2001 02-15MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2001
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:02 p.m. on Thursday, February 15, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers,
Members Absent: Richard Hatcher.
Others Present: Tom Kuntz, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-
Clark, David Swartley, and Shelby Ugarriza.
Borup: We’d like to begin this evening’s session of Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission on February 1st
regular meeting
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
__X____ Sally Norton ___X___ Jerry Centers
__X____ Bill Nary ______ Richard Hatcher
___X___ Chairman Keith Borup
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 18, 2001, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting
Borup: First item will be the minutes of the January 18th
meeting. I assume
everyone’s had a chance to go over those minutes. Any questions, comments or
corrections? Do we have a motion?
Centers: I would make the motion that we approve the minutes as submitted
from the January 18th
.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. All those in favor of the motion say aye.
Norton: I wasn’t here, so I’m going to abstain.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from October 10, 2000: AZ
00-019 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres
to R-4 by J-U-B Engineering for proposed Cedar Springs
Subdivision – north of Ustick and west of Meridian Road
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 2
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 10, 2000: PP
00-018 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 326
building lots, 1 limited office lot, a 12-acre school lot and a
potential multi-family residential site on 99.83 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone by J-U-B Engineering for proposed
Cedar Springs Subdivision – north of Ustick and west of
Meridian Road
Borup: Okay. First new item is Item No. 4 on the agenda. The item would be
continued Public Hearing from October 10th
. Request for annexation and zoning
of 100.71 acres to R-4 by J-U-B Engineering for proposed Cedar Springs
Subdivision. I’d like to open this Public Hearing and start with the Staff report. I
guess we’ve got -- everyone here has received a revised report.
Norton: Mr. Chairman did you want to open both the Public Hearings on Cedar
Springs, No. 4 and No. 5?
Borup: Yes let’s go ahead and do that, both on the annexation and the
Preliminary Plat. Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, you should have the revised Staff
report, dated February 15, 2001 for Cedar Springs Subdivision revised. I’m
going to go through this briefly and point out the changes, the hot issues and
other such important matters. First of all, the locations, and the vicinity map on
the wall. The hashed area is the location of the proposed Cedar Springs
Subdivision. The blue area to the south is the City’s 56-acre park site. I also
have an aerial photo, which may help to get a better feel for the area. I’ll bring
this up -- the intersection in the lower right hand corner is the intersection of
Meridian Road running north/south, and Ustick running east/west. The City’s
park site is in this location right here. This white dot in the water tank. The
subdivision site is this land surrounding it. You can see it is pretty much
surrounded by farmland at this time. Go back to the presentation -- this is a site
photo taken on the ground on Meridian Road, looking due west. This grassy line
you can see here is the boundary between the park on the south and Cedar
Springs Subdivision on the north. You can see the water tower there. It gives
you some sense of current site conditions. This is the revised plat. Quick
summary of this, as compared to the original one, it reduces the total No. of
building lots from 333 to 268. The main difference being that this area in here
was originally platted with residential lots. It is now shown as an elementary
school site and potential future multi-family or commercial site. So, it does add
the school. It states that it increased the amount of open space from 5.82 to
6.21. That increase came from widening the street buffers. The street buffers, of
course, do not count towards the five-percent open space requirement, which I’ll
get to in a minute. The also added some micro-path connections within. If you
look at our annexation and zoning general requirements, or general comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 3
The original recommendation on this project was for denial. Primarily due to
three issues; one the lack of school facilities, two the lack of housing diversity
and three lack of sanitary sewer service. The first issue is now is obviously
addressed. There is now a school site on the property. The lack of housing
diversity is potentially addressed. Nothing is changed with the densities in the
north, but with the addition of a potential multi-family site, that would help
address that issue. Staff would not support commercial use on this lot. We
would support the multi-family use. We see that as a more compatible use with
the school and with the park. It gives a great open space amenity to a high-
density residential project. So we would support that use on that lot. Page 3,
annexation site-specific requirements. No. 2 talks about the open space
requirement. They submitted site data calculation showing 6.2 percent in open
space. It seems pretty clear that that includes the street buffers, which do not
count toward the required five-percent. We’ve asked that the applicant tonight
address the open space issue and confirm that even without those buffers, that
they are able to meet that five-percent requirement. All of the open space that is
provided is hashed in dark areas on the plat. I believe they are all storm water
detention facilities. Skipping to the Preliminary Plat site-specific requirements on
Page 6. Item No. 5, along the north portion of this property, Settler’s Irrigation
District appears to have an easement. It’s not clearly delineated on the plat
where the centerline of that ditch exists and if -- where the easements line
actually is. We ask that they address that tonight. No. 6, right below it, ACHD
has a requirement in their file report which you should have. That requires
Venable Lane, which is this main street coming into the project to be built to --
let’s see -- oh, this is Venable. Yes, sorry, this is the next one. On Venable,
which is this one, they have some conflicting reports. One for a 36-foot section
and one for a 40-foot section. We wanted the applicant to clarify that. The
bigger issue is this one that I was pointing to, which is Ashton lane, coming of
Meridian Road. ACHD is requiring that it have 64-feet of right-of-way from where
it meets Meridian Road to Greenwich Avenue, which is in this location. Currently
they are showing 64-feet only into this portion of the plat and then it narrows. If
that right-of-way were widened, it would create 13 lots that do not meet the
minimum 80-foot frontage. The next one is a modification of -- there’s a micro
path in this location right here. We’d like it to be shifted to be -- to provide
access to the school site for school children that will be in the subdivision. We
also are recommending an additional micropath be added in this location on the
plat. This is No. 9 on the Staff comments, so those children in this area will be
able to have quicker access to the school site by a more direct route. One final
issue with school children and access to the school is the crossing down here on
Ustick Road, which will be a five-lane road, eventually. The -- right now, ACHD is
not requiring any sort of crosswalk or signal at this location. No. 10, in the Staff
report asks the applicant to address this crossing to the Commission. No. 11,
which I’ll only mention briefly, is the issue of single-loaded street, adjacent to the
future City Park. City Park Staff feels strongly that this road should be a single-
loaded street on this side, butting up against the park. I’ll let Tom Kuntz from the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 4
Parks Department address that in more specificity. The final issue being the
sewer is also a major issue, and I’ll let Bruce Freckleton speak to that one.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, has the applicant received a copy of this letter from the
Parks Department?
(Inaudible)
Freckleton: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. With
regard to the issue of serviceability of sanitary sewer, I just want to give you an
update, rundown, on where we are in life. You may recall from the previous Staff
comments, we recommended denial of this application for three reasons.
Basically two of them were planning and zoning issues and the third was the
sewer issue. The current set of comments that you have in front of you does not
have a recommendation from Staff. I believe Steve, Planning and Zoning
Department; they have addressed the planning and zoning issues. However, the
sewer issue still is outstanding. So basically, I passed out to Shelby tonight, a
little critical path model of an estimated timeline for sewer. This is a best guess.
Then what I want to do is, I’ll talk about this and then, basically I want to present
a couple of different options that I would propose, maybe for the tail end. Do you
have that model in front of you?
Borup: Yes we do.
Freckleton: As you’re aware, there’s development on Ten Mile Road that the
White Trunk originates in. Well, it originates through out Treatment Plant, but it
has to make it through this development off of Ten Mile Road. An annexation
has been filed for annexation and zoning, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use
Permit. That application will be coming before this Commission on the fifteenth
of March. The application for -- then will make it before City Council, we hope,
according to this model roughly 30 days following, which would put it May 11th
.
Final Plat could be submitted 45 after, July 12, 2001. The issue that really the
sewer is hinging on is the ability to obtain easements through this parcel and get
sewer under construction. This model shows that the easements would be
obtained after Final Plat. I’m not sure if that is entirely accurate, but we have had
some discussion with Ms. Bocut about those easements and we may be able to
move that up a little bit, but on this model it shows it June 22nd
. Design on the
White Trunk, once easements are in place, is going to take roughly 90 days. Bid
the project, will take a day, and then there is a 120 day construction window. All
of that takes us out to June 4th
, 2002. So, like I said, some of that could be
moved up if we can get easements and get construction and design moving
forward.
Borup: Bruce, yes, I think you alluded to a question I had. Is it required for the
Final Plat before the easement can be conveyed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 5
Freckleton: No, it doesn’t.
Borup: So that could be done almost anytime as long as they had a legal
description?
Freckleton: As long as the property owner is comfortable, yes.
Borup: Yes that’s what I mean.
Freckleton: They could dedicate the easements, yes. So, basically, what I’m
going to propose to you is there are basically two options from our perspective.
Option one would be continue these items until after the March 15th
meeting of P
and Z on the application for Bridge Tower. At such time you will have ACHD
Staff reports, you’ll have -- they will have gone through tech review -- things will
be nailed down a little tighter on that development. Or, option No. 2, if you
recommend approval of this development to move forward, we would just
request that you include a statement that the approval should not be construed a
guarantee for sewer service at all, and that by proceeding forward, the developer
assumes all risk of non-serviceability and also that no other methods of sewer
service will be considered. So, he has expressed some desire to move forward
at his risk, so I just offer that up.
Borup: Anything else?
Freckleton: That’s all.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Kuntz: Pardon me?
Borup: You had a comment too?
Kuntz: Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you should have
received in your mailboxes a memo, dated February 14th
, from the Parks and
Recreation Commission and Staff. It’s in regards to Item No. 11, on Page 6, and
7 of the Planning and Zoning Department’s Staff reports. We have some of out
Parks and Recreation Commissioners here tonight. I know that Bruce McCoy
was elected to go through some of our comments and the other two
Commissioners may want to make some comments afterwards. Is this the
appropriate time to do this?
Borup: Are they making comments on behalf of the Parks Department?
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Borup: Yes, I think we can do that in a Staff report -- as part of the Staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 6
Kuntz: Okay, Bruce McCoy?
McCoy: Evening, Thanks for giving me an audience for a minute. I’ve been
requested on behalf of the Parks Department to speak --
Kuntz: Go ahead and repeat your name again, just for the record.
McCoy: Bruce McCoy, you want my address as well?
Kuntz: Yes.
McCoy: 2171 South Retriever Way.
Kuntz: Thank you.
McCoy: We feel very strongly on the Parks Commission, that this proposal of a
single-loaded street, houses on one side, facing the park, need to be put forth
and enforced by the Planning and Zoning. We prepared a list, which I’d like to
walk through a few minutes with you that back that up. Our goal, in planning the
parks -- and all the parks that Meridian will have. This is our largest undertaking
to date and will probably be one of the key focal parks in Meridian going forward,
is to have probably the finest park system of anywhere in Idaho. Toward that
end, we’ve looked at a lot of opportunities to have amenities to parks and the
single-loaded streets provides us with a lot of details that we think are important
to making this park a real presentable park and a park to be proud of for years to
come. First of all, to put a single-loaded street along this edge, where the
houses are, which is primarily what we are focussed on, it’s going to make the
park appear larger as you look at it -- as you approach it from the main streets,
by creating that open space around the edge of the park with the trees behind it.
That should add value to the subdivision so I think it would benefit the developer
to consider that very seriously, because that a nice look to the entrance of the
subdivision. It creates a buffer zone between the park and future homeowners.
Any time you have private land bordering public land, and you’ve got an area of
(inaudible) public use, you’re going to have conflicts. By creating a public street
between the homes and the park, you do great amounts to reduce the potential
for conflict there. Some of the things that will happen in that conflict zone, and,
we’ll say, a street will eliminate, or at least go a long way to help defer these
problems, is privacy. If you have home backing up to the park, you are going to
have people in that area up behind those homes. Those homes may not enjoy
having people looking over their back fence into their back yards. We, at the
Parks Commission, have heard a lot of things, to date, from parks that exist
where they have homes owners backing up to the park, where people complain,
in spite of the fact that they bought their home knowing full well that the park was
behind it. They don’t like the noise after hours; they don’t like the noise during
certain hours of the day. They don’t like the lights coming over the fence. You’ve
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 7
got an issue with trespassing. There’s a tendency, if you see someone into
somebody’s yard, some folks might want to go into other people’s yards. There’s
easy access from the public space into private space. Vandalism is a possibility
along those fence lines as well. You’ve got things open to the public that people
might be tempted to actually take advantage of. Light encroachment. Anytime
you’ve got a situation…we’ve focussed most of our activities up off the main
corner into that area, where the homes are going to be based. We’ve got the
balls fields and we’ve got the soccer fields. We will have some lighting. There
will be some evening games in the summer time. To date, we’ve had -- since I’ve
been on the Commission, we’ve had one complaint about lighting already in one
of our parks, and because of the fact lighting comes on at night and comes into
their backyard. Noise encroachment. People constantly complain from the
amount of noise that’s going to be. Since we’ve focussed the amount of activity
in that corner of the park away from the main drag, we’re going to have probably
the most focussed group of people in that area, with a lot of games going on.
There’s going to be quite a bit of noise. Having that street buffer is going to do a
lot to alleviate that. Damage of homes due to park use, there’s a potential that
homes backing up to the park, against those sports fields, with flying balls going
into people’s yards, soccer balls, baseballs, frisbees. There is potential, when
that happens that things might get damaged, that people might get injured.
Another nice advantage to having a road along the back of the park, is since
we’ve created that area to be most of where the activity’s going to take place, in
terms of team sports, currently the way the park is set up, we don’t have access
except across the grass from parking lots for handicapped individuals that want
to use that area. By having a road across the back we allow ourselves to have
handicap parking spaces along that road to allow people to have easy access to
that end of the fields. One of our main goals, in the Parks Commission, is to
provide easy access for all people who want to access public spaces. One of the
other advantages that come of our doing that, it eliminates the fencing and
privacy landscaping costs for the developer. If homes area going to back up
against the park, it has been the tendency of this Council to require that
developers put a standard fence along those public spaces, which is going to be
very costly for the developer. Another thing it’s going to do, is eliminate the cost
the developer has of maintain and building the public access-ways -- the two
walkways coming through the property line to the park will actually provide the
developer with only 40-feet of frontage they could put back into the development
if they’re able to recalculate their spaces. They would not have to have that. It
also eliminates hidden areas. Having people’s homes back up to the park and
having solid fences along there, our big concern is this area up here, where
you’ve got the outfield of the ball park, you’ve got a walking path, you’ve got a
green space. You want to eliminate any kind of hidden areas that make people
feel unsafe in that area. It also provides higher visibility towards it, then, for the
police. The police would like to have access to all corners of the park, in order to
patrol it effectively. In this case, if something is going on in that field…that corner
of the field, a police officer has no easy access to that corner of the field, except
to park his car on the residential street at the top and come through one of those
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 8
access ways, or park in one of the parking lots and come across the field. There
is no easy way to gain visibility or access to that corner of the field should there
be a problem there. Toward the end, you’ll see in the notes -- does everybody
have a copy of this Tom?
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
McCoy: We’ve attached a letter from the Chief of Police, asking his opinion. I
won’t go through that with you, you can read that on your own. He concurs with
our desires to have that road in the back, to have easier access for the police
officers. It also provides better access for emergency vehicles. The way the
park has been designed, with all of the ball fields and all of the soccer fields and
activity fields in that corner, that means that most of the activity is going to take
place there. The potential for injury, the potential for emergencies, is probably
greatest in that corner of the field. The Fire Department and the emergency
crews have a concern about getting access there. Currently, the way it is
designed, they would have to park on the residential streets, drag their gurneys
down the walkways, and across the grass, or park in the parking lots -- or better
yet, they’d end up driving through the park and disrupt everything else that’s
going on -- the activities -- and destroying some of the vegetation. They would
like to have access to back of the park as well. Their letter, which is included in
the memo, shows their concurrence with this desire. So, to close, I’d say it’s a
pretty compelling case we have here. We would like to establish with this park, a
precedence that goes forward with every park we develop down the road. That
we have this access-way so our parks will get greater use and actually be safer
places for enjoying activities.
Borup: Questions? Mr. McCoy?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure if Mr. McCoy or Mr. Kuntz is the appropriate
person to answer this but if this project wasn’t before us right now, asking to build
houses in the area north of the park, what we do for access to that area? Since
it’s just fields.
Kuntz: One thing I’d like to point out too, that I probably just glazed over here,
we realize on the Parks Commission that we are asking the developer to do a
whole redesign of their subdivision, or at lease a partial redesign. We also
realize that there’s cost incurred with that. One of the things we’d like to do is
provide the curbing and the street edge, and if need be, some parking in the park
space on that side, to eliminate some of the potential cost and some of the
potential conflict of people park on a residential street. So, what would we do if
there was no subdivision going in there, I believe at this point we haven’t actually
considered in the Parks Commission that there wouldn’t be a subdivision there,
but I think we would desire to have a road access along that side anyway,
wouldn’t we?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 9
Nary: And, I guess this is just for discussion purposes, Mr. Kuntz, but I mean the
developer could say, well, you could put a road in on your property. Why do you
want us to put the road in on our property?
Kuntz: Commissioner Nary, Chairman, the rest of the Commissioners, since the
developer is coming before this Commission asking for annexation we feel like
it’s reasonable to ask the developer to provide that road. To answer your
question, what would we do if there was no development planned at this point?
We would plan to have some kind of access through that back lot, either through
an easement, with the landowner. If that weren’t available we would certainly
have to look at other alternative ways of getting back to that area.
Nary: When the park was designed, wasn’t that anticipated? I guess, when I
read your letter here, the letter from Chief Gordon, and the letter from Chief
Bowers, wasn’t that anticipated when you designed the park, that they wouldn’t
have access to that back section to the park without a roadway?
Kuntz: No, sir.
Nary: So, after you made all those plans and designed those fields, is when the
Police Department and the Fire Department realized they couldn’t access the
back for emergency purposes?
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Nary: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Kuntz, when was this Preliminary Park Plan designed? It’s been
quite recent, hasn’t it?
Kuntz: Yes, it was done in the last four to five months.
Centers: When was the land acquired by the City?
Kuntz: Oh, I’m not exactly sure, but I’m sure it was at least five years ago.
Centers: When is it planned to be developed?
Kuntz: We’re starting Phase One of the development this summer.
Centers: I did some rough calculations and, plus or minus probably just a
quarter acre, but that’s asking the developer to give up four acres of land,
irregardless of the platted lots, which, of course are more valuable, and asking
the developer to pay half of the expense of the street.
Kuntz: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 10
Centers: That’s the proposal?
Kuntz: Yes, sir, yes.
Borup: Which land are they giving up?
Centers: Pardon?
Borup: What land are they giving up?
Kuntz: The 19 lots that border on the street.
Centers: The 19 lots.
Kuntz: And Commissioner Centers, we didn’t really want to offer this up tonight,
but we would certainly be willing to discuss the possibility of trading out those 19
lots, at predevelopment cost, in exchange for impact fees. That would be one
option, if the developer did not want to totally redesign the park.
Centers: Now, you’re making some headway in my mind.
Kuntz: And I think the reason we bring this to you, and I know it appears rather
late, but there were discussions, predevelopment meetings, where this issue was
discussed. The reason we feel like this is so essential is because of the size of
this park. The total size is 58 acres. It’s the first one of these Meridian, and we
want to really make sure we do it right the first time and not turn around in two
years and say, why wasn’t that north side of the park left open somehow.
Centers: Okay, let me say, regarding Bruce’s comments, I think I agree with 90
percent of them. When a park backs up to homes, I have it in a subdivision -- I
live in the same subdivision as you do, where the interior park and homes back
up to a park. I wouldn’t want to live there, but the homes do sell. The lots
probably for a lesser price, they end up selling them. It’s quite an expense for
the developer.
Kuntz: My understanding, that if you do it right, my experience has been with
communities I’ve lived in, when you single-loaded street, facing the park,
typically, those homes on that single-loaded street are of greater value because
of that access and because of the separation as well. You get the best of both
worlds, the access to the park but you don’t have to live in the park. That
generally brings a higher price for those homes.
Centers: Well that’s what you’re saying. If he has to give up 19 lots, he’s going
to tack that price on to the remaining lots and the people end up paying. That’s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 11
the bottom line. Somebody’s got to pay for that loss and its not going to be the
developer.
Nary: Mr. Kuntz, so I’m clear. This plan was developed, you said, about four or
five months ago?
Kuntz: It was completed five months ago.
Nary: September of 2000, approximately. Mr. Siddoway, when was this
application submitted? Do you have any information?
Siddoway: Our first hearing was October –
Nary: Right, so October 9th –
Siddoway: – so It would have been submitted a month and a half before that.
Nary: Was it submitted prior to this Final Plan being developed?
Kuntz: We didn’t have a final draft of it, but we knew what was going on. We
had a -- the master plan had been worked on months before that, but the final
draft we didn’t get until that timeline. The developer knew of our plans for the
park and, you know when we had the predevelopment meetings.
Nary: And was this discussion had with them at the time about having a roadway
there?
Kuntz: There’s a little bit of disagreement upon, was it discussed or not? I
certainly don’t want to split hairs with the developer. I know for a fact that in the
meeting I attended in November, we definitely discussed it, and their response at
that time was, we don’t want to give up the additional lots, which I can certainly
understand and empathize with. Again, it’s the size of this park, is the reason
we’re bringing this park to you. If it were a seven or eight acre neighborhood
park, we would not feel the say way we do now. I don’t know if any of the other
Commissioners want to speak tonight or not, but I’d like to let them have an
opportunity, if that’s all right.
Borup: Just if there was something that hasn’t been brought out already, I think.
Watkins: I’d like to (inaudible) -- Debbie Watkins, 525 West Washington. What
I’d like to say is just, in this last couple of three weeks we’ve been trying to
decide where in Meridian, to place a Skate Park. One of the formal issues of
that Skate Park was visibility, visibly, visibly. Can it been seen from all sides? Is
it going to be safe? Is there anybody that’s going to be in that Skate Park that’s
going to feel threatened because the visibility is not there? That’s one of the
biggest issues, in my opinion, is the visibility. This is not a neighborhood park
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 12
this is a community park. There won’t be any visibility on that entire backside, if
it’s loaded up with backyards of house and fences. For me, that’s a huge issue
for my children that are in a park or for myself as well. I’ve been in many parks.
I’ve lived in Omaha, Nebraska, where the parks are three times the size and
three times as many -- well eight times as many, and I have not visited parks for
that reason. Beautiful parks, but if they’re not safe for me to walk through, I’m
not going there. So to me, that is a huge issue that you folks need to be aware
of, when you make this decision, because that is the future. Our kids are in
those parks. So this is the biggest reason I can see that we want a street there,
for the visibility issue around the surroundings of the backside of that park.
Nary: Were you present at any of the meetings that this was discussed with the
developers?
Watkins: No I was not.
Nary: Because I don’t particularly disagree with what you’re saying, I guess the
issue comes out, who’s responsible for that?
Watkins: And I would say that that’s an honest answer and I would also say
that’s very reasonable.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Anything else Mr. Kuntz?
Kuntz: I don’t have anything else, but Mr. Siddoway has a comment.
Siddoway: Just one comment, maybe an option. One potential alternative along
the north side of a single-loaded street, it couldn’t -- the building permits couldn’t
happen under the current single-family residential Comp Plan. We would
support a higher density townhouse development along that north side which
could make up for the lost density and still provide the developer with the same
No. of unites, once the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted, which would
support higher density development around the park. So, that’s just an option I
would mention.
Borup: Any other questions, comments? The question I did have was -- I don’t
know if you addressed -- you mentioned the two future sites. That proposes L-O
zoning then? That was the only zoning that was mentioned. It talked about -- I
mean are we being asked -- pardon?
Kuntz: I believe the entire annexation is for R-4.
Borup: So how is that handled on those areas?
Centers: You have one separate lot.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 13
Kuntz: That lot cannot be zoned anything other than single-family residential
under the current Comprehensive Plan. So after the new Comprehensive Plan is
adopted, they could come back and request a rezone. That’s the only way we
could handle it at this point.
Borup: Okay, so that was the intent, on those parcels?
Kuntz: That’s correct.
Borup: The same applies to that parcel out front, in front of the school site?
Kuntz: Yes.
Borup: Excuse me, did the developer donate the school site, the 12 acres?
Kuntz: I believe they are selling it to the School District. I have not been in
conversations with that so I will let the developer address that.
Borup: Alright, is the applicant here who would like to make a presentation?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission thank you for hearing this
this evening. My name is Daren Fluke with J-U-B Engineers, 250 South
Beechwood in Boise representing the applicant in this matter.
Kuntz: I might just mention for the audience that the board we have here is the
same one we have on the screen.
Fluke: What I intend to do is go ahead and deal with the other issues that are in
the staff report, basically intern, and then we will take up the issue of the sewer
and the issue of the park for last. As I like to save the fun stuff for last. What I
want to do is prepare to hand out for you so you can follow along while we
discuss these various issues. A couple of exhibits attacked to the back of this
that I would like entered into the record as well. Basically, I am just going to
follow down Steve’s format in dealing with these issues. The first issue that
comes up would be on page 3 of your staff report that would be requirement No.
2, which is dealing with the 5 percent common open space within the
development. This development was designed in the spring and it was
submitted approximately in August sometime. We have been continued since
that time for a No. of reasons, the school, but most particularly the White Drain
and a couple of other issues. Most notably you will notice this issue of a single-
loaded road along the park was not one of the reasons that we had been
continued because that is a pretty recent issue, and we will talk about that in a
little bit. First though let’s talk about the 5 percent. I forget exactly when your
Ordinance was adopted, but as is noted in the staff report it was well after the
submittal of our application, and therefore our design did not take into account
any of the provisions of that Ordinance because it not exist at the time we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 14
submitted it. We are not opposed to complying the best that we can. Based on
our calculations total open space in the plat that you see there is 6.2 percent.
That includes some areas though, that your new Ordinance will not allow us to
count as open space including buffers along Meridian and Ustick Road, and then
the common lot that accommodates an irrigation easement on the northern
property line. So what that means is we end up with about 3.14 percent open
space that complies with the standards of your new Ordinance. We will fully
comply with the Ordinance as far as the design of these other open space areas
which the staff correctly notes are stormwater retention areas, but that will double
as open space in some cases usable open space. There are some fairly
significant areas in here as you can see. Those we will comply with one design,
and we will submit a Landscape Plan and do the best that we can. What I do
ask, however, is that you not hold us to the 5 percent simply because it was not
law at the time that we designed our subdivision, and it is really a basic matter of
fairness. If we were to comply with the 5 percent over the 100-acre total, we
would lose an additional 10 lots. Now what would we do if we lost 10 lots? Well,
we probably create a park space, which seems a little bit crazy to us being that
we have a 60-acre park on our southern border. So, I am just going to offer that
up for your consideration and logic would seem to dictate that we go ahead and
comply with what we have, but it does not seem to make a whole lot of sense to
provide some more significant open space when we have plenty of landscaping
as it is. Next issue would be a requirement No. 3, also on Page 2. This deals
with a 20-foot buffer on this lot right here off of Meridian. We have proposed R-4
zoning for the entirety of the sight because your existing Comprehensive Plan
under which we must be evaluated does not support anything else. So our
intention is – and that is why we called it out on the plat, we are not trying to hide
anything, but we cannot do it at the moment – to come back with an application
for L-O here and a more multi-family type designation here. These were things
that the staff wanted to see. We added them in even though we could not do
them at this time. What I would simply propose is that we deal with this buffer
issue when we come through for a Conditional Use Permit and rezone on that
parcel. Currently, it will be zoned R-4 and if we can never develop it as an L-O
site it will end up getting a house on it, or it will be platted with a couple of more
lots that will be residential and the buffer will not make any sense there anyway.
Quick comment on Condition No. 5, which is Page 4. They are asking for a
detached sidewalk on Meridian Road with a 5-foot planter strip in-between the
sidewalk and the roadway. We are not averse to doing this; I just simply want
you to recognize that we have to deal with the Highway District on that. We will
need to have a License Agreement with them to put landscaping within the right-
of-way, and they will want the sidewalk within the right-of-way. Or conversely if
we do not put the sidewalk in the right-of-way, we of course would like to put it in
our 35-foot landscape strip there along Meridian. We are willing to work with you
on that. I just ask that that condition be structured in such a way that it does not
box us into something where we cannot comply with the Highway District at the
same time as complying with your condition. Condition No. 6 deals with the
sewer and I want to deal with that last or second to last right before we deal with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 15
the park issue. We move on to Page 5, there is question on No. 3 there dealing
with irrigation. It is correct when we redrew the Plat; we neglected to get it on.
What we anticipate at this time is that we will get a pump structure in that area,
the northeast corner which is where the existing irrigation water comes from, and
that of course will be detailed when we get our irrigation plan in for you. As far
as No. 4 right below that, the pressurized irrigation system is proposed to be
owned and operated by Nampa Meridian. We are in the process of putting that
paper work together right now. No. 5, on the same page and on to the next page
deals with the easement along the northern property line for the settlers ditch.
Currently our northern property line that you see there is the centerline of the
ditch. We have 25 feet from that centerline back to the closest lot line. We do
propose to fence that northern boundary outside of that 25-foot easement. We
expect to deal with the Settlers Irrigation District on that. We have a verbal from
them as far as that scheme goes. Dealing with Venable Lane over here on the
western side of our project, is a residential collector. What our traffic study
showed, what ACHD is requiring, and I have attached an email from Kristy
Richardson to my colleague clarifying basically that the residential collector will
go to approximately that point right there which is the northern end of the school
site. That will be your 42-foot street section then it will be a 36 proceeding north
from there. So that is just a matter of clarification on that. Steve is right; this one
does appear to be more problematic. It appears that way but in actuality what
the traffic study showed was that we need a residential collector street to this
point right here. In the staff report, ACHD inadvertently put it to right here. We
are working with them right now to get a clarification of that, and we will deal with
that issue. The traffic study shows that we only have 1000 trips beyond this point
to Meridian Road, and so the collector just needs to come to Ashton Street right
there. With regard to this micropath right here leading to the park, we are going
to talk a lot more about parks, but we had a number of discussions with the
Parks Director about where to locate those paths. We changed our plat prior to
submitting the application a number of times based on what he was telling us.
So we went ahead and located it here. We are not particularly averse to
switching this, however, if you look at where it is located, it is a nice spot because
it provides access to both the park as well as the school site. It is right there on
the corner, and it works fine. If you feel strongly about it we can certainly move
it, but give the layout that we have seen for the park it seems to work fine. As far
as adding an additional micropath in this area right here, we think that is a fine
idea, and we will be happy to do that. You can go ahead and add that condition
in, and we will put that on our next redraw. With regard to this issue of a
crosswalk in this area as you see in my response, we agree with staff that
development of either the park or the school site could very well require that we
get a safer way for kids to cross. We are looking at approximately a half of a
mile from the intersection here over to our western property line. It is kind of
unrealistic to think that kids are going to walk a half of a mile down to a signal to
cross and then come back to the park or the school site. However, that
requirement would not be something that was precipitated by our application. It
would be from the school and or the park, and we would suggest that you look at
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 16
that issue when the Conditional Use Permit comes through for the school and
the park. That would probably make a lot of sense to get something there. I
would emphasis that our traffic study showed that we did not warrant the signal
at this location, and I would further note that we are being required by ACHD to
kick in $30,000 for the cost of putting a signal at the intersection of Meridian and
Ustick Road.
***END OF SIDE ONE***
Fluke: -- we are okay there. As far as the sewer issue goes, we have a
discussion there in the narrative that I gave you dealing with that issue. What
the Commission may or may not know was that the City Council held a workshop
this last Tuesday, and this was a topic of discussion that came up. At that time
the developer’s representative of the easements that you are waiting for, that
developer’s representative stated that the delay had not been that developer
trying to stall anybody else, but merely figuring out how he was going to lay out
his property. The easements got located in a logical place which makes good
sense. However, that layout has now been established and the developer’s
representative indicated that those easements would be forth coming perhaps
even before they got to Public Hearing on their Preliminary Plat before this body.
So that alignment seems to not be an issue. That basically gets you to Linder
Road at that point and from that point they have easements for the alignment
traveling east including through our development. We proposed to bring the
White Trunk rather than along our northern property line, we would drop it down
into the roadway here and bring it down as an 18-inch line. We basically have
verbal confirmation from Public Works that that is generally acceptable, so we
just have to work out those details. Given the fact that the White drain is a high
priority of the City Council and this body as well I assume. We have a real high
degree of confidence that that line is going to get built and be able to serve our
project. Therefore, we just ask that you go ahead and condition it however you
see fit as far as getting sewer service to this site. We would like to go ahead and
keep moving on so that we can get into design phases, and then begin
construction as soon as that is feasible after the City is able to get their line in.
We still have another Public Hearing before the City Council, and we just ask for
your approval or recommendation of approval on that, and we will go ahead and
start work on that so that we are ready when it happens. Okay, the park issues.
As you might be aware, we have a different take on this than the Parks
Department does, but maybe not necessarily for the reasons that you might
think. Redesign is one of the issues, however, and you touched on that. If you
look at the way our plat is laid out, we have got a tier of lots here that are 100-
foot in depth and then we have a roadway and then a double-tiered lot, which is
typically what you try to do. You do not want to have single-loaded roads
because the cost twice as much per lot, obviously. If we were to eliminate this,
lets just say for the sake of argument that we were amenable to having a single-
loaded road there even though we did not design it that way, and we thought that
was a great idea. Lets just say to make it easy on ourselves, we would just
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 17
eliminate these 19 or 20 lots and just throw them away and put the road down
there. We have still got a significant problem because we have 150 feet to deal
with, where roadways are only 50 feet in width, so I have this extra slop of 100
feet to somehow distribute to these other tiers of lots in the subdivision. If you
have ever tried to lay one of these things out, it is like plumbing, you touch one
thing and it messes up three other things. I can tell you that there is no easy way
that it will necessitate a total redesign of the northern portion of the development.
There is not an easy way to do it. We have looked at it, and I can guarantee you
that it will not be cheap, and it will not be easy for us to come up with a different
design not to mention the time we are going to lose because the layout will have
changed so significantly that you are going to have to hold another hearing on it.
So that is the first thing. The second thing is and this is a primary importance to
us. As the Parks Department has said this is a 60-acre park, this is a major park,
and it is meant to serve a regional area, a whole lot of people. If this were a 10-
acre park, we would not be having this discussion. We would design it as single-
load in a heartbeat because it would be an amenity to our subdivision and it
would add value to the lots that fronted on that; however, we are talking about a
half a dozen baseball diamonds, 8 or 10 soccer fields and lighting with those.
Putting a single-loaded road along the northern tier here would simply invite
people to drive into our development and park along the roadway because where
do you think the closest spot is to those fields that they have designed? They
are right here. What the Parks Department is basically telling you is that they
have laid out a poor design for their park, and now they want us to accommodate
that poor design by completely changing our layout. A regional park of this
magnitude would have an impact on this development far beyond that first tier of
lots. I can guarantee you that a 50 foot right-of-way, a 36 foot road section is not
going to have any significant buffering effect on noise, on lighting, or on anything
else that they claim will increase the value of our development. What we would
propose is, there are two options we think for dealing with their concerns and
basically getting what they want, one the Commission touched on would be for
them to simply put an internal road in their park which maybe they should have
thought about designing in the first place if it such a key item to have access to
that northern section of the park. The other idea which we think is novel and we
would be really willing to work with park on is for them to sell us 100 feet of land
across the bottom here, where we could put another strip of lots. Then they
could put a road right in front of that and we would accomplish the same thing.
Then we would not have to redesign our subdivision entirely. Of course, they
would have to redesign the park layout, and I image they might be feeling about
the same way as we feel about redesigning ours to do that. I do not know if that
layout has been adopted yet, but we did work with the park extensively before
we designed our application, and not until we had not only submitted our
application but also redesigned our sight two times, did this idea come up. Never
once did we get the opportunity to address the Parks Commission on this idea.
We talked with staff very informally, very off the cuff, and we never realized this
was such a significant issue really until the memo showed up on our fax machine
today. That was this morning and we did not get the memos from Police and Fire
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 18
until this afternoon at 2:30 pm. So guess what my afternoon consisted of? That
is all I have to say. I think we have designed a quality project here. I think this is
exactly what the City is looking for when the Comprehensive Plan designates as
single-family residential. We have complied with all Ordinances as well as the
plan, and we just ask that you forward this on with the recommendation of
approval.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission for Mr. Fluke? Commissioner
Norton.
Norton: Mr. Fluke, we did have a workshop with City Council about 3 weeks ago
regarding the single-loaded roads and that was the first time that I had heard that
single-loaded roads were important for parks. They did have a Commission and
had quite a nice presentation from the Parks and Recreation Commission. We
understand that this has been continued, that Cedar Springs Subdivision has
been continued since October 10, 2000 and we are now at February 15, 2001.
My question to you is about the school site. Did you donate the land to the
School District for the school site?
Fluke: No that is a 12-acre site. We are selling it at cost. What my client paid
for it is what we are selling it for with an agreement as far as bringing the road to
the property and the utilities as well.
Norton: And you proposed that to the school? Have they accepted that?
Fluke: Yes, we haven’t settled on a price yet, but we have been dealing with
Wendell Bigham extensively. Basically my client and Wendell decided that it was
best for us to get a little bit further along in the process before we nailed some of
that down.
Norton: Okay, and then, go back to the open space of 3.14 percent, 3-acres that
you had said, that does not include the buffers or the drainage?
Fluke: That is correct. If we included those things we would be at 6.2, I believe.
Norton: Shelby, do you know when the Landscaping Plan was approved? Oh,
Steve has that, I am sorry the Landscape Ordinance.
Siddoway: The Landscape Ordinance was formerly adopted the first week of
December, I believe on the 5th
. However, I would point out that this is an
annexation, and as an annexation the City can require additional requirements
on an annexation. They have been aware from the very beginning of the 5
percent open space requirement. It is in our original staff report dated October
10th
as one of the issues. It has been something they have been aware of since
day one.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 19
Fluke: May I respond?
Borup: Sure.
Fluke: Quite frankly, the City may or may not be able to put any sort of condition
they want on when somebody asks for annexation. I have heard it a No. of
times. I heard it again yesterday, and I am not so sure, but I am not going to
debate that point. What I would say is when we laid this subdivision it was not in
effect at the time. We designed these around the rules as they are at the time
that we lay them out, and that is only far. How can you expect us to guess what
the City is going to do in the future? Yes, it was in the first staff report, but of
course at that time we had a layout, and the other mitigating factor that I would
ask you to keep in mind is why are we going to lose 10 lots to comply with the 5
percent open space in this development? Would it be to provide more
landscaping, or would it be to provide open space? Lets say usable open space,
and if the later is true, why in the world would we do that when we have 60 acres
of open space to the south of us? Given those to factors in tandem, it does not
seem to make any sense to require us to lose another 10 lots on the top of the
65 that we already eliminated for the school site.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Well, the school site is going to be a wash. You are not going to have
lots there, but you just said the developer is going to sell the School District –
Fluke: He is going to cover his predevelopment costs. I can guarantee that is
considerably less than what you would make off of the sell of lots.
Centers: I think part of the Landscape Ordinance is to reduce density a little bit.
I think staff makes a good point that you have known about it. It is a City
requirement. You were not in the City; you are not now. You want to come into
the City, so you should. I feel, live by the City requirements.
Fluke: I feel we should live by the City requirements that were in force at the
time we submitted the application.
Centers: They changed. You are not in the City, and you were not then. They
changed, things change everyday, and they may tomorrow.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 20
Nary: Mr. Fluke, I guess I was a little troubled by your other comment. So would
you think that since you are building next to a park why should you have to have
any green space? Since you have a 60-acre park. That is kind of what I get
from your gist. There is no reason to have more green space because you are
just borrowing the cities.
Fluke: Borrowing? I beg to differ. I mean each one of these lots is going to
have to pay a Park Impact Fee, each one of these people that live in this
development are going to pay taxes that go to the maintenance and upkeep of
the park. They will be citizens of the City like every other citizen of the City.
Nary: That placed every subdivision, though.
Fluke: Correct.
Nary: And the other subdivisions need the 5 percent.
Centers: Right, you are saying because you are next to the park that you do not
have to comply with that because you are borrowing the parks green space –
Fluke: I am saying that it is redundant because given the fact that we have a
park there nobody is going to use usable open space. Yes, we can add more
landscape lots. I am merely saying it just seems illogical.
Centers: It would redundant if that was the only reason for it. Would you agree?
Nary: If the only reason for that 5 percent open space was simply to provide
park like areas, then that would make some sense, but that is not the only
reason that it is required. Wouldn’t you agree? Like for density, for example.
Fluke: I think I take issue with it, but I really do not want to debate that. This has
been designated for single-family lots on 8,000 square foot lots, and that is what
we have done. If you wanted less density, I would assume that we would have a
larger minimum lot area than 8,000 square feet. It seems like a back door
approach to getting less density, but that is just to my way of thinking.
Nary: But that is the way the Ordinance is written though, isn’t it?
Fluke: Well that may be I cannot speak to that.
Nary: The other question I have for you Mr. Fluke is you talked about two
options for this road issue, but Mr. Kuntz had proposed a potential third option.
Do you have any comment about it? About the City acquiring those lots at the
same predevelopment price as the School District did, and setting that off against
impact fees for the park that the developer will have to pay? Do you think that is
a potential?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 21
Fluke: We think a single-loaded road is a bad idea because of the impacts of
this park of this magnitude of park.
Nary: Okay, but that was not my question.
Fluke: I do not think that my client would be amenable to that, but he has not
told me specifically.
Nary: Okay, but your client was more amenable to moving that single row of
houses down into the City’s park and then putting a wider road above it. Was
that what your second option was?
Fluke: No, it was if they really want a single-loaded road we would purchase a
100-foot strip of land along here, and we would front a tier of lots on here. Right
here, we would just back them up to those and put the road right in front of it.
Nary: So you do not agree with the other things from Mr. Kuntz’s letter about
privacy, trespassing, vandalism, none of those things are applicable to –
Fluke: That is correct, and I am prepared to deal with those bullet points on a
point by point basis, if you like. I would point out that my client developed Austin
Creek subdivision at the corner of Eagle Road and McMillian which backs up to
Boise’s regional Sports Complex. It is only about 40 acres rather than 60 acres,
but it is the same type of idea, a very active recreation site. He has
approximately the same number of lots backing up to that development. Those
lots sell for exactly the same that everything else in the development sells for,
and Candlestick Park to the north of that park has the same scenario. I would
argue that those back yards and those houses provide a better buffer to this very
significant use and the very significant impacts that go along with a park this
busy then does a 50 foot road.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: In those two examples you gave, are the back yards fenced?
Fluke: In?
Centers: Austin Creek?
Fluke: Yes, they are.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 22
Centers: They are fenced. Have you known subdivisions where they do not
fence the back yards? One person talked about visibility earlier. That would
eliminate the visibility problems.
Fluke: Well again I think this is a design problem with the park. If you want to
put a Skate Park in, and you want it to be visible, you put it right here. You do
not put right here. With regard to what the public safety folks are saying, they
are saying yes in a perfect world we would love to have access as close to all
portions of that park as we could have. There are any numbers of parks that are
developed just this way that operate just fine. This is going to be a busy area for
Meridian. This is going to be a busy corner, and you are going to a ¼ mile of
visibility into the park here and a ½ mile of visibility into the park here. Frankly, it
does not gain you much to have a street here, but it sure does impact us. It
turns our development into a parking lot because that is the closest spot to all of
these fields, and rather than come and park right here or right here, which is
where the parking lots are shown people are going to say, well I would sure like
to have my cooler closer to my ball-field. I am going to come park right here.
We are going to be dealing with cars on that road for every hour that the park is
open during the day. If you think that you might have complaints with people
who knowingly buy lots backing up to a park, wait until you have people using
that street as a parking lot for the park, and you will know complaints then. I am
sure that this body has heard any number of times complaints about traffic. It
seems to be one of the things that really riles people up.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Fluke, with the micro-paths is there going to be parking anyway? It is
not going to make a whole lot of difference.
Fluke: Well, I tend to defer in that. This creates a much more residential
scenario. You -- a streetscape when you have lots on both sides of the road that
feels a lot more proprietary. It feels more private to people than does a road that
abuts on a park side. The parks folks are absolutely right when they say it will
open up the park and make it seem bigger. It also makes all of that space that is
interstitial between our development and the park also seems much more public,
and it really will invite people to come park three.
Nary: Would it be safe to say Mr. Fluke, that primary opposition to what the
Parks Director and the Parks Department is proposing is the cost of redesign,
and then the philosophical differences to whether or not it is going to benefit this
subdivision versus what the benefit the City perceives it will be.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 23
Fluke: We believe that the intensity of this use will have adverse impacts on our
development far beyond any benefit that we gain and the cost, effort, and time
that it is going to take to completely redesign.
Nary: About how much would a redesign like that cost? Roughly?
Fluke: We would spend $10,000.
Nary: You are also leaving out the fact that they lose sale of 19 lots minimum.
Fluke: Well then I will not even get into the cost of the road, either. We would
certainly expect more than us building the road, and them building curb, gutter
and sidewalk.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Fluke, if the City sold you some more of that park so you can put
another row of houses in there and then build the road, then the road would not
be a problem for you? Is that what heard?
Fluke: Yes, I thought that was illustrative of what was being asked of us. We
would certainly entertain it rather than impacting all of our development. We
would impact one tier of lots there, and we may get a lot less for those lots, that
is true, but the balance of our development remains buffered from the intensive
use that goes on in the park. It does not invite the parking internal to our
development.
Norton: So it would just be parking on the one side of the extra property that you
would purchase from the City.
Fluke: Yes, granted it will absolutely affect this tier of lots. If we were to just
draw a line straight across there and bump in 19 or 20 more lots and then have a
road to the south just like Parks has purposed. Those 19 lots would bear the
grunt of the cars coming in on that road and parking there and using the park.
Norton: And that is different then taking out the 19 lots?
Fluke: Yes, because a double tier of lots basically, if we have one tier of lots
here it affects those 19 lots. If we eliminate these lots it opens it up to a much
broader area in our development. It impacts the value of many more lots than
just the 19.
Nary: Well, Mr. Fluke could not we just build the road on that side anyway, we do
not need to sell you any of it. They can just build a road on that bottom.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 24
Fluke: Yes that was my second option. They certainly have the option to put a
road in. They would not have to do curb, gutter and sidewalk. It would basically
be a vehicular road. You see them in Julia Davis, Ann Morrison, and Barbara
Park they all have those types of roads.
Borup: Mr. Fluke what have you got there? About 3 ½ acres or so for that last
proposal you were just talking about?
Fluke: 100 feet by 1000 feet. Whatever it is, it is a couple 3 acres.
Borup: Rather than buying it would you look at trading the property with the City
for like amount of acreage?
Fluke: Our upper tier of lots?
Borup: Well I was just looking at your proposal to put another street in down
below and put more lots in rather than the City giving up that property for the
park. You would trade that for some of the property to the west, that way the
park size could stay the same. I do not know what that would do to the school
site, but –
Fluke: Well, our feeling on that is if we do not even talk about the design
considerations involved with working around the school and the multi-family site,
it is just that it still opens up our development to all the adverse impacts that
happen in a 60 acre park with all of that activity.
Borup: I understand that but you are saying you are restricting that to one street
then rather than more of the subdivision.
Fluke: Yes, if we backed another tier of lots up to that one, but if we eliminate
that one –
Borup: No, I am saying back another tier up.
Fluke: Oh, okay.
Borup: Trade that 3-½ acres or whatever, 3 acres, for 3 acres of your property.
Fluke: Oh, I see you and you pick it up on the west?
Borup: Well or wherever would work. I guess maybe part of that commercial
site, or whatever is practical.
Fluke: We would certainly be willing to listen.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 25
Centers: How would a road go in there?
Fluke: Well that is one of the other design problems.
Centers: You have the commercial site there, you are not going to go right
through the middle of it are you?
Fluke: I have not gotten to this level of detail, but you are exactly right
Commissioner, that is one significant issue that –
Centers: Well, you commented that the City could put it in, and maybe they
could, but you are not going to cut right through your commercial site –
Fluke: No, it would have to entail probably moving this, which has problems of
its own. You are going to hear an application on this site right here, and I think
we have our drives lined up, and then we have offset problems. We have got
distance from the intersection to worry about.
Centers: Could not you just take south of the commercial site and then wind it
around just south of your 19 lots without making a sharp right, you could –
Fluke: Yes, but then we double-fronted lots.
Centers: I mean whoever puts the road in. It could be done south of that.
Fluke: Quite frankly I think that an internal road, or a road internal to the park,
makes more sense for what they are trying to accomplish. Than does public
right-of-way through the middle of that development.
Centers: It would not have to have curbs or gutters or anything else, would it?
Fluke: If the park did it internally, no it would just be an internal drive.
Centers: Just blacktop and access.
Fluke: Right, they could get by with a 20-foot ribbon of asphalt or less if it were
one way.
Borup: Any other questions?
Fluke: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone from the public who would like to testify on this
application? Anyone else from the public? Come on up sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 26
Simunich: I am Joe Simunich and I reside at 955 West Ustick Road, Meridian
approximately across from this development that is planned. I have been here
30 years, and I notice these school sites and the locations of them. Some are in
very desirable places, and others are put in undesirable places that causes
bussing of students. This particular school site it looks to me like it were put up
in the northwest corner near the center of this section, it would be more attractive
to the remainder of the development in this section. Also, in the southern half of
this section is 330 acres, you are taking 60 acres out for a park, another 10 or 12
acres for a school, and I understand there might be a junior high in the southern
half of this section. So you are only going to have approximately less than 200
acres of houses in a 330-acre half section of ground. For grade school students
to walk, it would be much more desirable if this school was up in that upper left-
hand corner to serve that entire section which probably the north half of this
section will be in housing. That is my comment on that. Also, I would like to ask
the engineer what will they do with the storm water from the school site and that
future commercial site?
Fluke: Okay, we can find that out.
Borup: They have some pretty strict regulations on the storm water, though. Did
you have anything else Mr. Simunich?
Simunich: If he will not answer the question, but I have another question.
Borup: Okay, why do not you go ahead and finish your questions and then we
will –
Simunich: Also, I do not know when they plan to build the school if they do use
this site, and this future commercial or apartment site. I would think that this
entire project should be zoned at this time so we know what we are going to
have in this high-density area if that is what they plan, or are we going to have
some commercial things there? I think now would be the time to address them,
rather than at a future time.
Borup: I can answer that question. Right now the Comprehensive Plan does
not allow that use for it to get rezoned it would be back in with another
application. There would be another public testimony and everyone would have
an opportunity to –
Simunich: Yes, but if they put the school site in leave that 3 or 4 acres what can
they put there then? It would be difficult to put it into housing. Also are there
provisions made to irrigate the school site and that commercial site until it is
developed? How long might that be? Thank you.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 27
Shultz: My name is Matt Shultz from J-U-B Engineers, 250 South Beechwood. I
am the engineer on the project and if I could respond to Mr. Simunich’s questions
the best I can remember.
Borup: The first question on the storm water.
Shultz: Yes, the storm water of the commercial sites by Ordinance they to
provide 100 percent on site retention. The other main drains that go through the
site, what we are made to do is to maintain those same discharge points at a
pre-developed rate or less to not adversely impact anybody. There is a drain
about midway where that street goes off to the west there. There will be a drain
down through there, and we will convey all that water in accordance with ACHD
and local Ordinances.
Simunich: Where is this drain, sir?
Shultz: There is drain up on Venable Lane. It is the current lowest spot where
all the fields are, where the water drains out, and that is the primary discharge
point. I believe the park is going to put a drain down Ustick, as well.
Simunich: The drain is right there facing Ustick Road.
Shultz: That is the one I am talking about. There is a drain there, and there is
another one further north as well. Both of those will be provided in our final
designs.
Borup: We need to address the Commission.
Shultz: As far as the timing of the school, I have dealt with Wendell Bigham
extensively on the placement of that site, and he has agreed upon the placement
of that site. He has a map of where all the future sites would be, and although
he admitted that is not the ideal 100 percent location for it. It would be
acceptable, and the timing on that is around 2004. If that is of value to you. As
far as the irrigation of those sites in the interim, that is a concern to us, and it
would be something that we are going to address with the school.
Borup: On the maintenance of it?
Shultz: The maintenance, in the mean time, because that of course is going to
impact sells, and we would want it to look nice in the mean time as well. If there
were any other questions I could answer for you, I would be happy to.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 28
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: The individual, Bruce something, he wanted to –
Borup: If he is speaking his rebuttal –
Nary: If he is speaking his rebuttal, Chairman Borup, I believe he was asked to
be part of the staff report and it would be inappropriate for him to present rebuttal
at this point. We need to wait for the applicant to make his rebuttal and then the
staff report at the end.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: He will have the opportunity.
Borup: Did the applicant have any final?
Fluke: I do not think I really have anything else to add. I think we covered all of
the ground, I would like to reserve some time to address what the Parks has to
say to our proposal if we can fit that in somehow.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission at this point?
Simunich: Can I speak again?
Borup: Well, I think if it is a question you could get directly with the applicant
and they could probably answer the question.
Simunich: My name is Joe Simunich and I reside at 955 West Ustick Road. I am
concerned. The engineer is very vague of where this storm water is going to go
from Venable Road. I had a problem in 1982 with irrigation water there and it
cost me several thousand dollars, and I would like to know just what is going to
happen –
Borup: Okay, the storm water from this property is going to stay on site.
Simunich: How about the street? How about Venable Road, the extension of
Venable Lane?
Borup: The storm water on that street?
Simunich: Yes.
Borup: The engineer can correct me. I believe that at least the street drainage
on the east side is also going to need to be retained on site. As far as on the
west side is that the side you are concerned on?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 29
Simunich: Well, the water from whichever side of the road, where is it going to
go?
Shultz: If I may, Matt Shultz again, I have been working with Tom Kuntz on the
irrigation, which you seem to allude to is a problem, which runs right now through
the middle of the park, in one of those irrigation ditches that we have been
working real closely with the local ditch users.
Borup: Okay, but I think Mr. Simunich is concerned with any drainage off of
Venable Lane.
Shultz: And that is all related in that the majority of the drainage that he is
probably being impacted by is being taken care of by the park with their
infrastructure. They are going to divert 100percent of that. The Venable Lane
drainage, we are not made to 100 percent retain that, but it will be greatly
reduced from the historic condition that he is faced with right now. It will not be
100percent retention; there will be some going down there, but that is by
drainage law allowed to go there.
Simunich: But where will it go?
Shultz: There is a low spot in Ustick, and then there is a low spot –
Simunich: It will drain down Ustick to where?
Shultz: It will drain down Ustick to the west in the historic irrigation line location
as well as there is a drain to the north about midway up to the sight, and that will
be handled in the same manner of being passed with a catch basin into a storm
drain that discharges to that point, and it will help the existing condition. It will
not adversely impact downstream property owners. I am not allowed to do that
as a professional engineer. I would be very liable in doing so.
Simunich: The ditch along Ustick Road is a live irrigation ditch.
Shultz: The Parks Department is going to tile that whole way along Ustick, and
we will continue that tiling for our short segment. We will match that same
design and let the water go by.
Simunich: But you are still not allowed to put storm water into an irrigation ditch.
Borup: They understand that sir and that will not take place.
Simunich: Well, then I am asking where is it going to go?
Shultz: Currently, when it rains storm water does go into that ditch.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 30
Simunich: From where?
Shultz: From ditches that run in from the south. We are not going to alter that
condition. ACHD has full jurisdiction over this, and they are watching us very
closely that we do not adversely impact anybody, and we obey all of the rules
and will continue to do so.
Borup: I do not think we are going to be able to settle anything more than that
right now.
Simunich: I know the lay of the ground, and I just wonder are we going to create
another mess with storm water and irrigation.
Borup: Well, the testimony from the engineer was that no, it will get better.
Simunich: When will I know that, do I have the right to know what is going to
happen there?
Borup: You mean, do you want us to let you know when it is going to rain or
what?
Simunich: No, I want to know what they are going to do about this storm water.
Shultz: Before we can pull a building permit or any kind of development permit,
we need to get a full drainage study approved through ACHD as well as the City
of Meridian documenting all drainage related items, and they insure that meet all
the rules and regulations. We will not be able to construct until everybody is in
agreement that we are doing everything correctly.
Borup: Mr. Simunich, are you concerned about drainage from inside of the
property or just on that one street?
Simunich: Well no. First of all I do not like to see them digging these pits and
putting all that stuff in the ground.
Borup: Well, they do that so that the drainage will not be going into the ditches
that you are concerned about.
Simunich: I would rather have that water going down a ditch rather than in my
well water, but I do not see that there is any prevision made for the drainage on
Venable Lane, extension of Venable Lane. The water cannot cross Ustick Road.
Shultz: The drainage coming from the property itself?
Simunich: From the roadway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 31
Shultz: Okay and that will be part of the engineering designs, and I think that
that information will be available to you.
Borup: It certainly would be available from the ACHD, and I am sure that their
records would be accessible by you, if you wanted to check with them because
you were stating something about how will I know. I think they would be the best
agency to talk to.
Simunich: Has this already been submitted to ACHD and approved by them?
Shultz: From a conceptual standpoint they have looked at it from a roadway
layout. They have not looked at the specific drainage concerns yet. We have
looked at them, and we are comfortable that we can address all of those
concerns.
Simunich: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Steve, did you have any final comments you wanted to make? Well, it
may not be final, but anything at this point?
Siddoway: We already touched on the fact that the Landscape Ordinance
should apply. On the detached sidewalk requirement, that is a requirement also
of the new Landscape Ordinance, and that was discussed with Ada County
Highway District. They will allow -- the sidewalk will not have to be in the right-of-
way. They can handle it with an access agreement along the sidewalk.
Borup: So that would be their standard policy?
Siddoway: Yes, we would not ask for trees to be placed in that 5ft stripe, but we
would ask for the sidewalk to be detached from the road with a planter strip
between them. The settlers irrigation ditch, they said they are placing a 6ft solid
cedar fence. I just want to make it clear that that does need to be tiled by the
applicant and not simply fenced off. Then finally, requirement No. 7, page 6, that
is the Collector Street. The place that Mr. Fluke was pointing to on the Plat as to
the point where the collector road could stop is the place that Ada County
Highway District was requiring it to go to; however, the current design does not
match that collector road status. So I think that that may require some additional
redesign.
Shultz: Can I respond to that?
Borup: Just a second, let him finish his comments first.
Shultz: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 32
Siddoway: That is all I have.
Borup: Let us go ahead with the Parks Departments comments.
Siddoway: Matt might lose his train of thought, though.
Shultz: Just real quick on that Collector Street going from Meridian down to
basically the middle of the site. We have a traffic study which shows 64 up in
that area which I just pointed to first and it transitions down to a 58, which is a
residential collector that is the requirement. The traffic state document is down
to that point right there, Greenwich, which is in your report is actually one street
over. I think it is a typo, and the reason we have a 64 is to allow for an 8ft
median. We do not propose to extend the 8-foot median the whole way, so that
is why it is able to transfer down to the 58. We are going to resolve that with
ACHD and be able to forward you the comments.
Borup: So the bottom line is whatever ACHD deems final –
Shultz: We are going to request clarification from them.
Borup: And staff is okay wit that I assume. Mr. Kuntz.
Kuntz: I would like to let Mr. McCoy respond, and then I have some final
comments, if that is possible.
Borup: Okay.
McCoy: My name is Bruce McCoy at 2171 South Retriever Way. A couple of
things I would like to clarify, the developer pointed out. One thing in-particular,
the developer pointed to the open Boise space that has the Austin Creek
subdivision bordering it and the fence lines and the properties are backing up to
the property there. One thing I can point out is that space is particularly
uninviting. It is not easily accessed and you can see by the limited amount of
use it gets; it is not an attractive park. If I can speak frankly, it likes hell actually
having those fences in the back of the park, and it is not the kind of park that
Meridian Parks wants to create for our community. I think it is a bad example.
To address the parking, when we talk about – you have to realize that we have
single-loaded streets we will have conflicts there regardless. There will be
parking on that street. It is obvious that that is the easiest access to that corner.
I did point out, which the developer failed to note, that are willing to put a small
lot off that street at that corner of the park to collect that parking and keep it as
much off the street as possible. Another thing –
Borup: What size lot would a small lot be?
McCoy: We have not actually looked at that on the plot that –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 33
Kuntz: Can I comment on that? We are willing to make redesigns to our plan to
really accommodate any size of lot because as you can see if we shift that 5-plex
baseball or softball field to the south and split the size of that lot which is
currently 400, the southern lot. We could split that 400 lot in half. We can
provide any size of lot that the developer would like to see up in that area. I think
the point that one of the Commissioners made is, whether you have single-
loaded or you micro-paths going to the double-loaded street people are going to
park along that street and walk in. Now, we are proposing a certain number of
handicapped spots, and there is still only going to be so much parking along that
street whether it is single or double-loaded and the people will have to go around
and park in the big lots. But we are prepared to do a redesign if that is the wish
of the developer. We did not think the developer would want that because then
that really invites more cars into the subdivision than what is available on on-
street parallel parking, but we are willing to look at that.
Fluke: One point that Tom is making here, we talk about potential conflict by
having people park in a residential area to access the park, we will effectively be
cutting that in half by having a single-loaded street, that conflict. It will not take
long for people to figure out that they can park along that street along the bottom
and go down those paths to access that side of the park. You will have people
parking all through that area to access that park down those paths, which we feel
will then lead to problems with maintaining those paths in good order, pollution
problems on those paths, who picks up the litter, graffiti along those fences. The
more traffic you create through those walkways, the more potential you have for
damage in that area and we think that just creates more problems. By making a
single-loaded street you only half the people on the side of the street upset about
parking rather than both sides of street, which you will have in this scenario.
Another concern that I have is the perception issue. 99.83 acres of houses is
still 99.83 acres of houses if you put a street along that edge and take it out from
the middle of the property. It does not diminish the amount of property to turn
into homes, so I do not see where the developer loses a lot of land on that deal.
Kuntz: That is not related to the statement.
Fluke: That is what I got from the discussion.
Kuntz: They are not going to lose the acreage, but just because you have the
same amount of acreage, you start shifting streets, it does not mean you get the
same amount of lots in there. I think is what they were saying.
Fluke: Okay. The statement was made that we were going to lose acreage.
Kuntz: Yes that would not be true.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 34
Fluke: Okay, I want to make that clear. In response to the idea of putting an
internal road in there, much like in Ann Morrison Park and downtown Boise, our
desire is not to encourage traffic in the open space, we feel you put a paved
surface internally in the park, and you will encourage people to drive through that
space and then you are putting cars in conflict with pedestrians and open land
use. Our desire is not go there with this park. We do not feel like that is
compatible use.
Borup: Tom.
Kuntz: I guess I would like to clarify on a couple of points, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. One is there is a comment alluding to a poor design of this
park. We think we have a good design; we paid enough money for it. We have
an internal system, which is a path 10 feet wide asphalt that will encompass the
entire site. The primary purpose of that path is to provide a recreation amenity,
which has been identified in our Comprehensive Plan as one of the top two
recreational activities in the City. That pathway will also serve as –
***END OF SIDE TWO***
Kuntz: -- to get to the northern boundary. The down side to that is that those
pathways where they butt up to parking lots and roadways will be ballard. The
emergency vehicles will need to have a key to those ballards which we will
provide, but we will delay them a little getting response time as far as getting
those ballards opened up, if there is problems with the ballads so forth and so
on. So we have an internal pathway that we can get emergency vehicle to
where they need to go. I think the bigger issue, from at least the police chiefs
letter, is the visibility issue, and I again want to reiterate the size of this park, 58
acres, and to look in from Ustick Road across that acreage and see what is going
on in this back corner of the 5-plex is going to be difficult at best. Yes, it is much
easier for emergency vehicles to pull up to a single-loaded street, drive over the
grass, and come into the soccer field if you have an injury on the soccer fields.
We can get those vehicles in through the internal pathway; of course there will be
walkers and joggers on those pathways. The other issue or another issue that
was raised was on the pathway, the internal pathways, which are located here
and here, and I look back in my notes at our November 16, 2000 meeting and I
definitely said two pathways would be fine, but the problem is, is this line of
school property will be fenced. They have already told me that, so to shift this
pathway over here on this side ore in-between these lots somewhere will make
the school property more accessible. The other reason that we do not want it in
this corner and I did make comment to this at our November 16, 2000 meeting is
if you look at the plan where the 5-plex is located here it creates a real dead spot
as far as vision. So we would prefer not to have that there to create a dead zone
where problems my happen. So that is why we suggested moving it over so it
accesses the school and then we have the one access point here. One of the
comments that I just could not believe when I heard is that this park is not an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 35
amenity to a neighborhood and the reason I cannot believe that is because other
developers that we have worked with and I will give you an example of Bear
Creek who donated 18 acres to the City for a park said that the first lots that sell
are the ones that border around the park. I could certainly bring in pictures of
examples of single-loaded streets and what a nice looks that creates for a
community and for a neighborhood. It is very attracted, and the information I
have is that these lots across here, which would cross the single-loaded street,
would actually potentially worth more money because of the park location, so it is
definitely an amenity. They discussed that the vandalism and privacy is not an
issue. It will be an issue, because what we will require along this line will be the
same requirements we have along the pedestrian walkways and that is either a
4-foot high solid fence, or a 6-foot high fence that can be seen through. Well 4
feet is not very high and I can guarantee you that there will be people looking
through into those back yards. The other issue is that if this becomes a single-
loaded street we are certainly going to landscape this area and buffer it with
trees to try and deaden the sound coming from the park. The right kind of tress
with canopy will deaden the overflow from the lights that will be in this area. I
guess what I will close with is when a developer is requesting annexation from
the City, they have to show that this development is a benefit to the City. To ask
the City and the community and the citizens to give up another 100 feet of land,
where is the benefit? Is that to the community or is that to the developer? The
last item just for clarification, Mr. Chairman, so that we understand what we were
possibly proposing or willing to discuss. Is that the project could stay just as it is
with the street right where it is and we would be willing to discuss purchasing or
having these lots purchased in exchange for Impact Fees. So they would not
have to do any redesign of their project. Was there any question on that? It
seemed like there was some confusion, okay.
Borup: Had there been any thought of a land swap to accomplish the same
thing?
Kuntz: No, but we would certainly be willing to discuss that.
Borup: Would that work for the City as well, or is it going make a cumbersome
park design?
Kuntz: My initial response would be to give up parkland open space for the
benefit of the community, would probably be our first option.
Borup: No, I am not saying give it up; I am saying swap.
Kuntz: Yes, sure. We would be open to discussing that.
Borup: So acre for acre essentially.
Kuntz: You bet we would discuss it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 36
Borup: And which one of those two would be the best for you, to trade those 19
lots or put another street to the south?
Kuntz: We certainly would not prefer to put another row of lots and then another
street here. That is giving up parkland, and we do not see any benefit to that. If
you were talking about swapping some of our parkland down here for some of
this land here, we would certainly be open to discussing that. The other thing is
in order for them to achieve their 5percent open space; they need to already give
up 10 lots, so now we are only talking about 9 lots that we can swap. I cannot
offer that without the Planning and Zoning director being involved in it. I will
stand for questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Kuntz?
Nary: Mr. Kuntz how long have the plans for this park been completed and when
were they started?
Kuntz: The plans were started in January of 2000. The final plans were
presented to the staff – well I know this much, it was adopted by the City Council
in November or December of this year.
Nary: Did you receive the handout that J-U-B gave us?
Kuntz: No sir.
Nary: I think it is applicable that you respond to the email that he attached
where Mr. Gary Lee spoke to you, he is with J-U-B, in April of 2000. Would it be
appropriate Mr. Chairman for him to read that and respond at this time?
Borup: Not if he has not seen it.
Nary: I mean read it to yourself and –
Nary: Do you recall that conversation?
Kuntz: Yes sir.
Nary: Okay.
Kuntz: And we were certainly working on those plans during that timeline.
Nary: I guess what I am looking at is the lateness of your proposal for the
single-loaded street.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 37
Kuntz: And I certainly understand that, and my only response would be we are
building something here that is going to be there for many, many, many years. It
is going to be a direct benefit to the citizens in this community. It is a much
needed amenity in this community, and it is better to take one step back now and
do it right then move ahead and do it wrong.
Centers: Let us go back to Commissioner Nary’s comment if no subdivision was
proposed or platted then what?
Kuntz: Then we would have our internal system for the length of the park.
Centers: Your 10 foot wide pathway.
Kuntz: The 10 foot wide pathway as soon as another developer decided to
develop along their, then our approach would be as it is tonight.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess Mr. Kuntz, I think what we are wrestling with I would agree with
part of what you said. I think when a developer wants to be annexed into the
City, they are subject to some of the requirements, and I think the one that is
fixed in my mind is the 5 percent. I think they can accept that 5percent
requirement or they do not have to be annexed. I think we can impose that. I
think it is reasonable, but I think it is reasonable also because Mr. Siddoway’s
response was, we told them that from day one, they knew that. They did not
want to do it, and they are not doing it. There is a philosophical reason maybe
that they chose not to do that, besides their technical argument that the
Ordinance was not in place, but I think I have the same concern that
Commissioner Centers does is that I do not see this as the same thing. This
seems to me to be a surprise. The would not have Platted and drawn those lots
along that border if they had believed from day one that what was desired by the
City of Meridian was that a roadway be there. I do not believe you would have
been discussing micro-paths if that were what the discussion was. So I think it is
fair for the developer to say, hey wait a minute We bring this Plat forward, and
now five months later we look at this plan and say we do not have a roadway. I
do not want to sound rude or disrespectful, but I agree. This is a very nicely
designed park, but it is not very nicely designed when you then bring the Police
chief and the Fire chief to say we do not have enough emergency access to the
rear of the park. That is a design problem that is the City of Meridian’s
responsibility not the developers responsibility. They are not required to do that.
Meridian is required to do that. Do you believe if we, and we are just the
advisory, but say the City Council does not require that roadway there, and
legally I do not know if they can, but if they do not require it, will the City build a
road through there?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 38
Kuntz: No sir.
Nary: Okay, but does not that seem a little bit inconsistent with your statement
that it is significant, it is necessary, it is needed, it is a public safety issue, if a
road is needed then it is needed. Whether the City has to build it on our side of
the property line, or the developer has to build it on their side of the property line,
if I am to believe what you are telling us that it is needed, then it has to be there.
So I guess I think it is a little inconsistent to then say, well if we do not make the
developer do it, we are not going to build it. We will just live with the micro-path.
I do not think you can have it both ways, Mr. Kuntz. I do not think that is very
reasonable.
Kuntz: My only comment to that, Commissioner Nary, is to build a roadway that
would only be used for policemen to access to police the park. I am not sure
makes a lot sense when there is already going to be a roadway in that vicinity
that could suffice for that if it was single-loaded and not double-loaded.
Nary: But legally, sir, if it is necessary, which is the reason you are saying we
should legally require the developer to do it, then legally it is a very difficult
argument to tell me that the pathway is sufficient if we do not have the developer
build the roadway.
Kuntz: Commissioner Nary, I am not telling you legally that we are requesting
that this roadway go in. What we are saying tonight is we feel like because of
the size of this park, the distance the police have to look through, the open and
attractiveness to the community because of the size of the park once again that
having a single-loaded street is preferential to having houses backing up to the
park. We are not saying that we are requiring the street as far as – I am not an
attorney –
Nary: Well, Mr. Kuntz, you are telling us to require them to put the street there.
Kuntz: We are asking you.
Nary: No you are telling us that that is what you would want us to require.
Kuntz: Correct.
Nary: You can build a roadway there, can you not?
Kuntz: Sure.
Nary: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 39
Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Kuntz, if I may ask a question, if just this row of lots
along here where the single-loaded, would that accomplish the same thing,
Parks Department is trying to do. I mean that would get the open access back to
the back area of the park; I am thinking maybe from the developer's standpoint –
Kuntz: This area here is not going to be visible from Ustick. I guess once
people know about it that they are going to come down there, but it may not be
quite as inviting. He is talking about the row of houses from here from the micro-
path over –
Nary: Right just that row along there.
Borup: About 9 lots. 9 or 10.
Nary: Yes, I think it is about 12 lots to the intersection. If that area became the
park ground, would that accomplish the same thing the City is trying to do?
Kuntz: It would certainly help.
Nary: What part would it not accomplish, of all the statements that have been
made?
Kuntz: Probably the only one that it would not accomplish it is still these houses
as far as the fences and privacy issues go. I think the items we addressed in
item No. 3, but as far as the openness for the police, sure because they can see
in from Meridian Road into this corner. It would alleviate the concerns we have
about this dead spot here. We are amenable to discussing any kind of a
compromise. We do not want to be an adversarial role here.
Nary: I am just looking at that as maybe an option that would accomplish partly
what the Parks Department is trying to do. I guess we need a comment from the
developer if that encompasses what they want it to or not.
Borup: Anyone else for Mr. Kuntz.
Kuntz: Thank you for your time.
Norton: And that would solve the 5percent open space?
Borup: We it would not because it would belong to the Parks Department then,
but if they are talking about losing 10 lots, you know, there is still some
opportunity from some land swap, if do not know if that is more trouble than it is
worth. Commissioner, I do not know if – are we ready to do some discussing? I
would maybe suggest we do not close the Public Hearing, I anticipate we may
want to get some questions from either party. In fact, I would not mind if maybe
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 40
– if the others feel – get a comment from the developer on that last idea. I do not
know, Mr. Fluke are you in a position to comment on that?
Fluke: I guess what this comes down to is an incompatibility of land uses. If this
were a neighborhood park, and if my client thought for one minute that having a
single-loaded road next to us would benefit his project, do you think we would
not do it? Do you think we would not have designed it that way? Of course, we
would. We are convinced that having a 60-acre regional park site and all the
attended activity that goes along with that will be a detriment to this development
if it is opened up to the development in that fashion that you are speaking.
Whether it is a portion of those lots, or whether it is all of the lots. Detrimental
impacts come from the level of activity that comes from a 60-acre park site. It is
not that it is a park, it is that it is a regional park, and it is that you have five
baseball diamonds right next to that and inviting people to come in there and
park is going to be a bad situation for us and for the City.
Borup: Excuse me, do not you think the parking is probably the only detriment
that you are looking at? As far as sales and market ability, etc. etc. Because
you knew that the park site was there when you platted and the people backing
up to the park – there are pros and cons whether it makes them more saleable or
less, so you knew that ahead of time.
Fluke: Yes.
Borup: So really it is the parking, and I agree with that. You are probably going
to have more activity on the parking end, but would not that be the only
detriment?
Fluke: Our experience is that there is a segment of the population that likes to
have the lots that back up to the park even with the intended impacts. That has
been borne out by our development next to Boise City’s Park, which may be ugly
now, but it is three years old. Your park is not going to look like this in three
years, I guarantee you. These things take time to develop, and simply clearing
out a row of houses along there is not going to significantly improve the look of
that park. It is just not. The plan that we have seen has a very significant buffer
of deciduous trees. We assumed they were significant class 3 trees that they
were putting between the developments. That is what is going to provide the
edge to the park. Opening it up to a street and then a tier of houses is not going
to persuably change the look of that park so we feel like opening it up really does
impact a lot more of the development than just the one tier of lots. We feel like
those lots are not diminished in value in any way, and our experience bares that
out.
Borup: So the short answer to my question was no.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 41
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Fluke do you have any examples of what the Parks Department is
purposing and how that is a negative impact? Do you have any examples locally
of that? Of where it is a street buffer between the park and the houses, and how
that seriously impacts the quality?
Fluke: No, that is a good question. I cannot think of a 60-acre regional park on a
single-loaded road abutting a residential development, anywhere.
Nary: How about the Simplot Sports Complex? There is a road that runs all the
way around that that is a public street, and there are houses right across the
street.
Fluke: That do not front on that road. That is a spine road, and all the roads
come off it at 90-degree angles.
Nary: I understand that, but so it is the frontage of the houses, but you said the
entire subdivision is impacted. Even though those houses right there may front
the park, since your argument is that the entire development is impacted by it.
Has the entire development of Columbia Village been impacted by the Simplot
Sports Complex negatively? I do not think so.
Fluke: I do not know.
Nary: Well, I do not see anybody not buying houses up there. So I guess I will
say the same thing I said to Mr. Kuntz, I do not find that argument to be very
persuasive. That does not seem to be very reasonable in light of what exists out
there in our community. There are parks like this, there are streets that run
around them that people seem to buy those houses just as well and learn to live
with that feature because it is there when they move there. Would not you say
that that is the case? Whatever is there when they move there, people learn to
live with it.
Fluke: Well, perhaps, but this park is not going to be there when these people
come in.
Nary: Well the empty space they know is going to be a park when they buy their
house, wouldn’t you say?
Fluke: And I cannot think of an uglier park than Simplot either if that is one of the
concerns that the City has.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 42
Nary: I am not talking about the way the park looks, what I am talking about is
what your concern was, the salability of the other houses in your development. I
do not see Columbia Village as a very slow moving development.
Fluke: I do not think Columbia Village is analogous. If I am not mistake those are
6,000 square foot lots with somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 to 12 hundred
square foot homes on there. Where here we are talking about 8,000 square foot
lots and probably we are talking about two-story, up to 3,000 square foot homes
in this development, so you are talking about different market segments for sure.
I do not know if we are talking apples to apples with that comparison, but I
cannot refute what you are saying.
Nary: Would it be fair to say though Mr. Fluke, if we as the commission do
require that 5percent open space, you will lose some lots, so there may be some
room for discussion and negotiation between the developer and the City. If that
is the particular area we are talking about, that is a pretty good starting point,
wouldn’t you say?
Fluke: Yes if you require the 5percent open space then we are going to have to
find where we can best incorporate that into the development. I do not think that
that is a linear comparison that you can make, that we are automatically going to
go and give up 10 lots next to the park because it invites the impacts that we are
talking about.
Nary: I do not know that we are going to require you to give up the lots yet, but
it certainly is a starting point to discuss since that is what the City would like to
see, and you would have to readjust and redesign to some degree anyway,
correct?
Fluke: Yes, I mean typically what we would do is go into the middle of the
development and create a park for the residents by losing lots. We might even
do a single-loaded road on a park that size.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I have to be frank. If I would recommend the project I would have to
require the 5 percent open space. You mentioned that was 10 lots. What
Commissioner Borup came up with, I think is an excellent idea. It involves 11
lots, and I think if the City wants that they should put in the road, they should
provide parking off street, take two of those lots and create parking and offset the
cost of that land with the impact fees. I think the City agreed to do that. I think it
would be a fair trade, because there is no way that I am going to support the
project without the 5 percent open space. So I think it is a fair tradeoff, I really
do, then let you live with the 3.2 or whatever it was for the remainder of it. It is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 43
too bad that the guy who signs the checks is not here, but he is not here, so --
Oh, maybe he wants to speak?
Nary: To follow what Commissioner Centers said to turn around and say we will
just build another park in a different part of the subdivision does not make it real
inviting for us to annex you. If we do not annex you and you want to go to the
County, then that is fine. You are not going to build that many homes in the
county’s zoning. I do not think that is very helpful to try to get resolution. I think
that is very spiteful, and that is not a good way to get anything –
Fluke: That was certainly not my intent. I was trying to add a little levity to the
situation, sorry.
Nary: It did not seem very funny.
Fluke: Dually noted.
Borup: Anything else?
Nary: I guess Commissioner Norton was going to ask if the developer wanted to
say something.
Norton: Maybe the developer would like to say something, we are not getting
very far with Mr. Fluke.
Howell: Kevin Howell, 3451 Plantation River Drive. Well he pretty much covered
everything on it, but there has been so many things tossed up that it would be
kind of difficult. We have to sit down and pencil around a bunch of different
ideas. If we are going to go with the 5 percent, I do not have a problem with that.
I would rather put it around in the middle of the subdivision somewhere then just
add it on to the edge of the park.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Well what if the City gave you the cost of that land in trade for Impact
Fees. That was one comment that was made by the Parks Department.
Howell: Well that is a possibility. I do not know how much money they have.
Those are $40,000 lots, and I have already burned 65 of them for a school site.
When I bought the site –
Norton: So are you donating the school site, then?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 44
Howell: No, I did not donate, but I will sell it to them at cost, and they are totally
willing with that. That is standard for most developers. If I had more money, I
would love to do that but not at this time.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Howell that is the development price that is not the pre-
development price?
Howell: That is the sales price.
Nary: Sales price right. That is not the price that the School District is paying?
Howell: No. Would you like to know what the school district is going to be
paying?
Nary: It does not matter. I was saying if you were going to do a land swap with
the City, they would be looking at the pre-development prices and off setting your
Impact Fees.
Howell: I will lose a little money to the school district just in carrying costs and
everything else, but I do not have a problem giving them a school. But if would
have know that I was going to have to go with a front-loaded street, you know I
have built over 1000 houses in this valley and probably 1500 lots, and I have
been in this business for 20 years. I really do not desire it, and I may be wrong,
but that is for you guys to determine. From my experience and after building up
next to parks, people do not have a problem backing up to them. If we can trade
off the school site and get rid of that, then we will make the nicest park in the
whole world, but the project is getting smaller and smaller. I have partners to
answer to.
Borup: So what you are saying is you do not have a problem with the 5 percent
open space within the subdivision? But you really do not want the front-loaded
street.
Howell: Well, you can require the 5 percent, and I can go argue it with Council.
But if I am going to end up with 5 percent, I really do not want it to butt up to the
park. I would rather put it internally where it would benefit the people a lot more.
I just went through a case with a daycare in Austin Creek Subdivision right next
it, and I had 85 people against it, all because of traffic. It is exactly like that little
2-acre lot right up front that is commercial, but they were concerned about all of
the traffic going through from other subdivisions. Yea, that will all be developed
around there, and it was denied. It was a City requirement that I have a daycare
in there, and they turned around, and I ate the cost of that and now it is going to
be an office building. The people are going to come all through that subdivision
to that single-loaded street, and it is going to be a parking issue, and I am going
to have a lot more complaints. I have never really had a problem with people
backing up to parks. They all know it; they like it. They can jump their fence,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 45
built a gate. It is like Daren said, if thought it was better, I would do it. But if I am
forced to do it, I am going to redesign the whole subdivision and start over.
Borup: What other subdivisions are you talking about it that backed up to parks
or interior parks, I guess.
Howell: I built Mahogany Park Subdivision, 200 lots. I built Austin Creek, 322
lots.
Borup: And they back up to parks?
Howell: Yes, I have provided pathways, fenced them, and ballard them. The
ballards looked out; they are not chained in. It is not an access problem, but the
Parks Department is asking me to put in their road that they could very well put in
themselves on their own property. I do not understand that, and it is coming at a
very late date. We sat down, and we had a meeting, and he knows exactly what
I said. I told him, quite frankly, all the experience I have had with parks and that I
just did not believe in that single-loaded street as a developer. I may make
mistakes now and then or whatever, and I will live with that, but that is just my
stance on it from my experience in this business. I have been in it 20 years.
Norton: Mr. Howell, how long have you been building houses in the Boise area?
Howell: Since 1979.
Norton: So you have been here since 1979.
Howell: Yes, Mr. Borup knows me.
Norton: And then I think the issue is not whether the homeowners object to
being against the park. I think the issue is having the park more beautified by
having a single-loaded street there, and therefore benefiting the City. Not
necessarily the homeowners not wanting to be backed up against the park, I
think that was the issue. So what I am hearing is that you and Parks Department
are at an impasse and cannot agree on what to do there, is that correct?
Howell: No, we have not had any formal discussion.
Norton: Okay, so we just now spent 2 hours and 10 minutes discussing
something that maybe that you and the Parks Department could discuss and
come back with a plan.
Howell: I am not so sure I could ever agree to that without totally revamping the
whole thing and sitting on it for awhile. I do not know; I would have to re-look at
the whole thing. We have looked at it from a lot of different angles, but they are
asking me to put their buffer on my land. They have land to put the buffer on;
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 46
they can put the trees. I mean we are going to landscape the heck out of that
whole thing in there. All that stuff that is open. You are going to see some pretty
nice landscape plans, because I know how much trees will sell homes.
Norton: Mr. Howell, we also have a problem with the trunk line for the sewer. It
looks like now it might not be in until June of 2002. They will have more
information after March 15, 2001 when the other development comes before this
commission. Would there be objection to you at all to postpone this until March
15,2001? Then we have the sewer situation that has more constant date and
then perhaps you and the Parks Department could discuss the southern
boundary line of the development.
Howell: Well, addressing the sewer issue, I have no problem taking the risk and
waiting for it. Ed Bews is a personal friend of mine. I know all of the other
developers in there; we all know what is going on. We have been in contact
since day one. I bought that land over a year ago. I optioned it. I knew exactly
what the risk was, and I might have to sit on it for quite some time, and I willing to
wait for the sewer. In the meantime, I would like to be able to get design and get
through all of the problems and get everything through the Council. So that we
are ready to go, and if the sewer line never comes through, I have got a big farm,
and really the cost of $30,000 to $40,000 bucks worth of engineering is not going
to make any difference at that point. I would love to proceed with it, and I will
take all the risk. I will sign anything, and I do not expect to be able to hold the
City liable for any promises or anything like that not at all.
Norton: So you want us to make a decision, yes or no, tonight, is that correct?
Howell: Whatever you guys decide, I will take and I will deal with that. If you
want to table it fine, but I would just as soon have a decision.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Howell? Commissioners, do we have some
other discussion?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I think we all agree on the 5 percent open space.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I guess I have to agree with Mr. Howell that it is very obvious he wants
to get this done. He has been at it since August, and he is adamant against the
front-loaded street. I guess I cannot blame him, and I think maybe his view I
might respect pretty much because of the history he has had in subdivisions in
Meridian and the area. There are pros and cons on whether it would hurt the
marketability of the homes, I personally think that it would hurt the marketability
of a lot of those homes close to it. I guess it is obvious that Commissioner Nary
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 47
feels the way I do. The Parks Department came up with this at a very late
moment and maybe say the chance to get a street and access. I agree with Mr.
Howell if they want a street then let them put it in. I do not think it should be
tabled tonight. I think we should resolve this tonight and move on. We have spent
2 hours and 15 minutes, and we do not want it to go to waste.
Borup: I do not know if Parks Department was trying to come up with something
at the last minute, I think a lot of this came from their Commission going through
parks studies and preliminary stages on an overall park policy for the City. I do
not think it was really firmed out a year ago. Is that a correct statement?
Kuntz: That is correct.
Borup: That the single-loaded street policy is something that was developed with
workshops and meetings over the last several months or longer perhaps.
Kuntz: That is correct, and the record shows that we discussed it in
predevelopment meeting on November 16th
. There is some discrepancy of if it
was actually discussed at the July meeting.
Borup: I think what I am saying is that was on a firm policy of the Parks
Department at that time, and it is something that developed probably the same
time this project has been on our agenda. I have mixed feelings about this on the
double-loaded – I like what it does to a park. I think that the thing you have
different here between a smaller park is – and the benefit of people living, you
know whether it is a backyard or a street facing it. If it is a green area for kids to
go and play and run around, that is one thing with ball diamonds and soccer
fields, maybe that is another. I think we are talking two different types of parks
and whether it is desirable or not.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess I am a little torn by a couple of things. I guess the information that
we heard tonight was first that there really is not any opposition to this
annexation in concept. It sounds to me that there was not really any opposing
testimony to the whole idea of having this piece of property in the City of
Meridian and development of homes. I am a little troubled by what at least
appears to me by the evidence to be some late notice to these developers as to
what the City would like to see for that park and that area on the north side of the
park. I do not think that was discussed very clearly or very cleanly, because I do
not really think they would have made those plans for micro-paths and
everything else if all they have been talking about from the onset was putting a
single-loaded street there. I believe that the 5 percent was discussed from the
onset. I think we have seen that from the very beginning, so I do not see any
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 48
reason why we would want to deviate from that. I think the developer is going to
have to do that from the way most of the comments have been tonight. So what I
am torn with is what Commissioner Norton brought up is that there has not been
any real reasonable open discussion between the City and this developer to see
if they can deal with that north side of the park. I am not 100 percent convinced
that it has to be a road there. If there does have to be road there that the City
should not built it at the City’s expense and redesign that park or move the
parking lot so that side of the park or do something different to provide that public
safety access. I do not think you can have the argument that it is needed, but say
if the developer does not build it, we will not build it. I do not think that is right. It
just does not seem reasonable to me, but there has not been any real discussion
about it. There has not been any real thing other than tonight; us all trying to
redesign this project on the board while we are looking at it, and that is not very
reasonable to anybody. I guess I would be inclined to want to delay this, I am
hoping that both the developer and the City would be willing to have some very
honest discussion and try to do this for the publics good. I think that is all that Mr.
Kuntz and the Parks Department want, they want to provide some safe public
park access to the citizens of Meridian. They want to provide it in a better way
than what is there. I think there can be some ways to do it. I guess I would like
these folks to be able to say, we have tried and we cannot make this fit, and we
have really honestly tried to bring these things to the table, and I guess that is
just the one thing that has not been done yet. They may not be able to and
maybe there is not a good way to do this differently, and we will have to deal with
the 5percent anyway. They will have to do some redesign to some degree
because they may lose some lots, but I think it is to the developers interest to try
to meet what the City would like to do to some degree. It is the City’s interest to
try to get the developer to voluntarily do that, and we do not have to annex them
otherwise. The county is not going to let you build that big of a subdivision like
that with their zoning. It just is not going to work. So you are going to have a big
farm if you do not at least try to find some meeting of the minds, or we will just
make a decision and tell you what you have to do. I guess that is my feeling,
when we get to that point. I do not think we have actually closed the Public
Hearing.
Borup: We have not.
Nary: That we at least say there does not appear to be urgency. You heard Mr.
Howell’s statement that he would like to keep moving, but it did not sound to me
that is certainly going to be significantly a problem to delay it for a short-time to
see if they could do that. That seems to me to benefit the City’s interest as well
as try to get this resolved to a little bit better degree for everyone.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 49
Norton: I would just like to add also, I believe the reason that the first time it was
delayed was because there was not an ACHD report. And I believe that the
developer or the applicant has asked to delay it several times because it has
been on our docket several times. So I do not believe it was our fault for delaying
this.
Borup: No, I think it was the sewer line is probably the major thing.
Norton: And I agree with Mr. Nary’s statement that I think the applicant will need
to understand that we are all looking at the 5 percent as a must. We certainly
would appreciate if the applicant and the City can discuss on some kind of a
meeting of the minds on that one boundary that we are all discussing. So with
that I would like to make a motion. Do we want to close the Public Hearing first?
Borup: Not if we are going to continue it.
Norton: Okay, well I would like to make a motion to postpone to March 15.
Borup: Well, we need to check our agenda at that time.
Ugarriza: Commissioners, we have a couple other continued items, I believe on
the 15th
. I think that there is already just one Public Hearing scheduled for that
day, so it is relatively opened.
Norton: Would that give enough time for the sewer, Bruce?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton the March 15th
date that I
offered up was because the Bridgetower Subdivision will be coming before you.
With that application coming before you, you are going to see ACHD comments;
they are going to have their tech review and everything for Bridgetower
Subdivision. Those are the answers that I was talking about. I did have some
discussions with the applicant of Bridgetower Subdivision representative. She
was telling me that they were having tech review on that, she thought it was next
Friday, so we are getting some answers.
Norton: Would the first meeting in April be better?
Freckleton: You are going to have this application and the next two applications
after this that is in the same boat as far as sewer, The Sundance Development.
Norton: Okay, well how about –
Borup: If we did the second meeting in April, which is – then we should have
covered the 19th
. That would pretty much cover -- we would not have a whole
lot of anything else said at this juncture. Wouldn’t that be correct?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 50
Freckleton: I do not think we have anything at the April 1st
meeting, do we?
Ugarizza: We have one on April 6th
.
Freckleton: So that is an open schedule at this point.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, Steve just relayed that they took in 10 applications, today,
for that date. Today was cut off date.
Borup: How extensive of applications were they?
Siddoway: I have not reviewed any of them, but the first meeting of every month
is held for new Public Hearings. The second one is held for those continued
items or the more controversial ones, so it would make mores sense to me to
have it on one of those that the new items are not going to be scheduled for.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: What was the major reason for the delay here? It was for the
discussion with the Parks Department, correct?
Norton: Yes, and more information.
Centers: I think I tend to agree with you, Commissioner Norton. That certainly
would not hurt whether the developer comes to an agreement or not, but why
could we not fit it in earlier? The developer already said he is willing to gamble on
the Trunk line that is not a factor.
Norton: Well, I think March 15th
. That gives him four weeks to meet several
times I hope.
Borup: Let me ask one question of the Commissioners, you have mentioned the
5percent several times, and I guess I am wondering, it sounds like most of you
are pretty and fast on that, the question I have, if there is maybe any other
concessions on park access would that offset that aspect of it for you at all?
Norton: I think that is the main process.
Borup: Yes, if there was some park access along that side, would the current 3
point whatever percent, would you feel it would be adequate, and maybe
recommend --
Nary: I guess my personal feeling is I am not 100percent sold that we should or
can require that the roadway be built by this developer on that north end of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 51
property. That being said, I certainly think there should be some reasonably
frank, open, and honest discussions on making this a better project for the
people of Meridian if we are going to annex this huge property into the City. And
one way to do that is to work with the Parks Department in providing some safety
and some access. All the things that Mr. Kuntz talked about which I do agree
with as well. I agree with the reasons for it; I just do not know whether or not at
that juncture that it has come up that it is necessarily fair or reasonable to require
them to do that. That is why I think they need some time to discuss.
Borup: That is why I wanted to bring that out is so that that would be one more
item I hope would be on the table.
***END OF SIDE THREE***
Norton: Can I make a motion?
Borup: Yes, I would like you to.
Norton: I would move to continue this Public Hearing on AZ 00-019 and PP 00-
018 request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres to R-4 by J-U-B
Engineering for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision north of Ustick and west of
Meridian Road, and the same with PP 00-018 with the Preliminary Plat approval
of 326 building lots, one limited office lot, and 12 acres school lot, and a potential
multi-family resident lot on 99.83-acres in the proposed R-4 zone by J-U-B
Engineering for proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision north of Ustick and west of
Meridian Road. Continue that until the March 15th
meeting.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion made and seconded. Any discussion.
Nary: I would just like to for the record, Item 5, that is 268 lots now, it is not 326.
Norton: Oh, yes thank you.
Borup: Motion so amended. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I think we are going to want to take about a five minute break here, but
before we do, this is only the first item on the agenda, and Steve, I would maybe
like your opinion, if you think we are not going to get through this full agenda
tonight. I am not sure how many items we have on the next two subdivisions.
Siddoway: Certainly the longest one will be the last one, I believe Silverstone.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 52
Borup: Okay, let us go ahead and get input from the audience. How many
people here for the Sundance project that is planning on testifying? I am talking
just public. Then how about the Inglenook? We are talking public, not the
application and then O’Neill? Just public and Silverstone? I am just looking at
public testimony. We assume the applicant is going to be here. It sounds like we
are going to want to try and proceed, but we are going to need to move things
along a little faster than we did on this first one, so we will make an effort to do
that. We will take about a 5-minute break right now. Thank you.
Borup: -- Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Start on the next Item,
which is Item 6 and 7. This is also a continued Public Hearing, but it does not say
so on the agenda.
Siddoway: I do not think it has been continued. I think it is the first one even
though it was submitted last year. It has just been tabled.
Borup: Was it tabled without a Public Hearing?
Siddoway: I do not think the Public Hearing has been opened.
Borup: Well, it was on the agenda on November 14th
. Either way, let us open
that hearing, or maybe we can clarify that later, but we will open both Items 6 and
7.
Item 6. Public Hearing: AZ-00-021 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 70.72 acres to R-8 for proposed Sundance Subdivision by G.L
Voigt Development – northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads
Borup: I would like to begin with the staff report. Would you like to start on that
Steve?
Siddoway: Yes. Commissioner Borup and Commissioners. This is the
Sundance subdivision. It is actually abutting the property we were just
discussing. The 56-acre park is in this location. Cedar Springs subdivision
requested project surrounds it here. The hatched area is the proposed location
for the Sundance subdivision. It obviously has the exact same issue with sewer
in that sewer will not be available today to this project if it is annexed. It will be
mid part of next year before sewer is available. Our staff comments from
November 9, 2000 stand as the staff report on this project. The developer’s
representative issued a response to those comments dated February 13, which
you should have. Most of the issues the applicant is stating that they will comply.
There are three issues, one related to not wishing to tile a section of the Finch
sub-drain, which I will let Bruce speak to as well as the sewer trunk issue which
is already clear, and then the final one is Preliminary Plat requirement No. 12,
which requires bike-lane stripping on the collector street. They are stating that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 53
they do not wish to do that. Those are the issues I have on this project. I will turn
it to Bruce if he has anything.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, as I mentioned in
the last application this application has the same issues in regards to the sewer. I
will note, however, that our staff report recommended denial. I guess I would just
state that if this applicant is willing to take the risks and everything that we talked
about in the last application that basically you would incorporate, if at all possible
Mr. Swartley, incorporate my testimony from the previous application regarding
sewer, or I could go through the narrative again if you would like? With regards to
tiling of a ditch, staff’s duty is to basically make comments and recommendations
to you based on the Ordinances that are in place. You can hear their argument
against those items and make your recommendation to Council however you see
fit, but City Ordinance does require tiling of ditches. Our recommendation has to
stand. It is Ordinance and with that I do not have anything else unless you have
any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Freckleton: I will quickly show you some site photos and the plat. This photo is
taken at the intersection of Ustick and Meridian Road. The subject property is in
this location. The trees in the background are the northern edge of the parcel.
This photo is taken, those trees are the same trees I was just mentioning, and
this photo is looking east. You can see the foothills in the back. This is the
proposed Plat that will be receiving the discussion. They have some lots down
near the intersection that they intent for future office use. Again, the
Comprehensive Plan does not support such zoning at this time, so it would have
to come back for a rezone when the Comprehensive Plan is developed or is
adopted providing that it supports that zoning when it is adopted. That is all I
have.
Borup: Any other questions, Commission? Would the applicant like to make a
presentation?
Arnold: Members of the Commission for the record, Steve Arnold, 1800 West
Overland Road, Briggs Engineering. I am here representing Voigt Development. I
will try to keep the presentation quick because I think the previous application
had addressed the major issue, that being sewer. We had some just minor
comments that we have towards the staff report that was presented to us. First of
all, I would like to go through the site information and give you some general
information of what we are proposing. I will give a brief discussion of the
surrounding area and then talk about the site related issues that were addressed
by the staff report. We also are addressing the neighborhood issues and then
those that are off sight issues, and I will try to keep that sewer discussion very
brief. To begin with the developer is also willing to take a recommendation that it
would be up to the White Trunk servicing this area, and that that would be a risk
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 54
that he would take if it were not provided for the site. So we are aware that we
will not get a building permit essentially until we get that White Trunk in. We do
not think it is a risk or a gamble. We are willing to go forward just to save some
time with this and get it through the process. Generally, we are providing 218
lots, 214 of them are single-family dwelling units. There are 4 future office lots
there at the corner that is going to be zoned R-4. We are expecting a change in
the Comprehensive Plan at such time we will rezone and request for an L-O
zoning. We have a centrally located 2.44-acre pocket park there in the middle of
the subdivision. We have created a boulevard into that for aesthetics. The
density of this subdivision is 3.14 including the lots at the southwest corner; it is
3.25 if those are developed as office units in the future. Minimum house size we
are proposing 1301 square feet. We provided for interconnectivity in the future.
We have a stub to the northeast and to the southwest portion of this
development. We have over 700 feet of pedestrian pathways that are also multi-
use drainage facilities. We are providing extensive landscaping along both Ustick
and Meridian Road, 30 feet along both of the roads, 50 feet in proportion to
Ustick where we are tiling the drain. We are dedicating a right-of-way for future
widening of the roadway for both Ustick and Meridian arterials planned to be 5-
lane arterial roadway sections. Greatfalls and Broadwater, these two roads
coming into the site are both residential collectors. We are providing extensive
landscaping around them. Center turn lanes will be provided for those
intersections to provide for safety, in and out of the subdivision. We are also
providing a $30,000 deposit to the road trust fund for a future signal there at the
intersection. To the north of the surrounding area, we have RT zoning which is
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as single-family. To the south we have
Esterbrook, Bedford subdivision, Finch Creek, Granite Tract, Gem Park, and
Settlers Village. They are all an R-8 zone. They have a net density of
approximately 3.8 dwelling units per acre. To the east we have Weaver Acres, it
is an R-1 zone, and to the west proposed Cedar Springs subdivision that we just
had lengthy discussion about. Basically there is three site-related issues, the first
one is the Finch Drain. We do intend to tile the southern portion there along
Ustick Road. That portion was presumably capturing the drainage from this site
and channelizing it away. Along the east property line, we are proposing to leave
that open, and I understand your Ordinance requires that ditches and laterals be
tiled. I am not sure if this is a natural waterway or if it qualifies, but your
Ordinance states that it allows for leaving natural waterways open. I am
assuming that if we tile this, this would affect the properties east to the site,
channelizing their overflow from their drainage. We are proposing to leave that
open at this point. That is what we would request. Another issue, and it is minor,
is the stripping on collectors. In the past, there has been issue with ACHD in the
stripping of those collectors. We just would request that somehow the condition
be modified that if ACHD denies or not allows us to stripe these for bike paths
that that not be a requirement and that be eliminated. We will coordinate with
Highway District to try to stripe them. It is not that big of an issue, but it does
become an issue with the District and some of their requirements.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 55
Borup: So you are saying you are willing to do stripping if ACHD will approve
that?
Arnold: We just do not want that to hold us up. Essentially, if they are going to
deny it then we have to come back, and staff does not have the authority to drop
the conditions, so we would have to come and get it removed. They also had
some concern with our lot widths. They were concerned that the width of a few
lots, the over all lot would only allow for a 40 foot wide house. There are other
instances throughout the City where there are nice houses that are 40 feet in
width. I do not think that that was that big of a contention with them. They did not
bring it up, they did not deny it, and it was just an issue. There are basically two
neighborhood issues. We have received letters from a Mrs. Hansen and Mr.
Couch. I believe they are both on the south side of Ustick Road across from this
development. The first issue is the (inaudible) Ustick Road intersection. Mr.
Couch would like to see us locate it to a line with his for a future signalization of
that with a proposed development that he may have in the future. The problem is
that if you align it for a future traffic signal, ACHD will never signalize it. That
intersection would be located approximately 600 feet east of Meridian Road, the
minimum required offset that ACHD would allow would be 1320 at the quarter
with an arterial their preference would be at the third mile at 1760 feet. They
would not signalize that at least they did not use to. The other issue from Mrs.
Hansen was the school’s traffic and again the entrance. I think that the
development on Cedar Springs subdivision has addressed the school issue with
the 12-acre school site. The traffic is never fun, but it is easy for me to sit up here
and tell you that it is not bad based on numbers, but I can tell you that the road
currently has 6900 vehicle trips. It is designed at a two-lane road to carry up to
14,000 at a 5-lane highway or arterial that it is planned to be. It will carry up to
33,000, which is quite a bit of traffic, but right now this development is only – we
are dumping less than 2000 vehicle trips onto the roadway. The 1300 coming
from this development onto Ustick, 800 out onto Meridian Road. We are
providing for these center turn lanes which should create some safety factors at
both of the entrances. That $30,000 road trust account that we are providing for
a future traffic signal. There is discussion about the entrance being located to
where it is aligning up with someone’s house on the south side. I did scale off of
an arial, which is plus or minus 5 to 10 feet, so I scaled our entrance at
approximately 860ft east of the existing edge pavement of Meridian Road. The
driveway on the south side was approximately 790 feet. Another one was located
915 feet. I am not exactly sure how that aligns up with houses and windows on
the south side, but we may be able to through some offsite design if there is
lights that will be shining into the house. The offsite issues again it was traffic. I
think we have addressed that through traffic study that says that everything can
handle this development. Sewer, I do not want to go into a lengthy discussion
again of that. We have seen several subdivisions, we have Cedar Creek,
Bridgetower, Cedar Springs, and Briggs Engineering is also working on another
large development to the west of Cedar Springs subdivision. The City has
acquired easements and are in the process of requiring these easements, and it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 56
appears that their concern is no more, I think things are working through, and we
will get the sewer issues taken care of before this is ever Final Platted. Schools
was an issue that was brought up, but I do not think staff is concerned about that
anymore with the site that we are seeing to the west of us and other proposed
school sites. Fire protection was an issue that was brought up in the original
annexation and the recommendation for denial. We are aware that one is being
constructed about 2 miles away from here off of Ten Mile Road, and then another
one is planned to be constructed 1 mile away off of Ustick Road. I think that
again, staff, is leaned up a little bit on. In summary, I think we have a nice
subdivision that we are designing here. I think that with the house sizes, the
minimum size that we are providing along with the lot sizes, we will have a good
design. We think it is a nice subdivision. We think we are providing for a nice mix
of uses. A future office use there in the corner will accommodate this site. We
have extensive landscaping. We have a nice pocket park centrally located. I think
it is a good subdivision. The subdivision as proposed we believe is harmonious
with existing and or proposed land uses. It is consistent with the past action by
the commission with subdivisions we see to the south. We believe the site
related issues, we have adequately addressed, that we feel and or can be
addressed, and I do not think that they are that big of an issue anymore. We
would like to leave that drain or if it were a natural waterway along the east open.
I think we can address the neighborhood issues, and I think that the design, off
site design work, if headlights are into someone’s front window I think we can do
some sort of landscaping or buffering along the south. That being the case, I do
not know. I did not get a change to layout where the house sat as it relates to the
exit of this subdivision, entrances will not be an issue with headlights. There are
other subdivisions to the west, as we are discussing sewer that will be extending
sewer when they are approved. We have like I said two other developments, one
that is on the way, that I do not think the City has seen. The City is planning
construction in June 2002. Our approval process will probably take at least 1 ½
years before we ever get designed, we get approved and things constucted. I do
not think that it will ever be an issue, and I do not think the developers actually
are taking a gamble or a risk here. I think the developer is willing to go through
with whatever the City places on this subdivision as a condition of approval
based on the White Trunk. I guess that is it. It was longer than I thought.
Borup: Any questions from the commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I missed the minimum square footage that you
mentioned.
Arnold: 1301 square feet.
Centers: That is a minimum for an R-8 zone.
Arnold: No, I believe –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 57
Centers: I just read it.
Arnold: Okay. We are at the minimum.
Centers: You are meeting the minimum, and open space, what was the
percentage?
Arnold: We exceed the 5 percent, it is 5.14, I think.
Centers: With or without buffers? The buffer work comes in again. Is that with
buffers or without?
Arnold: We are required to provide the 20 feet along collectors and arterials. We
are providing 30 feet there, and we have taken into account 50 percent of the
extra on both roads.
Borup: So think Mr. Centers that that is without counting the buffers.
Arnold: Yes, I am sorry.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman if I may, I just need to point out that along Meridian
Road, 35 feet is what is required for the street buffer. Ustick only requires 25 feet.
Meridian is considered an entry corridor and as such requires 35 feet. Ustick is
not an entryway corridor but is an arterial and as such requires 25 feet, so those
slight modifications would need to be made. I do not know if the open space
counts those or not, so I will rely on the applicants testimony.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Arnold what is that, there is a green strip on the east side of the
property towards the bottom down by that loop road there, is that a pathway, is
that what that is?
Arnold: It is an open space, and a micro-path slash drainage facility.
Nary: One of the things I was a little curious about, because in the November
9th
staff report, the first thing that is mentioned as a reason not to annex is the
school site issue. I guess maybe I just missed it when Steve gave his staff report,
but this is about 50 less houses than the last one we just heard, Cedar Springs
Subdivision, approximately. We are not really requiring them to have a school
site at all because the Cedar Springs Subdivision we feel is adequate. I noted in
your comment it said they are in different zones so it may not really serve them
both, so I guess I am wondering why would we not require a school site for this
one that is only about 50 houses less than the other one.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 58
Arnold: I believe the school site at Cedar Springs Subdivision serves much more
than just the Cedar Springs Subdivision location. It would serve this area as well.
It was selected by the school district as the location for the school site not by
Planning and Zoning, but I believe that the school site there would address
elementary school needs on this site.
Nary: Do we have a letter or something from the school district saying the feel
that the Cedar Springs Subdivision school site is adequate to serve both of
these?
Arnold: I do not think so.
Nary: Not at this point anyway.
Borup: Anyone else? Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, then the school site for this subdivision hinges on Cedar
Springs subdivision that we have not acted on yet. Nor has the City Council. If
we approve this annexation and Cedar Springs Subdivision does not get
approved, we do not have a school site. Does that make sense?
Arnold: That makes sense.
Borup: Commissioner Norton, did you have a comment Mr. Arnold?
Arnold: Yes, it was my and maybe I am wrong, but hasn’t that property been
purchased by the school? So it is contingent upon --
Borup: No I do not think it has been purchased yet. They have not agreed on a
price.
Nary: I do not think it is contingent, but if we do not annex it so they are not
going to get to build those houses, I do not think the school is going to really
need it. I think that is kind of where it is.
Borup: Any other questions?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I did have one if I might. Steve, on the question regarding
the drain, have you had dialogue with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on that?
Siddoway: No, I have not. I am assuming that because it was collecting water to
the (inaudible) I do not know that we can tile that.
Nary: Collecting water, like a sub-drain?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 59
Siddoway: Yes.
Nary: Okay, there are several places in town where sub-drains have been tiled.
They are simply tiled with disjointed pipe and they are in a gravel bed.
Siddoway: If that is a requirement, if we can, we are amenable.
Nary: I think it would be very helpful to have input from Nampa Meridian.
Siddoway: If it is a natural waterway, then obviously –
Nary: It would be in a natural waterway.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I am sorry. I wanted to address this at the same time. Item 9 of the
staff’s report, we talk about the pocket park lot. It is also termed a storm drain.
What is the water table in the area? And how do you propose to address Item 9?
Do you know the water table?
Arnold: I know that the, we had some preliminary soil reports, the water was
down below 10 feet. We did not have a problem –
Centers: What time of year was that?
Arnold: I do not know. But the 4 to 1 slope, I think that is a common requirement
that we –
Centers: Well, I think they are talking about the slope going down into it.
Arnold: Right.
Centers: The 4 to 1, but how do you propose to address the water in that
drainage area, when you are designating it for a park are you sure it is going to
be used for a park? Because I have experienced otherwise in other areas with
high water tables.
Arnold: We do not plan of having a swamp in there.
Centers: Well, I know you do not plan on it, how do you plan to address it?
Siddoway: I believe within the park there are seepage beds also. So it is not
going to be a retention area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 60
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman. I do have a soils report that was filled along with the
application. Soils report, water table measurements – the date of this report was
July 21, 2000. They measured freestanding water at 101 inches in one test hole,
81 inches in another test hole, and 123 inches in another test hole. There was
recommendation in this report that monitoring should be done carried out
through the irrigation season. I believe that was one of my comments in staff
comments was I wanted to get the update data for that monitoring program just
so we could see what it did through the irrigation season. If that helps.
Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Arnold, you did skip over one staff comment a little
quickly. Item 20 on lot widths. You felt 43 feet is adequate size to get an
acceptable house on, is that essentially your statement?
Arnold: Yes.
Borup: Is that from experience or from –
Arnold: Just view. Have I built a house with 43 feet and frontage?
Borup: Right.
Arnold: No.
Borup: Well, speaking from the construction sight of it that is not a desirable lot
at all. It is hard to get any type of architectural amenities on something like that.
All you have is garage showing. I guess maybe that is something, Steve,
apparently the Ordinance talks about street frontage, it does not address the
angle or anything like that in there does it?
Siddoway: It only has the minimum lot size and the minimum street frontage.
Which they are meeting, but the configuration raised a concern.
Borup: Theoretically, I could see I mean depending on the angle of the street.
You could have a 65-foot lot frontage on a 20-foot wide lot.
Siddoway: It does not seem very buildable. As long as they are willing to build
40ft wide houses and believe that they are marketable, but the Ordinance allows
for it.
Borup: Okay, well I guess that answers it. It is allowable. I would say it is not
real practical. Anyone else have any other questions? Mr. Centers.
Centers: You may not be able to answer it. Was there any thought given by the
developer to go with an R-4 zone, like Cedar Springs Subdivision down the
road? Did they ever consider that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 61
Borup: I do not know if they considered that, generally everything, somebody
correct me if I am wrong, I think everything east of Meridian Road has been
zoned R-8 to date. Is that a pretty fair statement?
Norton: Yes, the stuff south of –
Borup: South of Ustick, east of Meridian Road, all the development has been
zoned R-8.
Centers: Surrounding it?
Bowcutt: That is correct. Becky Bowcutt. I can possibly answer some questions,
we are kind of having a transition here of the project. I used to be an employee at
Briggs Engineering, and I have now left and work for a couple of developers. I
can answer some of the questions since I was the person that designed this
development. To answer your question concerning the groundwater, we had a
hydrologist, geotechnical specialist go out. We dug test holes. We did that prior
to the seasonal high, which is usually in the month of August, September, and
October. We have been monitoring monthly on what that water table is doing. At
the time we were out there, there was irrigation going on, so we did have some
interference. I understand your concerns about the open space, the pocket park.
Mr. Voigt, I have been doing developments for him for at least 7 years. It has
always been one of his priorities that these parks be usable, so we do not have
nuisance water in the bottom of them. ACHD, that is one of their pet peeves, and
as Steve indicated, we typically have some type of a seepage bed that handles
that nuisance water, so we do not have from just some light rains some standing
water that just sits there and possibly seals itself off. We sloped these
appropriately so they are usable, and I think in your own Landscape Ordinance it
stipulates that staff will review these to make sure that they are usable area if
they are to be counted towards that 5 percent. Secondly, the issue was brought
up about the school. I have been working with Wendell Bigham closely over the
past few months on the high school site. Mr. Voigt owns the property just north of
the new high school that is going to be constructed here within about the next 3
to 6 months. I have also been working with Mr. Bigham about an elementary
school site out in this area in a development. It is in the process, so I cannot go
into details. I have been working on an elementary site with Mr. Bigham up on
McMillian and Ten Mile Road. What they look for is a certain radius. There are
other schools, I believe they currently have three elementaries along that Ustick
corridor. It was his intent when I began working with him on my Bridgetower
crossing project that we try to get an elementary school up towards McMillian. He
said we have enough on Ustick and we have this possible Ustick site on the
Cedar Springs Subdivision property. Like I said they look for a radius. Each
subdivision does not have its own elementary. It serves many, many
developments. Concerning the question about lots, we always have a few lots in
a subdivision in Preliminary Phase that may be a little odd or unusual in their
shape and size. Before we go to Final Plat, we go in, we evaluate each lot to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 62
make sure that it is buildable. We are looking for specific pad sizes to
accommodate the type of homes that would be built in the development. In
probably 75 percent of the cases, we will go in and if we have a horribly unusual
lot and there is a question on is it buildable, we will go ahead and eliminate a lot
from that block or maybe two lots and widen them out. That is very common. It
happens day in and day out. I think the responsibility for making sure these lots
are buildable is upon us. If this lot is not buildable, we cannot come to the City
Council and say gee I want a variance on my side-yard set back or my rear set
back. There is no hardship there; we cannot meet the criteria for those findings
and conclusions. Therefore, the burden is upon us.
Borup: Anything else from the Commissioners? Thank you. I would like to open
this portion to any questions, comments, or testimony from the public at this time.
Come on up.
Couch: My name is Dave Couch, 395 East Ustick Road. I live across the street
from this development. You pretty much addressed all of my concerns tonight on
the previous subdivision and on this subdivision, but there are some issues that
when they start talking about the water table and a few things that I would like to
point out that we have had a problem with the slew on the other side of the road
directly south, and it would be where this green area here comes across the
road. That is the same slew and the same water. It has backed up and it has
backed up enough to flood the Hansen’s parcel, and how many times have you
been flooded? Twice. She has been flooded twice in her basement and had to
completely change the carpet, ruined furniture; it caused considerable damage.
Now there has been work done on that south slew since then, but it is still the
possibility always exists that during the summertime when that water table is
quite high in there with any kind of blockage at the downstream end of this, it
could happen again. I just want to bring up that even though the water table
reports that you have heard tonight, we have had our own experiences with the
water table being high from the irrigation standpoint. It looks to me like
somewhere along the line that there should be transition phase for subdivisions
go from the R-8 to the R-4, whatever. This Cedar Springs Subdivision that was
talked about earlier is an R-4. It looks to me like it would be more compatible if
this one was an R-4. When they say, they are all R-8s around them, that is not
true. To the east side is the Weaver Circle. Those are like acre lot parcels. To the
south you have several large parcels in there, so it is not all R-8 surrounding that
subdivision. I have been told that from a planning perspective you want to keep
all of your population, your rural urban type area all the same, but it looks to me
like it also – Meridian has been a starter community for along time, and I think we
are started. I think we need to be a little bit more particular and have a little bit
better developments as we go. This looks like it would be a nice phase to
transition between the R-8 to the more rural areas that are going to be to the
north and have them look at the R-4 issue. Of course, I am the one who has the
driveway coming straight into my place, and I would like to ask them to redesign
this section of the road and straighten it out, so that it meets a future road which
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 63
is Fouth Lane. It is a private road right now, but it is 60 feet wide. I happen to
own that property and that road, and it makes sense to me to have the roads line
up as opposed to having them offset. Now we are dealing with an ACHD
requirement, and the signal I do not care about I do not think that is that
important of a deal if it is just all about a signal being there, they are not going to
put one there anyway. So I think that they could move that road and
accommodate lining up with Fouth Lane. I was going to talk about the office lots
not being according to the Comprehensive Plan, but that was addressed by the
fact that they will be R-4 until they come back in and the new Comprehensive
Plan is passed, so that particular item was addressed earlier. That is all I have to
say, thanks.
Borup: Any questions from the commission? Anyone else? Okay, did the
applicant have any final comments?
Arnold: I guess I just have for the record again, Steve Arnold, one comment
about aligning roads, and I know that a lot of times it makes sense on these
arterials to line up. The only benefit of aligning a road up is for future
signalization. I guess I did not expand on that. When you line up two local streets
like this without a signal, you get twice as many conflict points on the road as you
would if they were off set. I know this because that is what I used to recommend
a lot of times when I used to wear a different hat. Aligning is good if they can be
signalized; it is better not to align them, there are fewer conflict points if they are
not going to be signalized. I guess that is all the comments I had.
Nary: Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I do not know what that means. Could you explain it a little bit more,
where does that make the conflict points?
Arnold: If I remember correctly, there is about some 30 odd conflict points with
an unsignalized intersection on an arterial. Conflict points occur when you get
people turning left in and left out of these intersections that are unsignalized. You
are not only looking down the road to make a left both directions, but now you
have to look across the road and make sure there is no conflict coming at you.
Each point, as you turn out, there is a conflict with on coming traffic, as you turn
left there is a conflicted point here. And I am going off of memory there are about
30 some odd conflict points with unsignalized intersections that align up
compared to the roughly half of that when they are offset. We have the offset
requirement for ACHD for these two intersections.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Okay, does staff have any final comments?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 64
Siddoway: I would only like to add the condition that I think all of my issues
would be addressed if we would just add the condition that the project complies
with the Meridian Landscape Ordinance 11-13. That is the section number of the
Landscape Ordinance that has in it the requirements for the 35 feet along
Meridian Road. The offset sidewalks just like we talked about with Cedar Springs
subdivision along those locations and the internal open space. If that one
comment were added I think I would feel more comfortable. Thanks.
Borup: And I am assuming on the comment on the tiling the ditch on the east if
anything is to be done different there that would require a variance, and an
application to the City Council.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I just also wanted to add, the applicant had
entertained some discussion with public works department regarding an alternate
means of sewer. That basically will not work, and their proposal was a pump
station into the south slew, south slew just does not have the capacity. I would
just add if it is your desire to recommend approval to Council on this that you
would add the statement that I read to you regarding – by passing forward a
recommendation of approval it is not construed –
***END OF SIDE FOUR***
Freckleton: -- I think we might get that incorporated into the motion.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Just so I am clear Bruce, the recommendation initially in November was
asking the commission as well as the Council to make a decision as to whether
or not to go forward with an annexation. I was not very sure on whether the
sewer service was going to be provided. Now that we are a little bit further, it is a
little bit more concrete, are you more comfortable now at saying it is not quite as
risky for the City to go forward at this point because it is a little more concrete as
to this is more likely to happen. It is a little bit closer in time. I just was reading
your comment from November.
Freckleton: Commissioner Nary and members of the Commission, I think our
comfort level is coming up.
Nary: With that caveat in it, you feel okay to go forward.
Freckleton: After several discussions with our legal Council, it is felt that by
having those caveats in there we are just trying to protect the interest of the City
and not get into any kind of a liability situation on the road where somebody gets
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 65
backed into a corner, says we do not have service, and then all of a sudden the
City is hanging out. I just want to qualify the recommendation.
Nary: The other question I had is, Steve you said the other comment in here
was the school site issue. It appears that Cedar Springs subdivision if it is
approved will adequately serve this subdivision as well from the school district
perspective. Bo you feel comfortable with us going forward with that not being
approved? At this juncture do you think it is kind of risky or do we need to have
more warnings or more disclaimers in there as well.
Siddoway: I do not know why the school district did not comment on this
particular application. I do not have any comments from them in my packet that I
can find. If you want their direct input, that would appropriate but –
Nary: My concern is we had a fairly contentious hearing on Cedar Springs
Subdivision.
Siddoway: It is only 50 lots more.
Nary: It is not a whole lot smaller, and if for some reason worse comes to worse
that that Cedar Springs subdivision they decide that they are going to wait a long
time before they figure out how to redesign that or do it different, and this one
starts to move forward, we are building this 200 lot subdivision without a school.
Siddoway: I do not understand the school district’s issues enough to comment
on that.
Nary: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, regarding the schools, continuing on with that, and I see
the school district’s letter here, and it says the same thing every time, correct?
Borup: There was a comment at a meeting a couple of months ago that was
made, you build the houses, we will find the school sites. Now supposedly
someone, Bigham, or someone in his office has made that comment. Can you –
Siddoway: It is my understanding that the school district does not want to stand
in the way of annexations. They have stated that they do not wish to recommend
denial of projects based on school capacity, and that they will continue to work
on those capacity issues by trying to find school sites. That is all I know.
Borup: If we are being practical, the other school site is going to be there. That
is too expensive of property to be used for farming. Something is going to
happen, and I do not know this developer would not want to sit on that. I mean I
am talking about Cedar Springs Subdivision. Okay. Are we ready to proceed
commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 66
Centers: I would like to address the pond water again. I heard the comments on
how they are going to handle that, and I believe she is sincere and the developer
is sincere and will do their best, but what we have is a dedicated park to meet
the 5percent that is going to be used for run off in my opinion. I think that is fine if
the park can still be utilized, and if we can get guarantees that it can be utilized.
The reason I say that is because I live within a subdivision that has the same
thing, and there is water standing in the volleyball court, and they cannot play
volleyball nor basketball at times, so why have dedicated open space that is
unsightly and usable, so if there can be some guarantees that that can be a
usable park for the residents then, I do not know how you are going to do that, I
do not know how you are going to enforce it control it maybe you can fill me in,
Bruce.
Freckleton: Commission Centers and members of the Commission, design
standards have changed considerably since the time your development went in. I
think I know where you are talking. Those standards have come from several
different agencies. They are required now to maintain a minimum of 3 feet of
clearance to groundwater from bottom of drainage facilities, so you are not going
to have freestanding water table in the pond. They have to maintain the bottom
of that pond above, 3 feet above. We also I believe in our comments stated that
any standing water has to be disposed of within 24 hours, it has to go away. It is
not going to stand there; it is not going to have lily pads.
Centers: You are not going to be out there watching for it though.
Freckleton: We do require, these are going to be street runoff, the Ada County
Highway District is going to be in the design of these, and they have design
standards. They require the subsurface soil investigation. City of Meridian
requirements are that street centerline finish grades are set a minimum of 3 feet
above to try and insure dry crawlspaces. These things have all come about in the
last 4 or 5 years. Sorry.
Centers: Just the other comment that I had, Mr. Chairman, was the fact and
comments she made that that really is their problem as far as putting houses on
the lots of that size. They have to meet the code. I do not have a problem with
the lot sizes. That is their bag.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Bruce, for the slew backup can you comment on that,
what Mr. Couch and his neighbor Mrs. Hansen, it looks like Mrs. Hansen has
been there at least 12 years and has splittered her basement twice. Do you have
any insight on that?
Freckleton: Commissioner Norton and members of the Commission, I am trying
to picture in my mind how that slew runs. I believe it runs up the west side of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 67
Bedford and then it must cross over to the east and then go north again, is that
correct? The sub-drain, is that what we are talking about? Okay and I believe it is
open through there. It is open clear down to the south slew, is that correct? I do
not know the history behind that, whether Nampa Meridian had some damming
in the slew or perhaps Mrs. Hansen could address that better than I. I do not
know the history behind it. I believe it is a Nampa Meridian owned and operated
facility so –
Hansen: My name is Rochelle Hansen and I am at 375 East Ustick, and I have
been a 12-year, 13 year resident. Actually, in regards to the slew, I had not had
any problems with flooding until development occurred. It was a real struggle as I
worked with the developer at Bedford and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and
no one would take responsibility on helping me to resolve the problem. Since
that time they have cleared the area, but we have not had the drainage that we
experienced the two times that I did flood. I have tried to work also with the City
in regards to that tank that is over on the, access tank, for lack of better
explanation. It is an excess run-off tank that they are going to notify me if they
ever have to drain that tank which is on the corner of that other subdivision.
Freckleton: You are talking about the water reservoir.
Hansen: Water reservoir, correct because I am concerned about that. We did not
have any trouble until development occurred, and it does it just fills up my
basement.
Freckleton: Mrs. Hansen, in your opinion was it construction debris, or –
Hansen: I think it was both construction debris, and I think it was also
maintenance debris as well. The other problem is at the very end of that slew
more towards the south and on the west that the outlet was not large enough.
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District did go in and enlarge that outlet. It did back up
at one point and that was with debris as well, but we have not had the amount of
drainage that we did at the initial point.
Centers: Mrs. Hansen, do you have a full in ground basement?
Hansen: No, it is partial.
Centers: How deep? Can you stand up?
Hansen: Yes, I can look out the window. So the window hits me right here, so 4
feet.
Centers: And where does the water come from, the floor or the walls?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 68
Hansen: The water comes from the floor, and I have a drain outside my outside
door, so I can monitor how high it gets, and I have seen it get higher. I have put a
little sub-pump in there, but again, I never had problems until 5 years ago, was
my first problem. So for 6 years we did not have any difficulty until that point. Can
I make a comment about the entrance point? Is that acceptable?
Norton: Yes.
Hansen: From the plans, it is really hard to designate, I thought the entrance is
also coming towards my house, and so it is my bedroom that I was pointing at
the windows, or the light shining into my room which you are right is an
inconvenience. You know since living there a while, I can understand, some
people do not care about. I happen to care about that. I also care about it from a
safety standpoint in having children, and I experienced when I was going along
Ustick Road this fall where someone was trying to turn into Bedford and the car
behind him, because the volume of cars had changed, and they ended up going
right off into the ditch. My vision was that car coming right into my front yard and
getting my children. So that was another concern besides the inconvenience of
these headlights into my window, but also these cars potentially someone not
stopping in time and coming into my road, or I have a circular drive and them
missing it, and I am like the turn around spot. I am the turn around spot
frequently now, but as far as quality of life and being a long term resident, I of
course have that concern. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, what is your pleasure?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Norton: Second.
Borup: Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Would someone like to start?
Nary: I guess I will start. It does seem like a pretty good project. I understand
the concerns that the two neighbors who have come tonight have expressed,
and I understand where they are coming from. I also understand Mr. Arnold’s
point of safety and all that on that particular issue of the driveway or the
entranceway. I guess the school is the one that concerns me more than anything.
I foresee the Cedar Springs subdivision project eventually through somewhere
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 69
getting resolve; I think that is likely. I just hate to send this to the Council as a
recommended annexation when we are not really there yet. I do not know what
Mr. Howell and the City are going to resolve in that subdivision in a month. They
may not, and what we will have is a pretty good-sized subdivision with no school,
and do think they have said that in the past. As Mr. Centers said, where the
school district says just build the houses and we will figure out where the school
goes, and that is probably the biggest frustration of anybody in this community in
regards to schools. We build the houses and then we try to figure it out later. By
the time we build the school, we are already behind the curve, so I think the
intent of the City is let us be in front of the curve. Let us get the houses built
when we are building the schools at the same time, so we do not have that
frustration and overcrowding, because every letter does say the same thing, we
do not have any room right now, they always say the same thing. So I do not
know whether, or if the commissioners have some input, of putting a condition
that on their Preliminary Plat, they may have to provide a school site. They may
have to do that as part of the conditions of approval of the Plat if there is no other
available site for the school district to build. They may have to do that as part of
the Final Plat before it is done. I do not know if that is reasonable. I do not know
if we have done that, but at least there would be some assurance going forward.
I do not think there is any thing wrong with annexing the site. I think building
houses there is probably fine, but that is my only real concern that we could end
up, and if the developer is willing to gamble that the sewer is going to get built,
maybe they are willing to gamble that the school is going to get built somewhere
else too, and they will not have to worry about it. That would be my concern, that
there is something to assure the citizens that we did not just annex in another
couple hundred houses that will not have a place for kids to go to school, if there
is not one nearby.
Centers: Would it make any sense if we acted on the annexation and did not act
on Item 7, the Preliminary Plat until Cedar Springs subdivision?
Borup: There is a procedural problem with that. We have a time limit after
recommendation to get it to the City Council. So we would not be sending an
annexation to the City Council without a Plat. Which they have asked us not to
do.
Centers: Okay that was my question.
Siddoway: Becky Bowcutt was just suggesting to me that we might require an
approval letter from the school district stating that they are recommending
approval of this project, and that they have found adequate school sites
elsewhere. Apparently, that is something the City of Boise regularly requires.
Centers: That is reasonable.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 70
Nary: Because if they do not provide that or they say they are still up in the air
about it, I guess the Council can decide not to do it. And they can say we will
wait.
Borup: And if the school district says okay, and will be real specific on the letter
then that should answer that.
Centers: I cannot see them doing that, I see someone shaking their head yes,
but if we can get a yes from the school district that is great.
Borup: I might make just one comment on one of the testimonies on a transition
point, and I am not sure how you transition from an acre subdivision, but even
though these are R-8, they are 65 frontage. Virtually everyone in there is more
than the 100-foot minimum. So the frontage is the R-8 minimum, a few of them
over, but the total square footage, from what I could see, virtually every lot in
there was over the 6500ft, some of them up to 7 and 8. That may be the best you
can do on a transition as far as square footage. It does perhaps transition
between the 8,000ft lots.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, would the R-4 zoning be not adequate? Because that
is what I guess was asked. Why not just make this an R-4.
Centers: Well then their minimum home square footage goes up.
Freckleton: Oh, I see.
Borup: Well, that and the lot size too.
Freckleton: So what you are saying is this is an adequate transition with the R-8
because the lot sizes are a little bit bigger than the lots of the R-8 anyway.
Borup: Yes, from the normal R-8s these are larger lots. They are less than an R-
4, but they are larger than what you usually see in and R-8. There are some in
here that are 10-11,000 feet. Okay, any other discussion, questions from – are
we to the point for a motion?
Nary: Mr. Chairman I would move that they recommend to the City Council
approval of AZ 00-021, request for annexation and zoning of 70.72 acres to an
R-8 zone for the proposed Sundance subdivision by G.L. Voigt’s development at
the northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian Roads. Pursuance of all of the staff
comments, specifically also to include the comments made tonight the Public
Works Department that are already in written form, so I am not going to repeat
them. I think the school issue is probably the – and also that they be in
compliance with the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance 11-13, and they also
receive an approval letter from the school district that there is adequate school
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 71
sites within this area to serve this subdivision. This is fine, including the
comments made by Public Works tonight.
Borup: There was one minor request by the applicant, and I guess if you want
to incorporate it or not, that the staff’s comment of striping that that would like a
continuance on that with ACHD’s approval.
Nary: I think that seemed pretty reasonable. That is No. 12 on their letter of
February 13th
including that comment from the applicant and the ACHD basically
requirement, but on the sub-drain issue of the piping, I think they are going to
have the City Council approve that. I think they are going to have to comply with
the Ordinance and let the Council see that.
Siddoway: Mr. Nary, I just verified the Landscape Ordinance 12-13, so I am
sorry about that.
Nary: Thank you, so as amended 12-13. I think that was everything that we
talked about.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded, any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: And Mr. Chairman I would also move for the recommended approval for
the City Council of PP 00-020 with request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214
single-family lots, 4 future office lots, and 23 common lots on 69.79 acres for the
proposed Sundance subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development at the northeast
corner of Ustick and Meridian Road to incorporate all of the staff comments as
written, as well as the comments tonight from Public Works in a written form, as
well as the other conditions regarding a letter of approval from the school district
and that they also comply with the City of Meridian Landscape Ordinance 12-13
and the striping of the bike lanes will be contingent upon ACHD’s requirements.
They will be required to comply with that, and that the sewer will be required to
comply with the City Ordinance unless a variance is granted by the City Council.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded, any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 72
Item 7. Public Hearing: PP-00-020 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 214 single-family lots, 4 future office lots and 23
common lots on 69.79 acres for proposed Sundance
Subdivision by G.L. Voigt Development – northeast corner
of Ustick and Meridian Roads
Talked about with Item 6.
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 00-027 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 5.97 acres from RT to R-4 by Hubble Engineering
for proposed Inglenook Subdivision – east side of Locust
Grove Road and north of Victory Road
Borup: Items 8 and 9, request for annexation and zoning of 5.97 acres from RT
to R-4 by Hubble Engineering for proposed Inglenook Subdivision and with that
is the request for Preliminary Plat on the 21 building lots on the same parcel. I
would like to open Public Hearing AZ 00-027 and PP 00-028 and to start with is
the staff report.
Siddoway: Chairman Borup and Commissioners this project is located along the
east side of Locust Grove Road, south of Overland, this is Victory Road and the
intersection with Locust Grove here. Shurebrook Hollows, Thousand Springs
subdivision, Los Alamitos, and Salmon Rapid Subdivision all surround it. Subject
property is the one hatched in the center here. I would point out that you should
have a revised Plat on this one that was dated February 14th
so very recent. It
should look like this. The original Plat that the staff comments were based on
show a culdesac bulb ending approximately in this location and no stub street to
the south. The main issue that I feel I need to point out is in Preliminary Plat
comment No. 7 regarding the Stub Street to the south. Ada County Highway
District has recommended that this stub street be configured as this revised Plat
shows it. The Planning and Zoning staff feel quite strongly that the location of
that stub street should be in line with the stub that goes to the north which also is
in line with the stub street that comes up from Shurebrook Hollows on the south.
The main reason ACHD gave for requiring it in this location was so that it would
not be a straight cut through Raceway; however, even if the road is developed
for it’s entire length including the property on the north through this property
down to here and down to there, it is approximately 800 feet long which is less
than a standard block length. I do not really see the Raceway as an issue, and I
think the interconnectivity would be much better if it were configured in the
straight lines. That is really the only issue Planning and Zoning has at this point.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant here
who would like to make a presentation?
Nickel: Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. For the
record Shawn Nickel’s, Hubble Engineering. Address is 701 Allen St. Suite 102
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 73
in Meridian. I am going to be very brief because I know it is late and there are
some other people that want to get going behind me. I have reviewed the staff
report and have submitted comments to the affect, and as staff has stated, the
only issue that we have at this time regarding staff’s comments and
recommendations has to do with the stub street location to the south. As staff
indicated, we did get approval from ACHD for the location of this and at our Tech
Review a member of the Meridian staff was present when we decided with the
Highway District that that would be an appropriate location. We are in
agreement that placing that road to line up with the stub streets to the north and
the Stub Street that is coming out from Shurebrook Hollow would provide a
straight street. We feel that for safety concerns it is more appropriate to curve
linear design as opposed to a straight shot thus eliminating that 4-way
intersection that we would create in the middle of the subdivision. We were also
concerned about the redevelopment of the parcel to the south. So what I went
ahead and did, I am showing you two scenarios as to how the property to the
south could develop. As you see under our proposed design to have the Stub
Street here. Once the Stub Street was punched through, the culdesac would be
dedicated to these properties, so this would be a straight street. That would
provide a little bit better design to provide lots along the canal here. You would
still have your interconnectivity to the subdivision to the south. That is the intent
of the Highway District and the City Comprehensive Plans, to have
interconnectivity with the neighborhoods. In each scenario, the property to the
south would be able to get probably 9 lots under your current R-4 zoning with the
8,000 square foot minimums. We would ask that you revise that proposed
requirement to allow having that stub street at the eastern boundary. Two other
issues I would like to bring up. We met with the neighboring property owners to
the north right before our meeting here. They would like to have us move our
stub street that we have stubbing to the north over between these two lots right
here. The reason for that is to provide them for a better way to resubdivide their
parcel in the future. We have no objection to that. That is something that can be
handled through the ACHD’s staff as far as relocating that. We would like that to
go on record and have you approve that connection one lot over to provide a
better access for the north property. The other issue we talked to with the
neighbors, and I think a couple of them were going to get up and testify, is there
is a small ditch running along the north boundary of the property on our northern
boundary and then their southern boundary. Your standard Ordinance
requirement requires that a ditch to be piped along our northern boundary.
Borup: So that is on your property line, on your side of the line?
Nickel: It is on our property, correct. What we would like to request is the
flexibility to work with those neighbors to the north. They do irrigate out of that
ditch, and we are going to go out and meet with them and try to come up with a
way, if you recommend a waver to the City Council, to keep that ditch opened.
We will fence on our south side of it so it will be separate from our property. We
might pull our fence down to the south slightly to allow that ditch to remain. We
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 74
would ask for a waiver request at this time, and maybe in your motion, if you do
make a motion to approve this, that you recommend to the City Council the
flexibility to have that waiver so that we can work with the neighbors.
Borup: Does that ditch continue downstream across Locust Grove?
Nickel: I believe it does.
Borup: Okay, is this a service ditch that you are talking about, Shawn?
Nickel: Yes, it is.
Borup: Okay, so it is just private irrigation.
Nickel: Right.
Borup: It sounds like they prefer an open ditch. Had there been discussion on
just moving it over and putting it on the other property?
Nickel: We are actually going to go out and meet with the neighbors and see
what we can do to help them out.
Borup: Okay, and we will probably get some input on that?
Nickel: We would just like the flexibility within the Ordinance. Those are the only
issues that we have. We are in favor of the rest of the staffs recommendations.
We do meet the Comprehensive Plan and the Subdivision Ordinance for this
development, and we ask for your approval.
Borup: Is the owner of the property to the south here tonight? Yes, okay. Any
questions for Mr. Nichols before –
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Nickel’s I just had one question. So essentially from what we see
here tonight, you want to move the stub street over one lot?
Nickel: We would like to move this stub street over between lot 1 and lot 2.
That will provide a better re-subdivision for the parcel to the north.
Norton: For the one that is not developed, but the one that is developed, our
Planning and Zoning suggested that you do not want a stub street; it would not
work with a stub street, would it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 75
Siddoway: They have both undeveloped on both north and south of them.
Norton: Okay.
Nickel: Your staff is recommending that the stub to the south be right here, and
we would just like to have it located at that point right there, and that has been
approved by the Highway District for that location.
Norton: Are you going to move your north stubbing over one lot?
Nickel: Yes, and we will still meet the separation requirements from the Highway
District.
Norton: So that would not make sense to put a stub right there if they are going
to move that one over.
Nickel: I did not really think about that.
Norton: It would not connect at all.
Nickel: One lot over would connect about as well as the one now does. Neither
one of them are lining up exactly.
Norton: Oh, I see what you mean. So it could still line up?
Nickel: Well, as close as it does now. It does not line up now either.
Norton: Thank you.
Nickel: Thanks.
Borup: It sounds like we have a few neighbors here. I assume that at least
some of you would like to testify. Come on up, whoever would like to start first.
Jennings: Virgil Jennings, 2640 South Locust Grove Road, and my concern are
in the irrigation. We want to make sure that irrigation water is supplied. From
Locust Grove on the north side of the property they are proposing, the ditch
would need to be piped, I suppose, across the front of their property on Locust
Grove, and then it comes into a pipe that runs past my place. It is already piped,
and then it opens up and we irrigate out of it to the north. If it were to be tiled
well then we would have to put in open checks or some way to get the water out.
So our concern is how we are going to take care of the water on that property.
Thank you.
Borup: Yes is would be piped, but it would not need to be check stations or
whatever is required.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 76
Jennings: If it were to be piped, we would have to have some way to get the
water out.
Borup: And that is one of the requirements that the irrigation water is not to be
interrupted, so everyone who is receiving it now will still be receiving it. It sounds
like they want to work real closely with the neighbors to do what you want, so
hopefully that will work.
Jennings: Thank you.
Shipley: I am John Shipley, 2770 South Locust Grove Road which is just on the
other side. I am on their south side. We went through another interesting
summer with the real-estate guys trying to buy my property and not wanting to
give me enough to replace it. There is concerns with, when I irrigate my – those
fields were laid out in such a matter that they slope on a cattycorner angle to the
other side there, and I may irrigate somebody else’s back yard. My drain water
ultimately gets down to the back of my field, which runs along the squaw pile of
Nine-Mile drain.
Borup: So this is where it ends up?
Shipley: Yes, and it goes back towards Sutters property at the back, and it ends
up popping out into the Nine Mile drain back there. I suppose they could put in a
ditch or something along there to catch it. There is a ditch there right now on
their property that catches my excess drain water, because originally all those
fields were all one field, and they land leveled them to that point. Underneath the
structure there, there is permabarrier 3 or 4 feet and then there is a gravel bar
nearly all that whole property back there was old alluvial lake bottom gravel.
When you irrigate, eventually that all fills up and then it sub-drains across that
permabarrier and can make underneath peoples houses wet and things like that.
I thought it would probably be neat if I just plain moved out of there and let them
develop the whole thing, but they are not willing to give me enough to replace it.
So it became almost like harassment every four or five days the guy is back
again on the phone, sitting on your back steps, new skin on he whole mess,
10,15,20 times and it always worked out the same. If I sell part of the property
off in the back, we still have the water problem because I have to irrigate the
front. If I sell the whole property off would be the only thing, but there is going to
be water problems, definitely water problems, because Shurebrook Hollow had a
hydrologist in. They had to put perk-lines all down my property line on the other
side to catch the excess water that came up on the permabarrier, underneath
that gravel, and they had a hydrologist outfit come out. This is the truth, this is
what happens, and they had to spend a lot of money putting in pipeline so that it
ends up dumping into the Nine Mile back there, all of the subterranean water that
runs –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 77
Borup: Mr. Shipley, so right now you are saying your water drains down to here
and it comes along down here, and it is caught in a ditch presently?
Shipley: Yes, and it pops in down there where your little –
Borup: Into here?
Shipley: Yes.
Borup: We will ask the developer how they can –
Shipley: They can put another tube in and catch it at the back part of my
property, but the water that perks underneath has always been a problem. There
is an old basement in my old house, and I can guarantee that we can swim in it
in about the middle of July because of ground water, and it has been that way
ever since I lived there for nearly 30 years.
Borup: I am familiar with some of those.
Shipley: I also have a well on my property, that is not really very deep, and even
in the lowest of water years, I have always had water in my well.
Borup: So your main concern is how they are going to handle the drainage.
Shipley: Well I do not what some young kids to buy a new house and then have
trouble from me irrigating because I usually run a few head of cattle on that land.
I have had a lot of trouble from Shurebrook Hollow, the folks in there thought that
my land was a place to dump the rocks off of their land. So they threw them all
over the fence. One gentleman, I had to call the police out to get him to take his
trash that he had thrown over there. He took a bunch of sod and threw it over
my fence, and clogged my ditch, so I had to have – I called the Meridian Police
because it is Meridian people doing this mess. Inconsiderate people, this same
gentleman cut a hole in the chainlink fence so he could let his dog in and out of
my field and claimed that my cows bit a hole in his fence, this chainlink fence that
you have wire-cutter marks on.
Borup: We will discuss that with the developer and see how they have
addressed that drainage.
Shipley: There is no compensation for me. I used to just walk out and go
pheasant hunting or do whatever I wanted. My life now is a lot different with the
traffic and everything that is happening. I am living with it, but all this
development. They need a light at Locust Grove and Overland. They put 3 or 4
more houses here or 10 or 12 more there. There are two cars in every house. If
you go down to the market during the middle of the day that is the best time to
go, but if you happen to go at 4 p.m., you might be half an hour getting home.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 78
Borup: Thank you.
Shipley: You guys live here; you know what is going on.
Borup: Thank you sir. Yes, come on up.
Sutter: Hi, my name is Mike Sutter; it is 2620 South Locust Grove. You have
Virgil and then you have my parcel, which is the house he is pointing at then it
goes all the way to the Nine-Mile drain. My consideration is like Virgil’s irrigation.
We irrigate down that ditch, and the other consideration is like the presentation
said the northern stub street is right into the landscaped area of our property
where you have that unique double-lines that kind blotch up – right there. That is
the pasture fence and it is all pasture that direction. If we were to develop it
would be in the pasture area, and Hubble even gave us preliminary plan of how
they would do it, or we would do it, or something like that. The object would be
to put a culdesac there. So if that stub street was moved, I’d say one more lot
over than your red mark to between 2 and 3, it would be right in the center of the
pasture area. You would have up to 5 homes in a nice semi-circle, and that
would be what we would prefer. They have been very good earlier talking with
us about moving that and also with the irrigation. That we would figure out
something to do because we do want to continue irrigating. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Sutter. Maybe just on the irrigation. Is your
preference for them to pipe it on their property or to move the ditch onto your
property and leave it open so you would have full access all along?
Sutter: To move it onto my property and to Virgil’s property would be very
extensive due to the trees that have already grown. We have a lot of mature
growth. It would probably kill quite a few trees.
Borup: Well, yea that does not show on the Plat here.
Sutter: We still want it open or still accessible for us to us, whatever works the
best for everybody.
Borup: Sounds like right now it may need to be piped, but with some access to
it.
Sutter: Right, for both –
Borup: Yes, and maybe more than one depending on how your ground slopes.
Thank you. Anyone else? Come on up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 79
Babbit: My name is Carl Babbit. I live at 1671 East Time Zone. I just had a
question on the house sizes for this subdivision? Is there a minimum they have
for it?
Borup: Yes, 1400 square feet, probably the same as yours.
Babbit: No, that is my question if you go to the north that subdivision, I think the
smallest is 15 or 16, and Shurebrook I think is the same way. The houses there
start at $150,000.
Borup: They do, but the (inaudible) in Shurebrook are 1500. That is not what
you have got but that is what the covenants say.
Babbit: That would just be my comment on. I have no problem with that. I would
just like the houses to stay the same as the rest of the houses in the area.
Borup: You are in a subdivision up here?
Babbit: Yes.
Nary: I think you are probably in the same zone as the Chairman stated. A lot of
times a developer will put covenants to require of minimum of 15 or 16.
Babbit: That is what I was wondering, whether it would be listed. That would be
my comment, because the rest of the subdivisions around there, even across the
street, are all at those levels. Then if we put in 1300, 1400 square foot homes, it
would be quite a bit of difference there.
Borup: I do not think we could really require them to, but I think he has looked at
the market, and the competition around. You could probably expect that I would
think.
Babbit: Thank you.
Borup: The name of your subdivision was?
Babbit: Los Alamitos.
***END OF SIDE FIVE***
Borup: You are positive that covenants are more than 14?
Nary: Oh, yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 80
Borup: I think the easements of the area determines what houses are going in
and the ones around are usually larger, and that is usually the way others go.
Yes, sir you had a comment?
Babbit: My name is Clifford Babbit. I live at 1180 One West Avenue, Boise. I am
the fellow that set the ground up over there. All that ground there. I set the level
so that it would water from west to east. Whoever owns these properties is
suppose to keep their property up so it waters from west to east. It is not
supposed to run over in this guys property, it is not supposed to run over in this
guys property and so on. If they failed to do their maintenance the 10 years or 20
years or whatever, that is their responsibility. It does go down to the bottom down
there, and then it runs in the drainage ditch into the drain ditch there, which is
open, but that is on the other subdivision’s property. If you have any questions
other than that, but that is the way it is suppose to water, and that is the way it
should be watering. If they keep it up, it will water like that. Mine waters that way,
sometimes John there he turns more water in there and sometimes it went over
into my property. That the way it is suppose to be, that is the way it was set up
back in 1974. Any questions?
Borup: I guess not, thank you. Anyone else? Okay.
Tomlinsen: Rich Tomlinsen, Providence Development Group, 701 South Allen
Street, just real quick. Steve would you mind putting it to Preliminary Plat.
Because irrigation a couple of times, I just want to point out because we will most
likely be doing a lot of the civil design on this --
Borup: Well yes I was going to ask that question, so are you going to talk about
lot 8? Is that part of what you are getting into?
Tomlinsen: Lot 8, I’m sorry.
Borup: Well this is lot 8, down at the end there against the drainage, I believe.
Tomlinsen: Yes, that is going to be part of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District
ownership, not ownership it will be owned by the Homeowners Association, but it
is part of the drain there that will be maintained by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District, and these fields do drain to the east and stuff. When we talked with the
neighbors to the north about this open ditch because right now they use the
irrigation siphon tubes and stuff out of there. It would be hard to put an irrigation
box or check structures every 10 feet to do that. That is why we had just
requested a possibility of working with the neighbors for the ditches, I think
approximately 3 feet wide, and if our lots along there are over 100 feet deep the
lots are 8,000 those close to 9,000 square feet. It would be easy to pull a fence 3
feet off of that property line to keep the fence line on the south bank of the ditch.
The safety concerns are addressed because the ditch, although it is not tiled, is
left open and also it is still functioning, as a user ditch is what its current use is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 81
right now. Hopefully that explains a little bit to that effect. The ditch on the south
that the property to the south the owner was saying that that drains into that ditch
is just maybe by coincidence. I do not think that the fields – Mr. Babbit got up and
talked that he used to own the whole area in there, and the fields were supposed
to drain from west to east, and this ditch that runs along the south boundary of
the property there was to irrigate this property here. It was not to be a waste
ditch for the property to the south. I just wanted to get that into the record
because I know that there is testimony saying that that is a receiver ditch. It is
not a receiver ditch; it is the ditch that irrigates this piece of property here, and
the last part, I just wanted to maybe if you wanted to ask staff about the two
different stub streets, and how the property to the south was actually able to
develop in similar manners with the stub street located where we had talked with
Ada County Highway District and had that approved to where they were talking
about a straight street here. I do not believe that they have a problem with that
because the intent of the interconnectivity is met regardless of where the Stub
Street is because to develop the property to the south they are going to have to
run a street one direction or another anyhow.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman I could address that if you like. Staff’s main concern
was just on interconnectivity. When you have narrow parcels like this if you do
not have interconnectivity you end up with just islands. Brad and I discussed it
last week. I understand the concern about the straight street. I think it is a valid
concern. I guess I will go out on a little limb here, as long as the interconnectivity
issue is addressed, I think that it is a workable thing.
Borup: Mr. Shipley is either one okay with you? Okay, I mean it is connected to
the adjoining piece so either one I think meets the City’s requirement. My main
concern would be more the neighbors than were it is located as far as the City is
concerned. I do not think that is a real big issue. Just for clarification on the ditch
to north then, it sounded like you were thinking the direction the neighbors may
like to go is leaving an open ditch and you would be put in a fence on the side,
so you would be asking for variance from the City on that then.
Tomlinsen: Thank is correct because right now the actual paragraph in the code
specifies and does not give another option that the ditch needs to be tiled if it is
on your property. So it would be asking for a waiver for that particular portion of
the code. I think we meet the intent of the code that the safety reasons that
somebody is not going fall into the ditch that comes through the subdivision
because we will have a fence right there.
Borup: Then you realize you will need to apply for a variance, a separate
application on that.
Tomlinsen: If you would recommend to the City Council, we will get a letter in
tomorrow asking for a variance on that condition.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 82
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions commission?
Norton: I guess I do have a question Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: That is if this is passed tonight, you will rework the Preliminary Plat for a
City Council meeting, where your stub streets were going to be?
Borup: Good point there, the one neighbor would rather have it two to the north,
does that cause any design problems as far as the topography or are you okay
with it?
Tomlinsen: No, in fact the stub street has been in a lot of different areas through
the different plans that the neighbors have seen. This was the last place that the
Highway District had recommended it. The Highway District does not require
noticing. They do not notice neighbors and stuff, and we did not think at the time
to ask them to come to the Highway District meeting and say where they might
want to have stub street, so that is where the Highway District recommended it to
be.
Borup: So you do not see any problem moving 160 instead of 180.
Tomlinson: No, sorry to belabor the point, it is a staff level approval. We can put
that street here, or we can put it over here. The only condition that they have is
that the centerlines are a minimum of 125 feet apart, and with the lots as wide as
they are all of Ada County Highway District conditions will be meet, moving that
road to where the neighbors to the north would like it.
Norton: And you would redo your plat before City Council?
Tomlinsen: Yes ma’am.
Norton: So they could see exactly where the road would be going.
Tomlinsen: Yes and we most likely can get a letter from the Ada County Highway
District staff as well.
Norton: Thank you. That is all I had.
Borup: Was there anyone else before we close the Public Hearing?
Nichol: Mr., Chairman, Shawn Nickell again from Hubble Engineering. Just to
address one other question that this gentleman brought up regarding house
sizes. Typically that is a market driven issue on the size of the houses. However,
the houses within the subdivision will be similar to houses in the area, and we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 83
are looking at between 1400 square foot minimum and about 2200 square foot,
that range for house sizes. That is all.
Borup: Okay thank you. Any final comments from staff? Commissioners?
Nary: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motioned seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I move to recommend approval to City Council for AZ 00-127, request
for annexation and zoning of 5.97 acres from RT to R-4 by Hubble Engineering
for proposed Inglenook subdivision east side of Locust Grove Road and north of
Victory Road to include all of staff’s comments on their letter from February 13th
and also with two understandings that they were to be applying for a variance for
an open ditch to City Council.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Siddoway: The staff comments still state that the stub street to the south should
be in alignment with the current ones.
Borup: We will address that with the Plat.
Nary: In fact I was just going to ask that. I would like to ask on No. 7 on your
Preliminary Plat comments, you want that included, the applicant is in
disagreement, but you are firm on your opinion right?
Siddoway: On the stub street issue, we are fine with the applicant’s proposal as
long as it addresses the connectivity issues, which they have.
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 00-028 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 21 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.97 acres in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 84
a proposed R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering for proposed
Inglenook Subdivision – east side of Locust Grove Road
and north of Victory Road
Norton: I move that PP 00-028 request for Preliminary Plat approval of the 21
building lots and 3 other lots on 5.97 acres on a proposed R-4 zone by Hubble
Engineering for proposed Inglenook subdivision east side of Locust Grove Road
and north of Victory Road to include staff comments with the exception of No. 7
that the stub street would be changed either one or two lots, between 17 and 16,
and as long they maintain connectivity to other subdivisions in the area.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Does that make sense Mr. Swartley?
Swartley: Yes sir.
Borup: Okay.
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 01-001 Request for a Conditional
Use Permit for an office building for O’Neill Homes in an L-
O zone by Toothman-Orton Engineering Company / Johnson
Design – Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road at 385 S.
Locust Grove Road
Borup: I would like to open this Public Hearing and begin with the staff report.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission this is an application
for an office for Woodbridge O’Neill Homes LLC. Its location is on the west of
Locust Grove Road in this hatched area here. The Woodbridge subdivision that
is currently under construction is the yellow area in here. The surrounding
properties include some residential uses to the north as well as to the east. West
of the project is the Medamont Subdivision also known as Stonebridge
Subdivision. To the south is currently vacant. It has been annexed and zoned R-
8, part of it is the future home of the Meridian Police Station. The request is for
an office in an L-O zone, which typically is a permitted use in that zone. The
reason it is before you tonight is because of the development Agreement that
was sign at the time of annexation when there was no used proposed on this site
and it required that any proposed use go through the Conditional Use process.
Therefore, it is before you tonight. Some site photos, this is standing on Locust
Grove Road looking due west, you can see the existing house that is on the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 85
property as well as the existing detached garage. They are set quite a ways off of
the road; existing garage runs along its south property line. This photo is just a
close up view of that existing house that they wish to convert to an office as well
as the existing detached garage. There is quite a bit of grade elevation drop from
the existing road. The cars on Locust Grove Road, looks like there is about 5ft of
drop there, not particularly a problem just pointing it out. This is also a view into
the site showing that entrance. This is their proposed site plan. The Locust
Grove Road in here north is up the driveway coming in, four parking spaces
which is the number required based on their size converting the existing
residence to an office. We have our staff report dated February 12, 2001. In
conversations with the applicant, I believe they are in agreement with all of them
with one modification that is Conditional Use site specific comment No. 11, the
entire driveway and parking area must be paved in accordance with Section 11-
13-4D, no gravel parking or driveways will be allowed. The issue that is going on
with this is that they are proposing to remain on well and septic with a Sunset
clause. I am not sure when it is, in Conditional Use site specific comment No. 1,
Sunsets in 6 years or if any future development on the parcel is proposed; they
have to connect to City water and sewer. Central District Health will not allow
them to pave over a drain field that is in use. It is my understanding that the drain
field is in this location in front of the existing garage. They would still be able to
pave the entire driveway as well as all of the parking that is required, but that
they would have to maintain a gravel area in front of the garage at this location. I
believe those are all the issues that I have. Thanks.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Beecham: My name is Scott Beecham with O’Neill Enterprises. We are the
managing partners of O’Neill homes. I want to thank staff, both Steve and Bruce,
for their efforts on this. I know their plate is pretty full right now, and they did a
good job of putting some good comments together here. I do want to give a little
bit of background on this. The original intent here actually prior to that we were
developing Woodbridge directly across the street as Steve pointed out. We
wanted to have a construction trailer in Sales office that we thought was going to
be to lengthy of a process at some point and decided that we would utilize this
other property that we owned as we found out we would have been much better
off to go with the construction trailer and go through the CU process there.
However, we do see this as an inerum use on this property. We are excited to be
in Meridian, and we think we will be a great addition to Meridian. Not only
Woodbridge but also our home building company actually moving out here.
However, this is not the highest and best use of this property as you can see
from the site plan. The property is highly underutilized with this existing residence
in a commercial aspect. We foresee at some point in the future that this will
either be the existing structure will be removed and a new office building will be
constructed or the property may be split and the front of the property or the
eastern half would then be developed. That is the reason for the request to
remain on well because we see this as an inerum us. Hopefully at some point we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 86
will be able to construct our own new office on this property, but at this point we
are really trying to get things moving as Woodbridge is moving along, and we
need an office space out there.
Borup: So it sounds like the only really issue is No. 11.
Beecham: Yes, if you want to run right through it. I should say based on the staff
report provided by Bruce and Steve that is the only issue. What I have provided
to you is alternative language and unfortunately I did not get over here until this
evening, so I would like to ask Staff if they are in agreement with that, before I
actually refer to it as an agreed to modification.
Borup: So at this point you are still planning on paving the driveway to the office
building itself?
Beecham: Yes, and all of the required parking area to the north side of the last
required parking stall.
Borup: So the other is not a traffic area anyway.
Beecham: No it is not. The garage may be used for storage, but it would be
occasional traffic.
Borup: Not much different than what we have done in other areas for storage.
Beecham: The other modifications you will see on that sheet are based on the
comments from the Fire Department. I have spoken with Kenny Bowers and he
is in agreement that we can use the same Sunset clause on the installation of a
fire hydrant as we have used for the sewer and water. He was to have discussion
with staff on that.
Siddoway: I have not heard anything, sorry.
Beecham: Again I can give you what his verbal comments were to me. I assume
that we can have this discussion prior to City Council meeting. Then the second
was on a turnaround. His intent with that comment was not to have a full radius
turnaround. We could use a hammerhead configuration or snoopy configuration
as long as he was able to actually maneuver a fire truck and turn it around. As
the plan is drawn, he can do that.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Scott, so that I understand, basically what you are proposing here is do
the turnaround like the Fire Chief is requesting, but not to put the fire hydrant in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 87
at this time. You are saying any further development. So this as constructed, you
are saying the Chief was fine with not putting the fire hydrant in at this point.
Beecham: That is what he indicated.
Nary: So if we simply put a condition that he will to supplement this comment
since the City Council will probably ask the same thing, that is probably
adequate.
Beecham: I believe so. I know that it was included in your packet of staff
comments, but not in Bruce and Steve’s comments, specifically.
Nary: Well, he makes it very clear that you need to have a fire hydrant now, not
in the future. So you are saying his supplement to that was we do not have to
have a fire hydrant now.
Beecham: That is correct, and that he can protect this structure as he has in the
past as a residence.
Borup: Did he realize there was no new construction or anything that just the
existing house was being utilized?
Beecham: His remarks to me were that he did not realize that that the scope,
that it was only a remodel of the existing structure.
Borup: That was the impression I had for him to make that comment.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Beecham, would you comment on the stop work order.
Beecham: Yes I will, and actually I went through that with a bit of
embarrassment. We very much apologize for the fact that we did start
construction prior to getting a permit. The reason for that is the modifications we
intended to make originally to this structure were so minor, we were under the
impression that a building permit would not be required, that unfortunately
escalated rapidly and as you can tell from the photos there has been some work
done. We had a stop order. We now have a building permit, and I do apologize
for that.
Nary: Did they charge you double?
Beecham: I did not write the check for that. Thank you for bringing that up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 88
Borup: Any other questions from the commission? All right, thank you Scott.
Beecham: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Smith do you have a comment? I am assuming you are still here, so
you must have.
Smith: Robert R. Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road. If I could borrow your
pointer for a moment, Keith. My driveway starts right at this point on Locust
Grove and parallels this to my garage, which is right here in this same location.
My concern is that all of this area here is exposed to this traffic, and right now it
is kind of a mess where they have got all of their construction material, and it is
visual from my home. According to what this area here from Medimont, we had a
20-foot barrier here, and we have a landscape area. It is kind of a joke because it
is a terrible mess to keep it maintained. Meridian has a lot of ordinances in place,
but they do not have any means of policing them. We have been policing this,
and it has turned into a major weed patch. The trees are about 3 ½ to 4 feet in
height. They will probably never be in my lifetime big enough to be a barrier. I
would propose here that we get a masonry fence here at least 6ft high to barrier
my place from what is going to be going on here eventually from what he is
saying. They did this down at Petersons to shield Robertson’s place. They
agreed, you did the Planning and Zoning, to put a masonry fence to shield his
property. I do not know, he is showing trees right here, but I do not know what
these X’s are, and I do not think that is very adequate. Another concern of mine
is that that septic system is 36 years old, and I know there is going to be quite a
few offices in that place now. I have another couple of notes here. The other
thing that happens is that this area right here that we have been fighting with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning to keep this maintained, the developer has not
done that. I am afraid when this gets started again, right now this is all non-
irrigated and it turned into a real bad weed patch this summer and dried out. My
wife and I were very concerned because I have a very large shop right here. My
motor home and all of my vehicles are parked in it, and if we get a fire started
there by the time even the Fire Department could get there, we would lose all of
that. So I think a masonry fence would be the least they could do to keep us
protected from anything like this to happen. I believe that is all.
Borup: You were concerned about the septic usage?
Smith: Yes I am because again with the offices they have there. I know that
property. I built one year later and it was built one year before me. It is 36 years
old. The field drain is 36 years old, and it has never been replaced from all the
people that have been there.
Borup: So feel that an office is going to use more septic than a residence.
Smith: Well, there are a lot of people.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 89
Borup: I think you will probably find that not the case. An office is not going to
have washing machines going, dishwashers going, bathtubs, showers, and all
the items that use up water.
Smith: Well on the septic system, I am not so concerned about the water. I am
concerned more about the solids.
Borup: That is part of what a septic system needs to hold.
Smith: That is true if it is up to standards, but if it is not 36 years old.
Borup: Okay.
Smith: I replaced my field drain about 7 years ago because the drain itself
became bound in, and I had to replace it. This one has never had anything done
to it.
Borup: It sounds like you may want to check the tank. Thank you. Do we have
anyone else? Do you have any final comments Mr. Beecham?
Beecham: Yes, thank you. I will try and be quick with these. I will go in the order
of Mr. Smith’s comments. The application here is not for a contractor yard. We do
have some construction materials out there. They are associated with the
remodel of the home. There will not be storage of construction materials on this
property. As far as the buffer at Medimont, part of the problem with maintaining
that buffer is that they built the fence on their side of the property, and essentially
gave away 20 feet, so that was the situation on our property. That is not our
intent with the buffer to the north of us. We will meet the Landscape Ordinance
requirements with trees, appropriately sized trees, and a masonry fence in this
location takes away the need for a buffer, No. one, and is just simply cost
prohibitive. I understand the concern, but we will certainly make every effort we
can to be a good neighbor. The septic system, we of course have to have this
system tested and approved by Central District Health that includes a cleaning of
the tank. We will have that done on, they indicated to me that a two-bedroom
house, which was the original configuration of this structure, could accommodate
up to 10 employees without over burdening the system. We will have four
permanent employees, full time and 3 to 4 transient employees that will use it as
a home base, but their major function will be in the field at Woodbridge working
on the homes.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Scott, how long do you intend to use this as an office building?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 90
Beecham: We expect, I will be a little bit careful on how I answer that, a certain
absorption at Woodbridge, the main reason for locating that specific spot is
Woodbridge. At the same time, we would like to relocate that business to
Meridian and are anxious to do so.
Borup: So what this building would be until build out of Woodbridge.
Beecham: That is right. We have got 283 home sites approved there. We have
just started construction on it. Your guess at the absorption is as good as mine,
but I would guess that it would be there for 4 years.
Norton: Okay, and then will this be regular office hours, so it will not bother the
neighbors going in and out late at night and that sort of thing?
Beecham: Yes it will.
Norton: What would those office hours be?
Beecham: Our typical office hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., we have got some
employees that come in early and stay late. The activities are confined to within
the structure, so it really should not be a disruption to the neighbors.
Norton: Okay, and would that be included on weekends also?
Beecham: We have been known to come into work on the weekends.
Norton: Is this a sales office type of thing?
Beecham: No, it is not a sales office. It is our homebuilding operation that will be
housed in there.
Norton: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Any final comments from staff? Do you want to
give it another shot Mr. Smith?
Smith: Robert Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road. Well, my concern is if this is
not fenced now, it probably never will be. If what they are indicating, they are
going to enlarge this facility at a future time or make it more of an office building
–
Borup: Let us get a clarification on that, Steve, I think they indicated they would
like to build a whole new building there on the front half, that would still be under
the Conditional Use process at that time?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 91
Siddoway: If there were two buildings on the same lot, it would require a second
Conditional Use Permit or if they split it, it would require a plat.
Borup: Or if they build another building, I mean they are back here now as a
Conditional Use Permit because it was required. That still applies to future
development would it not?
Siddoway: If the existing house, office house, remains and they did a second
one it certainly would.
Borup: How about if they tore it down.
Siddoway: If it were torn down, it would not unless you made that a condition on
the CUP.
Borup: Could we not apply that condition?
Siddoway: Yes.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman if that is the case I think there are several items that
need to be added as conditions to the CUP. Sewer and water issues as I spoke
to in my comments on Conditional Use site-specific requirements. We talked
about a Sunset clause of 6 years or with any future development on the parcel,
which ever occurs first. There is also an issue of a ditch that crosses the
property, shortly you are going to see a Preliminary Plat, annexation and zoning
come before you for the second phase of Howell-Murdock parcel, which is
directly to the south of this. They are dealing with the ditch in theirs. It is a
continuation of that very same ditch, so I guess I would just through that out. If
you are thinking that it would be inclusive in this Conditional Use Permit.
Borup: Well, I am not. That is why I asked. Scott, what was your understanding
on any future development that you would be back for another Conditional Use
Permit application?
Beecham: Yes that was my understanding.
Borup: So if we reiterated that, that would not be a problem? Okay, would that
answer your concerns Mr. Smith?
Smith: No it does not because I think you should kill two birds with one stone.
You should clarify it now.
Borup: That it what I am saying, we would put that in as a condition before any
future development.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 92
Smith: It should be in now because regardless of what he said, one day there I
counted 32 vehicles at this site, all parked in that parking lot. I know it was a
walk-through or something for their people, but again, there can be a lot more
things happening, and I just think this would prevent a lot of problems for us, and
as I said Peterson did it over on the other parcel. You sanctioned it, and it was
residential. And you have a masonry fence the full length of that property of
Robertsons on their north property line, and I think with this project here that we
should have the same barrier so that we are not affected by them. It is just a
thing that will prevent problems in the future, I think.
Borup: Are you talking the proposed apartment complex when you say
Petersons?
Smith: Yes, and that is all in the agreement, and that is why I say this should
have the same thing. I am going to be affected the same way. And I just think if
you would see my property, you can see my garage right there in the corner right
now, that is my garage right there, and my driveway parallels that whole parcel
right there, and again as I said it was a total weed patch. We have had to ask
them to cut it twice now. They are good neighbors, and they will do it at their
convenience, but it is just a mess that we have to look at. I do not think it is
appropriate, and the fence was there originally, and the neighbor that these
people bought it from; he took it down. His wife was going to put in a beautiful
white vinyl paneled fence and they sold it to him, and I got nothing out of it.
Originally, the fence was there and it was supposed to be replaced, but it was
not. That was one of those deals.
Borup: The fence was on their property?
Smith: The fence is on their property.
Borup: Okay, I guess they would be able to take it down if they wanted then.
Smith: Well, I put it in as a half property owner when it was originally put in. We
all did. Half the fence line on your property, but again he was going to replace it
at his expense. He promised me and nothing ever happened, but that is why the
fence is not there now.
Borup: Thank you.
Smith: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioners? We are done, unless you had final comments.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I move we close the Public Hearing.
Centers: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 93
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we need a little bit of discussion first?
Nary: Mr. Chairman I guess I am a little bit torn because Mr. Smith has asked us
as part of this Conditional Use Permit to require that they put up a fence between
his property and theirs. Basically, all they are really asking to do is change the
use of this property from residential to an office. At least the perception is that it
is not going to have a tremendous impact on the neighborhood by that use
change. That is really all they are doing, they would not normally be required to
be here other than that condition in the development agreement. I am a little torn
on that particular requirement. I think the only other thing that is not on Mr.
Beecham’s suggested amendments is the one that you brought up about any
further developments that would again require a reiterate for any other
development, I guess. I guess I am just not sure what to do on the fence issue.
That is the discussion point.
Norton: Mr. Chairman I think that that is a discussion point too. I do not like
looking at weeds either or all those vehicles. I do not know if a masonry fence is
practical to expect the applicant to put in, but maybe some type of fence that
would screen all the activity from Mr. Smith’s property might be a good
neighborly thing to do.
Borup: I think it is possible that the applicant and Mr. Smith might get together,
and as he said in the past, he shared the cost of the fence with the previous
neighbor. Maybe they could do that again.
Norton: Yes that makes sense.
Borup: Steve what would be the normal buffering an L-O and residential?
Siddoway: It would require a 20-foot buffer. They do have a full 20ft in here.
These X’s that were included to are my own. The Landscape Ordinance requires
that the full length of a contiguous lot line be provided with that buffer. In thinking
about it though it also has an outlet to alternative compliance if there are special
issues on the site. Given that there was no activity at all up in this front portion,
and they were proposing to wrap the trees around, I felt that it met the intent of
the Ordinance since the property to the north, the house is in this location here,
and the buffer was specifically provided between the uses at that location. If the
commission felt inclined they could require this to be planted, but for the same
reason as was mentioned about this not being maintained along here. I felt that it
was more likely to be maintained if they were in proximity to the required parking
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 94
and had the trees wrapping around them. So that is why I supported that
configuration.
Borup: Thank you.
Nary: So Mr. Chairman I guess since fencing under our Ordinance is initially
required.
Siddoway: It is not necessarily required. The Landscape Ordinance and the
buffers between land uses has a provision that says that the City may require
one between incompatible land uses if it is felt that it is needed, but it is not
required.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to make a motion and send to the City Council with our
recommendation the approval of Item 10, CUP 01-001 request for Conditional
Use Permit for an office building for O’Neill homes in an L-O zone Toothman-
Orton Engineering Company, Johnson design, Franklin Road and Locust Grove
Road specifically 385 South Locust Grove Road with the caveat that any future
development, the owner/applicant would have to resubmit for another CUP,
would that cover it staff? Including staff comments as submitted.
Siddoway: And then there are also the modifications to No. 11 and the Fire
Department that were submitted by Mr. Beecham. I do not have heartburn with
the language in No. 11 as long as it is clear that the phrase: unless otherwise
restricted, as far as paving the driveway that it is made clear that the full
driveway and required parking areas will be paved. The only area left unpaved is
the area over the drain field.
Borup: Did you get that? We got the language that all driveways and required
parking would be paved.
Nary: I guess the only other request to make the motion, this comment this fire
hydrant shall be installed upon the further development of the property, that the
developer is going to have to provide proof or something to offer from the Fire
Chief for that particular request. Is that all right?
Centers: Yes, I would accept that.
Nary: I second the motion.
Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 95
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Let us take a break.
Borup: Okay, let us take about two minutes for a short break.
Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 00-001 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G by Larson
Architects for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center –
southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road
Borup: I notice there is no public in the audience, and what I want to ask is how
much information each of the commissioners would want as far as overview and
description of the property, et cetera. We all have the reports, and I know a lot of
times how we like to, the overview is a little more lengthy for the benefit of the
audience, which we do not have here today, so I think both staff and the
applicant are probably prepared to be abbreviated and then open to any other
questions or expansions that we would like. So does that sound all right to you?
***END OF SIDE SIX***
Norton: -- and there are certain included businesses in the zone, I think we need
to address that. What type of businesses we will allow or not allow. Regarding
the gated entries and the Stub Street. Those are things I would be interested in
hearing about.
Borup: I think staff is going to have a comment on those items specifically. Let
us go ahead open all three Public Hearings then. Request for annexation and
zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G by Larson Associates for the
proposed Silverstone Corporate Center, also a condition to open the hearing for
a Conditional Use Permit for the commercial planned development and request
for preliminary plat. I would like to start with staff report.
Siddoway: I will be as brief as possible. I just want to point out the items that are
outstanding issues and things that need to be addressed tonight during the
presentation. I will start out with the arial photo, this is Overland Road and this is
Eagle Road, subject property is in this location here. Pretty much surrounded by
existing farmland uses. So again the hatched area would be the subject property,
this is a site photo taken this morning. On Eagle Road, south of the project
looking north this photo is just panning a little farther to the east. This is the
proposed site plan for the Conditional Use Permit. There are also specific site
plans for the Corporate Center, which have been submitted as well as landscape
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 96
plan. The building elevations which you have, and the proposed Preliminary Plat.
Basically, they are proposing two separate zoning districts, C-C and C-G. The
area north and west of the proposed street that would be in this area here, this
being Overland and Eagle so north is to the right on this photo. This area would
be zoned C-C, this area would be zoned C-G. They have a desire to obtain two
building permits for two parcels that are talked about in the application. There is
only one parcel of record in the Assessor’s data. They would have to go through
a one-time lot split procedure in the county in order to create two lots in order to
be eligible for two separate building permits prior to the Plat being approved. As
Commissioner Norton pointed out there is no traffic study done yet. Ada County
Highway District has requested one and to date Ada County Highway District has
not provided any comments on this project. Annexation and zoning requirement
No. 3, Commissioner Norton also pointed out that they have their proposed list of
uses, I will not belabor that because I think you understand that the applicant has
submitted a proposed list of permitted uses. Staff has requested that some
specifically remain as conditional uses. We have also suggested others that
could be added as permitted uses and asked that residential uses be prohibited
unless they are approved through a separate planned development process. And
that once this list is agreed upon by the Commission and Council there will be a
development agreement required for this project. Issues with the Preliminary
Plat, I point out Plat comment No. 3, that they will need to extend sewer and
water to and through the development to the property on the eastern side. There
has been no provision for this made in the Preliminary Plat as it exists today.
Item 7 showing easements for existing irrigation and drainage facilities
specifically Eight Mile Creek flows across this portion of the property. It is my
understanding that Parks Department is looking at Eight-Mile Creek as one of
their future pathway sites. I do not have any specific comments from the Parks
Department on that, but the Eight-Mile Creek easement is not specifically shown.
No. 8 the landscape plans surrounding the project on Overland and Eagle will
need to be submitted in detail with the Final Plat. Item 9, the landscape buffers
must be platted as a separate common lot in this staff comment it says that a
minimum landscape buffer shall be placed within a permanent landscape
easement. I point out that the new Landscape Ordinance actually requires them
to be platted as a common lot, so perhaps that second sentence should be
eliminated from that comment. No. 11 with the gated entries, in looking at their
application I think that we just need to make it clear that while we do not wish to
have a gated entry that restricts access, I believe their intent is to have a
gateway as opposed to a gate. We are perfectly fine with a gateway structure
marking the entrance to the project. We just do not want to have a gate that
restricts public access along that road. Item 12 the site plan does not match the
Preliminary Plat, and I asked the applicant to clarify that discrepancy. They are
showing buildings that cross several lot lines for example, so that is an issue.
Item 14, there are four lots that are within the 100-year Flood Plane, there has
been no discussion about the Flood Plane in the application, we would like to
have that addressed. Item 16, the correct right-of-way is also not shown on the
site plan or on the plat, 48 feet will need to be dedicated along both Overland
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 97
Road and Eagle, that needs to be revised. Specific issues on the Conditional
Use Permit, I jump to No. 5, 10percent common open space, this is not part of
the Landscape Ordinance this is part of the Planned Development Ordinance.
This project is a Planned Development. It is required to 10percent common open
space. The applicant needs to address whether or not his site plan conforms to
that requirement. Item 7, streets and circulation, there is no provision for stub
streets going to any adjacent properties. It is completely self-contained. The road
comes in off of Overland on the north winds around and goes out to Eagle Road
on the west. Staff feels that there should be a public road connection stubbed to
the property to the east as well as to the property on the south. Staff also
supports full collector status roadway along the south property line because that
is the half section mark where we try and get collectors everywhere in the City.
Item 8, sign program has not been submitted, and we do have detail of a
monument sign, but there needs to be more detail as far as the proposed
signage for the project as a whole. Finally, No. 10, alternative transportation
options, we want to make sure there is provisions for a future bus stop in this
area, as well as bicycle racks on all of the buildings. That is all I have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? The applicant that is here, would
you like to come forward?
Larson: Good evening, my name is Cornell Larsen. My address is 210 Mary
Street in Garden City, 83714. I am here this evening on behalf of the applicant,
Sundance Investments Partnership Limited. We would like to go through each of
the comments that are outlined in staff’s report that they have mentioned. First of
all, I want to take just a brief minute and indicate to you what we have found from
several of the people that we have been talking to that have interest in the park,
and some of the reasons it designed like it is designed. The intent of the park is
to be truly a corporate center that is geared for a corporate user, geared for a
larger user. We are trying to put a project together that would be very similar to
the Black Eagle Project on Overland or the Boise Research Center Project that
would be an upscale office project. Also, when we say office it would include
mixed use, a variety of uses, maybe hotel/motel, maybe so retail associated with
it. Part of the reason for the site design is in meeting with various users, as some
of their requirements that we are seeing. Some of the users are actually asking
for a visual contact to the public which would be, for example, some of the users
along the streets here and here might desire a visual contact, other users are
asking for more of an individual identity, stand-alone type of facility. That they
might be able to come in and purchase a particular facility or site and build their
own facility and establish more of a corporate image. Most of the users that we
have talked to have indicated their desire to be near access ways, to be near
roadways, and to have good access to good transportation, good employment
base, a good group of citizens to draw from for their employment as well as to be
close to the population base. They have also indicated to us that they want
controlled sites. They do not want what they may consider as negative traffic,
and they do not want to be negative traffic as it relates to adjacent properties,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 98
and to explain that to you a little bit, negative traffic to a residential area is this
entire commercial area dumping through what might be a future residential area.
That would be more of a consideration of negative traffic impact on an adjacent
property. What might be a negative impact to this piece of property is should an
industrial truck or other uses such as residential uses be allowed to come
through the project that would allow the interference between residential or
commercial traffic or heavy industrial traffic. So the reason the project as it was is
to be self-contained for corporate user in order to provide an atmosphere that is
acceptable to them with the least amount of interference from the adjacent
surrounding properties and to also be a good neighbor and not drive through
residential subdivisions to avoid stoplights that might cost them a little longer
wait. So part of the reason that we have laid this project out as it has been is to
provide what we are seeing the corporate user look for in the market place today,
and to try to bring a project like that to Meridian that would be an attractive tax
base, give you good employers that would be in the area close to the population.
Some of the other things that are of concern, and then I would just start to the
staff reports. The building concepts will try to be very consistent in design. They
could be one, two, and three-story buildings depending on the uses, and you
would ask us to specifically talk briefly about the uses. We had submitted a list of
uses for the project, and these uses were our best guess at some of the things
that may happen in the project. Part of the reason for the list is to have a starting
point to see what might be acceptable or what might not be acceptable. To
further answer the question, the list that we proposed is not to be accepted
based on comments from staff or acceptable to us. We had several questions
about the All-Childcare Facility. Some of the corporate uses do like to have a
childcare facility within their project, so we would just want to be clear as long as
it was contained within one of the building sites, within the building, the question
would be would it need to be a conditional use or could it go through with the
project as a part of a corporate use? The other one we had a question on was
food kitchens. Assume that that also would relate to a corporate use that may
have a kitchen within his facility or to a restaurant that this was more geared
towards a mission or a soup kitchen that would help the people that might need
temporary help. The other uses that the staff had proposed –
Centers: Where those the only two uses –
Larson: On the prohibited use, yes. The other items that staff had proposed
seemed to be reasonable uses, so we did not have any real issues with those.
Borup: I just to maybe ask this before we go along, so we will not forget. Steve,
on the communication tower, I understand a radio or television tower. Are you
also talking cell phone towers?
Siddoway: Yes, all new cell towers, we always require a Conditional Use Permit
on those.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 99
Borup: So you are just saying the permitted use with out the --
Siddoway: It is just suggesting that, I believe it is on the list of conditional uses,
is it not? Yes, communication towers including cell towers should go through the
CU process. Daycares we think should also, because it gives the Police
Department a chance to do background checks, which is standard.
Larson: Oh, I am sorry. I had looked over that to fast and had just say the not
permitted outright.
Borup: Yes, all those are under conditional use. Go ahead Mr. Larsen.
Larson: Thank you. To give you just an overview on the property, the property
has been purchased by Sundance and is now in their control, so it is their intent
to move forward with the project. They have also completed the one time split on
the property that was addressed by staff, which is showing on Page 2, Item 2 of
the general overview comments. I do have Mr. Anderson, the owner, and I also
have Chuck Christison here with me, who is the engineer from Quadrant that has
been working on the project with us. Going on to the Preliminary Plat
requirements which are on Page 4, and actually we are going to switch to Page
5. We have met with the Public Works Department, Bruce Freckleton and Gary
Smith, and have discussed the utilities and extending those services. We can do
that under their Cooperative Ordinance, latecomers Fee Ordinance, we assume
that we can work that out with them. The easements Eight-Mile Creek, this kind
of brings us into the road discussion, as noted later back in the report there was
a request that we show the proper right-of-ways on the streets of Overland and
Eagle Road. In dedicating the right-of-ways on the Overland side in-particular it
will take a good deal of this Eight Mile Creek drainage out of the project and put
it into Ada County Highway District’s road widening program that they are
proposing in that area. The easements will probably occur in a small area right
across this portion of the site that we would need to address with ACHD and the
City staff at that point in time. We also have later in the Conditional Use Permit
application a request for reviewing that for Floodway Ordinance, which several
lots may be in an area like that are taking into account the Floodway Condition,
and as this road is widened under the current design standards for ACHD, it will
be raised a little bit as it crosses over the Eight Mile Creek drainage which will in-
turn require that this road be raised to that design elevation. As a result of doing
that, we will be visiting with FEMA and the appropriate people to see how we
might control the Floodway issues that are on these first lots. Going on to the
next page, Item 9, we had had a discussion with staff regarding using a
permanent easement on the Plat as opposed to a lot. That gives us a chance to
sell the property, but require that it be a permanent easement managed by the
association. That was indicated in the CCNRs that that is how it would be done if
the Ordinance requires that it be a lot then assume we will comply with the
Ordinance, but if we could do it as a permanent easement that would be
preferred. As far as Item 10, the 35 foot-landscape buffer on Eagle and Overland
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 100
is fine. That would be adjusted based on the right-of-ways that would be
required. The gated entries are intended to be merely features and not gates that
would restrict access, this last rendering down here, and I have 8 ½” by 11”
copies for distribution to you so we can retain these. They are colored copies. It
would our entry on Eagle Road and would be our entry on Overland Road, and
they would be located there on Eagle Road and at that location on Overland
Road. The element that you see next to it is the entry signage. This entry
signage is occurring at about that location right there, and there would be other
entry signage for each of these elements along each of the streets. We indicated
their locations and they would be very similar in nature to this element that you
see right there. I brought one copy of that along, and I do have that, and I can
certainly get more copies if that is needed.
Nary: Mr. Chairman
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I know we do not have a traffic study yet. Has ACHD already approved
those different roadways that run onto Eagle Road and Overland like that, or is
that still in the discussion stage?
Larson: We do have a traffic study completed, which has been submitted to
ACHD. It is scheduled for their hearing on March 2, 2001.
Anderson: My name is Roger Anderson, and I know we are in a hurry tonight,
but I would like to interject to save some of the conversation. I have met with the
Technical Staff at Ada County Highway District about 5 times before we did the
purchase, (inaudible) these curb, guts, and locations of streets have all met their
Technical Staff. The reason they did not have a traffic study in as soon as we
would have like it in is because of our wonderful, busy economy here. We just
could not get it done and back into them. We have talked to them, and they have
seen no surprises in the traffic study. Ada County Highway District we have spent
a lot of time with them on the easements they need both on the bridge coming off
of Eagle and the culverting process that they are going to use on Eight Mile. I do
not want to play down the fact that Ada County Highway District because we
have spent a lot of time down there.
Larson: I can give you these colored renderings or however you would like to –
Borup: I take it you have reviewed the Eagle Corridor Study.
Larson: For the --
Borup: The IDT's Eagle Corridor Study.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 101
Larson: Yes, we actually submitted a copy of our traffic study to IDT at the same
time we did to ACHD.
Borup: Did they have any future proposal for that intersection? Do you
remember what --
Larson: I do not know whether there is a future proposal for this intersection, but
there is a traffic light proposed at the off ramp locations that come on and off the
freeway about half of a mile to the north of the site.
Borup: I was just wondering if that was one of the sites they had marked for
possible future urban interchange.
Larson: I have not seen that, but ACHD indicated they had improvement
schedules from Locust Grove to Cloverdale Road and widening of Overland, but
I did not get any information from the traffic study that indicated that they would
be enlarging this intersection any differently than ACHD would do.
Centers: Mr. Larsen, when is Overland scheduled for widening? Was not that
2003?
Larson: 2003 or 2004, I think 2004 is what they said in the study.
Centers: I thought it was set.
Borup: Well, as good as paper can set something. I hear ACHD's projects have
a tendency to move around a little bit.
Larson: In the essence of time, I thought it was 2004, and I can certainly look at
that. I lost my place for just a second. There was a reason on No. 12. The site
plan did not match the Preliminary Plat. We have an area here designated for
two larger buildings, and our preference would be to have the larger user in this
corner of the project. Should that not come to pass with the marketing, we had
an alternate plan that would allow a culdesac to come in here and create four
lots that would receive a smaller building. In our preliminary discussion with Shari
Stiles, she indicated that that would be an acceptable way to handle that area,
and that when we got to the platting point we could decide to show that as a
future culdesac or indicate it that way or use it if you will as a swing parcel that
would allow us to have a larger site that might handle a larger use within the
project. Consequently, we drew as on the master plan the way we desire it on the
plat as the way it may end up being depending on how marketing go. So
basically it has two extra lots in the plat that allow some flexibility and how the lot
lines might be adjusted if we did find a larger user. Item 13, I think the note 4
should actually be note 6, just for the record. Item 16, regarding the right-of-way
requirements. We will meet ACHD’s standards. We do know that 48 feet is their
requirement. Switching over to the CUP, Conditional Use Permit, I believe the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 102
Item 4, I am not sure actually why the building was out of scale sometimes when
we send those to the printer they get a little goofed up, but we can provide that to
scale. We can provide a calculation of the total common area or total open space
in the project’s landscape areas. Typically, these buildings like this facility here
have been running 12 to 14 percent of open space around them. This project
was drawn, this master plan, with single level buildings in it kind of showing a
maximum building size pad area. These will probably adjust as you go through
and do the design. There will be some (inaudible) of the facades. There will
some changes in the building to give it some architectural character. Typically,
we have seen about 12 to 14 percent in these areas and then with the addition of
the perimeter landscaping would bring the project up over 10percent, and we will
do that calculation that they requested there. The landscaping parking 6 was
okay. The streets and circulations as I had mentioned before, that is a very
important issue to us. Corporate uses are very adamant that they have a stand-
alone project with identity with no interconnectivity to adjacent properties that are
not slated for similar development. Their reasons are good. It establishes a
character for the park. It establishes and holds their value, and it does not allow
their employees or other people to influence their employees with what I call the
negative traffic approach. So our request really is for you to consider amending
that requirement to meet with the conditions of the Plat that we have drawn. The
signage, we would be happy to provide the signage criteria to staff. It would be
very similar to the Black Eagle Center that you see at Overland and Maple
Grove. We did meet with Bill Gregory from the Sanitary Services on Monday, and
I believe he had written a report saying that he had met with us and indicated
that we could resolve all of the issues that Sanitary Service might have. As far as
the Boise Urban Stages, we can certainly ask them what might be a location, we
would try not to get into turn out lanes but we would try to design that facility in
with what ACHD might require on their report. The only other issue that I have in
looking back through my notes was there is a requirement from staff, I believe, to
stub utilities to the east and at this point in time we would be stubbing the utilities
to this particular point in the project. As we go down Overland Road this site is
owned by one owner to approximately the same line as ours. I would not
necessarily know where we would even stub the utilities here that it might be
reasonable for him, and he could certainly pick them up on Overland as we are
doing picking them up further down to the west and bringing him to the project.
We have also included a site in the project for a well at this location. This was a
request from Public Works Department, and we have tried to honor that as best
we could. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have or
would like to turn a little time over to Mr. Anderson.
Borup: Would anybody like questions first? Go ahead Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: Roger Anderson, my address 8795 West State. Again to keep it real
short this evening, I think Cornell’s comments are real consistent with the
ownerships and the interests. I would like to dwell on two points that he talked
about, the stub in streets, as Cornell indicated in meeting. We only have two
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 103
owners that adjoin this property. The City used the canal as a zoning line. You
will find in the arial that there is 70 to 150 feet is all there is between our property
and the canal that goes all the way down the south. You have a very small area
here. I specifically met with Ada County Highway District and reviewed
(inaudible) and criteria, this owner of the property has been down there and
talked to them a number of times, so they have normal access area at this point.
The other neighbor we have is the Valentine property, which sits in this location
right here. Again, he will have a quarter of a mile frontage on Overland, which will
be plenty of ample room for him to make any type of circulation in here. The
movement in the Boise, Ada County, Meridian, Nampa, Caldwell that whole area
we are seeing a lot larger user. When we get into larger users, they come to us
with a different set of criteria. This is going to be an employment center. An
employment center has to attract employees, so what that employer and site
selection is concerned about is having an environment, one, traffic is extremely
important to get to the site. The freeway on and off at Eagle is important. Having
the multi-lane on Eagle and Overland on the traffic plans is what works, but what
they have to have is an environment that employee is more attracted to come
and work to them then their competitor employer. All of the new people that we
are talking to, and we are talking to two out of state people very sizable people
both national companies. First thing they do is tell us to run through site-specific
criteria. That is the first thing they even talk about. So if I cannot convenience
them we have a site, parking ratio, and a lighted intersection that is why before
we purchased this site we went to Ada County Highway District confirmed this is
where they wanted a traffic light controlled. That has a standard, which is
essentially 3/8 of a mile, so we have designed the entire park for a complete flow
of traffic for those employees in and out. Those things are just must be done. If
we cannot get that type of criteria, they are not going to come one either to the
valley or they are not going to be grouping together. What we need to do is have
an environment that we can actually book those national type tenants that are
used to being in Seattle and Portland, and everywhere else, that we can create
them an environment that they just left. I have had the problem at Black Eagle in
Boise, the problem we have there is we had some very vocal and pressuring
type neighbors that in our opinion deterred our capability of developing that from
a landscaping standpoint. They wanted a 6ft hide everything behind the berm,
throw some trees on top of it. That is not what we like to do for berm. We expect
those things to flow. We want some movement vertically, horizontally; we want
some intermittent fencing type appearance, so that you have your depth so that
when we build a 10 or 12 million-dollar building we can see it. We are not
interested in looking at some grass that is what those corporate image people
want. We spent a lot of time out of state trying to decide what they want so we
can attract them here. It is extremely important to us that we do not have to
explain to one of our users that Mr. Farmer Joe, and I have a lot of agricultural
ground do not get me wrong, but the last thing they want to see is agricultural
traffic going through their office park. It is extremely non-compatible. They want
to see the walk paths; they want to see all these people pleasantries that we
think we can provide on this site and not cause any detrimental disadvantage to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 104
our neighbors. Again emphasizing, we have a very strong definition on the south
side of our property. Ada County Highway District is redoing this bridge
completely here. Obviously, you have your bridges on Five Mile; it is not practical
to assume the economic ability to build bridges to flow people back and forth
across this canal is ever going to be practical. We feel that having a street down
the south side of this property does not serve either just neighbors from an
economic or serve our property, so it seems like a loss of ground, one, and two, I
do not see people trying to flow here. Mr. Valentine, I have spent a lot of time
with him, and I have done site planning on this site. This site is one of the sites
we were reviewing. This site has plenty of frontages. It has plenty of sites. The
reason we have come to this site is we can do this much more landscaping and
we can do this much more national tenant appearance on our street. The only
reason I had any disadvantage of this site to this site as far as availability of
moving streets, you are going to find these national guys all want 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
acre type sites. They are not interested in having 30 or 40,000 square foot lots.
What they do not want is whole bunch of very small-uncontrolled architectural
little buildings all the way around them. They want the whole environment similar
to what they are. Other things that we would like to talk about on the stub out
street we understand the Fire Department’s need and water needs for looping
water. We have talked about the flow. I understand that this is a different
pressure on your water system than on this side of the canal, so what we have
been able to do is in our preliminary reviews in talking to them is that it appears
this well site will work, the distances we have, any upsizing we might have to do
in line size to get to those streets. I do not think we have any physical
appointments. We are a neophyte and latecomer fee type program. I have spent
a lot of time with Bruce; you are very kind to walk me through it. I do not see any
of the problems in the latecomer fee that we cannot overcome. We are coming
into the area, and we expect to pay our portion of what it takes to make this area
develop. What we do not expect to do is pay an oversize product that makes our
competitors that may develop 6 months or 8 months down the road have an
economic advantage after a hardship that we may have endured. So we expect
to pay our fair share. We do not have a problem doing advancing of funds under
the latecomer fee as we understand. I do not think we have any major utility
issues. Until we get sewer lines sized and definitions and all that that we cannot
make all of the final decisions. We cannot make all of them, but the entire plan
itself seems to be workable. Two things that I want to reemphasize is I
understand after watching 3, 4, or 5 of these meetings that one of the hot buttons
that Meridian is emphasizing is continuity of roads or attachments, I truly believe
that is predominantly meant for smaller parcels. I do not have the opportunity to
make loop roads. All of these large parcels over here have plenty of room to do
circulation and loop roads; ours have to be going through like this. I do not see
the necessity or the hardship our project would create on either the north
neighbor and or the neighbor on our east. I think if we had a bunch of small
owners and there was potential land locking or something like that then those are
different issues. Tying our project in, I do not see is going to have some long-
term advantage to the neighbor. As I understand it your Comprehensive Plan a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 105
section of this is residential. Obviously we are not interested in having residential
traffic calling us up every other day because our people are trying to shortcut out
and get somewhere. We want to create our project self-supportive. That is why it
has been really important that we have traffic control light centers there and here,
so that we can expect to handle this 2 or 3,000 car type activity that our users
are going to create. We are going to come in there with 5 parks per thousand. I
am a long-term owner. We will own 60 to 70 percent of this project long-term.
The only ones that I will not own long-term are the ones that the national tenants
say I either have the deed or we do not do the deal. I kept Black Eagle as an
example. We built 380,000; we have two buildings in there that we do not own at
this time. It is real important to me so when it comes to landscaping, setbacks,
car ratios, normal things that you might be fighting from an economic restraint
when someone is trying to sell the project. My only benefit is to rent it for 20
years. If he does not like it he is not going to rent it. So it is real important to on
those features. I just do not see us having those. You do have one thing in your
Ordinance that we are going to request that we talk and get some discussion
from you. If the Ordinance has a requirement to have a separate lot to protect
you for you 35 feet, as an example on this project, understanding the economics
if you take 35 feet down Eagle, 35 feet down Overland that is 4,000 feet. You
multiply that times 35 feet. You multiply it by the ground, you just cost me about 1
million 10 thousand dollars. I do not think the Ordinance is intending to disrupt
me from selling 1 million dollars worth of ground and paying taxes on it. Most of
the big parks are more concerned about our ability to maintain it in a better
manner than most associations. We did present a CCNR, the CCNRs have a
very good, strong, protective association. I will do all of the irrigation on the entire
perimeter. We do all of the lawn mowing. We do all of the tree replanting. We do
all of the signage maintenance. All of that is done in a CCNR. The disadvantage
to me is, is we have a separate lot. Those people that utilize this site are not
going to buy that perimeter 35 feet. If you control it with a landscape easement
what happens then is we put in the landscaping we do it all up-front before we
sell any lots. We control what gets put back in there. We control how it is utilized
through the whole time. They get the privilege of reimbursing that cost rather
than us trying to go to them and trying to get them to update it. We want to set
the policy and how that exterior of that park is.
Borup: So you would be doing all of the maintenance and upkeep?
Anderson: One hundred percent. We are just not interested in passing the
buck, because we are probably going to build 6-7,000 square foot potential out
here, multiply it by $130 back, all of the sudden you have 100 million dollars
worth of product out there. I am really interested in keeping the grass mowed
and trees up. It is a lot different than a guy that is just trying to sell dirt and go
down the street and do it again. There is some need for subdividers, but in our
business you do not do business as a subdivider. You have to provide that
complete project and then take care of it. Believe me the high-tech world of today
is a lot more demanding than the tenants we were used to in the past. It is a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 106
different breed of cats by all means. If there is a way, I would some feed back
from the commission on how we can handle the present Ordinance requirement
on that single lot. I think we are saying the same thing. If there is a way we can
get a variance, we do have easements on all of our Plats, for instance that we
did at Black Eagle so that 35ft is an easement. There is no question. It is exactly
what it is. It is defined as we built it. So I know we can protect your concerns
about the 35 feet. I just do not want to throw a million dollars on it. I do not think
that is what the Ordinance was intended for. I will take care of it better than those
associations. I realize I took a little more of your time, but as you can see it is
really important to us. With that if you have any questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Anderson? I do if no one else does. That is back
to the – I see what you are saying on the stub streets, you are concerned about
unlike traffic, by this point, how do you know it is going to be unlike traffic, and I
am talking specifically to the parcel to the east. And have you discussed that with
ACHD? In our past experience they felt very strongly on interconnectivity as a
traffic issue, so people wanting to go and it may not be a lot but going from one
business to another do not have to go back out on Overland Road and back in.
Anderson: I can appreciate your comment. I think I would just like to
reemphasize that I have specifically, you know talked to Larry Sales, I have
talked to all of the guys down there. I have talked to the Technical; I have done
the design, so there is not anything we are surprising anybody with. We have
explained our position and what we are doing, and I think the main difference is
we are talking about 80 acres here, and 80 acres has a lot of access capability
and use. The property east, we are so used to people trying to utilize our up front
cost or image. I have spent a lot of time with Mr. Valentine they are good people.
I would not be surprised if we were ultimately the buyers of that piece. Even if we
were I would not tie these two projects together. The purpose of that is when I
create an identity and if we have a national tenant that has a building here he is
not interested in not knowing what is going to come back and forth here two
years down the road. I am not going to be able to do a deal with a national tenant
if I tell him I have no idea who is neighbors are going to be or who is going to be
driving –
***END OF SIDE SEVEN***
Anderson: -- that is the problem I have. As far as having future access through
here, again I do not see the disadvantage of this property considering it is a
quarter of a mile frontage. Now if there was a utility crossing or things that might
help looping a fire that is not an issue. That is a standard request and we would
not be concerned about it. The north side is very clear that it is just not a
practical use and probably never will be with this canal. I think that we at one
time drew a plan and we have a plan where it showed us a stub street coming
back here. The problem is that I do not think it solves anything here because a
stub street here does not solve the users back here. So this property has to be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 107
designed with the flow, so that the continuity and the movement of the total
vehicular has a No. of places to come out. This may improve it, but it sure is not
going to solve it. He is still going to have to design a loop system through here,
and he designs a loop system through there then it is not needed as a third
alternative. We were very pleased with Ada County Highway District’s
comments. Most of their stuff was too many curb cuts. When we are talking
about a half of mile, we have six curb cuts. That is controlling the traffic. We did
not ask for any variances. We are standing our 440s and 220s all the questions,
so I do not think we have any likely concerns with Ada County Highway District. If
this commission feels real strongly on this then I just need to understand what
your concerns are and let us see if we can address them in another manner.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Were any of those curb cuts, are they right in, right out types of cuts?
Anderson: No, none of ours are that close. So what happens if you are over
440 and you maintain their distances from all lighted intersections then there are
no right in, right out. To me you cannot use a right in, right out. That is just
secondary at the best. I would not even try to sell it to one of these national
tenants; hey everybody has to go right. That is just not going to get the job done.
Nary: The only one I was concerned about is the ones that are closest to the
Eagle Overland Intersection. They look close on the map.
Borup: They are over 440 feet.
Anderson: They are, I had the same concern. When you look at 2600 feet they
look close, but when I sat down there we actually measured them and they gave
us the minimum dimensions. We also took into consideration the extra 25 feet
they are going to be taking on the right-of-ways, so all of them are set back so
that they do not flow into that 440.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Would you clarify page 6, Item 10, the 35 foot-landscape buffer. Is that
what you were referring to? You really do not want to provide the 35ft, or do you
want to do your own thing?
Anderson: No, we want to do the 35 feet. That is not a problem. We are going
to do over 35 feet. The part that we object to is it has been explained to us the
Ordinance requirements have to be in a single legal lot. We want to do the 35-
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 108
foot. We do a 35-foot permanent easement, and we complete all of that
construction up front, but if we do a separate lot I just threw away about 1.2
million. That is what it takes to put the landscaping in.
Nary: At least the way I read these conditions, it is recommended by the staff
that they be common lots, but at the minimum the permanent easement would
still satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance, is that right?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary I mentioned this in my verbal staff
report. That is how this reads, but the new Landscape Ordinance requires that
they be in a separate common lot.
Nary: So they need to ask for a variance, is that correct?
Siddoway: Yes, they could ask for a variance on that. The intent of it clearly
was to have continuity in the maintenance of the landscaping, which is what they
are providing. The question in my mind is meeting the test for the variance and it
needing something other than financial. That is the flag in my mind, but certainly
the intent is there as far as – the intent for the common lot requirement that is in
the Ordinance was for the continuity, which they are proposing.
Nary: I just missed that, so I am sorry.
Borup: It probably was anticipated that the developer would own this percentage
of the building in a project like this. So that would be the avenue for them, is to
request variance?
Siddoway: Yes.
Anderson: Might I ask the Commission again? This is the first time I have had
the opportunity to be in front of you, and maybe the staff can tell me. We are not
interested in fighting battles that do not have a pretty high probability of
happening. We do not like dry runs anymore than anybody else does, so what is
the likelihood of the Commission recommending a variance and the Council
actually approving it?
Nary: We would not even be recommending the variance. I guess we could
make a recommendation and a motion that perhaps they look favorably on it.
Borup: Well I think staff just refereed to it. You have refereed to keeping up and
taking care of it.
Anderson: So you feel comfortable that the probability is there. I am not asking
for a commitment, I am trying to get a feel.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 109
Borup: And like Steve mentioned it is just that there is one person maintaining it.
The idea was not have 10 different property owners, each one doing their own
maintenance because then you get a hodgepodge of different a –
Anderson: And I can appreciate the staff. They have got a lot of things to do in
a short time, but we have presented CCNRs, and it has very specific protections
in there.
Borup: I think Steve said they would feel comfortable the difference we have
now is we have a recent Landscape Ordinance, January or December. Okay,
that just went into effect. That is something that we have not had as an
Ordinance in the past.
Nary: Essentially, we could include it in our motion. The Council is certainly free
to do whatever they want to do.
Anderson: Thank you, I would appreciate that.
Borup: Are you presently marketing the property?
Anderson: Absolutely, I can assure you that we did some serious contemplating
before we would buy this size of property in a market that has yet to develop, but
we feel this is the likely center of what we consider all of this Ada County
movement. We know what employment centers want. This fits their criteria, we
just have to get the entitlements to it, so that we can go out to them and get our
job done.
Borup: Do have any type of time frame at all? I know it is up to the marketplace
to determine.
Anderson: I think what you will find out is we are not dependant on having a sale
made before we build a building because you have to appreciate that we are
building for ourselves. We have already had conversations with the staff. We
are going to have more problems with us pushing you guys so that we can have
building permits to build buildings. As an example, in our submittal we expect to
have two under construction this fall. What is going to do that, is how quick we
can get sewer and water there and get the entitlements so we can get a building
permit. That is why we did the record of survey.
Borup: So you do not have any build out projects, though?
Anderson: I have done a little marketing plan. We have to self-justify these
types of investments. I think it is very realistic that in 60 months after completion
of the perimeter of the property, we can have this park fully utilized. We did
380,000 in Boise at Black Eagle in about 3 ½ years. I would think that we
learned enough and made enough comments and contacts that we will probably
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 110
be able to accelerate that. We expect the market to be a little slower, but if we
think we are better at it than we were then, so expect that to kind of offset each
other.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I only had one other little minor thing. I was noticing that
connected roadway that goes through your whole property. There are two
different names on each end, and it seems like to my recollection that the
Highway District does not really approve that if it is a connected road. Did they
mention that?
Anderson: There is gentleman in Ada County and correct me if I am wrong, an
Engineer, Mr. Priester is the head of the Department that tells you what names.
So when we file a Preliminary Plat, he is the one that tells us we have to have
two names. We would like to have, obviously, Silverstone Way, but we were not
able to convince the gentleman that under their present regulations, thou shalt
have two names. So we have two names.
Nary: Because it is two parcels?
Borup: Probably because they are facing right angles of each other.
Anderson: Eventually this is two different directions, separate addresses and fire
and police. That is the logic behind it. To me if it is a single street then there is
less chance for error, but that is their program and that is what we do.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, there is a Committee in Ada County, Ada County
Street Name Committee they call it. It does involve the Meridian Fire, Police,
and Public Works. They are in that Committee along with John Priester, and Ada
County Surveyor. All of the street names go through that Committee for
approval, and that is how that process works.
Borup: But that is also their policy on apparently two streets that our right angles
to each other have to have different names.
Freckleton: I believe so.
Borup: I mean that is not just arbitrary, is it? Any other questions from
Commission?
Larson: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple of answers to your questions. One, you
had asked if the intersection of Eagle Road was scheduled for any upgrades? In
looking at this the off ramp is, Eagle Road is, but I do not see anything that
indicates that IDT is going to provide an upgrade at the intersection of Eagle and
Overland Road.
Borup: Are you looking at the tip of the 20/20?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 111
Larsen: I am actually looking at the traffic study that is making reference to IDTs
plans. Also in that traffic study it indicates that 2004 would be the program to
upgrade Overland Road for construction.
Borup: Which would at your projection that is 5 years, so that would be 3 years
before the projected build out of this project. Commissioners, would you like
some discussion before we proceed?
Norton: Mr. Chairman, as we approach this late hour, I have kind of a thought
about our corn maze that is just across the street from that, and say how
compatible is this office complex going to be with our corn maze? Or maybe if
we could go up to the 10th
story and look down, we could find our way around the
corn maze. This just is a wonderful project. It is just gorgeous, and I would love
to see it in Meridian. I think that is a perfect corner for it and I would be very
favorable for this.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I feel the same way. I personally do not have a problem
with that one street. I see the applicant’s point, no need to reiterate. I do not see
a problem with it.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess I do not know where the Ameritel Hotel is going to
fit in there. I guess I would say the same thing the other Commissioners do, that
it appears to be a very good project. I do not see a real need to have the
connectivity to the east as staff has pointed out I think that has been our
standard. I guess the only little sticking point in my mind is we have tried not to
send these projects forward without the complete package, and the ACHD study
is normally part of the complete package. It appears they have covered all of the
bases anyway, so I do not know that it is really a stumbling point, it is just
something to make note of. The other issue of the southern boundary street. I
do not know that there is a real need. I think the intent of this project is to be a
self-sustaining project. I certainly think we could probably make it part of our
motion if we choose to recommend to the Council that they consider the waiver
seriously on the issue of the common lot because what you are proposing is
what we really want. That is just the way we felt to resolve it, to have the
common lot requirement. Since you are willing to take it on anyway, it does not
seem to make much sense to require it. It is up to the Council to grant that.
Obviously, no one else has a concern with this project either. No one else is
here to say they do not like it. Most of the time something this big -- Black Eagle
had dozens of people constantly complaining about it, so obviously there is no
one that is adverse to it, even the folks that are across the street do not seem to
have a problem with it.
Borup: I think I agree with that. I usually have pretty strong feelings about the
connectivity and adjoining properties. I think you probably ought to look at things
on a case by case. This is something different than anything we have had, and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 112
maybe different than what the City has anticipated, and how we have written the
Ordinances. I also feel comfortable other than the fact that we do not have the
ACHD report, and there were a No. of items that essentially were cleaning up of
the plat. I know staff was intending to have that taken care of before it went to
City Council, or did you?
Nary: What was the date that is supposed to be on the ACHD?
Borup: March 2, 2001, what were you thinking?
Nary: Well it said March 2, 2001 is when it was supposed to be reviewed by
ACHD, so it certainly will be done and completed before this went to City Council
anyway. It does not seem like there is any significant issues.
Borup: So you are thinking, make it contingent upon abiding by ACHD
requirements and recommendations?
Nary: Sure.
Borup: And if they do not, it goes where?
Nary: Council will just send it back here.
Borup: We have had that done to other applicants before. As you see there is a
little bit of hesitation to make a recommendation without seeing what ACHD is
going to say, especially with a project of this size. I think we have done that on
some occasions with that stipulation that complying with all of the requirements
of the Ada County Highway District. They have all been with the blessings of the
applicant, saying they would like to proceed on that basis, understanding that if
there is something they cannot agree with then it will probably have to come
back to us and possibly delay the project.
Centers: Well if they did not have it, I think you could request to be withdrawn
from the Council meeting hearing with a letter. You are not going to make any
headway if you went ahead with it anyway.
Borup: So you feel comfortable that there is no problem complying with
ACHD’s?
Anderson: No that is quite acceptable because the report is in. We have all read
it, so we are very comfortable with it.
Borup: You have the draft copy?
Anderson: It is done. What we have is verbal conversations.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 113
Norton: Mr. Chairman I would like to close the Public Hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Freckleton: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, just for the record Mr. Nary made
a comment regarding no opposition. There was one letter, and thought you
might want to note that for the record.
Nary: There was -- I just did not recall that there was a letter.
Borup: And I assume this is the property owner?
Nary: I do not know.
Borup: Well at first this was not making any sense, at first I assumed this
property owner was to the south.
Freckleton: That is correct.
Borup: But he talks about extending the road to the north. Am I reading that
wrong? It says extend Titanium Way due north to the property line.
Freckleton: Yes, it sounds like it should be south.
Borup: He got his south and north mixed up?
Freckleton: It sounds like it.
Borup: Okay, I was confused on that letter. I think the applicant addressed the
Collector Street, which normally would be a very valid thing other than the canal
being there. So perhaps, and I do not know if we discussed that, I am not sure
what that property would be developed for, and with this type of project the
roadway maybe does not make sense, but perhaps the sewer and water does.
The utility was addressed too along Overland Road that it would be brought to
their property line there. Any thoughts or discussion on sewer and water in lieu
of this letter from Mr. Harding? Is Titanium Way the culdesac the other option?
Norton: Yes.
Borup: Well then that answers the same thing. Maybe to get that on the record
that it was stated that the utilities -- we already mentioned the utilities would be to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 114
the east side of the property. They would also be brought to the far south
property line on Eagle Road to the adjoining property. Any other discussion?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: I am sorry Commissioner Norton. There are a couple of things that I
would like to maybe touch on briefly. Item 1, regarding the Flood Plane issue.
Our understanding is that Mr. Anderson would like to proceed with trying to get
some building permits. One, I believe, is up on the north on Overland. The other
one is on Eagle. The one on Overland, does it fall within that Flood Plane area?
If we do not have a Lamar Letter of map revision in place with FEMA, we have to
consider the site as it stands today on the FEMA Flood Plane maps. It is a 100-
year Flood Plane and they have to meet all of the criteria. It also falls
underneath our Zoning Ordinance for Flood Plane Overlay District. They have all
that criteria that they have to meet there. That can get a little sticky for you.
Borup: Are those items normally handled in the building permit application
process? Or if they want to go in the Flood Plane then they have to come back,
such as the one we had two weeks ago?
Freckleton: If there is a structure proposed with any portion of the structure was
in that Flood Plane area it would have to come back with its own Conditional Use
Permit according to the Flood Plane Overlay District Ordinance.
Borup: Okay, just like we did last meeting.
Freckleton: Do you remember Eagle Concrete Pumping?
Borup: Well no that was before my time, but we did have one at the last
meeting. I think that sounds like the applicant understands that.
Freckleton: One think that is similar, Woodbridge had the same situation with
Five Mile Creek. With their development, they raised that whole neighborhood
up out of the Flood Plane, but it has taken a while to get the actual Lamar done
through FEMA. We are having to deal with every one of those building permits
for those houses going through Flood Plane Certification. It is just an extra step.
Borup: So they needed to get it here to certify each specific site plan?
Freckleton: From my understanding, our office had some conversations with the
Department of Water Resources this week, and evidently Federal rules have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 115
changed. It used to be you certified finished floor elevation being one foot above
base flood elevation, and now it is bottom of footing.
Borup: Bottom of footing, bottom crawl space, residential it is bottom of crawl
space.
Freckleton: Is not bottom of crawl space bottom of footing in residential?
Borup: Yes.
Freckleton: It is one in the same.
Borup: But that is what I am wondering, I do not know if that is a commercial
building with (inaudible).
Freckleton: Yes, I just through that out because it could be a sticky wicket.
Borup: From what I have read, they changed their definition of bottom floor or
lower floor or whatever, and that is something –
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to say since there is a Conditional Use
Permit before each night on this project you can recommend as part of that that
the structures not require a separate Conditional Use Permit as long as they
meet all of the other criteria in that Ordinance and just treat this Conditional Use
Permit as the permit for the Flood Plane issue as well. They would still have to
meet all of the other criteria that Bruce was just talking about but would not have
to go a through a separate CUP.
Borup: I think that makes sense because I would be relying on staff and
certification and clarification and all that anyway. I do not think that anything this
Commission --
Freckleton: One other small item. The sewer, in our sewer master plan the
sewer comes down Eight-Mile Creek. It is not as much of an issue getting it
through to the east because it is right up there at Overland Road. We do need to
pass it through somewhere, and it may be –
Borup: So it is not going down Eagle Road?
Freckleton: There is a branch that goes down Eagle Road at least on the old
Comprehensive Plan map. I do not have the current facility plan with me, but the
point of my comment was that we do need to get some utilities through to
provide service to the east. Sewer, like I said, is not probably as big of an issue
as water because we might be able to go right down Overland Road with it, and
still be able to provide adequate service to the east. My biggest concern is
connectivity with water through the east.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 116
Borup: So you can get a loop?
Freckleton: So we can complete a loop. This parcel is a half of a mile deep. I
try to keep my 12-inch grid on a half mile on water main looping. It is flexible,
where we put it through. I just need to be able to provide that loop and
connectivity because we have the Ridenbaugh that is going to prevent me from
getting connectivity to the south other than at Eagle Road. That little area right
there where the Ridenbaugh connects up in this corner, I am going to really need
to watch it close. If we can make sure that we are not eliminating that option.
That is all I have.
Borup: With a condition that the applicant works with staff on utility connectivity,
and you handle that?
Nary: That works for me.
Borup: Okay, did you hear that comment?
Nary: No we were trying to figure out all of the other ones, I am sorry.
Borup: Okay, I will try to remember the last one then. Do we want to discuss a
motion first to put the points together, or have you already got that done?
Nary: No, let us see. I guess we can figure it out. What I would move Mr.
Chairman, is that we recommend approval of AZ 00-001, request for annexation
and zoning of 78 acres from R-1 to C-C and C-G by Larson Architects for the
proposed Silverstone Corporate Center at the southeast corner of Overland
Road and Eagle Road to incorporate all of staff comments. As far as I can tell on
the annexation there was not any request to change any of the requirements or
in any of the staff recommendations. Is that right?
Borup: Other than specifying the uses.
Siddoway: As long as you are comfortable with the uses.
Nary: I was seeing if we wanted to specify more.
Borup: Oh, you mean any changes from staff, right, I am sorry?
Nary: At least I do not have any notes indicating because No. 2 was the only
one of contention and that accordance of the testimony has been done with the
lot split issue. The ACHD requirements I think are for the CUP or the Preliminary
Plat.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 117
Borup: They mentioned childcare facilities. I assume Steve, food kitchens did
mean a cafeteria in an office building, did it?
Siddoway: No it did not, the applicant’s testimony was correct on that. It was
more like a soup kitchen, type use, would need to come through a conditional
use process.
Nary: But there are not restaurants contained in either one other than a drive-up
window, was that –?
Borup: Well, restaurants were not prohibited, so restaurants would be approved.
Nary: It is just not listed in the uses section.
Siddoway: I believe those are the modifications, and if restaurants were in the
applicant’s request for permitted uses that would remain.
Nary: What about bars if they are going to have a hotel? That was not
discussed.
Siddoway: Bars require a Conditional Use Permit under the current Ordinance
anywhere they are, so I would assume that it would need to go through a CU
process.
Nary: I just wanted to make sure it did not fall under hotels or motels, and its
permitted uses that we would make sure that – maybe what I will do is my motion
would include that under annexation and zoning requirements No. 3 for the
permitted uses would include restaurants but under conditional use permit
requirements would be any type of bar or alcohol establishment.
Anderson: If it is a freestanding establishment or if it is included in a hotel, do
you object to that?
Nary: You still have to have a CUP to have a bar in a hotel.
Siddoway: I do not think the staff is fine with that.
Centers: Not an objection just that that is part of the process.
Nary: But I think that is the only other requirements for the annexation portion.
Norton: Is that a motion?
Nary: Yes.
Borup: Oh that was a motion?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 118
Nary: I think I said, I move.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: You are going to make it hard for these national companies to have a
rescue mission in their building, though.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I would move that we recommend to the City Council Item
12, the CUP 01-002, request for Conditional Use Permit for a commercial plan
unit development and floodway approval in proposed C-C and C-G zones for the
proposed Silverstone Corporate Center by Larson Architects at the southeast
corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road to incorporate all of staff’s comments
including the following amendments; that Item 7, on streets and circulation that
the first sentence would remain that the proposed project is as designed as
stand-alone development with no provision for access to other properties and the
remainder of that section be deleted, that is for the plat. That the applicant be
required to comply with all conditions by Ada County Highway District in their
staff report when submitted and the comment, I was not paying attention to what
Bruce said in this part, and I do not think there is anything else I noted for the
Conditional Use Permit that would be required to change. Is that right? Is that
everything in the Conditional Use Permit section that we had talked about?
Freckleton: I believe so.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: Finally, Mr. Chairman I would move to recommend to the City Council, PP
01-001, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and one other lot
in proposed C-C and C-G zones for the proposed Silverstone Corporate Center
by Larson Architects at the southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle Road
to include all staff comments with only the following amendments in regards to –
let me clarify in No. 3, on Page 5 of the Preliminary Plat site specific
requirements. Is it necessary to include the latecomer’s fee as applicable to this
property, because I think they said they knew that – to include to amend No. 3 to
include a sentence that says the latecomer’s fee is applicable to this property
that the Commission would recommend to the City Council to consider a
variance on Item 9, on page 6, that the landscape buffers can be accomplished
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 119
through a permanent easement rather than a common lot. 11 was cleared up
that there is no gate, so that probably does not need to be changed that they will
have to again comply with all Ada County Highway District requirements by their
staff report when it is submitted.
Freckleton: With the common lot comment, would that require a variance?
Nary: What they consider a variance and that is all. I do not think we can ask
them to do anything else.
Borup: With the understanding that the applicant will need to make a formal
application for that variance.
Nary: I guess so the record is clear for the Council that we did look at that, and
we do not have a problem with that. We think it is fine, but it is still up to the
Council to do whatever they choose. What was No. 12?
Centers: The CUP did not match the Preliminary Plat.
Nary: The No. 12 appears the applicant has provided enough evidence that the
discrepancy can cleared up on the site plan. Is that where the problem was?
Borup: Flexible development of that area.
Nary: That is right. The last would be Mr. Freckleton’s hand written suggestion
for an amendment that I did not hear.
Freckleton: That the applicant work with staff on providing utilities through to
adjoining properties.
Nary: At the southern boundary line?
Freckleton: Well, he was saying probably both.
Nary: Is that clear as mud Mr. Swartley?
Swartley: Could you repeat the last one please?
Nary: That the applicant work with the Public Works staff in providing utilities to
both the southern boundary line.
Borup: Are you concerned with both, or do you want to specify it even, just to
adjoining properties?
Nary: Or as needed. If we could leave it open, just say adjoining properties,
does that work for you Roger?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 120
Anderson: Yes, on an as needed basis.
Nary: On an, as needed basis. I think that is everything that we talked about.
Does that sound like everything?
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 01-002 Request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a commercial planned unit development and
floodway approval in proposed C-C and C-G zones for
proposed Silverstone Corporate Center by Larson
Architects – southeast corner of Overland Road and Eagle
Road
Discussed under Item 11.
Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 01-001 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 15 building lots and 1 other lot in proposed C-C
and C-G zones for proposed Silverstone Corporate Center
by Larson Architects – southeast corner of Overland Road
and Eagle Road.
Discussed under Item 11.
Borup: Just for matter of record, Mr. Hatcher has sent his resignation. He also
said he would attend until we got a new one.
Nary: He just did not mean this one.
Borup: I did meet with the Mayor today, and we do have one applicant that looks
really promising. There may be some question, and if that does not pan out we
are going to be advertising again. If any of you know anybody, but the one
applicant that they are looking at.
Nary: I move we adjourn.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion seconded to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 15, 2001
Pg. 121
Norton: Adjourned at 1:35 a.m.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK