2001 08-02Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 2, 2001
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 2, 2001 by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Keven Shreeve.
Members Absent: Bill Nary, Jerry Centers.
Others Present: Brad Hawkins-Clark, Brad Watson, Dave Swartley, Tara Green.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
__X__Sally Norton __O__ Jerry Centers
__O__Bill Nary __X__ Keven Shreeve
__X__Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen we would like to open the meeting
this evening. The regularly scheduled meeting for Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission. I would like to begin with roll-call attendance.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
B. Approve minutes of June 28, 2001 Planning and Zoning
Special Meeting:
C. Approve minutes of July 5, 2001 Planning and Zoning
Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item on the agenda we would like to approve the minutes of
June 28th
and the July 5th
Planning and Zoning Regular – June 28th
was a
Special Meeting and July just was a regular meeting.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I would like to recommend approval of the minutes of June 28th
the
Special Meeting on the Comp Plan and approve the minutes July 5th
Planning
and Zoning Regular Meeting.
Shreeve: I’ll second that.
Borup: Motion is second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 2
Item 4. Public Hearing: AUP 01-009 Request for an Assessory Use
Permit for a proposed Day Care for up to 5 children in an R-4 zone
for Pamela Spencer by Pamela Spencer – 329 West Waterbury
Drive:
Borup: The first regular item is Public Hearing request for an Assessory Use
Permit for a proposed Day Care for up to 5 children in an R-4 zone for Pamela
Spencer by Pamela Spencer at 329 West Waterbury Drive. We would like to
open that Public Hearing and begin with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. This
application does not have an accompanying staff report as most of ours do. I’ll
just quickly go over I guess on the screen kind of the highlights of it for you.
Typically on Assessory Use Permits we simply allow the application to be the
presentation in your packets. This is the – just to orient you. This is North
Meridian Road here. This is the Waterbury Subdivision and the applicants lots
and houses located here on the south side of Waterbury Drive. They have
submitted an application for five children or fewer. This would be a standard in-
home family day care. The reason it’s before you tonight is because I believe
there was one resident that submitted a concern and whenever that happens
Assessory Use Permits come to you the Commission. You do have the final
action on these applications these do not go to the City Council. Here is kind of
a rough sketch of inside the house, what would be used for the day care itself.
The front of the house is here on the bottom. Off-street parking is here and their
garage is here so the colored areas are what they would use. Primarily these –
the kitchen, living room and bathroom areas would be used to operate the day
care. I think in your packets you also have a rough sketch of the site plan so I
think that’s all we have.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Brad, how close is Meridian to getting a Day Care Licensing Ordinance?
I know we have a draft of it but do you know how close we are to getting that?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner Norton I’m not aware of the Committee
having met recently to revisit that Ordinance. I do not know the status.
Norton: And we do not have this site plan – and was the complaint a verbal or
written complaint because we don’t have anything written either?
Hawkins-Clark: It was written. It was submitted on June 11th
the Burton Family
Trust was the name written on the transmittal sheet. That was a walk in to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 3
Planning and Zoning Department. I’m sorry if you didn’t receive it. We did
receive it in our packet. It’s – it’s just a one liner that they wrote. It’s simply a
concern about day care proposal at 329 West Waterbury Drive in Meridian,
Idaho.
Borup: I think the individual is here so we can take their testimony.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Any others. If not is there anything the applicant would like to add to – is
the applicant here? I guess not. Do we have any other – anyone else who
would like to testify or any questions on this application? If so come forward.
Burton: My name is – excuse me. Thanks for allowing me to come here. My
name is Jack Burton. My wife and I are the Burton Family Trust. We have the
property on –
Borup: -- that’s what I was just going to ask, your address?
Burton: We have the property on 330 West Chrisfield. It’s a rental property we
live in Boise at 3920 Buckingham Drive. The area in there, Chrisfield is nice
(inaudible) very, very nice. They take care of their homes. They are nice and
clean and the lawns are well taken care of. This particular property, when I got
the notice in June I went down by it and rather than me describe it I would
suggest you drive by and take a look at it. It needs some real TLC. The back
yard is a bunch of big weeds, I don’t know if they’re noxious or not but it
obviously hasn’t had care taken care of it like it should have. I would suggest
that you take a look at it. Going over things, the Ada County Highway District,
their report said it would increase 4.65 trips per child per day. That’s a residential
street it’s fairly long in there and I think when the kids were out their playing when
I went over awhile ago to see if any changes had been made in the yard. There
hasn’t been that I can see. I think that all that extra traffic would not contribute to
the safety of the neighborhood. They said off-street parking. The only off-street
parking is the driveway going into their garage because there is no off-street
parking other than that that I could see. The rest of it is just yard and it’s
overgrown bad. There is a real need for day cares in local areas like that or first
class. A lot of the two-family workers in the house they need somebody that they
can trust but frankly I would have to see some real changes in there before I
would take any children of mine there. Maybe it can be done, I don’t see why it
can’t but I would like to see some evidence of it before I would withdraw my
objection. I would sincerely suggest that you get a license for those. There are
some real horror stories out there if they’re not run by real people that are really
into taking care of little kids. I doubt seriously if it would pass a Health License if
you need to have one. Until I can see some real changes made in what I see
we’re definitely against it and I would suggest that after looking at that you would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 4
probably all feel the same if you haven’t already seen it. Are there any
questions?
Borup: Any questions for Mr. –
Norton: -- Mr. Burton? I have a couple of questions. You owned a rental on
Chrisfield is that correct?
Burton: Yes it backs right against this property.
Norton: It’s right behind the property?
Burton: Directly behind it.
Norton: And there’s a fence between your property and their property?
Burton: Yes but they –
Norton: -- and you can see in their backyard?
Burton: Yes.
Norton: And there are weeds everywhere?
Burton: Terrible.
Norton: Ada County does have a Day Care Licensing requirement so they may
not pass the health check for that. I’m surprised that the applicant isn’t here to
state otherwise. We appreciate you coming to testify.
Burton: If they would get their act together I would certainly withdraw my
objection because there is a real need for that kind of facility. A good one.
Norton: Right. Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: Just to reiterate, you would withdraw your complaint or your
recommendation of denial based on again what the health?
Burton: Well if they would just clean the place up and then see some kind of a
report on the people themselves. If they are the kind of people that would be
good neighbors in that of the community. They are going to increase the traffic
significantly on that street and that will move over to our street. I’ve talked to a
couple of neighbors there. I don’t think they’re especially happy about it but
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 5
none of them seem to choose to come down here tonight. I thought somebody
should.
Norton: We appreciate you coming because you would think that somebody who
would care for children would also care for their property. If the property looks
pretty bad you wander what kind of care the children will get.
Burton: That’s exactly the parallel that I drew.
Norton: We appreciate you coming.
Burton: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else on this application. Commissioners?
Norton: I tend to agree with Mr. Burton if the applicant isn’t here. I expect she
got notice that we were hearing tonight and if the proper – do we have a sight?
We usually have photos of these things.
Hawkins-Clark: Sorry we do not have one tonight.
Shreeve: Have you seen the property?
Hawkins-Clark: I have not.
Borup: This was the – that’s kind of an unusual statement –
Norton: -- it’s a very unusual statement –
Borup: -- the one’s we’ve seen before have always been well cared for yards.
Norton: And they’ve come to our hearings too and sat until 1:00 a.m.
sometimes.
Borup: Yes. So it sounds like you’re – are you looking at denying or –
Norton: -- I am.
Borup: -- or to continue to give a chance for response?
Norton: I’m looking at denying.
Shreeve: Well in fact let’s get things first I guess. I propose that we close the
Public Hearing.
Norton: I second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 6
Borup: Motions second to close the Public Hearing all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I would recommend denial of the request for the Assessory Use Permit
for a proposed Day Care Center for up to 5 children in an R-4 zone for Pamela
Spencer by Pamela Spencer, 329 West Waterbury Drive.
Borup: Motion.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Deny. Our next item –
Hawkins-Clark: -- excuse me Chairman Borup sorry. Just for my own
clarification the motion was to recommend –
Norton: -- denial.
Hawkins-Clark: But there is no recommendation that goes onto City Council on
these applications.
Borup: Right so it’s just a straight denial then is that correct? Unless they file a
re-application is that – be their recourse?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Item 5. Public Hearing: RZ 01-006 Request for a rezone from I-L to L-O
zones for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries – 521
North Eagle Road:
Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 01-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 3 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.49 acres in proposed I-L and
L-O zones for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries –
521 North Eagle Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 7
Borup: Item No. 5 is a request for rezone from I-L to L-O zones for proposed
Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries and an accompany application is a request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 3 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.49 acres in
proposed I-L and L-O zones. I would like to open both Public Hearings at this
time and begin with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup. On the screen is an aerial photo of
the general vicinity of this mile section. Eagle Road is here along the right hand
side of the screen. The property outlined in red here is the boundaries of the plat
more or less. Blue Cross is here to the north and the future Pine extension runs
here south of Blue Cross. Here on the vicinity map reflects better. There is a
Commercial Court currently a public street here on the east side of Eagle Road.
The commercial does extend here currently as more or less a private drive for
right now. The crosshatched portion here again represents the plat. Union
Pacific railroad runs along the south boundary. A couple of site photos. This is
looking southbound on Eagle Road. The property is here on right hand side.
This is the I believe a door manufacturing plant here and then there is another
office warehouse, the spa office warehouse there too further to the west. This
photo is looking west down the private drive which as you can see is paved and
then turns into gravel here at the far end. These are a little more internal to the
site. There are two applications associated here on this project. One of them,
the first is a rezone request from the existing light industrial. It is currently in the
City limits so there is no annexation request but they do have a rezone request.
It’s currently – the entire piece is light industrial. This lot 1 shown here which is –
again here is Eagle Road and Commercial on the north. This lot 1 approximately
one acre is proposed to be broken off. The reason that this has kind of been
pushed forward is Primary Health has contacted the property owner to purchase
this lot I believe and to construct a Primary Health facility on this lot 1 and the
rezone would be from I-L to the limited office in which the Primary Health Clinic
would be an allowable use. Looking at the staff report dated July 13th
we do ask
that any decision you make include our recommended conditions. I do have a
couple of things to point out in there. There are two variance requests that have
been submitted and as usual the variances you do not see them. We do ask that
you make a recommendation to City Council on those if you so wish. The
variances that they’ve submitted, one is our Landscape Ordinance requires on
local streets 10-foot wide landscape buffer. We are recommending that this
Commercial Court become a public street. The applicant is proposing that it
remain private. Should it remain private a 10-foot landscape buffer here along
the road would not be an Ordinance but if you recommend that it be a public
street then a landscape 10 foot buffer would be required along the full length of
the subdivision on the south side of Commercial. That’s one variance. The
other variance, the Landscape Ordinance requires between an office type use
and industrial uses. Again there are these two warehouse office buildings here
currently being used that a 20-foot wide landscape separation be constructed
between two unlike uses. That would require a landscape – 20-foot wide
landscape buffer here. They are proposing a variance that that go to five feet
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 8
instead of 20 and that there be a wall constructed for more or less the Eagle
Road buffer here heading to the east to this point. On Item No. 7, on Page 3 of
our staff report I would just ask for one change. I can remind you when you get
later into this but it says a 10-foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided along
Commercial Court adjacent to the proposed lot 2. Lot 2 is here which would just
be this portion here and I just ask that you strike adjacent to the proposed lot 2
because it would be adjacent to lot 1 as well. It would just be the full extent of
Commercial. We as staff are recommending approval with our conditions of both
the rezone and the plat. I guess that’s all if you want to stand for questions.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Brad did they want a variance also on tiling the ditch? No. 9.
Borup: Your staff report mentions that.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess I would have to defer to the applicant on that. It does
seem to point out that they’ve requested a waiver of the ditch which unless it’s a
natural drain the Ordinance does not allow typically waivers unless the Public
Work’s Department has (inaudible) stood if it’s – requires a 48 inch diameter pipe
or greater they usually waive those but – there is a letter in your packet from the
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. John Anderson states that they don’t have
any facilities impacted by this so that’s what we would defer to would be their –
there are no issues from the Idaho Transportation Department who has
jurisdiction on Eagle Road. They did submit comments. The Ada County
Highway District did ask the City – they recommended that the City put a
condition that it would be a public street because they – I’ll just go back to the
vicinity map here. It’s hard to see here but Commercial Street stubs in here at
this point on the west end of the property. ACHD has stated in their comments
that they would in the future ask that this street be connected even though this is
currently private they would ask that it be public, 50-foot right-of-way to connect
here with Commercial.
Borup: Any other questions? Is the applicant or representative here this
evening?
Clayton: My name is Paul Clayton. I live at 501 North Eagle Road in Meridian
and by my application you can understand why we’re here. In talking about the
road the last 50 feet where that curve occurs the last (inaudible) we don’t own
that. If the street goes through, the people who own that would have to allow it
to go through to connect to the other street.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 9
Borup: Which area are you – which area Mr. Clayton were you referring to? The
50 feet you said.
Clayton: Where that curve is up there on the end. May I go over there and point
it out? Right here. This last 50 feet (inaudible) this road here. We don’t own this
50 feet.
Borup: Okay.
Clayton: The reason for that is (inaudible) –
Borup: -- you need to get back to the microphone I think.
Clayton: Back in 1972, the railroad wanted to put a spur up around and come
down where Pine Street is now. Make the whole thing an industrial park. When
we did we gave an easement where that curve is to the railroad to put it in.
When we went back – when they (inaudible) to get the land back, Thomas Wright
had already claimed it so it’s still owned by Thomas Wright.
Borup: That would be a problem for eventually connecting. I think the – what
staff was referring to is just the part along the property here that pertains to the
application just along this area here.
Clayton: That piece in there –
Borup: -- isn’t that right Brad that was –
Clayton: -- that road is under construction right now. We’re putting a road in
there that complies to the ACHD requirements. I met with ACHD last Friday and
discussed this whole situation with them and they understand. We want to make
it a public road as soon as we can.
Borup: Is there any reason why it’s not a public road? That you’re not applying it
a public road rather than keeping it as a private?
Clayton: The reason it’s not a public road right now is because –
Borup: -- well I understand right now but I mean as part of this improvement.
Clayton: It’s going to be a public road as soon as we get the 50 feet from Wright
to make it a public road all of the way through the next street. Right now we
have traffic on that road, I would say maybe 30, 40 cars a day that go down and
cut around the end of the fence and go – that we’ve tried to block off several
times and they just insist on going down there and going across it. Right now the
road is being built and it’s under construction at this moment. It will run back to
the 50-foot mark there. We discussed it with – Thomas Wright is not in business
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 10
anymore and he lives I understand in the West Indies somewhere and he’s
difficult to contact so we’ve found a little trouble getting that part done. The part
above there, there’s probably about 53 acres above where the curve is. We
have a developer for that maybe you would like to see it.
Borup: That would be all right we just are going to be looking at just your
application. That’s going to the north of Commercial?
Clayton: In reference to the 20-foot buffer there, because of the configuration
the buildings on the property the way they were built when I built them in 1968
it’s going to be pretty difficult to get a 20-foot buffer because it would limit the
parking for the building. The parking is where that buffer is but if we put a five-
foot wall with a five-foot planter – or a four-foot wall with a five-foot planter in
front of it, it would serve the same purpose because it would be a screen to the
property between the two properties. On the other – I think on this application
we would advise – we would be very willing to take care of what they put there. I
talked to staff about it and they understand what our position is and I’m pretty
sure we can comply with everything they wanted us to do.
Shreeve: So the 20-foot buffer along Commercial isn’t a problem?
Clayton: No there’s no buffer – it’s not on Commercial there’s no 20-foot buffer
on Commercial. It’s between the two buildings right –
Borup: -- that’s where you’re saying you have a concern?
Clayton: Right there, yes.
Borup: But you’re able to do the 20-foot buffer on Commercial?
Clayton: (Inaudible) you can see the parking is for that lower building (inaudible)
in 1982. That parking was for that building there and if I put that buffer in and
take that out it’s going to be hard to navigate the trucks and everything to where
the two –
Shreeve: -- and I understand that now I’m talking about the buffer along
Commercial Street. Is the 20-foot buffer there –
Clayton: -- that’s a 10-foot -- there’s a 10-foot along there.
Shreeve: Excuse me 10-foot.
Clayton: But on the lot 2 where that – that map is not correct like it is there
exactly (inaudible). They’re parting all along the top there right there. There’s a
drain compliant with a drain ditch and now it’s been enclosed into a pipe and
runs all the way down. Where this other comes down here and goes across that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 11
is going to be abandoned and pushed down farther. I met with the Nampa
Meridian Irrigation people and they told me we could put it down and across
because we have (inaudible) building an office building on that lot free. That’s
pretty much in the works right now too because they put up a deposit for the land
and are ready to go. I would be glad then to answer any questions you have.
Norton: Mr. Clayton, so you do want a variance on tiling that ditch is that
correct? You don’t want to tile that ditch because it’s going to be changed?
Borup: You need to get on your microphone so we can get it on testimony.
Clayton: When I built that building originally, number two there in 1968 there was
no water out there and no anything. Right in back of it you can see the two –
reservoir I built for lend to take care of fire protection. In the system there’s a
stand by diesel pumps and everything in that building has all been abandoned
now within the last six months.
Borup: Right now it’s an open ditch?
Clayton: No it’s not open.
Borup: It is tiled?
Clayton: No closed it’s not even a ditch anymore.
Borup: Along Commercial is already tiled?
Clayton: Yes all the way down Commercial we have it tiled all the way down.
That was part of ACHD’s –
Borup: -- but lot 3 is open?
Clayton: Lot 3 -- no lot 3 is –
Borup: -- is tiled –
Clayton: -- all the way to the end of the road.
Borup: Did staff understand that Brad?
Clayton: Can you show that other – or the whole (inaudible)?
Borup: So it’s already tiled so that’s not an issue then?
Clayton: It’s all the way down to the end right now. That’s part of ACHD’s road
requirements.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 12
Hawkins-Clark: I think they must have forgot to strike that in the staff report.
Norton: So nine should be struck out?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Do you have another question?
Clayton: In reference to the irrigation water too, on that property there and the
little building in the front there is a well. At the present time that’s all that
irrigation and lawn and everything we had there is being watered from that well.
The wells that we put in the back here for domestic water and the fire protection
we have abandoned those wells and they’re now hooked to the City water. We
just spent 480,000 dollars putting in all of the utilities, the sewers and everything
on that property and it’s all completed now. They’re putting in the street at the
moment. It will be a nice setup. We want to do it because we want to use it
ourselves. When I came here in 1967 and we purchased that property there
wasn’t much out there believe me.
Borup: No. Is it – Mr. Clayton you’re saying you would like to reduce the buffer
between the two buildings to 5 feet and a wall, and you’re okay with the
landscape buffer along Commercial?
Clayton: The 10-foot landscaping, that’s going to be there.
Borup: Okay so that’s okay. The only question I have is why is this staying as a
private road?
Clayton: It won’t be a private road as soon as we get the 50 feet on the end
open. We don’t own the land all the way through –
Borup: -- well but – I think the request was just that it be a public road just as far
as you’re showing on your application. It doesn’t need to go any further.
Clayton: -- when I talked –
Borup: -- right Brad?
Clayton: -- when I talked to ACHD last Friday about that they told me not to be
excited about it within the next two or three or years – would become a public
road would be fine because they are having trouble getting that 50 feet. It’s a
public road right now because everyone uses it.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 13
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I think if I recall ACHD requirements for it to be a public road then they
would have to put a cul-de-sac on there and they would have to do a lot of
different improvements to allow for that. Right now it’s probably just being kept
as a private road so they don’t have to put a cul-de-sac –
Borup: -- build it to ACHD specification and then the cul-de-sac wouldn’t have to
be –
Clayton: -- in that letter you got from ACHD it mentions what Mr. Shreeve just
said that they want it in the future. We want it to be a public road because we
want to build buildings along the side there and make it usable.
Shreeve: So it’s just a save of expense right now keeping it a private road.
Borup: The expense is just the cul-de-sac?
Shreeve: Well there are probably other requirements but cul-de-sac and a
couple of other things I’m sure. (Inaudible) I don’t know what would all be
required.
Borup: What else would there be if it’s built to their specifications?
Clayton: Right at the moment ACHD has approved it as a dead-end road with no
cul-de-sac.
Borup: Okay.
Clayton: And when it is put through all of the way it will connect to I think it’s
called Rich Street isn’t it? I don’t know what the name of the street is down there
at the end. Then it goes into – the street again it becomes the same name as it
is across the street. We are willing to cooperate in any situation because of that
because we want to use the land for development. It would be better to have it a
public street. We have plans in the works right now to do a lot of things there.
Borup: Any comment on that Brad on – I guess it would be your Item No. 6 in
the staff report? Which is just saying that it shall be dedicated to the public and it
sounds like ACHD is really not concerned at this point.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup I don’t know that we would have any changes
to that item. I am just looking through ACHD’s final conditions on this project.
They do not make any reference to a cul-de-sac. They do say that they do make
any assurances that the private road would be accepted as a public road if the
request is made in the future which is their common standard, boilerplate
comment. I think our issue is a perfect time to dedicate roadways is with a plat.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 14
That’s why we’re asking that it happen as part of this application process. They
do mention that if – they say the following requirements must be met if the
applicant wishes to dedicate the roadway. Dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way. No.
1 and No. 2 construct to ACHD requirements. That’s all. They just have two
items if they do dedicate that they’re asking for.
Clayton: It’s being done.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve maybe you could – does the cul-de-sac have to
paved or can it be gravel?
Shreeve: I understand it can be graveled.
Borup: I mean I’ve been in some that have been graveled and (inaudible)
subdivisions.
Clayton: (Inaudible) have a problem with it. We do not own the land on the
south side of the road, the last 10 acres on the southeast – it doesn’t show on
that map.
Borup: Well but this is where the cul-de-sac would –
Clayton: -- but you can’t put a cul-de-sac on somebody else’s property. You
would have to make it an offset cul-de-sac to make it go up on our property.
Borup: Is this your property right here?
Clayton: Yes. No, that’s not our property. Where it hatched where the hatch
marks are at the –
Borup: -- okay your property ends right there?
Clayton: That’s right that part is owned by Western Chemical.
Borup: Okay and that’s where the previous plat was showing the cul-de-sac?
Clayton: Yes and we want to run the road all of the way down –
Borup: -- so you used to own the north part?
Clayton: We own 53 acres of the north. The corner is where Primary Health will
be in that front corner there.
Borup: The plat that you submitted shows a turnaround on lot 3. You said that
interfered with what they’re planning for that lot?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 15
Clayton: We’re making a street. If we did that the street wouldn’t be put in.
We’re putting the street in all of the way down to the end –
Borup: -- right but I mean the plat you submitted shows a temporary turnaround.
Clayton: (Inaudible) we were told to do that by staff.
Borup: Pardon?
Clayton: We were told to do that by staff. That we would have to show a
temporary thing. Now the street is being put in. It’s under construction in fact.
Borup: But the street that you’re putting ends at the west end of lot 3 is that
correct?
Clayton: No it goes all of the way to the end (inaudible) last 50 feet.
Norton: Which one are you looking at there is two different things. This is dated
July 24th
.
Borup: That’s the one I’ve got.
Norton: You’ve got the July 24th
. See, this one is not dated.
Borup: Are you saying you’re putting the road all of the way down clear to –
Clayton: -- right to that 50 foot mark right to –
Borup: -- right to there.
Clayton: Right to there.
Borup: Well how are you doing that you’ve also got a different owner here too.
You said you don’t – they’ve already given up their right-of-way?
Clayton: We – they don’t own the right-of-way we own the right-of-way. We
didn’t sell the right-of-way we sold the –
Borup: -- okay so you’ve already got a 50-foot right-of-way all down there. You
just don’t have enough to do a turnaround.
Clayton: We have a 70-foot right-of-way –
Borup: -- I understand –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 16
Clayton: -- we have a70-foot right-of-way but we don’t use the 70 feet we’re
doing the 50 feet.
Borup: Okay I understand.
Clayton: ACHD told me when I was there last Friday they might in the future
require a sidewalk on each side if it became a public road. That’s why the 70-
foot right-of-way is in existence.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: I’ve got to agree with staff’s recommendation but ACHD doesn’t seem
too firm on this so I’m wandering how critical it is if it’s not that critical to ACHD.
Usually they’re pretty specific and here they’re not.
Clayton: When I was there last Friday they told me there would be no problem
on their part (inaudible) putting the street into the 50 feet. They told me that right
up front. In that letter they sent to the City, the staff, it shows that same thing.
We’ll have it in the future when we hit the last 50 feet we’ll hook it to the other
road. Putting the 50-foot right-of-way clear to the end down there is beneficial to
the last 10 acres too that we don’t own.
Borup: Well I understand that. Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Any other last statement Mr. Clayton?
Clayton: I just believe that we have a good project and I’m sure that as time
goes on it will become a public road as soon as we get everything on our side.
Borup: Thank you.
Clayton: You bet.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here that would like to come forward?
Miller: My name is Brad Miller with Ronald W. Van Auker Incorporated, 3084
East Lanark in Meridian. I have been asked by Great Western Chemical to
appear at this meeting in their behalf. They own the 10 acres to the west of the
Elixir Property. They would like – they have read the staff report and they would
like to ask the Commission to please make sure that is a public road. They don’t
want to have a private road any longer. They have no access to their property as
it is now because it’s been torn up for over a year. They would like to see a
public road all of the way down as a condition of this approval. The 10 acres or
excuse me, the 50 feet at the end I don’t anticipate to be a problem. I think Tom
Wright would agree to go ahead and dedicated that. That’s something that he
needs to decide but I don’t anticipate a problem there. We’ve worked with Tom
on easements for the sewer. We put the sewer lines through that whole area
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 17
and Tom cooperated with the sewer lines as well, the easements for that. Great
Western Chemical would like me to strongly urge me to make it a condition of
your approval that that road be dedicated.
Borup: Is Great Western willing to allow a turnaround on their property then?
Miller: A temporary turnaround sure to where it goes through.
Borup: Right.
Shreeve: Now you own the property – or Great Western Chemical immediately
to the west?
Miller: That one and the one to the west of that.
Shreeve: And the one and then who –
Miller: -- then Tom Wright owns the other one and he owns that curved portion
on the north side. Thank you.
Borup: Yes, any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Do we have
anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Yes you can come
back up. While he’s coming up, Brad is it your understanding that and Mr.
Clayton can clarify that but right now they’re building the road all of the way down
to the west other than that 50 feet?
Hawkins-Clark: That is what we were told during the pre-application meeting as
well yes.
Borup: Is that right Mr. Clayton you’re –
Clayton: -- we’re building a road all of the way to the last 50 feet. If we’re going
to be involved with Western Chemical they’re going to pay for half of the road . I
don’t want to pay for half of the road we’re paying for it now. They’re going to
make some problems for us so they’re going to be involved with half the payment
of that road.
Borup: But I thought you said you were already doing it all the way down?
Clayton: We are. We’ve tried to get money from them but they don’t want to
cooperate. To make it so that we can do it all of the way to the end we’re doing it
in our expense. If they’re going to come up and say we’ve got to make a public
road out of that they should be paying for half that road where their property is.
Borup: Are you doing all of the way to the end?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 18
Clayton: All the way to the 50 –
Borup: -- that’s enabled you to develop the property to the north?
Clayton: That’s right.
Borup: Any other –
Clayton: -- there’s a story behind that Western Chemical and what they’re doing.
There’s a long story behind –
Borup: -- yes I don’t think we need to hear that no we don’t.
Norton: Mr. Chairman so if the road is on Mr. Clayton’s property and Great
Western doesn’t have any control of that road but they want it a public road is
that right?
Borup: Yes.
Clayton: It is going to become a public road. I would say within a year to a year
and a half it will be a public road.
Borup: You’re anticipating it will be a public road when you come in with an
application to the project on the north?
Clayton: We want to develop the property on the north and it’s going to be a
public road.
Borup: At that time?
Clayton: Not – even before that because we want to develop some of the
property on the very end there.
Norton: But you’re paying for the whole thing no matter what?
Clayton: Yes.
Norton: So they want it now rather than later?
Clayton: Right. We don’t want to have a half a road down there so we’re doing
the whole road.
Borup: Mr. Shreeve.
Shreeve: Well maybe it’s too late to ask Brad but –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 19
Borup: -- he can come back up.
Shreeve: If he can come back up because now in light of this I have a question
to him. Has Great Western Chemical offered?
Miller: Great Western Chemical has not been contacted recently by Elixir and
asked to pay their portion of it. If Paul, and I believe him to say this, can be
dedicated and if he plans to dedicate it, what’s the difference between dedicating
it now and dedicating it in the future?
Shreeve: Well would Great Western –
Miller: -- they’re building it to ACHD standards.
Shreeve: Would Great Western Chemical participate with half along the
frontage?
Miller: I have no authorization to state that one-way or the other.
Borup: Well it still sounds like that in order to be a public road it needs a
turnaround at this point or it needs to connect to the other street one or the other.
Connecting to another street could be a ways down the road it sounds like it’s
eventually going to happen but it may not be while this project is being
developed.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: So we – so what are you proposing? What do you think?
Borup: Another question for staff. The project to the north is it – does it have the
zoning annexation? Would it come back before us?
Hawkins-Clark: I’m sorry to the north?
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: It would not come back before you if they came in with an
allowable industrial project.
Borup: So it’s already zoned I-L?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s already zoned I-L and if they came in with uses that are
allowed in the I-L zone it would potentially be allowed just through a Certificate of
Zoning Compliance. Any rezone of course and then any future platting of that or
if they wanted to put more than one building on it you would see it. I think the
chances are pretty high. The only way – if they put more than one building on
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 20
that lot as it is that’s a Conditional Use Permit Planned Development. If they
rezoned it or if they platted it so – if I could just – one other thing. You can only
condition this project to the west boundary so the discussion about the road from
the west boundary to the 50-foot point is a little bit moot and you have no
authority to.
Borup: Right. The reason I ask that I guess with the situation of this project I
wouldn’t be opposed to the private road but I would on any more development.
There needs to be a public road if any more development around here would
happen.
Shreeve: I would agree with that. I guess – and that was an excellent point that
really we’re just dealing with the road east of the western boundary.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Shreeve: It still doesn’t benefit per say Great Western Chemical. We could
make that public road if we wanted to and it still doesn’t technically benefit them
because from there on out it’s private. I’m leaning towards just keeping it private
personally.
Borup: Just as the applicant has requested?
Shreeve: Right.
Norton: Brad could you tell us again why we – staff recommend that we do the
public road? Just because it’s normal procedure or what?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Norton yes. The platting process is the primary
method tool if you will of dedicating public roads. A property owner can, through
a deed dedicate to the public a road to Ada County Highway District. They are
the authorized authority to accept public right-of-way dedications. The City
would not necessarily be informed or a party to that if in the future if you don’t
make it public now how will you make it public in the future. That’s our question.
They can dedicate it through a deed to Ada County Highway District in the future
but that would not be something that the City has control over at the timing of.
Norton: Do we have control over roads anyway?
Hawkins-Clark: Well you have input on – any private road must be approved by
the City.
Shreeve: Let me just ask that question then. Hypothetically then, as the next
phase continues which – to the property to the north and that road curves further
onto the west, if they don’t come back here, yes we’ve made public a chunk but
the rest could in fact remain private. Is that correct?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 21
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Shreeve: Hypothetically.
Borup: Maybe let’s ask Mr. Clayton and we realize this is not part of your
application but –
***End Of Side One***
Borup: -- that an office building that you were proposing? So that would need a
rezone.
Clayton: (Inaudible) bank and a mini mall.
Borup: That would need a rezone then so that would be back before us.
Shreeve: I think if we left it private now and then when they came we would
make it a public road and say hey we’ve got to make the first part public.
Otherwise if we never see them again by chance –
Borup: -- well that partial would defect the first part because – the whole way.
Shreeve: Right. So I guess what I’m suggesting is maybe just make that public
at that time. Theoretically we could make this chunk public and never see
anything to do with this land again, theoretically.
Borup: If the zoning wasn’t changed?
Shreeve: Right.
Borup: Yes.
Clayton: If you read what it says from ACHD, they want it to become a public
road in the future. Because of certain financial situations with other property
owners it’s a difficult thing to work with right at this moment. That’s why we’re
(inaudible) as a private road. As soon as it becomes a public road people who
are going to be involved we’re going to have them pay for their part of that road.
It won’t work at this particular moment.
Borup: I think we understand now. Thank you. Commissioners?
Norton: I see on this application –
Borup: -- do we want to leave the hearing open?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 22
Shreeve: Let’s leave it open for just a little bit longer.
Borup: Okay let’s go over some discussion then.
Norton: We have issues with No. 6. We need a change on No. 7 and strike No.
9 for the comments or perhaps strike No. 6.
Borup: Well but No. 7 the buffer was along both lot one and two.
Norton: Right you take out the words adjacent to proposed lot two.
Borup: Oh it is along Commercial Court right.
Norton: And strike No. 9 which has to do with the tiled ditch. Take that out
(inaudible).
Borup: No. 8 stays like it is. Okay and staff – and the staff report makes
reference to the variance request for the five-foot.
Norton: I would recommend that that would be fine with the masonry wall and
the five-foot.
Borup: This says four-foot masonry wall --
Norton: -- four-foot I’m sorry that’s right.
Borup: Is that correct?
Norton: Yes it was.
Shreeve: In fact I had something (inaudible) four-foot wall plus five feet?
Norton: Yes.
Shreeve: So it’s technically nine foot.
Borup: No four-foot high wall.
Shreeve: Okay. Alright, that’s a wide wall.
Borup: Yes, four foot – is that enough to do much of a buffer?
Norton: Well it’s his property that’s more effected than the warehouse I think.
Borup: That’s true.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 23
Norton: That’s what he was suggesting I don’t see a problem with it.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Shreeve.
Shreeve: I move to close the Public Hearing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is second to close the Public Hearing all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: These are both Public Hearings?
Shreeve: Yes close RZ 01-006 and PP 01-014.
Borup: The first Item would be the request for the rezone.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman I move that we approve RZ 01-006 request for rezone
from I-L to L-O zones for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries, 521
North Eagle Road with comments in the staff report with modifications being –
Borup: -- would those modifications apply to this or to the plat?
Shreeve: Well let’s see it would probably be the plat. Let’s just leave it at that
then.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motions second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I move that we approve PP 01-014 request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 3 building lots and 1 other lot on 15.49 acres in proposed I-L and L-O
zones for proposed Elixir Subdivision by Elixir Industries, 521 North Eagle Road
with all staff comments included. With modifications being to Item No. 6 that it
may remain a private road. Item No. 7 that the 10-foot landscape buffer be
applied to all property along Commercial Court and then Item No. 9 is apparently
not applicable.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 24
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motions second any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Thank you.
Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning
of 70.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance
Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner of East
Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing
to October 4, 2001 meeting
Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-015 Request for Preliminary Plat approval
of 214 single-family lots, 4 future office lots, 23 common lots and
3.43 other lots on 69.79 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Sundance Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast
corner of East Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Continue
Public Hearing to October 4, 2001 meeting
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-026 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for 214 single-family dwellings, 4 future office lots, and 23
common lots to include a neighborhood park and pedestrian
pathways in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sundance
Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner of East
Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing
to October 4, 2001 meeting
Borup: Item No. 7 Public Hearing AZ 01-012 request for annexation and zoning
of 70.72 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sundance Subdivision by
G.L. Voigt Development, northeast corner of Ustick Road and North Meridian
Road. Two accompanying applications. Preliminary Plat for the same property
and a Conditional Use Permit on the same project. I would like to open all three
Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup. As noted in our staff report dated
July 27th
which we do request that you incorporate into any motion these
applications that with the exception of the Conditional Use Permit were before
this body last year. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval essentially of the project and the City Council did deny the annexation
request and the plat. This is a re-submission with the addition of the Conditional
Use Permit. Just to orient you again for this annexation and rezone request
here’s Meridian Road, North Meridian Road along the left hand side of the 70
acres project. Ustick here along the south boundary. Currently Ag uses primarily
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 25
to the north. There is a large lot County subdivision here to the east. There is a
small 100-foot wide strip of land here which flags to a piece here which is
separate. Here is the vicinity map of the area of the large block here again of
course as the proposed City – 56 acre City Park. Existing City limits abut on the
south side of Ustick. Site photos it’s Ag land currently. Here is the proposed
Preliminary Plat. We have received written reply from the applicant to our staff
report. The highlights of the plat before I hit the staff report, this is a proposed
integrated use. These four lots here on the southwest corner are proposed office
lots. ACHD has approved driveway entrances here and here. There is one
internal access into the office through this public street here. We are
recommending that this be choked down to restrict the movement in and out of
this – between the residential and the office part. This is a proposed collector
street here coming off of Ustick as well as the collector coming from Meridian into
the site. They do have a proposed two and a half acre park as a private park
here centrally located. There are three micro paths/sewer easements that are
proposed here. One is here. These are 20-foot wide so this would be a
connection here between these two public streets. There is also a micro
path/sewer easement here and the one here. They have a mix of lot sizes
proposed. There are just a couple of items in the staff report that we draw your
attention to and that we don’t really have resolution to between the City staff and
the applicant. The first of course is the whole issue of annexation. They are
requesting an R-8. The City Council had three reasons for their denial of the
annexation primarily linked to the services. They did not feel that the White
Trunk was in a situation in April which is when they denied it that -- to the point
that they felt comfortable annexing this piece without the White Trunk easements
all being finalized. They also felt that this would add too much stress on the
public services and those are the basic reasons that they gave for it. We as staff
have basically upheld the City Council recommendation for denial in our report.
Most of our reasons are listed there on the first three or four pages. In the
applicants response dated August 1st
, Item No. 3 the Preliminary Plat
requirements. This is again dealing with the White Sewer Trunk. They would
like to move ahead with the assumption that that trunk line is going to be
constructed. They have stated that if the City believes that there should be
services existing prior to the approval that they are proposing a pump station that
would temporarily discharge sewer into the South Slough. Our Public Work’s
Department does not support that. There is one change on Item No. 12 that I
understand from Steve Arnold from Briggs he’s representing the applicants – I’m
sorry no there’s not a change. What we had recommended as part of the
Planned Development that they add a pedestrian or bicycle connection here so
that the residents that live generally in this area can access the office park
through this area. They have said that since there is a ped connection here off
to Meridian Road they can get on the sidewalk, they can walk down and come
through the main entry to the office park here. The main other issue that I
wanted to point was on the Conditional Use Permit. Item No. 3 our new Planned
Development Ordinance requires the amenities. The applicant is providing that
pocket park. I believe Steve’s come tonight to show you some of the pathway
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 26
system internally. Our feeling is that the 5 percent of course is Ordinance.
That’s just a basic requirement so as a Planned Development they have to do
two other amenities. One of those that they’re proposing is a basketball court
centrally here in the pocket park so they do need one other one. Our staff report
recommended that 10 percent open space be provided. They do not have to
provide that they can provide another amenity which they have talked about
either a gazebo or possibly some picnic shelters. Frankly this is the first major
application that you’ve seen under the new Planned Development Ordinance so
we’re kind of looking for some guidance from you in terms of how you view the
amenities. Are they – is it an amenity to provide a picnic area? Is it amenity to
provide a gazebo? These things are somewhat subjective and left purposely
that way in the Ordinance so that there’s flexibility but that does need to be
resolved. I think that that kind of hits it. Just to clarify on this whole fenced drain
point. This is the fenced (inaudible) drain that runs here. It’s a 60-foot wide
swath.
Borup: While you’re on that could you clarify the fencing along there too?
Hawkins-Clark: Right maybe I’ll go back here to this vicinity map so you can get
a sense here. Again, here’s this 100-foot wide flag lot. It comes off of Ustick and
runs north I believe approximately 100 feet and then flags out to this buildable
portion. I think Briggs has done a little bit of playing with this and found that it
would be pretty difficult to get any functional land use in this 100 feet. By the
time you figure in a 50-foot wide street you’re only left with 50 feet. We’re talking
about this portion right here. I’ll just go back to the plat. The sub drain, it’s fairly
deep. They are proposing to pipe it. It comes down here and then courses to
the west. Our feeling was if you fenced here along the west boundary or east
boundary I’m sorry and then you have these residential lots who fenced their
back yards. So you have fences that are all coming here. That leaves this 60
foot wide fenced sort of blind alley that who knows what really could happen to it.
It’s really not visible other than maybe the tops of the trees when they get mature
in size. We’re recommending that they fence along the back rear lot lines of
these residential lots and not fence here along the subdivision boundary. Just
leave this open so that when this 100-foot flag develops this is sort of left open in
here with trees and shrubbery and whatever else to sort of be more of an
amenity to this than it is to the subdivision. The Landscape Plan shows it best.
You should have that in your packets in the Conditional Use Permit. They’ve
shown the trees here and I am sorry I don’t think – these are the proposed
elevations to the offices. Yes, we don’t have a copy on the power point
presentation for the Landscape Plan but that does show it. Unless you have
other questions that’s all I have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Brad I have some questions regarding Cedar Springs.
Do you remember Cedar Springs?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 27
Hawkins-Clark: I do, is that the application we’re on?
Norton: No but it is in very much relationship to this application. Who was the
developer for Cedar Springs?
Hawkins-Clark: Kevin Howell.
Norton: Not the same developer as this one?
Hawkins-Clark: No, it’s not.
Norton: And when – Cedar Springs I believe passed P & Z but I don’t remember
the feedback we got. What did City Council do for Cedar Springs?
Hawkins-Clark: They remanded it back to this body.
Norton: Where is that now?
Hawkins-Clark: We are waiting to receive a revised plat. Once we receive that
we will submit it to you again.
Norton: And what is the revised plat supposed to be? Why are they revising the
plat?
Hawkins-Clark: They are revising the plat to incorporate the five or six items that
City Council requested.
Norton: Do you remember what those were?
Borup: Single-loaded park streets.
Hawkins-Clark: Single-loaded was one of the issues. There were some issues
of course with the integration between the park and the plat. The subdivision –
they wanted a variety of lot sizes, a greater variety than they showed.
Borup: Maybe where Commissioner Norton’s going is there anything that would
effect the sewer trunk line layout.
Norton: The sewer, did they send it back because of the sewer problem?
Borup: I don’t remember that that was an issue there but it wouldn’t effect the
location of the sewer on the requested changes did it? On the trunk line right-of-
way?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 28
Watson: Commissioner Borup, Commissioners I’m not sure if that was the
specific reason for remanding Cedar Springs back to P & Z. I know that we
haven’t secured an easement through that property because from what I hear
from our consultant he is concerned – the developer of that subdivision is
concerned that he would have to change the route of the sewer through that
subdivision.
Borup: Now who’s concerned about changing the sewer route?
Hawkins-Clark: Keven Howell the Cedar Springs Developer, yes.
Borup: If you revise this plat you mean? He’s already proposed a sewer layout
already and the plat was submitted to us wasn’t it?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes but we don’t have a signed easement from him.
Borup: Right. I just didn’t understand about changing that why – he’s concerned
that, oh I see what you’re saying. The same problem Bridgetower has a concern
with. They are afraid if they do an easement and then their plats not approved
they have to redesign the plat then they’ve got the trunk line out in the middle of
where the lots would be or something.
Hawkins-Clark: Exactly.
Norton: Okay.
Borup: Does that clarify that?
Norton: Yes. The reason why I bring up Cedar Springs is because it’s directly
across the street from this subdivision. We had some real concerns about Cedar
Springs and I just had a question about – it looks like we’re going to see it again.
That was passed and they knew they would not get services sewer services and
we also passed this one. We asked the developer to change where the road
was going to be so it wouldn’t shine at those peoples bedroom windows across
Ustick which they did. My other question is did the name of the streets change
between February when we passed it and now?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes they did.
Norton: That’s what I thought. I see the Police and Fire Department are
concerned about whether or not they can serve this area but that’s also a
concern with everything that we pass. You answered my question about Cedar
Springs thank you.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Is the applicant or
representative here and would like to come forward.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 29
Arnold: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission for the record my name is
Steve Arnold I’m with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road. I’m here
representing Voigt Development. I will briefly go over the changes that we’ve
made since the time that you guys last approved it. Basically we have submitted
a Conditional Use Permit. That was one of the concerns that the Council
brought up the last time that we came before the City Council that we were
proposing future office lots that didn’t conform with the current Comprehensive
Plan. So in an attempt to try to address that issue we have submitted a PUD
application with this. We are showing four office lots in the southwest corner.
We have also increased some of the open space here. We are proposing now to
landscape this to create a buffer strip between our (inaudible) and here. We
have looked at the possibility of developing this land to the west. There is a strip
here that is almost – I wasn’t smart enough to do a good layout on it. By the time
you get a road in there and houses you would have double fronting houses either
– yes double fronting houses on a road on either one side or the other wherever
you put the road. This strip however it develops will most likely be some sort of
parkway boulevard of some sort. We have also an attempt to conform with the
PUD application we’ve proposed a basketball court within the park site and then
we did submit micro paths throughout the sub and detached pathways here, here
and here in an attempt to try to come up with the – basically the Ordinance as it
states with PUD’s. It says wanting to provide 10 percent, provide an amenity
such as a basketball court, volleyball, I think there are some tennis courts, tot lot,
and there were some other options. Picnic areas and or a public – the other
option was a public facility, another one was the ped paths and then kind of a
catch all was as approved by the Commission I believe it states. We believe that
the pathways that we provide not only within the park, around the sub, and the
amenities that we’ve provided in the park I think we’re meeting approximately like
three of those. Again, we’re kind of the newby’s on the block here. This is the
first time a PUD Ordinance has been before the Council or Commission excuse
me. To give you a rough overview, basically we’re giving 5.7 acres of landscape
which is approximately 8 percent. That’s including this buffer strip along the
east. If you take that buffer strip out of the east we’ve got approximately 4.5
acres of open space which is 6 percent. Lots still range – the lot configuration
really hasn’t changed much. They still range from 6,500 up to 17,500 with the
average within the subdivision being 80,755. They are very deep lots with an
average depth of 120 feet. These lots are the same density that we have in an
R-4 zone. The reason we’re coming before the Commission here is that we want
to reduce the lot frontages and make them deeper. Therefore that’s why we
have the 65-foot width lots. We are – we changed the layout to show 35 feet of
buffer along Ustick. That ranges between 35 and 60 where we tile the fence
drain. Here we’re doing a detached pathway again and we have changed the
plat to conform to the policy in regards to Meridian Road and the 35 feet there.
We are – the basic improvements will be, eventually when sewer gets here we’ll
be sending it to and thru. We’re dedicating right-of-way for future expansions of
both Meridian Road and Ustick Road. We’ll be providing center turn lanes at the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 30
major collector approaches there. Also we’ll be contributing a 30 thousand dollar
deposit to ACHD. Essentially we agree with most of the staff comments except
for the one to deny. Other than except for the one to deny we’ve worked out the
– I think a lot of the issues. One thing that wasn’t brought up by Mr. Hawkins-
Clark tonight was the issue about a ped or a stub street to the west or to the east
over here. I think we had discussed that and based on our conversations and I
hope I understood it correctly that we decided to drop that and move this ped
path here to break up the (inaudible). The reason we decided to drop this is
basically we can’t get a road over here in the future so there will be a stub that in
this case wouldn’t connect to anything. I think Brad’s gone over the history. We
did submit this way back in September. Our first P & Z hearing was in November
at which time we requested deferral because we knew that the White Trunk was
an issue. We were waiting to get further along the process so that we could get
a positive recommendation at that time. I understand why staff’s reversal now
wouldn’t quite look right if they were to go against City Council’s recommendation
but at that time we had positive recommendation and we were obviously
supportive of that. This board heard it, looked at the design, approved it on
February 15th
and unfortunately on April 17th
it was reversed and denied. That
decision was mainly based on sewer. I guess parks and schools were brought
up also. In the staff report that’s been presented by your staff it does state that
they’ve made progress on the park design and the school layout. I guess the
main hang-up now for the sewer is with Cedar Springs and I tried to talk to staff
earlier. My understanding of the easements that are required is they’ve got all of
the easements from Bridgetower. We basically have got them up to Cedar
Springs I – nope they’re shaking their head no so I misunderstood. We believe
with the approval of Bridgetower we’ve made a huge leap that I think the rest of
the easements will be fairly easy to get. It sounds like Cedar Springs maybe
have the same concerns that Bridgetower had and we’re hoping that through the
process and through their redesigns that positive outcome is resolved there. I
can go through a lot of the issues. I don’t know that I want to spend a lot of time
– I feel like I’m preaching to the choir here you guys approved us before. I guess
I’ll stand for questions and or save my comments for a rebuttal.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? It looks like on your
response to staff report I didn’t – was there anything that he was even in
disagreement on? Most of it looked like it was clarification on your – you had 27
items on the Preliminary Plat requirements.
Arnold: Commissioner Borup. Other than the stuff here, I think if you ask staff I
think that we resolved. I think a lot of its clarification and perhaps this – if they’re
in agreement with this pedestrian connection (inaudible) here –
Borup: -- yes that’s probably the only one that was –
Arnold: -- I think we’re supportive of the staff report again except for the
recommendation to deny.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 31
Shreeve: What are the average lot depths did you say?
Arnold: Approximately 120 feet.
Shreeve: 120.
Arnold: So we pray that a narrower lot and in many situations for a deeper one
to give people a deeper yard.
Borup: Previously the comment came up on the – what would happen if this was
approved and the trunk line never made it. I believe the state of the applicant
would sign a hold harmless statement or agreement or something to the City.
Something along that line. Are you familiar with what that was discussed about
before? Are you still proposing the same thing?
Arnold: We’re proposing exactly the same thing. My client is aware of the risk
here involved that we could get approvals, we could get annexation, rezone,
platting and not have sewer and we understand that the City’s not going to sign
the plat until we have sewer. That – essentially that’s all we’re asking for again is
that Planning and Zoning make that recommendation to City Council basically
the same as before. Again, I think even with the progress that we’ve seen out in
the area they don’t have any concerns with the sewer issue. We know it’s
eminent.
Borup: And the only other thing – maybe not the only other thing but one
additional comment on and that was on – is your response to Item No. 3 and that
was additional amenities. You talked about perhaps a gazebo or playground
equipment or something along that line could be added? Do you have any
additional comment on that is there a preference the way that the (inaudible)
would be leaning?
Arnold: Commissioner Borup our preference would be to have the gazebo. We
have added benches around the subdivision in the corners up here, park site
benches for picnicking and picnic areas but we would also add the gazebo.
Borup: So that’s the same type of thing where people get together and maybe
having family reunions and gatherings.
Arnold: A basketball game and a picnic (inaudible).
Borup: Yes. Weddings even I don’t know.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 32
Norton: To go off what you were talking about. Regarding the gazebo is there a
Homeowners Association that would take care of the gazebo regarding if it has
gotten broken or needs new paint or something like that.
Arnold: Commissioner Borup, Commissioner Norton, essentially the gazebo
would be added in just like the rest of the landscaping and the CC & R’s it would
be maintained by the Homeowners Association.
Norton: I know this is a real heavy issue and as trash barrels. Would this park
have trash dispensers or would this be a trash less park like City of Boise’s
considering?
Arnold: We’re expecting only clean residents here. We could add that to the
park a trash barrel as –
Norton: -- who would dispose of it then the landscaping people who take care of
them?
Arnold: I’m not sure how the City’s dealt with that in the past I’m sure –
Norton: -- this is a private park.
Arnold: Yes it would be a private park and I’m saying I’m not sure how the City’s
dealt with that in private parks. I’m not sure that the private parks within Meridian
– that’s something we can discuss I guess.
Norton: I was just kidding. This is a private park so you would have to maintain
it –
Arnold: -- correct.
Norton: And you would have trash barrels. I kind of am leaning toward picnic
tables. Trash barrels and maybe a gazebo as the all together as a third amenity
to the park.
Borup: So it sounds like she’s agreeing with what you said.
Arnold: Yes that’s what we’re proposing.
Norton: But not just benches, tables. Picnic tables.
Arnold: I’m sorry it would be a picnic type table.
Norton: Picnic table.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 33
Arnold: Yes not just the – I’m sorry not just the bench they’re picnic tables with
barbeque pits.
Shreeve: At each in the corner locations?
Arnold: We’ve proposed them here in three.
Shreeve: How big of a gazebo?
Norton: And where?
Arnold: Approximately where we’ve got it. I’m sorry it’s a little dark but we’ve
kind of located it right down here. I would like it near one of the main entrances
so that it can be seen as you come into the subdivision.
Borup: It’s kind of average.
Arnold: The gazebo – whatever a gazebo is.
Norton: I just have one other question and it’s regarding the Preliminary Plat
requirement No. 3 regarding sanitation and sewer. That even though you
proposed a pump station the City is not agreeable to a pump station because
they cannot provide sanitary sewer system by gravity to any existing sewer
systems. What my understanding from Brad said the pump station is not an
option is that correct. Okay do you understand that?
Arnold: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Norton we understand that we just don’t
want the – our reasoning for bringing up a pump station is because we don’t
want the recommendation for denial because services aren’t there at this time.
We’re saying we could – there is some services there that we could hook into
until such time that the White Trunk is to the site but we think that the – our
preference would be not to have you recommend we build a pump station. Our
preference would be for both Planning and Zoning and City Council to approve
this contingent previously just like what Planning and Zoning recommended
contingent upon sewer vain to the site.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: -- to counteract the response of the sewer service is not readily available
you’re showing that is if you had used a temporary pump station?
Arnold: That’s correct and if it’s the direction of Planning and Zoning and City
Council we could design a pump station if that’s the only issue with this site.
Shreeve: Well let me ask Brad. You know the question – Mr. Watson, why not a
pump station?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 34
Watson: I provided Steve – and first of all let me say Steve did try to call me late
this afternoon and I didn’t get his message in time to get back to him on the
White Drain Easement status. I’ll give you a call tomorrow. The South Slough
had some bottlenecks in it and we provided some of that information to Steve.
Today, right now it does have excess capacity. We have a concurrent project
that may not be quite as familiar or high profile to you and it is the South Slough
extension which brings the sewer to Eagle Road. It’s going to bring in another
square mile of property to the South Slough. We also have some other
developments that are continuing such as Packard Acres, Heron Brook Homes
which is under construction and a few others. So, even though today there may
be capacity, we’ve pretty much committed a large trap of land to be going into
that and build out to its ultimate design capacity. I don’t think there would be any
way we would entertain a pump station into the South Slough.
Shreeve: So it’s just from a capacity standpoint not so much that you’re against
pump stations?
Watson: Well I am against pump stations too but I don’t know that that’s the
issue right now. They’ve been approved in the past when there are no other
means of sewer in the development.
Shreeve: But basically it’s a capacity issue at this point?
Watson: Yes and I don’t want to put the Commission or the Council in the
position of denying a project on Eagle Road that’s in the proper service area
because this subdivision, Cedar Springs and that sort of thing is being allowed to
do it.
Borup: Anything else Commissioners? Any other comments Mr. Arnold? You’ll
still be able to come up for any final comments. Do we have anyone else,
anyone here to testify on this application? Come forward if you do.
Couch: Hi, my name is Dave Couch. I live at 395 East Ustick Road, the property
to the south. Chairman Borup, Commissioner Shreeve, Commissioner Norton,
the project was denied basically because they didn’t have the sewer service
completed so that they could hook into it. I still think that that’s the reason it still
should continue to be denied. At the City Council level, I believe there were
concessions for the zoning to be R-4. At least that’s what I thought I heard. I
thought they were actually conceding that they would go from R-8 to R-4 zoning
and there’s also the issue of the future office lots. Now those future office lots
are not allowed in the Comp Plan. The 93 Comp Plan does not allow that. It
continues to be advertised in the notice that’s sent out and in the agenda. It just
continues to be there in the forefront. There’s an Idaho State Supreme Court
Case Price vs. Payette County. It’s a Supreme Court Case it’s not allowed. If
you’re going to have an office use then you have to change the Comp Plan and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 35
granted the new Comp Plan will allow that use but I haven’t seen that that’s been
passed yet. That use can’t be allowed – future office use. You can’t zone a
future use based on a Comp Plan so I just don’t understand how we get passed
that issue.
Borup: Would you like an explanation on that or do you want to finish your
remarks? Go ahead we can explain that a little bit.
Couch: Okay. Let’s see there was the – I didn’t have the opportunity to see all of
the exhibits that were shown there so I don’t know if he’s indeed moved the
entrance on the south side or not. Have you moved the entrance? The entrance
to the subdivision still is an issue with us on the south side. I believe that’s the
same copy that I got. It appears that there’s been no effort on their part to move
that road so that it could be on the buffer zone or whatever for Bedford Place. It
could be moved so that it doesn’t shine in everybody’s place. Also the neighbors
have two very small children that will be playing right out there in front of that
intersection. It’s just a very dangerous intersection. We would have to look as
we go out the driveway for traffic oncoming. They would have to look at us to
make sure that – you’ve got more points of conflict which is one of the things that
ACHD looks at. I guess I would just like to speak against it again. I think the
timing – what’s the hurry. It’s the same thing the City Council said. What’s the
hurry? Let’s wait until the trunk lines in and you can provide the services and
then we can make better planning decisions. That’s all I have to say. I would
like an explanation on the future office use.
Borup: Brad you could probably do a better job than I could on that.
Hawkins-Clark: It is dealt in the staff report – you’re welcome to get a copy of
that. Essentially the Planned Development Ordinance was passed since this
was previously denied. The Planned Development Ordinance allows office uses
in residential zones now. That was not –
Couch: -- does this replace the Comp Plan?
Hawkins-Clark: The Comprehensive Plan, you’re right has not been amended
formally. It does not need to be amended as long as a maximum of 20 percent of
a residential zone is used for non-residential uses. That’s the way that the new
Planned Development Ordinance reads. I’m familiar with the Supreme Court
Case you mentioned but in this case the rezone request is compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan. That’s the crooks of the issue, what are they rezoning it
to? They are rezoning it to a residential use which is what the Comp Plan calls
for. It so happens that they – this time now they have the Planned Development
Ordinance which allows non-residential uses in a residential zone. That’s the
reason that they can get this, this time. Last time they did not have that Planned
Development Ordinance in affect and it was also – they would have to rezone it
to a limited office. Now they would not have to rezone.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 36
Couch: Does this agree with the Comp Plan though? Doesn’t it – isn’t that – an
Ordinance supposed to agree with the Comp Plan? Doesn’t the Comp Plan
actually take priority over the Ordinance?
Hawkins-Clark: Well it’s a guide I think is the way that the Blaine County Case
came out and said that the Comp Plan is a guide. It’s a guide for the uses and
the zones. Typically I think they would say that as long as it’s a complimentary
use to a residential zone, to a residential use which the office would be. That it
would be –
Borup: -- so if the new Ordinance passed does not conflict with the Comp Plan,
the current Comp Plan.
Couch: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application?
Seeing none, Mr. Arnold do you have any final comments?
Arnold: I guess I will address the – for the record again, Steve Arnold. I’ll
address the issue at the entrance. We did say at the last hearing and at City
Council that we understand there’s residences on the south side. We didn’t
know exactly where our entrance lined up. The issue with street lines going into
–
Norton: -- headlights.
Arnold: -- or headlights I’m sorry – headlights going into the housed to the south.
At the last hearing I had stated that the southbound approach to Ustick was
offsetting from a house. I still believe that. I don’t have any survey data to
determine that and I guess I would be willing to work with Mr. Couch –
***End Of Side Two***
Norton: -- be changed and that you would work with the neighbors to do that
entrance where it wouldn’t interfere with I think it was his bedroom window. I
think he’s shaking his head – Mr. Couch is shaking his head that yes it was clear
that you said – that the developer said they would move that road. When I made
the statement because it looked like it had been moved you didn’t deny it the first
time.
Arnold: No I –
Norton: -- was it an oversight on your part perhaps?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 37
Arnold: Commissioner Borup, Commissioner Norton I apologize I didn’t address
– my main issues are again sewer and – that is something – when we re-
submitted the plat we addressed mainly the Conditional Use and not the design
of the plat. We’re aware that as we go through the approval process there’s a lot
of things that can change. Again, I have not had our survey crew go out there
and locate our proposed entrance in relationship to the house. If we have to
tweak it it’s going to be a matter of 20 some odd feet or narrowing down that –
we have not done that and I apologize for –
Borup: -- just for clarification, Mr. Couch your property is to east against Bedford
Place is that correct?
Couch: Yes, just the west of Bedford Place south of (inaudible).
Borup: Right, yes. That flag piece of property?
Couch: Yes there’s about six acres right in –
Borup: -- right here this is your property there?
Couch: There are two parcels in (inaudible) about six acres.
Arnold: Chairman Borup the parcel that the headlights could be hitting is the –
Borup: -- just the other part. That’s what I was – the exit from the subdivision
would hit that parcel there, the neighbor.
Couch: Right.
Borup: The entrance is across from his property.
Arnold: Chairman Borup – I’m sorry go ahead.
Borup: I shouldn’t let you – those are single – those are not two way streets it’s
got a divider and –
Arnold: -- that’s correct.
Borup: -- one way in, one way out. Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: Well I was just going to say I think ultimately your survey crew out
there didn’t know exactly where the entrance is and real space is what’s going to
be required. It looks like it may enter the house it may not but certainly I think
the point is, is if it does something could be done about it. If it doesn’t you know
– it would need to be actually field verified like you were saying.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 38
Arnold: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Shreeve, I guess that’s what we had
stated at the previous hearing. It’s coming back to me but when I looked at it we
had a letter from – I don’t think it was Mr. Couch it was another neighbor that was
here that it was her house that she was concerned about. She had the children.
I looked on an aerial and from the aerial I overlaid where our entrance was. It
looked like the outbound lane would not be affecting the house. Aerials are plus
or minus 10 feet. I don’t feel comfortable enough with the knowledge that I had
there to say that no, it didn’t affect. That’s why I wanted to get – when we get
down into the future design of it and for that matter the finalization of it the
entrance there we’ve got some flexibility. We’ll work with ACHD we can tweak it.
ACHD wanted it there because it met a minimum distance from the intersection
of Ustick and Meridian and it met the offset – there is an approach there on the
south side of the road that we also had to meet. I couldn’t move it further to the
east and I couldn’t move it further to the west but I do have a little bit of wiggle
room in there.
Borup: So they need an offset from the entrance into Bedford you’re saying?
Arnold: That’s correct.
Borup: Right now it appears that your divider is right on the property line pretty
much between the two properties. What’s the width of that entrance or the exit
road in that –
Arnold: -- the entrance road into our subdivision?
Borup: Well yes both the entrance and the exit.
Arnold: Generally speaking they’re 20 feet wide. The 20 feet on the inbound
and 20 feet on the outbound.
Borup: So it looks like that exit road would go – would be along the 20 feet of the
property there. It looks like your divider is right on the property line.
Arnold: Chairman Borup, myself looking at it I thought –
Borup: -- well I mean I’m just looking at this plat here so that might help you see
what we’re looking at. That shows the parcels across the street so –
Arnold: -- that’s correct and –
Borup: -- I guess what I’m thinking here is if he’s going to say so far from
Meridian Road and so far from the Bedford entrance probably putting it right
between the property lines is better than in the middle of a property. You’re
saying you’ve got a little bit of room but moving it either way is going to be
probably a worse problem than where it’s at right now.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 39
Arnold: We essentially get into offsets and problems with traffic trying to share
the center turn lane.
Borup: Any other questions. Commission any final comment?
Arnold: I apologize for not addressing the entrance issue in the get go. My main
focus here tonight was our sewer again.
Borup: Thank you. Real quickly.
Couch: Briggs Engineering had their survey crew come out and set the lath. I
took pictures of them but I didn’t bring the pictures with me. It was surveyed.
You could see how the entrance was going to line up so he needs to check with
his survey crew –
Borup: -- was this fairly accurate then?
Couch: Pretty accurate, yes.
Borup: That the road divided was right on the property line between yours and
the other properties?
Couch: What they staked was the outside of the entrance. They didn’t stake the
interior island and where it makes a curve they had a straight line. They had
basically six stakes set out there.
Norton: Mr. Couch how do you feel about the entrance?
Couch: It needs to be moved to the east.
Norton: How far?
Couch: Far enough so the headlights shine into Bedford’s Place’ landscape
berm and then it’s not an issue anymore. That’s a fenced landscape berm. That
makes a total safe entrance.
Norton: How far to the east five feet?
Borup: What’s the width of your property that would help?
Couch: Well on the scale of this plat it looks like it needs to be moved –
Borup: -- do you know what the width of your property is?
Couch: Yes at least past the width of the property.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 40
Borup: Do you know how far that is?
Couch: No I don’t.
Borup: You don’t know how wide your lot is your property I mean?
Couch: No and I’m a surveyor that’s bad isn’t it?
Norton: It looks like it’s one lot actually. If you look here. Does anybody recall –
Hawkins-Clark: -- excuse me Commissioner it appears to be about 140 feet.
Norton: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: To move the outbound lane to the point where it would 100
percent of that outbound lane would be shining into the Bedford Place berm.
Norton: So it would shine into the berm rather than somebody else’s window?
Hawkins-Clark: I do not know the height of that but I think Mr. Couch said there
is a fence so if –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commissioner members)
Shreeve: -- issue of ACHD’s offset.
Borup: And that distance is how much do we know?
Norton: Exactly because I have the report right here but I hadn’t found that
particular paragraph.
Borup: Well that’s just a policy that’s not pertaining to here that’s just their policy.
Shreeve: Their standard policy. Do you remember what that is?
Arnold: The driveway offset’s (inaudible). I shouldn’t speak. (Inaudible). I could
address if you would like.
Shreeve: I guess while you’re walking up what the question is, is whatever that
offset is you don’t have 120 feet room to play with?
Borup: Well you’ve got about 400 – it looks to me like Bedford’s probably at least
400 feet from that entrance to Mr. Couch’s property is my rough guess looking at
the plat. There’s probably about 400 feet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 41
Arnold: I think we could move it a certain amount to the east and still meet the
offset. I’m familiar with their policies I used to work for ACHD but I shouldn’t
speak on their behalf anymore. Again, my concern is if we start moving it to the
east then we’re shining in someone else’s. I would like to just coordinate a
location with Mr. Couch and perhaps the other neighbor on the south side. In
regards to the staking and surveying I’m slightly embarrassed. I didn’t know
about it but I guess my excuse is, besides ignorance, is that I got this project in
February after it was originally submitted in September. I guess I would like to
leave it again with the previous recommendations from the Commission and just
have us work out some minor modifications. If headlights are the main issue I
don’t think that safety should be a consideration there. Intersections generally
(inaudible) a level of expectation about turning movements and generally slow
some traffic. Again, there’s – I believe there are alternatives that we can work
out with it and it’s approximate location.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners?
Shreeve: Well even with that said I think Mr. Arnold is right on track. Sewer is
still the big issue. I think that that’s going to be governing what we do with this
subdivision. I’m probably leaning towards the city in the standpoint of just there’s
no rush, the capacity’s not out there so why approve something when if it’s not
out there even if there is hold harmless. They can always come back when the
sewer’s out there and proceed at that point.
Borup: I guess my comment and I think the same was said before is for quite a
few years now this is where the city says it wants a C development in growth. It
wants it contiguous to the existing city limits. It wants to work from the center
out. The White Trunk Line we’ve been told for years is the next trunk line going
in so for some reason (inaudible) well the developers are believing what the city
is saying so they come and try to develop something within those guidelines and
we keep telling them no. I’m not sure what they’re supposed to do but either way
it’s not going to happen – either way it’s not going to happen until the sewer is
there. If this process takes like last time five months or more – five or six months
to get through they wait until the sewer is there and then they come back and it
does add another six months to the project. Where as if it’s approved or ready to
go or more. I guess if they want to take the gamble and start some of the
development without a trunk line they could even do that which should be a little
risky. I think it’s not just a matter of waiting it’s a matter of putting the project out
six months to a year possibly from what (inaudible).
Shreeve: And Brad Watson the time frame – I guess even though you’ve given a
time frame that’s still – if everything goes well.
Watson: Commissioner Shreeve, Chairman Borup, we have a schedule we’ve
given Keller and Associates our consultant and that schedule involved
commencement of construction the middle of October with final completion
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 42
March, April next spring. That was contingent upon – there are 10 separate
property owner easements that we need. To date we have three and two of
those are wanting to change that alignment. Essentially we have one of ten.
The deadline that I have given them for getting these easements to City Council
was August 8th
. To do that I would have had to have them today to get in the
packets and I’ve received zero as of 5:00 today. We have one minor easement
and to keep our schedule, we’ve gotten pretty clear direction from Council to get
this done one way or the other. Our Public Work’s Director, Gary Smith is
researching and meeting with attorneys on the condemnation procedures.
We’ve got our marching orders and it’s going to get done –
Norton: -- by March?
Watson: I don’t know how long the condemnation process takes.
Norton: My thoughts are the sewer is on a hold right now. Cedar Springs is
going to come back to us it sounds like. Is that correct? I’m disappointed
because I thought it was clear that we asked for the entrance to move and it had
not. We have photographs of the engineering people actually laying out the
entrance. The entrance is a minor thing but you take people at their word that
they’re going to do what they said they were going to do and it has not been
done. I see no urgent need to pass this forward at all, maybe continue it or put it
on hold until we know more about when we’re going to get this sewer system
through.
Borup: Do we have, Brad any approximate time when the Cedar Springs project
would be back before us?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup I spoke with Gary Lee of J-U-B Engineers I
believe about a week and a half ago. At that point they had not met with Park’s
Director, Tom Kuntz which was one of the meetings they were asked to have to
work out that whole parks street issue. He did not have an estimated date of
when they would get a revised Cedar Springs plat at that time.
Borup: And the reason I ask Commissioner Norton, it sounded like you were
leaning towards perhaps continuing this until the Cedar Springs project is also
before us?
Norton: Not – perhaps. I think the main thing is the sewer. Why rush something
through if we don’t know when the sewer is coming in. The city doesn’t want
pumping stations they will have no sewer. I would like to see that entrance
changed. I see no reason to rush it through. The big issue is when do we see
some movement on that sewer?
Shreeve: And I think I concur. I think when you talk about time delays that the
developer certainly – you know that’s a polite thing to consider. As we get the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 43
easements, as we get knowing that the construction – starting with the
construction just because the easements are obtained that it’s still going to take
the pipe several months to get put into place. I think at that point in time they
can come back and change the entrances, do some of those things we’ve talked
about tonight and still the developer may have a good time frame from the
standpoint of meeting the sewer. They have to at least get through the
easement issues and get that tied up because there is still a pretty lengthy
construction process to even put the sewer in. I think I concur with
Commissioner Norton of – well what do you do continue it or –
Norton: -- I don’t know.
Shreeve: -- deny it and then come back?
Borup: We haven’t closed the Public Hearing yet we could ask Mr. Arnold which
he would prefer. It looks like that’s the way it’s leaning.
Shreeve: Since he knows which way we’re leaning.
Arnold: I guess our preference would be to continue obviously and not do the
denial. I will meet with Mr. Couch and I will see to it that we stake it again. Is the
direction of the Commission to make a large shift or is the direction to shift the
roadway such that the headlights from the exiting traffic doesn’t effect the house?
I would like a little bit of direction there.
Norton: Well Mr. Couch was just saying if you shift it enough it will hit the berm
and a fence.
Borup: Which would be a large shift.
Arnold: It’s a significant shift and –
Norton: -- then maybe whatever Mr. Couch and his neighbor, that woman who
was here last time what they would agree.
Borup: Yes I mean if – and that may be. It looks to me like without shifting it
clear down into Bedford the location now is the best location for it.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: -- well and maybe we need some more information but looking at the plat
shifting a little is going to make it worse. Right now it’s –
Shreeve: -- I think you’re –
Borup: -- coming out between the houses –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 44
Shreeve: -- a lot –
Borup: -- if you shift it a little bit more you’re going to come right on the houses.
The only thing that’s going to prevent that is 160-foot shift or something.
Norton: Maybe we can continue and one of the stipulations is he comes back
with what he and the neighbors have worked out.
Borup: And more information on what ACHD is going to allow too. I guess that’s
the other factor.
Arnold: That’s going to be something I have to factor.
Borup: It’s got to comply with what they’re going to want too.
Shreeve: Assuming you could move 160 feet that’s probably the way you would
need to go. Otherwise it probably is in about the best place it could go.
Borup: Actually probably more than 160 because it’s the exit that that would be
effected.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Shreeve: -- if by some chance with the offset with ACHD that doesn’t work,
maybe get back with the neighbors and maybe entertain some thoughts of trees
or whatever.
Arnold: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Shreeve, what I’m expecting is I’ll go
out, not only I’ll have the entrance where we’ve got it proposed staked. I think
we’ll pick up some points on the south side of the roadway so that the
Commission here can see what their approving and what the shifts me. I’ll throw
out some options in that regards but again my concern is going – getting out of
ACHD’s requirements.
Shreeve: Well take a look at that and see what you can do.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I move to close the Public Hearing.
Shreeve: No, continue it.
Norton: Oh, we’re going to continue it. Mr. Chairman I move to continue this
Public Hearing on AZ 01-012, PP 01-015 and CUP 01-026 for two months to –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 45
Shreeve: October 4th
.
Norton: To the October 4, 2001 hearing.
Shreeve: Assuming we have easements in place which (inaudible) we should.
Norton: With recommendation – we would like to hear back regarding the
easements for the sewer, where we are on that and also the moving of the
entrance to the subdivision. See if it’s been worked out with the neighbors,
which direction that should move and how far.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. Any other discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Continued to October 4th
and I think that’s far enough out that we don’t
even have anything on the agendas.
Norton: Hopefully not.
Item 10. Public Hearing: PFP 01-002 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat of
4 building lots on 10.98 acres +/- in a proposed I-L zone for
proposed Presidential Subdivision by Dakota Company, Inc. –
southeast corner of East Presidential Drive and North Eagle Road:
Borup: Commission do you want to continue on or do you want a short break?
Okay, we have two more items. Item No. 10 is a Public Hearing PFP 01-002
request for Preliminary/Final Plat of 4 building lots on 10.98 acres in a proposed
I-L zone for Presidential Subdivision by Dakota Company Incorporated. I would
like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup. Like the previous application this
application was also before you however it was recommended for approval by
both you and Council. The reason you are seeing it again is they have
requested to increase the number of buildable lots from three to four. They were
previously approved for three. I’m sure you’re all familiar with this location.
Eagle Road and Presidential Drive along the north which serves the Crossroads
Residential Subdivision and the Family Center, Meridian Crossroads project up
here. Site photos, it is existing, vacant parcel there. They did not extend the
improvements for that first phase of the Meridian Crossroads project down. As
you can see there’s no landscaping and fencing against the subdivision at this
time. There’s the Pine Street extension looking east and the view to the south
from the property as it is. This is a combination application. They’re requesting
both a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat combined at the same time which they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 46
can do when there’s no public street dedications or when it’s four lots or less.
We have done a staff report for July 30th
and we asked that those be
incorporated in your motion. We have received a written response from Mr. John
Paulson of Dakota Company dated August 1st
and you should have that in your
packets. A couple of issues that I wanted to hit on that and Mr. Paulson’s
response on Page 2 he talks about –
Norton: -- excuse me Brad we don’t have the response.
Hawkins-Clark: We don’t?
Shreeve: Actually August 1st
yes I just found it. It might still be in your –
Borup: -- it came –
Norton: -- okay nevermind I’ll share.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: -- after Tuesday.
Hawkins-Clark: So we’re good to go?
Norton: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Here’s the area that we’re talking about on Eagle Road. Over
here on the plat, as you can see they’ve called out an easement here for the
landscape buffer. Our Landscape Ordinance passed since this was previously
approved so we feel our job as staff is to basically point out what the ordinance
says and the ordinance says that for commercial subdivisions that landscape
buffers be placed on separate common lots so they are proposing to continue
with the way Phase one is in the Meridian Crossroads Shopping Center which it
sits in an easement. There continue – proposing just to continue that. This land
was a portion of the Conditional Use Permit that was approved in 99 so
essentially there is a little bit of a conflict there and that the approved Conditional
Use Permit says that there is a 20 foot landscape easement. We have an
Ordinance that said put it on a common lot. I guess frankly we don’t have the
staff any heartache with that if you choose to recommend that. They have
submitted three variance requests which as usual those go to the City Council on
the same meeting that if you – once you move this onto that body they would be
heard on the same night. I’ve touched on what those variance requests are in
the staff report. Most of the others, I think there’s agreements. Item No. 8 on
Page 2 of Mr. Paulson’s response does talk about the timing of the wall that is
here against this east boundary. Here are the residential lots along the east here
and there is a condition as in the other phases of Meridian Crossroads to
construct that six-foot, masonry, block wall. The reason that we recommended
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 47
that it be prior to issuance of Building Permits is that was a condition that the City
Council put on this last year when this was approved by them. We simply carried
over that condition that it be approved, that the wall be put up prior to issuance
not occupancy of the Building Permits. I think the only other issue is that No. 10
about the detached sidewalk. They’re proposing that it be attached per the
conditions of the Conditional Use Permit which would just be a continuation of
the way that it’s currently is. It would just match up. I’ll just leave it at that,
thanks.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Brad, haven’t we revisited that sidewalk thing before because it’s been a
straight sidewalk. As it is would just continue to be the straight sidewalk is that
right?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Norton: So how does the City feel about continuing the appearance of how it’s
been.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes in this case it’s – the ITD’s right-of-way I think that the
matching of the sidewalk is probably going to be most important. I think
probably you would need to look at the potential user load, the volume of
potential users on the sidewalk on those situations. I doubt that there’s much
use out there unless they do a ped bridge over Eagle Road. I think that probably
even though most of the time we would ask for a detach for safety reasons.
That’s the biggest issue. I think there’s certainly grounds to match it but I think
you can also – and in this case with the precedence being that the Conditional
Use Permit already is approved on the ground that says that I think there’s
certainly grounds for that to match it.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions of the Commission? Would the applicant like to
come forward.
Paulson: Chairman Borup, Commissioners I’m happy to be here before you. I’m
John Paulson with Dakota Company, 380 East Parkcenter Boulevard, suite 100
Boise, Idaho. As Brad stated this application is essentially the same application
that was approved a year ago with the exception that it’s now four lots rather
than three lots. A couple of the items that Brad brought up one regarding the
wall. I’m happy to report that the wall will be under construction next week. The
plans have been approved by staff. I guess I’ll entertain any questions that you
may have. All of the other items we are in agreement with, with the exception of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 48
the landscape areas where we are asking variances to agree with the existing,
overall concept of the shopping center.
Shreeve: Were those variances asked before is that right?
Paulson: Pardon?
Shreeve: Did the variances – they were asked before? The same variances?
Paulson: They were spelled out previously. It’s identified as variances now. It’s
going to a 20-foot buffer zone rather than a 35.
Borup: And the separate lot issue was addressed before. I think part of that was
the Landscaping Ordinance has gone in effect since the first phase of the
subdivision.
Shreeve: So it’s just a formality of cleaning up –
Borup: -- well this is what the City Ordinance says. Isn’t that correct –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: -- separate law but I think that probably the factor here would be that
they do have a Maintenance Agreement. That’s – who takes care of that
maintenance, that’s the –
Paulson: -- there is an overall maintenance (inaudible) area Maintenance
Agreement for the shopping center. That was spelled out in the application a
year ago also.
Borup: I think if I understand from past comments that’s a concern to the City. If
you have a lot of separate lots and separate owners, if different people are
maintaining different sections than you can have a problem but we’re one overall
maintenance company for the whole project that’s a little different.
Paulson: I think setting up separate – common lot is not uncommon for
residential development where you would need to add more landscaping in the
overall center. I think you’re well aware that the center is heavily landscaped.
We want to make a very good presentation and it is managed under a common
area Maintenance Agreement.
Borup: Just the three issues with the staff comment address that and they say
the walls are already taken care of so the last is just the sidewalk. I agree, a
detached sidewalk is much better and much safer for bicycles, pedestrians or
anything other than – I think Eagle Road’s (inaudible) pedestrian road though. Is
that the –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 49
Paulson: -- as was the response a year ago we would also propose to you a
seven-foot sidewalk.
Borup: So you’ll do a seven-foot sidewalk?
Paulson: Correct.
Norton: Which is what the existing sidewalk is isn’t it?
Paulson: I believe it is, yes.
Norton: Okay so what are you –
Borup: That increases the safety factor.
Norton: That continuing not a detached (inaudible).
Borup: Yes I guess I would much rather see a detached but it makes sense in
this to continue with what’s already there.
Norton: So eliminate staff comment No. 10?
Borup: I think staff said they didn’t have a real problem with that either way just
to be consistent. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners?
Paulson: I did notice and I’ll give you a clarification. In the response that I
issued under general comments, it says Items 1 through 1 in the agreement.
That should be 1 –11 in the agreement. We (inaudible). Item 10 I did add an
attachment for the Street Name Committee’s approval.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Paulson.
Paulson: You’re quite welcome thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application?
Reid: My name is Terry Reid I live at 3591 East Presidential in the Crossroads
Subdivision. I am currently the Secretary of the Homeowners Association. As
far as I know we do like this thing that is going in as long as they do follow the
rules that were accepted for the other side which was the concrete, cinder block
wall which he’s going to do. Then we didn’t want any trucks running in there in
the back at night or cleaning the parking lot at night. That would make a
disturbance for the people who live along the five or six houses along where the
wall’s going to be built. As far as I know I’m the only one here tonight. We do
approve what – it’s better than what could go in.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 50
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Reid?
Reid: Thank you.
Borup: Was that – Mr. Paulson or maybe Brad would know that, the agreement
on the previous – as far as some of those things was that in the Development
Agreement or how was that handled do you remember?
Paulson: Conditional Use Permit (inaudible).
Borup: That was all a (inaudible) application –
Hawkins-Clark: -- conditional use right.
Borup: Okay so the same wording would be on this just as any other right?
Hawkins-Clark: Right it runs with the land (inaudible) hours of trucks.
Borup: All right was there anyone else here on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I would like to close the Public Hearing for PFP 01-002.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: I would like to recommend approval of PFP 01-002 request for
Preliminary/Final Plat of 4 building lots on 10.98 acres plus or minus in a
proposed I-L zone for proposed Presidential Subdivision by Dakota Company,
Incorporated with all staff comments included on that except on Item No. 10 that
the detached sidewalk is not required and with all other comments and
conditions from staff.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 51
Norton: I just want clarification before I second it. Regarding two and three on
Page 2 of July 30th
comments they’re getting variances for those. Brad, aren’t
they getting variances for those two so do we need to eliminate two and three of
your staff comments?
Hawkins-Clark: Not technically. The variance would override –
Norton: -- take care of this –
Hawkins-Clark: -- would override these.
Norton: So we could wholeheartedly agree with the variances that they want to
set through?
Hawkins-Clark: If you wanted to include that in your recommendation sure.
Norton: Okay do you want to include that?
Shreeve: Yes we need to include that. As stated.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Thank you.
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 01-025 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Day Care Center for approximately 100 children in a C-
G zone for The Learning Garden Day Care Center by ShanaLee
Slade – 1230 West Overland Road:
Borup: Item No. 11 is a Public Hearing, Conditional Use Permit 01-025 request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Day Care Center for approximately 100
children in a C-G zone for The Learning Garden Day Care Center from
ShanaLee Slade. I would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff
report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup. I’ll do my best to do a little bit of
summary. This is a very complicated history on this and I don’t know that you’re
really interested in a lot of that. Our staff report if you read that you can kind of
get a picture for it.
Borup: I remember the storage thing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 52
Hawkins-Clark: Storage right. Dave McKinnon’s staff report dated July 26th
does
go into some of that. Essentially they have not recorded the subdivision. It
sounds like there is some question as to how the owner wants to proceed with
the majority of the parcel. What I’ve outlined here on the screen is the full parcel
that was annexed, that does have a recorded Development Agreement and the
Preliminary Plat was approved for this entire piece. What’s hanging out there is
that there’s their Final Plat has not been recorded on it. Technically, it is right
now – exists as one single parcel. This is Nine Mile Drain here that courses
along on the east boundary. The application before you tonight is basically
asking to pull a one time Building Permit for this large single piece as it is now
currently down here in this southeast corner. This vicinity map reflects some of
the zoning adjacent to it. It is Ada County still here on the east side of the Nine
Mile R-4 zoning to the south and L-O here to the west. These are photos
actually taken when the Overland Mini Storage application came before you. On
the ground the only difference I think they did begin to lay some foundation work
or some other paths for if you would drive you would see that those aren’t
reflected in these photos. It is a 5,423 square-foot commercial day care building
proposing to accommodate up to 94 children. Again this is that very southeast
portion of the parcel that they’re proposing to build on here and improve. One
single entrance off of Overland here more or less in the center of their parcel as
you enter then you have the 35 feet of landscaping on Overland which was a
part of the Development Agreement. Any change that is – if you do recommend
approval tonight this Conditional Use Permit will essentially modify the existing
Conditional Use Permit and it would need to be an addendum to the
Development Agreement which our Legal Department would basically just draw
up what that is. An addendum, a change to the Development Agreement that
would reflect essentially the conditions of this conditional use. On the site plan
itself I don’t think that there really are any issues we, to my knowledge did not
get a written response back to the staff report dated July 26th
. I think the only
change that Dave’s staff report asked for is No. 1 on Page 4 that no trees can be
planted. This is quite a large sewer easement here along the east boundary I
think it’s like 40 or 45 feet. You may have in your packets a plan that shows
trees planted here along this eastern boundary and those would have to be
shrubs and other – grass and landscaping. This tree and the frontage would
also have to be shifted outside of the sewer easement or removed. That’s what
No. 1 is. I think we just basically had others pretty much standard conditions and
comments on the rest of this application, the staff report. The Water Department
did submit a comment that they suggest that you may want to wait until the new
well is up and going because of low flow in this area. ACHD did place the same
conditions as the Overland Mini Storage project on this. That’s the one thing that
stands out in my mind that’s not written in the staff report. The conditions that
are in the plat need to be carried to this project and that main thing would be do
they need to improve Overland Road the full distance of this parcel? They’re just
right now proposing this southeast portion here. The plat that was approved, the
Preliminary Plat was approved and the Final Plat was approved and runs in the
Development Agreement that they – upon development these frontage
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 53
improvements would be made. Does the Commission want to require the full
frontage to be improved now that this piece is going to be developed or do you
want to essentially put on hold that the balance of this frontage. ACHD, we need
some comments from that and maybe the applicants can clarify that. If they are
– since they put the same requirements on this piece as the Overland Mini
Storage that included two entrances that need to be improved as well as the
course of the sidewalk along Overland Road. I don’t really have an answer to
those two questions at this point. Might I throw that out?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Brad, a couple of questions is the Nine Mile Drain open? Is the Nine
Mile Drain opened?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes it is.
Norton: Are there fences so the children won’t wander over to the Nine Mile
Drain?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes I believe they have proposed that all the perimeter be
fenced.
Norton: Then my next question is regarding the trash. The Sanitation
Department is concerned of the location of the trash that the trash trucks would
be backing into the play area.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. It’s currently shown to be up here –
***End Of Side Three***
Hawkins-Clark: -- so they would be forced to back in here. This is the play area
here and this is a play area here. We do have an Ordinance that requires trash
enclosures to be screened on three sides which would be this side, this side and
this side so they’re – I think it’s a good concern. It certainly may be able to be
taken care of with effective fencing or some other method of keeping –
Norton: -- keeping kids out of that area –
Hawkins-Clark: -- keeping the kids out of the area yes.
Borup: I didn’t understand that they were concerned – the play area is fenced so
the trucks would not be backing into the play area. I think their concern was they
would have to back down that whole parking lot. There was no turn around
down there for them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 54
Hawkins-Clark: Right. The layout is – this is shown to be a drop off area here
and I don’t think with this turning radius you’re going to be able to get – your
mind, your eyes sort of immediately think that maybe this is the place for the
trash enclosure but –
Borup: -- it’s right here isn’t it?
Hawkins-Clark: Well but for an alternative place.
Borup: Oh I see what you’re saying. I think their concern was that they’re going
to have to pull in here and back down this whole way.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Norton: Well where is their play area enclosed –
Borup: -- well this whole area here is all –
Hawkins-Clark: -- sort of a dashed dotted line here.
Norton: And it goes right – oh I see on the other side of the trash and it goes
there.
Borup: It’s this play area back here too.
Norton: Yes so how’s the trash truck getting in there?
Borup: Down the parking lot here.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: He’s concerned that he has to back down into there.
Norton: I see.
Borup: And I guess they’re afraid 25 feet is not enough to back a truck I don’t
know.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: A trailer is a different matter. Any other questions from staff? Would the
applicant like to come forward? Somebody choose.
Toolson: Chairman, Commissioners of the Board I’m representing the owner
tonight. My name is Greg Toolson with JGT Architecture 1212 12th
Avenue
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 55
South Nampa. Essentially we have read through the staff report and we are in
agreement with the recommendations and would be happy to stand for any
questions or comments at this point.
Shreeve: Well does that include the improvements on Overland?
Toolson: Well what we would like to suggest there is what was originally
suggested in the original plat by ACHD that the remainder of the improvements
be bonded. We would just be improving the portion in front of our property.
Shreeve: But you would put up the assurance or the bond to ACHD and have
them improve it when they’re ready?
Toolson: Right.
Borup: Did you discuss with them when they were projecting the widening of
Overland Road?
Toolson: I don’t know that. Maybe I can – somebody else here with us can --
Borup: -- it’s been discussed here before I can’t remember it either.
Hawkins-Clark: I believe it’s 2003 for this portion and 2004 from Locust to Eagle.
Borup: What I was just thinking that bonding probably makes sense when
they’re going to be improving it that soon rather than going in and doing some
temporary stuff that’s going to have to –
Shreeve: -- (inaudible) all done in one shot.
Toolson: As far as the trash enclosure issue if that becomes a real issue that
they can’t deal with I know that we can design around that and it will be
concealed on three sides with a gate and it will blend in nicely. I’m sure we can
make it work for them.
Norton: I’m sorry I didn’t catch your name.
Toolson: Greg.
Norton: Greg.
Toolson: Toolson.
Norton: What are the hours of operations for this day care center?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 56
Toolson: To the best of my knowledge it’s like 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 at
night. I’m sorry yes maybe I should let –
Norton: -- that would be good.
Toolson: -- I don’t know for sure. Seven to ten?
Norton: I have some more child care issues so perhaps maybe the other
gentlemen might want to come up for what I have.
Winberry: My name is Jeff Winberry, the brother-in-law of Shana Lee Slade. I
hope that I can answer your questions. She’s at the Oregon Coast so I’m kind of
here in here (inaudible).
Norton: I’m sorry, who’s the owner?
Winberry: Shana Lee Slade is who is going to be running the day care.
Norton: And did she just put in another day care recently?
Winberry: No.
Norton: She hasn’t come before us at all?
Winberry: No.
Norton: What are the hours of operation?
Winberry: I believe they’re from 6:00 to 10:00.
Norton: Now it’s 6:00 to 10:00 and not 7:00 to 10:00?
Winberry: Yes I don’t believe it starts at 7:00 I believe it’s from 6:00 to 10:00.
Norton: Five days a week or – five days a week?
Winberry: That I don’t know. My guess is this phone’s going to ring any second
with her on it.
Norton: Do you know what the child adult ratio is going to be?
Winberry: That I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s – I know that she has already had
an agreement made with the St. Luke’s that they’ve already pre-approved as 75
children that they’re going to have at the day care. So it’s within whatever ratio
that St. Luke’s was looking for, for their children for their employees.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 57
Norton: St. Luke’s on Eagle Road?
Winberry: Yes ma’am.
Norton: Is for their employees?
Winberry: Yes.
Norton: Only, or is this open to the public?
Winberry: It’s both. St. Luke’s is – it holds 94 children but they’re going to be in
split shifts in a sense because it’s going to be open for such a long time. St.
Luke’s is going to have some of their children from the morning and some of their
children from the evening. The rest of it would be coming from the community.
Norton: Do you know if your sister-in-law is involved in Treasure Valley
Association for the education of young children?
Winberry: I don’t believe so. Not at this point.
Norton: It’s a very good organization that day care operators are in that really
cares for the safety of the children.
Winberry: It’s very likely that she will be then. She’s very up on everything that’s
going on I know that.
Norton: Has she had child care before?
Winberry: She’s currently running a childcare out of her home.
Norton: In Boise or Meridian?
Winberry: In Meridian.
Norton: I see and how many children does she have?
Winberry: I believe she has 11, 10 or 11.
Norton: Thank you.
Winberry: Thank you.
Borup: Okay any other questions from any other Commissioners?
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 58
Winberry: The hours of operation because of the hospital is going to be a 365-
day a year operation. I don’t believe that the hours are going to be any longer
than that but they will be open every day.
Norton: And that’s open to the public also?
Winberry: Yes ma’am.
Norton: Okay. Thanks.
Borup: Does it sound like, Brad from staff’s situation that the improvement on
Overland was one of the comments sound like a bonding make sense as far as
the City’s concerned?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes Chairman Borup that doesn’t necessarily speak to the
landscaping issue which would behind right-of-way. Again it was not addressed
in the staff report so if you’re so inclined to not raise it as a condition than you
don’t need to change anything other than just accepting the conditions as they’re
stated.
Borup: And how would that be handled on future development? Like you said
this plat has not been filed.
Hawkins-Clark: Well it’s not been recorded.
Borup: Or recorded.
Hawkins-Clark: Right it has been approved.
Borup: So once they start development if they go ahead with Mini Storage on
the back part of the property which – wasn’t that what the original plat showed
anyway? It showed commercial use on Overland and the storage in back?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: They just didn’t know what use on the front at that time?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Correct yes. It was opened. They were platted lots and
all zoned commercial-general but they did not know the specific uses.
Borup: Commissioners any thought on that, on the landscaping aspect of it?
Norton: What number?
Borup: Well it wasn’t in the staff report. That’s what –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 59
Norton: -- you mean we (inaudible) trees?
Borup: No not on that just on the – they’re going to be doing their improvements
just in front of this project. The original project that was approved talked about
landscaping on the whole length of the property. The application for us is just on
the one lot. They’re not proposing – it looks like lot 4 is what we’re looking at on
the proposed Preliminary Plat. They’re talking about landscaping in front of lot 4
is that correct? Just lot 4 is what you’re proposing landscaping in front of –
Norton: -- is it the same owner of (inaudible)?
Borup: Lot 4 is that being sold to – for the daycare center or is it the same
ownership. Maybe you can clarify that.
Bledsoe: I’ll do the best I can. My name is Mike Bledsoe I live at 1322 Torey
Lane in Nampa. I’m one of the owners of the property. The ownership of the
property is not changing it’s just a lease situation.
Borup: Okay so any comment on why the plat was never recorded?
Bledsoe: Yes. We were going to go ahead and record the plat but when Shana
came to this we felt like this was an issue that we needed to get put together as
soon as we could. We were quite sure what we were going to do with the
storage project at that point so we were just kind of going to wait, get her lined
out and then take it from there.
Borup: So you may not be doing storage there after all you’re saying?
Bledsoe: I think we’ll be doing storage from there but there’s always that
possibility we might not.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Thank you.
Norton: What’s the City recommendation on this?
Borup: On which?
Norton: On landscaping the whole thing or just block one?
Hawkins-Clark: We had required last year in a similar situation on Franklin
Road. Interstate Battery is currently constructed. It was the one lot of about four
or five. We conditioned that they improve the full Franklin Road frontage.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 60
Borup: Was that in the same proportion? This lot is about maybe a third of the
total property so that –
Hawkins-Clark: -- I think it was about the same proportion. I guess the issue of
Overland Road widening in two or three years is something to consider. I think
the – not knowing when the plat will be recorded it sounds like from Mr. Bledsoe
that there’s no reason not to or intend to but the Development Agreement says it
really applies to the whole piece of ground. I guess for us it’s a benefit to have it
done. Nothing on the landscaping should change. The Ordinance requires 35
feet of landscaping on entryway corridors so any future development shouldn’t
infringe on that since this Ordinance. It would be there not unlike the Family
Center that improved Eagle Road landscaping beyond where they were actually
building. There’s – so I guess from staff perspective looking at mainly the
Ordinance and giving a recommendation our feeling is that it’s a – the
Ordinance, the Development Agreement and the approved plat all require that it
would be in accordance with those adopted –
Borup: -- there was a Landscape Plan that was submitted on the previous
application?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. There’s an adopted Landscape Plan that was approved
with the Final Plat.
Borup: Maybe we need to get the applicant back up but I’m assuming the
current Landscape Plan that was submitted would be able to be put in,
developed, and then the road widening would not interfere with that?
Hawkins-Clark: Right it would be beyond the right-of-way –
Borup: -- it wouldn’t be disturbing it. It would – they would be able to put that in
and not have it disturbed when the roads widened.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: I guess they just need to be a little bit careful on what they do on the
edges.
Norton: So Brad, clarify that for me. When he records the plat that Landscape
Plan will be in affect?
Hawkins-Clark: Well the Landscape Plan is approved as a part of the Final Plat
approval process.
Norton: And didn’t we –
Hawkins-Clark: -- right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 61
Norton: -- we’ve already approved that?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Essentially we’ve stated –
Norton: -- so essentially we said they have to do the whole thing?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Before they do any development.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: That was what was approved originally.
Norton: Okay so we really don’t need to say anything more on this approval is
that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: It’s the timing of when it’s done because technically until they
record they don’t have to do it. It would have to be done, they would either have
to bond for it or build it.
Norton: What would be good wording tonight if we wanted to do the whole
thing? Before they start building the day care center?
Hawkins-Clark: I think prior to final occupancy on the building.
Norton: Prior, okay.
Borup: Okay do we have anyone else that has any final comments?
Commissioners? Which way?
Shreeve: I think it looks great.
Borup: I didn’t see any problem with what the project – the one minor thing was
the trash and that can be worked out with Sanitary Service so in my mind the
only question would be – they’ve already said they’re bonding for the road
improvement so that takes care of that. Really, the only question probably in my
mind is being the landscaping.
Shreeve: I think with the wording included that they landscape prior to
occupancy that’s a way to overcome that issue.
Borup: On the whole thing you’re saying? On the whole parcel?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 62
Shreeve: Yes.
Norton: I guess I’m disappointed that there isn’t more information regarding the
care of the children at the day care center. (Inaudible) day care center City of
Meridian does not have our day care licensing in affect at this point so we’re
depending on Ada County to police this area there. Their requirements are
pretty –
Borup: -- aren’t they still inspected by the Fire Department I mean by the –
Norton: -- yes the health and that sort of thing but the ratios are not as tight as
some of us would like to see and the ages of children to adults. I’m disappointed
that the person who is actually going to run this is not here to answer some
questions however, it’s nice to hear that maybe St. Luke’s trusts this person with
their employees children. I think the people that goes into is it Retriever that’s
the immediately street across from the day care? They would probably
appreciate the landscape all the way across. I don’t know if they would
appreciate people going in and out until 10 but that’s the way life is. I would tend
to approve this with the landscape going in across the entire parcel with
incorporating all of staff comments.
Shreeve: Do we need to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: Yes we didn’t do that yet.
Norton: Well then I was just doing my comments.
Borup: Okay those are good comments.
Norton: I’ll close the Public Hearing. I recommend we move to close the Public
Hearing.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion second to close the Public Hearing all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Norton: I move to approve CUP 01-052 –
Shreeve: -- 025.
Norton: 25, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a day care center for
approximately 100 children in a C-G zone for The Learning Garden Day Care
Center by ShanaLee Slade 1230 West Overland Road to incorporate all staff
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 63
comments on their letter dated July 26th
with the addition of the landscape –
would be across the entire parcel.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion second any other discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Thank you. That concludes the agenda for this evening. We do have –
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Borup: Do we have something from the City Council member that would like to
say something at this meeting? Before we adjourn or after we adjourn?
De Weerd: Whatever your pleasure is.
Shreeve: Let’s adjourn.
Borup: You want to adjourn? Do you want this off the record or on the record?
De Weerd: It doesn’t matter I just wanted to give you an update on the North
Corridor Planning.
Borup: Oh good I would be interested in that.
Norton: Keep it on the record.
Borup: In fact I did have a question on a previous application did that north
corridor get expanded clear down to Ustick Road? That was stated in a previous
application we had which was larger – is there a map in here with the
boundaries? No, we don’t get to know that kind of stuff.
De Weerd: The boundary is in there.
Borup: Yes it does go down to Ustick.
De Weerd: It has been expanded out to McDermott or recommended to expand
out to McDermott between Ustick and Chinden. This kind of gives you an idea
that we have met twice with the group that consists of developers, ACHD, Ada
County and us. Then there’s some various representatives from the School
District, a representative for commercial development so everyone’s sitting down
at the table and I believe that I have in there a list of the stakeholders. We have
developed a list for them to keep people informed and involved so that when this
does go for a public input that contact list will be included in that information. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 64
just wanted to bring this to your attention and let you know that they are
considering doing an overlay. This is kind of a result of some concerns that our
staff has had with the applications that have been going up in the North Corridor
and it was a result of the meeting between the developers and City Council that
this kind of an overlay and it would be part of the Comprehensive Plan. It would
be pursued. They have hired a consultant, Mike Wardle to facilitate the process
and pull all of this together. They’re working as you see in your packet there is
information from Smart Growth on specific area planning process and that came
out of the Treasure Valley’s future project so they are working closely with Idaho
Smart Growth as well. I don’t know it’s still at this point pretty vague as to the
amount of detail and where this is going to go. It’s a positive step in City
Council’s opinion that all of these people are coming together and trying to deal
with the infastructure concerns and issues in that area because until they’re dealt
with I just can’t see that too many applications would be approved until they
were. It seems unfair the first in or last in however it works out bear the grunt of
those infrastructure issues. We see this as a positive step and I just wanted to
make sure that you have this information and I don’t know if I can answer any
questions at this point. I will try to keep you informed.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: How many meeting has there been, two did you say?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: And do they have any type of timeframe?
De Weerd: The status report on the first two pages, or fist three pages is pretty
much the only information that we’ve had to date. We will be meeting again. I
have it in my PDA I didn’t write it down. We will be meeting again within the next
month to get an update from Mr. Wardle on where the process is. I will share
that information with you once I get it.
Shreeve: Any reason to have somebody from this Commission involved with this
just to attend the meetings or anything like that? Any thoughts on that?
De Weerd: I think if – I know how overburdened this Commission is already but I
don’t think it would be inappropriate.
Shreeve: Sally’s got lots of time.
Borup: I thought Keven was all (inaudible).
Shreeve: Actually I –
De Weerd: -- I thought you were going to be down under anyway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 65
Shreeve: Well I probably will be but actually I would be interested in these –
somewhat maybe not diving completely into it but staying (inaudible) of
somewhat.
De Weerd: If you would like to sit on it that would be fine. I can email you when
the next meeting is.
Shreeve: However, it sounds like the next meeting I will not be here for that.
De Weerd: Are you gone for a whole month?
Shreeve: Pretty close. I’m leaving next Wednesday and I’ll be gone till the 29th
.
De Weerd: Well I will still email you with the next meeting date and once you
return you can contact me and I’ll give you an update and tell you what comes
next. I will try to keep you all (inaudible).
Shreeve: Are those meetings usually during the day?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: Oh I wanted to clarify that.
De Weerd: It’s generally a Monday morning at 8:30 at Ada County Conference
Room.
Shreeve: Okay.
De Weerd: I also recently emailed you all to put together a list of topics or issues
you would like to have in an upcoming planning session with City Council.
Borup: How recently?
De Weerd: Yes very recently. Did you change your email address because
some Keith Borup is getting it?
Borup: I haven’t changed it in the last six months.
De Weerd: Well if you could just write it down for me and I’ll re-submit it out to
you. Sally got back to me and gave me some helpful input. The only input I got
from Commissioner Shreeve was he’s going down under and I won’t here from
him in a month. I am trying to get more Meridian specific training and if there’s
someone that we need to hire in to do it we wanted to make sure that we had
that in our budget forecast.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 66
Borup: What do you mean Meridian specific training?
De Weerd: Well you can go to a training done by AIC that talks about land use
or zoning laws but it’s not really specifics to Meridian.
Borup: Okay I understand.
De Weerd: So if there’s any ideas that you have or any voids you see that
training would be helpful just let us know.
Borup: You say you want that for the next workshop on what date?
De Weerd: Well no I would like that feedback as soon as possible so that we
can really structure these workshops to make good use of both your time and the
Council’s time.
Shreeve: Oh so this wouldn’t be extra meetings it would be just simply the
quarterly?
De Weerd: Exactly. The next one would be in October. Also, Brad what is –
there’s a workshop next weekend for next week on the 9th
. I don’t know if any of
you got any information on that. The Treasure Valley Partnership is putting it on
and it’s about strip mall development or something like that. I didn’t know if any
of you had time or were interested but –
Borup: -- I saw that as all day. How concerned is Meridian about that? We’ve
got Fairview that’s got the early stages but we’ve tried to – I think we’ve tried to
address some of that as those developments have come forward. We’ve made
sure they get cross access.
De Weerd: It’s definitely in your hands first so we can always blame it on you if it
doesn’t work.
Borup: But some of it – when you’ve got a property that’s so wide and it’s so
deep and it’s on Fairview what do you do?
De Weerd: Well you might find that out at this workshop.
Borup: That may be. What I’ve read from the workshop they’re talking about
revitalizing existing. Taking the old ones that have gone done hill –
De Weerd: -- hey Brad do you know if it was only existing that they be
addressing at that workshop?
Borup: Wasn’t that the impression you had is more revitalizing existing strip
malls?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 67
Hawkins-Clark: That was. (Inaudible) my impression was certainly (inaudible). I
think it was well there were two. There was a speaker Thursday night and I think
he was going to kind of focus on that aspect because he has experience with
that. I think Friday there was a couple (inaudible).
De Weerd: But I just wanted to let you know we do have budgets for you to
attend workshops if you have interest. Just don’t hesitate to sign up for those.
Shreeve: If there’s one down in Australia (inaudible)?
De Weerd: Yeah right. I have to go check it out first.
Borup: Commissioner Norton you (inaudible) on the 30th
of this month?
Norton: Yes August 30th
, are we meeting on August 30th
?
Borup: Isn’t’ that our Comp Plan date?
Norton: Oh, that’s our Comp Plan. We are meeting on August 30th
.
Borup: For some reason – well for some reason I don’t have it in my planner.
Norton: You better get it in there.
Borup: I knew that was the day.
Norton: Are you going to be back by August 30th
?
Borup: Yes he’s coming back the 29th
. Remember we moved it a whole month
just for you.
Shreeve: It wasn’t a whole month it was a whole week.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission members)
Norton: Are we finished with pretty much the business?
Borup: Let’s close the meeting.
Norton: I would like to close the Public Hearing – meeting.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 2, 2001
Pg. 68
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, TWO ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:58 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK