it on your drawing.
Anyway, I’ll vouch for that –
Barbeiro: It does not.
Peterson: It is – it is in excess of 20 feet.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: In our August 10th
meeting, we had another department develop come in
before us. I asked the owners if their intent was to build it, fill it, then sell the property.
They told us that they continue to hold onto the properties after they are filled. Could
you tell me if it is your intent to build this property, fill the tenants, then sell the property,
or do they intend to hold onto the property?
Peterson: Again, I’d like to say for the record that is not a question that you should be
asking. But, I’ll tell you it is our intent to hold the property.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Mr. Peterson, have you built this building before? Is there other complexes that
you’ve built this building?
Peterson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Brown, no. I have not personally built this
building as you see it here. I built very similar buildings in a project that I did in
Mountain Home. I did a 44-unit project in Mountain Home some years ago, and it was
basically, for all practical purposes, the same project.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Peterson? If not, we do have a traffic engineer. I’d
like to maybe address a traffic question that we’ll probably be asking Mr. Sale;
questions along the same line.
Flatz: Commissioners, I’m Jerry Flatz. I would for JUB Engineers in Boise, and I did
the traffic study. After the meeting -- at our last meeting I had a few comments. One
was yours about Jabil, and another one of the people that was at the meeting
afterwards told me that she thought that the counts were flawed because they weren’t
taken during the school year, and that that would make an impact on the counts. And
we took the afternoon traffic counts over again to see what the difference was, and
that’s how we’ve updated this traffic study. There wasn’t a substantial difference.
There were a few more cars in that peak hour, and as you’re aware, I’m sure, a traffic
impact study’s built upon the afternoon peak hour, usually, because it’s the highest
traffic volume for an hour during the day, and in this case that’s true. The afternoon
peak hour’s about, I think it was about 42 percent higher than the morning peak. So
that – on the traffic study and the recommendations from the study are built around that
afternoon peak hour, and we’ve updated it with those minimally higher numbers for the
peak hour. It didn’t change a level of service calculations – it didn’t change the level of
service calculations that are shown in the original, but it has been updated, and I’ll leave
those copies with you. Are there any question?
Borup: (inaudible)
(inaudible) The funny comment was, we haven’t seen it. But, would you like to wait
and take a look, or would you like him to give a brief summary?
Borup: Very brief.
Barbeiro: On what the total numbers come out?
Flatz: I’d just as soon see it. If you wish to give a brief summary, that’s fine.
Barbeiro: I think the question – the question then, did you do a combining of Jabil and
with the current, or –
Flatz: We didn’t include the numbers from Jabil for --
Barbeiro: Okay.
Flatz: -- basically two reasons. One is the first piece of the traffic study is to do the trip
generation, and that’s always based upon the ITE numbers, instituted traffic engineers,
and they have numbers for each type of land use and the expected trip generation from
that. In this case, we know how much – how many trips will be generated by these
apartments based upon quite a few other studies of apartments of similar size. I don’t
know what kind of traffic Jabil’s going to generate. It – in the study they use a growth
rate to kind of take into account those future growths around the project that you’re not
aware of, and we’ve used that growth rate. We’ve added those numbers caused by
growth between now and when the project is expected to be built. To include the
specifics from Jabil should be done by them. They should know how much traffic they’ll
generate, and – well, I shouldn’t say it should be. That’s my opinion; should be.
Barbeiro: In our – excuse me, Mr. Chairman. In our prior meeting, you testified that, if
I’m not mistaken, that the current intersection of flow was graded as a C; is that correct?
Flatz: When you look at the intersection, the level of services, the worst approach, the
worst movement was a level of service C.
Barbeiro: Okay. And that this particular complex would not add to or change that
grading? It is my belief that on the day that this project opens and fills, that that
intersection will be a D or a D minus, and that the addition of the traffic (inaudible) will
make it an E.
Borup: That’s based on what?
Barbeiro: The applicant has not produced anything to tell me otherwise. I continue to
refer back to projected turning volumes 2001, and it is not representative of the
projected turning volumes in the year 2001.
Flatz: So, what you’re saying is, if I can paraphrase. Maybe it’s not even paraphrasing,
but you’re saying that because of Jabil and this development it would probably be
worse than C, D or E.
Barbeiro: Yes.
Flatz: You might be right.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Flatz: Because of this development, it will not go past C. That’s what the traffic study’s
telling you.
Barbeiro: I understand that.
Flatz: Okay.
Borup: Any other questions? I guess that means –
Flatz: Thank you. I’ll leave these with the clerk.
Borup: Mr. Sale, I think Commissioners would be interested in the – any light you can
shed on the traffic in this area. Especially, I think the question from last time was the
combination of Jabil and the formula, and the effect. I don’t know how much
information you have on that.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, for the record, I’m Larry Sale,
Planning and Development Supervisor for Ada County Highway District. I remember a
few months ago I led off a discussion with the Boise City Council with these same
words that I have bad news and I have bad news. I don’t mean to be trite, but Meridian
– it goes without saying Meridian is growing very rapidly, and it’s growing on one, two,
three, about four fronts, and when it was all growing on the north side on the interstate
and to the northwest, we thought we had a handle on it. We thought we could keep up.
And now you’ve branched to southeast , you have a note of rapid growth southeast,
south of the interstate; you have an extremely rapid growth knowed in the area between
the interstate and Franklin Road or even Fairview Avenue, now, from your city center
out entirely to your boundary of area of impact; and you have another area of rapid
growth on the south and west corner of (inaudible). I told Commissioner Brown when I
congratulated him tonight on his appointment to the Commission that I was going to tell
you a bedtime story tonight, and I think I will. When I was young, although I didn’t know
it, my family was very poor, and from time to time, I would want something. My mother
tells me I wanted things a lot. But, I was always told we couldn’t afford it. Later, now I
know that through sacrifices on my parents’ part, I usually got what I wanted at some
time later; at Christmas time or something, I would get that special gift that I had
wanted. And I feel, now, like my parents. I feel like I have seven kids. They’re named
Star, Kuna, Meridian, Boise, Garden City, and Ada County and Eagle. And my kids all
need things, and I’m having to tell them all that we can’t afford it right now, and I hope
that doesn’t offend you, but that’s the case we find ourselves in. You have – right now
you have very great needs. I’m hopeful that Christmas will come in about three years. I
believe that beginning in three years we will probably have your community so torn up
you’ll wish that we hadn’t given you our help. But, until then, things are not going to be
good, and they’re not going to get better. We’ve had several staff meetings in the past
three weeks just about your corridor, your corridor of growth that you’re having north of
the interstate, and it appears now that we’re going to be recommending to APA that we
institute some changes to the long-range transportation plan to put in place new
corridors for construction that will alleviate some of the east-west problems. Obviously,
we have more south problems as well, and Locust Grove is a focal point of that. You’re
aware that we’re going to be able to help improve Locust Grove north of Fairview
beginning in 2001. This is the only good news I’m able to give you, and right now it
looks like we may be able to accelerate, I think that’s currently under the program for
construction in 2002. We hope now that we’ll be able to acquire the right-of-way this
next fiscal year and get under construction in fiscal 2001. That kind of takes care of a
problem that you’ve had for several years. South of Fairview is still in the planning
stage, and it’s going to be a few more years before we’re able to do anything to help
you on a very broad scale. We have more flexibility when it comes to specific
intersections, and we can move funds around to accommodate spot needs; for
example, this intersection of Locust Grove and Fairview – Franklin. When it becomes a
safety problem, we can move funds to reconstruct the intersection, install a signal, add
left-turn lanes, and make it a spot improvement to handle your overall needs. With
regard to the application at hand, this may sound callous, but the old areas undergoing
growth, if it doesn’t happen here, it will happen somewhere else, and it will be a
problem to accommodate wherever it happens. It would be nice if the City had the
ability, the legal ability, to just isolate one part of town and say, “Okay, folks. This is
where all our growth is going to take place,” and then you could provide the sewer to
handle it, you could provide the water to handle it, and we could handle the road
infrastructure to handle it. Unfortunately, our country doesn’t work that way. People
have the right to apply to you for development and we have to, within reason,
accommodate those needs. So, I guess my continuing bad-news saga is that the
situation isn’t good, it’s going to get worse, and we will, however, we will try to meet the
needs that your traffic has. I don’t think that’s probably what you wanted me to say
when I got up here, but I hope I haven’t either bored you or offended you, but if you –
now, if you have a specific question, I’ll try to answer that. Let me comment. The traffic
impact study was prepared by a qualified engineer. JUB is on our list of approved traffic
engineers. We use the firm, and we use Mr. Flatz as a professional engineer on our
own project. So traffic – their traffic impact study has been properly prepared, and you
have it before you for your consideration.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioners.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted clarification on what qualifies as a safety
problem to get the spot solution.
Sale: There isn’t one or even a few items to answer that question, Mr. Chairman and
Commissioner De Weerd. Obviously, topping the list are accidents. But, before we get
to that point, significant delays; if it becomes a situation where the typical delay to get
from Locust Grove onto Franklin exceeds about 40 seconds, that’s an average delay
measured over a period of time, if there are – there are rules of thumb for volumes of
traffic and the ratio of one leg of the intersection to the other legs that will point out a
problem on a specific leg – on a specific leg of the intersection. There’s no one thing.
It’s a bag of criteria that our traffic engineers look out for; they’re source.
De Weerd: So, your spot solution would be a light at that intersection?
Sale: An interim solution sometimes is to make a four-way stop, however controlled by
four stop signs. That’s not a typical situation where one of the streets has this much
reasonal importance as a through street, as Franklin is. So I’m reasonably certain that
the first level of improvement would be a traffic signal. The second level, if not done at
the same time would be the addition of left-turn lanes on each way. One left-turn leg
and presumably this intersection won’t progress to the point that, for example, Fairview
and Eagle is where we are asking that developer to put two left turn lanes on each leg
of the intersection.
De Weerd: So when ACHD looked at this development, did, in your traffic counts, did
you include the anticipated impact from Jabil?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, that’s a fair question. I don’t know the
answer. I don’t remember what was the sequence of the two applications? Actually,
now that I remember a little bit myself, Jabil was an outright use in the zone where it
was, so we didn’t really see it as an application in any way. It came through as just an
application for building permit. So, I don’t think they did a traffic study. But, ordinarily,
we try to take everything we know into account. So, if we – back to my original
question, I don’t think we knew about Jabil when we first reviewed this application.
De Weerd: I think Jabil came last winter, didn’t it?
Barbeiro: It came before this.
Sale: I take your word for it. I don’t – my recollection is that we didn’t see Jabil before
we did this application, but I could be wrong.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sale.
Borup: Anyone else?
Sale: I wish that I had good answers for you, and I wish I had more specifics, but,
unfortunately, I don’t.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Mr. Sale, as I understand the long-term hope is, is that there will be a freeway
overpass on Locust Grove, and that the road will go north straight to Fairview and
Chinden, and it’ll be a straight shot. And so you’re anticipating Franklin and Locust
Grove both being major roads and then major amounts of traffic?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Brown, that’s absolutely correct. If I have any good
news, it’s the fact that we have acquired two-thirds of the right-of-way for the connection
of Locust Grove between Franklin and Pine. Three of the four properties abutting that
alignment have redeveloped and we have acquired the corridor for the extension of
Locust Grove in its correct alignment; between Franklin and Pine. We have acquired
right-of-way from three of the four abutting parcels, so that’s – sometimes I have to look
pretty hard for good news.
Brown: It’s my recollection that Jabil does not have a full-service entrance off of Locust
Grove; that their employees will be entering through the park, there is an emergency
access only. That was my understanding.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Brown, I think they’re building a standard collector
road connection to Locust Grove Road from – it will be the extension of Central. And,
actually, we’re anticipating that that road will have to be extended in the future all the
way to Eagle Road as a parallel facility to Franklin because of the volumes that are
starting to show up now that need to go east and west. We’re programming Franklin
Road as a full-service, five-level, five-laned roadway, and without some kind of parallel
help, it would have to go to seven lanes what the numbers are starting to tell us. So,
that’s one of the changes we’re going to be recommending to APA is that a new
collector road be established between Locust Grove and Eagle Road just north of the
freeway.
Borup: But you’re saying that Jabil does have full access to the west?
Sale: That’s correct.
Borup: So the traffic count’s going to depend on which direction the employees live, I
would assume?
Sale: Yes. We –
Borup: If they want to get a quick access on the freeway, they’d run down Central and
over?
Sale: Yes. For the time being. If they were going east, they’d probably come East
Locust Grove to Franklin to Eagle to the interstate or north on 55, depending on where
they were going, where they lived.
Borup: But, they can head east out of their site down Central and the other roads
through the commercial project there?
Sale: They’ll have three ways from their site. They could go west to East First and then
they could go north out to Franklin on Stratford, or they’ll be able to go east to Locust
Grove.
Borup: Okay. So then, maybe to answer the other question, maybe how do you know?
How can you do a traffic study on a facility that doesn’t exist and not knowing – or can
the computer models come close on that?
Sale: Mr. Chairman –
Borup: Not knowing where the employees are going to be living and driving to?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, this is probably a question more appropriate for Mr. Flatz, but they
– the traffic engineer – APA runs a very sophisticated traffic model that has
assumptions built into it as to where the population centers are and where the trip-ins
are going to be from a various – from a given employer. The traffic engineer will take
that model and tailor it to the roadway network in the immediate area of the site that
he’s looking at, and so that he then assigns trips to the connecting roads that reflect the
model. If a model says that a certain percentage of the trips from Jabil want to go east,
then the traffic engineer will assign those to a road that goes east from the site, and
then assign them, and that’s where their training and experience come in; assign those
to the roadways that branch out from that initial road.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Sale? Thank you, Mr. Sale.
Sale: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Flatz, is there any final comment you’d like to make since we’re still on
traffic and then when we move on?
Flatz: I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Okay. It looks like we don’t have any. I
just didn’t know if there’s with all that conversation and if there’s any other –
Flatz: Any time if you have questions, get ahold of me.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. This is a continued public hearing. We have had several, as
we’ve mentioned, but we are still interested in anyone that has any new information that
they’d like to present to the commission tonight. If so, (inaudible) would like to come on
up at this time. Whatever you’d like.
Smith: I’m Robert R. Smith, and I live at 335 South Locust Grove Road which is
approximately three acre parcels south of this development. I’d like to set the record
straight. Ms. Butler said Mr. Peterson had many meetings with the neighbors. I’m here
to inform you that we only had two meetings with Mr. Peterson about this project, and
during that time, each time the project changed into what it is now. I’d like to express
again my disapproval of this type of development in the area. I still believe that there’s
going to be a sever traffic problem at the corner of Locust Grove and Franklin Road,
and that is because it does not go through. It is a dead-end road right now against
Franklin Road. Regardless of what JUB found in their traffic count, also at the same
time Peter O’Neal took a traffic count. It looks to me like there was something funny
going on, so I went to each one of them and talked to them while they were taking this
count. This count was not taken at time when the traffic is the heaviest, which they
have addressed. I also feel that when I – the developer can take a traffic count, he can
look any way they want. I was also invited to a development presentation put on my Mr.
Peter O’Neal at a neighbor’s house at Locust View Subdivision about two weeks before
the last meeting. At that time, he informed us that he intends to develop this 80 acres
that is just across the road from my place. That is -–there will be 280 homes and all of
them will use Locust Grove Road for direct access. There is no other access out of
there at this time, and they have informed us of this. They’re going to be applying for
their permits very soon. I fell that with as close as an estimate that Ada County
Highway can give would be at least six years before Locust Grove could be widened,
and this is documented in their own statements. They have to buy the right-of-way, they
are also trying to juggle some things to get the overpass built over the freeway. I also
drove to all the similar complexes that are in Meridian, of which I’ve been associated
with in the many years that I’ve been here, and every one of them has a sign
advertising for occupancy. This indicates to me that the need to subsidized housing
isn’t as great as Mr. Peterson has presented to you. Also, I looked at the one that has
the 2-1/2 stories, which will really – units in it, and it isn’t a joke. They mound a little dirt
up around the bottom unit to take half a story away from it. They don’t dig it into the
earth or anything. It’s still three stories from the ground level up. I absolutely oppose of
three-story units being put on this corner and think you should not allow them. Mr.
Roberson and I took a tape measure and measured the property pins of this property,
and through my basic mathematics, there is only 2-1/2 – 5-1/2 acres of developable
ground, and by the time you take access that Ada County’s going to ask for the right-of-
way for Franklin Road and also from Locust Grove, which we measured out, at least,
less than 5-1/2 acres. And in moving, they’ll have to move the Five Mile drain over onto
this property in order to widen Franklin, so that’s going to take some more property out
which I didn’t access. So, it’s just a matter of record, he’s going to be developing this
project on less than five acres of ground, developable ground. Mr. Peterson addressed
that the view his three-story buildings have of Deerpoint would really be beautiful, but
he doesn’t address what happens to my view of Squaw Butte when he has three-story
buildings blocking my vision; that’s to the north. These are my comments, and I hope
that you will listen to them. Thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
McMillan: Reece McMillan, 870 South Locust Grove Road. I, like my neighbor, oppose
this project for the simple fact of the traffic situation. Jabil Manufacturing told us at a
previous meeting that they will have up to 400 employees starting out on this project.
Who is to say that all 400 of them won’t exit on Locust Grove. They’re building two
soccer fields there, which on tournament time, they will estimate 1500 cars at a
tournament. Now, are 1500 of these cars, are they going to go out on East Stratford?
Are they going to go out on Central, or are they coming out on Locust Grove? I think
you ought to take a traffic count out there like a 48-hour period instead of a four or an
eight hour period. The extension of North Locust Grove is turning down into Franklin
Road, they’re going to block off what is now called Nola Road at the railroad tracks
which is going to bring all the bus traffic and there’ s a couple truck terminals down
there. All the truck traffic will be coming out at that same intersection. This 280 houses
on there, you know, like Mr. Smith says, that’s one way in and one way out: Locust
Grove. So, I don’t know what the future’s going to be. I think we ought to oppose this
thing and wait and see what develops as far as Franklin Road, Locust Grove Road, the
freeway, the overpass, and just sit back and kind of take a long look at it. (inaudible)
propose increase in our budget, this is going to turn more load onto them, you know,
(inaudible) service and everything, so, actually, I’m opposed to it all the way around.
Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Next.
Plant: Morgan Plant, 300 South Locust Grove Road. I find it very difficult to believe
anything that this developer presents in this projects. Things just keep changing. Every
time he comes in, something has changed.
Borup: Mr. Plant, I might mention a lot of changes have been at our request and your
neighbor’s request. That’s why they’ve changed.
Plant: The concept plan showed quite a bunch of open areas in the original, and here
there are virtually none. Mr. Smith addressed the six acres on the application, and I
agree. He is well under five acres; probably closer to four acres. I call to fact that when
this project was presented to City Council, what we see here tonight is a far cry from
what was presented there. It, again, just keeps changing. The pictured landscape
looks great in a drawing, but I doubt it ever comes to pass. Look at what the city didn’t
make Stonebridge do. The neighbors are choking with dust; they’re fighting the City
every way, and they’re losing. The represented traffic survey is somewhat of a joke,
and I think that’s been addressed here a little bit, but I’d like to make some projections.
When Jabil gets going full-bore, they have advertised it’ll have some 2200 employees.
(inaudible) of those will use South Locust Grove. That amounts to about 1400 trips a
day. The Hemblin property is slated for commercial development. Again, about a
thousand cars a day on that road. Should an overpass over the freeway be built in
three to five years, an uncountable number of cars will travel South Locust Grove. I’m
throwing in 2,000 cars a day, and I’m probably quite low. (inaudible) mention Peter
O’Neal is developing 280 homes on 80 acres. Fully a third of these cars will absolutely
have to use South Locust Grove until other avenues are developed, so there’s at least
another three, four hundred cars in there. Once the bought properties are developed,
again, there are uncountable service calls that this type of property will generate:
furnace, power, light, all sorts of service-represented cars. If we look at these projected
traffic counts as I’ve presented here, you’re going to add another 5,000 cars a day,
minimum to South Locust Grove. Don’t allow another impossible traffic nightmare like
the professional office building on the corner of Eagle and Franklin Road. Has anyone
ever really studied that? That is a total traffic nightmare, and it hasn’t even opened yet,
because there’s only one way in and one way out, and those cars will have to cross a
five-lane road to get where they belong, whether they’re going east or west, it doesn’t
make any difference because there’s no outlet on Franklin – I mean on Eagle Road. I
don’t see any place on this project drawing for a school bus turnaround. Are we going
to busload kids off and on a five-lane South Locust Grove Road? State law does not
allow a school bus to back up. There has to be a turnaround where those kids can –
the buses can pull in and out, and again, even the bus will have to pull across at least
two lanes of road. Are you going to load on South Locust Grove? I submit to you
again, this project does not belong in this area. It’s the wrong project, the wrong place
and wrong time. Meridian can do much better for its people. Meridian deserves better.
Please reject this project in its entirety. I think that we need to take a look at what could
be there, which would be an asset instead of a gross detriment. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Plant. Anyone else?
Fox: Alan Fox. I live at 1840 Cadillac Drive. Correct me if I’m wrong. You have to
have an ordinance pass in order for the City Council to say this annexation and zoning
has been passed; is that not right? Okay. The annexation ordinance has been tabled
until their next meeting, so it is not passed as of this time? It was tabled at the August
18th
meeting for the 7th
of September; they tabled it again. They’ve got some problem
with the developer or something, but it has not been passed by the Council as an
ordinance yet. My one thing is traffic, too, on this is that the fire department’s building
their building out here on Franklin, which I thought wasn’t the best place, but the other
morning – I go to work at 6:15 in the morning – I sat through, the last two weeks, I sat
through three times in the morning three lights before I could make a right turn onto
Eagle so I can go get the freeway coming off of Franklin. Traffic is getting worse all the
time on it. I watched a tractor last Friday, in fact, two of them I saw, come in their tractor
trailers come down going East – going West to turn on North Nola, they stopped, traffic
backed up behind them on Franklin because there were people coming out of North
Nola to make a left turn, and until those people came out, the tractor trailers could not
make the swing in and make the turn, so they’re blocking traffic. You have a fire truck, if
they’re blocking traffic, we got a problem to get up Franklin. We can assume a lot of
these workers for Jabil live all over the valley, because right now Jabil’s working over at
HP and they’re going to move their headquarters from HP over to here when this is
done. The six to five acres has been addressed tonight. The stakes in the ground give
it about 5.5. As they said, if you take out for the roads, you’re down to five, probably.
Take out for Five Mile Creek, we’re under five down to four. The first one came in here,
we were going to have one or two of the buildings were going to be three stories, 2-1/2,
three stories. Then he came back and said three of them. Now we’re at all of them.
That shows me right there he does not have 6.5 acres to spread this out on so he can
make them two stories. He’s got to make them three stories to get that many in to that
small of an area. So, that’s all I’ve got. Is there any questions?
Borup: Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Could we ask Staff about Mr. Fox’s discussion regarding the tabling of the – I
didn’t quite follow what he was referring to? The annexation?
Borup: Do you want to answer that or do you want me to?
Rossman: I can comment on that. It doesn’t really matter at this stage. Obviously, we
can’t grant a conditional use permit on a property that hasn’t been annexed, and the
property’s not annexed to the ordinance it’s been adopted. If it’s been tabled, that’s
fine. This conditional use permit final action won’t be taken on it until it goes to City
Council, so, City Council won’t act on this conditional use permit until they’ve annexed
the property.
Borup: It’s my understanding the only thing holding it up is the signing of the
development agreement. So, it’s just procedural. Thank you. Anyone else?
Witherell: Hi. Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove. I live two houses from this
development. There isn’t a development agreement yet. We’d like to see a
development agreement because you’re asking us to comment on the conditions; we
don’t know what the conditions are going to be in the development agreement. It’s a
(inaudible). We would also like to see a final plat, it does keep – or a preliminary plat, it
does keep changing. What it’s being (inaudible) for is who owns the property. It’s
unclear whether the property, the deed has been transferred yet. At the last City
Council meeting, representatives for the development told Mr. Gigray that he could go
look it up. Mr. Gigray didn’t think that was a great idea. That’s where that stands.
Anyway, we’re here about a conditional use permit. Let me say that memories are fairly
short here. Planning and Zoning recommended this be turned down. It did not
approve it. It went to Council on the two to two vote and broke by the tie, (inaudible) tie
broken by the mayor. In the process, the chairman of the council had to come and
rescue (inaudible). So far we’ve lost two very good commissioners. This property is
just plain jinxed. Whether you approve it or not, put conditions on it or not, it’s got its
problems. Now, when the Commission rules, Planning and Zoning has an awful lot of
authority under the comprehensive plan. He’s building it for three stories. You can
change that to two. City Council will have to change it back to three. If you don’t think
there’s enough trees, you put on more trees. That’s – conditional use does in planning
and zoning. Now, let me say originally I liked this project. I did not like the concept of
the real high density, but it was a beautifully designed thing. This (inaudible) looks more
like an army fort, house, (inaudible) ground. So, now I have to (inaudible) of saying I
was neutral. (inaudible) being against it, because you only have (inaudible), so I had to
take the (inaudible). Anyway, this is a three-story building, or several three-story
buildings next to a single-story residence. The (inaudible) acres, so you’re going from
400 people, about, to two people, about. That does not fit. (inaudible) this was not good
planning. The comprehensive plan requires that there is such extreme change from
one use to the other that (inaudible) residences and requires at the minimum for a 20-
foot transition. We’re playing a (inaudible) game here transition seems to be quite a
setback. They’re not the same thing. Twenty feet means from his fence to the
neighbor’s fence. I don’t know if this will address it or not, because this is all new to us
tonight, too. So, I thank you for the wall, but there needs to be something on the other
side, too, and not just the wall. Now, I’m a little curious about the (inaudible) and the
pool. What’s the water source on this? The reason I ask is because the obvious
answer is city water, is because the developer behind us dug a well under the guides of
domestic use and uses that for his landscaping and so forth. I’m arguing against
strongly digging their well; we’ve got more wells in that little area out there than the
water can support. I don’t see any (inaudible) clean water act (inaudible) water
resources set aside. It would have been nice, however, if he had a dry set before
(inaudible). And the annexation is still tabled. (inaudible) to say, I was a child protective
social worker for the State of Idaho. It’s been many years ago, the kids haven’t
changed. This thing scares me to death, and not from being a neighbor, but for being a
resident. You’ve got open spaces for these kids that are (inaudible). You’ve got the top
area at the back, you’ve got the (inaudible) the two things do not go together, just like
you don’t put first graders in with high-schoolers; one picks on the other. You’ve got
Five Mile Creek (inaudible). A hundred feet up the hill, you’ve got open (inaudible).
This is not my problem, but somebody’s going to get hurt down there. So this – in your
ability to make rules, or make conditions on this, please try to factor in how you’re going
to protect these people from themselves. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Plant: I’m Marilyn Plant and I live at 300 South Locust Grove Road. I want to address
safety, and we’ve already talked about safety and the road safety and so forth and so
on, but we’ve opened up a Pandora’s box, folks. We’ve lived on South Locust Grove
now for 20 years. I live there. I experience that intersection every day. There are times
when I’ve had to wait at Eagle through four lights to get through there. This is an
emergency corridor. We live up there, we hear the sirens day and night. How are they
going to get through when you have traffic tied up so much? When they open up that
business building up there on Eagle and Franklin, it’s going to back traffic up more and
more and more, and here we’re back to South Locust Grove. Can our fire department
take care of three-story buildings? Are they equipped to handle that type of thing?
Because we really don’t have any real tall buildings in this area. I don’t know. I haven’t
checked with them, but I think it’s something that needs to be addressed. Road rage.
The way that’s going, we’re going to experience a lot of it. As a teacher of 26 to 28
years, and we’re rating this from A to F. Some days, like Sunday morning at 8:30, I
have no problem getting out onto Franklin. Everybody’s still asleep. But, come along
about 8:00, 8:30 on a weekday, forget it. We’re taking our lives in our hands to get out
there. And as more and more cars come in, that’s what’s going to happen. And the
other thing is the school population. Since I was a teacher, I guess I still am, always will
be. But you put that many people into our schools, there’s a safety issue here too.
You’ve got think about the schools and where they’re going from there. I really wonder
if you want to keep this lid off of this box and go with this. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Have any – yes, ma’am.
Smith: I’m Jerry Smith and I live at 335 South Locust Grove, and as I picked up the
paper one morning, I saw that Boise’s looking for a truck route. I also saw that
Meridian’s looking for a truck route, and as I understand it, Mr. Bird suggested Franklin
Road for a truck route. There’s – you can hardly get a truck down there now. There’s
no turning – they can’t even turn on the lanes or anything that’s down there, but I think
that should definitely mentioned, and when Mr. Peterson started talking about this with
our two meetings that we had with him, this was only going to be a story and-a-half
building. There are limits on light industrial behind us on the height of the building. I
would like you to consider the apartment buildings being that high in this area, and I
think the Robersons and the rest of the neighbors, myself included, deserve at least a
buffer with a fence. That little buffer, whether it’s a masonry fence or whatever kind of
fence it is, when you get – and look at a three-story building beside it, that little
masonry fence or whatever, it’s going to look like a little ant crawling on the ground, and
I’d like you to take that under consideration. We have a definite problem right behind
us. We have one on the side of us. We’re going to be totally surrounded, and I talked
to the Idaho State Transportation Department, Mr. Thomas, and he said that even when
this is on the agenda, it’ll be probably five to six years before this overpass can be
finished. And no one has mentioned the low-income housing that’s going to go over on
the other side of Overland that would also use the overpass if and when it is finished.
Even though they share the funds, if Meridian can get the funds for the right-of-way. As
I understand it, it’s been posted Meridian may buy the right-of-way for the overpass,
and I’d like to ask a question, where will Meridian get the money for that overpass if
they buy the right-of-way? Can anyone answer that on the commission?
Borup: This is not the place for that. No. I don’t think anybody here can answer that.
Smith: There’s no one here? Okay. That’s all I have. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Roberson: My name is Ernie Roberson, and I live at 185 South Locust Grove Road. I
just have a couple comments. I’ve sent each of you a two-page letter prior to this
meeting, I think you must have that in your packets, expressing my feelings. I also sent
you a letter, my husband and I sent you a letter, with pictures, and you have those and
our feelings in that letter, and I just would like to state that for the record. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you and both those have been turned in to the clerk as part of the
record. Both of your letters have been.
Roberson: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you. With that I’d like to conclude with any comments.
Butler: Again, JoAnn Butler, 6078 North 8th
Street, representing the applicant. I’ll just
make a few comments in response to some of the comments here. As the
commissioners are aware for the last hearing that we have, Mr. Sale, you said that you
have bad news and bad news. And I think for all of the folks in Meridian, because you
are growing so rapidly, and because you have made commitments already by setting
out where your area of impact is located which includes the area where many of the
folks that have testified before you tonight live. Those areas will be annexed.
According to what you’ve committed to with Ada County, those areas will all be annexed
and served within ten years. That’s ten years from two years ago. So the City is well
aware of the hard road I guess you’ve got to hoe over the next ten years to provide
infrastructure and services to many people throughout this area. And Mr. Sale is right.
It’s going to be a very difficult time for everybody as we pull together to provide those
services and housing. This particular applicant who is well known in the community and
is working with the Idaho Housing and Finance Association to do a project that this city
can be proud of is attempting to work with the city, with the neighbors, with Staff to do
just that. To try to provide that infrastructure in the form of the right-of-way that Mr. Sale
eluded to in the form of extension of sewer and other facilities and in the provision of
housing. We have had many meetings. Some with the neighbors, as they said. Many
with the staff and many with the city, and the project has changed, and we thank the
commission for recognizing the fact that it has changed in response to requests by the
city and by the neighbors. We have tried to be responsive to those requests: moving
buildings, creating extra buffer along the south side, necessitating changes to the
stories of the buildings, but still within the ordinance requirements. We are not
requesting any variances from the height that is set for this zone. We have redesigned
the buildings at the request of neighbors so that windows did not face to the south, we
have increased the landscaping dramatically as requested, not only by the neighbors,
but also by Staff in this commission. With regard to the annexation, I think we just need
to be very clear about that. That was approved by the Council on the – at the end of
the 20th
of July. I think one of the commissioners has mentioned, and Mr. Rossman can
confirm, the only thing that this was due to be annexed on the seventh. The only
reason it is not was because the development agreement, the City Attorney’s Office
was asking for confirmation that the project was owned by the applicant, which it was at
the last City Council meeting, and we have just not seen a revised development
agreement from the Attorney’s Office so that we can sign it and get it back to you,
because the City will not pass its ordinance until it has a signed development
agreement in front of it, and so as soon as we have it, we will sign it and get it back to
the city. And Mr. Rossman is correct that any -- the approval that you provide is
conditioned upon annexation, and our courts have made it clear that you can approve
this conditional use, and it will be contingent upon annexation and that there is no
timing problem for the City in that regard. With regard to traffic, obviously everybody in
Meridian is concerned about traffic. For some people, traffic chaos is one more car. It’s
clear that Meridian has more than one more car passing through it, and you have many
issues that you need to respond to and ACHD needs to respond to. But for this project
at this point in time, both ACHD, your professional, and JUB has shown that the traffic
report is not a joke. It complies with all of the requirements of ACHD and the APA
modeling to show that traffic does not unduly burden the roads in this area. We
understand that all traffic creates a burden, and that why ACHD requires that we pay
impact fees: to help ACHD mitigate that burden. Unfortunately, because of our tax
laws in Idaho, that is the main source of funding that this county has in order to provide
any, whether it be spot fixes on intersections or major street section realignments and
enhancements. There were many comments to the effect that the applicant will be
doing illegal things and that somehow we should not be approved because we will not
comply with state Department of Water Resources or other things. As you know, I
won’t take offense at that, but as you know, the Commission cannot make a judgment
because of innuendo that we might do something amiss. We will certainly abide by
every condition and every state law and local law that is before us. You have received
from all departments and agencies, all your departments and various agencies have
had the opportunity to comment on this project, including the fire department, including
the school system, and none have opposed this project or said that they could not serve
it. Again, we meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinances, and there are no
variances requested. Again, we are willing to discuss as we have at every meeting with
the Commission on what further could we do in connection with landscaping and zoning
and – sorry, screening and buffering and more than happy to continue to entertain
suggestions by the Commission. So with that, I just again turn the Commission back to
the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan analysis. We believe that we meet all of
the conditions of your zoning ordinance and your comprehensive plan. We know that
this is difficult for many of the residents who live in the vicinity, but that no one likes to
see change. Many people have said they’ve lived here 20 years. That’s got to be a
common situation throughout Meridian where people are experiencing change, but it is
our goal to work with the City to provide you with a project that you can be proud of.
With that, we’re respectfully asking that the Commission approve this conditional use
request. And I’ll stand for any questions unless Mr. Peterson would like to add anything
else. Thank you.
Borup; Thank you. Any questions from the Commission? Okay. Commissioners, I
think it’s all yours at this point.
Hatcher: Items for discussion on the project. The first one that was brought up in
numerous testimonies was the discussion of future development. So-and-so’s doing
this and so-and-so’s doing that. I think that we need to take into account the item at
hand. We cannot predict who’s doing what, and we cannot – we have to take each
project on its own merit. Whether a person’s going to build a 280-house subdivision
down the street; we’ll deal with that when we see that project. We’ve got to look at this
project as it stands. Another issue was upon approval of the annexation, which is, as
discussed, a formality, it was brought up that this is going to be approved as an R-40.
The project is a six-acre project no matter how you look at the site; whether you take
away right-of-ways, take away easements, the project is a six-acre site. Then from
there, you take everything else away. That would give 240 units onto this piece of
property. This project is proposing 96 units. One of the things I think we might want to
consider and is open for discussion is the possibility of the two D-type buildings on the
southern-most portion. I would highly suggest that those two buildings, although they
are at the top of the topography, be reduced to two stories. As the topography drops
down the site, I see that three-story buildings could be acceptable. But at the very top,
impacting the neighbors to the south, I think three stories is a little excessive. Another
possibility if the wall to the south is being built at currently at six foot, a block wall, block
can go a lot higher than six feet. Site and sound is a concern. That wall can be raised
at minimal cost. One of the things in lieu of traffic on the project I would have to bring
out is that as Mr. Sale from ACHD had brought up, a Band-Aid fix as needed for the
intersection. One of the things, if we were to go ahead and approve this project or send
it to City Council, one of the things that I would see should be done in conjunction,
either solely responsible for the project or conjunction with adjacent developments and
whatnot, is that I, at minimum, the intersection should be improved with a signal and the
left turns. I think that the condition as it is without this development warrants some
improvement. I think we all agree that just about every intersection in this town
warrants some improvement. At this time, I think that these are some –
*** End of Tape 1, Side B ***
Borup: Well, we can discuss it either way. Does Commissioner feel secure that we’re
not going to want to call anyone up for testimony?
Hatcher: No. I think we need to leave it open in case we have questions.
Borup: Okay. Do I have a motion to close? It looks like we do not have a second vote?
Okay. Thank you. Did you have any other comments? Anyone else on discussion?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if I may as a question of Counsel? There is a line in here that
says, our courts have made it clear – excuse me. Speaking from the conditional use
compliance analysis, “Our courts have made it clear that different types of housing
cannot be viewed as incompatible with other housing, even if the other housing is
single-family residential.” Can you comment on that for us further as that seems to be
one of the overriding factors of this entire (inaudible)
Rossman: Where are you referring?
Barbeiro: Page 3, second to the last paragraph in the middle.
Borup: Any other comments while he’s looking that up, or while he’s preparing that?
That was your only question or comment?
Rossman: Well, just in reviewing this comment, there’s no citation in any case authority
I don’t – I’m sure JoAnn could easily provide that. I haven’t read the particular case that
she’s referring to, so I really can’t comment. Obviously, compatibility and whether it’s
harmonious with the surrounding areas is a standard that’s set forth within the
ordinances and is for your consideration. But I probably agree that there is some case
authority that would indicate that the type of housing, as long as it’s a compatible use,
is certainly – that the type of construction and that type of thing is not something that
would lend itself to compatibility; but, I would have to look at the cases that JoAnn is
relying upon in indicating that within her analysis.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro, did that answer your question, or would you like Ms. Butler to
reply to that?
Barbeiro: I would appreciate it if Ms. Butler could give a short summary of what the
intent of that statement was.
Butler: I will give (inaudible)
Borup: (inaudible)
Butler: Thank you. JoAnn Butler again. To answer the question, you’re right. I should
have put a citation there. There have been several cases that have talked about
housing, especially in connection with manufactured housing or mobile homes and the
fact that they are not, by virtue of their use, incompatible of other housing, whether they
be stick-built, single-family homes. However, as I continue to note, and I can provide
those sites for you at a different time, but then I do go on to note that it is appropriate for
the City to consider design elements, that even though the use is compatible, they’re all
housing. You do need to take into consideration the design elements to ensure
compatibility.
Barbeiro: So you’re relying on the mobile home case?
Butler: Uh-huh.
Barbeiro: Okay. Yeah.
Rossman: Ms. Butler, I’d like to use an extreme as an example, and please bear with
me. If a fraternity house chose to build on that lot, would – we would have no say in
whether only we could say that it has to be brick. Would that be correct? In necessing
that –
Butler: I can’t answer that under Idaho law. I know there are no cases under Idaho law
that I know of that have reached appellate or supreme court level. And so that certainly
hasn’t been answered in Idaho on fraternity houses or group home. But if you’re
speaking about group homes, then there are cases that haven’t – that have indicated or
have stated that group homes, as a residential use, are compatible with other
residential uses in the area. Now, a city may decide in those cases to limit other things
to ensure compatibility such as the number of trips to and from a group home daily, they
may on a fraternity house decide that compatibility in a residential area does not include
all-night parties or something like that to ensure compatibility; but as far as the
residential use of the property, I believe our courts would hold that the uses themselves
are compatible as living and sleeping in a home.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Rossman: That’s absolutely correct. There is a recent case that says you can’t
exclude manufactured housing from a particular residential zone merely because it’s
manufactured housing. Now, you can take into account design characteristics, you can
take into account traffic, you can take into account those types of things, but just the
fact that it’s a particular type of housing is not a relevant consideration.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Can you enlighten me again on this particular property where several years
ago that a mobile home park was proposed on this and was turned down by Planning
and Zoning and City Council?
Rossman: A mobile home park, by that was a manufactured housing. It was not a
mobile home park, it was double-wide units on permanent foundations was my
recollection. I don’t remember whether it was unanimous – I don’t know if it was
unanimous, but either way it was not approved. Pardon? Okay. Mr. Berg said he might
have pulled his application after several delays. The other project that was proposed
there was – I don’t remember. But this is a third application that I’m aware of on this
property. Can you remember – Will, can you remember what was the other (inaudible).
Was it more of a commercial project? I think there’s some – I’m thinking maybe some
office or something along that line.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman –
Borup: Yes, Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: -- I’d like to propose a question to Mr. Sale on the traffic issue.
Borup: Go ahead.
Hatcher: Basically my question is, based upon your earlier comments, based upon the
current construction of Jabil and based upon the proposed project that’s currently in
front of us, would the additional traffic congestion at this intersection warrant ACHD to
allocate funds for improvement?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher, that’s a good question. I think I’d give you
an 80 percent probability that it would. Given what we know, what we hear about
development in the area, what we expect Jabil to – again, what we read about Jabil ;
we don’t really know anything about them, but what we read about their expectations
and other development in the area, I’d guess that within a very few years we’ll be
making some major improvements to that intersection. Whether it’s – I am not able to
point to which straw breaks the back; which trip from which project or which hundred
trips from which project would be the one to point to make the improvement. That’s
why – partially why, as Ms. Butler pointed out, the state legislature saw fit to allow us to
impose impact fees on development, so that we don’t any longer have to impose a
major improvement like this on one developer. The courts were very – looked upon that
process very unfavorably, so that is the basis for impact fees that we extract funds from
several developments, in this case in order to finance improvements in an area. A
long-winded answer to your question, but I’d say if this project goes ahead, if Jabil goes
ahead, we will be making improvements to the intersection.
Hatcher: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Commission De Weerd.
De Weerd: Yes. Can I take that question a step further, and I don’t know if this is from
Mr. Sale or from Staff, but can this be a requirement that the signalization be a part of
this conditional use permit as well as a left-hand turn, and that perhaps future
developments that this would benefit as well would pay some kind of late-comer’s fee or
maybe that’s a stretch, but it’s apparent that this intersection needs improvement.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commission De Weerd, we frequently impose or recommend to
you that you impose proportionate shares of the cost of such improvements on a
specific development, and if that were to occur in this case, we would allocate the
traffic from this project to, I believe it has driveways on both Locust Grove and Franklin,
so we would allocate traffic to each of those driveways, and then determine the
percentage of the overall traffic that’s going to use that intersection and allocate the
costs of the intersection improvement based on that percentage. Hearing the numbers
that we’ve tossed around tonight about Jabil and the 280 homes, other just natural
background growth, it would probably be a relatively small percentage of the cost of the
intersection improvement. I’d say less than 15 percent, something like that.
De Weerd: So you are saying that this can’t be a requirement imposed.
Sale: I didn’t mean to say that.
De Weerd: Just that they pay their proportionate share.
Sale: Right.
De Weerd: And how would you go back then and collect that from Jabil then?
Sale: We would not be able to.
Hatcher: Didn’t Jabil, as part of their agreement pay impact fees to ACHD based upon
the size of their project? So money has already been allocated from them?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher, that is true, but then this project will also
pay impact fees, too.
De Weerd: Can we require you to (inaudible) him intersection improvements?
Sale: Mr. Chairman –
Borup: It we could do that, (inaudible).
Sale: We just became one of my (inaudible) We’d certainly listen to the City’s request
and do everything we can to meet that.
DeWeerd: I thought I would ask.
Sale: We certainly listen to the City’s request and do every thing we can to meet that.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Sale, doesn’t Jabil pay their impact fees based upon each individual
building as the building is built or do they pay an up-front impact fee based upon the
completion of the project ahead of time?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, as each building permit is obtained, they
pay an impact fee for that specific building.
Barbeiro: So the way that Commissioner De Weerd has requested in it’s long form,
additional impact fees could be assessed on Jabil based upon new construction in the
future above and beyond what they may have anticipated being assessed on?
Sale: Commissioner, they will – as they pull a building permit for each additional
building, they will pay regular impact fees, standard impact fees. If you’re asking can
we impose more than standard impact fees, we cannot now do that. There is a way
that the highway district can impose what are called extraordinary impact fees, but
because they were in an area that zoned properly for their use, I don’t think we could do
that. It was an impact that we have to assume would happen.
Barbeiro: Thank you, Mr. Sale.
Borup: Any other questions or discussion from the Commission?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Shari, what’s the height requirement that would be on a fence or a wall on the
property line?
Borup: Oh. I was going to mention that. Good point.
Stiles: The maximum height in an R-40 would be six feet.
Borup: City ordinance.
Barbeiro: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. How did that – Shari, how did that impact the
family center that they have fence that will – could be as much as eight feet?
Stiles: They’re in a commercial zone –
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Stiles: -- industrial zone.
Borup: Depends on which side you’re on, too. That (inaudible) Mr. Hatcher’s
questions that I think that you brought up.
Brown: And that’s the possibility of increasing?
Borup: Yes, but that is a restriction with the present ordinance. Commissioners?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I just have one more thing. Is there anything we can do for
those intersection improvements?
Borup: To hurry them up? Sounds to me like we’re --
De Weerd: That they would coincide with occupancy.
Borup: Maybe I’m interpreting it wrong. It sounds to me like what Mr. Sale said, the
fastest way to get an improve in intersection is to have some projects approved so that
the people there – and that is necessary.
De Weerd: That’s real proactive, isn’t it?
Borup: Yeah. Well, that’s where the money comes from. Not very many builders are
going to want to pay before they start building. They want to do it at the same time.
De Weerd: But, if there’s a safety problem, then we’ll get a spot solution which would
be signalization; right?
Hatcher: We have to create the problem first before it’s fixed.
De Weerd: Well, the problem’s already there.
Borup: Who wants to volunteer?
De Weerd: Here. Go stand in front of the (inaudible)
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: I’ll try one more time. I’d like to close the public meeting and make a motion
that we do so.
De Weerd: I’ll second that.
Borup: Okay. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Public hearing is closed. Now, we can still have questions – you can still
questions to Staff, and we do need to reach a decision. It’s been two hours.
Remember our decision is a recommendation to go to City Council, however it may be.
Is this commercials – Shari, if I’m correct, there will be another public hearing at City
Council.
Stiles: It isn’t our –
Borup: Per our (inaudible)
Stiles: It’s residential. All conditional use permits would go since it’s part of the
annexation and zoning really tie it to that. We would send it to another public hearing at
City Council.
Borup: Commissioners, any thoughts?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
Brown: I know the projects that I’ve seen around the city look a lot nicer if the
developers do enter into a license agreement until those improvements are improved
along the right-of-way, and at the time that a motion’s made, I would make a
recommendation that requires the developer to provide evidence that a license
agreement for the operation and maintenance of that unimproved right-of-way had been
entered into. I can see where the residents see that the plan has changed, but I also
see that they’ve tried to mitigate their impact to the neighbors, and there’s so many
things that you can do. I agree that those two Units D – I would go along with the
recommendation that those be two stories. It is my opinion that would almost make
those non-visible to those neighbors. As I recall, the homes that are along Locust
Grove face to the east with the fronts of their homes. Those are just some of the
thoughts that I had.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: Can I still ask Staff questions?
Borup: Yes.
De Weerd: If this project is denied, is it still going to be zoned R-40?
Freckleton: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay.
Freckleton: And along with that, the figures on the application show 13.66 units per
acre, which would be less than R-15 zone.
Borup: A question then on the two comments on Building D. Are you in a proposal to
make that a two-story height? Are you giving the applicant the option of taking those
lost units and incorporating somewhere else on the site? Are you saying it’s to be
reduced by (inaudible) – try to lease four units there that affects – did you think it
through to that extent?
Freckleton: I didn’t.
Stiles: I did.
Freckleton: I don’t see a problem with him picking those up in any spaces, I guess, or
extending maybe the B units to make them larger or – necessarily extra; floors and
those, but lengthen the building. I don’t have a problem with him working with his
architect to come up with that same number of units.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Rossman.
Rossman: Somewhat difficult to do at this point. We’re asked to grant a conditional use
permit for a particular project that’s been put before you. Obviously, you can make it a
condition that they reduce the height of a couple particular units, but an ambiguous
provision that they may replace those units at some other location on the project without
knowing where they’re going to be or what the implications are going to be from that
would be very difficult for you to do at this point – need to see a revised plan before you
made that determination, in my opinion.
Freckleton: Well, with that consideration from legal counsel, what I would suggest then,
if we were to head in that direction that we reduce it to two stories, and that’s that.
De Weerd: Okay. Are you ready to make a motion?
Borup: Mr. Rossman, if that was a recommendation, would we still be able to, with the
public hearing closed, review a revised site plan?
Rossman: This Commission would not. We would be sending a recommendation to
the City Council who will have its own public hearing.
Borup: Okay.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: But we could make the recommendation that Staff approve those and that’s
what they’re hired to do with the modifications to add the four units back; correct?
Freckleton: Staff approve the modification of where to place the additional four units?
Brown: Correct.
Freckleton: I suppose you could. It’s just a question whether the Planning and Zoning
Commission would want to relinquish that – their ability to review that to the Planning
and Zoning Staff.
Borup: Okay. I think someone was getting ready to say something.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I propose, or I make a motion that we – I hesitantly do this – that we
recommend to City Council this conditional use permit for the multi-family, 96 – strike
that – 92-unit apartment complex by Stamas Corporation at the southwest corner of
Locust Grove and Franklin. With all staff comments incorporated in as requirements
that the two buildings identified as D-type building be reduced two stories, that a license
agreement for the unimproved right-of-way be maintained at the cost of the developer,
and the one last issue I guess I would have to defer to the rest of you is the requirement
of the developer to do road improvement on Franklin and Locust Grove adjacent to the
property; thus, if it’s eastbound traffic on Franklin, he would put in the left-hand turn
lane. And that would be the west side of Locust Grove as well.
Borup: (inaudible)
Hatcher: Can we –
Borup: You’d like a pause in your motion to discuss that point?
Hatcher: Yes, I do. I’m wondering if there’s – we can’t enforce – we can’t force ACHD
to improve the intersection at this time, but we can propose some of that improvement
be done by the developer as it relates to his project.
Borup: So what –
Hatcher: So, my question is, can we impose those right-of-way improvements be done
by –
De Weerd: That he pays the proportionate costs for the improvements with the
signalization and the turn lanes.
Hatcher: Above and beyond the impact.
De Weerd: Right.
Hatcher: I mean, get the ball rolling. Get this problem started, I mean, the solution to
this problem started.
De Weerd: I think Mr. Sale said we could do that.
Borup: Well, I think he said – I don’t think he said it quite that – and Mr. Sale can
correct that, but I thought he was talking if there’s an intersection that’s got projects all
related to that, all essentially going in close to the same time that each of those could
have some type of extraction because all of those would be contributing to the problem.
They were talking minor project in relation to the whole intersection. There’s no way to
get it from Jabil, and that’s – well, perhaps. Yeah.
De Weerd: Perhaps what?
Borup: Other projects coming in the future. But that’s in the future.
Freckleton: You could have a proportionate amount paid and then as the other
development takes place along Locust Grove, get a proportionate amount from them for
the –
That would specifically be allocated to that intersection improvement or just go into a
slush fund which is what ACHD’s impact fees are anyways. Well, it’s exactly what it is.
De Weerd: Well, this is a specific thing.
Yeah. Can we do that specifically?
De Weerd: Can we do that?
Borup: I’m going to – Mr. Sale. I know you like to be put on the spot, but you’ve made
some reference to some type of shared project like that. Has that been done? I’m not
aware of that being done around Meridian, and how does that work?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, for the record again, Larry Sale. It has been done in Meridian.
Borup: Okay.
Sale: The intersections of Fairview and Records, Fairview and Eagle, and Eagle and
Pine.
Borup. Okay. I’m aware of that one.
Sale: Are all being improved in a partnering between the developer and the highway
district and the State of Idaho. So the City, and I’ll certainly defer it to your legal counsel
for better advice than I can give you, but you could impose a condition – or let me
rephrase that, let me couch that in terms of a question to your attorney. Could the City
impose a condition that said something like the developer would be required to pay to
make a deposit to the highway district’s trust fund for its proportionate share of the cost
of improving the intersection of Locust Grove and Franklin Road with a traffic signal and
other necessary pertinences to that traffic signal as determined by the highway district?
Borup: You’re saying that’s a question you’re posing to the attorney?
Sale: Yes, sir.
Rossman: That’s always a good question, and the line that I’m drawing in my mind is
obviously there’s a line between a voluntary application of funds by a developer and an
improper tax that is unconstitutional, and where that line is drawn, we’d need to take a
real close look at. The problem I have is where you make it a condition of approval of a
particular project. It sounds more like a requirement than it does a voluntary offering by
the developer; however, it obviously isn’t a – yeah. That’s something we’d want to take
a look at. That’s a concern I have is that you’re imposing improper tax that isn’t
authorized by the Idaho constitution in doing that. Obviously, they can come in and
volunteer to submit that type of contribution, but I’m not sure that the City can impose
that as a condition of development. So, I’d need further time to look at that. You can
make the recommendation, we can review it between here and City Council if you’d like;
if that’s something that you’d want in your recommended recommendation to the City
Council. But I can’t give you a definitive answer at this point. That is the concern I
have, though.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: On that note, then, what I would continue my motion is that we make it a
condition of approval pending its legality; that the developer improve the right-of-way in
lieu of the licensing agreement.
Rossman: Let’s phrase it correctly. Contribute a proportionate share of its expenses as
determined by ACHD to the slush fund maintained by ACHD.
Hatcher: Spoken like a lawyer.
Rossman: I’m sorry. Not slush fund. (inaudible) not in the attorney’s dictionary, I don’t
think.
Hatcher: One other option maybe is to put in a motion, a recommendation for City
Council to consider.
De Weerd: I would second his motion.
Rossman: Did you finish.
De Weerd: I think so.
Hatcher: I finished my motion, but I wanted to hear what your (inaudible)
Borup: Well, that may be another option, just that there be a recommendation to City
Council to consider an option. Let them decide.
Rossman: Well, I think that’s what you’re doing. I mean, you’re making – all you’re
doing is –
Borup: (inaudible)
Rossman: --recommending anyway. Everything you put in your motion is a
recommendation. Planning and Zoning doesn’t have final authority on a conditional use
permit. So if you put it in there, they can –
Borup: Well, all I’m saying is that we wouldn’t have to worry about the legal aspects of
it at this point.
Hatcher: So I would modify my motion that we make it a recommendation for City
Council to review pending the City Attorney’s review between now and the City Council
meeting.
De Weerd: I’ll withdraw my second.
Borup: Okay. We do have a motion. I think so.
Brown: I’ll second that.
Borup: Okay. That motion is second in discussion. All in favor?
NUMBER OF AYES: Two.
Borup: All opposed?
NUMBER OF NAYES: Two.
Borup: We have a tie vote? I’ll vote aye. I’d like to move this on. I think we’ve had it
long enough. Let the City Council worry about it.
COMMISSIONER BORUP VOTES: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES TO TWO NAYS.
De Weerd: Just for the record, I would like to put the stronger –
Borup: Pardon?
De Weerd: -- language in there.
Borup: Oh, right. I understood that’s why you didn’t do it. Okay. (inaudible)
Rossman: Just to clarify, Commissioner De Weerd would like it as a condition rather
than a recommendation.
Borup: Okay. And that should be in the minutes for City Council. Thank you. Item No.
1 is completed. We would like a couple things – we’re only going to take a short break
right now, but before we do, we’re going to be looking at our agenda. That was Item
No. 1 of 13 items, and we do have a good crowd here tonight. I’m (inaudible) the
majority of the people probably here for the Gold River Company’s project at Pine and
Ten Mile. Could I see a show of hands of how many are here for that project?
Rossman: I would suggest that we move that to number (inaudible)
Borup: Okay. Thank you. And we’re taking a short break at this time.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED ENGLISH
GARDENS SUBDIVISION BY PROJECTS WEST—CORNER OF TEN MILE ROAD &
CHERRY LANE.
(APPROVE W/RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL)
Borup: We would like to reconvene Planning and Zoning Commission for Meridian. We
do have a (inaudible) up there if somebody would like to go up there and discuss.
We’re concerned about getting through the agenda. At this point, we’ve decided we’re
going to continue on with the agenda as outlined through the continued public hearings.
At that point, we’ll decide how to proceed from there on. Item No. 2 is continued public
hearing, preliminary plat proposed English Garden Subdivision. As we do not have any
staff comments, written comments, Shari, is there any available comments you’d like to
make?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, we didn’t learn until today that there was
possible resolution to some of the problems with the sewerability of this site. Bruce
Freckleton can speak to some of those issues later. To familiarize everybody, this is
Black Cat and Cherry Lane. This is approximately a 40-acre parcel that’s already
annexed and zoned R-4 in the City of Meridian. You may remember another project
that’s adjacent that was the Jeff Manship property that came in for a proposal for an R-2
subdivision there. It was a land lot piece of property back here. Fuller Park is in this
area here with Parkside Creek here. We have received I believe a modified plat that
the applicants represented and furnished a transparency of. We have some minor
issues as related to frontage that need to designate some of the lots, the house
frontage, because they wouldn’t meet the 80-foot. They also showed on the preliminary
plat that Ten Mile Drain was not a part of the plat. That is able to be included as part of
the plat, and Staff would request that the Ten Mile Drain be included as part of the plat
as a common lot per John Priester at Ada County said that is possible. We would like
the pathway to be built along the Ten Mile Drain, the Meridian comprehensive plan does
designate that as a mixed-use pathway. Staff would also like this piece of property to
be included in the plat so that the improvements can be continued along Black Cat.
They also listed in the proposal that they were having storage units. Those would not
be permitted in the R-4 zone. This is not a planned development. It’s not a conditional
use permit, so the lots that they show here would be single-family lots even though they
are quite large. When we were going through the Manship project over here, they have
currently a 30-foot easement that goes back to this land-locked parcel. It would be the
Planning and Zoning Department’s recommendation that this street here be relocated
so that half of the roadway could be included on the Manship prior sole and then they
would give up 30 feet or whatever that had to be if it were a collector 30 feet so that a
public road could be extended clear to the back; this back parcel here. Other than that,
they do need to designate on the plat that all the lots are for single-family dwellings only.
If they wanted to consider something else, they would have to either re-zone that
property or submit a conditional use application for a planned development for us to
consider any use besides single-family. Are there any questions?
Hatcher: I’ve got a question.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: When was the updated plat received by your department because I didn’t get
a copy and I don’t know if any of the other commissioners got copies of the revised plot.
Stiles: Perhaps Mr. Unger could explain what the changes were. I’m not really sure
what they are. I can tell this area has changed. As far as I know, I got this
transparency today. From the plat you have, it looks like this was previously a cul-de-
sac or a – this would just turn here. There was no street out to Cherry Lane. They
have extended this – on the first plat, this extended to Cherry Lane. I don’t know if that
was a result of Ada County Highway District’s comments. I would imagine it was.
Rossman: Yes, it was.
Stiles: This formerly ended in a cul-de-sac here, and this street extended to Black Cat.
I’m not aware of what the rest of the changes would be, but it seems like those are the
major differences. It had formerly shown this as a drainage lot. It looks like it still is a
drainage lot. This is still shown as storage. This larger lot here. It looks like we could
probably make a couple – two lots out of that.
Hatcher: Thanks.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Shari, have you talked with the applicant about these proposed (inaudible) with
the stub to the land-locked parcel?
Stiles: I had discussed it with Bob Unger just briefly. He was aware that was the
direction I was heading. They don’t want to lose any lots. I’m not sure what impact that
would have on them. There’s another entrance over here; I’m not sure if that’s going to
meet the offset requirements for Ada County Highway District, but it just seems like it –
though it’s not their problem. That problem exists. It seemed logical to make that
request.
Brown: Can you do the same thing just above the drain there at the end of that
(inaudible) where the street (inaudible). I can’t see a lot number.
Stiles: It doesn’t –
Borup: Seven. Lot seven.
Stiles: -- line up with the land-locked piece. The land-locked piece is further south. So
they would still have to try to come through this property to make that connection.
Brown: But isn’t that where it would end up anyway is right there? I mean –
Stiles: Down here?
Brown: -- (inaudible) to the half street section right there at Lot 7?
Stiles: What we were primarily thinking of is this property here would only have to give
up 20 to 30 feet for half the roadway because the easement already exists. This
property owner does want to develop it at urban density, and with the existing buildings
on that site, they would have to remove buildings in order to meet setbacks and still
provide a public street.
Rossman: Shari, what Commissioner Brown was mentioning, these might already exist
on the piece of property, but if this project was to be approved and constructed, that –
would not that easement – could not that easement be reduced? The distance from
Cherry Lane to Tudor Street, thus only being required to be east of Lot 7? Because
London Avenue and Tudor Street would be public roads; thus, the easement would only
need to go from that land-locked piece of property to the public road.
Stiles: The problem comes in that, what it initially came in with were acre lots; we’ve
recommended that private roads not be approved serving more than four lots. If you
were to develop this to an urban density, his property would have more than four lots
and he would not have public road access unless he brought it in through here
somehow.
Brown: Okay.
Stiles: Does that make any sense?
Brown: What you say makes sense, but I don’t understand what that has to do with the
easement up to the land-locked property.
Stiles: The easement runs along this property line. The impact would also be that
you’ve got double-fronting lots if you’re running a road back behind these lots without a
roadway – I mean with a public roadway, which would not be very desirable for those
lots either.
Borup: But aren’t you assuming that he still wants to have access to Cherry Lane?
With this Stub street, he doesn’t need access to Cherry Lane, does he?
Stiles: No, but he needs public-road access.
Borup: Well, he’s got Tudor Street.
Stiles: But you’d also have to have public-road frontage along, so they’d have this Stub
street, but he would have to continue it in his project with a 50-foot right-of-way
(inaudible) frontage.
Borup: Right. And what’s the width of his project – of his property? Is it more than 250
feet?
Stiles: I don’t think so. Are you going to measure it, Bruce?
Freckleton: About 320.
Stiles: Is that including the little out-parcel there? Three-twenty? How much is it
without it?
Freckleton: About 210.
Stiles: Two-ten.
Borup: I say 250. That gives you a 50-foot road right-of-way and 100-foot lots on each
side.
Stiles: But there’s a house existing in here. There’s an existing home –
Borup: Right. But he’s not going to tear that – well, it’s irrespectful in how he’s going to
divide the property –
Stiles: Yes. Right.
Borup: -- I’m assuming he’s going to leave that house. That would stay frontage on
Cherry Lane, and then the new subdivision would tie in from Tudor and be replatted. If
it’s 300 feet, there’s plenty of room to do that.
Stiles: But it’s still going to result in double-fronting lots because he’s not going to want
to have a space between the public road and his lots. If you ran a public – if you ran
the public road –
Borup: Oh, well. You’re talking about assuming he wants to put a road down that
easement.
Stiles: Well –
Borup: I’m assuming he –
Stiles: -- if he were subdividing he’s not going to extend this in here further and leave a
buffer zone between the road and these lots.
Borup: No. He’d extend that straight in a hundred feet and then bring his street down
the middle of his property both ways.
Stiles: Not at 210 – well, if it’s 320 feet he could.
Borup: Yeah. Okay. That’s all the questions I’ve got. Commissioners? I think maybe
Mr. Unger might spread some light on that, too. Was there anything else you –
Stiles: Bruce, do you –
Borup: -- yeah. On the sewer, then? I think that was where we left off last time was
sewer serviceability.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, as you recall the report that
we gave at the last meeting was that the north half of the project could be served by
(inaudible) and the southern portion would have, as they proposed, would have taken
some significant fill in the southern portion and an aerial crossing of Ten Mile Creek with
the sewer. We expressed our undesirable comments about that and there was quite a
bit of discussion and we went back to the developer, to the consultant, we had a
meeting. They made some recommendations. Brad Watson, the Assistant City
Engineer, did a considerable amount of calculations and study of this project, and he’s
here tonight and could probably explain to you everything that he’s done and where we
think this project could go. So, I’ll turn it over to him.
Borup: Okay, Brad.
Watson: Thanks, Bruce. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, as you may recall, I wasn’t
here at the last meeting, but hopefully it was explained that this, the north have of the
project would be served by the Ashford Greens Lift Station which exists approximately a
mile, three-quarters of a mile north just off of Black Cat. When that lift station was
designed and sized, the north half of this project was included in that service area. The
south half is not. Primarily because of Ten Mile Creek and the inability for that portion
to gravity-flow north. We had a meeting, Bruce and I, with the consultants last week.
They produced four options to us. They recommended one option, and after much
discussion with Gary Smith, City Engineer, Bruce and I, we agreed to it with some
additional recommendations. The future Black Cat trunk goes down Black Cat Road
past this subdivision. There’s a Ten Mile relief sewer trunk that follows roughly Ten Mile
Creek and flows or goes upstream southeasterly to White Stone Estates. In their
proposed option, they would construct that 24-inch – 21-inch trunk through their
property along Ten Mile Creek. Gary and we agreed that would be a good option to get
that relief sewer started; however, the flows out of this subdivision are so low, Gary
recommended that they actually use a parallel eight-inch sewer to serve the
subdivision; the 21-inch would be dry-lined. We briefly talked with consultant about
that, and they seemed agreeable. The second addition to their proposal would be that
we have been developing a trunk fee, a Black Cat trunk fee, and this property would be
subject to that proposed fee. Obviously that hasn’t been taken to Council yet.
Preliminary calculations show that to be roughly $1500 per lot, give or take a couple
hundred, and we would recommend that be included with each building permit. The
third addition to their proposal would be that since this will be served by a lift station and
maintained by the City of Meridian, that they enter into a maintenance agreement with
the City; it will cover the annual costs. We’ve done that on several other lift stations,
and those agreements are pretty standard.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Watson? Would the applicant here like to
make a presentation?
Unger: Mr. Chairman and Commission members, my name is Bob Unger. I’m with
Pinnacle Engineers. We represent the applicant on this project which is Projects West.
Our address is 870 North Linder Road, Suite B, Meridian, Idaho, and we are very glad
to finally be before this commission since we started – supposed to have had a hearing
on July 13th
, and we’ve been tabled twice to this date. So, we are glad to be before you
this evening. Shari did a pretty good job of reviewing the basics of the application itself,
and Bruce and Brad, of course, on the sewer, and we do appreciate their assistance in
working out the sewer issue on this property, which, by the way, are – the developers is
in agreeance with. He has no problems with their requirements with sewering the
property. Initially, just to respond to Shari’s comments; as far as including the Ten Mile
Drain as a part of the development, as a common lot, we were under the impression
that we couldn’t do that since we don’t own it, but if the County Engineer says that we
can include it, then we certainly will. He is the authority for Ada County as far as we’re
concerned as far as surveying and subdivisions, et cetera. The lot that we had
designated as a storage lot, that was strictly not for storage units, but for storage of RVs
or boats for the people within the development. It was not to be any kind of commercial
storage whatsoever. If this commission does not want it to be used for that purpose,
then fine. We can probably develop three more lots there. So that’s kind of your all’s
option. Our preference, of course, was to have a specific area that the residents of the
development could store their boats and RVs, and that, of course, be fenced and
landscaped appropriately. That would be your all’s option, and if, in fact, you don’t want
it there, then we would request that we be permitted to develop those, we could
probably get two, possibly three more lots on that piece of property. As far as our
providing additional right-of-way to the eastern portion, to the eastern property
boundary that we have, we’re really not open for that. We have run this through the
highway district; in fact, the revised plan that you currently see before you is based on
the highway district’s recommendations. We had to move our entrance on Cherry Lane,
we had to move that so that it was 440 feet from Black Cat. Our original entrance was
310 feet from Black Cat. So we had to shift that over to meet their requirements, and
also the changing of the two streets to the south that were accessing Black Cat Road,
we had to swap those because directly across from where we currently had the cul-de-
sac there, directly across from that is a private lane, and they did not want us – well, it’s
not directly across, it’s close to it – and they did not want us to be within a specific
distance of that private lane. So we had to swap the cul-de-sacs and put the access to
the south. So what you currently see before you right now meets ACHD’s
requirements. The Stub street to the east was reviewed by ACHD, in fact, we’ve
discussed it with tech review with the highway district, and at that time Shari did bring
up the problem with the land-locked piece of property, and the highway district staff
agreed with us in that our Stub street could be continued on into the next piece of land
and then continued south, when and if that eastern property develops. I think it’s
extremely important that we understand there’s no application for development on this
piece of property whatsoever at this point in time. This is all speculation. And to put a
requirement on us to provide 30-foot of easement or right-of-way to assist them in
accessing a land-locked piece of property is totally inappropriate since we have no idea
what’s going to happen there. If we knew what was going to happen there, then maybe
we could see if we could work something out to assist everybody. Right now, we are
providing as much assistance to that property to the east and to the south as we
possibly can by providing a stub street. They will be able to gain access from that for
their development when and if they decide to do so. Of course, you do run into some
other problems in that where you have landscaping, et cetera, who’s going to maintain
the landscaping of two different associations, homeowner associations, et cetera. So
there are a lot of complications there, and we don’t feel it’s appropriate to require us to
provide half of an access to property that we have no idea how it’s going to develop or if
it ever will. We are providing one access, and that is what ACHD has required of us
and approved. And I’ve jumped ahead into all the details here instead of just reviewing
the project itself. The project itself, the property is zoned R-4, and it was zoned many
years ago as R-4. And we are proposing a 101 single-family lots. We’ve got seven
open space lots. Our density is 3.47 units to the acre. These are all nice-sized lots.
We are showing, or we have shown the plat along the northern portion of the Ten Mile
Creek is a pedestrian path that we would develop and connect down to the Fuller Park
property, and that complies with your all’s path plan. Certainly, the project itself is in
compliance with your comprehensive plan. It’s in compliance with your city ordinances,
your subdivision ordinance. We’re not quite sure how we can go about including the
Alp parcel that Shari pointed out into our subdivision. We understand that her concern
is how do the improvements to the roads, et cetera, how does that occur when this is
not a part of development. We don’t own that land. We cannot bring it into a
subdivision when we don’t own it. Okay? Now, we could look at and consider possibly
the improvements, but certainly, trying to bring in somebody else’s piece of property into
our subdivision is a requirement that’s not proper; it’s not correct. We don’t own it. And
a requirement that we include that into our development, in our subdivision, is a lot
within our subdivision could kill the whole project if that guy didn’t want to do it.
Rossman: Which parcel are you talking about, Bob?
Unger: My little pointer here doesn’t work.
Rossman: Oh. About the existing house? Right.
Unger: And that is – you know, that is, would be a requirement that is above and
beyond the normal standards. We have worked out the sewer. Water is available, all
utilities are available. All in all, this is a very simple project. It’s a very good project. It’s
what your comprehensive plan has called for years. That’s why the City annexed the
property and zoned it R-4 years ago. I’m not exactly sure on the date. I understand it
was somewhere near like 1979, or something to that effect, when it was annexed and
zoned R-4. So what we are providing here is a development that complies with the city
comprehensive plan, the City’s plans for this area, and now that we’ve been able to
work out the sewer situation, we can comply with all of the standard subdivision
conditions of approval that you would normally put on a subdivision, including the
additional comments that Shari made, you know. The common lot for Ten Mile Creek.
We don’t have a problem with that. We do have a problem with trying to bring in that
other person’s piece of property into our subdivision. We could certainly look at the
street improvements, if that is a concern.
Borup: Okay. I think that summed it up. Any questions for Mr. Unger.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I’ve got a question.
Borup: Please.
Barbeiro: Just out of curiosity, what is the approximate timeline of development for
Phase I and Phase II and the relationship of the portion of trunk line? Will that be done
during Phase I or Phase II?
Unger: Good question. Actually, the developer – his preference is to do the entire
project at one time; not as two phases. We did show Phase I and Phase II in the event
that we did run into snafu on the sewer; sewering the southern portion of the property;
but now that that has been resolved, his intention is to go forward and develop the
entire project as one phase and plat it all at one time. So those improvements would
have to be in. But even if he were to phase it, or if he made a decision to go ahead and
phase it, the trunk line that we’re talking about would be a part of Phase I because it
aligns with that there. So it would be a part of Phase I; the 21-inch trunk line.
Barbeiro: Okay.
Unger: And those improvements have to be in prior to final platting or bonded for.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thanks. That’s the only question I have.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Bob, how much storage are you providing? What percentage? I mean, you’re
going to have that storage; how are you going to allocate that as common space for –
first come, first serve?
Unger: Yeah. That’s about the only way you can do it is first come, first serve. There’s
sufficient room there for roughly 25 vehicles which is only, that’s only a quarter of the
proposed units in the project. Then again, some people like to keep theirs on site and
in their garage. I know I keep my boat in the garage. It’s a lot safer that way.
Brown: Another question I have is do you know when that property, the house was sold
off and was it a legal land addition for Meridian?
Unger: It was done under a record of survey actually this past year. Earlier this year.
Brown: So it was recent sale?
Unger: Yes.
Brown: And does your client sell it off then?
Unger: No. Our client didn’t sell it off. Our client bought this property from (inaudible).
Brown: With it being a recent sale, the highway district would require those
improvements anyway; correct?
Unger: Yeah. And that very well could be.
Brown: If it were just sold off with under that year timeframe, then the highway –
Unger: Right
Brown: -- would require those improvements.
Unger: Right. And they didn’t comment to that, but, certainly, if that’s a requirement
that you folks like to put on it, then that’s fine. We don’t have a problem with that, and I
don’t – I wouldn’t imagine that they would have a problem with us making those
improvements on their land there. The only problem that you run into, of course, is
getting the right-of-way for those improvements because we are dedicating, I believe
we’re going 48 feet from center lane. That would be the only problem I could see that
we could run into is actually getting the right-of-way from that person. Certainly we
could look into that and see if they’d be willing to work with us on getting the right-of-
way and doing the improvements.
Borup: Anyone else? Okay. Thank you, Bob.
Unger: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone here from the public that wish to comment on this
application? See none. It’s back to the commissioners. Commissioners want any
questions for anyone else? Bob, if you’d come back up, I just have a couple little
summary (inaudible), I’m sorry.
Unger. Once again, for the record, Bob Unger.
Borup: Mr. Unger, from what I understood in your testimony, you’re in agreement with
everything as far as the sewer line worked out with Public Works Department, and
essentially everything that Shari had mentioned as far as P & Z except for something
different on the road to the property to the east, and maybe the complications of that
out-property; is that correct? Those two items are the only two items in question?
Unger: Thanks correct.
Borup: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. And you did have a pathway planned
through this property onto –
Unger: Yes.
Borup: All right. That’s all I had. Thank you. Commissioners? We still have a public
hearing open. That was all, thank you.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any opposed? Okay.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand we got staff comments tonight verbally?
Borup: Yes.
Stiles: Okay.
Rossman: Hopefully whoever wants to raise a motion will recite them, because I don’t
think I want to prepare recommendations off of this record.
Borup: Can we make reference back to the minutes and incorporate those in?
Rossman: Well, gees. Then I go back to the minutes and try to recreate it from
everything that’s been testified to?
Borup. No, no, no, no. The minutes from Ms. Stiles.
Rossman: From Ms. Stiles?
Borup: That’s only one person.
Rossman: I don’t particularly want to be put into that position because the Planning and
Zoning Commission doesn’t review these recommendations. They go directly to City
Council, so I need some particularity in the guidance that I’m getting from the Planning
and Zoning Commission as to what goes into these recommendations to ensure that
they’re accurate.
Borup: Okay. Well, I think that we can cover those. And we can talk to Shari to repeat
any of those if we need to. I mean, maybe questions for us is the applicant only had
two items that they questioned. One was on the –
Stiles: But what were the items?
Borup: The property that – the two items or the rest of the items? Well, we can cover
those. Let’s get a discussion of -- any question on the other two items? Any discussion
on the other two items?
Rossman: The discussion that I had on it is that I think that with the area that’s
proposed for storage of RVs and boats and whatnot, that that be maintained and go
against Staff’s recommendation and separating that into developed lots.
Borup: Maintained by the homeowner’s association?
Rossman: Yes. It would be landscaped, fenced, just as proposed. I’ve seen that done
successfully in other places, and I recommend that it should be maintained here. And I
would also go against Staff on the easement issue on the east side of the development.
Again, we’re speculating on how someone else is going to do their development, and it
has no impact on this project. I think that a change to the existing easement from Tudor
to Cherry whenever they decide to develop it is down the line has no impact on this
project, so I say that we strike that staff recommendation.
Borup: Okay.
Rossman: And I concur with Staff’s recommendation that the improvements of the
existing lot west – on the west side of the existing lot, east side of Black Cat be
continued on up through so it’s a congruent –
Borup: You’re saying the sidewalk improvements?
Rossman: Yes. The sidewalk. And then, the only other thing was the bike path. We
have an on-going issue. I’d love to see it, but who’s going to maintain it, and can we
really do it if it’s in Nampa Meridian Irrigation issue on liability?
Borup: (inaudible) already said they would, so –
Rossman: But if Nampa Meridian Irrigation won’t let them, I mean, I’d love to have it in
there.
Borup: The City does have opportunity to work those details out. Okay. Any other
comments for Commissioners before asking Shari a couple of questions?
Barbeiro: How does that change in that and having that storage affect the zone?
Borup: Shari, did you understand – I’m sorry. I just wanted to clarify, did you
understand that with open storage or are you thinking storage buildings?
Stiles: Open storage.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Sorry.
Barbeiro: Okay. With it being open space, is there a problem with that being storage
under the zoning ordinance?
Stiles: With the zone it’s in, without it being part of a planned development, that would
not be a permitted use on that lot. Storage, indoor or outdoor storage is not permitted
in an R-4 zone.
Borup: Is –
Stiles: Had they come in with a conditional use permit as part of a planned
development, they could certainly incorporate something like that, but it’s strictly
prohibited in that zone.
Barbeiro: Including yards? Including storage yards?
Stiles: You’re talking about the use of a single lot per one use and that use is not
permitted.
Barbeiro: Okay.
Stiles: The other lots that their principal permitted use is single-family residential and
that would be the same on this lot.
Borup: So their option would have been to come in with conditional use?
Stiles: Or a planned development.
Borup: Or a planned or both?
Stiles: A conditional use –
Borup: And a planned development.
Stiles: -- or a planned development.
Borup: Is that what Crestwood did?
Stiles: Crestwood, the property that they have the storage lot on is zoned commercial.
Borup: Oh. It’s separate from the subdivision?
Stiles: Yeah.
Borup: But it’s owned by the subdivision?
Stiles: As far as I know.
Borup: Okay. Well, then, did that answer that question?
Brown: Then we split it into three and let them develop it.
Borup: Yeah. Either that or come back with a new application.
Stiles: It’d make a nice green area.
Brown: All right. Any other questions? (inaudible) Shari, what about the out-parcel
along that Black Cat, is that an allowed division?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Brown, I don’t know if that’s a legal split or not.
They would need to provide verification that that is a legal split. I don’t think that’s been
split in the last year as far as I’m aware. It’s shown on there ’93 comp plan, map –
Brown: Showing it split?
Stiles: Yes. They would just need to provide verification that this was a in this
configuration in 1984, which is when our subdivision ordinance was enacted.
Brown: And what would they have to do if –
Stiles: Provide a warranty deed of this same configuration; a recorded warranty deed.
Borup: As we stated earlier, we want to get your conditions in the motion.
Brown: Was there any other comments that Shari had that we haven’t addressed?
Borup: That’s what I was – that and make sure we got all your items in the motion. I
think make sure that included Ten Mile Drain as part of your (inaudible). How would you
– would you like to run through just real quick? That might be easier.
Brown: And Mr. Chairman, I also would like to have the conditions requested by Brad
on the sewer specifically identified so that we can incorporate those.
Borup: How about we have them number those down, real quick, one, two, three right
down, and then we can incorporate that in our motion.
Brown: Appreciate that.
Borup: Could Staff accommodate us that way?
Stiles: I’ll start on One. They need to add a note designating that all building – all lots
are for single-family dwellings only. There are some dimensions that are left off, you
know, dimensions that are left off some of the lots. They need to include the Ten Mile
drain as part of the plat as a common lot with a note that it’s to be owned and
maintained by the homeowner’s association. Oh. That was Two. I lost track already.
Number 3, to provide evidence that the out parcel is a legal split through provision of a
recorded warranty deed showing it was in that configuration in April of 1984
Watson: And that evidence is to be provided to the Planning and Zoning staff?
Stiles: Yes. That’s Four? There are several lots shown on the preliminary plat that
show frontage less than 80 feet. They need to be either revised to show the 80-foot
frontage or have a symbol added to them showing which direction the house needs to
face, and I guess that’s all I had. And we would like, also, to have them provide
detailed landscape plans of all the common areas for review and approval with
submission of the final plat.
Borup: Thank you, and Brad, the items on the sewer?
Watson: Thank you. There’s actually one thing I forgot earlier. We’ll keep adding to
them. I guess I’m Number 6. The first is that they would construct a lift station to serve
their entire project and only their entire – only their project. Number 2, they would
construct dryline 21-inch relief, Ten Mile relief sewer from Black Cat Road to the
southeast boundary of the project. That was seven, sorry. Number 8, they would utilize
an 8-inch internal sewer paralleling the 21-inch to feed lift station. Nine, that once the
Black Cat trunk fee is established and approved by Council, that those fees would be
applied to each building permit issued in this project. Number 5, the one I forgot, there
are applicable late-comer fees on the existing Ashford Greens lift station, that they
would be subject to all lots within this project. And this isn’t really a requirement, but a
point of emphasis, this 21-inch trunk would not be extended to serve additional
properties until the actual Black Cat trunk is constructed. This is just our first step.
Gary was very adamant that this could not be interpreted to allow further development
with the existing lift station will be maxed out with this development.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Watson: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton has previously reminded me of one earlier.
Watson: I don’t know what number it is. Ten, eleven, something like that. The lift
station maintenance fee would be in effect, and those calculations will be provided at a
later time and what that fee is. Thank you.
Borup: Okay, Commissioners. Those are the staff items to be included, and I think that
can be incorporated as a single statement.
Stiles: They just had to choose one of these meetings not to give a staff report.
Borup: No. I’m saying I don’t think we need to repeat all those. We can just
incorporate those motions or those statements in the motion.
Stiles: Okay.
Rossman: I didn’t officially, but I will. Mr. Chairman, I motion that we approve –
recommend approval to City Council for preliminary plat of English Garden Subdivision
by Projects West at the corner of Ten Mile Road and Cherry Lane; to incorporate all
staff comments at past meetings and verbally at this meeting, and I think that covers it
all. Am I missing anything?
Can we take out that past-meetings comment? Hopefully the conditions you’re talking
about are the ones that were just stated by Shari and Brad, hopefully.
Hatcher: But, we had conditions that implemented Ada County’s comments that we’ve
seen here that we don’t have here. There were other comments; correct, Shari?
Borup: Can you say plat as presented to us?
Hatcher: There you go. Plat as presented plus today’s comments.
De Weerd: I second that.
Borup: I will motion a second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
Borup: Item No. 3. Another continued –
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Brown.
Brown: The firm that I’m employed by has Item 3 and 4, and I’ll need to (inaudible) and
step down.
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
(CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 12, 1999)
Borup: Okay. Understood. Anybody want to join him? Probably so. Mr. Berg wants to
leave to. Item 3 and 4, continued public hearing, annexation and zoning of 150.79
acres by Bear Creek, LLC. This was kind of in the same situation as English Gardens
with the sewer question. I think when we left it last time, the instruction was that the
applicant was going to try to get together with Public Works to discuss that. Would we
like to start with Public Works first or with Shari? Let’s open this -- we’d like to – well,
we’re continuing it. Did I mention that Item No. 3, we’re opening continuation of this
public hearing? Why don’t we talk about the sewer first. Do we want to do that?
Hatcher: Let’s go straight to the heart of the problem.
Borup: Yeah.
Watson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this particular project has consumed a lot of
time and a lot of back and forth between the consultant and the public works
department. I believe you’ve seen at least one report that has come out of our
department that I prepared and was reviewed by Gary Smith. The conclusions in that
report were that this project could not be recommended by Public Works as it was
shown, and the main – well, there were several main reasons. The primary reason was
that our sewer capacity in the Ten Mile trunk into which they proposed discharging by lift
station has capacity for approximately 1100 additional hook-ups. This project is not
within the Ten Mile sewer service area. Our concern was that if this was approved, it
would severely limit the ability of the City to approve projects that did exist within the
Ten Mile sewer service area as shown on the recently adopted sewer master plan.
After the last hearing, they wrote and listed quite a few questions, and I provided, I
think, adequate answers to them. They followed up with two verbal questions today
which one I answered earlier, one I think I got back to them tonight. I don’t think our
recommendation has changed any, and from a technical standpoint, we can
accommodate this right now. It could discharge into the sewer and there wouldn’t be a
moratorium tomorrow on that trunk. Our concern is that over the next ten years we will
see a huge amount of pressure in that area, and we’re not concerned only about this
project. We have heard, Gary and I both, and Bruce probably as well, have heard of
people west all the way to Linder Road inquiring about the availability of sewer and
what’s happening with this application. And again, that’s a separate issue and
speculation again. But from a sewer standpoint, it’s not a separate issue. We have to
plan many years down the road. We can’t decide something for what’s in front of us
today. If we did that, two years from now we’d be in a lot of trouble, and it would be our
fault. Gary put together a memo for Mayor Corrie, and if I could just paraphrase a little
bit. He says that the bottom line in this project is that if this is approved, the city
(inaudible) again plans to construct the Black Cat trunk immediately. And what that –
the Black Cat trunk, just to give you a little background, it goes all the way from Bear
Creek to Black Cat Road on the other side of the interstate north of Ustick Road to a
very large regional lift station. The latest estimated costs are about nine million dollars
for this trunk. We estimate to procure all the right-of-way and the funding it would take
approximately five years to have that system in place, and that’s pretty optimistic. The
other side of this is that even if we pursue that, we would be sacrificing our efforts from
where the council has already directed us to pursue our efforts which is north of Ustick,
(inaudible) extension towards Eagle Road, and towards the Eagle/Overland area. We
don’t have funds to tear off anything like this. Gary further goes on, again
paraphrasing, that this is the tip of the iceberg. He recommended that if this project
was approved that that lift station actually be constructed near the intersection of Linder
Road and Overland Road and encompass that whole square mile of land and that it
discharge to the Ten Mile trunk near Crestwood. The problem with this particular
project of the lift station is located on-site. That’s all well and good, and they can serve
something upstream. But a year from now, not even a year from now, we’ll be looking
at the same situation; analyzing the lift station for the next person west, another quarter
mile and then another quarter mile, and it’s just not very good sewer planning on our
part. And I don’t have anyone hear that has first-hand experience with what’s
happening in the neighboring city, but evidently, this situation has been going on for
several years where interbasin pumping was allowed. And they’re at a crisis point right
now, and the situation has developed to a point where so many developments have
been allowed to pump interbasin, and those fees have been lost that would have gone
to a trunk. They can’t go back to these existing subdivisions and charge a trunk fee.
So now some outlying areas are hoping to develop, and they’re being hit with this
several-million-dollar deal to extend a new trunk, and they’re wondering why they’re on
the hook for it when all these people that should have been paying for it were allowed to
pump to another basin. That’s just a little background, and that’s where we don’t want
to be five years from now. If there are any questions, and I’m sure there will be, I’d be
happy to try to answer them.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Watson at this time? Shari, is there anything you’d like to
present to the Commission? Brief. We’ve had a presentation on the project, I think.
Stiles: Okay. Last month, Brad and Steve gave a presentation on this project.
Borup: Well, mostly from Becky Bocutt, but they did – yes. There were some
comments. But I don’t believe we got into any specifics.
Stiles: If you need to know anything about what’s surrounding there or –
Borup: Any questions from the Commission or should we move on? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward?
Bocutt: Becky Bocutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland, Boise. I did an
overlaying of this map to make it a little easier to look at these so-called drainage areas.
Highlighted in blue is that Black Cat drainage area which encompasses the Black Cat
trunk here, Trunk B and the Trunk A, or diversion trunk. I did not bring a line over here
to include this McDermott trunk because it would come in off of another lift station. It
eventually end up in this same trunk line through here, but it’s not part of this area here.
You can see our site here delineated in the purple along this eastern boundary. In the
pink area, this is what is shown as the Ten Mile trunk. Now, keep in mind your impact
boundary does end right here at Amity Road even though this is shown on this map, it
does not go beyond there. Ada County, I believe, referenced that as a referral area
only. So the Ten Mile trunk area today consists of this here and then this green area
right here is that Nine Mile trunk, and that’s what you see south of the freeway. Now
one of the things that was discussed between our engineers and the staff was the issue
of the bottlenecks; that the capacity of the Ten Mile line is compromised now due to
bottlenecks that exist in Crestwood Estates. We have with Staff’s help and we do
apologize to Mr. Watson that this has taken an immense amount of time, these larger
complicated projects tend to be that way. If I could go over to this, this you see right
here is Crestwood Estates. In blue is the Ten Mile trunk. The bottlenecks exist from
this point to this point where it transitions down to this 15-inch line. We have exactly
2800 linear feet that would either one, have to be replaced; or two, some type of a
parallel line be constructed to add the additional capacity that’s currently being
constricted in this vicinity. We have calculated the approximate cost at about
$205-210,000 to go in and make that improvement. We, the developer has looked at
that and has determined that he would be willing to go in
*** end of Tape 2, Side B ***
and one, we’re creating our own capacity that at this point in time does not exist. It’s
estimated the Ten Mile, as-is today, can service, I think the numbers kicked around are
between 900 and 1,000 homes. By going in and upgrading this, that would bring that
capacity up to approximately 1800; doubling the ability to service. So, instead of
utilizing existing capacity that the City states way would like to guard and basically put
on hold for future development within that drainage area, we’d be creating our own
capacity and not taking away from any properties that have a right to go within that
drainage area. The other issue discussed was what’s the solution, I believe Mr.
Barbeiro says, what are you planning on doing? What is a long-term solution? One,
this is the first step. This has to be done whether we’re around or not, at some point in
time. You’re going through an existing development, we’re going to be cutting in paved
streets and replacing these facilities. But also, the City’s talking about the $1500
assessment, and we agree that this needs to be done. And if this were assessed for
those areas in that Black Cat region, then those monies could be used to eventually
build that Black Cat line. I think some of the numbers Staff’s been kicking around is like
nine, ten thousand homes, possibly could be on the Black Cat line. The project that you
looked at earlier, the Gardens project that Bob brought before you, that’s within this
Black Cat line. It’s located at this location here; Black Cat and Fairview – or Cherry
Lane. Here at the southeast corner. So as you can see, it’s right in the middle of this
little leg of this line; however, that property is being allowed to lift back into the Ashford
Greens lift station. And this is Ashford Greens that was intended to go into Black Cat,
but instead is lifting back into that lift station there. So when we talked, I believe at the
last meeting about jumping over those boundaries, it’s been done. It has been done on
occasions. We try to keep within our drainage boundaries and keep those projects that
can gravity flow. Staff made that comment, and that is correct. But with that $1500
assessment, we’re looking for this project $489,000 for 326 lots. Now the 210 thousand
spent on upgrading the Ten Mile line at the bottleneck obviously, we would like some
type of credit for that, because we are taking on quite a burden. We’ve got our park,
we’ve got our improvements there, and then we’re going in and making these facility
improvements also, besides installing the regional lift station. Brad states that the
priority is the north area. I don’t think that the City of Meridian should put every single
new development north of Ustick. I think it’s the biggest future traffic problem we could
ever create in this valley. That many homes in that location without the Ten Mile
interchange, without the overpass at Locust Grove – I mean, there is going to be
issues. When cities grow, they typically kind of grow in different directions, and you try
to balance that. You look at things such as interchange locations; uses in the area as
far as commercial; how far are commutes; you look at all those things. When we start
going way north of the city, we don’t have interchanges. We don’t have existing
commercial developments, so we’re going to see a lot of traffic. I don’t think that this is
going to open up a Pandora’s box. I think this can be done in a way if it’s well planned,
well worked out with public works, it can be done in a very orderly fashion. We have a
good project, a quality project. We adjoin the city limits. We’re doing what we can for
the community and I think we’ve done everything right, and I think a comment came
from a staff member: It’s a beautiful project. We just wish it was where you could
gravity sewer. Well, if it was where I could gravity sewer, we couldn’t afford to do the
park, and you end up seeing cookie-cutter subdivision, 3.45 dwelling units per acre.
But when we get out on this perimeter, we have that ability. We have that monetary
flexibility. The other thing I’d like to state lastly, we’re over here. Who’s to say when the
Black Cat gets to us that we will even have capacity. The city can’t guarantee that. I
know that for a fact because I’m dealing with a property on the Nine Mile trunk that’s
right here. Not at the tail-end. Right in this vicinity. Clearly delineated the Nine Mile
trunk. We spent thousands of dollars starting that project, and we’re told, “stop.” We
can’t service it; we don’t have any capacity in the Nine Mile trunk. So my point is, will
there be capacity? They’re diverting Nine Mile into Black Cat; they’re diverting Ten Mile
into Black Cat; they’re diverting Ten Mile into Black Cat long-term. And the point I think
I made last time was, if I go onto Ten Mile, Ten Mile access will be diverted to Black Cat.
And the only way we can get the Black Cat built is to start getting that excess fund set
up; fifteen to a hundred dollars per lot. And if other properties want to go in, then that’s
just more money to build the Black Cat line. To this point, there’s been development up
and down Black Cat, and nobody’s put a penny to the Black Cat line or installed any of
the trunk to my knowledge.
Barbeiro: Until tonight.
Bocutt: Yes, sir. Up ‘til tonight. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I’m hoping that you’re not using the ACHD example of “build it and they will
come.” I’m almost getting the impression that we’ll go ahead and build it, we’ll get past
capacity and then you’ll have to come back around and do it. ACHD codes puts their
impact fees on (inaudible) build roads later. Is it your intent then to build upon the
sewer assessment fund, and then have us build it at a later time?
Bocutt: Well, that – the City obviously doesn’t have the monies to construct the Black
Cat trunk. At some point in time it will be necessary for the Black Cat trunk to be built.
Where do we begin to obtain the monies to build the trunk? Now over time, the City
has accumulated money in their enterprise fund to extend the no-name trunk, and when
you look at the number of lots being turned out each year like south of the freeway, it’s
220, 250, something like that. So to think that all of a sudden you’d have all these lots –
you know, it’s going to be an incremental process as those monies come in. This
project obviously can’t bear to go get the Black Cat trunk, and I don’t think any one
individual project, even a very, very large project could go get that big trunk. There’s
talk about it. I’ve heard rumors about it that there are people that have looked at large
acreages over where the Black Cat trunk begins, but I have not seen any applications
as of yet. So you’re saying is it – how else could we begin such a facility?
Barbeiro: The way that I understood it was you were saying, we’ll just keep building it
until we fill it and then they’ll have to bring us the trunk. And I’m thinking that roads
aren’t like sewers. Once the sewer’s full, you don’t just put it off for a couple of years
and keep building on top of it.
Bocutt: No. What I’m saying with – going in and making the improvements to the
existing Ten Mile bottleneck, you’d be creating additional capacity that’s not there.
Barbeiro: Okay.
Bocutt: Do you – okay.
Barbeiro: There were two different –
Bocutt: Okay. There are two – there are two concepts. It’s a two-leg process: what is
the solution? Correct the bottlenecks that currently exist to increase capacity of the Ten
Mile line at a cost of 210 thousand dollars. That would be obviously our responsibility.
Second leg would be for these $1500 special assessments above and beyond the
standard hook-up fee to be implemented in the developments that are going to go in on
that Black Cat trunk in the future.
Barbeiro: I see. They are two separate and –
Bocutt: Two separate concepts.
Barbeiro: and I didn’t – I wasn’t putting them together.
Bocutt: Yeah. It’s kind of a two-step process.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Bocutt: Sorry. I confused you. It’s late.
Borup: Anyone else? Any other questions for Ms. Bocutt? Okay. Thank you. This is a
public hearing. Do we have anyone from the public wish to – Becky, did that
transparency?
Bocutt: I put it back. Nope. That one’s mine. Oh, yes, (inaudible) public record.
Borup: Did you use it?
Bocutt: Sorry.
Borup: Again remembering we have had several testimonies on this, so we’re looking
for new information, sir.
Yerrington: Okay. Kent Yerrington, 8830 Morning Mist. Becky brought up that she has
one subdivision that was curtailed due to lack of capacity. What happens if a couple
years from now she’s wanting to build another subdivision out in the same area on this
other trunk line and it’s turned down because of lack of capacity? Also, there was
brought up of sewer credits, and I think at one of the previous meetings, it was also
brought up about park credits. So, all of a sudden, is the city really getting anything for
free, or are we turning around and giving credits in the – on the back side? Also, at the
previous meeting, I brought up about a parcel that was supposedly for sale just west of
Stoddard, approximately 40 acres. I have some stuff from Ada County that it is in Bear
Creek’s name now. So, all of a sudden, is he going to be wanting to adjoin this piece of
property into this other lift station? Thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Row: Will it be okay if I use this mike here?
Borup: Yes, sir.
Row: My name is Chuck Row, and I’m a property owner that’s adjacent to the proposed
subdivision. I currently reside at 911 Stonehenge Way in Meridian. I spoke at the
previous hearing and would like the Commission to – or the applicant to address the
current plan as I understand it that this property that is proposed is zoned rural
transitional and we are jumping several districts going to R-4, and I have not heard
much testimony as to if that’s allowed in the Meridian comprehensive plan, because we
are changing the environmental use and the integrity of the existing facilities around the
area. Excuse me for a moment here. The second issue, we’ve been kind of
bombarded here with the sewer issue, and we really haven’t addressed any traffic
issues. We’d mentioned those at the last hearing, but I don’t k now if a traffic study’s
been done or if we’ve really addressed the potential safety hazards and the cost that
the City will be burdened with as far as street lights and stuff, if we do run into safety
issues at Overland and Meridian, also at Victory and Meridian, and possibly Stoddard
and Overland. I don’t know if we have traffic studies for those areas. It was also
mentioned the applicant would want credit back for the park area and sewer hook-up
fees, so they’re getting $1500 in one hand, but they’re taking it back in the park fees. It
sounds like they’re wanting to do the same thing with providing the Band-Aid fix, I
believe it’s the Ten Mile line that they’re going to upgrade, but they’re wanting credits
back for that work. So in the end, the City’s probably looking at a wash. We have
several issues and the main one being the sewer, and I believe we really don’t want to
have a problem on the south side of the freeway that looks like is starting to develop on
the north side of the freeway with the sewer problems and the traffic, and starting to
allow an R-4 zone on the south side of the freeway with the first subdivision basically on
that side of the freeway, and with the sewer problems that we have, who knows where
that’s going to unravel. But it’s going to cause problems for us all three to five years or
sooner down the road. Becky stated a couple times that she doesn’t think that we’re
going to have sewer problems, and she doesn’t think that we’ll have the traffic
problems. When we look at some of the areas that are zoned R-4 and the problems
and the densities that those bring to an area, we really need to look at what’s going to
happen on the south side of the freeway, and do we want Meridian to be zoned R-4 on
both sides of an area where we have now a rural area with some R-1 zoning, and it
would be nice to have a subdivision or an area in Meridian that we have larger lots that
are in the one-acre or two-acre parcels. Right now I don’t – if there’s any, I’m not aware
of them or there are very few properties that you can find that are one-acre or two-acre
plots of land. Right now, the majority of the property that’s available in Meridian are in
the 8,000 to say 15,000 square-foot range. And there’s a need out there. I’ve talked to
a lot of –
Borup: Sir, you’re going to have to wrap it up. We’re already short on time.
Row: Okay. I’ve talked to a lot of realtors, and they said they could sell a lot of property
that’s in the one and two-acre parcels if they were available. They’re just not available.
I guess just for the record and to close here, I’m opposed to the subdivision for three
main points. One, it’s just going to increase the traffic; two, it’s going to burden the
sewer systems. It’s going to create problems for us in the future; and the third reason is
we’re going to not withhold or hold the integrity of the existing community or the area
that we’re putting the subdivision in. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you Anyone else? Okay. Commissioners? What’s your pleasure?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I’d like to address a question to Staff, please. After the discussions that
we’ve had here, can you give me a little bit more insight on the addition of a 12-inch line
that the developer would place themselves and how that would affect the current plan
for sewage?
Watson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, Commissioners, we had a meeting last
week or I guess it was the latter end and it was pretty much confirmed today that this
parallel 12-inch would work. I know you’ve heard this song before about a month and-
a-half ago, computer modeling problems. Again today it was crashing on me. I’m
confident that it would work, technically. The point was made that at some point this
line would have to be upgraded or paralleled, regardless of whether they did it now or
not. That is not the case. The master plan that JUB Engineers put together and was
approved by Council this summer does not indicate that that will ultimately need to
happen. One other point on the cost to do that; there was a request, suggestion, that
they be credited for some of that money because they would be paying this Black Cat
trunk fee. And I don’t see the logic in that because the Black Cat trunk will go through
this site, regardless. It will be constructed through there. At that time, the lift station, if
approved, would be abandoned, and this subdivision would be utilizing that trunk. The
$210,000 or whatever on parallel line would be a throwaway, a temporary fix.
Barbeiro: The $210,000, if I’m reading it write was 2,800 lineal feet of 12-inch line, and
that may be – if we go ahead and do that line, and then we come back in with the Black
Cat line, would they – first we’re going to abandon the lift station, would they then
abandon the parallel line?
Watson: Not necessarily. It would be there, existing. Nobody’s going to go spend the
money to go dig it up. It would be there – it wouldn’t be required.
Barbeiro: You said it would continue to be there. Would it continue to be operational?
Watson: Uh-huh.
Barbeiro: In conjunction with the new Black Cat line that it’s going to pass through?
Watson: No. They’re totally separate systems. The parallel line that they’re proposing
is a fix. That additional capacity would serve this subdivision, and it will be in place, but
when the trunk, the Black Cat trunk, gets to their property, that lift station will be
abandoned that is within in Bear Creek. The service will be transferred from the Ten
Mile service area back to where it belongs in the Black Cat service area. We don’t want
to go on forever with maintaining that lift station. It will be abandoned.
Borup: Any other questions?
Barbeiro: If I could have Becky come back up, and I could ask her a question, please.
We were talking about the addition of 2800 lineal feet of 12-inch line at a cost of
$210,000. That equates to –
Bocutt: Seventy-five dollars a linear foot.
Barbeiro: Right. And at 326 lots, about $650 per lot. You’ve also offered the option of
an additional $1,500 for a slush fund? For the trust fund.
Bocutt: New trunk construction fund.
Barbeiro: Yeah. The new trunk construction fund.
Bocutt: Which $1500 with 326 lots would be $489,000.
Barbeiro: After consultation with your client, what is your preference; to run a parallel
line or the $1500 fee?
Bocutt: Well, both would be necessary. We would want to pay, obviously, our fair share
of the Black Cat trunk, and if the Black Cat trunk, a section of it, traverse this property, I
think that’s what Brad was indicating, then, obviously, that would have to be built with
the project. Is that what you were saying, Brad? The future Black Cat?
Watson: Right. The alignment will go through this property. Whether it’s actually
constructed with this project, I would say that’s doubtful since we’re six miles away from
where it ends up.
Barbeiro: So let’s go back since I’m – I’ve three separate issues that we had in our last
meeting: The additional fee above and beyond what the City of Meridian would charge,
the basic fee the City of Meridian would charge, and now the added option of a parallel
line which would be about $645 per household.
Watson: That’s not a fee. That’s part of the rural development fee.
Bocutt: The developer would construct that. You mean if you allocated it on a per-lot
basis? Is that what you’re trying to do?
Barbeiro: Right.
Bocutt: Uh-huh. And calculate that?
Barbeiro: What is the basic Meridian fee? Is it $1500 and then you were going to – in
your last discussion you were going to add another $1,000 per –
Bocutt: Oh. The standard fee – sewer hook-up fee?
Watson: Fifteen-eighty.
Bocutt: Is it $1500 or $1700?
Watson: Fifteen-eighty.
Bocutt: Fifteen-eight. The standard hook-up fee, sewer hook-up fee’s $1580, yes.
Barbeiro: Okay. And in your last meeting, you offered an additional $1,000 per lot?
Bocutt: Correct.
Barbeiro: Okay.
Bocutt: That was put in our original application, yes. And then after Mr. Watson’s
review of the potential number of homes being built in that Black Cat service area, he
estimated that a more appropriate fee would be $1500 per lot to provide adequate
monies for the Black Cat extension.
Barbeiro: So, what is the credit that you’re trying to ask for?
Bocutt: Okay. One of the things that we discussed is the $210,000 would be a facilities
improvement and would increase capacity of the Ten Mile. It’s not a throwaway
because you’re increasing capacity that does not currently exist due to the bottleneck,
okay? So if Ten Mile has capacity now to service what is planned, then why does the
plan show a diversion to the Black Cat? Obviously, the Ten Mile doesn’t have capacity
to service everything within the Ten Mile service area. So we’re creating additional
capacity. Now, as far as the credit, we viewed that by creating that additional capacity:
could you be eligible for, like, late-comers fee because you did create some of that
capacity? So that would come out of, like, the $489. That was one of our discussions.
Now that was not discussed with your staff. It was just discussed between us and the
applicant.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Bocutt: And that would be, obviously, the determination by the City.
Barbeiro: Thanks, Becky.
Bocutt: Thanks.
Borup: Did that answer your three? Anyone else? Any other commissioners?
Hatcher: I would be inclined to look at that request for credit as offset by not building a
portion of the trunk by the project because of the distance, so not enforcing what we
just enforced on the previous project tonight, they’re not going to incur those costs of
building that portion of the trunk, so I would see that as a credit. So I’m questioning
why as for a credit because they’re – what you’re getting back in return for increasing
the line is actually allowing you to build your project. Without doing that, you don’t have
the sewer capacity, or it’s questionable whether you have the sewer capacity. So I think
it’s kind of a give-and-take situation. I don’t quite understand why you’re even asking
for a credit on this.
Borup: Well, see, I think that’s something that could be in a recommendation.
Hatcher: Okay.
Johnson: I’m Greg Johnson. I live at 2433 Can-Ada Road. These proposals aren’t in
concrete. If Staff has indicated that there is currently capacity in the Ten Mile for the
project and another 600 homes; if the City chooses not to correct the bottleneck right
now and go ahead and build these houses and create, they would have $498,000 to, if
the capacity in Ten Mile gets to the point that there is no more, they could go ahead and
take care of the bottleneck, or they may choose to use that $498,000 to them build the
Black Cat trunk and alleviate the problem that way. It may be ten years before that
issue gets there, but if we keep adding money to the pot, there may be enough to either
build the whole Black Cat trunk or it would get built to the point that maybe their link is
only two miles. And then we could do something similar that is being proposed on the
south, or the no-name trunk. Those fees as they come back in may reestablish that
fund, and then the whole Black Cat trunk could be built. Those options can be left open
as I hear him explain that maybe if the Black Cat trunk got built and we had to diversion
at Ten Mile, they wouldn’t want to correct the bottleneck and spend the money there for
that. We’re open to that option, too. If the City would like us to go ahead and build it,
then we would like to at least be credited for whatever that cost is towards this sewer
trunk fee that is being assessed. I am not able to pay both of those. If we do one, we
need to do the other. I’m not opposed to building, I believe it’s an 18-inch trunk that
would go from Stoddard Road eventually to Meridian Road as this section of the Black
Cat trunk; we’re not opposed to putting that in across our development. We would be
glad for that to go in and be the collection that comes into the lift station, if that’s what’s
desired by Public Works. We will build that as, I think, the standard policies. We build
those to and through our project, and we’d be glad to build that.
Borup: Any other questions.
Johnson: Does that make sense?
Barbeiro: Yeah.
Borup: Commissioners, how would you like to proceed?
Barbeiro: May I ask a question of Staff?
Borup: Yes, sir.
Barbeiro: It is currently the recommendation of Staff that this project not be approved
based upon your prior discussions with the City of Boise’s happened, and leap-frogging
this whole (inaudible) everything in the middle’s going to be stuck. Now the developer
has and you’ve discussed with him the option of the 12-inch parallel lines. With the
placement of the parallel line, how does that change your recommendation or does it
not change your recommendation?
Watson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, Commissioners, first of all, for the
record, it was the City of Boise, it’s another neighboring city that will remain nameless.
Again, if they parallel this bottlenecked area, there will be increased capacity up to a
finite point. It will accommodate their development. It will accommodate those eleven-
ten, a thousand, eleven hundred hook-ups that we say we have capacity for right now
and a little more. In the short term, it would work. Our concern and Gary’s primary
concern, which I know doesn’t set well with you because you look at these individually
as someone from the audience has alluded to, there are more pieces of ground that will
come into this. And we can’t go through this every couple moths, this whole lift station
issue and doing the model runs and figure out where this is going to be and if this can
be serviced. Gary’s recommendation was that if this was approved that we encompass
that whole area and take care of it right now and not have to do this continually every
time another 80, 40 acres is added – added onto this service area. And also, just for
the record, there’s some questions as to whether we could guarantee capacity in the
Black Cat. To the extent shown on our official planning documents that was approved
by Council in June, we most definitely can assure capacity in the Black Cat. There are
other circumstances around the Nine Mile drain that limits its capacity. It was designed
when the area of impact was not as far out as it is now.
Barbeiro: What would be – you said if we approved this project, that Public Works
would then go back and develop to plan to service the entire area? I didn’t follow that.
That’s Gary’s recommendation?
Watson: Yes. So that we don’t keep doing this 40 or 80 acres at a time. Every time we
do this, it’s a very lengthy analysis, and it consumes a lot of time, and it consumes a lot
of your time, obviously. We’d have to do, basically, a subregional master plan to take
care of this, in our opinion.
Borup: What are you thinking?
Barbeiro: I am really lost with so many options put in front of me and not having a deep
understanding of how the sewer system works, other than what I have learned over the
last two months in our public hearings.
Hatcher: Well, can I confuse it even more?
Barbeiro: Yeah. Please do.
Hatcher: I’d like to get some further clarification from Staff. You recommend, if this was
to be approved, that a lift station be built in proximity of Linder to encompass the square
mile of that area. I understand why you are proposing that, and that way we don’t have
lift station upon lift station and so forth. Anything in that area goes to one lift station and
thus to what’s currently the Ten Mile drainage. But for the entire issue at hand is
whether the Ten Mile drainage can carry this one subdivision, what about the rest of
that square mile? Where’s that coming from?
Watson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher, Commissioners, that’s very true.
Accompanying that subregional master plan would be a plan to build the first portion of
the Black Cat and the Ten Mile relief sewer that could accommodate those discharges,
and that would require much direction from Council, and as a reminder, they have
already directed us to pursue sewering in the north portion of the city, and that is a big
funding obligation right now. It would be a problem.
Hatcher: So, let me, if I understand you correctly, if this project was approved, you’d
recommend – you don’t recommend approval first of all, but if it was approved, a lift
station should be constructed in the approximate location of Linder to accommodate
that square mile. With that being said, your department then would try to allocate funds
or City is obligated to allocate funds so that the Black Cat trunk will be built up to the
portion where the Ten Mile diversion connects to it so that it could carry the additional
capacity?
Watson: That’s our suggestion.
Hatcher: And the half million dollars that would come from this project through the
$1500 per-lot fee would be used to build that portion of the trunk?
Watson: Yes.
Hatcher: Thus, this big problem of where’s the Black Cat trunk coming from would
actually be started?
Watson: Correct. The question would be to Council, do you sacrifice what you have
already directed us to do to fund this option?
Hatcher: That’s a sticky situation.
Barbeiro: It’s stinky, too.
Borup: Any other confusion? Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: Other than we don’t have, we still don’t have a report from ACHD and we
still don’t have staff comments on the project.
Hatcher: That brings up another point I did want to bring up.
Borup: We didn’t have staff comments on the previous one, either.
De Weerd: Well, I think this one’s a little bit larger.
Hatcher: The issue was raised on whether a traffic report was done on this project, and
yes, it was. It was done by Doby Engineering, it’s dated May 28, 1999. Without
reading every bit into it, what I look at here is the basics. Base conditions for the
Meridian Road, south of Overland, it’s south of Overland is rated as A. Overland west
of Meridian is rated as a C, Victory Road west of Meridian is rated as an A, and those
are baseline conditions. Taking into account, if I’m reading this report right, taking into
account the addition of Bear Creek, the Overland/Meridian intersection in all directions
except for one drops from – to a rating of a D, and the best is a C. And then I look at
these other intersections, Victory and Meridian, both east and west bound and
Calderwood and Meridian, both east and west bound drop to a D, an E, and an F. I’m –
I love the project. I think it’s very valuable to the city, but there’s no way that – I mean,
we’ve already heard so much from ACHD that these are unacceptable traffic conditions.
Borup: We do have an ACHD report.
Hatcher: We do.
Borup: Yes. July 29th
was when it was received. It was in the last hearing.
De Weerd: Did we have it at the last hearing? I didn’t get one.
Borup: It was in your packet, yes, from the August 25th
meeting.
Hatcher: I’ve got a – yeah. It’s right here.
Borup: (inaudible) layout ACHD had recommended a couple of stub streets added.
Hatcher: Adding center turn lanes on Stoddard.
Borup: They’ve got a hold –
Hatcher: Yeah (inaudible)
Borup – (inaudible) very sensitive (inaudible) 27 site-specific items.
Hatcher: Yeah. We’re looking at center lanes on Stoddard, center lanes on Overland.
They’re asking for a lot of improvements.
Borup: I think they were looking at the size of the project. Commissioner Barbeiro had
made reference earlier this – so much information and confusion. He asked to one
comment that was made tonight that maybe carries some weight with me was, because
I know I previously had concerns on capacity of the Ten Mile trunk line, this pumping
into it would diminish that capacity. But the aspect of the parallel line at Crestwood
sounds like, if those numbers are correct, would take care of all the capacity of this
subdivision plus some. And so the issue of reducing the capacity on that line, to me,
immediate issue as far as that part is concerned. I’m still concerned on the overall
planning, and, you know, that trunk line needs to get started. But how do you start it
without getting some money and starting somewhere?
Hatcher: Well, I –
Borup: Half a million dollars is a start.
Hatcher: I tend to agree with you on that.
Borup: But the (inaudible) increase of capacity of the Ten Mile is the one factor that I
think is – that was the direction of last time was come up with a solution. I don’t know if
that’s the ideal solution, but that’s a solution. The ideal solution is to build a trunk line.
But $8,000,000 is a different matter.
Hatcher: Well, that’s the question from Staff and maybe legal counsel. Hidden in the
direction that we have discussed for the last 20 minutes, I know Bruce has made the
comment in our last meeting that it would be establishing a precedent, or this could be a
precedent-setting decision. I would certainly hate to establish a precedent because I
think this is a unique condition that I don’t think can be replicated down the line on
another project. I don’t want this leap-frogging and attaching onto one another. Being
that this is at the boundaries between two drainage zones, and it’s eight miles from the
point source of a trunk that doesn’t exist.
Borup: Should we put others on notice not to expect a precedence?
De Weerd: Yes.
Hatcher: Most definitely. No matter what we do, I do not want anyone to construe it as
being a precedent whatever it is that we decide to do.
Borup: Okay. I agree with that. Which brings us to the point: What are we going to
do? I would like to move this along.
Hatcher: I’d like to address this traffic. Maybe mull over the sewer a little bit. Has the
applicant and their engineer had a chance to review in depth the ACHD’s comments
and all the extensive improvements that they are requesting?
Bocutt: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher, yes. We’ve met with ACHD in a
technical review meeting. They give us a draft report which we review, and if we want
to dispute any of their conditions, then we have the ability to go to the commissioners.
We agreed with all their conditions of approval. This went on to the highway district
commissioners, and the project was recommended for approval.
Hatcher: Have your staff or your traffic consultant re-evaluated their traffic study based
upon ACHD’s recommendation? I’m looking at intersection conditions of C, D, E, F with
these ACHD improvements, where do we stand? Has that been looked at?
Bocutt: The turn lane at Overland and Stoddard would obviously increase capacity and
allow for stacking room there on a left-hand turn. The turn lanes on Stoddard would
therefore allow us room for stacking so we didn’t interfere with any traffic because it
currently is a two-lane roadway. As far as the designations on the intersections, some
of them may vary, others may remain the same. We use those designations just
because something is and E or an F, it is still acceptable. That’s what Dave Splett, the
traffic engineer who was evaluating another project, indicated to me. Now, obviously,
we want the optimum. If you’re in your car, you want to be in an A, B or C intersection
because it’s determined by length of time one has to wait.
Hatcher: Yeah, and I understand that. If we want to talk acceptable, a gravel road gets
you from Point A to Point B.
Bocutt: Correct.
Hatcher: Is that acceptable in the middle –
Bocutt: Correct.
Hatcher: -- in downtown Meridian?
Bocutt: So that is the determination. What is an acceptable time one must wait at a
signalized intersection or to make a left-hand turn?
Hatcher: Well, just on a personal note, I drive Overland every day.
*** end of Tape 3, Side A; beginning of Tape 3, Side B ***
I know exactly what I have and I have a pretty good idea what this would do to my
commute. So I have first-hand knowledge of what it’s like.
Bocutt: Commissioner Hatcher, one thing to keep in mind is not all these lots come
online simultaneously. 326 sounds like a very large number, but in reality, you’re
bringing on a phase per year. Phases typically consist anywhere from 40 to 60 lots,
and you typically do a phase per year depending on the market. So this project, I think
at least on the preliminary plat, it states, I believe, there’s six phases, seven phases,
something like that. So the impact, the traffic impact, would – may be different. What
I’m saying, five years down the road. Overland is schedule for rebuild along there, I’ve
been told, from the intersection of Meridian Road westward. The monies from the
impact fee for Roaring Springs, Boondocks, will be utilized to improve that roadway.
That’s what ACHD indicated to me, because I questioned them why were those facilities
allowed to go in, but yet no improvement other than sidewalk was made on Overland
Road? And they indicated, well, we’re taking those impact fees and we’re going to go
in and make improvements on that intersection.
Hatcher: What was their timing and what was the distance to the west that they
indicated to you?
Bocutt: I know that they probably – they’ll have to take it as far as the western border of
that Boondocks facility because that’s on that western border is that entrance.
Hatcher: That doesn’t even get us to Stoddard .
Bocutt: I can’t tell you how far it’s going to go. Right now in their five-year plan, I had
one particular project that its status changed. It swung in a four-year – it was due this
fall, and then they swung it out four more years, then it came back to next year, now it’s
back. They’re telling me that their priorities are changing about every 90 days. That’s
based on, obviously, the need in a particular area, existing hazards, political pressure,
all those factors come into play on where their going to spend those dollars. So for me
to tell you exactly when that’s going to happen, exactly what it’ll consist of, I could not
do that and feel good about it.
Borup: Did that answer your questions, Mr. Hatcher?
Hatcher: Yes.
Borup: Did you have any others?
De Weerd: I do of Becky. Becky, why are you requesting an R-4 rather than an R-3?
Bocutt: R-4 is pretty much the standard, typically what we deal with. The setbacks, I
believe, for the R-3 differ from the R-4, don’t they? Typically we do them for the setback
reasons even though the lots are bigger. Check that; I’m not sure. I don’t think we’ve
ever done an R-3 in Meridian.
De Weerd: Well, you can always do something different, no? Where is Shari? Okay. It
seems like it’d be easier to ask Shari. Did you find it?
Watson: I could maybe answer that question.
Borup: Please do.
Watson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, R-3 requires minimum lot area of
12,000 square feet, front-yard setback of 25, rear-yard setbacks 15, interior side is 7-
1/2 per story, side street is 20 feet, minimum street frontage is 90 feet.
Bocutt: We do have some lots that drop below the 12,000 square-foot. We have some
that are not as wide as 90. We have others that meet or exceed. And that setback,
that front setback’s 25 whereas the R-4 is twenty, I believe; 20, 15, and 5 instead of 7-
1/2, isn’t it?
Watson: That’s correct.
Bocutt: Is that correct? So do we need the R-4 density? No. We do not. But we have
some lots that fall within the R-4 standards. So that is why we requested that particular
zone.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borup: Okay, Commissioners. It’s now 11:38.
Cotell: Can someone still ask a question?
Borup: Public hearing’s still open if you’d like to come up. Especially if you think it’d
help move things on.
Cotell: Yes. I’ve got a question for Becky.
Borup: Could you state your name, please.
Cotell: My name is Will Cotell, I live at 2875 Stoddard Road. Becky says they’re putting
a turning lane on Stoddard and one on Overland. How’s that going to help people
trying to get off of Victory onto the Kuna Road or off of Overland onto Meridian Road, or
Meridian Kuna Road? How’s that going to help the traffic there? I don’t see any tie in
at all. We’ve got people trying to get on that Meridian Kuna Road off of Victory right
now, and we’ve had so many people killed there already, and that gentleman right there
is talking about the ratings with that intersections. Somebody ought to pay attention to
him.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Atkins: I’ll be short, I promise. Joan Atkins, 400 West Victory. I’m the one being
surrounded. Just for the record, in accordance with the special hearing and your
directions to Staff, comments were supposed to have been prepared by Planning and
Zoning for this meeting. They were supposed to have been prepared in writing by the
tenth of September. I made that phone call directly after the special meeting that said
they would be ready in writing so that as a member of the public, we could review those
and respond to them as well. I know the sewer is a huge issue, but there are other
issues we’d like to have addressed on this project. There are some things that affect
our life on a day-to-day basis. I don’t want my pond to become the sewer treatment
facility, please, but I’m also interested in the other things that have to do with this
project. This is a big project. I can’t imagine there’s not one written comment. I looked
at the (inaudible) yesterday morning. There’s nothing but sewer. There isn’t anything
else that’s been addressed because, frankly, I think Staff believes that issue is so
overwhelming because there is a master plan that has been carefully engineered,
carefully thought through, that that issue was so overwhelming with the sewer, they
don’t even address the other ones. Haven’t even gone to analyze them because their
allocated their time as expeditiously as possible. So I’d hate to have a decision made
when we haven’t had a chance to have their analysis. They’re knowledgeable in this
area. We haven’t even seen that. You haven’t seen it. So I’d like to go on the record to
say there’s nothing to review because it doesn’t exist. Thank you.
Borup: Just a comment. We have seen it since last April. We’ve been looking at it,
but --
Atkins: There’s no – excuse me.
Borup: We haven’t seen the staff comments, but we’ve seen the applications, and
we’ve seen the submittals.
Montgomery: I’m Dennis Montgomery, 855 West Seasonal Creek Lane, and on the
accounting on this, I think there’s been one thing that’s been missed. We keep talking
about the half million dollars that’s going to be (inaudible) in the fund, but he’s already
stated that if he puts in that extension and 12-inch line, he wants credit for that. He
can’t afford to do both. If he does that, you only going to have $300,000, not half a
million dollars for that Black Cat extension.
Borup: (inaudible) requirements this Commission recommends
Montgombery: Pardon?
Borup: (inaudible) requirements this Commission recommends. Commissioners.
De Weerd: Well, I would just state again, I would prefer to have staff comments. In
addition to this other woman, I agree. This is a big project.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I would like to concur with Commissioner De Weerd and move
that we continue the public hearing.
Borup: With – any instructions to Staff?
De Weerd: To have staff comments?
Watson: I guess I would, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would add to that that
it’s literally impossible for us to, and for this Commission, to adequately address or even
consider approving this project at this point without staff comments beyond the sewer
issue. I mean, apparently Staff considered the fact that sewer would be dispositive of
this particular application, and that there would be no consideration for approval, but
without staff comments, I can’t prepare a recommendation. We’re going to have to go
through a laundry-list like we did on the last application as to what the appropriate
conditions are going to be, and it’s 11:38 now. Well, we’re going to need a lot more time
to go through all these conditions that Staff is going to recommend over and above the
sewer issue. So it’s kind of tied your hands for the large part if you’re considering
improving the project. My recommendation, I agree with Commissioner Barbeiro, is this
project needs to be continued to the next public hearing date so that we can get staff
comments, and the public can review those staff comments, and the developer can
review the staff comments, and they can be prepared to address them in a public
hearing.
Borup: Okay. That sounds reasonable. It’s hard to say if it’s going to be considered at
all, we need the staff comments. If the commissioners are not looking to consider at all,
then that decision can be made tonight.
Watson: Yeah. I think that’s fair. If the inclination is to move to the – if there’s a motion
to deny the project, I think that can fairly be heard today, but if there’s no motion to
deny, I think it needs to be continued.
Borup: Did someone start a motion earlier?
Barbeiro: I did begin a motion to continue the public hearing with direction to Staff to
have staff comments prepared; although, they have been called expeditious.
Borup: Okay. To October 12th
meeting. That’s our next meeting. It does have a full
agenda.
Hatcher: Yeah. Put it on the top of the list.
Rossman: Okay. Mr. Chairman, do we want to – I was going to say do we want to
close the public hearing and just table the decision, but with the staff comments, people
are going to need to address them and testify. Please remember that your testimony
will carry over to the next proceedings, so you don’t need to show up and provide the
same testimony. If you have something new to offer, certainly feel free to appear and
provide that new testimony and address the staff comments that are provided.
Borup: Okay, Commissioner Barbeiro, did you want to finish your – did you finish your
motion?
Barbeiro: I believe so.
Borup: Did I hear a second?
De Weerd: No.
Borup: I know. I would like to.
Hatcher: I’d like to add to that. I’d like to have some feedback from Parks and
Recreation on this project since they’re being given a park. I do not recall, nor can I find
anything from that department.
Borup: That’d be a good point. We normally don’t ask for their comments.
Hatcher: No, but on this one I’d like to see it.
Watson: There also could be recommendation that the developer have their traffic
study updated in light of the recommendation of the Ada County Highway District for the
next hearing if that is a particular concern of Commissioner Hatcher.
Borup: Would you like to add to your motion?
Hatcher: Absolutely. Yes, absolutely. Maybe even get Larry here to address it. He
loves coming here, I know.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Hatcher: And I’ll second it with the amendments.
Barbeiro: And I do concur with Commissioner Hatcher (inaudible)
Borup: Add to your motion? Okay.
Barbeiro: (inaudible)
Borup: (inaudible) concurrent seconds? Do we have any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. It has been continued to the October 12th
regular meeting. Okay. Now,
Commissioners, I’m very concerned about the hour and the amount of people that are
here.
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.
(CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 12, 1999)
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
De Weerd: Perhaps we should move Items 11, 12 and 13. First we would like to – I
would move to continue No. 4 to – when did we –
Borup: Item No. 4
De Weerd: To October 12th
.
Borup: -- continued public hearing, preliminary plat. Okay. Now would you like to
make your motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for the preliminary
plat for Bear Creek to October 12th
.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: The motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF PROPOSED
SALMON RAPIDS NO. 5—BY FARWEST, LLC—22 BUILDING LOTS ON 6.55
ACRES NORTH OF VICTORY & WEST OF LOCUST GROVE ROAD
(ACCEPT WITHDRAW FROM APPLICANT)
Borup: Then get through Item No. 5. We have a letter in our packet (inaudible) the
applicant requesting withdrawal of this application. I guess I need to open the public
hearing.
Barbeiro: Is it necessary to open a public hearing when I –
Borup: Well, then we can recognize the withdrawal, I believe.
Barbeiro: As you wish.
Borup: I’m not sure.
Barbeiro: Since it was been renewed, do we need to open public hearing?
Borup: Yes. If the public hearing’s already been continued, it’s already been opened,
so –
Barbeiro: Okay.
Borup: The next person to testify, step forward, I guess.
Hatcher: I don’t think we need anybody to testify. They’ve asked a request for
withdrawal of the application.
Borup; Oh, Okay. I’m sorry.
Hatcher: We need to accept that withdrawal, I believe.
Borup: That’s fine.
Hatcher: Will that handle it?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borup: Better make a motion.
Hatcher: Motion that we accept the proposed withdrawal.
Borup: Thank you.
Barbeiro: Second.
Borup: Oh. Motion to second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Where’s Commissioner Brown?
Borup: Oh. Someone needs (inaudible) come back in. Could we see – we apologize
for the lateness of this hour, and we want to be – it looks like a lot of members have left,
and we want to try to be fair, and our quandary is to accommodate people in the order
that the applications are taken or try to accommodate the majority of the people here. I
don’t know if we’ve reached a solution to that. It does look like the rest of this stuff,
hopefully, is going to move along fairly swift. Commissioners, are you in a mindset to
do that?
Barbeiro: (inaudible) on a one-by-one basis and see how long each one takes.
De Weerd: Well, it says here use permits are generally pretty quick.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR HOME
DAYCARE BY DARCY ROBERTSON – 1458 N. HAVEN COVE AVENUE:
(PREPARE F/F & C/L FOR OCTOBER 12TH MEETING)
Borup: Let’s see if we can move – let’s take these first next couple in order and see if
we move through them fairly fast. I No. 6 public hearing, request for accessory use
permit for home daycare by Darcy Robertson. We have staff comments? Shari, are
there any – is there anything that you’d like to add to your comments?
Stiles: No, sir.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, any questions? Is the applicant here would like to
stand? Okay. We have your application. At this point, it sounds like the commissioners
don’t have too many questions. Would you like to introduce yourself and we’re go from
there?
Robertson: Okay. I’m Darcy Robertson, I live at 1458 North Haven Cove Avenue, and
I’ve had a chance to review the staff comments, and I guess the main thing that I
wanted to talk about is No. 2; the objection filed by the subdivision’s protective
covenants forbid any business within the subdivision. I’ve got a copy of our covenants.
I don’t know if you have a copy of that.
De Weerd: No.
Robertson: It says –
Borup: Did you notice the second half of that statement No. 2?
Robertson: Yes, I did.
Borup: That Meridian does not really have any jurisdiction?
Robertson: Yes, I did. So maybe we don’t even need to address it. I don’t know. We
can move this really quick if we need to. I just wanted to say that it says that no
business shall be conducted on the above property unless legally permitted under the
existing and prevailing zone restrictions. And we’re an R-4, which I – we’re able to
watch up to five children for a family daycare. And I am not even going to be watching
five children. And it would be mostly with parents that are within the subdivision, so
there wouldn’t be extra traffic and all of that stuff, so, I guess that’s all I really needed to
say.
Borup: Okay. Any questions for Darcy? Did you say you were – less than five?
Robertson: Uh-huh.
Borup: Four?
Robertson: Less than five. Three.
Borup: Three. And how many of the parents are in the subdivision?
Robertson: Well, right now, I’m watching my cousin’s little girl, and two of the parents –
two more of the parents that I may watch live in the subdivision.
Borup: Okay. So that’d only be one outside the subdivision, then?
Robertson: Exactly.
Borup: Thank you. No other questions. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone
from the public that would like to stand and address the Commission? See none.
Commissioners?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: We have a motion to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: I move that we recommend the City Council. Excuse me. We don’t
recommend the City Council.
De Weerd: No. Prepare findings.
Barbeiro: Yes. Thank you. I move that we prepare findings for the request for
accessory use permit for the home daycare by Darcy Robertson at 1458 North Haven
Cove Avenue with staff comments.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: There’s a motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you. Now, that’s more like it.
Hatcher: I’ll schedule the review of the findings on this for October 12th
; is that fair?
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD ON AN
ATTACHED 2 CAR GARAGE AND 1 BAY CARPORT AND REMOVE OR RELOCATE
EXISTING SMALL DETACHED GARAGE-BY MEL OR DEBI LACY—1414 N.
MERIDIAN ROAD, 3 BLOCKS SOUTH OF CHERRY LANE ON EAST SIDE:
(APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
Borup: Item No. 7, public hearing request for condition use permit to add an
attached two-car garage and one bay carport. A removal or relocate existing
structure by Mel or Debi Lacy. Shari, do you have any comments on this item?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, did you get the comments that we have
dated September 13th
? I don’t have anything to add to that. I can put up a
transparency of the site plan that was submitted, if you’d like.
Borup: Any questions for Shari? See none. Does the applicant here like to
address this commission?
Lacy: Mel Lacy at 1414 North Meridian Road. I’d just like to add on the garage
and carport to accommodate better parking off the road, ease the driveway
situation with my neighbor to the south of me, and to be able to utilize my lot a lot
better. It’s a deep lot, it’s 60 feet wide but 210 feet deep, and it’s kind of hard to
get into the back with the way the existing building sits there. I’d like to use that ;
either tear it down or relocate it in the back as a storage building. But it’d be nice
to have indoor parking for our cars. That’s about it.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from the Commission?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Mel, have you seen the Staff report and their comments?
Lacy: No, I have not.
Brown: Would you look at this and make sure that there’s not any problems that
you’re going to have with that.
Lacy: I guess I wasn’t aware of on Item No. 1, I didn’t realize there was a – well,
I did have a fax. I though I drew in there a five-foot setback on the boundary on
the south. I guess my plan maybe didn’t show that, but I thought that I had it in
the same existing line as the existing house.
Brown: Your sketch addresses –
Lacy: Oh. On the south. I’m sorry. That existing – yeah. That’s going to be –
that’s the one I’d like to remove.
Borup: Yeah. That’s referring to the existing garage. By moving that takes care
of that problem.
Lacy: I might even turn that into a studio apartment. It’s just a garage and that’s
– just would just be left as a storage if I did move it. If not allowed to move it, it
would definitely go. I want to back to the back of the property.
Borup: Mr. Brown, was there any specific items that you had a concern on?
Brown: There was like a question on one of the items (inaudible). No. 3 where
the Staff wasn’t sure of the intent.
Lacy: Oh. That’s strictly just carport. I have a boat and a utility trailer I’d like to
store in there, if I’m looking at it right. About closing it in?
Brown: And I just didn’t want to approve the conditions without you having the
ability to see what they were recommending as not a secret combination up here
or anything, but you at least know what was going on.
Lacy: Item No. 4, I guess I need a little clarification of what that is.
Borup: Oh yes. That came up last time, I remember.
Lacy: Right. And I thought we had that addressed, but –
Borup: Just make a note of that again.
Lacy: From my understanding with Gary Smith before was everybody’s on their
own to have their own sewer line. It shouldn’t be tied into mine.
Borup: And the building’s not going to be over the top of the sewer line?
Lacy: The building – my building would be over top of mine unless if I need to
relocate it, then (inaudible)
Borup: Yeah. It looks like you don’ t have any buildings out along the property
lines anyway that affect that.
Lacy: Pardon? I didn’t –
Borup: You don’t have any buildings out in the back that would affect that
anyway, it looks like.
Lacy: Right.
Borup: Thank you. Any other – it sounds like the only thing of all the staff
comments, the only one that maybe you had a question on was closing in the
carport? You’re saying that’s not going to have cars parked there? It’s going to
be trailer storage?
Lacy: Trailer. Utility trailer, 14-foot utility trailer.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone from
the public that’d like to – yes, ma’am.
Mahnken: Hi. Jody Mahnken from 1422 North Meridian Road. I’m next door.
October 20th
, 1998, there was a condition use permit granted to Lacys to convert
his garage to a bedroom and bath. I believe it has been done because I know
people, his daughter goes and spends the night in there.
Borup: But this is a building he wants to tear down.
Mahnken: Yes. So I just wanted to make sure that – is it going to be inhabited
after it’s moved, and when it’s moved, will it be brought up to code? The other
thing is that Mr. Lacy’s house has a basement and a top floor. The basement
has its separate entrance, actually two separate entrances. If, in the future, he
sells that, that could be done as a rental unit; the upstairs could be also a
separate rental unit, and then if that garage is – which has the bathroom and
bedroom could also be converted to a studio apartment, that would put three
rental units on that property which would impact the neighborhood. On August
31st
, 1998, the Planning and Zoning, I can read it, what he wanted to do initially
was build on a bedroom. I just want to make sure that this is truly going to be a
garage and not be converted into a bedroom for his family, and I can read this,
but it’s from your minutes. Okay, and will the pool be five feet from the existing
boundary line? I didn’t see that. I have submitted just for the record a copy of
the 1955 sewer easement for the file, and I want to submit a copy of the warranty
deed which I found in my search from September 24th
, 1963 which could clarify
some more boundaries and building structures. I’m not familiar with the
interpretation of it. My sewer line, I do have my own sewer line, and it does pass
over his property one foot. May I give you this?
Borup: Are you concerned that him adding this garage is going to affect your
sewer line?
Mahnken: Well, I just – there was something that needed to be stated. I just
wanted to show you for the record where my line was located. Fred located my
line for me, and he painted a green line.
Borup: Okay. I’m not sure what pertinence that has to do with the application.
Mahnken: Well, if he’s putting the – well, okay. Let me just tell you. My sewer
line has been there since 1955.
Borup: And you said it goes one foot over his property?
Mahnken: Yes.
Borup: He doesn’t have any buildings that affect that?
Mahnken: Right, but I just wanted to make a condition of acceptance that the
permissible easement be stated and that the clean-out be accessible so the
sewer line can be cleaned out, and I do have photos and a plat map, and Fred
showed me where my line was and where the Lacy’s line was.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Commission?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: With regards to her discussion about the possibility of turning his
basement or upstairs into an apartment; would he not have to, or the new owner,
have to come the Planning and Zoning Commission for an auxiliary lawn permit?
Borup: Yeah. There – establish as a duplex or something. It wouldn’t be
approved. That correct? Wouldn’t be approved now as a multi-family unit?
Stiles: If they relocate that garage, the other conditional use is null and void if
they have converted that garage into a living unit now, it’s not legal because
there were no building permits issued for it. So we’ll have the Building
Department go out there and check it out prior to any permits being issued.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Anyone else from the public? Mr. Lacy, I
have one question for you. At least one. Just for the record, the garage is built
for storing cars?
Lacy: Correct.
Borup: Okay. And the other garage is going to be moved to the (inaudible)
proposing to tear down and move, that would be strictly as storage, you say?
Lacy: Correct.
Borup: Okay. And is there any problem with accessibility for your neighbor to
get at the clean-out for her sewer line?
Lacy: No.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Lacy? That’s all I have.
Lacy: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioners.
Hatcher: I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion to second to close the public hearing. Any
discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I move that we recommend to City Council the conditional use permit
for the two-car garage and one bay carport to be constructed by Mel and Debi
Lacy. The only clarification that I’d ask on that motion is that we just state for the
record that in addition to the staff comments that the relocation of the existing
pool comply with the five-foot setbacks that are standard to UBC.
Borup: Does that apply to an above-ground pool?
Barbeiro: Any permanent structure has to stay (inaudible)
Hatcher: Well, it’s not (inaudible)
Borup: Shari, do you have a comment?
Stiles: They do require a building permit.
Borup: For an above-the-ground pool?
Lacy: I do have one and they’re working (inaudible) the setback.
Hatcher: There wasn’t a setback at all on the pool? Shari, can you clarify that?
Stiles: They would need to get another building permit. I don’t think the one that
they had was valid. I mean, it would (inaudible) for relocation, so they’d have to
come back in and they would also have to get a certificate of zoning compliance
which would mean they’d have to comply with whatever your conditional use
requirements were.
Hatcher: But the – the standard five-foot setback requirement does not apply to
a pool?
Stiles: The CC zone, which is what they’re in, it may have zero side yard
setback. But when they came in with their plans, we will require the five-foot
setback if that’s what your approval is. That’s (inaudible)
Hatcher: Strike that condition.
Borup: Okay. That’s what’s different here is the CC zone.
Hatcher: Okay.
Borup: It’s not a regular residential zone.
Stiles: And they need to comply with whatever their site plan is that they’ve
submitted.
Hatcher: Okay. I’ll just clarify my motion that we approve it based upon staff
comments.
Borup: All staff comments, even closing – how about closing in the carport?
Hatcher: I don’t see that that’s required.
Borup: So all staff comments except for that.
Hatcher: Except for that, yes.
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: Motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT
STORAGE UNITS ON UNUSED PORTION OF COMMERCIAL LOT BY BERTA
WAGNER—NW CORNER OF MERIDIAN RD AND TAYLOR AVE:
(APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
Borup: Item No. 8, public hearing request for conditional use permit to construct
storage units on unused portion of commercial lot by Berta Wagner. Do we have
a staff report on –
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, our report is dated today. We had nothing
in addition to the ten site-specific requirements basically just to comply with all
ordinance requirements, and also as Meridian Road is an entryway corridor, that
we have approved no signage with this application and that that signage will be
subject to design review.
Borup; Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Shari? Is the applicant here? Sir,
have you had a chance to see the staff comments?
Millick: Yes, sir. I have.
Borup: Okay.
Millick: My name is Ron Millick. I’m the contractor for this project. I’m
representing the applicant. I live at 1411 East Fairway in Eagle. We have
reviewed the comments of Staff, and we don’t have any problems with any of
them. We know we have to do all that. We’ll just go through those – all the
hoops we need to as we go through it.
Borup: I like a short answer. Thank you. Any questions? All right. Thank you,
sir. Do we have anyone from the public that would like to comment on this
application? If so, stand up and address the commission.
Foldesi: My name is Karoly Foldesi living at 3915 North Ten Mile Road right next
to this main property –
Borup: This is on Meridian Road, sir.
Foldesi: Oh. This is not the one? I’m sorry.
Borup: Okay. We’ll be coming to you next.
De Weerd: We’re almost there.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion to second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: What’s your pleasure?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to City Council request for
condition use permit to construct storage units on unused portion of partial lot by
Berta Wagner, northwest corner of Meridian Road and Taylor Avenue --
De Weerd: I second –
Barbeiro: -- with staff comments.
De Weerd: I second that.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion to second. All in favor? Any discussion? All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND REZONE FOR TEN MILE
MINI STORAGE BY ED BEWS—WEST OF TEN MILE AND NORTH OF USTICK
ROAD:
(APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
Borup: Item No. 9, public hearing to request for annexation and rezone of Ten
Mile Mini Storage by Ed Bews.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Mr. Bews has hired my firm to represent him and I need to step down.
Borup: Okay. (inaudible) Shari, we do have staff comments. Is there anything
in particular you’d like to point out?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, just to give you some reference of where
this is at, this is Ten Mile Road. This is the wastewater treatment plant. Crease
and lateral runs through here, and that’s where the proposed storage units are. I
don’t have anything to add to our comments dated today.
Borup: Okay. The applicant is here, I think they’d like to make a presentation.
Becky, are you getting your feel for how this meeting is moving, now?
Bocutt: Yes, sir. Becky Bocutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland.
Please take my comments for – this is Item 9; include them in Item 10 for the
record so I only have to get up here one time. Mini Storage facility, Shari indicate
is next to the wastewater treatment plant. We have no sewer capacity issues on
this one. The treatment plant is currently zoned I-L. We are asking for an I-L
designation also, reason being only the I-L and the C-G zone have historically
have been allowed to have mini-storage. I did submit a conditional use
application with this to give the Commission added review because I didn’t want
this being a principal permitted use. We’ve got 164,904 square feet of mini
storage; perimeter landscaping right here, 6-1/2 feet along here. The new no-
name trunk will come through here, exit the property at Ten Mile. This is the
crease and lateral runs here, 20 feet of landscaping along the eastern boundary
next to Ten Mile Road. ACHD has reviewed the project and approved it; these
are low traffic generators; they make good neighbors for treatment plants, and
they’re compatible with residential and other –
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Foldesi would like to look at that and maybe someone
else. Okay. Go ahead.
Bocutt: Staff’s comments, received those. We have reviewed them. For the
record, Item 1 discusses piping the crease and lateral. Staff references 9605;
that’s in the subdivision ordinance. The reason for piping the laterals is typically
ditch safety. I’ve got the treatment plant on one side and I’m going to have my
mini-storage with my buildings backing up to the crease and lateral. If you want
Council to address that, that’s fine. I just want to go on the record that we
disagree with Item 1 – or Condition 1. General requirements –
Borup: (inaudible) then we’ll give you a chance.
Bocutt: Only other condition is Condition No. 13. According to Shari, the code
asks for one tree per 1500 square foot of asphalt. Doesn’t delineate between
different types of uses. That’s 200 trees. I don’t have enough room for 200
trees, so we ask that No. 13 be removed. Shari addresses the landscaping in
No. 15 asking for trees along the eastern boundary 40 feet apart and trees – and
then you could include trees along the eastern boundary next to Ten Mile, same
distance apart would come to a total of 68 trees if we put them 40 feet apart as
Staff has asked, if I go with the 1500 square foot, I got 200 trees I got to find
places to put, and I don’t have that kind of room in a mini-storage facility. So the
perimeter landscaping is what’s important. That’s end.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions? None from the Commissioners. Shari,
would you have any comment on those two items? On the trees and on the
drainage?
Stiles: Just to let Ms. Bocutt be aware that the part about the tiling of the
ditchers, that is a subdivision and development ordinance that includes
performance standards for all development, not just subdivisions.
Bocutt: But when you’re – when I read the ordinance, it just kept talking about
subdivisions. Subdividers and so forth.
Stiles: But it’s also included under the performance standards for any
development, so –
Bocutt: So would we be required to submit a variance?
Stiles: Variances, they don’t have variances for those now. That’s a waiver at
City Council.
Bocutt: So that’s an issue with City Council. Fine.
Stiles: You’ll have to make your case with them. And as far as the 200 trees, I
would love to see 200 trees there, but it is unrealistic –
Bocutt: That’s a tree farm.
Stiles: -- for a storage facility. None of the storage facilities that we have, have
we ever required that. That was basically taken by one of my staff directly out of
the ordinances as a requirement, and we would look favorably on reducing that
requirement in this case. We did have another comment made under general
requirements that we could support leaving that ditch open provided they have
some kind of – make that a lawn area or some attractive treatment between the
buildings on the south and that crease and lateral.
Barbeiro: Could we take a gander at that proposal (inaudible)
Borup: Get your mike.
Barbeiro: Could I take a look – a gander at the proposed landscaping again?
Borup: It’s on your other sheet.
Bocutt: The important thing, this is an unplatted, undeveloped parcel, currently
agricultural with a single-family dwelling to the north of us. This is Ten Mile here.
The crease and lateral is here. The easement for the crease and lateral is
extending into here, running back behind this building; therefore, to plant trees
within an easement of a ditch is bad, according to the Irrigation District. So if –
and our neighbor there is the treatment facility.
De Weerd: You can put it on their side.
Bocutt: On the treatment plant side? As far as what we’re going to do behind
the building, Shari’s recommended that we do something that’s aesthetically
pleasing. Our prefers would be not to have something too manicured, but
something that would be lower maintenance behind the building; maybe some
red fescue, something along that lines. We’d consult, obviously, a landscape
architect for his recommendations. I hate to have (inaudible) behind the
buildings. And it’s – and they’d have a tendency to probably –
De Weerd: As long as it’s maintained and watered so whatever you plant back
there doesn’t stand there and die.
Bocutt: If you’ve got some of those drought-resistant varieties, they seem to do
well. You can irrigate them minimally, and we’ll have to irrigate, provide
pressurized irrigation or underground sprinklers for the landscaped areas that
are required. So you could hook it up there, and we’ve got an existing well on
the property, also, that we’re going to use as a second source.
Barbeiro: With the current easement on the drainage, how much room do you
have between the easement and the buildings? Have you slammed it right up
against the easement?
Bocutt: As you can see, this waterway varies. It’s meandering 30 feet. I believe
it’s 30 feet, and it’s meandering, so at some points, it is – the building is just on
the other side. The buildings do not encroach within the easement. Where there
are some areas that we have room, we’re going to pipe some of our strong
drainage and have some retention in some swells back in this area. Staff does
not want any drainage out here which we haven’t planned for it. It would go back
in this area here and then in some of these enlarged areas there. Be piped
under the buildings because you do got a lot of large surface area that we need
to retain that storm drainage on site.
De Weerd: And that’s why you don’t have trees back there?
Bocutt: Yep. For the record, yes.
Borup: Anything else?
De Weerd: No.
Borup: This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone who’d like to address the
Commission?
Foldesi: Yes. I have a question. My name is Karoly Foldesi. I live at 3915
North Ten Mile Road. Right next to them.
Borup: Okay.
Foldesi: And I will question, what is that represents this –
Bocutt: Typically that represents some type of structure.
Foldesi: What is it?
Bocutt: Is it on your side? Looks like it’s on your side. Yes. It’s on your side.
Foldesi: Okay.
Bocutt: Yes, it was close to the perimeter so they show it.
Foldesi: Okay. I have a question about the trees (inaudible) big trees that are
right be the – exactly north – property line, and they are all the trees. What they
planning to do with those? I hope they not trying to cut them down.
Borup: The trees are over the property line?
Foldesi: No. They are right in the property line.
Borup: They’re near the property line.
Foldesi: Uh-huh.
Borup: Okay, I think –
Foldesi: I don’t want those trees to be cut down.
Borup: Okay. Any other concerns?
Foldesi: Another thing is the irrigation –
Borup: Are those existing trees, Shari?
Stiles: Yeah.
Borup: All right.
Stiles: They’re shown on the –
Borup: Oh. Okay. Sir.
Foldesi: Yeah.
Borup: See those four that she’s showing there? Those are the trees you’re
talking about?
Foldesi: Yeah.
Borup: And they’re planning on leaving those.
Foldesi. Okay. Just making sure that –
Borup: Yeah. That’s why they drew it. They drew it right on the plat that way.
Bocutt: They fall right in a landscaped area.
Foldesi: Okay. Another thing is the irrigation ditch. Are they going to cover it up
or leave it open? No front
*** end of Tape 3, Side B; beginning of Tape 4, Side A ***
Bocutt: For the record, any irrigation ditches that traverse the property that
service your parcel, we need to pike those, and we cannot disrupt your irrigation
or any drainage ditches that traverse us and carry drainage onward, beyond us.
Under state law, we have to coordinate that and provide that to you.
Foldesi: Okay. I just wanted to make sure.
Borup: Okay. That’s why we have these hearings. So that will be provided.
Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to address this commission? Okay.
Commissioners, this is Item No. 9. This is a request for annexation and rezone.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I actually had an idea for Becky where she could put
those trees. We have some local elementary schools who would love to have
trees. Just down the road.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I move that we close the public hearing.
Borup: Thank you.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion to second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do you wish to make a motion on this now or wait for the conditional use?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I move that we recommend to City Council annexation
and rezone for the Ten Mile Mini Storage to include all staff comments.
Barbeiro: All staff comments including the 200 trees?
De Weerd: Yeah. To be used off site. No.
Hatcher: You can’t do that.
Borup: (inaudible) verbal comments.
De Weerd: Yeah. What number was that?
Borup: Item No. 9. Oh. The staff comment on the trees? That was Item 13. Item No.
13 under conditional use comments, but we’re on annexation and zoning. That was a
conditional use comment.
De Weerd: Okay. So I don’t need to –
Borup: No, you don’t.
De Weerd: -- include that.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MINI
STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF NINE BUILDINGS AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING/OFFICE BY ED BEWS --WEST OF TEN MILE AND NORTH OF USTICK
ROAD:
(APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
Borup: Item No. 10 a request for conditional use permit for mini storage consisting of
nine buildings and one single-family dwelling office by Ed Bews. Shari, any other
comments?
Stiles: No, sir.
Borup: Do we have any additional comments from the applicant? She shook her head
no, and she already incorporated her previous testimony into this application. Do we
have anyone from the public who’d like to comment or testify?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion to second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do we have a motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval for the conditional use
permit for Mini Storage facility by Ed Bews to incorporate all staff comments with the
exception of Comment No. 13 under conditional use, specific comment.
Borup: Do I hear a second?
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: The motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING FOR MULTI-
FAMILY TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED OFFICE FOR VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION BY GOLD RIVER COMPANIES, INC.—NE CORNER OF PINE STREET
AND TEN MILE ROAD:
(APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL)
Borup: Thank you. The crowd has dwindled, and I appreciate you people staying there
at this late hour. We are here for public hearing, Item No. 11, request for annexation
and zoning for multi-family townhouse residential and limited office for Valeri Heights
Subdivision by Gold River Companies, Inc., northeast corner of Pine and Ten Mile.
Shari.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is for a property located on the northeast
corner of Pine and Ten Mile. There is an existing R-4 subdivision that has just been
constructed to the north there. It is called Thunder Creek. There’s R-T, rural residential
home on this parcel here, these are still all rural residential properties and farm
properties. This is also still in the county across the Ten Mile to the west and kitty-
corner is still rural property in the county. Pine Street pretty much dead ends here.
There is a dirt road that extends back here, and it goes on the south side in the area of
Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary School.
Hatcher: Excuse me, Shari, Mr. Chairman. Should we be inviting Mr. Brown back in?
Stiles: That’s a good idea.
Borup: I’m (inaudible), yes. Someone needs to pay attention to that. Probably
somebody besides me. Okay. Mr. Brown has rejoined us.
Stiles: Just to reiterate for Commissioner Brown, there is an existing subdivision here
called Thunder Creek, (inaudible) Cove Subdivision over here, there’s a phase of this.
This is eight mile lateral that runs along here. These are all county property, other
properties are all county properties that’s either being farmed or their rural-residential
parcels. The applicant has requested annexation and zoning with the zone of L-O in
this area next to the intersection and requests R-15 for the remainder of the property.
I’ll cover both the annexation and the zoning and the conditional use as part of my
comments right now.
Borup: Thank you.
Stiles: And the plat. You have a copy of our comments. We have received responses
from the applicant. I hope that you all got a copy of those comments, those responses.
They’re proposing 158 units of apartments; also showing a couple of townhouse units
next to Ten Mile Road. They have more townhouse apartments – townhouses –
another four townhouses over in this corner.
De Weerd: I didn’t pick up my box, so I don’t have these three.
Stiles: Oh. You don’t have the responses.
De Weerd: So I asked him if he’d go get it.
Stiles: The major concerns Staff had with this proposal was the density adjacent to
some of these rural-residential parcels. There’s quite a large house on this parcel here.
Also the fact that all the units are connected to a great extent, that doesn’t allow any
view through the property to see some of the – maybe some of the amenities inside that
they’re proposing for their common area. They do not meet the setback requirements
for the retail building in an L-O zone; that would be 30 feet from the required right-of-
way. They have made an attempt to do some sort of buffering adjacent to the single-
family residential by having single-story units. We also had a concern about the tandem
parking that they’re showing. They’re showing garages, single-car garages with their
parking space directly behind them. It might work out in some situations, but a lot of
situations we could see where that could be a real problem and end in a lot of jockeying
around of vehicles. The other real concern we have with this project is the intersection.
Ten Mile and Pine is horrendous at times now without this additional traffic; particularly
when high school gets out, there’s traffic that extends, I’ve seen at least a half mile from
that intersection. The buses use that route, and with only a two-lane roadway, you can
wait quite a long time if you’re attempting to turn from Pine south onto Ten Mile Road if
you’re behind a bus. Also with this stub drain, the Ten Mile stub drain, bisects this
corner, it is very dangerous. There have been cars that end up being in that drainage.
Ada County Highway District has made absolutely no requirement for any sort of
improvement on that intersection. So with that, that’s our main concerns with the
project. Looks like a few people here.
Borup: Any questions for Shari? Say none at this time. Thank you. The applicant
here like to address the commission? Mr. Unger?
Unger: You were having so much fun, I thought I’d stick around for some more.
Borup: Good.
Unger: Mr. Chairman and Commission members, my name is Bob Unger. I’m with
Pinnacle Engineers. We represent the applicant on this project who is Golden River
Companies, Inc. Our address is 870 North Linder Road, Suite B, Meridian, Idaho
83642. I think Shari is fairly well summarized the project. I don’t want to hold you folks
here very long this evening, but then again I don’t want to rush through the project. I
want you to be totally aware of the project, all the points of the project, and I hope we
can all stay awake long enough to catch all of it and review it appropriately. We do
have people here in opposition; not nearly as many as we had when we started. As
Shari stated, we are proposing 158 apartment units, six townhouse lots, one
commercial lot, and we have three landscape lots in the project. I think what the first
thing we need to review with you, and if I can, I’m going to move over to this podium
over here. As you look at the project, to the north – we’ve reviewed this project with
Planning and Zoning administrator for the last five months. We have made
modifications and changes. We have made five different changes, major changes to
this project in response to the administrators’ comments as we’ve been working with the
staff through this project. So based upon some of the input we’ve received, we’re
providing two townhouses (inaudible) townhouse slots here and four over here. These
are apartment units here. They are one-story apartment units. These apartment units
over here, these are two-story with one story on either end to give it a breakup – to kind
of break up the monotony of all two-story structures.
Stiles: The lines.
Unger: Sorry about that. We do have two and three-story units over here. The
interior has three-story units and there are some three-story units over in this area. We
are providing substantial open-space area here that exceeds the City’s requirements for
open space. In there, we are providing for a clubhouse which will can be used for
banquets, et cetera. There will be exercise equipment, et cetera, like that in there. We
will be providing a pool here, volleyball court here, we are providing a pond area here,
and somewhat of a pond-moat type situation with an island in the middle with a gazebo
which leads to the clubhouse. This can be used for parties, weddings, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera, for the residents within the development, and this is solely for use of
the residents within the development itself. The parking that Shari was discussing, we
are providing garages, and they’re a little bit hard to see on this, but garages for the
individual units, and these would be the ones that actually have boxes, look like boxes,
parking spaces are – they’re not closed in. They have open ends such as these right
here. So throughout all of the development, we are providing garages for the individual
units. And behind those garages, we are also providing an additional parking space,
and those parking spaces and garages are specifically designated and reserved, and
reserved for each individual unit. Now, Shari’s statement that this might be a problem,
it’s not different than any single-family residence in any single-family subdivision where
you have a garage, and you require a driveway for parking, off-street parking, so Mom
parks in the garage, Dad parks behind her in the driveway. She’s got to leave in the
morning before he’s got to leave, so he’s got to jockey his car around so he can get out.
Same scenario here. No difference whatsoever. You just have to coordinate what
you’re doing. So that really isn’t an issue, and it should not be considered as an issue.
That happens to single-family residents, and actually this type of a setup is something
that has been used throughout apartment complex community, and people have
actually utilized these; they like them, they appreciate them, they work well for them.
So that is one issue that we’d like to clarify and hopefully in your all’s minds you can see
where that can work just as well as it does anywhere else. As far as our request for the
limited office zone in this area right in here, what we’re proposing and what we
anticipate to happen in this area is going to be – we don’t want any kind of convenience
stores. That’s not what we’re looking for. We’re looking for, say, a coffee shop, an
eyeglass type place, small shops similar to that, professional office salons, those type of
uses. And I know there are always concerns that, oh, there’s going to be a
convenience store there. Well, we’ve oriented this building so that there’s no
convenience store going to want to use this piece of property because they want to
have direct access to the corners and the whole view of the corners. We’ve oriented
this whole building towards the interior of the development. So it becomes a part of the
development itself. I’m trying to go through these comments as best as I can, as quick
as I can. In our open space, I’ve gone over the volleyball court, picnic barbecue area,
the ponds, hot tubs, we have a large play area for children in this area. We do have
other areas that are common areas for landscaping, et cetera, and drainage. Some of
these lots that are marked with a “D” are combination landscaping-drainage lots. We
have more of them here. As far as landscaping and perimeter buffering from the
residential development to the north here and this property here to the east, we are
proposing a fairly substantial berm and a six-foot fence on top of the berm. The
landscaping would include trees, shrubs, grass; all of the landscaping would be
maintained, owned and maintained by the association, which we will be establishing
association for the entire project. To touch very briefly on the quality of the project itself,
we are gearing this toward more of an upper-scale type apartment facility. We’re trying
to draw the professionals and those type of folks and family. That’s why we do have
three-bedroom apartments, we have two-bedroom apartments and one-bedroom
apartments. So we do have a variety there. To give you an idea of the range, we are
looking at rentals from the area of $650 to $1000 a month. As far as people qualifying
to rent these, there will be a substantial review process to assure that folks can afford to
live there. So we’re not talking about a low-rent apartment situation here. We’re not
talking about low-income housing, and we’re not talking about subsidized housing.
We’re talking about a very nice, upscale project. And I know there’s people here who
are going to testify that very well might try to bring that out, and that is far from the case.
Let me slip back over here. We did respond to the staff report on the project, and I
hope that you all did get copies of that. One thing that we did with – we would like to
submit, and although our architect ran into a little problem as he was plotting this for us.
It seems like ever since they started working on improvements on Maple Grove, he
keeps getting power outages and power surges, and he’s tried to give us a good
perspective of the overall project, and it didn’t all get colored in. All the structures didn’t
get colored in the way we would like to have been done, but there’s a great deal of – it
takes a great deal of memory, et cetera, to get this going, and every time he got ready
to plot it out or did get it sent over to the plotter, he had a power surge and lost it all and
had to try again. But if you would like to pass this around, it does give you a very good
perspective. The first one is from the intersection of Ten Mile and Pine, so you’d be
looking northeast, and the other one, the prospective on that one is looking from the
southeast corner of the property. So just pass that around for you all to review.
Particularly, the prospective gives you a good view of what’s going to happen there and
the height of the buildings, et cetera. Okay, and just going over very briefly, our
response to the Staff’s comments, as far as the annexation and the zoning, we really
have no problems with Staff’s comments and recommendations on that part of the
project. As far as the conditional use under the general comments, we are providing
off-street parking that meets city code. Of course, paving a striping in accordance with
city code, that’s standard. Drainage, of course, drainage has to be retained all on-site,
and that’s already been preliminarily engineered. Outside lining that would be by city
code. Signage as per city code, and we weren’t able to provide you with a good copy of
the sign and it just – we just didn’t get it here. We do have something we could show
you that is very similar to what we would like to do as far as our signage, and we’ll let
you review that. That’d be very similar to what
we –
Borup: Are you submitting this for the record?
Unger: Can they keep this for the record? At least that page?
Borup: If it’s not for the record, we don’t want to see it.
Unger: I didn’t like that page either. Okay. We do have some additional prospectives
on the individual buildings for your review. There’s a comment that the pedestrian
sidewalks that we’re showing are not five feet. They should be five feet, and we will
make them five feet, all the pedestrian walkways. Certainly, we will comply with the
American Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act; we’re required to do that. Trash
enclosures would certainly be screened. We’ll work with sanitary service company on
that. And as stated earlier, our common area exceeds the requirements for the planned
unit developments. Storage areas for boats, campers, trailers, et cetera. We have
negotiated with Joe Stafford, who is one of the owners of the storage facility that’s just
been opened which is directly, approximately ¼ mile south of this project on Ten Mile,
and we have negotiated with him to provide storage for this facility, so we are asking for
a waiver of that requirement because we do have off-site storage provisions made. As
far as site-specific requirements, I’ve already discussed the tandem parking and the
concerns that Staff has brought up over that. And like I said, those are designated and
reserved for the individual apartments, and it is no different than a single-family
residence with a garage and driveway.
Borup: How does that address the visitor parking?
Unger: I’m sorry.
Borup: The visitor parking? Staff Comment No. 11.
Unger: Staff Comment No. 11. Let me back up here.
Borup: You skipped it on your written reply.
Unger: I’m sorry if I missed that. I had No. 11 as –
Borup: Right.
Unger: -- where they wanted – they were discussing a maintenance building. And we
have provided extra garage spaces, and the additional garage spaces would be used
for maintenance building.
Borup: Yeah. You comment in on No. 11, but --
Unger. Right.
Borup: – that’s for No. 12.
Unger: Okay.
Borup: Staff comment.
Unger: Let me back up.
Borup: Your Comment No. 11 is replying to Staff Comment No. 12.
Unger: Okay. Hang on here, then.
Borup: Staff Comment No. 11 was on visitor parking.
Unger: “…may be required for every three dwelling units to accommodate visitor
parking…” We’ve provided more than the required visitor parking because we have
additional parking over in the yellow area over in here. We have additional parking that
exceeds the needs for this, so we have sufficient parking for visitor parking as required
by the code. And I do apologize for missing that comment. And I believe that covers
the Staff’s comments as we were required to review. As far as the thirty-foot setback
from the right-of-way on the limited office, that’s not a problem. We’ll meet those
setbacks. We’ll meet all setbacks as required by city code. One thing that we do need
to get into and discuss is the traffic issue. Her concerns about the traffic, and she’s
right. Ada County Highway District has approved this project and the traffic from this
project. I live in Meridian, and I live – did live out at the Cherry Lane Golf Course;
recently have moved. So I understand the concern about the traffic, particularly during
school, when the school lets out. What we have discussed here recently, as recently as
today, with Ada County Highway District, in trying to mitigate some of the traffic
concerns, particularly the stacking that occurs on Pine Street when school lets out,
because that’s when we do have traffic problems; that’s where it happens, and that’s
when it happens is where the traffic backs up when the school lets out, okay? You have
a great number of kids coming out of school heading west on Pine to Ten Mile, and then
they want to turn left, and there’s a major stacking because of that. So we have
discussed, and we are negotiated with Ada County Highway District to provide a left-
turn lane on Pine. And in order for us to do that, what we’re negotiating with the
highway district would
be – you see, this drain that Shari stated (inaudible) they’ve had problems, cars have
ended up in it. I’ve seen it. Well, what we’re discussing, this is part of the right-of-way
that would be dedicated to the highway district. So in our negotiation with the highway
district, and we’ve got an indication, just an initial indication that they would work with us
on this, is that the highway district would provide the materials and the piping for the
piping of this drain in this area, and we would pipe that – our contractor would pipe that
during construction. We would widen Pine in this area through here and provide a left-
turn lane on Pine to help assist in some of this backing up that’s occurring. That’s some
mitigation that we’re trying to offer up to help lessen the impact of this project. Based
upon traffic study that was done by Pat Dolby for this project; Pat Dolby is a traffic
engineer, and he’s done a lot of work in this area. He’s respected by the highway
district. Based upon Mr. Dolby’s traffic study on this project, this project will not
generate any amounts of traffic that would adversely affect the streets in this area
beyond what they are now as far as their level of service, et cetera. And if you looked
at the traffic study, it tells you that westbound Pine Street is a level of service F. We
didn’t generate it. It’s there. It exists. Our suggestion of putting in the left-turn lane at
our cost would help mitigate that. It may not bring it up to a level D, but it’s not going to
make it any worse than it is. But Mr. Dolby’s traffic study ACHD concurs with is that this
project is not going to generate the kind of traffic that is going to reduce the level of
service on Ten Mile or Pine beyond where they are now. Ten Mile, the level of service
on Ten Mile – I lost that one – Okay. Eastbound on Pine is a level C. Westbound, like I
said, is an F. There’s no question. As far as the intersection is concerned for right turn,
it’s a level service B. Northbound on Ten Mile is a level service A. Southbound on Ten
Mile is level service B, and the intersection level service overall is a level service B.
And his projections is that this project is not going to change those levels of service or
reduce them further than where they are at this point. I did not get an opportunity to
review the comprehensive plan. Shari (inaudible) this report as I reviewed it was very
extensive in the comprehensive plan, and I really didn’t respond to it. Essentially, she’s
just quoting what the comprehensive plan says. Your comprehensive plan map which
was adopted in 1993 by the City Council designates this property for mixed-use
development which would allow you to actually do an R-40 development on this project
based upon the comprehensive plan. We’re asking for an R-15. We think that an R-40
would be way too dense. An R-15, although you’re going to have some neighbors
stand up and tell you that this is too dense because we’ve got single-family residential
going on all over in this area, but you also have to understand that the City designated
this for mixed-use on their comprehensive plan in ’93, and we’re just following through
with that and asking for an approval of an R-15 development which would be allowed
through the comprehensive plan. It’s a very upscale project. I know there’s people
here that are going to testify in opposition to the project saying it’s too dense, it’s going
to cause too much traffic, you know, it’s going to block our views; you name it, they’re
going to tell you that. Okay? But, we have an approval from the highway district, and
that approval is not solely based upon Mr. Dolby’s traffic study, but also their traffic
counts in the area. We comply with the comprehensive plan. We responded to Staff’s
concerns. We feel we can comply with their concerns with the exception of a couple of
concerns that were brought up with tandem parking, et cetera. We are working with the
highway district to try to alleviate or at least mitigate some of the problems that you see
on the Ten Mile and the traffic turning left on Ten Mile and cars in the drain ditch, and
we feel confident we’re going to be able to work that out with the highway district and
get that taken care of. I don’t want to drag this out any further. My preference would be
to respond to your questions, let the opposition get up and testify, and then, of course,
we’ll respond to that in our rebuttal. We would like for this testimony to be used on
Items 12 and 13 so we don’t have to go through this again, if that’s okay with you folks.
Borup: Yes. Very much so. Any questions for Mr. Unger from the Commission at this
point?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Did Mr. Dolby address cut-through traffic through the commercial part of your
development? If people are backed up and they want to make a right-hand turn and
can’t get to the intersection, are they not going to drive through your project to cut the
corner?
Unger: I do not believe that he has addressed that, as far as the cut-through traffic. I’ll
go back through his report here see if I can find it.
Brown: Have you looked at ways to mitigate the cut-through traffic?
Unger: Well, if you look – if you’re coming off of Pine Street, somebody trying to cut
through there, because if anybody’s going to do any cutting through, that’s where it’s
probably going to happen. It’s not that easy to come in there and take that left and
swing around to come back out because of the parking, the sharpness of the turn there
and then trying to come back out. Certainly, we would entertain any kind of mitigation
that anyone would come up with because we don’t want cut-through traffic either. I
won’t even say traffic-calming devices, speed bumps, speed dips, things like that
because we all hate those.
Brown: And from looking at your plan, it appears these are all private streets, private
drives, however you want to call them, except for the –
Unger: Yes. They’re all driveways.
Brown: Except for the Grey Cloud that (inaudible)
Unger: Correct. Because the commercial part of the project, or the L-O part of the
project is one lot, then we have the two townhouse lots in the northwest and the four in
the northeast, and the balance of the project is one lot.
Brown: Then if they’re private, would they ever be gated?
Unger: No. We’re not proposing any gating, and we’re not anticipating any gating
because it does need to be left open for access by all the folks who live in there. We do
have to provide cross-access agreements, et cetera, but no, we’re not looking at any
kind of gating whatsoever.
Brown: Okay.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Unger?
Barbeiro: Yes. I’ve got one. Could you clarify with the architects present in a little more
detail the building materials? I saw the colored renderings there, but – siding, roofing,
glazing, the whole shebang. What’s the materials proposed on the current buildings?
Unger: I would like to have the architect – have him address that. That’d be best.
Barbeiro: Okay.
Harrison: Mr. Commissioner and fellow commissioners, my name’s Scott Harrison, I’m
with Asbuilt Systems, and I’m working with Gold Rivers Company, Inc. on this project.
As far as the siding goes, all the siding is a vinyl-type siding, a clap siding, similar to
what other – has been used on other properties, apartment complexes similar to ours.
The roofing is a standard asphalt-shingle. Right now we’re proposing the gray asphalt,
but there’s been other colors proposed. Maybe a white grain that might work well in this
project as well. Other windows –
Barbeiro: (inaudible) you’re talking about?
Harrison: Windows.
Barbeiro: Vinyl windows, standard wood windows --
Harrison: Standard white vinyl.
Barbeiro: -- metal clad windows, what –
Harrison: Right now we’re proposing a white vinyl window, double-pane. As far as the
actual design of the windows at this point, we’re using a double-hung style, and you can
see that on the plans. An operable window. What we’d like to do is work with that
because it works well with this type of a facility. We want it to look upscale. We don’t
want the basic square, you know, just flat pane. We want it to look nice.
Barbeiro: The renderings will show what appears to be a brick wainscot or venire at the
base of the clubhouse.
Harrison: It’s not a brick wainscot. It’s basically an extension, a framed extension of
the wall itself, and it’d be of the same material as the wall.
Barbeiro: So it’s a framed protrusion.
Harrison: Uh-huh. That’s right. And that’s to give it a break from just the straight-line
effect of that wall. And that’s the reason why that was used. Just to, you know, a break
from a standard look of a typical wall like that.
Barbeiro: What is that? What about the stair construction and the handrails?
Harrison: Stair construction, as you can see on the rendering, it’s standard wood. 36 to
42 inches high.
Barbeiro: (inaudible)
Harrison: No, it would be a standard –
Barbeiro: Wrought iron?
Harrison: -- a standard wood construction rail, flat top, with a two by six on top all the
way around. As far as the steps themselves, right now we’ve got shown, if you’ll notice
the steps are like a cream-colored which represents basically a concrete style step.
Barbeiro: So concrete-filled metal pan?
Harrison: Yes.
Barbeiro: Steel-stringer construction?
Harrison: Not necessarily a steel-stringer.
Barbeiro: Wood, possibly?
Harrison: Wood stringers. A break from the standard wood step, and again, trying to
add some value to the look of the project, and also, those tend to be a lot more sturdy
when you walk up and down them. They’re not as noisy.
Barbeiro: Right. That answers my question. Thank you. Any other questions from the
Commission?
Borup: Anyone else?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Unger.
Borup: Mr. Unger.
Barbeiro: With regards to your comment to how the current intersection sits at F and
any additional traffic produced from here won’t lower it. You can’t lower that, so I
thought that was a little unusual. Can you tell me where –
Unger: Excuse me. I have to correct you. The intersection is not an F. The
intersection is a B. Westbound Pine is an F.
Barbeiro: I do not see covered parking for the six proposed townhouses. Where will
parking be for those?
Unger: They are a part of the unit, they’d be attached to the unit.
Barbeiro: I do not have any drawing showing me that they’re attached garages to those
units.
Unger: Excuse me. My mistake, and Ms. Welker will have to clarify that, I guess.
Welker: Vicky Welker, do you need my address or just my name?
Borup: Name and address for the record.
Welker: Name and address. Vicky Welker, 23 26 West Rainwater Court, Meridian,
Idaho. With regard to the garages, they’re going to be separate for those units so that
the buildings and the garage buildings will look identical to the apartment complex.
There’ll be no differences in the building or the garage buildings. There will be a space
between the garages for those townhouse lots just like in the apartments, so that
everything in the complex, whether it’s owned or it’s an apartment will look the same.
Trying to keep it similar.
Barbeiro: So you will have covered garages similar, but you have not shown those on
these drawings; is that correct?
Welker: Yes. Yes.
Barbeiro: The garages, are they with door or without door, or are they just – are they a
pass-through?
Welker: We’ve left that open at this point because we want to see what marketing
dictates. If we do a pass-through, we may not be able to put as much storage inside,
and, you know, we’re flexible on that. If people would prefer to go through, it’s fine. If
they would prefer to have storage shelves put in where they can actually drive in the car
under the shelves and have shelving, an additional storage in the garage unit, then it
sort of eliminates that if you have the garage to pass through.
Barbeiro: Customarily, for a conditional use permit, that decision would have been
made and presented here. You’re telling me that maybe, maybe not. Maybe you’ll put
a carport –
Welker: No. At this point, I was not –
Barbeiro: -- maybe you’ll put a door.
Welker: -- planning to put a door in unless as we do our marketing later, that marketing
dictates that we need to do that, then we would certainly do that. I have lived in a
complex almost identical to this where there were no pass-through doors, it wasn’t
needed, and there was never any complaints about that. The fact that we had a garage
was sufficient, even if we had to walk around the building, so I was planning to do it in
that manner.
Barbeiro: Right. Then I didn’t present the question properly. Will there be a front door
*** End of Tape 4, Side A ***
like a three-sided carport?
Welker: No, there’ll be a door, a garage door with a garage-door opener.
Barbeiro: Okay. I’m sorry.
Welker: I’m sorry. I thought you were talking about the walk-through door.
Barbeiro: I’m looking here. I didn’t see anything that showed me a garage door. I
have to apologize. Now I have the question answered. There was some confusion with
regards to the visitor parking. You’d said there is more than sufficient visitor parking
when you take into account the parking used in the commercial area; did I misinterpret
that?
Welker: The code requires in this particular project, most apartment projects that are
under one ownership, single ownership for the entire site would only require two to one.
We’re required 2.3 to one because we have separate ownerships within the site. And
we are just short of the 2.3 with the exception that we have additional parking within the
L-O site that can be used at evenings for additional guest parking. So we felt that we –
and we can designate some of those with an agreement with the L-O project that we
can have additional guest parking there, and designate those for guest parking, and
under that condition, we will be providing the 2.3.
Barbeiro: If that’s the case, then if I could have Shari’s help on this, you would use the
parking in the commercial area during the day to account for the necessary parking for
commercial, and at night, then, you would –
Welker: Pick up some guest parking.
Barbeiro: -- lay that over – layover? Shari, can you explain if that is an allowable
setup? Sounds like she’s trying to use both – trying to use the commercial parking for
both visitor parking and for the requirements for business parking.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, from the calculations they’ve provided, if you just
went with the apartments and with our requirement for two plus one for every three,
they would need 369 spaces. They have provided 356 according to their calculations
just for the apartment complex. They are over-parked for an office use, I’d like to point
out this is not a commercial corner, it’s an office use, so that would be one per 400
square feet, so they are a little bit over-parked for the office building. So if you’re
considering it as a whole, they do meet the ordinance requirements.
Barbeiro: Okay. That helps. The hammerhead in the northeast corner; is that ever
intended to (inaudible) another (inaudible) after that? Or is (inaudible)
Welker: No, that would pass through, onto the Jefferson’s property. Which is a vacant
acreage at this point. I believe it’s about six acres.
Barbeiro: Mr. Unger stated in regards to the parking, that this parking is identical to any
single-family housing. I would disagree having lived in an apartment complex many,
many times. Generally, my next-door neighbor does not park in my parking space and
block my garage.
Welker: Your next-door neighbor wouldn’t be able to park in your parking space. He
was referring to if your wife parks in the garage and you park behind her.
Barbeiro: Right, but in this complex, knowing that you have visitors and people who
make mistakes and all, if somebody parks in my driveway behind my garage, now
they’ve blocked me from getting out of my garage. That is not a condition --
Welker: And we have a property management company on staff to address those
issues when they come up.
Barbeiro: I’ll tell you when you’re at 8:15 or at 7:45 in the morning, you go out to get out
of your car and you have to wait an hour, hour and a half for a tow truck to get there and
pull somebody out, this is not a condition that is identical to a single-family dwelling.
Welker: We’re not saying it’s identical. It’s just that it’s similar in that you will have a
parking behind a garage at any time, and this is no different in that, and the parking in
the garage and directly behind the space will be specifically assigned to a unit, and
each tenant will be told that as they move in, this is your unit, and you’re not allowed to
use anyone else’s parking behind a space.
Barbeiro: The point is just that regardless of the instructions, you having lived in an
apartment complex, you have driven home and found somebody in your designated
parking place; whether it’s a visitor or a next-door neighbor who has inadvertently
parked in the wrong spot. Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? If not, I’d like to proceed with public comments and
testimony. I’m not sure how many are still left that was here before. One thing I might
suggest, I’d like to recommend, I don’t know if there’s a neighborhood spokesman or a
spokesman from the developer that could start – lead off by speaking for the group as a
whole? It looks like not. Would you like to start with that?
Blaser: Well, I wouldn’t like to, but –
Borup: Oh. Okay. And then we’ll proceed on.
Blaser: My name is Glenn Blaser, and I live at 3450 Stone Creek Road in Boise. I
made an application for multi-family housing on Pine Street just one block to the east
just one year ago and this panel turned me down. I was going to build 16 townhouses,
and I mean, upscale -- this is not upscale -- on three acres, and it was turned down.
We have built in that neighborhood over 400 houses. Each house would be worth
about $100,000. If you were to approve this project, I would feel like you stabbed us in
the back because, you know, it just isn’t in keeping – I tried to get some, I wanted 16
units on three acres, and that wasn’t suitable. You turned that down. Now here – this,
just to be – first place, I’m uncomfortable. This is the first time in 80 years that I’ve been
on this side of the table. I’ve always been a developer, and they’ve always been finding
fault with me, and now I’m on the wrong side of the table, and I’m not opposed to
apartments. I built the University Village Apartments which is now called Creek Side.
That’s 146 units down, as you go down to Park Center. I built a nine-story high-rise by
St. Luke’s Hospital. I built Oaklawn Apartments out on the North End which is a
subsidized program. I built Glenn Manor Apartments up on North 9th
. At one time, I
owned and managed 200 – I didn’t own them all, but I managed 264 units that we had
built, and I know a little about apartment houses. I’ve had subsidized apartment houses
for 27 years now, and this wouldn’t pass as a subsidized housing project. FHA would
laugh you out of the block. Any time you have a garage and have a guy park on your
parking behind you and say that's two parking spots, that’s a joke, you know, because it
doesn’t work that way. And you’re definitely right. People don’t park in the right parking
spot. A visitor will come by, and he will not know where he’s supposed to park. First
place, let’s just talk about circulation. You’ve got four roads coming in from the outside.
Then they have – remember this project has 350 cars up there on their own legend that
they – now, I counted at Larry Barnes’ parking lot the other day and he didn’t have 350.
Fred Rice down there right now doesn’t have – now, that’s a lot of cars. And when you
put them in 12 acres, somebody’s going to look at nothing but car tops. Take these
apartments where they say they have the garages. A man’s living inside there and out
the window, all he can see is the back of the garage. And the front, you know, it – now
let’s take drainage. If you’re going to drain that apartment, that little pond that they
have there in the middle, they say that’s the drainage pond. They’re also going to use it
as a decorative asset for holding weddings out in the middle of the drainage pond. You
can’t drain a parking lot that accurately so that all the water will run in that direction
without gutters and without ditches and without real engineering. And you can’t put
houses all over on the road because the water won’t run around the houses to get into
that ditch. Now, they say they have some catch basins, and the catch basins are
ordinarily 18 inches deep, and then you have to – you see, that’s 12 acres. That’s
about two blocks. It’s a good walk across that project. You’ve got to have a little slope
on your pipe to get them – that drain ditch would be pretty deep. And they call that
drain ditch part of their open space. Now, all the subdivisions we build around Meridian,
they don’t – it’s considered a little something else. Now, all of these contour lines down
here –
Borup: Use your microphone there, Glenn.
Blaser: -- this corner here –
Borup: Right there. You can use that.
Blaser: -- well, you can see them there. This corner down in this end will not soar. I
would have bought it before if it would have. I put the sewer in right to the corner of --
their upper corner there (inaudible) 11 feet deep. Now the land falls off. It goes down
in a swayal. So, two-thirds of that land will soar. They say they’re going to fill this
corner down here where you’re going to have this wonderful limited office space; but
instead, you’re going to be – you go down Pine Street and up Ten Mile, you’re going to
be looking at a bank six or eight fee high, raising everything high enough so it’ll soar.
And that corner, with that deep (inaudible) ditch and that big bank, isn’t going to look too
good. I don’t know how you’re going to handle that. But a fire truck entering this
project, say from Pine Street, he can’t make that turn to get in. That’s only a 25-foot
driveway around those – between those garages, through that automobile yard. This is
really the poorest designed project I’ve ever seen, and I would say any bank that’s
going to loan money on that, they just won’t do it. You might get some private person,
but you’d have nothing but (inaudible) you see, there’s nothing dividing these parking
spaces but maybe a line. Maybe you paint a strip on the – how’s a guy going to know
which is his and which is other – I have a 30-unit subsidized parking house, and I have
60 parking spaces for 30 units, and we’re constantly in trouble. They each have two –
they’re really legitimate. One, they don’t have to park in front of somebody else. And
they don’t mean to. They don’t mean to be mean. They’re just like you say. They just
park in the wrong space. Now, the – think of the monotony of that. If you have all of
those buildings all one color, clapboard, you know, a subdivision has to have a green
house and a yellow house; if that’s all one color and you don’t have any what we call
light and air, you can’t get any light into the back of those apartments because of the
garages. The garages are built right up against the backdoor. Where’s a kid going to
play? Where’s a kid going to put his bicycle? If he has a bicycle, you hang it on a hook
on the side of the house? It’s just going to look terrible. Now, Mr. Unger said they’re
going to have 350 cars, average in America is there’ll be four people live to an
apartment. You have 158 apartments, you’re going to have about 650 people. He says
that many people, that many cars not going to affect the traffic on that corner one bit.
His traffic study shows, well, he’s got to have another somebody else make traffic
studies. I don’t mean to be belligerent or mean. I’m in favor of apartment houses. I
wouldn’t object to apartment houses there if they had adequate light, space. Can you
imagine 158 families living in that corner, calling it upscale? I’ve got two houses over in
Haven Cove. One of them at 1500 square feet, and it’s on the lot 135 feet deep by 80.
It’s got a double garage and it’s one year old, and I’ve got an ad in the paper for six
weeks trying to rent it for $1000. I don’t even get any lookers, but yet they’re going to
rent these cracker boxes which is, I’m sorry, that’s really what they are. FHA, you know,
across the United States, I go to quite a few seminars. I was invited to one down in San
Francisco a month ago, and where they discuss housing and all their problems. In
Chicago and all over the country, they’ve had to tear projects like this down. You just
can’t stick that many people that close together. Now, fire hydrants. The law requires
there’s got to be a fire hydrant every 300 feet. The insurance companies require that.
Where are the fire hydrants? And they call that open space that little spot in the middle
that’s got a clubhouse in it, got a volleyball court, got a pool and a – that’s no open
space. That’s about as full as you can get it. I have nothing but good will towards
these people, and because I’m neighbor to them, and we’re trying to build houses in
$150- to $170,000 class and then we have to look across that fence, I’d feel that this
board didn’t do its duty because we spent a lot of money there. We come all the way
from Cherry Lane over to Pine and down to Ten Mile, and we try to do a nice job, but
that would be a – you’d have continual police problems there, and you’ll have continual
fire – I can’t understand how the fire department – they can’t approve that. (inaudible)
25-foot lane around there through a parking lot. If any one guy’s backing out, the fire
truck can’t get around.
Borup: They’ve reviewed that. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Blaser?
Blaser: Go ahead.
Borup: Not at this time.
Blaser: I have –
Borup: Thank you.
Blaser: I’ve really – all you need to say is this. It’s the poorest designed housing
project ever saw, and it shouldn’t be in Meridian.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. We have someone else ready to get up.
Jepson: Good morning. I’m Ben Jepson, I live at 2820 West Pine. We have the RT
section just to the east, the one that has the little road that’s no longer used there. I’ve
seen the drawings that they’ve submitted to you, and I think they’re not unattractive.
They seem to be fairly good-looking buildings. We had a meeting with both Vicky
Welker and Bob Unger the other day and discussed the concerns, and I appreciate
them talking. I do have some concerns, though. One of the biggest concerns is the
traffic. We live right there on Pine, I don’t know, about 1,000 feet back from the
intersection, and we can testify to what Bob said that the traffic down there is just
terrible. Not only in the afternoon when the students are leaving, it’s always backed up
at least to our house and farther back. Also, in the morning, a lot of the times I go down
to the – down Pine, try to make a left turn on Ten Mile to get down to work, and
sometimes I’m sitting there for five or ten minutes. I think it’s kind of naïve of ACHD to
say that there’s not a problem there. And I don’t think that this is not going to cause
additional problems. I think something’s got to be done about the traffic. It’s just a
problem. I also have a problem with the high density there. (inaudible) the other areas
around there are R-4, and I’d sure like to see this one go R-4. The comprehensive plan
was mentioned. One of the sections out of the Land Use chapter, this is Section 1.4U.
This is out of the staff notes. It says that you’re supposed to encourage new
development that reinforces the city’s present development pattern of higher density
development within the Old Towne area, and lower density in the outlying areas. I
assume this is an outlying area, I guess. I have problems with the higher density
because of noise, traffic, litter. Right now, along our property, we’re always picking up
all kinds of litter. People just toss out the window; looks like a garbage dump out there.
I’m concerned about litter coming over the fence. My experience with renters is a lot of
times they don’t have the same concerns about the property that homeowners do.
Those kinds of things. Another concern that I have, and I addressed this with Bob, and
he said he would take care of it, that each year we burn around the fence lines. I hope
that the fence that he puts up there is non-combustible. I think that’s city ordinance,
isn’t it? Anyway, we have a big bonfire there every year. I’d hate to burn down their
buildings. It might be fun, but – anyway, my concern is it’s all R-4 around there. I’d
sure like to see that one R-4. I understand they want to make the best use of their
property. I think I’d (inaudible) want to make a profit on it. That’s my opinion. That’s
what I’d like to see done as the neighbor next door.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Jepson?
Jepson: Thanks.
Borup: Anyone else? Come on up.
Brigante: Greg Brigante, 2833 West Ebbtide Court.
Borup: You live in a subdivision –
Brigante: In Haven Cove.
Borup; -- to the north? In Haven Cove? Do you know how people left or how many
people we had here earlier that may be neighbors of yours?
Brigante: I don’t know an exact number, but quite a few.
Borup: Twelve? Thank you.
Brigante: I would probably say more. My house, or my property comes within 300 feet
of the proposed site, and I wasn’t notified to give comment or to ask questions of this.
Borup: How long have you lived in your house?
Brigante: Since May.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Brigante: I don’t know what their requirement is for them, but –
Borup: Well, it is 300 feet, but sometimes the records are a little behind.
Brigante: My next-door neighbor did receive notice, I just found out that tonight, and I
just found out about it this past week, so I came down here to find out as much as
possible. My biggest concerns are probably, one, parking the tandem parking. I’m
concerned greatly about the noise that I think that would create. People having to
jockey around cars. I disagree with the comment that it’s no different than single-family
dwelling. All the single-family dwellings in that area have two to three-car garages. You
generally don’t have people tandem parking at the houses. Nowhere near that number
of cars in the same type of area and single-family dwelling. Also traffic is a great
concern. That’s been addressed. One that hasn’t been addressed is a four-way stop at
Ten Mile and Franklin. That also gets a lot of stacking, and I think this would add to
that. Another concern that I would have would be the schools. The grade school
across the street is already being overcrowded, and adding this many units so quickly in
an area, I think, would put a big burden on that school. That’s what I’ve got, without
having a lot of time to prepare for this. Thanks.
Borup: Any questions: Thank you. Next.
daRosa: My name is Joe daRosa. I live at 1162 North Lightning, so I’m right where
that turnout is off of – where they just turned off of Ten Mile going around. I’m up on
that – in that little subdivision started, Thunder Creek.
Borup: How many residents are there in Thunder Creek at this point?
daRosa: Oh, there’s about, well, off of my street, there’s about – well, on my street,
there are two. We’re the third one going in off of that one road coming in.
Borup: Okay. They’re just starting (inaudible)
daRosa: (inaudible) I’d say there’s about six, seven houses that are just starting to
come around in that area. It’s going to come to a dead stop now, but, one of the
concerns I have is the traffic driving through. That’s going to happen off of that road off
of Lightning and Grey Cloud. There’s no way that people are going to go all the way –
like you said, it’s hard for people coming off of Pine Street to use that as a drive-through
because it’s so difficult to go around, you said, through all the parking spaces because
it’s such tight corners. Well, guess what? Grey Cloud and Lightning aren’t that tight, so
they’ll be going through there to get through. And it’s going to be going right in front of
my house and right through the whole neighborhood. And he mentioned that your
comprehensive plan said that it was multi-family? Everything else around it is R-T or
R-4, and he said he was talking about R-40, and he didn’t want to go there because it
was too dense. Well, there’s nothing wrong with R-4. And this right here is as dense as
it can be. I don’t see how he can even put anymore than he already has in there. Like
Mr. Blaser had said, there are no open spaces for kids. He’s going to have three-
bedroom apartments. Well, there’s no place for them to play, so they’ll be coming into
my neighborhood also. And so I’ll be having all kinds of – a lot more noise, lot more
traffic, and I’d like to know where all the traffic – or the trash enclosures are going to be
in this subdivision, and I don’t see that – how these townhouses are going to be any
different where he says they’re going to have the double parking or the garages are
going to come off of it. Everybody’s going to be – well, I’m sorry. I’m starting to lose
focus here because I’m a little tired. School issues. I don’t understand how Chaparral’s
going to be able to handle this many more students going into it, especially if he’s
looking for upscale, and he’s looking for families to move into this. That’s about it.
Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. daRosa? Would anyone else like to testify? Can you
make it quick?
Blaser: One statement (inaudible).
Borup: Okay. Come on up, Glenn. You need to get the microphone (inaudible).
Blaser: One thing people don’t think about is if these houses are air-conditioned.
There’s an air-conditioner behind each one of those houses, and they’re all hooked
together like that, and you try to sleep at night, you’ll know that that’s kind of a bad idea.
Borup: Glenn, while you’re up here, can you give me an idea on house within 300 feet
of this project, are there any – Thunder Creek’s a brand-new subdivision, and people
are just now starting to move into it. So at this point, you probably don’t have a lot of
residents in there?
Blaser: Well, there are 20 lots and there’s 7 built on it.
Borup: Seven have houses –
Blaser: On them.
Borup: And have all those completed?
Blaser: No. Only two of them are complete.
Borup: Okay.
Blaser: They’re just under construction, but the one I’m building is $180,000 home, and
I’m not going to be able to sell it with – well, we already had two people turn lots back
because of just the threat –
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Blaser: -- of this coming.
Borup: Do we have anybody new? Did you have something new to add?
daRosa: Again, Joe daRosa. I wasn’t notified either, and I had been in the house
before, and what I had heard was only three or four letters were delivered for those
people that were impacted by the 300 feet.
Borup: Well, there wouldn’t be very many that would be within that category, I think.
Mr. Unger, would you like to have any final comments?
Unger: Once again for the record, Bob Unger. First of all, we did have a neighborhood
meeting about a week ago, and Mr. Blaser did come to the meeting. The issues that he
brought up you pertaining to drainage, I explained to him exactly how drainage works,
and a good engineer can design any piece of property to drain properly. And we can do
that. And we can also sewer this property appropriately. We provided profiles for
Public Works Department for review. They had been reviewed. There’s no comments
opposing our profiles. They do work. We can provide drainage. Drainage will be
retained on-site. I did show you that we have drainage lots throughout the project;
they’re designated as Ds, so it definitely can be drained properly and taken care of
properly. Open-space common area; we’ve got 1.2 plus acres of open space which
meets or exceeds the requirements. Air conditioning; I don’t know how to respond to
that concern of his. To be perfectly honest with you, I think Mr. Blaser’s got some sour
grapes because you denied his project. Mr. Jepson talked about traffic and density. He
was at our neighborhood meeting last week. I think we’ve clarified a few things with
him. We do understand the traffic problem. We are trying to do some mitigation there
to make up for it. I didn’t – the third gentleman that spoke, and I missed his last name,
and I do apologize for that. We feel that the tandem parking works. It can work if
handled appropriately. Granted, I’ve never lived in an apartment complex in my life.
You have. I understand that. Others may have. But you can make it work. It just has
to be administrated properly, and we’re going to have property management, managers
there to help regulate that and control that. The tandem parking works. It helps us in
addition meet our requirements for parking, but it also provides garages, covered
parking for the residences. You don’t find that in a lot of apartment complexes
anywhere in this valley. This is a – we want this to be an upscale project. We want it to
be very desirable for folks to come live. You don’t have anything like this in Meridian
right now. I know. I’ve lived here for 15 – no. I’ve lived here since 1985. You don’t
have anything like this here. So it’s hard to get the concept of what we’re trying to
accomplish here. As far as the schools, I don’t see a response from the schools, and I
wish I did. I wish I had a response from the schools in my packet to review with you.
You do. Okay. This is a standard comment from the Ada – from Meridian School
Districts.
Borup: Yep.
Unger: We’re at capacity, we exceed capacity, this is going to add so many more
children; bottom line, we approve this request. Signed by Jim Carberry. Standard
response. I don’t know what to do with schools. I’ve been asked that question for the
last 15 years. I don’t know what to do with schools. Sure, we’re going to add more kids
to the schools. So does every other development that’s going on, and we keep
approving them, and we certainly would ask for the same consideration that any other
development gets.
Borup: For the record, their letter says 126 students between all three schools.
Unger: All schools. Trash enclosures; they’re marked on here. They’re the ones that
are designated as “G”. Garbage. They’re on there. We will have – we will comply with
the City’s requirements for enclosures and particularly sanitary service company
because they do have a new design as to how they would like to have those enclosures
built. But they are designated on there. They’re hard to see. It’s a very, very busy plat,
to be honest with you. Extremely busy. Probably one of the most busiest plats we’ve
ever put together. Folks, I’ll tell you. The project – we feel the project is a very good
project. We’re trying to provide some nice housing, some desired housing, some
housing that Meridian currently doesn’t have. We feel that we can meet the City and
Staff’s requirements. We understand the concerns of some of the folks who live around
there, and in addition, some of the folks that are testifying in opposition, I wonder if they
would be adversely affected by this project anyhow. Some of them, yes. The
gentleman that lives – just bought a brand new house right there at Thunder Creek, you
know, he’s concerned about the traffic coming through his subdivision. I don’t believe
he’s going to be adversely affected as he feels that he will be. Once again, you know,
we would like your recommendation of approval on the project for the annexation, the
zoning, conditional use on the preliminary plat. I think we’ve responded to Staff’s
concerns, and we are working to mitigate the traffic situation. But once again, we do
want to reiterate, as astounded as everybody may be that the highway district doesn’t
seem to have – see any concern with this project and the traffic, they are the experts,
and it is their streets, and they know what’s going on in these areas, and their
recommendations and their conditions we feel are appropriate for the project. And they
have, the Highway District Commission has recommended approval on this project, so
we ask that as far as the traffic that you looked at very closely and honor their expertise
in traffic, and in addition, Mr. Dolby’s review of the traffic situation. And we thank you
for your time.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Unger. Is there any concluding comments from Staff?
May have questions; we’ll see.
Welker: (inaudible)
Borup: Yes. Come on up.
Welker: There was a little confusion about –
Borup: Just repeat your name, again.
Welker: Vicky Welker, and I am the developer of the project. There’s a little confusion
about the zoning, and I just want to bring that subject up. When the comprehensive
plan was put together, this particular property was designated mixed-residential. It was
not designated single-family residential. Single family residential is close to this
property, but this one is designated mixed-residential. Now the comprehensive plan
does not give a definition for mixed-residential, but under land use, it says that
residential is primarily single family, detached with duplex units, all types of apartments,
single-family units and mobile homes. So apartments is an allowed use under the
designation that the City put together for this. I don’t know if Mr. Jepson realizes it, but
his property is also under that zone, and if he wants it to get back to single family, he
reduces the value of his land when he’s ready to sell it. That doesn’t lessen the impact
that it has on him; it’s just a consideration. In designing this project, as Bob had
mentioned, we re-did the plat five times in trying to take into consideration every issue
that was presented to us whether it was zoning, parking, the neighbors. All of the units
that are on the north end next to Thunder Creek are single family for a specific reason,
and that’s because there is an existing project there. I called the developer, I called the
real estate agent, I asked for a list of the builders’ names and addresses to be able to
personally notify them or call them, and we were not given a list, and I asked please
have them call me. I have not received a phone call from any of them, so I haven’t
been able to address any concerns that they may have with this, which I would be
happy to do or would have been happy to do. In designing the buildings, recently you
have approved two apartment complexes in Meridian. They are cluster housing which
means you enter the inside of the building and you go up to the doors. Our building is
row housing with offsets so each unit has its own individual entrance, and it’s more
private, and we did this in a manner that each unit has its back deck, and each unit has
one or two decks off the front as well. So it makes it more compatible living, and there
is the inference that apartment renters or tenants are less desirable people, I guess,
than anyone else. I rent my home, so I don’t consider myself to be, even though I’m a
developer, a less desirable tenant than someone who owns their home. I take care of
my home in the same manner as if it were my own and with the same loving care. So I
think the classification of citizens is the same, and I believe that you would have to
agree with that, or you wouldn’t be approving other projects that are going to be
subsidized housing if you didn’t feel the same as that. Meridian has continued to say,
we want to be known as the place to be. Now, you can’t make that statement without
inviting people to come to Meridian and inviting more developments and more activities.
So when you do that, there’s more traffic. I don’t know of a street in Meridian that
doesn’t have a traffic problem. I’ve lived here all my live, and that’s 54 years, and the
traffic is horrendous on every street you’re on. So the fact that there’s going to be
another development is not the issue. The issue is how do we address those problems,
and we’ve tried to address the specific problem that we’re involved with, and I feel that
we have done a good job of trying to put together a quality project. I wanted it to be an
upscale project because there isn’t one in Meridian that would be considered upscale.
Glenn may disagree with me. I’m a younger developer than he is, maybe that’s why I’m
not being given any credit for what I tried to put together, but I credit him over the years
of putting a lot of good projects together. There’s no project that doesn’t have issues,
and we’ve made an attempt to address every issue, and I believe that we are in
compliance with everything that the City of Meridian has asked to happen legally and
ethically that needs to be addressed in a project, and I thank you for your consideration.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Welker? Okay. Commissioners, it’s your
turn now.
De Weerd: Did you all fall asleep?
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: I have concerns of the traffic, and I really don’t know where ACHD was
coming from, but I don’t know if the solutions that are trying to be worked on are
enough. I think forward thinking, but the parking stacking really seems like it’s going to
be a real issue especially with circulation. There’s fire safety issues, and, of course,
there’s a compatibility issue. There’s no multi-family in that area. So those are my
issues with this.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. In regards to the traffic issue on the project, I would have to
concur with Tammy in regards to – I can’t speak for ACHD, but it really seems to be that
It's just a flat-out oversight on their part. I know that intersection well, and I credit
Pinnacle and the developer in looking forward and trying to make some changes, but
what’s currently been proposed I don’t feel is enough. I feel that some additional
conditions and upgrades on both Ten Mile and on Pine is required. In regards to using
“upscale,” “high-end,” “middle-to-upper-income residents,” I cannot – I can’t see how
the developer is going to be able to re-coup and make a comfortable profit with those
types of tenants on what's currently designed. I don't have anything against what’s
being proposed on the design, but you’re not going to be able to rent these units for
$1000. Vinyl siding, asphalt-shingle roofing, vinyl double-hung windows, these are
standard, even lower than standard building materials that you find on your $80- to
$120,000 houses. These are the same materials that you find on your, a phrase that’s
been quoted over the last six weeks, “build-em-fill-em-and-dump-em facilities.” I cannot
consciously approve this project based upon what’s being presented because it’s too
high density. I do not see that the intent of what is being proposed is being met. The
tandem parking; I have lived in apartment complexes. I have designed apartment
complexes. I’ve seen good and bad, and I have yet to see a tandem parking facility
work properly. I’m sure that there probably are examples. There’s examples of
everything. As far as the schools go, yeah. That is their standard reply because they
have no other reply. They – every single school in this district is overcrowded. It’s just
a matter of how much is it overcrowded. And they cannot deny a project. I mean, if they
could deny a project, I think we would probably see in the bottom of their letters,
“project denied” instead of “project approved.” But they can’t. They have to accept
children into their school district no matter what the conditions are. And as far as the
fire access, I think the entire plat needs to be reinvestigated for fire access because the
fire trucks in Meridian can't access this site. And that's my feelings and concerns.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Barbeiro, any comments?
Barbeiro: My comment has to do with the hour. We have very dire neighbors here. A
number of whom did not speak just out of politeness out of the group here to try to keep
it quieter, keep it down. There are a number of neighbors who’ve left who would’ve
liked to have expressed opinions and thoughts, and we’ll never know them. I would
prefer to see this continued so that we can allow for the comments of the neighbors as
well as we can all be rather fresh and listen to them and –
Borup: Do you have any doubt in your mind what they neighbors were going to say?
Barbeiro: Do I have any doubt? No, but I also think that they need that opportunity to
speak. There are people here with children that stayed to 11:00, and it’s a school night.
And on that note I really think that we need to figure out a way to permit these –
Borup: Commissioner Brown.
Brown: From a compatibility standpoint I think that single-family is compatible with
single-family. I kind of question the area between Lightning and Grey Cloud, and the
fact that they are one story, but they are not single-family. I had a question for Shari
about the garages. What would be the setback requirement from those garages to the
public street? They were talking about them being detached and sitting out in front of
the units.
Stiles: In an R-15, they would be 20 feet from the street.
Brown: And then, would they be allowed to park in that area? They were talking
About –
Stiles: Just like a driveway.
Brown: Okay. And I guess the other part that I don’t like is the density. I think that it’s
you wouldn’t have the tandem parking if they didn’t have the density that they’re
proposing.
Borup: Well, I guess I’m trying to decide whether I want to make any comments. We’ve
looked at a lot of apartment complexes the last little bit it seems like. And the one
earlier this evening we spent a lot of months on, and that was because of three
neighbors who would probably have to drive to get from their house (inaudible)
apartment complex, they’re talking probably driving 1,000 to 1500 feet for the closest
one and the others are even further away than that. My only comment is we’ve got a
complex that’s got direct street tie-ins to a residential neighborhood. That’s all I got to
say. So, Commissioner Barbeiro mentioned what he would like. That’s one option.
*** End of Tape 4, Side B ***
Barbeiro: -- reiterate, I would like to continue the public hearing keeping in mind that
the engineer, architect and owner have heard our comments and the comments of the
neighbors allowing them to either get together with the neighbors and see if they can
come up with (inaudible), or (inaudible) the neighbors at the same time working from
our notes and see if they can come back with other designs that would be more
compatible (inaudible) we would.
Borup: Okay. That’s your motion?
Barbeiro: So I’d like to motion that we continue the public hearing.
Borup: I don’t hear a second. Okay. At this point, we still have the public hearing open
on the annexation issue.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second that.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
Borup: All opposed? Thank you. Three ayes, one nay. So now you’ve closed it as a
motion.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES TO ONE NAY.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend denial of annexation and zoning
for multi-family townhouse residential, et cetera, for Valeri Height Subdivision.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion and second. Any discussion?
Brown: So do we have a problem with the R-15 zoning? Is that what your seeing, or
do you have a problem with just the application?
De Weerd: In my mind, it’s a whole package, and if you’re going to annex it in at a
certain zoning, you should like the package.
Brown: But looking at the Staff’s comments that they had on the annexation and
zoning, I don’t see a problem, and I don’t think the client had, or the applicant had a
problem with the annexation portion of it. It complies with the comp plan.
De Weerd: It’s always been my approach that I have to like what I’m zoning, so if you
don’t agree, that’s fine. I have one vote.
Hatcher: I don’t have a problem with this proposal for annexing and zoning to an R-15.
Borup: We’ve got a dual zoning here also.
Hatcher: And the L-O. I don’t have a problem with that either. But I do have a problem
with the conditional use and the preliminary plat that has attached to this annexation
and zoning. By approving the annexation and zoning I fell we’re moving forward on the
project, and I don’t feel that we should until some of these major issues are resolved.
Borup: Okay. Any other comment?
Brown: I just feel that we could improve the annexation and still deny or ask for a
redesign of the – they’ve got direction to meet that. But you’re only doing the
annexation. The annexation – all the annexation does is it doesn’t allow them to come
back with an R-40. It nails them down to what that zone is.
De Weerd: I do understand that.
Brown: The only problem that I could see is that maybe we would anticipate maybe a
portion of that being R-4. But as I understand the R-15, they would have the ability to
do R-4 density and cluster it someplace else.
De Weerd: They have the flexibility to do a lot of things, but I would rather see what
they’re doing when I annex and zone. Again, that’s personal opinion.
Hatcher: Particularly since the multi-use planned development. I mean, you bring up
the point that part of this, the northern portion could be an R-4. The center portion
could be an R-14. I don’t want to fix – I want to let the developer have the opportunity
to mix and match the pieces and parts. It’s just pieces and parts here don’t jive for me.
Borup: Anymore discussion?
De Weerd: No. I have none.
Borup: Okay. We’re ready to vote on the motion. All in favor?
NUMBER OF AYES: Two.
Borup: Opposed?
NUMBER OF NAYS: Two.
Hatcher: You told us earlier you like to do this.
Borup: That’s my quandary. Traditionally, Meridian is – it has been the tradition not to
annex without looking at the other.
De Weerd: You’re going to earn your turkey tonight.
Borup: I’m going to vote no.
Brown: Is that a nay or a no?
Borup: A nay.
CHAIRMAN BORUP VOTES NAY.
Brown: Okay.
Borup; Item No. 12; well, I don’t think we want to –
Brown: Well, I don’t think we want to do another item yet. We don’t have a motion
that’s carried yet. We don’t have a motion that’s carried yet on the annexation and
zoning. That motion just denied.
Hatcher: You voted the denial; to turn down.
De Weerd: So we still don’t have a motion.
Brown : The motion was to deny annexation and zoning, and you voted nay. Would
you like to withdraw your vote?
Borup: Oh. I see. Yes.
Barbeiro: So did you understand the motion?
Borup: No. I got – it’s getting late.
Barbeiro: (inaudible)
Brown: You can withdraw your vote.
Borup: Yes. I was – see, I agree with everything that’s been said by the
Commissioners except Thomas said about continuing it. But I don’t know that that’s an
improper zoning for that property, but I do have concerns on the conditional use. I
know. I’m going to vote yay to the motion.
CHAIRMAN BORUP VOTES AYE.
Brown: Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES TO TWO NAY
Borup: At this point, I think in the past, have we continued on with public hearing. It
doesn’t do any good to put conditional use on property that’s not annexed, does it?
Rossman: No. I would recommend just like (inaudible) still, and you’d recommend
denial of the annexation and zoning; we’d let that go to City Council and let them make
their determination on that, because, obviously, a conditional use and a preliminary plat
are irrelevant, if, in fact, the annexation and zoning is denied. Unless you want to send
them the whole package. But that’s my recommendation.
Barbeiro: Be it ever so humble.
Borup: That was the procedure we went with last time.
Rossman: That was what we went with on Cobblestone. I think in the past Shari’s
indicated that the – you’d sent the whole thing up there, but –
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR UNIT
APARTMENT COMPLEX AND 18,000 SQUARE FEET LIMITED OFFICE SPACE BY
GOLD RIVER COMPANIES, INC.—NE CORNER OF PINE STREET AND TEN MILE
ROAD:
(CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 9, 1999)
PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND
TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED OFFICE FOR VALERI HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION BY GOLD RIVER COMPANIES, INC.—NE CORNER OF PINE STREET
AND TEN MILE ROAD:
(CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 9, 1999)
Borup: So do we need to open these, or can we table them?
Rossman: You don’t need to open them. I’d just table them.
Borup: Okay. So we’re open for a motion for –
Rossman: Continue them, I mean.
Borup: Well, we haven’t opened them.
Rossman: You don’t need to open them to continue them.
Borup: Well, right. We can’t continue them because we haven’t opened them.
Rossman: You can continue without –
Borup: (inaudible) can we table Items No. 12 and 13?
Rossman: You just decided 11. I think you want to table 12 and 13.
Borup: That’s what I said. I think I said that.
Rossman: Yes. Table or continue 12 and 13. There’s no practical difference between
the two at this point because the public hearing hasn’t been opened.
Borup: But we don’t have a date certain?
Brown: We have to wait for City Council to (inaudible)
Borup: Well, yes. Can we –
Rossman: This – you don’t necessarily have to have a date certain. I mean, just
reissue public notice when you’re ready to –
Borup: When we receive direction from City Council, then proceed to that point?
Rossman: That’s fine. Sounds good to me.
Borup: Well, just a minute. Let’s think about this.
Rossman: And you’ll have to re-notice it.
Borup: It has to be re-noticed.
Barbeiro: You’re going to want to re-notice it.
Borup: Yeah. Well, that’s one option to (inaudible)
Rossman: (inaudible) November, then. That’ll be plenty of time.
Borup: What’s our regular meeting in November?
De Weerd: November 9th
.
Borup: November 9th
would be our regular scheduled meeting in November.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: I move that we table the request for conditional use permit by Gold Rivers
Companies until November 9th
.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
De Weerd: Table for –
Borup: Discussion?
De Weerd: -- public hearing.
Borup: The question was what do we do come November, and November we can
either recommend – we can worry about that then.
Rossman: City Council should have – if they haven’t acted, we can table –
Borup: We can table it again.
Rossman: -- it again.
Barbeiro: You’re not continuing (inaudible) table.
Borup: Is that what you said? You said table, didn’t you?
Rossman: I think you want to continue it.
Borup: How do you continue (inaudible) that you haven’t opened?
Rossman: It’s a public hearing. You don’t have to open it. You can continue the public
hearing on this thing to another date. Tabling is after the public hearing’s been closed
and you want to table your decision to another date.
Borup: Oh. Okay.
De Weerd: Oh. We don’t want to do that.
Borup: Thank you for your clarification. Commissioner De Weerd, would you like to
(inaudible)
De Weerd: Yes, I’d like to revise that to continue.
Borup: Continue Item 12 and 13 to November 9th
?
De Weerd: Can I do both at the same time? Then I will.
Rossman: Yes, you can.
De Weerd: Twelve and thirteen to November 9th
.
Hatcher: I concur with the second.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you. Before we have a motion to adjourn, our next meeting isn’t until the
16th
of this month.
Brown: What’s that?
De Weerd: That’s two days.
Borup: The 16th
of this month. Day after tomorrow is our next meeting.
Brown: You mean tomorrow?
Borup: Tomorrow. The reason I want to bring it up is we have two commissioners that
have conflicts, and I’m going to be here. Commissioner Brown, Commissioner De
Weerd, are both of you going to be in attendance?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: Okay. We need that for a qualm. That’s why I ask.
De Weerd: Oh. Who won’t be here.
Brown: Tom and I.
Borup: These two guys in the middle.
De Weerd: Oh. Good job, guys.
Rossman: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I won’t be able to attend on Thursday, but I will have
somebody in my stead. I guess I would recommend if you have any anticipating
depending legal issues that perhaps those be raised before the hearing so we can
adequately –
Borup: I think we brought those up. This was the St. Luke’s – it’s a single-issue
meeting.
Stiles: We did raise them (inaudible)
Borup: And he was going to check into that, I believe.
Rossman: We’ll take a look at it.
Borup: Thank you. Any other motion?
De Weerd: I move we adjourn.
Hatcher: I second that.
Borup: Good. We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:12 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
__________________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
___________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK