2001 04-19MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 19, 2001
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m., on Thursday, April 19, 2001 by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Jerry Centers, Keven Shreeve.
Members Absent: Bill Nary
Others Present: Larry Moore, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
_ X____Sally Norton ___X___ Jerry Centers
__ X____Bill Nary ___X___ Keven Shreeve
__ X____Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: We would like to begin our meeting this evening. This is a regular
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning division. Being the
second meeting of the month the majority of this, in fact actually all of these are
Continued Public Hearings from previous meeting. We would like to start with
the roll call vote attendance.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 15, 2001, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting:
B. Approve minutes of February 1, 2001, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting:
C. Approve minutes of March 1, 2001, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting:
Borup: The first item is the Consent Agenda which consists of minutes of the
February 1st
, 15th
and March 1st
meetings.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I would like to move to approve the minutes of February 1st
, February
15th
, and March 1st
meetings.
Centers: Second.
Borup: The motion is seconded, any discussion? All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 2
THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2001: PP 00-
023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots
and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed
Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties,
LLC – east of Black Cat Road and south of Ustick Road:
Borup: Item No. 4 is a Continued Public Hearing. Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots from Autumn Faire Subdivision. We
have received a letter from the engineer on this project requesting a deferment
until the next available Planning and Zoning Meeting. They have some things
they want to work out with the Engineering Department. I wrote with the
(inaudible). Are you up for a motion on the continuance of that?
Shreeve: So moved.
Borup: To what date? It looks like we’re okay on the 17th
of May.
Centers: Which is our second – I just assumed we would put it there. I would
move that we postpone Item 4, Continued Public Hearing for the request for
Preliminary Plat of the Autumn Faire Subdivision to May 17th
.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion second, any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2001: RZ 01-
001 Request for Rezone of 3.35 acres from R-8 to C-G for
proposed Golden Corral Restaurant by Hubble
Engineering -- 725 East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Item No. 5 is a Continued Public Hearing request for Rezone of 3.35
acres from R-8 to C-G for Golden Corral Restaurant. We also have received a
letter from the applicant requesting that this application be withdrawn. Do we still
need a motion? I guess, maybe we ought to go ahead and formally accept their
request.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to move that we honor their request to remove this item
from the agenda regarding the Public Hearing of the Golden Corral Restaurant.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 3
Borup: They are also withdrawing their application in addition just to remove it
from the agenda.
Shreeve: I’ll second that.
Borup: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from March 15, 2001: ZA 01-
001 Request for consideration of amendments to Title 12,
Chapter 6, “Planned Development”, and Title 11, Chapter 17
“Conditional Uses” of Meridian City Ordinance, along with
related changes by Primeland Development:
Borup: Item No. 6 is a Continued Public Hearing from March 15th
. Request for
consideration of amendments to Title 12, Chapter 6, “Planned Development”,
and Title 11, Chapter 17 “Conditional Uses” of Meridian City Ordinance with
related changes by Primeland Development. I believe at the last meeting we
received the staff report just prior to the meeting. Commission wanted some
time to review that in a little more detail and I believe we did receive some
additional comments since that time. Do we have any additional staff report
Steve? Did I open that? If not l would like to open that Public Hearing.
Siddoway: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission there really isn’t
anything new for me to present from staff level. I think Shari went through the
outstanding items, item-by-item last time. I believe Becky Bowcutt has made a
summary sheet of those issues and it was continued like you said for the
Commission to have time to review those. I will just stand with that at this time.
Moore: Commissioner Borup, you asked me to review that and I have gone
through it. I see no problems with the changes.
Borup: Any information that would be good for the Commission?
Moore: Not at all.
Borup: Thank you.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I guess I have a question regarding Shari Stiles comments on her
remarks dated April the 16th
. It says these do not have to be reviewed or
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 4
approved explicitly, in any great detail by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
She has just prepared this for our information. What is our plan of action on this,
do we not need to approve it? Does it just go to City Council? Do we only need
one Public Hearing on these?
Siddoway: The Commission should act on it and I’m not certain why – I don’t
know exactly where that sentence is but I’m not sure why it’s in there. You
certainly should be reviewing the ordinances and it’s one of the main functions of
this body is to recommend Ordinance changes to the Council. I would certainly
see an important function of the Commission as making a detailed review of this
Ordinance as well as the proposed changes and making a recommendation
concerning them.
Norton: Thanks Steve.
Borup: Ms. Bowcutt have you got anything you would like to add?
Bowcutt: I think I can answer Commissioner Norton’s question – Becky Bowcutt,
11283 West Hickory Dale. There are three things that are before you this
evening concerning this total Ordinance Amendment package. One,
replacement of your Conditional Use Chapter. That being Chapter 17 with a
more updated amendment which takes into consideration current standards and
language and so forth. Secondly, a replacement of your Planned Development
Chapter which is Chapter 6. That brings in new language and new processes
and does away with the old antiquated section. Thirdly, the letter you’re referring
to on the 16th
, this is just housekeeping items. In your definitions chapters in
purpose statements in different Chapters, there were references back to your
Conditional Use procedures or your Planned Development procedures. In order
to implement these two Chapters there was housekeeping matters that needed
to be taken care of. I think Shari was just kind of de-emphasizing this. It’s very
important, yes we’re looking for a recommendation on it but just that it’s
housekeeping. No real decisions are required by this body as far as is this the
right language or so forth its more definitions.
Norton: That helps, thanks.
Bowcutt: You all got a copy of the letter I submitted dated April 19th
. I’ll just
explain to you what I’ve done in this letter. I went through Shari’s memo which
incorporated the Ordinance draft that we submitted. She italicized areas where
she thought the Commission needed to consider options or ask question. She
deleted things that she thought should be deleted, included some clarifying
things, recommending some of the finding factors be included. What I did is I
went item by item. Some of these are just as I referred to that third Ordinance is
housekeeping where we’re just cleaning up things. I don’t think we need to go
through that like insert as to, you know things like that -- revising the numbering
or lettering. I’ll just hit on the things that were of importance to the Commission
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 5
at the last meeting and to your staff. If you look down under Conditional Uses,
Item marked 6. That was the section that defined the timeframe in which a
Conditional Use Permit would be valid. It also had reference to what constituted
commencement or initiation of work on a Conditional Use Permit within that 18
months. Shari wanted some clarification in there. One she wanted to give the
Commission and Council the flexibility that if they see fit they could impose say a
12-month deadline. Which as you can see that is the underlined section that
would be included. Secondly, her concern was defining commencement or
initiation which may differ from project to project because there are many types
of Conditional Uses. What I added there was, satisfy the requirements set forth
in the conditions of approval as one of those items that must be accomplished
within the 18 month or whatever timeframe the Commission sets for the
applicant. Then your staff could state specifically as a Condition of Approval,
what construction items needed to be completed and within what timeframe.
The other thing Shari was concerned about is that an applicant may begin a
project, say poor foundations for apartment buildings and then not do anything
for years and then come back and say their Conditional Use is still valid. Here it
would – the applicant would have to specify in the application and in the Public
Hearings the construction schedule and completion deadline of the project. They
would be held to that deadline. It stated that if the completion was not within the
deadline, the Conditional Use application would become null and void. They
would have to submit a new Conditional Use application or they have the
opportunity 30 days prior to that expiration to submit a time extension. An official
application where they would have to come back before this body and explain
themselves why they cannot complete their project within the deadline. Shari
wanted clarification on multiple phases where an applicant would have to
delineate whether they had a multi-phased project. That language you see
underlined states that in the event that the development has successive
contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed
within successive intervals of one year from the original day of approval by the
Council. So if they have approval for 20 apartment buildings and they built 10
the first year and then one year lapsed beyond that deadline they would have to
come back before this body. It just keeps it from having these indefinite running
Conditional Uses which was very common at the City of Boise back in the 70’s
and 80’s and I think it had been a problem with the City of Meridian also. They
would be allowed to submit a time extension for the – if they could not bring their
second phase online that would have to be submitted 30 days prior to the
expiration. Shari wanted that information included under the childcare/home
occupation. There was some discussion between the Commission and staff; I
was not involved in that. I included the language the way she had It. I guess the
Commission would need to kind of look at that. There was many questions, was
this the right thing to do where they can roll over a Conditional Use Permit for
childcare or home occupation to a new owner with the same identical use. That
would be at question and something for you guys to take up. The other thing,
Item 10 delineated what changes could be made by staff or just the Commission.
You guys and staff recommended that these four items be at staff level, they are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 6
just minor modifications. Under the – moving onto the Planned Development
Chapter under Item 2. There was a lot of discussion on the 10 percent open
space requirement. The way this Ordinance is written for the Planned
Development you are required to provide two amenities. Those amenities can
be anything from clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis courts, volleyball courts, and
10 percent open space whatever. The way it was written, say a development
could propose a swimming pool and a tennis court. Those are two distinct
amenities and they would count as their two amenities. In Shari’s comments she
stated, I believe every Planned Development should be required the 10 percent
open space and then provide one additional amenity beyond that. In my little
dissertation here, I think you’re going – I stated that you would be limiting if
someone were to provide a pool and a tennis court, they on top of it would have
to be 10 percent open space. Your Landscape Ordinance mandates 5 percent. I
think the 5 percent should be – the Landscape Ordinance should apply so
therefore the 5 percent should be mandatory on all Planned Developments.
They should have the flexibility because a lot of projects, especially very small
projects, a 10 percent open space is a lot for like a (inaudible) project. It may
make the project cost prohibitive and then we see a lot of these parcels that just
don’t develop when they really should fill in and then that causes development to
go even further out. The second issue is in a subdivision that I did a few years
ago, I went to a neighborhood meeting not too long ago and I received some
adverse comments that you provided too much grass area. We wanted – and
we did, we provided like 2 and a half-acre pocket park, it was all turffed, beautiful
with landscape. They said we want active recreational facilities. Why didn’t you
do a playground, why didn’t you do a volleyball court or a basketball court? The
feedback I’m getting is, it costs us a lot of money. It looks good but it’s limited on
its uses. I think when you take that into consideration, allowing maximum
flexibility is the best way to go. Item 3 was on the Energy Conservation we had a
discussion on that. Shari thought that should be deleted because you have no
Solar Ordinance, no defining or definitions in your Ordinance about what
constitutes energy conservation. Some members thought it was a good idea that
we leave it in at some point in time there could be clarification in the Ordinance
on solar orientation and so forth. Staff thought it should be deleted. Item 7, was
the issue concerning the dedication – excuse me that was the issue on streets.
Shari made comment that since this Planned Development does reference public
or private streets you have no standards for private streets. In the Ordinance
there is a section that talks about public street standards which don’t match Ada
County Highway District’s standards. She said that’s outdated we need to think
about what we’re going to do. How I took care of that is I deleted streets where
the publicly dedicated or private shall be designed or constructed as provided in
section 12-4-2c which is that old section of your Ordinance. I inserted that
publicly dedicated streets shall be designed and constructed to Ada County
Highway District standards. Private streets may be approved by the Council and
the key word is may. The following roadway standards shall apply. The
standards you see there, a through e is consistent with what the City of Boise
requires. The standards on the roadways as far as width are based upon the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 7
number of units and the length of the roads. As you can see on d and e, you
have a 42 foot right-of-way with a 29 foot section from back occur to back occur,
5 foot sidewalks both sides. Boise had 40 feet and 28 or something. I bumped it
up to 42 and 29 because that’s the minimum right-of-way width an improvement
with that Ada County Highway District will accept. I figure if you had 11 or more
dwelling units and you had private roads, if your streets were built to technically
ACHD’s minimum standards there would always be a possibility that you could
dedicate those streets in the future. That’s what Item F is, construction
standards, gravel base, pavement depth, and compaction testing requirements
of all private roads shall meet Ada County Highway District’s standards for a
local road. That’s why I did that. Under Item 9, there was a question concerning
the 20 percent use exception. Shari referenced that as the Commission may
want to consider less than 20 percent. I feel that the way it’s written where it
says no more than 20 percent, it’s obviously discretionary and it’s clear the
applicant does not have a right to the maximum 20 percent but it is a privilege. If
you would feel more comfortable you could add language which emphasizes that
the percentage of the use exception to a maximum of 20 percent but will be
determined by the Commission and Council based upon the size and intensity of
the use exceptions. That would give you the flexibility. Item 15, Shari highlighted
that one, that was the section which allowed you to – if you dedicated land for
public purposes then you could get a 10 percent bonus density. Then there was
a portion of the sentence which stated that the number of units that could have
been placed on the dedicated land could be incorporated into your project. Shari
brought forth some scenarios that could possibly be abused. I guess my
question to you is, if that is a concern you could remove the last half of line three
and remove plus the number of units that could be placed on the dedicated land
and one could just get basically a 10 percent density bonus if they were to
dedicate land for public purposes. Then lastly was Item 19, where staff and the
Commission had concerns about the language and the initiation of work. They
stated that that comment or term should be defined and what I did is I attempted
to define that commencement of work in Section 11-17-4b and initiation and
commencement are pretty much interchangeable so one could in that section
reference Section 11-17-4b or one could define it even for – that’s all that I have.
Do you have any questions?
Centers: Yes, you did a very good job as usual. Your comments are dated April
19th
. I guess we don’t have staff comments to your comments. Would that be
true?
Bowcutt: Staff did not have an opportunity to respond to my comments.
However, my comments followed staff’s comments and where Shari and I
disagreed, in my comments I inserted what her stance was in a particular section
of that and if I disagreed what mine was. I gave you both sides.
Centers: I accept that, I totally do but I was just wandering about Shari’s
comments in act to yours.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 8
Borup: Becky, how much discussion did you have with Shari in coming up with
this? This was based on our previous meeting and then discussed with her after
that meeting, or what time?
Bowcutt: Yes sir, what I did I dealt primarily with Brad Hawkins-Clark because
Shari’s been in a lot of meetings lately. She had COMPASS meetings and so
forth.
Borup: Brad was the one that was at the meeting when we discussed this?
Bowcutt: Correct and so I asked Brad if staff was going to try to do a summary
for the Commission to make it easier for you guys to make a recommendation
this evening. Brad kind of got back to me and said we’re really busy. I said well,
could I take the liberty of going ahead and doing a summary, that’s what I would
like to do. Brad did relay that information to Shari and he said she just kind of
smiled – you know they’ve just been swamped over there. All I was trying to do
is take some of that burden off of them so that this could move on forward. I
don’t think we’re that far apart –
Borup: I think maybe that answered Commissioner Center’s concern. Could we
go back and just reiterate the ones where there was a different comment or a
different opinion on?
Bowcutt: Sure.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, what would be wrong with us acting subject to Shari’s
final review prior to City Council?
Bowcutt: I think that would be perfect in my opinion.
Borup: Yes but she’s reviewed – it’s been reviewed. I think we can make a
recommendation either way.
Centers: (Inaudible) April 19th
.
Borup: I still think it maybe helped them our – help just to make a more
intelligent recommendation if we just go back to this cover. Which items for
those with – I marked a couple of them but I don’t think I got them all. Do you
remember which ones –
Bowcutt: You asked me – you want me to identify the ones that staff and I were
not in complete agreement?
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 9
Bowcutt: Under Planned Developments No. 2. Item 3 was one that I was not
involved in the discussion. That was between I believe, Commissioner Nary and
Shari.
Borup: Okay so that’s Shari’s recommendation on –
Bowcutt: Right.
Borup: We discussed that quite a bit here. I think that’s where that originated
was at this meeting (inaudible). I think we’re all familiar with that one.
Bowcutt: Item 7 where I have set forth some private road standards, obviously
Shari’s going to need to review those. I brought up at the last hearing that Boise
had some standards that worked quite well. She admits that what you have now
doesn’t – is inadequate but I would like her to review those so that would fall right
in with your comment. Item 9 under Planned Developments, the 20 percent.
Should it be 20 percent or should it be less?
Centers: Excuse me there.
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Centers: What specifically are we referring to within the Planned Development?
Because it’s not very specific, I read it twice.
Bowcutt: Under the Planned Development say you have an R-4 zone. In the
Comprehensive Plan it designates that property as single-family. However your
property is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways. If you were to
submit for a Planned Development application it would allow you up to 20
percent of the project to be what they consider a non-conforming use. What is
an acceptable non-conforming use is discretionary up to the Commission.
Obviously if somebody wanted to do a subdivision and put a rendering plant at
the intersection those would be two uses that are not compatible. One could do
office, possibly maybe a convenient store with townhomes around it or
something along that line and then transition to the single-family. That’s pretty
much customary in the Planned Development chapters.
Centers: I remember that (inaudible) that’s good. Thank you though.
Bowcutt: You’re welcome.
Borup: You left off at No. 9 there?
Bowcutt: That was Item 9, yes. Item 15, staff and I do not disagree, it’s just a
matter of how you guys want to clarify that the 10 percent bonus density when a
developer dedicates land for public use. Shari also brought up the question in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 10
dedication would that be a gift? Would that be sold at cost, partial gift, you know
she brought up some of those issues and brought up – I think gave you an
example on how it could be abused the way it was written originally. I believe
that’s it.
Borup: That’s about it.
Bowcutt: So I guess what I was trying to do is make it easy for you to adopt
these Ordinances and then either tailor this or adopt this in some form as part of
that package. Then we can go in, revise the Ordinance officially before it goes to
the Council. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner – well, do we have anyone else to testify on
this application? Thank you. I think we could go ahead and draft a motion
worded the way we feel and than Shari would be able to review our
recommendation. I think that makes sense that that would. I think that rather
than leaving these things – I mean there’s a couple of these things are up in the
air to delete or not to delete. I think we’re left here with those decisions made.
Centers: Have you been on Section 12-6-6-8-7?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Norton: I have a question for Ms. Bowcutt. Ms. Bowcutt on Section 9 with a
Conditional Use Permit for the home occupation childcare facilities. My
recollection is we were wandering if we needed two Public Hearings for that?
Bowcutt: I believe that’s correct. I think there was discussion concerning that.
Norton: Whether or not we needed two Public Hearings. In your
recommendation did you address that?
Bowcutt: No, because I felt that was between your staff and yourselves. That
was something Shari wanted inserted that was not a part of our Ordinance but
she wanted that inserted so I didn’t get into that discussion. You are correct, I
think Commissioner Borup brought up why wouldn’t they come back before us if
we were one of the approving bodies. Yes, I believe that was the question. The
way it’s written was exactly the way Shari had it which shows it just going before
the Council. You could insert but they would have to petition, Planning and
Zoning Commission and the Council and go before both bodies.
Norton: If the Conditional Use Permit or if the occupants changed hands then
they would need a new Conditional Use Permit, is that correct?
Bowcutt: They would be able to transfer it with an application I think is the way it
reads. Yes, it may be transferred from an old owner to a new owner or old
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 11
occupants to new occupants for the same use for which the original Conditional
Use was granted by petitioning the City Council. Daycares are prime example.
There used to be a lot of daycares called Small World. They were bought by
New Horizon so under this they have to come back and petition to transfer that
Conditional Use Permit. Then if there were parking problems, neighbor problems
that could be reviewed. Shari thought it was important that be in there.
Norton: So as it is in your language here, they would only need to petition City
Council not come before Planning and Zoning?
Bowcutt: Correct and that’s how Shari had written it so it’s identical to hers.
Norton: Okay that makes sense, thank you.
Borup: So the question is if you want to leave it like that or add?
Norton: If we thought we needed two Public Hearings for that. I don’t see why
that would be totally necessary for two Public Hearings do you?
Borup: I don’t either, not for something that’s an existing use. So if we’re going
to hold one hearing it might as well be City Council.
Norton: Yes.
Borup: Do we have any – well the Public Hearing is still open. Do we want to do
a little bit of discussion first? Do we need to do a little bit before we draft a
motion?
Centers: I guess we could go through point by point on what Becky pointed out
on the Planned Development paragraph 2.
Borup: Yes, I think that one deserves some discussion. That’s on the 10 percent
or 5 percent and then the other amenities.
Centers: If we require 10 percent could we give a credit? I agree with Ms.
Bowcutt regarding playground equipment and sandboxes and the like. I think
residents appreciate that. I tend to agree with it.
Borup: I think the only comment that I have there is I don’t know if that’s
something that we can define in writing on what – I would think that’s something
that has to be determined on a case by case basis and determined by this
Commission and staff. Yes, I would – I mean there’s a lot of different amenities
and for the right project –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 12
Centers: You could say given less than 10 percent would be considered on a
case-by-case basis depending on other amenities that they’ll have proposed.
Playground equipment, sandboxes and the like. Does that make sense?
Norton: Yes.
Borup: And the 5 percent would apply in all cases, minimum of 5 percent.
Norton: Minimum of 5?
Borup: So it’s saying a minimum of 5 with two additional amenities, isn’t that –
Centers: Right. I don’t agree with staff why not leave the solar in, I mean if we’re
jumping around.
Borup: Do we have a wording for Section 2, or No. 2 first before we move on?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if I could add one little phrase in there. First of all
whether it’s 10 percent in one amenity, 10 percent in two amenities, or 5 percent
in two amenities is it’s up to and for your recommendation. Whatever it is I would
just like to add one phrase to the definition of that open space. It already says in
the original wording, 10 percent of the gross area exclusive of required street
buffers and buffering between incompatible land uses. I would like to add to that,
parking lot landscaping. If someone is doing a Planned Development which is
commercial or it includes commercial, if there’s required parking lot landscape
islands for example I don’t think that those should be counting towards the open
space requirement for the 10 percent.
Borup: That just needed to be inserted in with the other items that aren’t –
Siddoway: Yes, just add parking lot landscaping to the list that’s already
included. Becky’s summary doesn’t have the wording in it but in the original one
–
Norton: What number is that Steve?
Siddoway: What number?
Norton: Yes.
Siddoway: It’s 12-6-2a3b.
Centers: a3b?
Siddoway: a3a, sorry.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 13
Borup: I think the other -- it’s not like what we’re saying could be stated that,
that they shall require 10 percent open space or that could be reduced down to 5
percent with two qualifying amenities as determined by applicant, staff and the
Commission something along that line. It probably could be worded better than
that.
Shreeve: Would the word significant be applicable? If it’s just a swing set,
certainly I don’t think that would qualify. If it’s a significant playground facility, I
mean that’s up to somebody’s judgment I’m sure but –
Borup: -- but it just said significant amenities. Would (sic) anybody like to
attempt the wording of that?
Norton: What was your wording to begin with?
Borup: I forgot already.
Shreeve: Essentially that the 10 percent could be reduced –
Norton: Do we even need to use the 10 percent except for –
Borup: -- well the 10 percent – yes if they are not going to have anything else
then I think the 10 percent needs to stay in there under a Planned Unit
Development.
Norton: I see.
Borup: That’s already in the Ordinance.
Centers: Unless Shelby (inaudible).
Borup: So there can be reduction in that 10 percent if there’s other off setting
amenities added. In no case shall it be less than 5 percent.
Norton: With two amenities?
Borup: That was the suggested wording.
Norton: And we’re looking at this list. I wish these pages were numbered – and
part of this list is energy conservation measures, swimming pool, clubhouse et
cetera.
Borup: Well, yes we’ll talk this energy thing later and next.
Centers: Well whether it’s 5 or 10 it’s two amenities, correct? Even with the 5?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 14
Norton: Oh, it is.
Borup: Well the 5 would require – I mean if it is a minimum of 5 than it would
require two amenities that would be significant enough to offset that other 5
percent.
Shreeve: Otherwise it’s 10 percent with nothing?
Borup: Right, it’s my understanding.
Shreeve: Yes, that’s what I understand.
Borup: Which is the way it is now the 10 percent. I think all they were asking for
is if they had some significant amenities can that 10 percent be reduced. It’s
going to depend on the project. The one that was enforced last time had – I
don’t remember now it was way over 10 percent already. It wasn’t really a factor
of that specific one but I think this is something that’s probably going to apply to
smaller in field projects and things like that where space is maybe more of a
premium.
Shreeve: But they say if they do 10 percent than they still have to do one
required amenity.
Borup: Well that’s I guess what we need to discuss. That’s staff comments.
That’s not the way the current Ordinance reads, is that correct Steve? Current is
10 percent.
Siddoway: The current Ordinance that’s currently in effect says 10 percent of all.
It’s required of all Planned Developments.
Borup: It doesn’t talk about any additional amenities on top of the 10 percent?
Siddoway: It talks about other amenities that can get them a bonus density.
Borup: Right.
Siddoway: But the 10 percent is required in all of them. That’s the direction
Shari was heading in this one was saying 10 percent should be required in all
cases plus something else. So the question is, is whether 10 percent is one of
their options or whether it’s a requirement.
Borup: You’re saying she wants to increase or strengthen the current Ordinance
and add to – the 10 percent’s already in effect she wants to add another amenity
in addition to the 10 percent is what you’re saying? It’s the way this reads and I
thought that‘s what you just said.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 15
Siddoway: I believe that this is in order to get – just a second.
Shreeve: She wants the 10 percent –
Borup: -- plus another amenity.
Norton: Can we – under 3b where it starts – I’m looking at Shari’s’ comments
now. Under 3b it says private active recreational facilities such as playground,
picnic area, basketball or tennis court, swimming pools, clubhouses et cetera,
can we add that if they include some of this than they would only need a 5
percent open space? Isn’t that what we’re talking about?
Borup: I think that’s what we’re saying and those can be examples and we
wouldn’t necessarily be limited to that but the Commission and staff would be the
ones to determine whether they qualify as – there maybe a compromise
somewhere between. There maybe an amenity that’s maybe not so significant
and it can be reduced from 10 percent to 7 percent or something. That’s why I
think it should be handled on a case-by-case basis I think.
Norton: Does that sound reasonable?
Siddoway: I’m just trying to follow you. The –
Norton: I know it’s hard, I wish these pages were numbered.
Siddoway: Say it again, the 5 – go ahead give it to me one more time please.
Norton: You know what section I’m looking at?
Siddoway: Yes, on the amenities?
Norton: On the amenities under b for 5 percent, something to the effect that a
mandatory – you would have to have 5 percent or more open space. To reduce
the 10 percent to 5 percent you could include one of the following such as
playground, picnic area, basketball, tennis court, swimming pool, club house, you
know site suitable to meet the needs of the development to reduce that 10
percent open space down to –
Siddoway: -- to 5.
Norton: To no less than 5 percent.
Siddoway: And then still provide one other amenity for the Planned
Development?
Norton: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 16
Borup: Well she’s saying if you’re going down to 5 percent you would have two
amenities not one other in addition to the 10 right?
Siddoway: It’s either 10 percent plus one other from the laundry list or it’s 5
percent plus a recreational amenity plus one other from the laundry list.
Borup: So you’re saying 10 plus one from the laundry list?
Centers: Right, that’s what they’re saying too.
Norton: Yes, that’s what she’s saying anyway.
Borup: Well I know that’s what she’s saying is that what the Commission – we’re
wanting to toughen the Ordinance?
Siddoway: Well it sounds like she’s giving it some more flexibility.
Norton: No it’s not there’s more flexibility because 10 percent plus one of these
– what there’s one, two, three, four, five amenities or if they want to just have 5
percent open space and let’s say a playground and picnic area and one of the
others –
Borup: But currently all you have to do is 10 percent, you don’t have to worry
about one of the other numbers.
Centers: Yes you do.
Borup: There is still –
Norton: Yes, look at No. 3 you have to have two or more of the following
amenities.
Borup: Okay so it just stays the same?
Norton: It stays the same but if you want to do a playground you don’t have to
do the 10 percent.
Siddoway: I think that’s reasonable.
Borup: Have you got some wording on that then?
Norton: I’m working on it.
Borup: While she’s working on that do we want any discussion on the –
Commissioner Centers had mentioned on the Solar or the Energy et cetera?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 17
Centers: I just wander why we should exclude it. Tell me why –
Borup: We don’t have a Solar Ordinance we don’t have any –
Siddoway: Just because there’s no definition, no standards, someone can say I
have an awning, I turn off my computers at night that’s an energy conserving
device that should be one of the amenities.
Centers: See all you had to do was explain it you know I’ve got no problem.
Norton: But in this day in age it makes sense to have energy conservation
measures.
Siddoway: It does, so maybe no batteries.
Norton: Come up with some guidelines.
Borup: That’s to your own benefit to do that.
Norton: To leave it in.
Borup: Or to have energy conservation methods, turn off your computers or
lights or whatever. I don’t know why that needs to be any –
Norton: Have solar heating of the swimming pools?
Centers: But they might try to get a credit though.
Borup: That could be included in some of the other. I know Boise, I don’t know if
they’ve finished I think they’re in the process of eliminating their Solar Ordinance.
They decided it was not workable and didn’t really do anything and it’s pages
and pages of subdivision covenants that don’t accomplish anything.
Norton: I was just trying to think when we were talking about this last time. I
thought the Commission was in favor of keeping this in.
Centers: I remember we talked about it and the problem came up with someone
adding an awning or a sky light and then calling that their solar –
Borup: I thought we talked about when they –
Siddoway: -- when there are no guidelines or if the Commission has specific
ideas of things, of energy conservation measures that would warrant amenity
status then maybe what you could define those as – you know right in the
Ordinance. In the absence of such a definition I don’t think it makes sense.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 18
Borup: And the applicant could still propose such a measure and determined if
we felt it was significant. It can still be included because the list we’re talking
isn’t all-inclusive.
Siddoway: So it’s significant energy conservation then – measures?
***End Of Side One***
Borup: Are we ready for some wording on – did we get –
Norton: Are you going back to the landscape?
Borup: Yes.
Norton: For 5 percent I think there needs to be – I think a and b are related
because a is landscape open space of at least 10 percent plus two or more of
the following amenities. Or landscape open space of at least 5 percent of gross
area if a private activity recreational facility et cetera and one of the other
amenities.
Borup: Would you add it in that sense of a size to meet the needs of the
development as determined by –
Norton: As determined by staff?
Borup: Staffing and –
Norton: -- Planning and Zoning staff?
Borup: And Commission?
Norton: I don’t know about Commission.
Borup: Well we’re the ones that make the recommendation.
Norton: So staff and Commission?
Borup: I would be voting on whether – okay.
Norton: So 10 percent plus two or 5 percent plus one?
Borup: The other way around.
Centers: The other way around.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 19
Borup: 10 plus one or 5 plus two. That way you can outweigh it.
Norton: Wait a minute – okay, originally two or more of the following amenities
shall be provided. So landscape plus one –
Borup: -- well one or the two with 10 percent. For two amenities one of them is
10 percent and then one of the others.
Norton: Or 5 percent plus two because one of those two is the park or a
pedestrian circulation system.
Borup: And it’s not limited to those items either.
Norton: Oh it’s not we have other amenities we can give?
Borup: Well I think if there’s something else they come up with that needs to be
considered. It’s kind of hard to make a non-inclusive list, maybe that needs to be
said in that order or other amenities as proposed by applicant or something.
Shreeve: It’s got the et cetera.
Borup: Is the et cetera already? Well it does so I think that covers it. That other
item on street things, I don’t know if we need any discussion on that. This is the
focus that this was based on Boise’s Ordinance? I like the last one that will be
built to the ACHD standards. I think that’s definitely on there and may let Shari
review on the road widths. The other item No. 15 was suggested deleting – oh
yes No. 9.
Centers: Staff – well they’re recommending the (inaudible).
Borup: Well I like just the way it’s worded, will return by Commission and Council
based on the size of project and intense of the use of exceptions. I think that’s
probably pretty – that gives us an opportunity to look at it on a case-by-case
basis. So it would start from probably just right there at the percentage of use
exception (inaudible) will be determined by the Commission and Council based
upon the size and intense of the use of use exceptions at that. Does that make
sense? Everybody see where I’m reading?
Centers: Yes, I think that’s good.
Borup: Any other comments on that?
Centers: It’s a case-by-case.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 20
Borup: Okay then No. 15. We talked about deleting plus the number of units it
could have been placed in a dedicated land. It’s hard to be a strict – so the 10
percent policy would be on the land that was actually used?
Norton: Yes.
Borup: I think that’s it.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, on that last item, the bonus density, I think there needs
to be some definition on what the bonus density is calculated because this has
been on ongoing debate. If for example, I’m going to have an R-8 zone, the
debate is whether bonus density means that you can go from R-8 to R-10 or
from 8 units per acre to 10 units per acre or if that means that you can reduce
the minimum lot size by that 10 percent. It’s been an ongoing debate and in the
past we have applied the minimum lot size standards as the regulated feature
but it warrants some definition I think at this time.
Centers: Couldn’t we add as we did under 9 above on the 20 percent
determined by the Commission and Council?
Borup: I think that’s something that could have some specific guidelines.
Centers: Could that be added?
Siddoway: I would recommend some specific guidelines to the development
(inaudible) would like that. What kind of density can you push for? For example
if it’s an R-8 and the minimum lot size is 6,500 square feet, your generally getting
a gross density of less than 4 units per acre still in the City of Meridian. It
becomes a real debate as whether that bonus density means that I can now do
10 units per acres or does that mean I can do a realm of 4 to 5 units per acre –
Centers: -- plus the number of units that could have been placed on the
dedicated land.
Borup: She’s saying that could be – delete that statement.
Centers: I think I got some of that same concern –
Borup: -- if we’re talking about a reduction in lot size and you said that’s really
what staff tried to do. That’s certainly more controllable and reasonable but
sometimes that doesn’t accomplish that much either. I mean taking a 6,500-foot
lot, 650 feet off doesn’t really – there’s not much incentive to dedicate something
if that’s all you’re gaining.
Siddoway: I think a 10 percent reduction lot size goes from 6,500 to 4,750 if I
remember right. Calculate that out for me Bruce.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 21
Borup: That would be more like 5,850 wouldn’t it? So it’s already reducing by
650 feet, 5,850.
Siddoway: Yes I’m wrong.
Borup: I don’t know that it’s accomplishing that much and that’s – but to increase
the 6 to – well what would it be if it’s 6 units per acre?
Siddoway: If it’s R-4 it would go from 4 to 5 and if it was R-8 it would go from 8
to 9.
Borup: Well 10 percent – it wouldn’t really go from 4 to 5 not if it was just 10
percent.
Siddoway: Oh, yes, I’m thinking –
Borup: It’s going to be fractions.
Siddoway: Yes, you’re right.
Borup: There needs to be some incentive to do a dedication. In my mind and
tell me what kind of dedication. I already mentioned if it’s a straight dedication it
probably could be a little more allowed than just the selling of that cost. Any
suggestions or recommendations from anybody? I kind of like – Commissioner
Center’s you said maybe that’s something that could be determined. As
determined by the Commission also.
Shreeve: Like we did above No. 9 because there’s (inaudible).
Centers: Then whether it’s donated land or sold at cost.
Borup: Steve, what kind of problems on the – after looking at this again I don’t
know if the, well it would. At first I was going to say I don’t know how much
trouble that would cause on changing the zoning but it would because you can’t
get 4 units per acre in an R-4 zone.
Siddoway: You’re right.
Borup: And meet the minimum lot requirements. Not if you have roads.
Siddoway: That’s right you won’t get 4 units per acre in an R-4 under our current
minimum lot size standards.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 22
Borup: So if it’s increased from 4 per acre to 4.4 per acre that doesn’t really
accomplish anything at all unless you make a reduction of the minimum lot size
that’s really the only thing that counts isn’t it is going to be the minimum lot size?
Siddoway: That is what ultimately regulates the density. Unless you say that it’s
regulated by that number being allowed to go from 4 to 4.4 and then lot sizes
simply change accordingly but I don’t know –
Borup: So what’s according – that’s why it would be easier if we put a definition I
think it would probably be better to put it on the lot size say that 10 percent
reduction in lot size and not even get into the zoning?
Center: I’m thinking that they’re really thinking of townhouses too.
Borup: Has that been used, I don’t think it’s been used anywhere else besides
that. Maybe commercial also but – so I think we can just put that statement of
the 10 percent would apply to the lot size.
Center: Area, square footage, area?
Borup: Yes, well see that’s the other thing. We’ve got two minimum lot sizes
frontage and area. Often times the area is larger than the minimum but that’s the
way it comes out to get the minimum frontage. I think we can just leave it at that
that’s going to be up – I mean the developer is going to determine that on his lot
layout.
Centers: Would this be too vague where a residential density bonus would be
considered for dedication of land and public use as school, park et cetera?
Borup: The word, consider would be a (inaudible) word, I like that.
Centers: Yes, a residential density bonus would be considered for dedications of
land for public use and school, park (inaudible).
Borup: I’m not getting any specifics. I think maybe what staff was saying it
would be nice for the applicant to know what to expect. Would they expect 10
percent?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Or something for – I guess depending on what was the nature of the
dedication I, more than 10 percent may be narrative. I don’t know if we want to
limit to that either.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 23
Centers: Then you don’t get into Becky or Shari’s comments down below where
they dedicated more than 10 and then they’re wanting 50 percent. Do you see
their comments down below?
Siddoway: Right, yes.
Borup: That was on the comment that you would get – that the units would count
on the land that’s dedicated that you get to take that density and add it to the
remaining. Yes that could be a –
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton, oh Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: After thinking through this and talking with Becky over here on the
sidelines I don’t really think there’s a problem with defining it based on the
underlying zone. For example if it’s R-4 you would be able to – it’s a Planned
Development so a lot of times Planned Developments the minimum lot size
doesn’t apply because it is a Planned Development. What we’re saying is the
overall density can’t be more than 10 percent greater than the underlying zone.
If they’re doing a mix of lot sizes as a Planned Development and the underlying
zone is R-4 they can do some 6000 square foot lots and some big lots and
whatever but the overall density couldn’t be more than 4.4 in that case.
Borup: 4.4.
Siddoway: I don’t really think that’s a problem after thinking through it.
Centers: Oh great. You’re talking town houses too, right, and zero lot lines. Yes,
that’s what I thought.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Centers: -- leaving off the last sentence as recommended would do it.
Siddoway: Yes. I don’t have a problem with that.
Borup: How about Mr. Center’s statement on may be considered? How did you
say that?
Centers: Would be considered.
Norton: Would be considered or may be given. It’s the same thing.
Borup: Consideration may be given to, or whatever. Ok
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 24
Norton: So, leave off the last sentence there?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: So, now, we’re back to first base? Leave off the last sentence.
Borup: Are we ready to move this on?
Centers: I am.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I hate to muddy the waters. On the open space,
(inaudible) I think that’s worth going back to.
Borup: We thought we were done with that.
Siddoway: Let me throw one more loop in the fire, loop in the fire? I’m not sure
that’s a phrase. Log on the fire. I just need to clarify that a lot of discussion
tonight’s been around the fact that there’s already a five percent minimum
requirement in the Landscape Ordinance. That’s only true for single family
residential. For multi family, there’s already a ten percent minimum for multi
family projects in the Landscape Ordinance. I don’t know whether you want to,
I’ll just throw something out for your own consideration. You could say that it can
be reduced to the minimum of the Landscape Ordinance for the use that is
proposed if you do one recreational amenity and one additional amenity to follow
Commissioner Norton’s suggestion or it’s a flat ten percent plus one other.
Really the multi family projects already have a ten percent requirement.
Borup: Yes. I don’t think we want to be doing a new ordinance. Could you say,
I guess we could, less then ten percent would be considered if the applicant was
providing the list that we talked about.
Siddoway: That’s where you come in. I just wanted to bring up the issue to
make sure you’re aware of it.
Centers: Do we just need to mention, in compliance with existing Landscape
Ordinance?
Borup: Yes, right. I wish you would have added that earlier.
Centers: Can you add that into your wording?
Norton: Yes. The landscape, you already have to have ten percent landscape?
Borup: On multi family
Siddoway: On multi family projects only.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 25
Norton: That includes the planned development, which is multi family.
Siddoway: That includes what? I’m sorry.
Norton: The planned development.
Siddoway: It would include the multi family sections of planned development,
Yes.
Borup: If they’re including multi family within their PD, which they –
Siddoway: I don’t know. Or you could say if it’s a planned development and
they’re integrating, just to be a little wild here. Say they’re doing a planned
development and they’re integrating multi family, single family, a bunch of
different uses, I mean maybe you could say that if you’re doing it as a planned
development, you could take it down to five percent, if you’re doing these other
amenities. That’s what you’re –
Norton: Would it –
Siddoway: I don’t know.
Norton: -- Would it make more sense for people who are reading through this
that if they have not already read the Landscape Ordinance, that this makes it
clear that they have to have at least ten percent open space?
Siddoway: If it’s not –
Norton: I mean to include the ten percent open space plus one of the other
amenities.
Borup: I think with a mention of the Landscape Ordinance and they would know
they better get that out and look at it too.
Centers: You know if you don’t want to require the ten for a planned
development, then you have to have an asterisk. However, should it be and
include multi family development or apartment complexes, then it must have ten
percent. I think the one –
Siddoway: Plus two –
Centers: -- the one coming before us tonight doesn’t have apartment complexes,
if I’m right.
Siddoway: No. It does have town houses.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 26
Norton: Senior town houses.
Centers: Town houses are sold individually.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: They may have a zero lot line but it’s not a multi family.
Siddoway: No. That needs to be defined.
Borup: So, did we want to add that in there –
Norton: Sure.
Centers: I like that.
Borup: to start with. Is that what we’re saying? You’ve already got the five
percent mentioned and –
Norton: Right.
Borup: -- you’re saying –
Norton: Okay.
Borup: -- then on that multi family. How did you word the five percent?
Norton: Landscape open –
Centers: Most multi family has more than ten percent. We saw one –
Siddoway: That’s correct.
Centers: -- a couple weeks ago that had fifty.
Norton: Yes.
Centers: You know, so, I think it just –
Borup: Five percent gross area of single family.
Norton: Why do we need single family?
Borup: Because that’s what the five percent applies to and the ten percent is on
multi family.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 27
(Inaudible Discussion Amongst Commissioners)
Siddoway: I think the question in my mind was if you’re allowing planned
developments with multi family –
Borup: Right.
Centers: Multi family requires –
Siddoway: -- to go down to five if they were providing something else. That was
the question in my mind.
Centers: Right.
Norton: So, they’d still have to have ten percent, no matter what if they had
multi family?
Borup: Right that’s the way the current Landscape Ordinance already is. We
don’t want to pass a new ordinance that’s going to counter mandate.
Centers: Should the project include multi family where there is no less than ten?
Borup: Okay.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Borup: I think you really need to say multi family apartments. Town houses
might be construed, when they’re really not.
Norton: Right. Okay.
Siddoway: Chairman Borup. I wasn’t quite hearing what you were saying about
potentially needing a new ordinance.
Borup: No, I said we don’t want to pass a new ordinance that’s going to counter
amend an existing ordinance. I mean if it already says it needs ten percent, we
don’t want to pass something else here saying it only needs five, do we?
Siddoway: Yes, right. I guess I was wondering if you were saying we might
have to pass a new landscape Ordinance, which isn’t true.
Borup: No. I said we don’t want to mess with the Landscape Ordinance.
Siddoway: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 28
Borup: Okay, we’ve got –
Norton: Now, ready? Help me with this.
Borup: We’ve got one, two, I guess four. The very four things that we’re making
some changes to with the motion that Planning and Zoning staff would review the
whole thing prior to City Council.
Norton: So, we have the amenities, what are the four? The amenities is one –
Borup: Number two, number three –
Norton: Number three with –
Borup: -- nine and fifteen.
Centers: Right.
Norton: Okay. No. three we decided to take out, right.
Borup: Right.
Norton: Okay, nine –
Centers: Well, actually seven, the streets.
Norton: Oh, yes, the streets in seven.
Borup: Yes.
Norton: So, two, three, seven –
Borup: The streets are just –
Centers: Yes.
Norton: -- nine and fifteen right?
Centers: Go with the recommendations subject to Shari’s –
Borup: Right.
Centers: -- review.
Borup: Okay
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 29
Norton: Are you ready?
Borup: I am.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Borup: We haven’t closed this hearing yet either.
Centers: Right. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we close the Public
Hearing for the request for consideration of amendments to Title 12, Chapter 6
Planned Development and Title 11, Chapter 17 Conditional Uses of Meridian City
Ordinance, which is ZA01-001.
Siddoway: I’ll second that.
Borup: Motion is second, any discussion? All in favor
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Assuming the motion would be that we are recommending approval of
these ordinance changes with the following changes. Is that how we would want
to word that?
Norton: Yep.
Borup: Okay.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Borup: Okay, so let’s state the following changes. Commissioner Norton
Norton: Do you want to state them?
Borup: Why don’t you go ahead at least on the first one?
Norton: The motion is to approve this, to move the planned development
amendments with Shari’s comments dated March the 15th
and Becky Bowcutt’s
comments dated March the 17th
with the following changes under Section12-6-2-
A-3. To have the following languages, amenities, one of the following amenities
should be provided as part of each planned development. They would be; a-
landscape open space of at least ten percent of the gross area, exclusive of
required street buffers and buffers between incompatible land uses and parking
lot landscaping. One or more of the following amenities, and then go down to
where it says d, e, and f and renumber those, small one, small two and small
three. That would be one choice.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 30
Centers: Are we talking about adding, or other amenities as approved by
Council?
Borup: Or by Commission
Norton: That’s number three.
Centers: Is it? Okay.
Norton: Yes, number three is there are other amenities.
Centers: I’m sorry.
Norton: -- or should the project -- wait a minute excuse me. Should the project
include multi family apartments, it must have ten percent open space according
to our Landscape Ordinance, or landscape open space of at least five percent of
gross area if a private, active recreational facility such as playground, picnic
area, baseball or tennis courts, swimming pool, clubhouse, et cetera of a size
suitable to meet the needs of the development as determined by staff and
Planning and Zoning Commission. Plus one of the following amendments, and
those would be small one, small two and small three.
Borup: Do you have that Mr. Moore?
Moore: No I don’t.
Norton: I can write it down for you.
Moore: If I could, get a copy of it.
Norton: Sure.
Borup: Okay
Norton: Then –
Borup: The others will be easier.
Moore: I hope so.
Norton: Then the change would be section 12 6-2-A-3-C, regarding that energy
conservation measures be stricken from Shari’s letter. We do not want that as
one of the amenities. Section 12-6-2-A-6, regarding the streets, we approved
Becky Bowcutt’s language that she has included in her April 19th
letter with staff’s
review. The next change, section 12-6-3-2, regarding the twenty percent, let’s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 31
see, the residential bonus would be considered for dedications of land for public
uses; school, park, fire station or recreational facilities. Is that correct?
Borup: NO, no.
Norton: What is it?
Borup: We were just including and we agreed with the language where it had to
be approved by the Commission and the Council.
Norton: Oh, Okay. I’m ahead –
Borup: You were on –
Centers: You’re cutting this sentence right here.
Norton: -- to add which emphasizes the percentage of use exception allowed to
be determined by the Commission and Council based on the size of the project
and the intensity of the use exceptions. Is that right?
Borup: Right.
Norton: So, I was a step ahead of myself. The last change is section 12-6-6-8-
7, regarding the ten percent bonus density to take out the last sentence, which
states the bonus shall not exceed ten percent of the units permitted by the zone
on the undedicated portion of the land plus the number of units that could have
been placed on the dedicated lands.
Borup: I think the only part we were deleting was the plus the number of units.
Centers: Right, the last part of the sentence.
Borup: From that point on. Just that last part of the sentence.
Norton: Oh, just the last part of it. Okay.
Borup: Yes.
Norton: All right. That is it.
Borup: So, the ten percent bonus density still stays.
Norton: Okay.
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 32
Norton: So, we just delete the words, plus the number of units that could have
been placed on the dedicated land?
Centers: Correct. That’s what we decided.
Norton: Then the rest of the language that Becky Bowcutt hadplanned out
according to Shari’s letter, then we all agree on that?
Centers: Ok.
Norton: To include that in the motion.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: That was a long motion. Mr. Moore did you have them all except for that
first one?
Moore: All of them except for the changes that you made on number two.
Norton: Okay.
Moore: I’ll get a copy of that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. we have a motion.
Centers: I’ll second it.
Borup: Any discussion? I think we’ve covered that all ready. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Thank you Sam.
Borup: Yes, thank you, Sam. Okay. Are we ready to go ahead or would the
Commission like a short break?
Borup: We’re fine? Okay.
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from March 15, 2001 AZ 00-
023 Request for annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres
from RT to R-4 for proposed Lakes Subdivision by Gem
Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and west of
Eagle Road:
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioners)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 33
Borup: Item No. 7, is part of a continued Public Hearing and let’s go ahead and
open all three, No.7, the Continued Public Hearing for annexation and zoning of
156.21 acres for proposed Tuscany Lakes and Co-insiding with that would be
Preliminary Plat, Item No. 8 and Conditional Use Permit on Item No. 9 for the
same Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership. I think we were
waiting for some additional information at the last meeting. That hearing has
been opened. I’d like to start with a staff report.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Norton: Mr.—
Borup: I had – Commissioner Norton do you – I had seven items on my list.
Norton: Just to let the audience know that our staff recommended that this be
delayed to May the 3rd
because of the results from the water modeling had not
been received to this date. The staff had recommended that this be continued to
May 3rd
because the water modeling had not been received. Is that correct?
Centers: That’s correct.
Borup: Any comment on that, Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We had a meeting with
our consultant yesterday. He’s working on it. He didn’t think he would have
results for tonight’s meeting. I expect those real shortly. We did want to have
them in time for the applicant to be able to review them before we come before
this board. We do have the results of the sewer study, included comments in
there regarding that the italicized text below the sewer comments are just for
your consideration, just informational only. I think most of you were involved in
the approval process of another development that is taking some of the capacity
from that Ten Mile Sewer Trunk service area. This just gives you some up to
date numbers of what kind of remaining capacity we have left in that sewer trunk.
Borup: Anything else?
Freckleton: Not at this time.
Borup: Mr. Siddoway, any additional report?
Siddoway: I’m assuming everyone’s fairly familiar with the project by now.
Maybe Mr. Shreeve is or is not. I can give kind of a brief orientation up on the
screen. The proposed annexation is south of Victory Road, basically stretching
from Eagle Road to Locust Grove. It’s contiguous with existing City limits at this
one point right here in Thousand Spring subdivision. This is kind of a blow-up of
the proposed plat. These are some site photos to get you somewhat a feel of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 34
the site. Basically -- currently used as farmland and a turf farm. It does have
several canals and creeks that cross through the project, including the
Ridinbough, which the photo on the right hand side is where the Riddenbaugh
crosses Ten Mile Creek. It’s actually a great separated crossing of two separate
waterways. Also the Eight Mile Creek and some other drains that belong just to
the properties are on the site. It does have some significant vegetation, as you
can see. It should be made clear that it needs to be protected as per the new
Landscape Ordinance. That’s the basic orientation. You should have an
updated staff report where we tried to focus on the remaining issues that were
currently the points of discussion at the last hearing. It’s dated April 13th
2001
from Bruce and myself. We go through the sewer and water issues that Bruce
just explained. The migrating ground water was a significant issue at the last
hearing. We do have a letter from Associated Earth Sciences that, they are able
to design a drainage system that will allow the ground water to be intercepted. If
you have specific questions, we can maybe direct those to the applicant. I don’t
know if Bruce has more information. The street alignment was a big issue.
There was a discussion of whether that should be shifted. We do have a letter
from ACHD stating they do not want to move the location of proposed Tuscany
Way. That the current proposed location is the safest. There was also quite a bit
of discussion about the pathway adjacent to the Riddenbaugh Canal. It was
being called the Nine Mile Creek pathway, but it wasn’t really the Nine Mile
Creek. The Parks Department has determined they do not want to require that
pathway. The future that they are planning on will most likely be on the side.
That area that’s now left over should be shown on the plat as to whether it
becomes a common area or whether it goes to the lots that are adjacent to it.
Without the pathway, any students coming to the, that are walking, to the school
that’s on the site – Let me go back to the plat, coming from the north, to get to
the school, without a pathway connection that goes along here to the school site.
We’d like to see at least a micro path connection to allow people to get into the
sidewalks of the subdivision and get to the school along this route so they’re not
forced around to Tuscany Way.
Borup: You’re saying a micro path from Victory?
Siddoway: Yes. That’s correct. Then just a note that of course the other
pathways already talked about are still required, even though this one along the
Riddenbaugh is not. School access is an issue. The location makes it, and the
street system makes it somewhat securitis route to get to the school site. I’ve
heard it said that while the main access will be coming from Eagle Road in this
direction, I’ve seen a concept plan of what’s being proposed here. It’s also
securitis route, it’s not very direct. The main issue that this brings up is just the
location next to a blind corner. Should that be shifted down? I put in that at a
minimum, a condition should be added to give the School District flexibility in
locating the entrance and potentially an exit, as site plans are prepared. Then,
as staff, we feel strongly about trying to make these school sites an amenity to
the community and giving them, making them more visible by giving them
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 35
frontage. We would like to see the lots in along the front of the school site
eliminated and bringing that school out to the street. We’ve brought this up in
every staff report that the School District doesn’t see it as a do or die thing, but
as staff, we feel pretty strongly about it. I want to bring that up and push that
button one more time.
Centers: The staff feels that having the school site open directly on a street is –
Siddoway: A good thing.
Centers: -- a good thing?
Siddoway: Yes, as long as it’s not an arterial, but yes. It’s on a local street, it
makes it an open space, visual amenity for everyone rather than just the people
who –
Borup: There’s not a safety concern?
Siddoway: Well that’s the debate. I actually think it’s safer to have more people
watching it than to have it completely surrounded by back yards. School District
likes the idea of having a single access point. It’s a debate for sure.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Well, when the representative from the School District was here at this
application, he was very adamant that he liked the site where it was, if I recall.
Siddoway: That’s right.
Centers: Here, you’re –
Siddoway: I’m just saying as Planning and Zoning Staff, our recommendation is
different.
Centers: I think he liked --
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Centers: The security of the houses around it, but I think he also said he was
open to moving the entrance to an alternate location.
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: That’s something they said they would look at in doing the site design.
Would that still be coming back to us, the site designs for the school?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 36
Borup: It would be determined with the plat as far as the entrance, which –
Siddoway: Right, the location, the actual shape of the lot and the location of the
entrances, yes.
Borup: (Inaudible)
Siddoway: That’s done as part of the plat.
Borup: Right.
Centers: Maybe that’s what it was. He said if the developer felt they wanted to
move that they –
Borup: Well and we don’t have the complete plat.
Centers: -- would probably be okay with it.
Centers: Okay continue, Steve. I’m sorry.
Siddoway: We’ll move on. Wetlands -- the original staff report said that we
needed some clarification on this before acting on the Preliminary Plat. I have
since been convinced that we could make that a requirement to be submitted
prior to the first phase of the Final Plat. That way, if there are significant issues, I
mean it might. It seems fairly unlikely that there will be significant issues arising
from that because. That’s the reason for allowing it. I still think, I mean, there’s
ground. You’ve seen the photos. I don’t have, the photos weren’t in this set.
There’s an area full of ground water, full of water all winter long. It’s not just fed
by the canals. We felt like that should be investigated and got a report from the
Corp. of Engineers. The applicant feels that they have sufficient room to handle
that, even if it means shifting a street a little bit but wouldn’t require major
modifications even if it did have to be protected. Based on that, I’ve changed my
recommendation to allow it to, to not require it before acting on it at the
Preliminary Plat stage. We would have to have some response before the first
Final Plat. Then the last issue is we need a complete plat before we send it on
to the City Council. We need one that shows all of the required modifications,
contours, the notes, et cetera, et cetera. It’s all listed out there, before this sent
on. That is all I have.
Centers: From the way I determined it, there are really mainly three issues that
there was some concern on. One, the location of the school entrance, the
complete plat and the water model study. Is that the three items? Anything in
addition to that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 37
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I’d still like to add that road entrance. Do we have a
letter from Christi Richardson, that letter that’s documented? Either I misplaced
it --
Centers: Didn’t you get a copy?
Borup: We got our draft copy from ACHD. They were pretty emphatic on their
recommendations.
Shreeve: I’ve misplaced that one then.
Siddoway: I have a copy of it here. If you don’t, I can get it to you. We do have
a written letter.
Shreeve: Right, we had a draft. Was that ever formalized, then?
Siddoway: This is just a one-paragraph letter specifically about the location of
the entrance. Were you asking about a full letter?
Shreeve: Well, specifically, I’m after the entrance.
Siddoway: Yes, this is just kind of a single-issue letter from ACHD that deals with
that issue only.
Shreeve: Did she give any reasoning? I don’t have that letter.
Siddoway: I can just read it to you. It’s pretty short. The ACHD, well, let me
start at the beginning. The issue has been raised regarding proposed location of
Tuscany Way, off of Victory Road. The proposed location conforms to ACHD
policy. An ACHD Traffic Engineer has evaluated the situation and determined
that the proposed location at the east property line appears to be the safest. If
the roadway is moved to the west, then sight distances become a problem and
the traffic engineer will not approve this roadway in any other location.
Centers: I didn’t see that letter either.
Borup: So, their final word was they would not approve it at any other location?
Siddoway: Yes. They want the road left where it is. The road access point.
Borup: Was there anything else to add to that? I had three items, water model
study, flexibility on school access and a complete plat.
***End Of Side Two***
Siddoway: -- the micro path issue –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 38
Borup: Right.
Siddoway: -- as long as those tweaks are included in that comment, then yes.
Borup: Okay would the applicant representative here like to come forward,
comment on –
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I –
Borup: Oh, yes.
Freckleton: -- add something before we move on to that?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Something that doesn’t happen very often, but Steve and I disagree
on one subject here. That is the issue of the wetlands. I guess my feelings differ
because I feel that the Mayor and Council have made it clear that they want a
clean plat, Preliminary Plat from this Commission before it moves on to Council.
I hate to send this forward and let it get clear to the first phase Final Plat before
we nail done this wetlands issue. I mean, I think that’s the intent of a Preliminary
Plat is to nail these type of issues down. The applicant’s representative here
tonight may have some information on the wetlands issue already. I just throw
that out. I feel –
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: -- pretty strongly that we probably should still include it as part of the
Preliminary Plat.
Borup: So, you’re saying that letter from the –
Freckleton: From the Corp.
Borup: -- Army Corp. So noted, Mr. Brown
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, Briggs Engineering representing Gem Park
II. My address is 1800 west Overland, business address.
Borup: Okay. I think as I was trying to – We’ve got three, possibly four items
that looks like still in question. I don’t know if you’ve got comments on anything
else, but hopefully on those items.
Brown: In the previous meeting, Wendell Bingham asked for the flexibility on the
school location. At that meeting, I think you’ll remember that we agreed to work
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 39
with them to come up with what. You know if they end up needing two entrances
or whatever, we were willing to work with them on that.
Borup: I think the staff also had some concern on the location at the curve. You
know some of the safety aspects of it.
Brown: And that was what Mr. Bingham was speaking to when he spoke last
time. If you will recall, he said that might be a problem, but they would have to
place their school site on that site and they might need some flexibility in how
they locate their parking and everything else according to that site. We’re willing
to work with them. I mean this is part of the latter phase and they also in this last
meeting stated that they didn’t need that school at that time. That they would be
building one to the east of this prior to that time.
Borup: I think part of the concern was, if we approve a plat layout, who reviews
the new entrance location? How would that determine then?
Brown: Mr. Chairman –
Borup: Is that between you and the school district?
Brown: – with us and the School District –
Borup: And the staff?
Brown: -- I would imagine your concern is, that the School District has
something that’s safe and works with their school site. We’ve agreed to work
with the School District and come up with what’s best for them.
Borup: They didn’t seem to have as much concern as staff did.
Brown: That’s correct.
Borup: So, maybe that’s my question. Will there be some staff review on that on
that location placement –
Brown: Well, say –
Borup: -- or is it going to be strictly up to the developer and the School District?
Brown: Let’s say that the School District wants it five plots down, it really, I mean
does that require an entire review by staff?
Borup: Well, no. I don’t think so. It sounds like staff’s comment mainly is,
further south. He’d rather see it further south than where it’s at.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 40
Siddoway: Yes that’s part of it.
Brown: He also wants it on the street.
Borup: Well, right. --
Brown: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: -- that’s kind of two –
Siddoway: -- It at least needs to be further south.
Borup: -- separate issues.
Shreeve: If you’re designating it as two separate issues, I’d actually just be
reminded why the school wanted it behind the lot lines and not on a street. I
would tend to agree with staff, having the school on a lot line. I would like to
therefore just be reminded what the school said about that, why they wanted it
behind the lot lines like that. If anybody can recall to remind me.
Borup: Mr. Brown, maybe you want to be the best one for that.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. From our experiences with the School
District in the past, this is their preferred method of locating their schools. Valley
View takes, I would say -- Steve’s and your opinion that they should be out on
the major, or on roads period. The School District feels it’s safer to be behind
those homes. They have a less of ability for people to have access to their
school. They would have to fence that like they have done with the middle
school on other sites. They feel that it’s safer behind the homes.
Borup: That is mainly a safety concern –
Brown: I believe so.
Borup: -- people can’t drive up to the school ground and grab a kid or whatever
and kids wander off easier and that kind of thing.
Brown: He also made it very clear that he did not want that pathway, as you
recall, going behind there just for the purpose of just having the wrong kind of
people just sitting out there and staring at the kids. I think that that’s, at least
that’s the way I interrupted what he told us.
Brown: So, that makes kind of sense as to why they like it behind the houses.
Shreeve: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 41
Brown: The wetlands issue, we have made numerous attempts to try to meet
with the Corp. As you look at our site, even if we removed all of the wetland area
that was there, we’re creating three or four times that amount. Generally that is
acceptable. If you remove one wet lands and create another. They’ll allow you,
for example, when you go in with a permit and you have an area that they deem
as being wetlands and you straighten it out, tile it, as long as you create that
same amount of wetland area, that’s the process you go through in removing a
wetland area.
Centers: Butch Otter didn’t find that to be true.
Brown: I don’t think that Mr. Otter proved up that that was a wetland area to
begin with –
Centers: You know what I’m saying.
Brown: -- Commissioner Centers. I do.
Borup: What has been the delay with meeting with the Army Corp? Are they
backed up?
Brown: Them not meeting with us
Borup: What, they haven’t been able to schedule a time, or what?
Brown: That’s correct.
Borup: Are they that busy?
Brown: I don’t know. With a few sunny days, we thought they might want to get
out of the office, but we’ve been unable to make our schedules work.
Centers: That’s not nice.
Brown: Completion of the plat, we’ve kind of left it at this point because we didn’t
really know what you were going to act upon and if you were going to ask for
changes. That’s the reason that it’s not here before you. The requirement, or
the recent conversations with Mayor Corrie, I think you’re kind of stuck with what
your Ordinance says not what conversations with the Mayor has to say. That’s
my personal opinion. You are required to make recommendations and send
them forward. I don’t know if they don’t, if the Mayor doesn’t trust Steve to
review what you guys approve. That would be the only thing that I could see.
Steve’s the one that’s going to accept what you make the recommendations for
and require that we put that on there. We would ask that whatever you make
your recommendations that we provide to staff and then allow this item to go
forward.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 42
Borup: You still have two issues though. The water and the wetlands, even if we
agreed with the other two.
Brown: To nail down –
Borup: The water modeling and the wetlands report.
Brown: If you look at the area where they’re talking about the wetlands being,
we might end up having to move the road over one more lot or maybe two lots.
As I suggested, as I discussed it with Steve, we would maybe have to make that
lot bigger. Once again even if we totally eliminated it and tiled that area, it’s an
exchange, wet lands for wetlands and we would be creating a wetland with the
ponds that we’re putting on our site.
Centers: What about the water modelings?
Brown: The water model, --
Borup: That’s out of their hands.
Brown: -- it’s like what I told you last time, I would take care of the items that you
assigned me. As we left it the last time, the water wet lands was not an issue
that I was to resolve. It was something that I would before my first phase but I
have made an effort to try to do that. I told you when I was here, I can’t make
your staff and I can’t make your staff’s consultants work any faster. I would
handle what I could and I did.
Borup: Any concern on making those adjustments to the plat concerning the
pathway and the other items that staff has talked about?
Brown: Other than, moving the school to a location that the school might not
like, we agreed at the last hearing to put the micro path after Mr. Bingham made
a comment to putting that out the cul-de-sac. We offered to do that.
Borup: And another one to Victory Road?
Brown: To Victory Road, out of the northern cul-de-sac there in that portion.
Borup: Right.
Brown: We agreed to do that.
Borup: And the other would be eliminated along the canal?
Brown: Right. We would add that space to those lots.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 43
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Shreeve.
Shreeve: I just want to come back for the record, on the road issue. I don’t
claim to be a Traffic Engineer by any stretch of the imagination. I personally live
in Thousand Springs. Chances are my kids will be going to this school. I’ve
driven that Victory Road many times and the entrance from Victory Road, from
Thousand Springs to Victory Road is, there is a blind spot there, very subtle. A
suggestion that was made in a letter by Mr. Young about possibly skimming off
that mound, and there’s just a very slight mound, that’s a very good possibility of
doing that. Drainage, I think, would not be a problem as the road is already fairly
much above it. On the north side you might start getting below the ground but it
falls off and I don’t perceive that drainage would be an issue. I just think having
a lighting structure there, you know, a letter by Mrs. Richardson, may have been
a great letter but I just can’t believe that a whole lot of thought didn’t go into it. I
may be wrong, but, to me, I think that that is an issue that is not resolved in my
mind. I think we really need to look at possibly making those intersection match
up. I know my kids are going to be walking to that school some day and to have
those intersections and a lighting structure and a cross walk, in my opinion, is
certainly a lot safer than having two major intersections off center from each
other.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners
Borup: Mr. Brown
Brown: When we met with the Traffic Engineer from Ada County Highway
District our Traffic Engineer met with him. The verbiage that was in that letter
came strictly from their Traffic Engineer. He knew that intersection very well and
that’s why he took the tone. I don’t think that she added anything to his
comments, to her. He did not want those together. He felt that it was safer, them
being apart. He realizes that they have a problem and I think that the school
district and the Thousand Springs’ Homeowners Association could work to make
that a safer intersection, especially if they need a child’s crossing there in the
future.
Borup: Anything else from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Brown. I’d like to
continue with any testimony. As this is a Continued Public Hearing, we’d like to
hear something new that has not been stated in the past. We have past
testimony on record. We have the minutes to that effect. We have several
letters that have been in, so it would be open for any new or additional testimony
at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 44
Young: My name is Rex Young. I live at 2950 East Victory Road. I have a letter
in the file and I won’t go back and go over any of those things again, except I do
want to make a comment or two about that intersection. Of course, when the
letter was read there, which was very definitive, the traffic engineer said he
wouldn’t approve that. I was wondering what precipitated that letter? I called
Ada County Highway District before I wrote the letter in to you folks and talked
with one of the planners there. They told me, or she told me, that that
intersection the way it exists now, Brandy’s Jewel, where it intersects with Victory
Road, that it only met the bare minimums when it was approved initially. When I
made the suggestion to her that maybe this was the time that that needs to be
straightened up by shaving that hill off and installing a traffic light to improve the
safety, her attitude at the time was, well that would cost a little bit of money to do
that and we just don’t think that we want to do it. Well, we’ve got an intersection
there that was approved that needs to be improved. Now, there’s going to have
to be a traffic light installed there anyway, even if there is a micro pathway put in
so that the children will have a way to cross that Victory Road in a safe manner.
Just because we’ve got a Traffic Engineer that says he won’t approve it, I think
we’ve got a situation there that needs to be further addressed and I just don’t
think that we can accept that letter as final. I understand that they may have the
hammer, but I think that you folks have got the hammer too and I think that us, as
citizens out there, that we also have some input. You know really, Ada County
Highway District, they work for us. Any questions?
Borup: Questions for Mr. Young?
Centers: I have one. Do you remember who it was that you talked to?
Young: I don’t remember and I didn’t write it down. I know it was a lady and
when I called there the first time I didn’t talk with that lady because they told me
that that lady was the one that was knowledgeable about that area.
Centers: Okay.
Young: So, then I had to call back another time.
Centers: Okay to get the right one. The question I really had was your
statement she said that it, that Brandy’s Jewel intersection met the bare
minimum. –
Young: Bare minimum requirements established by Ada County Highway
District.
Centers: Do you have any – did they explain what that meant?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 45
Young: No. She did not explain what that was. Only that it just barely met the
bare minimums.
Centers: So, you don’t know what requirement it was that it barely met?
Young: No I do not. I assumed distance or something like that and sight
distance but I don’t know exactly.
Centers: Or, you think that maybe it’s maybe the hill and line of sight and that.
Young: Yes.
Centers: Did you think that’s what she was referring to?
Young: I think so because when I suggested you know, that that hill could be
shaved off just a little bit. It wouldn’t even need to be shaved that much to
improve the sight distance considerably. Improve the safety of that total
intersection, her immediate response was, well you know that would cost
considerable money to do that. I don’t think it would cost that much money and
what’s one life worth?
Centers: Now, did she say – and then the comment on the light, did that come
from ACHD, felt that they would need a light there eventually?
Young: No. I don’t, as I recall, no. –
Centers: (Inaudible)
Young: -- I think that was from me --
Centers: Okay.
Young: -- more than them.
Centers: Okay.
Centers: Anyone else for Mr. Young? Thank you sir.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward?
J. Patterson: My name is John Patterson. I would like to submit this testimony
on behalf of my father, William Patterson. My name is William Patterson. I live
at 4224 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian Idaho 83642. I own property, which
is adjacent to the proposed development to the south. I request the Planning
and Zoning Commission deny this application. I base this request on the
following concerns. There is insufficient road access for large amount of traffic,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 46
which this development would generate. Both Victory and Locust Grove are two
lane rural roads not designed for the traffic that this development would create.
There are significant issues regarding sewer and water for this development.
This involves both the extension of the utility sewer and water and potential
ground water issues involved in providing service for the 350 plus dwelling units.
This proposed development is inconsistent with existing land use in this area
south of Victory Road. There are no developments of this scale south of Victory
in this area and Victory is a good stopping point. As a property owner and
taxpayer, I am concerned that this development will cause an increase in
property value and an increase in taxes. This will create undo hardship on
existing property owners. This is not a desired development. It will adversely
effect the quality of life in the immediate area through increased traffic; increased
numbers of people, and the accompanying clutter and noise. This development
will adversely effect the desirable rural characteristics of this area. I respectfully
request this board, which is charged with the responsible development of
Meridian and Meridian’s area of impact, to deny this request.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Patterson? Give that to the clerk. You made one
statement that the roads were not designed for this traffic. Do you what is the
capacity of the roads?
J. Patterson: I’m going to refer this to my father.
Borup: Which would be okay.
W. Patterson: (Inaudible)
Borup: You need to come up to speak to the microphone, sir.
W. Patterson: I would refer that to the Highway Board.
Borup: Could you say your name?
W. Patterson: Oh, my name is William Patterson. My son was speaking for me.
I would refer that question to the Highway Department. I can testify that the
roads are not designed to handle the amount of traffic that is on them currently
and I know that –
Borup: That was my question, what are they designed to handle?
W. Patterson: I again would refer that to the Highway Department.
Borup: Okay that’s what I was kind of getting to. When you said you can testify
that their not designed, but how do you know that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 47
W. Patterson: Okay. Can I testify that the roads are not designed to handle the
additional traffic that that’s going to –
Borup: That’s what I’m asking. How do you know that they’re not designed?
W. Patterson: I don’t believe that the time those roads designed that they
anticipated the extent of traffic that was going to be on them. Maybe, and that’s
my own testimony.
Borup: You just feel that it’s not. It’s not based on any knowledge or any thing
specific. That’s what I wanted to determine here.
W. Patterson: I can’t say it’s not based on any knowledge. It’s based on my
personal knowledge.
Borup: As far as road capacity?
W. Patterson: Yes.
Borup: What is the road capacity then?
W. Patterson: I don’t not know that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you sir.
Norton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Commissioner.
Norton: Mr. Patterson, how long have you lived at your residence?
W. Patterson: I have lived at that residence since 1992. I’m a long time resident,
native of the area.
Norton: Okay thank you.
Borup: Thank you sir. Anyone else?
Malaise: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Alan Malaise. I live at –
Borup: Last name again?
Malaise: Malaise. I live at 3580 south Locust Grove Meridian. I am just directly
north of their property line. I just have two concerns I’d like to address. If this
request is granted and 300 plus homes are built, They’re going to be irrigating,
as I understand in this high water table. My concern is that it would create a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 48
problem with water possibly seeping under my house and causing damage
there. I’m just I don’t know how many feet from their property line but I’m very,
very close.
Borup: Your concern then is that watering the lawns is going to create more
water than farming the ground will?
Malaise: Yes, yes.
Borup: Okay.
Malaise: No, I don’t know what the remedy could be but I just thought I’d
address it and bring it up beforehand and maybe there’s something they can do,
maybe there isn’t. That could be a huge problem for me and I would just rather
bring it up at this time. The other concern I had was, Gem Park, they
acknowledged, I believe it was last month. My irrigation water situation, I wrote a
letter and I was concerned with they removed my water rights. They filled the
ditch in and removed the head gates and leveled everything out –
Borup: You’re concerned that they would remove your water rights?
Malaise: They already did. To my knowledge –
Borup: Jim Clark said this?
Malaise: -- that’s against the State Law. Yes they leveled that area out.
Borup: They don’t own the property yet.
Malaise: Excuse me?
Borup: I don’t believe they even own the property yet.
Malaise: Well –
Borup: Somebody did that?
Malaise: -- somebody did.
Borup: Okay.
Malaise: Anyway, they said they’d bring pressurized irrigation, that that could be
a possibility to bring to my property. I got to thinking about it and they didn’t say
whether or not they’d pay to do anything else, have it installed and this is
creating, it’s what they created, a new problem for me. If I want to say it’s a
problem, it’s going to create a cost to me and maybe the remedy to that would be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 49
giving me back live water. That would mean bringing a ditch across before hand,
I’d rather bring it up now rather than find out when they build a bunch of houses
there that now all of a sudden they have to put a ditch through it. This is my
other concern, whether or not that would be a possibility, or maybe they’d want to
pay to hook up my pressurized irrigation. I don’t know, but I know you just can’t
level things out turn your back to a guy and leave him hanging. I’ve tried to meet
with them and I never get any phone calls back. I thought I’d better make it a
public record –
( Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Malaise: -- because it could be a big problem down the road.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Malaise?
Malaise: That’s all I have.
Borup: I’ve got a couple, sir. Did you have something, Sally?
Norton: After you.
Borup: I’m concerned about your statement that they removed your head gate
and buried your ditches. How many acres do you have?
Malaise: I’ve just got under three there.
Borup: Three acres?
Malaise: They’re property originated with mine.
Borup: You’re north of them?
Malaise: Yes, where your lights are at.
Borup: About right in that area?
Malaise: Exactly.
Borup: So, you had a live ditch that someone has removed the head gate and
buried the ditch.
Malaise: Yes, sir.
Borup: So, you have no irrigation at your property at this time?
Malaise: Yes sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 50
Borup: At this point you’re not sure who did that?
Malaise: Well, it was the people that own that, that bought that property.
Borup: Okay.
Malaise: I believe it was Buckner. I don’t know it could have been.
Borup: We can get an answer to that. I don’t believe it’s Gem Park at this point.
I could be wrong. So, whoever owns it now has done that then? The present
owner of the property?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Did you contact them to ask them?
Malaise: They’re aware of it. To my knowledge, they’ve never gotten back with
me and said they’d do anything about it.
Borup: Did you contact the Irrigation District?
Malaise: Yes.
Borup: Who is that? Which district?
Malaise: Nampa Meridian Irrigation.
Borup: Have you talked to them?
Malaise: Yes sir.
Borup: What did they say?
Malaise: They said that they can’t do that and they said I’d better get with them
and make a big paper trail of it or something may not happen.
Borup: Did you contact somebody then?
Malaise: Yes, I spoke with Tim Taylor and this other gentleman here about it.
Borup: Did they say were the ones that removed the head gate? Or did they
say they didn’t know anything about it?
Malaise: They knew about it but they didn’t come right out – I don’t know
personally who is responsible.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 51
Borup: We’ll continue that. I will get some answers.
Malaise: It wasn’t very long ago that they did that.
Borup: Just this year?
Malaise: Well, it’s been, --
Borup: -- or last irrigation season? You had water last season?
Malaise: It’s been a couple of years all ready.
Borup: How did you irrigate your property last year then?
Malaise: I didn’t.
Borup: I think Commissioner Norton had a question too.
Norton: Yes. Mr. Malaise, do you live just south of the Howard property?
Malaise: Yes.
Norton: All right. You didn’t irrigate last year?
Malaise: No Ma’am.
Borup: How about the year before?
Norton: Have you ever used the irrigation water since you’ve been there?
Malaise: Well, we haven’t used it. It doesn’t mean, you know it was available to
me.
Norton: Right. It has flowed through your property before?
Malaise: Yes.
Borup: Did it end at your property or did it continue?
Malaise: It ended at my property.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 52
Malaise: The ditch is still there next to my home, but then all my pasture, where
it comes across into the pasture, that’s where they eliminated it. So there’s no
way to get it there.
Borup: So, you don’t have a run off ditch to?
Malaise: When they irrigate the field, the water runs across my property into the
Ten Mile.
Borup: Okay.
Malaise: I can’t stop it in anyway.
Borup: All right, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you sir.
( Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
L. Kuntz: My name is Luanne Kuntz and I’m the trustee for the Mortener
property at 2015 east Victory. My personal residence is 4800 West Holms in
Boise. I just want to make sure everyone is really clear that if you approve this. I
certainly want to see something in black and white about the type of fences that
are going to border our farmland. I also want to make sure that these people, if
it’s approved, know that we have the right to farm and they can’t complain about
dust and fertilizer and burning and all of this kind of stuff. Also I assume that
when the water study was in, whenever that’s finally finalized, we will know
whether that’s going to impact our farm or ability to farm. If it does, what is going
to be done about that? I would certainly think that that needs to be really –
Borup: The water study was on City water so they were looking at the City’s
water capacity --
L. Kuntz: What we were talking –
Borup: -- not irrigation water.
L. Kuntz: We were talking about to the drainage ponds last time, flooding out
part of ours and not being able to farm. I understood that was supposed to be
part of the water migration study.
Borup: That study, I thought you were talking about the other study.
L. Kuntz: No, no. I’m not talking about the City Water Study. Also last time, we
talked a little bit about if, at some point and time, we do want to sell our farmland
for development would sewer be able to come in there? Now, I did not have a
copy of the staff report because my sister and I have both been out of town. I
don’t know if that was addressed but I know that that was brought up last time. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 53
didn’t hear any comment on that. Micro paths and stuff are really great for the
people that live in the subdivision but I guess my, you know, you’re going too
make that all the way out to Victory Road so that all the kids can come on down
Victory Road and come on the other side of the canal and then jump in and
drown. This is a real big concern. I mean, I’m not against them having the
paths, they’re nice things in the subdivision. What is going to prevent those
children or adults or anybody else because people already think that that’s
parkland on the other side, we’re plagued continually with people –
Borup: Did you understand what they were talking about the path?
L. Kuntz: Well, if you make it out –
Borup: Somewhere at the end of this cul de sac?
L. Kuntz: Yes, so you can just come right around on Victory Road and come on
down the other side of the canal where’s there’s access. You know there’s
access for irrigation.
Borup: Yes. It would have the same access if they didn’t have a path.
L. Kuntz: Well, I’m not saying they wouldn’t, but right now there are not homes –
You know there are already homes across the street so you’ve got to cross
Victory Road. There –
Borup: I just was having a hard time understanding what you were saying there.
L. Kuntz: -- Yes, well, do you want me to show you?
Borup: Well, no. You’re concerned about the canal?
L. Kuntz: Yes.
Borup: I don’t see the connection between a micro path and the canal.
L. Kuntz: Well, I’m just saying that if you make the micro path all the way out so
that it accesses Victory Road. Then how easy will that be for kids to come on
down Victory Road on their bicycles, go on down and come in on the other side
of the canal, is what I’m trying to say?
Borup: It’s just as easy now coming down this sidewalk and going down Victory
Road.
L. Kuntz: Well, but at least with Thousand Springs somebody has to cross
Victory Road, and go across it. What I’m saying is that you can go along the
edge of the bank. I’m just throwing this out as a suggestion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 54
Borup: Okay.
L. Kuntz: You know, that this is a problem that we are currently faced with. I
think, you know you make sidewalks and more paths and have more people that
make it easier to access –
Borup: The sidewalks already going to be there, with or without the path.
L. Kuntz: -- well, yes, I understand that. You know I’m just throwing this out
because –
Borup: Okay.
L. Kuntz: You know. I want this on record because when somebody tries to sue
us because their children have fallen in the canal and drown. I think this is a real
big problem with this subdivision.
Borup: Excuse me, Ma’am.
L. Kuntz: Yes.
Borup: I think we might have some questions.
L. Kuntz: Sure.
Centers: What was your name again? I missed it.
L. Kuntz: Luanne Kuntz, Kuntz.
Centers: The migrating ground water, --
L. Kuntz: No.
Centers: Were you aware of the report that the City received the staff?
L. Kuntz: Well, I was unclear when he was speak –
Borup: Let me read it to you.
L. Kuntz: Yes I didn’t think one had been obtained.
Borup: Let me read it. From Associated Earth Sciences, J. Evan Merle. Stating
that a drainage system cutoff drain will control ground water on the subdivision to
a safe depth. It will also prevent shallow ground water movement into the land
north of the subdivision. You’re north?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 55
L. Kuntz: Yes.
Borup: The cutoff drains would be on the order of 7 feet deep by out-letting as
deep as possible into Ten Mile Creek. I wanted you to know that.
L. Kuntz: I just want –
Borup: Professional Engineer.
L. Kuntz: Will this be put in writing and what if this does not work?
Borup: He put it in writing to us.
L. Kuntz: -- Then what recourse will we have? Then what recourse do we have
as a landowner if this does not solve the problem?
Borup: I’m not an attorney.
L. Kuntz: Did anybody else have questions? I thought somebody else said they
did.
Borup: Thank you.
De Chambeau: My name is Mary De Chambeau. I live at 2015 east Victory, so I
live on the Mortener property. A couple of things, I know you were confused on
my sister’s concerns about the canal. I get to ask people –
Borup: I’m concerned about -- I don’t think the question was a concern about the
canal because that’s definitely -- you know, it’s there. My question was –
De Chambeau: Well, let me put it this way. The houses are not built yet. The
school is not built yet, right. I’m already, every day I ask people to please leave
our property, every day. What they’re doing is, the subdivision across from our
house, they get in their pick-ups and they put their dogs and they drive all the
way down and they park in our little road and they do their thing. Now, these are
adults, okay? The thing of it is, we’re very concerned about you know when you
put a little path along there, you know your point, the kids are going to have to
cross that Victory Road as the slope goes down. I also sit every day and watch
the policeman stop people and give them tickets. What he does is he chases
them and they go all the way down to my house before he can stop them. They
are going that fast. You know when kids are trying to cross that to go into the
school. You can probably shave it off a little bit, but there’s just enough of a
hump that they accelerate down from 35 to 50. Most of the time I clock them at
65 because it’s a straight a way there. I’ve called the Highway Department and
asked them to lower the speed limit and they said they wouldn’t do it until we had
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 56
more development meaning our place. Even though this doesn’t have anything
to do with our place, I’m very concerned about putting a path there so the kids
have to cross over, I mean, I think that’s a major concern. I’m also like
practicality, you know, I know you have to have a school, a central location for
the school. Personally, I just think this is the worst possible place for a school.
I’m just astounded that the school board thinks this is a great place with all those
ditches. Even when I was growing up I wasn’t allowed on that canal, wasn’t even
allowed to get close to it because it’s very swift. If you notice that little
connecting road down there, it looks large in the picture, but there’s really not a
very large piece of property there. What is to stop the kids from going around
and walking and coming and getting on that canal bank from both sides, There’s
two ways those kids are going to be able to get on that canal system. The other
thing is they talked about you know having crazy people stand and look over the
school, unless that fence is really really tall, they can stand on the canal bank
and look right into the school yard on our side. The other thing that I think, and I
may be confused a little bit, but you’re talking about the pathway, the City would
actually, like the pathway on our side, I guess. That’s news to us, but I guess
that’s what they’re thinking. I mean, isn’t that what they were talking about? Isn’t
that the comment that I heard?
Borup: That’s correct.
De Chambaeu: I mean they’re assuming a lot because we haven’t got that far
with what we’re doing with our property yet. I guess these are just common
sense concerns, I mean the design, I don’t know. The other thing is I just moved
from a place where the school was located in a subdivision, let me tell you the
mothers, they’re concerned about their kids not getting hit, but let me tell you,
they would whip through there so fast that the homeowners would go out there
and wave at them saying slow down, slow down, slow down. They agreed, the
City I was from, said they would probably never do that again because it -- they
just whip in and out because they’re in a hurry. It’s something to think about.
You know, I mean I know you can’t tell the school board what to do but. I mean
it’s just a thought. The other thing is I am concerned about you said that the flow
of the water, what I understood last time that you were suppose to get with Jim
Patterson who farms our place and he said he had not been contacted yet to
have them walk and check out our irrigation system and I haven’t been
contacted. He called me last night and said he had not been contacted either. Is
that something you plan to do?
Freckleton: That’s something that, excuse me, we would have the consultant
work with your tenant, your farmer --
De Chamdeau: Okay.
Freckleton: -- in the design process. This report that we have in our file is not a
real in-depth design type report. He talks about -- it’s fairly broad -- talks about
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 57
the ground water, talks about the migration of the ground water, talks about
potential remedies for the ground water.
De Chambeau: Yes.
Freckleton: Once they get into the nuts and bolts of the design, that’s when
things need to be really pinned down --
De Chambeau: Okay.
Freckleton: -- as to the locations and that sort of thing.
De Chambeau: One other further concern I have is good neighbors. They
always say they’re good neighbors. Sunday afternoon, Sunday morning I
decided I would get up and pick up the trash along our property. I thought I’d be
out an hour. I was out there from 9:00 until 3:00. Now, you’re probably thinking
it’s just normal trash, but most of it is contractor’s stuff. You know I’d like, you
know maybe in the future there may be stricter rules about if this development
goes in that they have the contractors clean up after themselves. I mean, it is
bad. Everyday I pick up trash and that was 9:00 in the morning until 3:00 in the
afternoon and I had ten garbage bags full and that’s just our property. I know
some of it’s just regular people just throwing their stuff out but most of it I
observed, you know, I know where it’s coming from because it’s a cement bag,
it’s –
Borup: It’s coming from the west because that’s the way that wind blows.
De Chambeau: -- yes and it’s cement bags and it’s shingle bags. You know
things that have you know things to do with construction. Just a thought. I’d
appreciate it.
Borup: Thank you.
De Chambeau: Does anybody have any questions?
Norton: Mr. Commissioner or –
Borup: Commissioner Norton
Norton: Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your name.
De Chambeau: It’s Mary.
Norton: Mary. You’ve made a comment that you clock cars going 65 miles an
hour on Victory?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 58
De Chambeau: Yes.
Norton: How do you clock the cars?
De Chambeau: You know how I know that? Let me tell you, I tried it one time.
They get right on my bumper, okay because when I go to turn into my property,
they don’t think anybody’s turning that way. They expect them on the other side
but they don’t on that side. One time I wanted to see how fast this person was
right behind me. I was going 65, you know and then I slowed down and they
passed me up, four of them before I could get even turned into my driveway.
That’s how I know. Plus I also know the policeman. He stops and laughs
because I asked him to be a little more -- you know, watch that and whenever he
needs his quota, he just sits there and I’ve seen him like two hours just pick up
car after car.
Norton: Hmm, interesting. Thanks. How long have you lived on the Mortener
Property?
De Chambeau: Well, I was born there. I mean, we were brought home from the
hospital there and I’ve been away for a couple of years and then I came back,
so, to help take care of the property.
Norton: Okay and how long have you been back then?
De Chambeau: Let’s see, a year.
Norton: A year? Okay and this is your family homestead --
De Chambeau: Oh yes, yes. Oh yes.
Norton: Family property?
De Chambeau: We’ve been here for seventy years.
Norton: Okay, thank you.
Centers: How many acres?
De Chambeau: What have we got? Seventy-two give or take. We’re still kind
of; property lines have not been determined yet.
Borup: Thank you, Ma’am.
De Chambeau: So, no questions?
Shreeve: One other question. Do you have it leased, do you farm it or what?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 59
De Chambeau: Jim Patterson farms it.
Shreeve: Okay, so you lease it?
De Chambeau: Yes, to him. He’s doing us a favor. He does a great job.
Shreeve: Has he had it for a number of years?
De Chambeau: Yes, yes.
Shreeve: Very good.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this?
Pullman: My name is Herman Pullman. I live at 4010 south Locust Grove Road,
which is right on the southwest corner of the development. One thing I would
like, and it’s been talked before but I would like to bring it up, that the water table
is very very high there. So extreme that when they’ve irrigated the field that runs
between my place and the Malaise place, which is north of us, within a half a day
there’s water running out into my driveway, under my house, filling up my sewer
–
Borup: That’s when they irrigate the farm property?
Pullman: That’s right. I don’t see any change in that happening when they put in
a subdivision with everyone watering daily as opposed to irrigating a field every
two to three weeks. I want to make sure that the design includes drainage for
that along the south perimeter and also on the north perimeter because the
same thing happens to the Malaises.
Borup: I think may be we can get some comment from staff that previous
testimony has stated that ground water has a tendency to decrease when a
subdivision goes in, that the farm ground creates more than a subdivision does.
Pullman: Well, that’s possible but I still don’t think you can decrease it enough to
alleviate the problem that I have. This is, the property is probably a foot, foot and
a half above my driveway and the water runs out probably six inches below the
surface. It just runs right out of the ground. Whatever it takes to alleviate that
problem, I think it needs to be included in the design of the drainage design.
Also I don’t know if this is the place to get a variance for a privacy fence, but I’ve
discussed this with Mr. Brown and Mr. Taylor. We’ve somewhat agreed to share
the cost of a privacy fence, like a plastic fence, a basket weave or whatever
rather then a chainlink fence along there because –
Borup: Along the property or along the canal?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 60
Pullman: No, this –
Borup: -- along the property –
Pullman: -- this doesn’t have anything to do with the canal.
Borup: Okay, just along your property?
Pullman: Along my property line, yes.
Borup: A fence is required so there’s no variance needed.
Pullman: Well, I understood there was a variance needed for the material, the
type of material.
Borup: I don’t believe in, not on a perimeter fence –
Pullman: Is that correct? Okay, well –
Borup: -- just on an area that there would be burning maintenance that.
Pullman: (Inaudible)
Borup: It’s Nampa Meridian that that would be a concern with.
Pullman: Okay. One other thing I noticed that during all this discussion about a
micro path from Victory to the school and fences along the canal, there’s been no
discussion about the kids that are going to be walking from the west, from the
Locust Grove side to the school. There’s two ditches, Eight mile, Ten mile and,
or three ditches, Riddenbaugh canal along there. It really, next down right there
where it comes across the end of the Mortener property to where –
Borup: I think it’s because it’s presumed that they’ll walk on the sidewalks.
Pullman: Presumed, yes. That’s something that I don’t think we should ever do
is presume that a kid will do anything.
Borup: Well, but that’s why they’re there. That’s what a sidewalk's for.
Pullman: Well, sure but what about fences? Is there any discussion about
fences to keep them away from the water?
Borup: Off of the canal?
Pullman: The canal, yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 61
Borup: I think that’s a good question.
Pullman: I haven’t heard anything about that.
Borup: Okay. Anything else sir?
Pullman: That’s all I have.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Pullman? Thank you sir. Anyone
else?
***End Of Side Three***
Allen: -- 3040 east Victory. Could you move the map this way just a little?
Borup: You mean the map, oh.
Allen: Okay, go back to that one.
Borup: The one that has the whole – right there?
Allen: That one right there would do. I live at 3040 east Victory which is the
funny shaped next direction, go up, over to your left.
Borup: This one?
Allen: West, west, that one. Where is this micro path going to be? It’s not going
to work, gentlemen. That’s the way to control population growth. The lady said
that the traffic comes through there at 65 miles an hour, believe me, it does. I’ve
stood at my place for five minutes trying to get across the road to get the mail. I
hope you didn’t run over me. It’s bad from about seven in the morning until 9:30.
Then it’s bad again from about 3:30 until 7:30 at night and it’s going to get worse.
Any questions?
Borup: Thank you sir.
Allen: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Have we gone through everybody? Mr. Brown, have you
got – well, Mr. Johnson maybe?
Johnson: My name is Greg Johnson. I live at 2433 CanAda Road, Melba. The
question of this gentleman on the three acres, it would be the northwest corner of
the project there along Locust Grove. Apparently, three years prior to us
optioning this ground, that field was leveled and there used to be a ditch that ran
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 62
across the middle of it that took water to his property. The people that sold either
him or the previous owner that three-acre parcel took that ditch out and they’re
telling me that that was part of the deal. I don’t know. It’s an illegal split. It does
not contain the minimum that the county requires. That was done prior to us
buying this parcel and we have offered as a solution to it, to provide him pressure
irrigation stub to his property. We will pay for the stub into his property. We are
not willing to pay for a sprinkler system for his three acres though. If he wants to
put in a sprinkler system, that’s up to him.
Borup: What size of a stub-in were you talking about?
Johnson: Whatever Nampa Meridian will allow.
Borup: Something a little bit larger than would go to a single lot?
Johnson: Well, Nampa Meridian will probably require it to be two or three.
Borup: Oh, big one then?
Johnson: Well, no. Two or three-quarter –
Borup: Oh, two or three stubs –
Johnson: -- we went through this on the City Park. They will not –
Borup: Two or three separate stubs, is that what you’re saying?
Johnson: Yes, that’s what they’ll probably require because they don’t want him
to drain the pressure irrigation by irrigating it all at once --
Borup: Okay.
Johnson: -- and that type of thing. Whatever they will allow us to do, we will
provide for him. If he wants to go back on the previous owners that took out the
ditch and settle that with them, he’s welcome to do that.
Borup: Now, are you the deeded owner at this time, then?
Johnson: We are buying it under contract.
Borup: Okay.
Johnson: Sigmont is still the deeded owner –
Borup: So, he’s the one that removed it –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 63
Johnson: -- and Walt Warner had purchased it from him and we’ve purchased it
from Walt. I think Walt is the one that leveled it, but I’m not sure.
Borup: That was about three years ago?
Johnson: I think it’s been three full years. It was leveled approximately the same
time as that piece was split off.
Centers: Give me the location of that piece again.
Johnson: Well, it’s –
Borup: Is it this piece here?
Johnson: It’s that piece right there.
Centers: Which would be the northwest
Johnson: It was part of this parcel prior to us –
Borup: Okay. So, they split off three acres?
Johnson: They split off three acres –
Borup: Three acres and a house, I assume?
Johnson: Yes, yes.
Borup: Without County approval to your understanding?
Johnson: I think they just surveyed it and gave him a deed.
Borup: Any other questions for --
Norton: Did you want to ask him about fences?
Borup: Well, yes. Commissioner Norton was asking about fences. I mean, the
City, that’s already part of –
Johnson: Yes, --
Borup: -- the agreement.
Johnson: -- those canals that they’re talking about, the Riddenbaugh, the –
Borup: No, they’re talking about perimeter fence, I think aren’t you?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 64
Norton: Well, sure, but if you want to talk about the Riddenbaugh fence too.
Borup: Well, let’s one at a time.
Johnson: All the major canals and that, we have to fence with chainlink fence,
non-climbable, non-combustible fence. I think that’s our only option other than
may be wrought iron. I think we’re allowed to use wrought iron.
Borup: Right. I think (inaudible) talking about the perimeter fence around the
subdivision too then.
Johnson: Normally, we’re required for that to be non-combustible –
Borup: Around the canals?
Johnson: No, if it butts up against farmland because they burn and that so you
normally don’t want cedar or plastic or –
Borup: Most of the ones I’ve seen have been cedar.
Johnson: That’s –
Borup: Isn’t that what you’ve usually been doing at your other subdivisions?
Johnson: Normally we’ve used either cedar or vinyl on the collector roads, on
the outside where we’re not coming up against somebody. If somebody’s
farming, we use chainlink or wrought iron.
Borup: Okay. Is there a concern, a problem with doing a privacy type fence with
the neighbors?
Johnson: With his piece, where he’s, you know we’ll probably enter into an
agreement that he won’t burn that’ll have to --
Borup: Right. Okay
Johnson: We’ve agreed to build that on. I don’t have a problem with that. From
our standpoint it’s nicer for the homes to have the privacy fence. Usually we are
required, I can’t, Steve, isn’t it a requirement where we – where the subdivision
boundary butts up against farm ground where they could burn that it has to be a
non-combustible fence?
Siddoway: I think it just says perimeter fencing. We’ve allowed chainlink fence
adjacent, in fact, we’ve had some farmers say that they prefer chainlink fence
because some of the stuff –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 65
Borup: Trash won’t go over it.
Siddoway: -- doesn’t blow over, it blows into the fence.
Borup: It collects it.
Siddoway: We don’t require one or the other. We just require –
Borup: (Inaudible)
Johnson: Okay. Okay
Siddoway: Permanent six-foot perimeter fencing –
Johnson: If the Mortener’s want to burn on their property, we would probably
request a wrought iron fence there because of the price of these homes.
Borup: Okay. Any comment on the fence? You mentioned you’re required to
fence the canal.
Johnson: Yes.
Borup: What does Nampa Meridian allow on fencing access to canal from the
street?
Johnson: We usually fence it off and gate it. They have to have access to it –
Borup: Right.
Johnson: -- so we install gates.
Borup: Okay. You were plan on putting gates along there?
Johnson: Yes.
Borup: I think that was a concern a lot of the people. That was a –
Johnson: Where ever those roads cross and it –
Borup: (Inaudible)
Johnson: -- crosses their access road, we gate those and it ties into the bridge.
Borup: So, the only way for someone to get in is going to be –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 66
Johnson: They can climb –
Borup: -- dig under the fence or climb over the fence?
Johnson: -- climb over. Yes.
Borup: Which –
Johnson: Yes. They do.
Borup: Yes.
Johnson: They’ll probably tie off to the bridge and be surfing on it too.
Borup: But, it’s going to happen no matter what.
Centers: Mr. Johnson, have you ever seen any studies or what’s your
experience with high water irrigating compared to homes and sprinkled lawns?
Johnson: We had high water in Sherbrook Subdivision prior to us developing it.
We had the same concern with our neighbor to the north of it. We did put in a
cutoff drain tile with it. With Sherbrook once we had installed the sewer lines,
they were installed on an average of 10, 12 feet deep, that whole system drained
and we really haven’t had water above 6 feet there since the sewer lines went in.
Yes, some people do over water their lawns. With pressurized irrigation it’s not
measured and sometimes we grow mushrooms but it is surface water and it is
substantially less than what you get with flood irrigation. Every one of those lines
that go through tends to become a channel. You know, you bed the sewer pipe
with rock all around it and it becomes a conduit and an under ground river that
eventually crosses one of the drains and that water does disappear. In general,
it does reduce. Mr. Merrill, who wrote the report, has monitored this property for
water level for two years now, two complete cycles. We’ve got a lot of water
surrounding it; there is a lot of water that percolates out of those canals. That’s
why you see the Eight Mile and the Riddenbaugh tiled in several places. That’s
why we’ve designed those lakes up against in the corner and that with channels
all the way out to the Ten Mile Drain to allow that water to free flow from the lake
system into the Ten Mile at the level that the Ten Mile runs currently. That will
lower that significantly, 3 or 4 feet in those areas. Plus we will use the material
out of the lakes to build up the overall level of the property approximately a foot
and a half. It’s similar to the – are you familiar with the subdivisions down here
by the river in Eagle? You notice all those ponds and that? Those ponds are
dug out, the lands filled up. If you dug in there when he was raising mint, the
water table from the river was like two feet. Obviously it is a flood plain and so
they had to raise above the flood plain. That’s in kind of a perched area, we
don’t have a river flowing through there, but with the Ten Mile and the other water
bodies we have a similar situation in this area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 67
Centers: A lot of those areas use to flood --
Johnson: Yes.
Centers: -- 4 or 5 years ago.
Johnson: Yes. Any other questions?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Johnson: You need to get on the microphone.
Borup: Why don’t you just stay here Greg? Go ahead Mr. Pullman.
Pullman: I live just south of the south edge of your property. You made a
statement that the water table has been studied for the last 2 years or monitored
for the last 2 years?
Johnson: Yes.
Pullman: How did they do this?
Johnson: They have pipes buried out there in the field.
Pullman: Okay. In the field next to my house, the pipes were put in last July or
August.
Johnson: Yes, and they’ve been monitored since then.
Pullman: That wasn’t two years ago.
Johnson: We had pipes all through the other areas prior to that.
Unidentified speaker: Where?
Johnson: Over in the Burnett piece where that school is, all of that area has
been monitored. Those were installed the year before.
Pullman: They haven’t been monitored for 2 years (inaudible)
Johnson: On the piece out by Locust Grove, you’re correct. Last year was the
first irrigation season that it was monitored all the way through the season.
Pullman: And, they never –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 68
Johnson: And they are still measuring it this winter.
Pullman: And, may I make a point. They never irrigated that property after you
put in the perk holes. It hasn’t been physically irrigated since that time, or
probably two to three weeks prior to that.
Johnson: It has not been flood irrigated since then. They are irrigating currently
on the other parcels that they’re raising grass on –
Pullman: I just wanted to make that point.
Johnson: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Johnson?
Centers: Yes. Well, I guess a question and comment. You don’t do perk testing
when you’re irrigating –
Johnson: Pardon?
Centers: You can’t do perk testing when you’re irrigating at the same time, can
you?
Johnson: We typically don’t measure water while we’re flooding the field.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Anyone else? I think you addressed it. Did you, as far as you know,
address the issues that had been raised that you could answer --?
Johnson: I think so. Are there any that I haven’t?
Borup: You did, the ones that I had written down. Any other Commissioners
have anything for Mr. Johnson?
Centers: Nope.
Johnson: I would like to address the water study. I think this is the second or
third time we’ve been tabled for –
Borup: The water modeling?
Johnson: -- yes, for lack of information from staff. I would much prefer to be
sent on to City Council and have that report completed for them and let us
continue on. Each month that we get tabled, it increases; our lot costs go up 3 to
4 hundred dollars a lot with just interest carry. Unless there’s a real reason we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 69
should be tabled, I would like to be moved on one way or the other to the City
Council.
Borup: Did you understand the three or four items that was mentioned earlier on
your –
Johnson: Yes.
Borup: -- water study was one.
Johnson: Yes.
Borup: The school access point which –
Johnson: The school access point, we have no problem --
Borup: Right.
Johnson: -- working with the School District --
Borup: Yes.
Johnson: -- to resolve.
Borup: Then the complete plat was the other. I know that we have received
instruction from City Council that –
Johnson: We will have that completed plat to staff within a couple of weeks.
Centers: On the wetlands what’s (inaudible)
Borup: The wetlands were the -- Well, the wetlands, I mean I think it was stated,
the staff had one view and then the engineer had another.
Johnson: This is a very small portion right there in the corner by the
Riddenbaugh. We will get an answer from the Corp. and make the necessary
adjustments that they recommend.
Borup: Either way, whatever they’re recommendations are, that’s what’s going to
be followed.
Johnson: If they would like us to give them a little wetland in exchange for it,
we’ll do that. If they’d like us to move our road, we’ll do that.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 70
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Johnson. There are a lot of neighbors here that are real concerned
about the road, about –
Borup: Victory.
Norton: -- Victory and how unsafe it is.
Johnson: Yes.
Norton: Do you have any comments about that?
Johnson: The problem of the intersection that is there was created by the
development of Thousand Springs. Ada County Highway District, if that needs to
be fixed, Ada County Highway District should fix it. That development was
approved and I believe everything’s been accepted by Ada County so it’s
probably no longer his responsibility. If it is dangerous, I did own that previously
to that developer and I know that intersection was a problem right from the start.
They should have probably made that be done at the time that that was put in.
That’s why they have impact fees and that’s why they have those things, to
correct it if they don’t get it corrected when it should be.
Norton: That’s why – who’s they, Ada County Highway District?
Johnson: Ada County Highway District.
Norton: So you suggest that they should level the hill?
Johnson: You know if the citizens need some and some pressure, then there
probably should be some pressure from their City to make sure that gets done.
If it is in fact a safety issue. I personally have not entered from that intersection
recently. I couldn’t tell you one-way or the other. I know that when we were
looking at it, it was very difficult to get that in there on sight distances. That was
prior to that new bridge being built, by the way though. That changed that profile
a little bit.
Norton: Just one other question. A subdivision this size, that you’re proposing,
and I don’t see really any parks you fixed up for this little school area that is sort
of inaccessible to everybody.
Johnson: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 71
Norton: Have you thought about putting in some parks or green areas for the
residents?
Johnson: We have, you know they don’t stand out a lot there, but along Eight
Mile. There’s a substantial that’s where the lakes will be and green belt. We
have a green belt all the way along Ten Mile. The open space in the school is
usually considered as open space in the community. We are in the process of
building an 18-acre park in Bear Creek and we do contribute park fees on all of
our developments and feel that is sufficient contribution from us at this time in
that area. Thanks.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman. Let me just ask you a hypothetical question –
Johnson: Okay.
Shreeve: -- about that intersection. If by some chance, you moved it to the
west, if that was okay with ACHD and the whole thing that is constructable isn’t it,
it’s a possibility form your end?
Johnson: It’s very difficult because of the grade difference. Coming up that cul
de sac, you’re coming up a very steep slope.
Shreeve: Any idea what the slope of that road would be.
Johnson: You know, I don’t.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Johnson: I’ve looked at the topographical maps but I haven’t memorized them
that’s for sure.
Borup: That’s fine. Okay. I think we talked about that last time. It was a pretty
steep grade, which would be a safety factor from that point.
Shreeve: I guess that’s the point I was getting at, and I apologize, for maybe
paraphrasing incorrectly but that’s, I guess that’s the issue. If in fact it’s
impossible, then so be it, but if it’s possible and it’s a hardship and if in fact
having the intersection come out the same time is the best solution, then I don’t
think we’re necessarily here to try to make the developer any less burdensome.
Now, if it’s impossible or if it’s a tremendous burden, I can appreciate that. If it in
fact it’s possible, I don’t think we should say, oh, it’s too hard skip it.
Johnson: Mr. Commissioner, it’s not impossible. We’re trying to follow the
instructions of another agency. It’s very difficult sometimes when 2 agencies
don’t see it the same. We ‘re trying to comply with both.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 72
Shreeve: I just want to make the point that I understand that ACHD is probably
the main factor here. I guess, we as a Commission need to be careful that we
don’t say, oh it’s too hard for the developer so developer just do what you want
to. I think certainly our position is we need to certainly take into account to a
point any hardships developers may have but that’s only to a point.
Johnson: Normally, in design, we try to line up entrances and roads so that they
connect in the street at the same place. Usually that is the most safe. In fact, I
think the requirements if they don’t line up they have to be 300 feet or 400 feet
apart. Obviously, we looked at that at first and our first tech review with ACHD
and we’ve been following their suggestions ever since. They did send this guy
out to re-look at it this last time. I think they’ve looked at it pretty thoroughly.
Shreeve: I would like, staff, whatever letters, or of course there’s the one letter. -
- but did the Traffic Engineer, because I know we got this letter from Christy
Richardson, did the traffic engineer ever type up his formal report and this Mrs.
Richardson just summarized it.
Johnson: I don’t know that.
Shreeve: Don’t know, Okay. Any other questions?
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Brown: Pardon? I’ll hurry. Kent Brown, again. I heard that. I’ve been there.
The comments about the pathway to Victory Road, as you recall in our previous
meeting, it was an item that was brought up by the School District. That’s the
only reason that I believe staff and us have even talked about it. You know if you
don’t want us to have a connection out there that’s fine. They’re still going to
have the sidewalk because that’s a Highway District requirement. The
comments about the street, you had asked that we go to the Highway District
and that we come back with their recommendation. That’s what took place. No,
there was not an individual report made by the Traffic Engineer. He made his
comments and Christy put those down on paper. That’s what took place. I
believe everything else we’ve kind of covered. Many of the items brought up by
the neighbors were brought up previously and I think we talked about those and I
think Mr. Johnson has covered the remainder unless you have any questions.
Borup: Do you have any questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Any final
comments from staff?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman members of the Commission. I’d just like to speak to
the water study issue. At this point, we know for a fact that the Thousand
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 73
Springs area is out there on the ragged edge of serviceability. We are making it,
barely. Pressures are marginal. We do know that development further south on
Victory is going to require some more system upgrade. It’s my gut feeling that
the results of the study are going to implicate that one of two things is going to be
necessary. Either we sink another well in the area –
Borup: Don’t you have a well site at the fire station?
Freckleton: At Thousand Springs. – or second option is that installation of a
pressure booster station, which we have a site for as well. Some significant
costs are involved in those things and that’s why I hesitate to try and move things
forward without having good hard data to hang our hat on.
Borup: So, you’re saying you think that’s what, it’s your gut feeling that’s what
the consultant’s study is going to show?
Freckleton: My gut feeling is this subdivision will push us over that edge. Yes.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners
Shreeve: Yes, Chairman. Bruce when is the, I know you’ve made a
recommendation of just the next Commissioner’s meeting for the water study. Is
that for sure or, you know, what’s the situation?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Shreeve. As I mentioned earlier, we had a
meeting with our consultant yesterday. He indicated to me yesterday that he
didn’t think he would be able to have the results to me by tonight’s meeting. He
is working on it. If we push it out to the third, that’s gives us two more weeks. I
anticipate that I’m going to have some results the first of next week. I know he’s
close. I wanted to get those results in time for the applicant to be able to review
them and have time to kind of cogitate them.
Shreeve: Yes. I can certainly understand whatever situations may have
occurred but clearly from that developer’s point of view, I think his point is well
taken. The City -- they’ve come back with items that they’ve done, where the
City has not followed through with some of those items that we thought we could
have. I think that for in the future, we need to be cognizant of their efforts and
certainly their timing but understanding that certain situations do arise from time
to time.
Borup: Okay. Any other comments, Commissioners? How would we like to
proceed?
Norton: Well, just for discussion’s sake I’d like to add a few – just for discussion,
I’ve heard tonight and the last meeting we had, quite a few neighbors that made
the effort last time and this time to come to talk. There were several comments
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 74
that they have made that I think this Commission should take pretty seriously
regarding, mainly that dangerous road. We do know they’re not going to have
any power or water at least until September the first and then there’s the concern
about that pathway to Victory Road with very dangerous for children if they go to
the school site from Thousand Springs. I have a concern with the school site. I
don’t remember Mr. Bingham saying that it was safest to have the houses
surrounding the school. I know the Police Department indicates they like to have
parks and I would guess also schools open so they can see into the playground
areas. I don’t like the school next to the canal. That does not seem safe to me
and it doesn’t seem safe that there are houses surrounding it either. Plus it’s so
darn hard to try to find where to find the school. It’s not real compatible with the
surrounding sites and according to our comp plan it’s not even contiguous with
our impact area. The Comprehensive Plan that we have to go through is the
1993 Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: I didn’t understand your last statement. It’s not –
Norton: Well, I guess it’s out from the impact area or out from the City limits in
our Comprehensive Plan of 1993.
Borup: Okay. Everything we annex is out of the City limits. Otherwise we
wouldn’t be annexing it.
Norton: I understand that.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: I understand what you’re saying.
Borup: Okay. Well, I was trying to understand what –
Norton: Trying to understand what I’m saying?
Borup: Yes.
Norton: We’re trying to build form inside out. There’s a lot of empty space inside
the impact area that could be built in.
Borup: This is in the impact area. —
Norton: Yes.
Borup: You mean closer in –
Norton: Closer in. So those are just some comments that I’m thinking about.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 75
Borup: Okay. Anyone else have any other – from what I’ve seen lately, the ones
that are closer in, and we have a lot of it, the City Council’s turning that stuff
down because there’s no sewer.
Norton: City Council’s turning what –
Borup: They’re mad because the sewer lines not there yet.
Norton: We spent hours trying to come up –
Shreeve: Even when the developer’s willing to pay for the sewer.
Norton: Yes and the developers are willing to work with the neighbors. We work
a lot, we hash a lot of things out here.
Borup: Well, it looks to me like there’s really, I mean in my mind two main issues.
Maybe only one main issue, but the water modeling study sounds like it is really
the main thing. Then from past comments from City Council, they want to see a
complete plat. They want to see the same thing that we see presented to them –
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: -- they’ve been pretty emphatic on that. Everything else are things looks
like can be handled and worked out.
Centers: I think that the developer has stated that they don’t need a micro path if
we don’t want one or if the School District doesn’t want it. I think the school
district can be convinced not to require it. I think the developer stated that he
would be willing to relocate the school within the project or move it, maybe he
didn’t –
Borup: It was already moved once.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: They had a different location. The school requested this site, I believe.
Centers: The school site doesn’t bother me, but I can still hear the school district
representative state he liked that site. I know he used similar words and you’re
going to have a ditch near the school wherever you put it. They are required to
fence it. We did tell them to come back with a traffic study from ACHD. They
brought it back and the ACHD passed it. I think, you know, they’ve done all they
can but we have that one little glitch, the results of the water model which as it
turns out is – I was wondering what water model meant. Now I know, will the
pump handle the and the well handle the subdivision? Well, it’s doubtful and
maybe they need a pressurized or a pump or a lift station or whatever. I think
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 76
they have to see if they can meet those needs. Unless the developer wants to
pay for that, certain he doesn’t want to do that. I don’t blame him. I don’t think
there’s any choice, but I, you know we normally put our continued items on the
second meeting and I would be more than happy to look at this on our first
meeting in May, as the first item on the agenda because I’ve read the articles on
the cost of delay and the developer is so right. Every day that goes by, every
month that goes by, it’s costing him money. I’m sorry, but it does cost him
money, Ladies and Gentlemen. It takes a lot of effort and time and expense –
You know all of you folks live in homes too that have been developed by other
developers. End of my story.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Mr. Shreeve
Shreeve: I guess I would like to go on a couple of issues to being personally is
the water study as well. Although, again, to reiterate, I certainly think we need to
accommodate the developers certainly where we can as fully as we can. Also
the school access, or the school location. It’s my personal feeling, but I
personally don’t like the way it’s situated with the lots surrounding it, but I think
certainly if the schools didn’t agree with it – I personally don’t like it. Of course,
the intersection, I just don’t know if it’s been really looked at, but apparently it has
and I can’t judge that. Never the less, I think certainly based on the water study,
we probably ought to look to continue this.
Borup: It sounds like the consensus is going to continuing it. I would like to
make it a condition on certain things that we’re waiting for. Especially if it’s going
to be on the May 3rd
meeting we have a fairly full agenda. It looks like we could
get something in, but we’re not going to be able to spend four hours on it. Did
you have a comment Mr. Brown?
Brown: Real quickly, it seemed like there was two items, the water study and
that we provide you with a complete map. You tell me what you want for the map
and I’ll have it to you before the May 2nd
meeting. We can go forward. I know
your agenda’s full, but if we limit the discussion only to the water model. I think
we’ve hashed and rehashed everything else. That’s our personal opinion. If
you’ll give us direction on the plat, --
Centers: Would it be without the path? (inaudible)
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Brown: If that’s what you’re asking for. I understand everything else that Steve’s
asking for. That we have the appropriate notes and topography and all of those
things. You know, just for grins I’ll move the school entrance down so that it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 77
looks a little better right now, but we’ll still work with the school district in the
future.
Borup: (Inaudible) discussion with them –
Brown: Not until ---
Borup: -- since the last meeting.
Brown: Not until they get more serious about actually spending the money and
locating that school will they even think about that.
Borup: But, that -- this was one of the last phases also wasn’t it?
Brown: Yes that’s correct.
Borup: Which was how many years out?
Brown: It was at least three or four.
Borup: So the school –
Centers: How adamant was he about that path to Victory Road? Do you
remember?
Brown: To my recollection he said since this school is located where it is, that
they would, you know it would be easier from a bussing standpoint if the kids
could walk across the road. Obviously if there’s a big traffic concern and getting
the kids across, they’ll bus them. I mean they do that –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: It’s going to save them 1,500 feet of walking.
Brown: Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I think the path was on a lot of people’s minds here as far as, you know
safety issues and that kind of thing.
Borup: The Commission should make the recommendation not to have the path.
If the School District feels different they can bring that up at City Council. That’s
the way I feel. I don’t think the –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 78
Brown: I mean, our current design does not show the path. It does show 20 feet
on the western side of those lots and we’re going to extend those lots and there
won’t be any openings.
Shreeve: Of course, there’s always the thought of constructing the path to get
them off that busy road sooner.
Borup: Right now the sidewalk will be separated from the road. That’s where
they’re going to want to, I mean that’s the most comfortable place to walk
anyway is on the sidewalk there, not along the gravel edge.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Mr. Freckleton
Freckleton: The direction that it seems you’re heading, you’re wanting to kind of
have a checkbook or a checklist of the items that need to be addressed and
added to this Preliminary Plat. I’d like to just remind you that as a result of the
Corp, of engineers determination of the wetlands issue Mr. Brown has mentioned
tonight that he may have to move lots, move roads, so on and so forth. Those
type items, I think should probably be incorporated into this revised plat that
we’re talking about. Can that be done prior to the May 3rd
meeting?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: He gave us an idea on how he was expecting to phase this project.
Brown: That was a part of what Steve’s request was, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Is a phasing?
Brown: Yes.
Borup: Because last time he talked about the canals would be kind of a natural
phasing break?
Brown: Correct
Borup: Maybe even those would even be divided somewhat, or –
Brown: Correct.
Borup: -- can you reiterate that again?
Brown: As you come off of Locust Grove there would be the northern lung, if you
will, --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 79
Borup: So, this would be one phase here –
Brown: Right.
Borup: -- two phases –
Brown: Yes.
Borup: -- and then this would also be two –
Brown: Yes.
Borup: -- and the same thing here. So you’re talking six phases just in that
section.
Brown: Correct. That’s what was on the original design.
Borup: So, redesigning this phase would be Phase 6, from Locust Grove.
Brown: Correct.
Borup: Okay. I mean, when a project is phased aren’t there normally some
changes along that line anyway, or never at all? Don’t they have the opportunity
of coming back in, or you talking you need to resubmit a new plat, a whole new
plat, I mean?
Brown: Mr. Chairman. I think it comes down to a judgement call on significance
of change. I think moving lots or eliminating lots or moving roads, at least in my
mind I would say it’s significant change and it would require a resubmittal.
Centers: That’s why they call it a Final Plat, isn’t it?
Brown: That’s correct. That’s why Meridian does not process Final Plats until
the Final Plat’s been approved. Isn’t that correct, Bruce?
Freckleton: Say again.
Brown: Isn’t that why Meridian doesn’t process the Final Plats for sign off on
signature because of those changes being required by the City Council, to make
sure those are approved at Final Plat? At least that’s what I’ve understood in –
Freckleton: You mean it’s not recorded?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 80
Brown: No. The staff and their processing the construction plan portion of it.
They wait, they up that that they’ll review it but they won’t sign off on the
construction plans until they’ve approved the Final Plat, correct?
Freckleton: Right.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Siddoway: We won’t issue an approval on the construction plans until after the
Final Plat’s approved.
Brown: For that same purpose that we’re talking about that I might have to move
a lot, correct?
Siddoway: That’s one issue that could cause problems, yes. There are many.
Brown: If you would like, I’ll do everything possible to make sure that I can, I
mean I’ll go sit in the Army Corps office and we’ll find a sunny day. I’ll make that
commitment -- I mean so far we’ve done our part. I’ll try to have that done and
on that Preliminary Plat. I think that that’s a reasonable –
Borup: Okay.
Brown: -- thing on our part.
Borup: So you think you can –
Brown: I’m not going to be able to tie the school down until the school buys the
property and hires the architect and they –
Borup: Right. Well, and I think – Are we in agreement that that pathway may not
be the best thing and if you can get the school representative to agree with that
or, what do we think? We don’t want him to –
Brown: I don’t want to be at another meeting –
Borup: Right.
Brown: -- that’s what I don’t want to be.
Borup: Right.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Brown: I think they want to go to the City Council too and tell someone else new
their story.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 81
Borup: Get tired of looking at us?
Brown: I do. I’m sorry, but –
Norton: Can I ask a question?
Borup: Concerning the pathway?
Norton: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
De Chambeau: I don’t think the concern is the pathway –
Borup: We need you to state your name again I’m sorry Ma’am.
De Chambeau: Oh, it’s Mary De Chambeau and I live on the Mortener Farm.
De Chambeau: It’s the fact that, have you ever gone out there and walked it?
Borup: No I haven’t walked it.
De Chambeau: It’s a long walk. It’s a long walk.
Borup: From where to where?
De Chambeau: From Victory to right here.
Borup: Oh.
De Chambeau: It’s very long. My concern about the pathway is, whether there’s
a pathway or not, we’re already having people walk on that al the time ok? The
thing of it is – and there’s already a gate there. I already posted it, they tore the
post signs, and you know the posting you know stay out of here –
Borup: They walk around the gate, you’re saying?
De Chambeau: They walk around. They (inaudible). They use their four, you
know whatever they want to do they do it. The point is, is the kids are going to
do it you know. They’re going to walk around and not only for that little section
but the canal goes all the way out like the other gentleman had talked about to
Locust Grove. Now, is the school going to fence you know, our property too so
that we don’t have to worry about children falling in? You made the comment.
You’re always going to have a school next to a canal. I don’t know –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 82
Brown: No we didn’t make that comment.
De Chambeau: Is that true? Well, I thought somebody said –
Brown: There’s canals –
De Chambeau: -- everywhere but are they backed up to one canal and then a
canal going here and there’s a ditch here and there’s another ditch here and
there’s a ditch along –
Borup: I think that’s why we want to clarify that all the ditches are going to be
fenced and gated.
De Chambeau: Even our – because you realize the road –
Borup: Well –
De Chambeau: The road side of the canal is on our side.
Borup: Right.
De Chambeau: Okay. So is that all going to be fenced?
Borup: Well, on your property it wouldn’t be. That’s on your property.
De Chambeau: That’s right and that’s what we’re concerned about. How can we
protect ourselves as homeowners or property owners from children walking down
that and falling in?
Brown: Same protection you’ve got now, I guess.
Borup: You have that problem now, don’t you?
De Chambeau: Yes.
Borup: Right. Then you may want to fence it.
De Chambeau: Well, it’s just going to accelerate it is what I’m trying to say. So, I
guess what I’m saying is the developer, you know you talk about the developers
doing this and doing that and I do appreciate their concern you know they’re
willing to work with the neighbors but this – you know you can discuss and
discuss but how can you discuss a child’s life? I mean you can discuss – you
know I think you should really take into account some of the design of this
development. I mean because I know development’s coming, ok. I just, I agree
with you. You live in Thousand Springs. You know what that driveway or that
exit is like. You know how they go down that hill. Those kids are crossing down
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 83
at the bottom of that little slope. I mean it’s going to be very, very dangerous.
You have to realize that I grew up here riding my bicycle up and down that hill. I
know how dangerous it is. I mean all my life I’ve been going up and down that
hill because some of my best friends lived up that little lane, the Martins. I rode
my bike up that hill and crossed that and it was very dangerous. We had to be
very, very careful. You’re talking multiple children walking across there. I think
you really need to address this. I think it’s a concern. I mean I don’t even have
any. I don’t have children who are going to be walking from there to there but I
just have a real –
Borup: Has the School District determined that they’re going to be walking or
bussed at this point? So, we’re speculating on what ifs. –
De Chambeau: Well it may be speculation –
Borup: Mr. Johnson, do you have some information from the School District?
De Chambeau: But it seems common sense to me.
Johnson: The school, excuse me this is Greg Johnson at 2433 CanAda Road.
The School District policy is that the children within the section that the school is
built walk. Anything outside of that they bus.
Borup: So, that would be this subdivision. Do you have any idea what the
population of a normal grade school is?
Johnson: 650.
Borup: Okay. So, form their projection, this subdivision would take care of about
a third of that? Or, I mean no --
Johnson: Each section –
Borup: -- 125.
Johnson: -- will eventually have a school in it is what they project.
De Chambeau: Do they normally put bridges across canals?
Borup: For what?
De Chambeau: Like right here.
Borup: Oh yes. That’s the only way to get the road across it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 84
De Chambeau: No I mean how does the ditch rider get around? Is this going to
be gated here?
Borup: Yes.
***End Of Side Four***
De Chambeau: Okay. These will be gated?
Borup: Yes.
Johnson: Mr. Chairman. When they do that typically Nampa Meridian asks that
they have enough room that they can get off the road, park their vehicle, open
the gate, go through and close depending on the amount of traffic that’s on the
road? You know that’s what they’re looking for.
Borup: So the fence comes over, gives them 20 feet or so –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Johnson: That’s correct. You’re requirements from your code require that we
either pipe or tile all of the open ditches that are on our side or adjacent. The
discussion in the previous hearing discussed that the Riddenbaugh, the one that
gets fenced and the Ten Mile is an open amenity and the Eight Mile gets fenced
just like the -- so that covers all of the canals that are on our site.
De Chambeau: Both sides of the canal, does it get fenced?
Johnson: Yes Ma’am both sides. I mean we own property on the Eight Mile on
both sides. We cannot, we own property on both sides of the Riddenbaugh –
Borup: I think what he’s saying the property they own will be fenced.
Johnson: -- we fence our property. We don’t want to be one of the people that
are on the Mortener’s property so we won’t be trespassing and putting fence
over there. I mean that’s not the discussion.
Borup: That’s what we stated earlier. It sounds like the school policy is that they
would be bussing anything across the other section.
Johnson: That would be typical yes.
Borup: Okay.
Johnson: Anything else for me?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 85
Borup: Commissioners? I think we were talking about May 3rd
.
Shreeve: Yes and the plat.
Borup: Oh yes. Mr. Brown, do you think May 3rd
is enough time for you to get an
answer from the Army Corp?
Brown: I’ll make it.
Shreeve: Good luck.
Borup: Okay.
Shreeve: I think he knows what want to look at.
( Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Centers: Mr. Chairman I would like to –
Borup: No.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: We need to continue it because of the plat and the water model. Go
ahead Mr. Centers, I’m sorry.
Centers: Are we still on that one?
Borup: Seven, eight and nine.
Centers: Yes Mr. Chairman. I would like to move that we postpone items seven,
eight –
Borup: Continue continue.
Centers: -- and nine, excuse me continue to our May 3rd
meeting. That would
be Item 7 AZ 00-023, Item 8 PP 00-024 and Item 9 CUP 00-052 continued to our
May 3rd
meeting.
Borup: Are we looking for some specific items to be discussed at that time that
they would be expecting?
Centers: I can mention them but I think he knows –
Borup: Well, let’s mention them in the motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 86
Centers: We of course are waiting for the results of the water model –
Borup: Okay.
Centers: We’d like to see a complete plat.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Preferably, see the wetlands issue covered.
Borup: Okay we have a motion.
Shreeve: I second that.
Borup: Any discussion? Motion is second, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE ABSTAINED, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Mr. Centers you had mentioned something earlier?
Centers: Well –
(Bill Nary arrived)
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from March 15, 2001 AZ 01-
003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres in
proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLC
– 2420 Ustick Road:
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from March 15, 2001 PP 01-
005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building
lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and
C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing
Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLC – north of
Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile:
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from March 15, 2001 CUP 01-
006 Request for Conditional Use Permit of 692 single-family
lots, 59 town homes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots
on 370.55 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for
proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by
Primeland Development Co., LLC – north of Ustick Road
and east of Ten Mile Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 87
Borup: It’s time for a short break. We’ll do that and then continue with Item 10,
11 and 12 right after the break.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: We’d like to reconvene our meeting this evening. Open and continue
Public Hearing on Items 10, 11 and 12 which is annexation and zoning of 371
acres in Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Item 11, request for Preliminary Plat
on the same project. Twelve request for Conditional Use Permit again on the
same Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. We’d like to open these Public
Hearings and start with a staff report or any other information you may have.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. This Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision, generally located between Ten Mile and Linder Road and
between Ustick and McMillan, general vicinity map is on the wall in front of you.
Have several site photos to run through. Most of them are pretty rural in
character. That area is not yet built out. This would be the first development to
use the new white drain sewer line that’s soon to be built. Most of the area out
there is currently undeveloped. You can read all the captions too but you can
see the general character of the area being open farmland. This one being
taken looking across what would be the project from the corner of McMillan and
Ten Mile looking southeast. Did we open all the hearings, or –
Borup: Yes we did.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: Yes and we got the report before. I think probably we’re maybe need to
be reminded on the items that –
Siddoway: Yes I won’t –
Borup: -- that was kind of left hanging from last time.
Siddoway: One of the main issues that was remaining to be addressed at the
last hearing from my understanding is the annexation issue. In Brad Hawkins-
Clark’s staff report he had laid out three options A, B, and C for the annexation. :
Let’s see if I can remember these correctly. I believe option A which was
proposed by the developer is to annex only the portion of the land that is
proposed to be platted. Although the conditional use permit is for much more
land and then have kind of a limbo annexation that would be phased as the
subsequent phases were developed, or platted and developed. Option B is to
annex the entire parcel at the same time. Option C is to annex only the area
asking to be platted and to modify the conditional use permit to reflect that
specific location and only consider that area. We the Commission asked staff for
some specific recommendation. We have talked with the City Attorney. I believe
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 88
Mr. Moore is prepared to address this issue. My understanding is that the
recommendation is for option B which would be to annex the entire property.
Would you like to address that one?
Moore: That’s correct. To otherwise with any promise of future development or
annexation makes this Commission part of the plan, so to speak, and gives them
a personal interest in it and therefor would be illegal. Also, that it is a total plat
that needs to be approved to begin with. Both of those are very plain in both the
State Code and the City Code. It is my recommendation then that it would be
illegal for you to enter into such a contract. That you must either annex entire or
each portion must be brought before the Commission at the time that they want
to annex it and develop it.
Borup: So you’re saying that if we annex just a phase, that is all –
Moore: If you’re going to annex a phase, that’s all you annex. You make no
promises to whether to annex anything else.
Borup: There would not be –
Moore: Next time they bring it before the Commission they start all over –
Borup: It would be a whole other subdivision?
Moore: That’s right.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: There was also an outstanding issue from the Settler’s Canal. I
believe there was a meeting with them that Becky Bowcutt could probably speak
to better than I. They did issue a letter today dated April 19, 2001. You should
have had a copy. It’s on their attorney’s letterhead Engleman & Burke. One of
the main issues with this in my mind is the fact in No. 3 they are saying they will
only allow the use of the white drain for basically recreational purposes. Their
pathways and such, the City agrees to take on all liability which, I don’t know how
to respond to that.
Borup: Is that consistent with the agreements with that for Meridian on our other
drainages? I understood we had an agreement in place.
Siddoway: We do have an overall agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District. I’m trying to remember what the liability issues were. I don’t know.
Borup: I mean are they saying something different than what they’ve agreed to
on the previous ones?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 89
Siddoway: No this is a separate Irrigation District. This is with the Settler’s –
Borup: Oh Settler’s. I’m sorry.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Okay. I think Settler’s has a lot of this to our neighbors to the east don’t
they? Maybe we’ll get an answer.
Siddoway: Yes. I’ll let Becky address that. The last issue has to do with the Ada
County Highway District reports. We got a report today from the Ada County
Highway District dated April 19th
. It is a draft staff report on the plat. It says that
the ACHD Commission met yesterday April 18th
on this project and they’ve
allowed staff to release the draft report to the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission with revisions to the original report. I know the next question
coming my way is what are the revisions and I don’t know because I haven’t had
a chance to read it. The ACHD Commission will not be making a final
recommendation on the plat until they want to meet with the City Council to
discuss development out in the area before ACHD acts on it. I believe that the
report says that they’ve asked the Council, let me find it, the Council to not take
final action on this project until their issues are resolved and they actually take
their own final action. What page was that on, do you know? The Council that
was underlined?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Siddoway: I’m trying to find that so I can refer you to it.
Borup: That the recommendation on Item D. Is that what you’re referring to?
Where it says that staff recommends that Commission approve 336 lot
Preliminary Plat and at the next regular scheduled meeting City Council and
ACHD Commissioners discuss the impact this development and surrounding
developments will have on the transportation system?
Siddoway: That’s not it.
Borup: That’s not it?
Siddoway: What’s that? Oh it’s a separate letter. Oh okay. Do we have a copy
of this? Anyway, I think , it seems to be asking specifically for the Council to not
take final action, it’s up to this Commission whether they feel comfortable taking
action without Ada County Highway District’s final letter. I want to also point out
–
Borup: I’m confused now then. You said they sent a second letter saying that
they did not recommend taking action?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 90
Siddoway: By the City Council is what it says. The City Council not take any
action –
Borup: Because this letter says they recommend the Commission approve and
then that they meet with City Council.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: That’s consistent, I guess. That’s not contradictory there?
Siddoway: I guess.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: As far as the Conditional Use Permit goes, there is no staff report on
the conditional use permit yet. They have not acted on the conditional use
permit nor have they written a report for us to consider. One street related issue
that’s in Brad’s staff report is to point out one issue was a connection to McMillan
Road. That does not show up anywhere in ACHD’s report on the plat. We would
like to push for a connection to McMillan Road. Other than that the conditions
will stand as previously written. Bruce has some comments.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I just have one point
that I wanted to reiterate from our discussion last time we talked about this
project. That was under annexation site specific requirement number 3, which is
on page 5 of our staff comments dated March 12th
. Brad Hawkins-Clark had
written in there that the parcel at the northeast corner of Ten Mile and McMillan
Road is to be served by a portion of the north sewer trunkline and is not
serviceable by the whit drain. That is true. He goes on to say the legal
description boundaries for the proposed CG’s own must be revised to omit this
proposed parcel north of McMillan until such time as it can be serviced. The
proposal from the applicant is to build that short stretch of the Ten Mile drain so it
is actually serviceable. They are going to be building a portion of that drain. I
would just recommend that the last sentence be struck about the legal
description needing to be revised because it is ok as long as they build that little
piece of that north sewer trunkline.
Shreeve: How much would they be building?
Freckleton: To and through their property.
Shreeve: Do you know how much that is?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 91
Freckleton: I really don’t. Through their property to the, the trunkline runs up
McMillan Road, no excuse me, Ten Mile Road. It would be along the frontage of
Ten Mile Road. Whatever that distance –
Shreeve: Okay.
Freckleton: -- what they show there. Then that parcel would serve to that.
Borup: Then that’s the parcel north of McMillan? Was that the parcel that he
referred to? Let’s see.
Centers: Okay yes the northeast corner.
Borup: That’s the parcel on the plat that was north of McMillan --
Freckleton: Correct
Borup: -- east of Ten Mile. It does not show on this map here. That would be
section A I guess or the letter A, that area. Anything else?
Freckleton: No. That’s just the point I wanted to make.
Borup: Okay thank you. Would the applicant here like to come forward?
Sounds like the brief comment from staff was essentially four items. I assume
that’s those four items that you’d like to address?
Bowcutt: Yes sir. Becky Bowcutt 11283 west Hickorydale Boise. I’m
representing the applicant in this matter. First, I’ll address the ACHD issue. Just
to kind of bring you up to date on where we are. When we submitted this
application to the City we were required to submit a thorough traffic study of the
entire project and it’s impact on the roadway network. That traffic study was
prepared by the Washington Group. Dave Splat the Traffic Engineer worked on
it. We submitted that to the Highway District. The Highway District has had a lot
of applicants coming in before pre-application conferences for other large
projects in this north Meridian area running from Chinden to Ustick, Black Cat,
over to Locust Grove. The Highway District decided that they wanted to take a
pro-active approach to this and they retained the Washington Group who
prepared our study to do what they called a seven-mile study of this area. Trying
to estimate the amount of development that would take place and over what time
frame. They gathered information over the past few months from some of the
engineering firms in the valley who have projects either in the planning phase or
on the verge of submittal in order to come up with accurate, or what they believe
to be accurate, numbers. That study was completed and submitted to ACHD’s
staff in draft form. We received a copy of it. One thing just in general terms that
was brought up is, if this area were to develop to the estimated densities and
plus office and commercial which always come along after the fact, that we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 92
would be exceeding as a whole not as just one development that 20/20 threshold
that has been planned by like the Compass Group which used to be Ada
Planning Association on what the capacity of our arterials would be and what we
needed to plan for the future as far as what the future capacity would to be.
We’ve been waiting for a staff report from the Commission. Their staff prepared
a report. They prepared it for the Preliminary Plat. In the Commission meeting
that took place yesterday at noon we had about an hour and a half discussion.
There was an article in the paper today. The reporter was very selective with
what he put in the paper. Those comments that alarm, they get headlines,
wanted to make sure his story made the front page. What he didn’t tell you was
that the meeting was very positive. Ada County Highway District says we want
to look at this whole area and come up with a plan. Instead of being reactionary,
where a lot of these areas, they’re completely built out and then years later we
come back in and finally upgrade the arterials to handle the traffic generated by
these developments. We’re going to take a pro-active stance and try to
implement a overlay impact zone which would mean in addition to your standard
Ada County Highway District impact fees for residential, commercial and office
development they would have a special assessment or impact fee that would be
paid at the building permit stage which would allow them to build the
infrastructure so that it coincided somewhat with the proposed developments.
Instead of waiting years after these projects are completed for improvement it
would be taking place in unison. Obviously there’ll be improvements that are
required of the developers. In our staff report for example, we’re required to
participate in approximately 67,200 dollars in trust fund for future signals at I
believe Ten Mile, Ustick, Ten Mile, Linder. We’re required to do turn lanes and
dedicate right-of-way. Improve the arterials with sidewalks. Obviously build our
collector roadways and internal systems. What the Commission stated was we
feel comfortable with this project. We’ve received a lot of compliments that it was
very evident that we spent a lot of time in the planning process. We’ve been
doing this for -- I think we started on it about a year ago. The project is well laid
out and they are very happy with it. They stated for the record that they did not
want to delay our project any more than they absolutely have to and that’s why
they authorized their staff to send the staff report over to the Commission and
your staff in it’s draft form. They stated that they felt comfortable with this
Commission if this Commission deems so to go ahead and make a
recommendation and send this project forward. However, they wanted to have
their final staff report adopted prior to the approval of this project by the City
Council. They have a meeting scheduled, a joint meeting on April 30th
at noon at
the Highway District between the City Council and the ACHD Commission.
Some of the questions the Commission is going to ask your Council are what is
their plan for this area? How aggressive does the City want to be in
development of this area? If these overlay districts are established, they want
input from the City Council on how that’s done. Your staff received a staff report.
WE also got a letter from the staff a few weeks ago and it basically stated ACHD
would request that the City Council not make a final determination on this project
until after a thorough review of the traffic impact to the system and approval by
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 93
the ACHD Commission and they underlined City Council. They felt comfortable
that we come before you this evening. They understand that projects need to
move forward. They’re just buying a little bit of time. I don’t anticipate that we’ll
get to the City Council until probably the first meeting in June the way you know
that the mailings and legal notices and so forth works out.
Centers: Becky could you clarify that letter? That went from ACHD to who?
Bowcutt: It from ACHD to the City of Meridian.
Borup: Just the whole City?
Bowcutt: It just said City of Meridian March 14th
.
Borup: Okay. March 14th
?
Bowcutt: But we were encouraged –
Borup: No one from the staff has seen a copy of that.
Bowcutt: It was faxed over because I got –
Shreeve: We did get it.
Borup: Oh okay. We do have that one.
Bowcutt: We were encouraged by the meeting yesterday. The comments were
positive. One of the questions asked of us, if your project were approved prior to
implementation of an overlay zone would you be willing to accept those
additional impact fees for your project? Our response on the record to the
Commission was yes. Obviously reasonable you know additional impact fees
hoping that they’d take into considerations other improvements that they’re
asking us to make when implementing those. Also I stated that since we’re
building additional turn lane s and so forth that I would hope that in their planning
they would not have us build those turn lanes and then within 12 months or 18
months come in and rip them out. I’d rather give the money to the Highway
District to help participate in the rebuild of these arterials. They admitted the
capacity does exist to take care of this project. The issue is who gets that
capacity. I think that’s what they’re looking at. If they don’t do anything we will
reach a point when other projects of this size or even smaller start coming
through this process that the streets will be at capacity as far as build out is
concerned. Now they obviously look at build out. This project we’re proposing is
a seven to ten year project because of its sheer size. They obviously look at
build out.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 94
Borup: Does ACHD have any provision or discussion of offsets in those impact
fees on specifically I guess I’m thinking of donating right-of-way? Rather then
them buying the right-of-way do they provide for offset on that line?
Bowcutt: Yes sir. We did have a lot of discussion concerning that very fact. In
this particular impact fee area, they have all of our areas segmented. They
obviously don’t have a lot of excess funds to pay for a lot of right-of-way. The
question was asked would we be willing for either offsets, impact fee offsets to
consider that or to look at incremental type payments over a period of time as
these impact fees come in. Now just for example on this particular project alone,
the Highway District calculated the standard impact fees that would be generated
by this project and that is 17 million dollars. That would not include – and that
number came from ACHD’s staff. That would not include any overlay or
additional special assessments.
Borup: About how much a mile, are they talking of needing 5 lanes? Obviously
they don’t have the study yet.
Bowcutt: Yes they have the study in draft form. Some of the roadways are
designated seven lanes for future.
Borup: Seven?
Bowcutt: Seven. Some are designated 5 will be required and then there’s some
where they’ve designated 3.
Borup: I just remember hearing in the past a million dollar a mile. Is that for a
three lane?
Bowcutt: I believe so.
Borup: I ‘m just trying to see how many miles that, how many miles of road this
project would cover. Seventeen miles and three lanes.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Go on. I forgot my other question. But you did say they’re talking
about allowing donation of the right-of-way in lieu of some of the impact fees?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: Which would seem to make sense to me if they don’t have the money to
do it. That’s a fast way to get it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 95
Bowcutt: Or they reimburse you when they build that fund up. So, as that 17
million dollars starts coming in to their coffers and it reaches a point then they
would start paying you in incremental amounts.
Borup: That 17 million was that the current impact fee?
Bowcutt: Yes. That’s my understanding.
Borup: That’s not taking an overlay zone into consideration at all?
Bowcutt: No sir. No.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: They have not determined what that overlay is.
Borup: Right.
Bowcutt: Another area that they did an overlay zone in was like the hillside area
up north of Boise. One statement that I made to them was that that took months;
it might have even taken over a year. You know those things don’t happen
quickly. I think that’s why they were looking for us to state for the record you
know if we did this after the fact would you be willing to accept this overlay. And
they amended their staff report that was sent out today asking us for a letter in
writing. Staying on the traffic issue, one of the other items brought up was
McMillan Road. We’ve had quite a bit of discussion on is it necessary to extend
a roadway out to McMillan Road. As I indicated at the last meeting our traffic
engineer stated it was not required. We’re building connectors from Ten Mile to
Linder and then from Ustick up to the center section. In their analysis the traffic
engineers concurred that there was no need for a collector roadway out to
McMillan. In this new ACHD staff report I think Steve mentioned that they did not
address that but it is in here. Just a second. Under item 7F it says the layout of
the internal connector streets eliminates the potential for cut throw traffic and the
need for traffic calming. A collector street connection to McMillan Road is not
justified by the traffic volume. Even though this report is on the Preliminary Plat
they technically have reviewed and analyzed the whole project for internal
circulation and so forth. This statement here number 7 was in our traffic study.
Obviously ACHD extracted that and put it into their staff report. This –
Borup: They were taking into consideration the commercial project north of
McMillan? That was part of what –
Bowcutt: When you analyze a project you can’t just cut a little segment out and
window it and so we can only look at that.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 96
Bowcutt: Now they’re cutting it into two parts granted but when they, you do your
overall analyze they’re looking at the traffic load throughout the whole
development.
Borup: Right. I think that was, if I remember right that was staff’s main concern -
Bowcutt: Right.
Borup: -- was getting to the commercial development.
Bowcutt: The Commission asked that question sir.
Borup: ACHD Commission did?
Bowcutt: Yes they did. Susan Eastlake asked the question here with the
townhomes.
Borup: Well, the townhomes has access.
Bowcutt: Then how this functions because this is a driveway that’s 25 feet wide
and this provides the access for these office lots. It goes all the way to the
commercial here. Then the townhomes has a 25-foot vehicular access that
allows traffic from this to exit into here.
Borup: Right. I was talking about the project north of McMillan.
Bowcutt: North of McMillan you can either come out on the exterior arterials or
you can come down this way and come to this driveway and come straight
across. These are in alignment both these driveways.
Borup: But there’s no signal.
Bowcutt: No sir. It’s too close to ever be signalized.
Borup: Right. That’s what I mean which is also too close to probably get out
from the street if there’s any traffic at all. Maybe I’m remembering wrong. I think
their concern was an entrance closer to the middle of a mile you’re going to be
able to get out on McMillan. Something that close to an intersection you’re not.
All the residents in the center of the project are going to have to go to Ten Mile to
get to I mean, I was going to say grocery store, and I guess that’s an
assumption.
Bowcutt: I think you’ve got to look at the traffic patterns. When you look at, one
thing that was studied by the Washington Group in their 7-mile study was traffic
patterns and where that traffic’s going to go in these areas.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 97
Borup: ACHD’s statement is taking that into consideration, is that what you’re
saying?
Bowcutt: That’s my understanding and in our pre-application conferences and in
our meetings they indicated to me the staff that is was that a connector roadway
or roadway connection to McMillan from the heart of the project was not
necessary.
Borup: Right. That’s what it says here.
Bowcutt: They base that on that traffic counts and they base that on traffic
patterns. If you go through there, this is of course very thick. It talks about traffic
going to the north and distribution of traffic. I believe it was about 50 percent of
the traffic was going to go I think it was north and east. Very little traffic is going
west and then you’re going to have traffic going south if Ten Mile interchange is
constructed you’re going to see a lot of that traffic going south. Everybody, most
of the employment centers are south north and east. Westward was the smallest
percentage as far as the traffic patterns. Thirdly was Settler’s Irrigation District,
we did go before Settler’s Irrigation Board. That was last week. We showed
them our project. We’d already been there once before when we had it in draft
form, pencil form. We took our final plans to them to get their input. The
Settler’s Board indicated that they would send staff a letter addressing the
easement widths. The staff had requested that. I have not seen that letter yet.
Secondly, we discussed the issue of the white drain. We talked about many
issues such as maintenance, liability, pathways et cetera. Obviously they’re an
Irrigation District. Their first inclination is let’s just pipe it. They don’t ever think
about making something an amenity or the aesthetics of it. After discussing the
issue with them for a couple of hours they indicated we believe we can allow you
to make an amenity under certain conditions. One your staff had put in our
original staff report it says staff recommends that segment of the pathway be
considered as a public pathway and part of the City’s master Pathway Plan.
That was addressing the pathway adjacent to the white drain, stubs to both Ten
Mile and the eastern boundary. One of their questions by Settler’s Board is is
that City of Meridian going to make this pathway public? We stated they have
made comments in the staff report and inclination to that effect. Then the
question of liability came up and I said well, I explained the agreement that the
City entered into with Nampa Meridian. They indicated they do have a copy of
that agreement and they were going to review it including their attorney. I said
you know you guys could enter into an agreement you know very easily just as
Nampa Meridian. The two entities worked years and years to hammer out that
agreement and what I know of it, it’s worked for both. Their issue is obviously
the liability if we put the pathway next to the drain and they want us to address it.
We also talked about Homeowners Association carrying insurance and how to
provide that there are no lapses in insurance coverage and so forth. They
recommended that we enter into a license agreement with them detailing all of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 98
these items so that we all have general agreed upon language in which this
property would be developed. They had no problem with the piping of the
Coleman Lateral. They’ll work with us as far as sizing and easements. We
discussed the Settler’s Canal. They can’t tell us exactly how much water is going
down there. Their head maintenance guy indicated he thought the facility was
too big to be piped. They’re researching that. The meeting I thought was good.
One issue that we did disagree on was the issue of drainage. We had hoped to
have some overflow from our ponds into the white drain, which is historically
where the existing drainage goes at this time. They indicated that they don’t
except storm drainage. That they would be willing to entertain the possibility
under, if we could demonstrate compliance with the new EPA water resources
DEQ requirements and so forth. The burden would be upon us to convince
them. Their recommendation was our ponds are independent of the drain so we
would have to interconnect our ponds and maintain our circulation in that
fashion.
Borup: So then how do you do that?
Bowcutt: How do we do that?
Borup: I mean what happens at the last pond?
Bowcutt: The ponds would all be interconnected. You’d have to have some type
of a circulation –
Borup: Circulation pumps, is that what you’re saying then?
Bowcutt: Yes and the ability to feed them off of your pressurized irrigation to
supplement them. Then you’d have to have some circulation. Either water
features such as a water pond fountain –
Borup: How’s Highland Woods handle theirs? Do you know?
Bowcutt: They’ve got some type of a water feature. Have you been to Two
Rivers?
Borup: Yes. That’s what I mean --
Bowcutt: Two Rivers –
Borup: -- how do they handle the circulation?
Bowcutt: I think those ponds are connected. I’m doing some checking on that. I
think there’s an interconnection there –
Borup: Yes. There’s pipe under the road –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 99
Bowcutt: Right and they’ve got like a little water fall, some type of feature.
Borup: They’re circulating those?
Bowcutt: It appears that they’re circulating them.
Borup: That’s not a pass through water –
Bowcutt: I don’t believe so not when I looked at it, it didn’t look like it was
connected to anything at least on the surface. It’s all subsurface. They’re also
probably getting infiltration from ground water too.
Borup: Yes. They are. Those have stayed –
Bowcutt: They’re very –
Borup: -- very clean all year long.
Bowcutt: -- clean clear –
Borup: That’s why I was wondering how they’re circulating that.
Bowcutt: Yes. There’s no moss or anything.
Borup: I noticed that.
Bowcutt: Obviously when we design this we would do that with the engineer, the
Landscape Architect and between the two they would work to make something
that works well, minimizes maintenance and is a true amenity to the project.
Lastly is the issue of the annexation. This project is different than most. You
may ask why don’t we just annex all of it that’s what makes sense.
Borup: Well, we’ve also been told that’s the only legal option we have too.
Bowcutt: And I guess I’d like to review that information or have our Legal
Counsel review it. When we started this project because we are the first leg of
the white drain trunk it was imperative that we design the whole thing. We had
no choice. We needed to basically stipulate where these roadways were going
to go so that when the white drain trunk is constructed that we didn’t end up
having to design around it and that it’s falling in roadways not just running along
no man’s land. It’s always difficult to come in and retrofit when you’ve got a
trunkline traversing your property. I’ve done it before. Dakota Ridge was a prime
example. They had an existing trunkline that went south off Ustick through
Dakota Ridge into the lake at Cherry Lane. At the time the City, the property
owner thought that was the right location. When the property was planned for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 100
development it was an impossible hurdle that dictated our design limited our
design. We had to build a lot more street than you should have and we had a
difficult time accomplishing what we wanted to do. The City even struggled with
it. Because of that limitation of that trunkline we didn’t have a lot of options. We
didn’t want that to happen and the City didn’t want that to happen. They said you
know get on the stick get going, get this project designed. We want you to feel
comfortable so we that we can obtain those easements for the trunkline and get
this project moving forward. That’s what we did.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Bowcutt: Now, unlike most projects, most projects that we have are maybe one
maybe two-property owners involved. They might be 80 acres, they might be
120 acres but typically the number of property owners and legal parcels of record
are limited. As you can see by this surface map, --
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
***End Of Side Five***
Bowcutt: There are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 different parcels. This 80 here, this is
McMillan this is Ten Mile this was owned by the James’ who for a billion years.
This parcel was owned by the Rupps. This 80 here was owned by the Wakes.
The Youngs owned this parcel and it had it’s own parcel number. They owned
this 80 here, it had it’s own parcel number. They owned this parcel it had a
parcel number and then the old cemetery site had its parcel number. This one
had a parcel number, it was owned by the Youngs. So did this one, this one was
owned by Polley. What we’re dealing with is a lot of different properties that were
legal parcels of record. One of the things that my clients struggled with in
submitting the whole project was the issue of annexation. When you annex the
property the Assessor’s obviously views that as developable property. That
effects what their assessment is of that property. Staff, I believe indicated in their
staff report that the levy amount between the unincorporated Ada County and the
City of Meridian was minimal but what they don’t consider is how the Assessor
classifies property. One of my clients went to the Assessor’s office and got all
the latest printouts on all these parcels. To give you an example what happens
when you annex, this is Bridgetower No. 1 right here that was annexed here a
few months ago. That’s the first phase of this project. That particular parcel, we
have not platted one lot. We just barely are starting construction and in 2000
that parcel was valued at 21,700 dollars. As soon as we annexed to the City of
Meridian now it’s taxed at 780,300 dollars which is a 3500 percent increase
which obviously substantially effects your taxes.
Borup: That was after a Final Plat –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 101
Bowcutt: No. No sir.
Borup: That was –
Bowcutt: We have not recorded a Final Plat. All we’ve done is receive
annexation into the City and Preliminary Plat approval.
Borup: Is that property being farmed?
Bowcutt: Yes it was up until we cut our roads in just a few weeks ago.
Borup: When was the tax assessment changed?
Bowcutt: The date on here is 2001. I don’t know what month.
Borup: When did you start cutting roads?
Bowcutt: Just a week ago.
Borup: I mean – I guess what I’m getting at is, was the tax changed because
they knew the development was starting –
Bowcutt: No sir. No
Borup: They didn’t know development was starting?
Bowcutt: Just it showed up that a developer owned it, the name is familiar, we’re
annexing to the City of Meridian. That’s where we’re coming from on this
annexation thing. We came up with this idea. It is creative. I am not aware of it
ever being done at the City of Meridian, I admit to that. The reason I came up
with it is my experience I deal with many jurisdictions and have for 10 years. The
City of Idaho Falls for example, you come in, you submit a Preliminary Plat
application. They don’t annex you until you’re Final Plat comes in. They annex
you phase by phase which based on what we’re used to was different but when I
worked at Ada County for 2 years, County Commissioners did the same thing.
Preliminary Plat would come in with a re-zone application. This was re-zoning
not annexation. They would approve the re-zone. The re-zone was not
implemented until the 1 the final Development Plan came in which could be
within 1 year or 2 the Final Plat for the first phase came in. Then they’d annex
the whole parcel, or excuse me, re-zone the whole parcel excuse me. There are
obviously deviations in the process. We’re all under the same state code. What
we were trying to do was logistically we submitted this PUD. The PUD is all inter
related the 20 percent exception. The ten percent open space. When you try
segmenting the property then all of a sudden those numbers start being skewed
if you understand what I’m saying. They don’t tally up. They’re no longer looked
at as a whole but looked as a segment. What we did is we came in and we said
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 102
we want, what if we submit, we request an annexation on the whole thing. We
ask for annexation that takes the Preliminary Plat, the entire Preliminary Plat, this
before you is within the area requested for annexation and we’re asking to be
annexed at this time. The second portion, we asked let’s enter into a
Development Agreement. Implement, or activate the annexation, however you
want to put it, when the Preliminary Plat comes in for the second half. That was
the only thing that I could come up with so that we didn’t end up paying these
kind of taxes for land that we’re not going to development for quite a while. Now
you staff brought up the question what about the school? If the school is outside
the annex area, which it’s outside the first phase of the annex area, and they
want to construct. They’ve got to be in the City in order to get services. We’ve
met with the School District. We’ve told them our time frame. They’ve indicated
that they have an idea for their time frame for when they would construct that
school. I think we’re pretty close and we agreed you know when you need that
school then we’ll do whatever it takes.
Shreeve: Are they still talking 2004 for completion?
Bowcutt: Probably 3 to 4 years. It’s dependent on bond issues –
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: -- for school construction. They never can bet on a specific date. They
did indicate that that school would be constructed prior to the build out of this
project. They don’t want to come in and do it after the fact. I guess what we’re
trying to do is just buy some time. We can get our project rolling because this
annexation issue is problematic. I don’t know what to do. I guess you could say
well let’s just take that one option and we’ll just annex that first Preliminary Plat
forget the rest. Well then how am I going to grant the easements on the rest of
the property? The whole idea behind our PUD is that we had a concept that we
were confident the City, the Highway District, Irrigation Districts, everybody is
happy with. We feel comfortable we can grant these easements. I’m just trying
to explain to you where we’re coming from and why we did what we did. Do you
have any questions?
Nary: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Commissioner Nary
Nary: Miss Bowcutt I guess what I’m trying to understand so I’m clear on this
annexation issue what you’d like us to do if we legally could do this, would be to
approve the Preliminary Plat which is for the entire project –
Bowcutt: No. It’s only a portion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 103
Nary: Oh a portion of the project. – approve the Preliminary Plat and I guess
where I’m kind of having a hard point is I could see us saying okay, we’re going
to approve the Preliminary Plat but what you’re asking us to do is annex less
ground then is incorporated by the plat?
Bowcutt: No sir.
Nary: So you’re asking to only annex the ground that’s incorporated by the plat?
Bowcutt: There’s just a small overlap.
Nary: And then the second phase is the Development Agreement stuff you were
talking about, correct?
Bowcutt: Correct.
Nary: Okay. That’s incorporated in the CUP?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Nary: Okay.
Bowcutt: Correct. This is the Preliminary Plat that’s before you, this is its
boundary here this dark line –
Nary: Which is on the ACHD staff report?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Nary: Okay.
Bowcutt: It comes down and then encompasses this area here. Our annexation,
the first phase annexation, legal description that we prepared –
Borup: That’s Item 10 –
Bowcutt: Pardon?
Borup: That’s Item 10, the 371 acres.
Bowcutt: That’s full one –
Borup: That’s the whole thing right?
Bowcutt: That’s the whole thing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 104
Borup: So, you haven’t actually requested annexation, you’ve actually though
this application is requesting annexation of the entire piece.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: So , you would have to withdraw that application and amend it and have
us only annex the piece that you want. That would be your preference, isn’t that
what you’d have to do?
Bowcutt: No sir if the logistics of it were, we had to request annexation on the
entire parcel to even get before this body with a PUD. I had to request that
otherwise you’d be saying why an I looking at that –
Nary: What’s the rest of it going to look like?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Bowcutt: -- if that’s the County’s –
Nary: Right.
Bowcutt: --that’s in the County why are you, you know? So we had to, we
applied for annexation on all 371 whatever acres.
Borup: But now you’re saying that you don’t want to do that?
Nary: What I’m saying is that you know how this works. We have to approve it
or deny it –
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Nary: -- or delay it. It’s one of those for you.
Bowcutt: So in my application I put in there, we want to annex and it’s the first
phase annexation follows this plat. There’s a little bit of overlap here because
we drew a straight line versus the zigzag. Then we gave you a legal description
for this. We asked in the application implementation of this annexation so the
Council would go ahead adopt the ordinance officially annex 176 acres of the
370 or approximate or something like that.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: Then we –
Nary: Which is what’s incorporated in Item 12, the Preliminary Plat?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 105
Bowcutt: Correct. Then –
Nary: I guess what my question still is the application that’s before us is a
request to annex 371 acres.
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Nary: What you really want is us to only annex 175 acres and I think where the
rub is and where Mr. Moore’s legal opinion was is that we can’t promise nor can
the City Council promise that we will ever annex the remainder of it. We can
think it’s a great idea and we can say that’s a wonderful thing boy we can’t wait
until we see it again sure sounds great but we can’t commit to it and neither the
Council. I think, legally we don’t have any authority to do that. It appears to me
before we can go forward what it sounds like is you have to still amend 10 to
incorporate what it is you want us to act upon. Otherwise we have to carve it out
and really you should carve it out. It’s your option not ours. Carve out what it is
you want us to do and essentially the rest of it is all though I know we don’t have
Ordinance that really speaks to it directly but the rest of it is simply conceptual.
This is what the remainder of it going to look like and we’re going to come back
in 2007 and ask you to take the rest of it in later. We’re going to build this phase
and then we’re going to build that phase and when we’re ready for that phase
we’re going to come and ask you to build it. Isn’t that what we’re doing? So we
can’t act –
Bowcutt: I guess it –
Nary: -- on 10 without changing it. Either you have to change or we have to
change it. I guess my view is I don’t want us to do it.
Bowcutt: Yes. It depends on; I guess it depends on your perspective. Have we
requested annexation the entire 371 acres? Yes. In that request we asked if the
Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council could implement that annexation
in two phases. We enter into a Development Agreement on the second. Well
we’d obviously have a Development Agreement on the first phase. Now your
Ordinance, when you read your Ordinance it talks about recording that
Development Agreement coinciding with the ordinance but it also stipulates that
an unrecorded Development Agreement is still binding upon the applicant and
their successors if they consent to that. That’s what we thought you know there
was nothing in the Ordinance that stated we could not do that. Now your
question is we kind of laid out the options for your staff, you know this is what we
could do we annex the whole thing, we annex just a portion or we annex it in two
phases. Your staff since this is an unusual situation they’re like us and you’re
saying how can we approve you if you don’t delineate? We have delineated this
first section.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 106
Bowcutt: So I guess you’re saying if we’ve got to make a choice, you want us to
tell you. Either annex the western portion or what we consider the first phase
annexation or annex all of it and you’re asking us to make a choice. Is that what
you’re telling me?
Nary: I guess that would be my preference. I mean I don’t have a problem –
Bowcutt: Yes.
Nary: -- in this Commission if that’s what everyone decides to make a
recommendation to Council to annex it all. I don’t have a problem with that. I
understand why you don’t want that.
Bowcutt: Sure.
Nary: Because you’re going to be paying taxes on property you’re not going to
build anything on for five years –
Bowcutt: Sure.
Nary: -- and you’re going to be paying at a pretty exorbitant price. I guess I look
at it, to me you’re representing the property owners they’re the ones that should
be asking us what it is they want. If they want us to annex all of it, which is
technically what they’ve asked for, I recognize your talk about (inaudible).
Technically what they’ve asked for is it’s all or nothing. I think the law really
leaves us with that option. We can think it’s a great idea but we can’t promise to
do anything the future and you may not want that five years from now, I doubt
this but you know the economy is really really terrible nobody really wants to
build out there, nobody really. – It seemed liked a great idea and then it really
just didn’t fly. Well, you may not want us to annex you anymore. You may not
want that and you may want to do something different. That’s the reason why we
can’t commit to that far into the future.
Bowcutt: Okay.
Nary: So, I guess I look at it and I say you know -- what I would suggest is if you
don’t want that option and you want to let the Government pick it for you, okay.
But most people don’t really want to do that. Most people would prefer to pick it
for themselves. If you don’t want to do it, then we’ll make the decision for you –
Bowcutt: Sure.
Nary: -- but that may not be the decision you like because I guess in my opinion,
and I don’t know what anybody else thinks, it’s one or the other –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 107
Bowcutt: Okay.
Nary: -- It’s all or nothing.
Bowcutt: Well, I guess our main intent is you know obviously to move forward. If
the only option available to you based on your counsel’s recommendation is to
annex the whole then I guess we would accept that recommendation. We had
the opportunity at the City Council to make our argument again, bring in our
Legal Counsel to either consult with your counsel or maybe just forget the idea
all together of trying to compartmentalize it. Our intent I guess this evening is
just to move forward so if that’s where your comfort level is then we would have
to accept that.
Borup: Any other? Did we get through the – I guess it’s been covered. You
covered the Settler’s Irrigation ACHD and annexation. Okay do we have anyone
else who’d like to comment or testify on this application?
Anderson: My name is Lori Anderson. I live at 2795 west McMillan Road. I’m
part of the Onclave property. I am one of those people that would like to exercise
my choice of annexation. I would like to feel secure that we will have that choice.
That we are not part of this annexation. We are not part of the development and
I guess I want to be reassured that only when we choose to be annexed into the
City that we will. This development has a significant impact on me and my family
and our land. Settler’s Irrigation from what I understand will have to be
relocated. That easement will come further onto my property. I don’t know what
the plans are with Settler’s because I don’t think Settler’s knows yet what they
are going to do. I would like to be notified by them of what their decisions are,
what their recommendations are, what they are going to do. There are a few
other issues that I have with this development. I realize that this is going to
happen whether it’s something we want or not but I agree with staff’s
recommendation that there should be some McMillan Road access. I think it
should be further east of the townhomes. There’s a lot of homes going in in this
area and they’re going to want to gain access to the commercial sites that are
north of this development so I think its important that that traffic is taken care of
in a way that will be best for this development as a whole. Staff recommended a
stub road be to the south of the property that is either ours or belongs to Mr.
Kelso, I have no objection to a road running adjacent to our property. I do have
an objection with a stub road to our property. I’m afraid in the future that would
invite punching a road all the way through to McMillan and our property is too
narrow to accommodate that so I think that stub road to our property is
inappropriate. It was recommended that there be a 6 foot tall solid fence that
runs the length of the town site, the townhome site and we would like to have a 6
foot solid fence that runs the perimeter of our property as well as a landscape
buffer. The lighting issues from the townhomes, we haven’t heard anything. The
developer has not contacted us at all so we don’t know what the lighting issues
might be for the townhomes and how that might impact us. We do currently have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 108
drainage to the south of our property. We irrigate from north to south and at the
back of our property, we have open drains that we would like to have left open so
we can continue to irrigate. I believe those, that section of the drain should be
fenced by the developer on their side of the property but left open for our use. I
haven’t heard anything said about the right to farm act. We do have some active
agricultural activity going on out there including a hog farm. I believe it’s really
important for potential buyers in this area to understand that there is this activity
and they need to be notified whether it be a deed restriction or a marketing
disclosure that this activity will continue. It might smell, it might be noisy at times
but it will continue. I’m interested in the traffic study that Ada County has before
them. Of course they haven’t released it to all of us at this point. I tried to gain
some information from them but they weren’t able to provide me with anything
because they of course are summarizing their thoughts as well. Like I said to
begin with, we’re not opposed to this development. We know it’s coming in. We
want to do what we can with our property for future development to blend in with
what is being proposed and possibly build our own home on a different part of
our property. We want to do what’s best for the development and are in the
process of hiring an engineer to take a look at this to see how we can blend in.
Those are our concerns as property owners in the Onclave section of this
development.
Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Anderson?
Norton: Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Anderson, I’m assuming your property is this out
parcel that’s right there?
Anderson: Yes.
Norton: Okay thank you.
Anderson: Yes it is.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Where’s the primary activity of the hog farm on that property, Ma’am?
Anderson: That is in Mr. Keslo’s section of the property and it is further south,
further south, right there. Over to the west. No not that far. Right there.
Nary: Ma’am just so you don’t walk away thinking something differently, if you’re
in Onclave, the City can annex you without your permission anyway. That’s in
the statutes and that’s allowed. I didn’t want you to sit down and (inaudible)
somehow you’ve got some assurance that wouldn’t happen –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 109
Anderson: No.
Nary: -- you know you are contiguous to the City and is that bigger than five
acres?
Anderson: Our parcel is, yes.
Nary: It is bigger than five acres. It’s arguable whether or not it may be annexed
in the future but if it is in Onclave and it’s totally surrounded by the City it doesn’t
matter how big it s, they can annex you. Just so you understand that’s not really
something we would be dealing with or even the City Council at this juncture but
nobody can promise that they won’t.
Borup: But, historically that has, the City does not annex without the owner
requesting it. There has not been any forced annexation on specifically anything
over five acres.
Anderson: I just wanted it public record.
Borup: Right. Sounds like your intention is to development your property in
residential development?
Anderson: In the future. At this time no. We want to continue to farm it.
Borup: Right but you want to have your options open for the future.
Anderson: Have our options open. I don’t think the stub road would be the best
answer for us. We’d probably want to use the road that would run –
Borup: Just as it’s designed now?
Anderson: Yes and then we would hire our own engineer to help us plan what
would happen with the front.
Borup: I’m assuming then for them to do the road like that, is that what you’re
talking about that the Settlers need to be relocated, Settler’s Drain?
Anderson: Settler’s Irrigation told me they would have to relocate their canals
south of the existing canal line. That puts that canal right through my front
pasture. It would have to be south of the power lines.
Borup: Are you talking about – where is it going at this point?
Unknown Speaker: The canal is right here.
Borup: Oh.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 110
Unknown Speaker: They’re talking about moving it down. So they would be
taking –
Borup: Would that have anything to do with this project forcing it to be moved?
Anderson: Yes.
Unknown Speaker: Yes.
Anderson: The canal is being relocate because of the project.
Unknown Speaker: The canal runs the entire mile.
Anderson: They told me they wouldn’t move just s portion of the mile. They
would tile –
Borup: Well, they’re moving their portion because of an anticipated right-of-way
increase for the road. So, yours would have to be moved if you ever developed
your property then?
Anderson: Correct.
Borup: You’re saying no, sir?
English: My name is Brian English sir. 4650 North Linder.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nary: I’d like to ask the other lady a question.
English: Let me clarify. Settler’s has told us that if they move a part of the ditch
they move the entire thing, the entire mile. They would encroach on her property
moving from north of the power lines where the Settler’s canal is now south and
not only would they go south, they would have a 30 foot easement associated
with the canal relocation. We haven’t –
Borup: Because they’re moving the canal the same distance on the other
property?
English: Right. They’re widening McMillan Road --
Borup: That was my point.
English: -- but they’re not widening it at her location.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 111
Borup: Oh yes they will. They’re going to widen the whole mile.
English: They’d have to condemn her to do it sir.
Borup: Well, then it won’t be widened until that happens but I thought you
wanted to develop your property. It’s not going to happen if you don’t have that
kind of progress take place.
Anderson: At this point we’re not ready to develop.
Borup: You wouldn’t rather have someone else pay for widening that thing for
you? You’d rather pay for it yourself?
Anderson: Widening the road?
Borup: And moving the canal and everything else that’s going to take place. I
mean you’re getting a free gift for that part of your development that you don’t
have to pay for later on when you start to do it. I had another question on your,
you seem concerned about impact on your property but then you said you would
like to see access to McMillan which looks to me would increase the impact on
traffic on your property.
Anderson: I would like to see access to McMillan but further east from our
property.
Borup: Right but isn’t that going to increase the traffic along your frontage rather
than decrease it?
Anderson: I don’t think so.
Borup: You don’t think anybody’s going to use the road then?
Anderson: Along the frontage, yes it would but I’ve got –
Borup: Okay. I guess I failed to connect the two of them. It’s not going to
increase the traffic. That seems to coincide with ACHD statement that there’s
not enough traffic to warrant access.
Anderson: I think with the development that’s due to go in east in the southeast
corner of Ten Mile and McMillan there’ll be more traffic in that area then is in that
study.
Borup: Southeast corner of McMillan and where?
Anderson: Ten Mile where the proposed grocery store site is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 112
Borup: Southeast is right here.
Anderson: That’s the north –
Borup: This is the southeast corner of the intersection.
Anderson: The northeast, excuse me.
Borup: Thank you.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nary: Did you consider being part of this development?
Anderson: We were never approached.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you Mrs. Anderson.
T. Anderson: I’m Tom Anderson, Lori’s husband at 2795 West McMillan Road.
I’d like to clarify one thing on this. On the plans there it states a stub road
leading to our property to be possibly moved to, or punched through to McMillan
Road. That’s –
Borup: This is on ACHD’s report?
T. Anderson: No. It’s in this plan.
Borup: On that plan right there?
T. Anderson: Yes it is.
Borup: I don’t see it. I’m sorry.
T. Anderson: No. It’s in the literature.
Borup: From – You’re talking about the staff report?
T. Anderson: Yes.
Borup: That was one recommendation they made. The plat does not indicate
that and ACHD has not requested that. Well, I’m not sure exactly what – Did
ACHD request a stub road or just access?
Siddoway: To McMillan?
Borup: No. To their property.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 113
Siddoway: Oh, to the Onclave that’s being talked about?
Borup: Right.
Siddoway: It is in the ACHD staff report.
Borup: To do what?
Siddoway: To provide a –
Borup: An access point?
Siddoway: -- an access point.
Borup: So, the existing road provides that? Is that –
Siddoway: Yes. Just for clarification, I believe it’s an extension of this one. I
don’t know the name off the top of my head.
T. Anderson: It says (inaudible) the stub road either to here or right here for
future development.
Borup: Well, that already is, that borders your property now doesn’t it?
T. Anderson: Yes, but it states a stub road leading to here.
Siddoway: Is he talking about this one here?
T. Anderson: That’s what we don’t want through our, you know –
Centers: Can’t tell.
T. Anderson: -- we want to build a house here. We don’t want a road going
through here.
Nary: Well, the stub road would just go to your property. What happens inside
your property would be up to you.
Centers: The stub road is beneficial to you if you decide to develop in the future
–
Borup: I don’t know why a stub road is necessary. Is there a stub road even
necessary if this road borders their property right now? Does it border your
property?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 114
Siddoway: Yes. Our staff report does request that.
Borup: The stub road?
Siddoway: Yes. We –
Borup: That’s the only, right now is that the only –
Siddoway: -- right now it just turns the corner –
Borup: -- ACHD did not though did they?
Siddoway: Verbally they said that they would support but they were not requiring
it in their staff report specifically.
Borup: What’s the difference between a stub road and a road running along the
property line?
Siddoway: Not much. It would simply instead of turning the corner here, it would
go straight and actually stub to the property so that it could be extended and
there –
Borup: Well, maybe I’m confused then. Does this road border the property right
now?
T. Anderson: Yes sir. There’s –
Borup: So, the only difference would be a curb cut?
Siddoway: That’s right and straightening that little edge right there.
Borup: Yes.
Nary: So the only thing that would effect this project would be that little triangle
piece there?
Siddoway: That’s correct.
Borup: If it did happen in the future. Other than that, a stub road can be made
by just doing a curb cut and –
Siddoway: Although, if it’s not stubbed they won’t have you know dedicated
access.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 115
Borup: I guess I’m not understanding the dedicated access statement if the road
already adjoins the property because the access wouldn’t go passed the
property line anyway.
Siddoway: I don’t know.
Borup: Okay.
T. Anderson: This states for future connectivity when these parcels are
redeveloped in the future.
Borup: Right. That was the recommendation in the staff report. So that you
would have access to your property. I’m confused on that, your wife said you did
not want access to McMillan and you’re saying you don’t want access from this
subdivision. How are you going to develop it –
T. Anderson: Well, our interest –
Borup: -- if you don’t have access –
T. Anderson: Our main interest just to build our own home on the property. We
currently live in a mobile home.
Borup: You’re not, the question I asked your wife, or her statement was incorrect
then?
T. Anderson: No. It’s that is an option we want to hold.
Borup: How are you going to do that if you don’t have access anywhere?
T. Anderson: We have access to McMillan Road right now.
Centers: The stubs and streets won’t prohibit you from building a home on your
property.
T. Anderson: No but it leads for future development to cut a road right through
there.
Borup: If you so choose.
Centers: In other words you want to put (inaudible) street where you want to put
it.
Nary: Only at your permission. Otherwise, if you’re to live on your property for
the next hundred years that stub road will always be right there. It’ll never be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 116
extended. Nothing will ever happen to until you do something at your property to
extend it. Otherwise there’ll be a fence and it’ll just be there.
Centers: Then why put it there?
Borup: I think what you’re saying is you want to –
Siddoway: We’re betting that he will develop.
Borup: --locate it someplace else.
T. Anderson: No. If there is access to McMillan Road we would like it moved
further east from where we are at.
Nary: The reason why they do stub roads if even in a hundred years from now
you know if you sold it, somewhere down the road chances are somebody will
develop it whether it be you today, whether it be somebody a hundred years
down the road they’ve always got that ability to connect. If it never happens
forever –
T. Anderson: I would also like to state that for the record not us or any of our
neighbors or anyone I’ve talked to in the impact area has been notified ever by a
developer or about any meetings. These past two meetings we’ve had –
Borup: You’ve never received a letter?
T. Anderson: No sir we never did.
Centers: How did you know to be here tonight?
T. Anderson: I saw a little piece of paper out in the mint field in the middle of the
mint field off of Ten Mile Road. I knew about that because Mr. James farms that
parcel.
Centers: So, the property was posted? There was a posting on the property?
T. Anderson: After I saw that posting, I drove the entire square mile and that was
the only one I could see.
Borup: Is your address 2795 West McMillan?
T. Anderson: Yes it is.
Borup: Our records show that a mailing was mailed to that address.
T. Anderson: We didn’t receive anything.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 117
Borup: Question, Steve, -- Any other question for Mr. Anderson? Thank you.
On this stub road, if the configuration stays like it is and if they wanted to have
access to the property the only problem is it wouldn’t be a straight access, you’d
have a little –
Siddoway: Yes. We wanted it straight and I think it would be but then it would
be, I don’t know.
Borup: Okay. Maybe we’ll find – maybe Becky will have a copy of that.
Siddoway: It would just be easier if it were squared off --
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: -- to have it function as a stub. I point out that this property is deeper
than 450 feet and with our maximum cul-de-sac length is 450 feet in the
Ordinance. We’re creating a scenario where they’d have to get a variance.
We’re creating a variance situation if we don’t put in a stub street.
Borup: Either that or they wouldn’t be able to develop it.
Siddoway: Right. They’d have to get a variance or –
Borup: Or not develop?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: They would allow them to develop –
Borup: Up to the 450 feet.
Siddoway: -- but the neighborhood that surrounds them like was talked about if
there was a stub street. Like you said they don’t have to connect to it until
they’re ready to.
Borup: Okay.
English: My name is Brian English. I live at 4650 north Linder Road. If you’d
changes that to the picture that has the entire subdivision. My property is out
this stub that goes out to Linder Road. That stub road comes out apparently on
the property based on the estimates of the current plat. We receive our irrigation
water from gate 28 of the Settler’s Irrigation and our return ditch drains across
the property. Right now the way it is laid out it goes through one office and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 118
several residential buildings. We understand that that has to be tiled. We ask
that the work not interfere with the historic drainage during the irrigation and any
precipitation events. We ask that it be designed –that is very flat ground and if
there is not a place for water to run in case of a storm event, we will be flooded.
When the ditch is tiled, I ask the work be certified by a registered engineer. We
ask that Bridgetower Crossings be required to record the ditch easements
because they will be buried ditches. They will no longer be visible ditches. We
ask that Bridgetower Crossings –
Borup: Is this currently a delivery ditch, or user ditch?
English: No. It’s a return ditch or waste ditch sir. An open waste ditch that runs
between two agricultural fields.
Borup: Okay.
English: We recognize that some of these items are questions with the irrigation
are covered by Idaho Statute. Settler’s Irrigation told us that we should ask you
to put it in the Conditional Use Permit. We also note that they are going to
require relocation of the canal. We ask what impact that’s going to have on the
McMillan Linder Road intersection. We just went through a reconstruction of that
for that installation of Settler’s covert about a year ago. We ask if we’re going to
have to suffer through that again. I’ll go on to traffic concerns. The Bridge Tower
traffic studies assume only a three or four percent growth rate for surrounding
areas. This is not realistic, as we’ve heard with the ACHD study. It’s not
consistent with Meridian planning documents. We would therefor request that
the Bridgetower study be revised to include realistic growth rates consistent with
those used by Meridian and ACHD in their planning. We notice that the
Bridgetower traffic surveys that were conducted on site were conducted
December 21st
, 22nd
, and 26th
. We question whether traffic surveys conducted
so near the Christmas holidays are representative of standard traffic volumes?
While the study’s conclusion about the level of service during the evening rush
may hold, the roads are bearing a lot more traffic then those surveys would
indicate. Accordingly we request realistic traffic surveys be conducted during
normal use and the traffic plans revised. Both the Bridgetower and ACHD
studies say the level of service for the intersection are C or better during peak
evening rush. The peak rush hour is not the evening rush. The peak rush hour
is the morning rush. The Eagle High School traffic is involved in those roads as
well as commuter traffic going to the north and west. This morning my delay at
Linder and McMillan Road was over 35 seconds. There was traffic going all four
other directions, the other three directions. It would not have been level C or
above. It would have been level B. I have submitted comments to ACHD for
them to evaluate this. Miss Richardson was not receptive when I talked to her.
Borup: You said your delay was 35 seconds?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 119
English: 35 seconds sir. Level of service C is 25 in two directions. I’ve seen as
many as 22 cars lined up there in the afternoon when Eagle High School lets out.
They come by in floods. Commissioner Norton is agreeing with me. They’re
going to build – the main traffic to the school is designed to go through an
intersection that currently may not be operating at the level of service they are
describing. The Bridgetower Subdivision traffic study does not look at the other
intersections that ware outside the square. Chinden and Linder Road currently
operates at less than level of service C. Addition of 200 extra vehicles is
predicted for this subdivision results in significant degradation of that intersection.
We ask that the Bridgetower Subdivision traffic study be revised to look at those
impacts. The Bridgetower traffic study indicates ACHD will require the
intersection to have lighting including 250-watt vapor lamps. One of those will be
across that street from my home. What are they going to do to prevent lighting
(inaudible)? When I asked that the developer be required to mitigate the effects
of those lights. The headlights of the traffic exiting the Bridgetower Subdivision
will play across the picture windows of my home. I can’t install a berm because
of the ditch easement. I can’t install brush because that’s where my drain field is.
I would like to know how the traffic headlights will be mitigated. We are
requesting that the Zoning Commission require access to the elementary school.
As that school is drawn right now, people are going to use McMillan as a stop
and go drop off for their kids anyway. They’re not going to be able to get in to the
subdivision and get out. I mean we have a choice in the morning of going out of
our driveway and turning right. You cannot get left without waiting a long time.
Yet they’re going to add several thousand more cars through that area. They’re
going to double the traffic load on Linder is the prediction in 10 years.
Borup: Who’s predicted that?
English: The Bridgetower traffic study sir. The one conducted by the
Washington Group. Their prediction was 3,200 plus cars a day, vehicles per day.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
English: So we request that there be access to the school from McMillan road.
The draft ACHD study anticipates mid-mile or third ---
Borup: I’m sorry. Did you say 3,200 or 32,000?
English: 3,200 through the one intersection a day sir.
Borup: This is the intersection where and where? Which intersection will have
3,200 cars?
English: Collector B sir.
Borup: Oh the collector. Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 120
English: So basically it will double the traffic on Linder Road in that mile.
Borup: Well, it’ll add –
English: Right now ACHD says there are 6,000. They’re saying they’re going to
add 3,200. That’s more than doubling sir.
Borup: This ACHD report said that or another one?
English: This and the information that’s from the current –
Borup: My report says 5,000 on it.
English: In some of the ACHD study they say it’s 6,000. If it’s 5,000 that means
they’re increasing it by 3/5ths. It’s even worse.
Borup: That’s assuming everybody turns north.
English: No. That’s just coming out that intersection.
Borup: That’s what I mean but –
English: I’m not assuming everybody turns north. I’m saying onto the Linder
Road.
Borup: Okay.
English: Right no the plans are for that to be a 50 mile an hour road. You’re not
going to be able to get out of that intersection. It’s too close to McMillan to put a
light. You’re going to have a real bottleneck at collector B. We request the
Zoning Commission require, the draft ACHD report you got today, I had to go
through a public records request when ACHD denied providing it initially. I did
look at the report. They assumed that by 2020 they’re will be mid-mile or third-
mile roads in all these sections with cross traffic. Yet this does not provide for a
mid-mile road going into McMillan. The argument of cut through traffic is not
valid because if you design your roads and your subdivision you can prevent it.
You have subdivisions that you can get from Ustick to Fairview that you twist and
turn forever in the section between Linder and Ten Mile that you don’t hear about
problems. Northview is a straight-line shot. Yes, people will use that. If you
have curves, turns, traffic intersections which require traffic to stop, you can do it
without having to worry so much about cut through traffic. It would be the
resident traffic. It would also facilitate traffic flow with the school. We ask that
you have an intersection required on McMillan Road. We request that the
Bridgetower
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 121
***End Of Side Six***
English: (Inaudible) and that is the Idaho code 541215.3. We’ve heard different
things on the development schedule. When I talked to Brad originally he said it
would take 10 years to develop. Miss Bowcutt has said five to seven -- I mean 7
to 10 to develop. The traffic study says 5. You have a school in the last phases
to be developed that at last meeting they were saying would be open by 2003.
They said tonight 2004. We ask that these conflicting dates be reconciled. I
won’t go into the public notice concern. We were among several other people
who did not receive notice. I also question given what was proposed tonight with
the annex you know option B. Would re-notice be required because you would
be rezoning the entire subdivision and you haven’t done the public notice
required for rezoning as far as posting signs. So would that be required?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don’t think that we’re not quite rezoning. I mean they asked for the
annexation of the entire parcel so – this meant everywhere --. I guess so we
don’t keep addressing this particular issue please understand the purpose of the
notice is to provide a variety of different methods, posting in the paper, posting
on the property, mailing, newspaper, posting at City Hall so that you have a way
to find out to get here. Once you get here, it doesn’t matter. As long as you got
here, that’s what matters. Understand so we don’t keep beating this horse that is
not significant in the whole big picture, once you get here it’s okay. Nobody’s
trying to sneak a 900 home subdivision by you. There’s lots of information but
it’s not an issue that really is significantly part of what we’re going to resolve this
on. It’s something that, I appreciate the information but don’t spend a lot of time
on it because it’s not really something we’re going to decide.
English: I wasn’t going to bring it up other than the fact that I agree with the
other folks here that we did not receive notice. We know of at least six sets of
people that did not receive a notice.
Nary: But you were here the last time and you’re here today.
English: Because we heard of it by accident and we were unprepared the last
time if you recall and we ask for a continuance because we would have done our
homework. You would have gotten a set of comments like this last time if we
would have had – and you wouldn’t be looking at these for the first time tonight.
Borup: We did continue it. We didn’t ignore your request.
English: We’re also hearing complaints from the developer that we’re being
continued and continued. You know the public process must go through. I’m
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 122
asking that you continue again tonight. I ask does the plan B require re-notice?
Because I’ve heard it but have the other people that would be impacted in the
area? I have neighbors that aren’t here tonight. I question has P&Z received
comments from the Settler’s and I hear you’ve received them, they were suppose
to be sent to me but I haven’t seen them yet. There are significant changes in
the way that ditch is going to be run and those haven’t been resolved yet. So,
you have an open issue there. I raise the issue of the level of service on the one
road in the morning that hasn’t been looked at. The traffic study is incomplete.
The traffic study underestimated the size of the school by 150 students so it
underestimated the level of traffic from the school based on what was earlier
today average elementary school 650 students. The traffic study is 500.
Borup: This is based on a school that is not designed or built.
English: They said last week, the School Districts representative said last time
sir that it would be between 600 and 650 students. It was said tonight that a
normal elementary school is now 650 students. That’s entered into the record
sir. I’m concerned a little bit about how you have not approved the conditional
use permit materials yet you’re looking to move forward with this. I haven’t had a
chance to read those yet.
Borup: What is that that you hadn’t had a chance to read?
English: The Conditional Use, the latest modifications to the Conditional Use
Zoning Ordinances. The last time – when the Ada County tried to refine their
Zoning Ordinance with the livestock ordinance about a year and a half ago. That
went to final reading before the public got up and arms and it went and it was
delayed approximately a year. That could happen here too. There were some
things that Miss Bowcutt said that are not stated in the March 14th
traffic study.
The conclusions, they primarily looked at the half of the subdivision. Miss
Richardson indicated to me when I spoke to her they did not look at the impacts
of the entire, they had not taken the time to look at the entire subdivision. They
looked at only the impacts. If you look at the statement on the top of Page 3 of
that March 14th
letter it doesn’t include the future site which is the eastern half of
Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Are there any questions? I thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Thank you Mr. English.
Kelso: I’m Don Kelso, 2745 West McMillan. I know everything’s got to go ahead
and everybody’s got to make progress and all of this. I just kind of want to be left
alone. I’m more concerned over -- I have a 25-foot right-of-way that goes
through this property from my place out to McMillan. I just don’t want it damaged
in no way.
Borup: Your right-of-way is along this property here?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 123
Kelso: Yes. It goes right up, right there.
Borup: Okay.
Kelso: It goes right straight up.
Borup: Yes. They should not be causing any damage to anything off site.
Kelso: Yes. It’s on my deed.
Centers: Deed’s recorded?
Kelso: Yes.
Borup: You should be fine. Do we have anyone else?
Converse: Real quick. Tonya Converse 4550 North Linder. I just wanted to go
on record that I’d be concerned about the drainage. The drainage ditch that Mr.
English spoke of. I know people have mentioned concern about a road going to
McMillan and all the traffic coming out of that connector B. Just an idea, maybe
having access to, just the school off McMillan so that all the buses and parents
and people coming in and out. Might make it a little bit safer also for the children
in the subdivision going to and from school, alleviate some of the traffic coming in
and out. That’s it. Thank you.
M. English: I’m Margie English, Brian’s wife. I just kind of wanted to clarify one
thing that Brian said and this is a little stressful for us. You can see he was really
nervous and I guess I am too talking in this forum. We’ve got a copy of the
March 14th
letter from ACHD and unless I’m reading it the wrong way and really
misunderstanding it, I don’t see the item on the third page, Item No. 7. I don’t
see that as concurrence that no access is needed to McMillan. When I go back
to what that says on page I guess, I’m sorry Item 7 is on page 2. When I go back
to the beginning of that discussion, which is on page 1, it says that the summary
analysis of the traffic study for the plat and the 370-acre annexation rezone
request includes the following information. It sounds like they’re just
summarizing what the requestor said to me. That’s how I would interpret rather
than interpreting that necessarily as ACHD concurrence. I guess is what I would
ask is that you, you somebody ought to verify just what ACHD mean because the
way I read this I wouldn’t have read it as their concurrence. We really do
strongly support the idea that we believe that access to at least the school
should come through McMillan Road. Linder is all ready very bad as far as traffic
right now largely as a result of Eagle High School which we are concerned may
not have been fully taken into account in the Bridge Tower study because of the
days in December that they did it. I know Eagle High School was not in
operation then. I guess, you know, to us it is a really big deal that requires a little
bit further consideration. I do appreciate the concern about cut through traffic
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 124
and everybody always point to Northview as the bad actor but before we go
about saying this very very large subdivision, it’s larger than almost anything we
have, I guess in Ada County as subdivision. Before we go saying that only
needs 3 access points in as collectors maybe we better just re-think some of this
a little bit. Thank you.
Borup: Mrs. English, were you here the last time when Mr. Bingham said what
the School Districts preference was on access?
M. English: I was here the whole time. I don’t remember can you refresh my
memory on what he said?
Borup: I think we asked them specifically the same thing. My recollection was
he said the School District did not want access on McMillan.
M. English: Well, I guess you know –
Borup: That’s based on you know their studies and experience. I mean but
we’re trying to guess the school district.
M. English: Right. I think that what you’re hearing is obviously this is public
comment you’re hearing the local residents concern. I agree with what Tonya
just said a moment ago. Is it really, you know, for me to you know just try to think
through it logically, is it best for all these children that are going to be living in this
subdivision to be walking across this arterial and all of this traffic coming in from
Linder or would it be better to eliminate some of that traffic that would potentially
come in by bringing them, bringing the traffic in through McMillan?
Borup: When the subdivision builds out, virtually 100 percent of that school
would be coming from that subdivision. They’re not going to be –
M. English: Is that a definite that absolutely no traffic would come from say north
of McMillan? I mean that -- just imagine that could add a fairly number –
Borup: Last time –
M. English: -- of vehicle trips.
Borup: Last time they came up with – no nothing’s absolute. You can’t
guarantee what size family’s going to move into a house. That’s what you’re
asking. The estimates were that about 607 people is what was estimated would
come from that subdivision. That’s just about a full grade school.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 125
Borup: They’re all within that section mile which is what the school district is
looking for on build out. Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mrs. English, I definitely remember you and your husband because it
was about 2:30 and you were very tired –
M. English: I was exhausted.
Norton: -- you were very tired and we’re running late again tonight. I wanted to
commend you on your and your husband’s letter. It’s an excellent letter, very
very well thought out and I know the –
M. English: Thank you.
Norton: -- Commissioners will read it with –
M. English: Thank you. It’s, I mean I hope you do read it because I know we
were both a little too nervous to be maybe presenting it but we did really try to go
back and do our homework and we do appreciate the extra time that you’ve
allowed us by continuing it. Last time everything was all so new and we hadn’t
seen any of these documents and you know we went through the process, we
actually had to make a public records request because we were initially told that
the draft study would not be given to us. That didn’t sound right. We’re trying to
come up to speed. We’re not trying to be disrespectful to you but maybe it’s just
coming out in the nerves.
Norton: You’re coming up to speed pretty good. It’s a darn good letter. Thank
you.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Nary: Did you have a comment Steve before the applicant summarizes.
Siddoway: I would. Yes and Becky can respond. I would like to comment on a
couple of items that were brought up for clarification. First of all, on the issue of
us requesting a stub street north to McMillan. We do respond in the staff report
on Page 14 Item 10 to the traffic study prepared by the Washington Group in that
exact language that was in the ACHD report that’s been read to you before. Just
briefly it says that the traffic study prepared by the Washington Group states that
the three residential collectors proposed are adequate and no new collector up to
Meridian Road is necessary, or McMillan, sorry. Staff concurs with this
recommendation however we do not agree that some public street connection to
McMillan is not necessary at all. During the pre-application meeting on this
project staff recommends that local road shown in phase 14 block 20 which is, I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 126
believe its this road right here, would be extended to connect with McMillan. At
build out this subdivision will have a full mile of frontage along McMillan except
for the, well without any connectivity. If the School District doesn’t allow access
off of McMillan Road to the school which is a separate issue, and it seems
ludicrous to me, then someone for example living right here who might go to this
school would be forced to go down McMillan, down Linder, into the subdivision
and in this way. If there was a connection here they would have a more direct
route or if there was a connection along McMillan. There probably should be in
my opinion, if that’s the school location that would make sense. We think it
doesn’t have to be collector road access. It’s too circuitous of a route again to
promote cut through traffic of people trying to get from McMillan to Ustick.
People won’t use that connection from McMillan to get from McMillan to Ustick.
It just won’t happen. It would be like saying people would use Woodbury Road
off of McMillan to get to Locust Grove. It doesn’t happen. I think I’ve belabored
that one enough. The issue of the letter from Settler’s irrigation regarding the
pathway, I kind of raised it as a red flag to start with but I want to say that I think
we should be promoting the recreational use and the use of that white drain as
an amenity. I think it’s a great thing that they’re trying to do and the issue of
liability really needs to be handled by the Council in my opinion as to whether or
not they’re willing to take that on. We should be doing what we can to promote
that use. I don’t really see that as a big issue. On the annexation, I believe that
even if the whole property is annexed, if it’s actively farmed they can get an Ag.
Exemption. I would be willing to check into that with Ada County directly to
answer that so that they wouldn’t be paying those exorbitant taxes that would
come upon them upon annexation.
Borup: In the staff report it stated that it shouldn’t be that different. Was that
based on what information?
Siddoway: I can’t respond to that because I didn’t write it.
Borup: Right.
Siddoway: It’s based on the levy amount that the Assessor –
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: I knew it was the levy amounts but –
Borup: Yes. He stated specific amounts I think.
Siddoway: Yes. The levy amount isn’t that different but the valuation can go way
up.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 127
Siddoway: So, the levy amounts aren’t very different but if the valuation goes up
then of course that changes the computations. That’s why it’s important to stay
Ag and if it is Ag and actively farmed it should qualify for an Ag Exemption and
not have to pay those taxes. The other thing in my mind is that the commercial
area that they’re showing along Ten Mile here is proposed basically under the
planned development ordinance that was acted on earlier tonight, they need the
full acreage or they need more than just what the plat shows in order to qualify
under that 20 percent exemption. To have that amount of commercial, if they
need the full property to qualify for the exemption then the full property should be
considered as part of the annexation in my opinion.
Borup: Either that or less commercial area?
Siddoway: That’s right. We talked about the stub streets enough. The letter
that we got from the Settler’s, the one issue that does stand out in my mind is
that fact that it doesn’t address this issue of relocating the Settler’s irrigation
ditch. Maybe Becky can respond to this but the concern is is that if, I thought it
was just kind of slight shift, based on additional right-of-way. It sounds like
they’re moving it even farther to the other side of the power lines and taken a
new easement beyond that which could, which would effect I think, the size of
those lots that are shown along McMillan Road. Without knowing the location of
that new easement it’s difficult for us to say how it would effect those. I think that
needs to be resolved. Do you want to talk about that? That’s all I have. That’s
all. Thank you.
Borup: Miss Bowcutt
Bowcutt: I’ll be quick so we’re not here as late as we were last time. The issue
of the right to farm act was brought up. Typically, your staff includes that as a
condition of approval. I zipped back through the conditions. I didn’t see it in
there but it’s standard. We wouldn’t have a problem incorporating that right to
farm.
Borup: Yes. It’s always been a standard as a state law. I think the only thing –
Bowcutt: Right.
Borup: -- that’s been added is having the written note on the plat.
Bowcutt: The written note on the face of the plat that references that statute
section in its entirety.
Borup: So, you’re saying that’s what you’re intending to do?
Bowcutt: Yes. Staff typically puts that as a condition of approval. I didn’t see it
in there –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 128
Siddoway: Final Plat.
Bowcutt: -- oh, you’re putting it on the Final Plat. Okay. That’s their
implementing in the Final Plat.
Borup: That’s always been an understood condition.
Bowcutt: On the stub street issue, in designing this I tried to give them as much
frontage as I could along that roadway as you can see. I brought that roadway
up and then ran it parallel with their property boundary so it abutted it. ACHD
obviously wants us to stub to that property. That’s pretty much standard. I won’t
go into that.
Borup: I’d still like clarification on why there’s that much difference between a
stub and a parallel street.
Bowcutt: I think what they want us to do –
Borup: Other than the curb isn’t cut.
Bowcutt: Right. You see where it makes the 90-degree bend? They like you to,
they want us to extend that up so it intersects perpendicular and then where the
street heads west then that would intersect the other way.
Borup: Well, you don’t have any other perpendicular streets –
Bowcutt: I know. They –
Borup: -- in the whole subdivision.
Bowcutt: -- they just –
Borup: -- I shouldn’t say any other –
Bowcutt: I guess, its probably instances where somebody in past times put spike
strips between a roadway running like that if it’s a stub.
Borup: I can think of several subdivisions around that have a similar where the
street goes up, goes around the lot and continues on.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: I’ve built on some of those lots.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 129
Siddoway: But Mr. Chairman. I think part of the reason also is probably some of
what’s been brought up tonight its just notice. There’s a sign there that says this
might be a road someday and people know it when they buy that property –
Bowcutt: Right. They –
Siddoway: -- there might be a road there. I think –
Bowcutt: That’s correct.
Siddoway: I think that’s probably more than –
Bowcutt: They make a put a sign up now that states this is a stub street that
may be extended in the future for property owners.
Borup: I’m just wondering to accommodate the neighbors and maybe
accomplish what ACHD and others want to do, can the road still be done that
way but it show on the plat? I mean call it a stub street but not build it any
different than what you’re showing here.
Bowcutt: Whatever –
Borup: You see what I’m saying?
Bowcutt: -- the Highway District will accept is typically what we end up with.
Borup: I don’t see that much difference.
Nary: I think they want a sign that says this might be a street someday.
Borup: Well that’s fine. You can still put a sign there but you can still put the
curb and gutter in rather than having a stub street with a barricade at the end
that just is weed path, I mean its just a maintenance thing anyway. Okay.
Continue on.
Unknown Speaker: Can I ask a question?
Borup: Not right now.
Unknown Speaker: Sorry.
Bowcutt: Continuing on, we have the Settler’s canal that runs parallel with
McMillan. The relocation requirement is that of Ada County Highway District,
their policy manual states that any existing canals, laterals et cetera et cetera
must be relocated out of existing or future right-of-way when you develop your
property. So any frontage that we have we’ll be required to relocate that facility
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 130
and to provide additional easement. Now, typically what we’ve done in the past
–
Borup: What’s typically their definition of developing a property?
Bowcutt: Pardon?
Borup: Their definition of developing of the property? Would someone building a
single family, one single family home on that –
Bowcutt: When you’re platting. When you’re platting.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: If you are platting then they require you move those ditches.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: Now, that section is years down the road as far as our development
plans. If you notice on our phasing plan that’s some of the later phases like 6, 7,
something along that line. It’s kind of late don’t quote me. That’s down the line.
In the past when we’ve had irrigation facilities we’ve had to relocate and there’s
an out parcel like that in between. We typically have to construct a box and run
the pipe back. It dumps back in where it historically was. We can’t obligate this
property owner to grant an easement to Settler’s and move the ditch. If they
were to develop their property like we are by platting it then the Highway District
would require that they do the same, they’d have to go through Settler’s
irrigation, provide a engineer design and so forth. I’ll be glad to cooperate with
the property owners and give them copies of our plans, keep them up to date on
what’s going on if they’d give me their names and numbers.
Borup: If they chose to have it continue through their property then you would be
relocating that then at your expense?
Bowcutt: We’re required to relocate on our property only.
Borup: Right. I mean would you do that on their property also if they –
Bowcutt: That would be a question for the developer. I couldn’t answer that.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: If they wait long enough and McMillan Road is rebuilt as –
Borup: Then the Highway District would do it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 131
Bowcutt: -- by the Highway District, the Highway District moves it. They
purchase right-of-way from them and they move it. Then they’d develop their
property and they’d have no expense at all. So it depends on what their long-
range plans are. I can’t commit my client to that kind of improvement. The
question came up bout perimeter fencing. I think in your own ordinance we’re
required to put perimeter fencing if we have an out parcel or an agricultural
parcel that adjoins us. Six-foot cedar fencing if that’s what they like I don’t think
that is a problem. We put it in many of our developments. The issue of
annexation, she had a concern. Her property is not part of this application. We
cannot petition to annex property without the consent of their owners. I want to
assure you that no portion of your property is in this application. On posting, we
did post the properties for your information in three locations. I posted myself
personally on Ustick Road. I posted at the intersection of McMillan, Ten Mile and
on the south side of the existing old house on Linder and McMillan. The problem
with those signs is we mount them on a little stake and if we get wind they blow
away. We get rain they smear. I put three intentionally so that in the event that
they blow away, somebody doesn’t see one, that I cover the property. That was
my intent. On notification of hearings, the City planning, we provide an owner list
within 300 feet. The City planning department generates their own list within 300
feet, reconciles the two lists to verify that we have included everybody. Then it
goes to the City Clerk’s Office and they do the mailings. We don’t do the
mailings for these Public Hearings. Issue Mr. English had on irrigation drainage.
Obviously if drainage is coming to the west which I believe is accurate statement
from their properties, it is our legal responsibility under Idaho code to
accommodate that drainage. Therefor we will have to pipe that facility. Typically
what we do, we have to pipe it, it’s not allowed in the right-of-way, it’s allowed
only in the common areas. We have our engineers design to try to keep those
pipe in separate common area lots so that we’re not going through rear yards
and so forth. We don’t have a lot of problem. It’s the residential lots if you’re
running down side lot lines or rear lot lines that we have problems with. As far as
our engineering plans on any plans for sewer, water, streets, drainage, irrigation,
pressure irrigation, a Licensed Civil Engineer prepares those drawings. Then
they’re submitted to agencies. On easements for any of these irrigation facilities
those easements will be delineated on the Final Plat. They’re typically not
delineated on the Preliminary Plat because you are usually not sure what those
easements are going to consist of. On the Final Plat, the Public Works staff is
very diligent to make sure those easements are accommodated. Concerning the
traffic study, our traffic study was done by the Washington Group, which used to
be MK Centennial. A very well qualified group of professional traffic engineers.
It was a good study. It was one of the best studies I’ve seen and I’ve used
multiple traffic engineers in the valley. Their credibility is so good that the
Highway District retained them to do this very important 7-mile study. I feel
confident the numbers that they’re coming up with and the assumptions that they
are making are going to be beneficial. The Highway District and this group of
engineers are doing everything they can to plan the traffic in this area. We
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 132
should all applaud them for taking this active role this early in the process instead
of so late like you see in other areas.
Borup: I think the only part on the traffic count that I had a concern on was the
December 26th
. Do you have any idea why – Is that just because that was the
time they were doing it, or why they would have picked a date like that?
Bowcutt: It varies. Typically they rely upon historical information. There’s traffic
counts out on the roadways that are done by ACHD but they’re not done
annually.
Borup: I have to agree with the English’s. The 26th
is probably not a typical
traffic day. In my neighborhood and my observation the 21st
and the 22nd
is
probably extra. You have more people leaving home going Christmas shopping.
Bowcutt: Now, on the expanded study, they’re also going to be confirming those
counts again and doing, I mean looking at –
Borup: They’re redoing –
Bowcutt: -- an even broader picture. I’d say it’s almost like they’re doing a
double review of this area. We were just a little piece of the puzzle. Now –
Borup: You say their going to be doing the whole –
Bowcutt: -- they’ve expanded that scope. They do factor in. I’ve had traffic
engineers that factor in for various things such as holidays, when schools are out
during the summer it effects traffic count. They compensate, they have formulas
that they insert numbers based on the ITE manuals that they utilize in reviewing
these and preparing them. The question was brought up by staff concerning the
lots along McMillan Road. Since the amount of easement required for that
Settler’s canal was an unknown factor we left what we call slough in or extra lot
depth and we typically do that when we’re not quite sure how much room we’re
going to have to allocate to let’s say an irrigation facility. In the event that they
require more than we have allocated on this drawing, everything is just
compressed south. So, one the amount of open space increases, two the
amount of buffering increases, three Settler’s gets the easement that they want.
We always try to plan for the worst-case scenario and leave room for play when
those events happen. I feel comfortable with proceeding with what we show
there because we have the room to compress that and stay within the
dimensional standards that we have promised you. Concerning the McMillan
Road connection, as staff indicated they don’t want, they did not request a
collector roadway. They just ask for a local connection. I guess that
determination is up to this body and to the Council. We designed it this way
because we felt that we could get some cut through traffic to that elementary
school if there were people coming from the west they’d drop down south of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 133
McMillan and then drop down that local street to the school. That was one of our
concerns. Our concerns are not cost. Our concerns are protection of
neighborhoods and the integrity of these little individual communities that we’re
creating. I believe our intentions are good but the ultimate decision is up to this
body and Council. Thank you.
Borup: Becky, I think we, I had a few questions. I think Commissioner Norton,
go ahead.
Norton: The out parcel, the owner said she was never approached by the
developer. It just seems so silly that there’s that one section that isn’t in your
development.
Bowcutt: There are three homes, I think on that parcel. Is that correct? Three.
There are three homes so there are three different owners I believe. The
assessor map shows three different owners. If it were all one parcel, you know it
would make more sense.
Norton: It would make more sense.
Bowcutt: When you start splitting it up, you’re dealing with purchasing of three
homes. Dealing with three different properties it’s not unusual that we do this. It
happens more often than you think. We just try to plan for sewer, water stubs,
street stubs those things so that the properties could be redeveloped in the
future if they so choose.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Becky is this curve, is this a ditch along this area? Is that
why that curve is there?
Bowcutt: No.
Borup: It’s not?
Bowcutt: No. That’s just the curvature of that street.
Borup: Okay, so you just got some extra green space in this location?
Bowcutt: Yes. Yes I do.
Borup: Have you looked at the street access at that point maybe rather than this
one?
Bowcutt: We had talked about -- obviously we looked at worse case scenarios.
We had talked about various options.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 134
Borup: I could just see that would have a little, maybe, I mean this has got a
straight shot so you got you know maybe a little faster speeds or something
going in there maybe a little less.
Bowcutt: That would be an option.
Borup: Have you looked at bringing this access point any further to the south?
Bowcutt: That particular access point, because the drawing, the parcel is so
large, it’s deceptive on the distance there. I mean that’s hundreds and hundreds
of feet.
Borup: That’s a quarter mile isn’t it? You’ve got a mile here divided into four
sections.
Bowcutt: (Inaudible)
Borup: Real close to it.
Bowcutt: It exceeds 440 feet. I know that because we designed everything so
that we would have no driveways no intersections any closer than 440 feet
because that’s the offset when these are signalized intersections.
Borup: That’s what I was leading up to. Has there been any discussion with
ACHD on perhaps future signalization?
Bowcutt: Yes. We’re participating in the trust funds for future signalization –
Borup: I mean at this point?
Bowcutt: Oh, of our entrance? No sir. Typically they do not signalize any closer
than a quarter mile.
Borup: Right. That was my point.
Bowcutt: The optimum is a half-mile. If they had their way –
Borup: Or a third.
Bowcutt: Correct.
Borup: At least that’s what they said on the Eagle Road Study. That they’re
saying third mile at maximum, half preferably.
Bowcutt: Correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 135
Borup: You’re not going to make a third mile but a quarter is better than 400 feet.
That did not come up with ACHD staff at all?
Bowcutt: What staff indicated to me was that they have reviewed the internal, or
the site plan that you see. Like I said, you can’t analyze something and just take
a window of it. That they were reluctant to comment on the exteriors because
they’re trying to look at the whole picture and the impact of the other future
developments on these arterials. Their main concern, I mean they have
reviewed it from the perspective that our collector roadways are under capacity,
we’re not exceeding the threshold for any local traffic on the internal streets.
Borup: Right. We’ve read that. I’ve just been –
Bowcutt: The issue is the impact on those major arterials and for the north, for
the east and for the west.
Borup: I’ve been in and out a lot of subdivisions on Eagle Road and depending
on the time of day and whether you want to turn right or left it can be an impact
without a signal.
Bowcutt: But Eagle Road is a five lane –
Borup: Right.
Bowcutt: -- that goes up to an interchange. Ten Mile –
Borup: And a state highway the other direction.
Bowcutt: Right. Now Ten Mile –
Borup: What is a safe highway?
Bowcutt: -- is going to be probably a minimum of five lanes.
Nary: Where’s the seven lane at, you were talking about?
Bowcutt: You would ask that question. I think –
Borup: I’m assuming that would be Ten Mile.
Bowcutt: I think its McMillan. Yes. I think he is correct. It’s McMillan.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 136
Bowcutt: Seven lane, McMillan requires a five-lane section, Ustick a five lane,
Black Cat a three lane, Ten Mile a five-lane, and Chinden five lanes. Seven, I
don’t know where I got that.
Borup: If Chinden’s only five I can’t see –
Bowcutt: Linder requires a three lane, Meridian Road a five lane. So Linder will
be a three lane according to their drafts.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: Thank you. We appreciate your patience.
Nary: Any comments on Steve’s, on the percentage of the commercial area
based on the overall size of the total project?
Bowcutt: Yes sir. When I did my calculations for my planned development we
took the total acreage, broke it down in sub-sections by use category –
Borup: So if we’re only annexing 171 acres, how do you justify?
Bowcutt: The numbers would be skewed. As you can see, I’m heavily weighted
on the west side with my –
Borup: With only annexing half –
Bowcutt: Correct.
Borup: So what would be your preference on how to solve that?
Bowcutt: Well, I thought that was already solved when Mr. Nary and myself had
the long discussion. That –
Nary: Take it all or nothing.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: All or nothing.
Nary: Well, or reduce the commercial portion of it.
Bowcutt: Correct but that would be a major redesign and re submittal.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 137
Nary: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Commissioner Nary
Nary: A couple of questions Becky. The concerns that were brought up about
the light spillage over to the folks across from that entrance that live in that house
right across the street.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Nary: Has there been any discussion with them or any thought by the
developers about providing some trees or something to be able to do with that? I
wouldn’t want to live right across from an entrance like that.
Bowcutt: Concerning the lighting, your Public Works staff determines lighting
location not –
Nary: I meant headlights.
Bowcutt: Oh you’re talking headlights not – okay.
Nary: They’re saying the entrance exit is right across from their house.
Bowcutt: Typically the only way to alleviate that, it’s the outbound lane that
causes the problem. The only way to alleviate that is by some type of vegetative
screening, which obviously would have to be on the east side. I have had
developers that have worked with adjoining properties to try to provide some
type of vegetation to buffer those headlights in the outbound lane. That has
been done.
Nary: Or moving the roadway further south I guess there’s –
Bowcutt: The other thing – yes. Now we’re getting into her yard.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Bowcutt: Typically you can, there’s a little bit of play you can adjust a little bit. I
just did it on one where we had them go out and stake the outbound lane to see,
there were two houses and each resident claims the lights are going in my
window. So, we staked it to see where the lights were going. So, it’s possible to
determine that you know maybe with a 20 foot or 10 foot shift we can make it so
it’s not going in the bedroom window or the front window or whatever. There are
options that we could explore to that effect.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 138
Borup: Are you indicating that the developer would be willing to put up some
type of screening vegetation?
Bowcutt: He’d have to answer that question for you. I’m just telling you what
options are available. I think that’s what you guys were asking me. I’m not
making –
Nary: It seems like an inexpensive solution to provide some trees or something
else to assist these folks.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Nary: I wondered when we were talking about that 90-degree street over there
by the Anderson’s property, I don’t know if there’s the same issue. You’ve got
cars driving northbound on that street before they make that turn. I don’t know
where their house is now but I don’t know if we have the same issue. Where
their house is the lights are going to shine right across their property all the way
–
Bowcutt: We’d have a perimeter 6-foot fence there so that would –
Nary: Oh, okay. All right.
Bowcutt: -- typically the stub street will dead end to the fence and you our one of
those barriers.
Nary: I forgot about the fencing system on out parcels. Yes that would –
Bowcutt: Yes.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton
Freckleton: Maybe a point, on street lighting as Becky alluded to, we do lay
those out. Typically our lights as you know are on 25-foot poles, shoebox
fixtures. They’re downcast fixtures. They don’t give you a whole lot of spillage.
The only time we would see problems might be if they are proposing say a
historical type light with the acorn, you get a lot of glare with those. I’m sure it’s
way premature to try and find out what kind of lights they’re proposing but our
standard is downcast lighting.
Borup: Okay. Anyone else? Thank you Becky. Mr. Anderson, I think you had a
quick question. Was that something Becky was going to need to answer?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 139
T. Anderson: Possibly. It was brought up earlier –
Nary: You need to get on the mic sir.
T. Anderson: It was brought up earlier –
Borup: Just say your name just real quick again.
T. Anderson: Tom Anderson 2795 McMillan –
Borup: Yes. Just your name was okay.
T. Anderson: It was brought up earlier about the amenity for whites drain. I’m I
correct in saying White’s drain is this, borders our property there?
Bowcutt: Yes.
T. Anderson: I mean that sounds like a good idea to extend that the entire
stretch and make that a pathway greenbelt and using it as a draw –
Bowcutt: Yes. That’s what –
T. Anderson: Otherwise this goes right through this other houses, the rest of it.
Bowcutt: That’s correct and that really doesn’t demonstrate what, you know
because it’s shrunk to such a small scale. There’s hundreds of feet there that we
want to slope it to a 4.1 slope, go in, beautify it, create some ponds that would
not intersect with it but would be next to it and create a nice water feature –
Borup: Are we talking about the same – He’s saying right here?
Bowcutt: That’s the drain. The drain historically –
Borup: Was here?
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Borup: And you want to move it down to here?
Bowcutt: The drain comes through here and it runs –
T. Anderson: Up to there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 140
Bowcutt: -- up there and exits to the property my clients own to the west. What
we are proposing to do would be in basically the same historic location for this
quarter mile here and then we would design it meandering here –
***End Of Side Seven***
Bowcutt: -- and exits and that’s what that lot is, is where it exits out.
Borup: How does that effect Mr. Anderson’s property then?
Bowcutt: Mr. Anderson if his property drains into the white drain which they claim
it does slope north to south we would have to accommodate their drainage and
coordinate with them. Obviously we want to be a good neighbor. W e want to
coordinate with these people. If they will give me their names and numbers I’ll
be glad to come out, we’ll bring our engineers out. We typically find out how their
properties irrigate, how they drain. If they’ve got somebody that’s the irrigation
wizard in their particular area and deals with the headgates and we’re doing any
redesign of boxes or relocation we work with those people. Irrigation and
drainage are the two most complicated factors we deal with. They’re, we spend
a lot of money and so we don’t want to do anything that screws it up and costs
us a lot more money down the road. We’re liable for that drainage water. We’re
liable for continuing irrigation water. We take great effort to make sure that this is
a smooth process –
Borup: Does that answer your question Mr. Anderson?
T. Anderson: Well, I guess I just, so you’re saying you’re going to move white’s
drain?
Bowcutt: That’s what we would like to do. Yes sir.
T. Anderson: That’s what I didn’t –
Bowcutt: That’s what we went to the board with last week, to discuss with them.
T. Anderson: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Anderson, I think this one maybe shows it better. There
see it all along here with the ponds and the water amenities and the waterfalls
and stuff?
T. Anderson: Right.
Borup: So it would be relocated to that area.
T. Anderson: Right. Currently it borders our property.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 141
Borup: Yes comes up here and curves through this.
T. Anderson: Right.
Borup: That would be -- at this point it would –
T. Anderson: I was misunderstood. I didn’t know if they were going to use it as it
is now and develop it that way.
Borup: Okay Commissioners. Where are we going from here?
(Inaudible discussion amongst the Commission members)
Norton: I just want to make it clear that the developer was going to provide the
trees for and foliage for the Englishs’ property so the headlights wouldn’t go into
their –
Borup: They did indicate that they would.
Norton: -- he nodded and I wanted to make sure it got on the record that he
would do that.
Borup: Will that be expanded to, if the street was moved it would –
Norton: If the street would move I would assume –
Borup: -- take care of the other neighbor too.
Norton: -- they would take care of the other neighbors also.
Nary: I guess I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Norton: I’ll second.
Borup: Motion is second to close the Public Hearing. All in Favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Mr. Nary.
Nary: I guess for the sake of discussion. I think everybody’s heard me say this
before. We have three different applications here that we’re really trying to deal
with. We need to deal with them separately. One of them is annexation, one of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 142
them’s the CUP and one’s the Preliminary Plat. On the annexation, at least in
the short time that I’ve been here this is probably the largest annexation of
property that we’ve been asked to review. I guess for the sake of discussion, the
big three in my mind that we always need to look at in annexation is can we
provide sewer, can we provide fire service and can we provide police service? I
did see there was a new letter from the fire chief saying essentially they can
provide fire service although we have a fairly small fire station that’s near this but
it might take a little bit longer if the truck wasn’t there but I guess that’s pretty
normal. I didn’t read in his letter that we couldn’t provide fire service. I read in
the staff report we can provide sewer service and the police I’m sure have some
public safety concerns. I mean if we have to add two officers in the next 10
years that’s not really a big deal. I guess I haven’t heard a lot of testimony about
annexing this property or that the zoning is inappropriate or that his R-4 is not
compatible with comp plan and compatible with the City or that the C-G in this
area is not a good mixed use, diverse use of this area of Meridian. That Ten Mile
Roadway is going to get developed. In my opinion this is an overall a decent
idea. There are issues that have been brought up that don’t relate to annexation
and zoning that we need to look at. As for annexation and zoning, we’ve passed
on a few of these to the City Council and since the paper printed the moratorium
word, I guess the Council can deal with that issue. My personal feeling is, and
again this is for discussion. The City of Meridian needs to control this particular
piece of property and what it’s going to be because it’s too big and it’s too large
and as the paper stated today, this could be City the size of Caldwell if 25,000
people in 20 years by somebody. It’s either 25,000 people that are part of the
City of Meridian or 25,000 people that are part of something else. In my opinion
we need to recommend that we annex this property and that we make this a part
of the City of Meridian so that our ordinances apply, this Commission reviews
what’s being requested, the City Council reviews what’s being asked to be put
there. That’s what is good for the City of Meridian. That’s good planning to do it
that way. It’s a huge piece of property but then you know what it’s going to be
and you don’t have little patchwork pieces of property here and there that ten
years from now everybody’s sitting around going what were you guys thinking in
allowing this to because now it looks terrible because now it doesn’t all fit
together. So, what I would propose to do after we’ve discussed it some is that
we do move forward on item 10 and we recommend approval of this annexation
and zoning. But I would also recommend that we continue Items 11 and 12.
This is a big deal. This is a huge project. There are a lot of issues that are
brought up and I do appreciate the letter that the English’s provided. It brought
up a lot of issues that are very fair. I just need to digest it. I don’t think at twelve
or 1:00 in the morning that I can say yes let the City Council figure it out. I think
they brought us some fair consideration that we need to evaluate. This is a big
project and a big plat. Some of the issues brought up on the CUP, Item 11 are
compatibility issues. That’s probably the biggest thing we need to evaluate in the
conditional use permit. I really want t digest it. I think they brought us a very
nice project. I think Miss Bowcutt’s made a great presentation. I think they
brought us overall a pretty good package. I don’t feel comfortable tonight to say
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 143
go-ahead let’s try to figure out which pieces we want to carve out. The reason I
moved to close the Public Hearing is I don’t think we need a lot more testimony
about it. I think we need to think about it. If we think we need more testimony
we can do that then but I think we just need to digest what’s there, what we’ve
been told, what we’ve been asked to look at. I think continuing the other two
items is fine but annexing this, the City Council can annex this property and
move forward. We don’t have to move the other two forward today. That’s my
fourth sense is that can wait.
Borup: Any other comments? Anybody feel differently from those comments?
Centers: No. Bill speaks for me.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: On this one. This one time.
Norton: I think Bill says it very eloquently that this is section of town that
Meridian should control with the Ten Mile and the, up to McMillan. Again, I think
there are other questions. The problem about how much will the Settler’s
irrigation ditch be moved. It would be nice to hear from Settler’s Irrigation and
see how much they plan on moving. That’s the question I have.
Borup: Right.
Norton: Not on the annexation but on the CUP.
Borup: I think we’ve probably answered that. That was determined by ACHD on
how far it moves. They want it out of their right-of-way.
Norton: And McMillan was five lanes?
Borup: Wasn’t that the main concern, is that it needed to be out of their right-of-
way?
Siddoway: But it’s up to Settler’s how big the –
Borup: And (inaudible) power lines either.
Siddoway: -- Yes, how big the easement is and if it’s beyond the power lines.
Borup: Right. That exact dimension needs to be determined. Clarification,
Commissioner Nary, did you close all three hearings?
Nary: That was my intent.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 144
Borup: That was the intent of the motion?
Nary: Yes because we opened them simultaneously.
Borup: We assumed that. That was the intent of the second also? Okay.
Nary: I guess we could still discuss it. I guess I would move Mr. Chairman that
we recommend to the City Council on Item 10 AZ 01-003 that we recommend
approval of the request for annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres and propose
R4 and CG zones for proposed Bridge Tower Crossing subdivision by Prime
Land Development Company LLC at 2420 Ustick Road.
Centers: Second.
Nary: Including all staff comments, I think there was only one, sorry since you
seconded it. There was only one requested change (inaudible) Page 5 was that
the annexation? Annexation site-specific requirement three that we delete the
last sentence that begins with the legal description boundaries for the proposed
CG zone must be revised. So, we ca delete that entire sentence but to include
all staff comments other than that.
Borup: That was the comment concerning the sewer service facility?
Nary: Right.
Centers: I’ll second that.
Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I would move that we continue Items 11 and 12 CUP 01-006 the request
for the Conditional Use Permit of the 692 single family lots and also PP 01-005
the request for the Preliminary Plat approval of 336 building lots and 50 other lots
all for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Prime Land Development LLC at
north of Ustick Road east of Ten Mile. That we continue that to a date certain for
further discussion. It would probably be May 17th
.
Borup: Just a point of order, we closed the Public Hearing. Would that be a
continuation or a tabling? Wouldn’t we be tabling that item to a date certain?
Nary: We’re just going to have discussion, yes –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 145
Borup: So that would be a table?
Nary: I can’t think of any other information we need. I think we just need to
digest what we have.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: So, yes.
Borup: So, the intent was to table it?
Nary: Yes. I guess it would be to table it if that’s the more appropriate method
because I think it’s just for discussion and obviously a vote.
Borup: I’d also maybe like to see part of that then and maybe some specific
things this Commission should be taking into consideration. I mean is there
some specific things that you feel –
Nary: I guess I don’t know but there’s –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: I’d hate to see us come back next time and say oh, gee what was I
supposed to have done?
Nary: Well, I think –
Borup: Other than just let time pass.
Nary: -- be ready to vote about it.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: Read this stuff and digest it and make a decision as to what we think the
plat should look like –
Borup: Okay.
Nary: -- and if there’s a necessity to open the Public Hearing again because we
feel there’s other issues that need to be addressed then I guess we can do that
whether it’s regarding access to the school from McMillan or where the roadway
on McMillan Road goes. I mean those such things.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 146
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I have just probably one comment. You know the last couple of
meetings that we’ve had if we’re in fact going to table this, this particular has
been the later end obviously. I would recommend not knowing what the May 17th
schedule is but we give these folks the first go at it. I don’t know what’s
scheduled for the 17th
but if we could put them first.
Borup: Normally yes the continuation or table’s always first on the agenda. It’s
just that everything was a continuation tonight. I think it happened the order that
the first meeting went.
Centers: I think it’s big enough that we ought to do it while we’re fresh.
Borup: Was that your motion to the May 17th
?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: here was a date?
Nary: May 17th
meeting is probably the most expeditious.
Centers: And it won’t be part of the Public Hearing?
Nary: No it’s just – unless there’s –
Borup: Can we open a Public Hearing without re-notification?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: We could face that at another time I guess.
Nary: I mean we can –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Nary: Whatever’s easier. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make any difference to me
if we want to re-open the Public Hearing and continue it.
Borup: We can get any information from staff.
Nary: Right. (Inaudible) It doesn’t matter. I just don’t want to decide tonight on
it because I think it’s a pretty comprehensive thing we’re being asked to look at.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 147
Nary: It doesn’t matter to me.
Siddoway: Just one point. ACHD has recommended, or they have stated
they’re going to be meeting with City Council on the 30th
. If you table this and
close it, are you going to be able to accept the final staff report from Ada County
Highway District into the record without having to re-open it?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Clerk?
Berg: You’ve closed any new information by closing it.
Siddoway: I’m sorry Mr. Chairman. My professional opinion I guess being here
for so many years –
Borup: That’s why we’re asking.
Siddoway: Once you’ve closed the hearing you’ve closed any doors of giving
any new information to the hearing process. Now it can be given to the City
Council but if you’re wanting to make a good recommendation you need all the
information you can get. If you want to wait for that information from ACHD I
would suggest you continue the hearing and there’s ways that you can continue
hearings so that you don’t just open it up to the whole thing –
Nary: That’s what I was going to suggest.
Siddoway: -- you can continue it just for one report or one letter from an
Irrigation District or whatever that deems necessary. So you don’t have to take in
a whole new batch of testimony.
Nary: What I suggest Mr. Chairman, and I’ll make a substitute motion that we re-
open the Public Hearing on this item for new information not the same
information. We’ve heard it twice. A lot of it’s similar. For new information
whether it’s from the Settler’s Irrigation District or the Ada County Highway
District or something new. Then we can have a discussion about that.
Centers: Second concur.
Borup: So, would the second concur with that?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: So, you’ve got a new motion?
Nary: Right.
Borup: And do we have a second on that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 19, 2001
Pg. 148
Centers: Yes. You have a second.
Borup: So, we re-open the hearing. We continue it to May 17th
for ACHD report
and any new information.
Nary: Any new information?
Centers: Any new information?
Borup: That could, it may not have made a difference but that could also save a
lot of time and problems in the future. Any other discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Unanimous. I’d like to thank everyone for being with us this evening –
Nary: I’d like to make a move that we close.
Norton: I’ll second.
Borup: Motion is second to close our meeting. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK