2001 01-18MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 18, 2001
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 18, 2001, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Richard Hatcher, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Larry Moore, Brad Hawkins-
Clark, Shelby E. Ugarriza
Members Absent: Sally Norton
Borup: I would like to welcome everyone to our regular scheduled Meridian City
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for January 18, 2001. I would like to
start with Commission members present. Commissioner Norton has asked to be
excused she has had a conflict this evening. Commissioner Nary is here,
Commissioner Centers, Commissioner Hatcher and Commissioner Borup.
Item A. Approve minutes of January 4, 2001, Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Borup: I would like to begin with the minutes, or approval of the minutes. Any
comment or question from the Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I move we approve the minutes of our January 4, 2001 Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion is second to approve the minutes. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 1. Continued from October 10, 2000: AZ 00-019 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres to R-4 by Kevin Howell for
proposed Cedar Springs Subdivision – northwest of Meridian
Road and Ustick Road:
Item 2. Continued from October 10, 2000: PP 00-018 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 333 building lots and 25 other lots on
99.83 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Kevin Howell for proposed
Cedar Springs Subdivision – northwest of Meridian Road and
Ustick Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 2
Borup: Before we get started into the meat of the agenda Item No. 1 and No. 2
we have received a letter from the applicant requesting some additional time and
they have asked to have this item moved to a future meeting. Do we have
anyone here that was here for this item, Cedar Springs? You were here for
testimony?
(Discussion with unidentified audience member)
Borup: We can get to that, if we proceed to open it up. They are requesting for
February 1, 2001. I believe we have – I don’t believe, I know we have a full
agenda for that night that we may even have trouble getting through. We could
go to the February 15, 2001 or into March.
Nary: I would think notice issues too. I think the first is probably difficult to get
adequate notice out anyway.
Borup: This is already an item; it’s a continuation.
Nary: That’s true; I don’t know what the 15th
is like.
Borup: We’re about average.
Hatcher: I say we move it to February 15, 2001.
Centers: Up to you Keith, the 15th
. Definitely not the first.
Borup: No, we could go ahead and take some testimony on this if you had a
brief comment. I think – there will not be a presentation from the staff or from the
applicant. That was done two months ago, I believe when the item first was on
the agenda. We did have report from the staff and from the applicant at that
time. Partial report – it was continued because of some engineering et cetera on
the sewer lines. If you would like to come forward sir we can take some
testimony on this item.
Simunich: I’m Joe Simunich, and I live at 955 West Ustick Road, which is across
from this proposed development. I appreciate all you people being on this
Planning and Zoning Board. But –
Borup: Do you have the right – are you thinking of the right application?
Simunich: Is this Kevin Howell’s?
Borup: Yes, but it doesn’t border on Ustick. That’s why I –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 3
Simunich: It doesn’t?
Borup: Okay part of it I’m sorry, yes. Okay I was thinking the main part of it.
Excuse me. Go ahead.
Simunich: Anyhow we got a notice we were going to have a meeting on this.
Numerous neighbors came in the meeting on -- and it postponed. Then re-
postponed and then it is re-postponed and then it’s re-postponed. Why don’t you
give them about six-months or a year to come back and then maybe they will be
ready? These people have something to do. I‘ve got something to do. Every
other Tuesday night or Thursday night we’re supposed to have a hearing.
Nothing happens you send us home. That’s all I’ve got to say. I think you should
– these people that bring these in they should be ready to present something to
us.
Borup: Any questions? Thank you, sir.
Centers: Dully noted.
Borup: Anyone else?
Hatcher: I couldn’t agree with him more.
Borup: He speaks for everybody sounds like. Item No. 3 –
Simunich: Have you set a new date for this meeting?
Borup: Yes February 15, 2001.
Centers: But we can’t guarantee it won’t be postponed again. That’s not up to
us.
Simunich: Can’t you give us notice ahead of time –
Borup: Yes February 15, 2001.
Simunich: But what happens if there is no meeting? They don’t come here.
They don’t show up. The people –
Borup: We need to get your – if you want additional testimony you need to get
on the microphone. We can control what we can control and that’s not
everything unfortunately. Do we have a motion to continue that the 15th
? I don’t
think we do.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 4
Nary: I would so move to move it to the February 15, 2001, but let’s get on with
it. I think we need to make sure that we do get on with it.
Borup: They requested the first, so hopefully that gives them two more weeks
than they asked for.
Nary: I would concur with what Mr. Simunich said. It is very frustrating for us as
well but there is only so much we can do to make the processes move faster for
them. I think certainly at some point we would set it down a lot further so we
don’t have to keep re-setting it. There is only so much we really can do. I would
so move that we move Item No. 1 and No. 2 to the February 15, 2001 agenda.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3. Continued from November 14, 2000: AZ 00-022 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 118.4 acres to R-4 by Gemstar
Properties, LLC, for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the
Seasons - east of McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick
Road:
Item 4. Continued from November 14, 2000: PP 00-022 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval for 400 building lots and 7 other lots on
118.4 acres in a proposed R-4 zone by Gemstar Properties, LLC,
for proposed Springdale Subdivision at the Seasons – east of
McDermott between Cherry Lane and Ustick Road:
Borup: Item No. 3 and 4 are on the same application as I’ve stated in the past
there – I’ve stepped down from this application for any potential conflicts. I didn’t
make arrangements prior to which one of you would handle that. Mr. Nary would
you be able to? Maybe before I leave I just might mention for anyone here knew
a little bit of the procedure this item is a continuation there has been a previous –
I think we are waiting for the ACHD report, which we do have now. I’m not sure if
there are more items than that. I’ll let you guys cover that (inaudible) come. The
normal procedure on Public Hearing is we hear a staff report, followed by a
summary from the applicant on their project. After the applicant has spoken we
take public testimony. With questions from the Commission maybe some back
and forth with the staff. After that is concluded there is an opportunity for the
applicant to make his final comments. Then if it’s ready to continue on the
testimony is closed, Commissioner will conduct a discussion and make a
recommendation. That’s generally the procedure that we will be following on the
Public Hearings. Mr. Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 5
Nary: Thank you. Just so everyone knows you think we probably have had
some staff report to this point on this project we are going to hear. Basically
Items No. 3 and No. 4 were continued from the November 14, 2000, meeting and
I think we – AZ 00-022 and PP 00-022. I believe Chairman Borup was correct, I
think the reason we continued was we were waiting for some further information
from the Ada County Highway District. Do we have staff – maybe a very quick
synopsis and then some comment on the Ada County report before we have the
applicant give their side.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Nary, the subject property is on the screen there
crosshatched. McDermott is here on the western boundary, Black Cat, and the
existing Turnberry Subdivision is here. Ustick is approximately a half-mile to the
north and then Cherry Lane here to the south. A couple of site photos, as you
say I won’t get into great detail. You should have received in your packets a
revised Preliminary Plat submitted by the applicant, which reflects the Ada
County Highway District comments. In brief summary they previously had a road
along the northern here that connected all the way to the east. They have now
cul-de-saced this road here. Again this is McDermott here. There are two
entrances off McDermott. Several modifications have been made besides that
road there. They essentially, with the existing subdivision here as I understand it,
Ada County Highway District’s primary concern was to restrict the number of
vehicle trips from Springdale through Turnberry over to Black Cat. They were
concerned about the number of trips there so they have essentially – there is
only one connection, which is right here between this three-quarters of the plat
here and then this quarter here. The goal being to funnel the majority of these or
to restrict the number of trips from these lots here on the western half to force
them to go to McDermott. The Ten-Mile Drain here along the south was
previously shown to encroach into these lots along the south. The applicant has
modified the plat to change. This is now a common lot all the way along the
southern boundary with a proposed pathway. The lots now are outside of the
easement. I believe there were a couple of others; I can let the applicant speak
to. As you probably noticed the staff report on this, which was dated November
14, 2000, was only a page and a half and it spoke principally just mainly to the
annexation issue. A couple of the points that were in Bruce Freckleton’s and
Shari Stiles report dated November 14, 2000, have been addressed through this
plat including ACHD. There were no other detailed conditions because of the
concerns that staff had about a plat. Since the City just received the revised
detailed plat last Friday, no detailed comments or conditions are proposed to you
at this time. We are requesting more time to do a review of this plat that we
received last week, which actually was -- a more updated version was just
submitted Tuesday of this week. So we would request that. I guess I will leave it
at that.
Nary: Thank you. Ms. Wildwood (inaudible) here (inaudible) the applicant’s
representative. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 6
Wildwood: Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. For the
record, my name is Susan Wildwood. I’m an attorney for offices in Boise and I
am here on behalf of the applicant, Gemstar. Mr. Scott Stanfield the engineer is
putting up a colored map of the project for you. Just to give you a little bit of
review on the dates. This project was submitted in September and it was
accepted by staff as a complete application. There was a two-page memo dated
November 14, 2000, which was the same date as the November meeting. That
was continued to December 12, 2000, because we did not have the finalized
traffic study. On December 12, 2000, we continued it so that we would have time
enough to get to an ACHD meeting. ACHD, the report, the meeting was on
January 3, 2001, we received their report on the 8th
of January, 2001. We did the
revisions requested by ACHD and submitted it submitted to staff on January 12,
2001, approximately three days later. Then I spent some time, in fact I had three
conversations with Shari Stiles on Tuesday the 16th
of January making sure that
she got the plat. I wanted to discuss it with her because I knew we had this
meeting coming up and I wanted to be sure and go over the revisions that were
proposed and if she had any additional concerns. As I said we spoke three
different times over the day and she identified the following issues to me. She
had looked at the plat and noticed there were some lots that were non-
conforming; did not have 80-foot frontage. She also wanted – so what I
personally did I went through the plat we had submitted and I personally marked
every that was even suspicious. They ran them back through the computer we
did some adjustments because we did find some non-conforming lots. We
corrected every single one of those. She had a number of the lots. She
questioned the house orientation and wanted us to have a notation on the
submittal that would say what the house orientation was so we went through
those. There were a number of lots in the revised plat that say, front indicating to
any potential builder that that is where the house orientation would have to go.
The next thing she wanted was to have the Ten-Mile path shown that Brad just
spoke to. So we revised that and showed that on the plat. The next thing she
wanted was to have a stub street in to Autumn Faire No. 2, which I will have
Scott point to. We added the stub street. I asked her if she any other concerns
with the plat and whether or not there was any other information that we could
give her. She said her concerns were, once we addressed those issues which
would be what would be contained in the staff report the only issue she had with
it was density. What I did was I took the liberty of going through and coloring the
lots in the subdivision. Yellow represents lots between 8,000 and 8,500 square
feet; the pink represents lots between 8,500 and 9,000; the blue represents lot
above 9,000; the detail on those is 49 percent of the lots in this project are over
8,500; 26 percent are over 9,000 square feet; and nearly 20 percent are over
10,000 square feet. This ties in with the Comprehensive Plan that talks about
housing diversity and affordability within a particular project. Let me go through
my notes and make sure there wasn’t anything else that she wanted –
Centers: Could you repeat the square-footage percentages?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 7
Wildwood: Yes I will. Forty-nine percent of the lots are over 8,500 square feet;
26 percent are over 9,000 square feet; and 19 percent are over 10,000 square
feet. We actually have lots – we have 2 at 18,000 square-feet. We’ve got lots at
16,000 15,000 14,000 plus. We have lots 13,000 plus in fact we have 21 lots
that are 12,000 square-feet or more.
Hatcher: Those lots are common lots or building lots?
Wildwood: No these are buildable lots.
Hatcher: Thank you.
Wildwood: Now as far as the open space goes, the picture up on the screen
indicates that we’re requesting approval for 400 building lots. Actually, after
going through the ACHD revisions the revisions requested by Ms. Stiles we’re
actually down to 385 residential building lots. We have reduced the request to
385 and we’ve increased the number of common from 7 to 9. We’ve actually
increased the amount of open space from 5.79 to 8.6 acres so that we exceed
the five percent that’s requested by the Ordinance. That’s usable common area.
That’s not simply the landscape that’s also the common areas. The Ten-Mile
Drain, the pathway, and the common lot on the south boundary as well as the
private park. What we also did is to be sure there was interconnectivity between
the parcels and provide walking paths toward the proposed new city park near
Autumn Faire No. 2. Scott, would you point out where those corridors are.
There’s the park we have walkways between the cul-de-sacs so they can – so
they have access to the park. We have another one connecting between those
two areas. We addressed Ms. Stile’s issues with regard to block lengths, that
was why we added the stub street because she had a concern that if we left only
the one proposed stub street then the block length in Autumn Faire No. 2 would
exceed the requirements. So we added the stub street to address any problems
also in Autumn Faire No. 2. The only other block length question is with regard
to the corridor that Scott pointing to right now. The walking path is something
that we discussed and Ms. Stiles approved in our pre-application meeting in
order to address any of the block length questions. That’s the only corridor that
– the only block length that we had to utilize a path for. When Ms. Stiles and I
talked she acknowledged to me that we would have addressed all of issues
except for the density. She acknowledged that density is a question strictly up to
the Commission and ultimately up to the Council. She did comment she would
have liked more staff time to review the project and I pointed out to her that we
had a pre-ap meeting with them – with Brad and Shari – Bruce before we
submitted the application when we submitted the application in September. It
wasn’t set for hearing until November. There was only a two-page review and
what we’ve done at every instance at staff request we’ve accommodated every
single one of their requests that they have made all the way along. I took the
time to go through the staff report that was prepared on Autumn Faire No. 1 to
compare item by item whether or not there would be anything at all that we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 8
would not have addressed with staff and whether or not there were any
comments that would require any more extensive review by staff. Compared to
the fact that Autumn Faire No. 1 and Autumn Faire No. 2 are really quite close to
the project same developer would have some of the same issues with the
exception of the McDermott trunk line. What I did, I went through the entire staff
report for Autumn Faire No. 1 to determine whether or not there were any
additional items. I’m going to go through these very quickly. With regard to
annexation the parcel is contiguous to City limits (inaudible) Autumn Faire and
Turnberry so its eligible to request annexation that would require further review.
The parcel falls with in the Comprehensive Plan designation of single-family
residential under the proposed development and R-4 zoning as compliance. The
parcel is within Meridian service urban planning area. I went back also down
through the same exact Comprehensive Plan analysis that was done for Autumn
Faire No. 1 encourages new development reinforcing City’s present pattern of
higher density development with Old Town and low density in outlining the
Comprehensive Plan. Residential development is phased in accordance with
connection to municipal service. Again the applicant is going to be installing at
the applicants cost the McDermott trunk line, which will go from McDermott north
of Ustick and then run in a roughly east direction toward the City’s plant that will
be done at the applicants cost. The phasing will come in it is proposed in a
phasing system. I would briefly remind you with regard to school facilities I had
the discussion with the School District about working with them to site a facility or
picking one out. They were not yet ready and the Committee has not determined
where additional school sites would be available but we are working with them
and had committed at that time to working with them purchasing land if that’s
what they wanted to look for and generally work with them. Meridian Fire
Department plans to break ground on the new sub-station on Ten Mile Road.
The comments would be identical to that contained in Autumn Faire No. 1 but
until the Ten Mile facility is completed the Fire Department will be responding
from Franklin which is approximately six miles away. We didn’t receive any
negative comments from the emergency services. I did point out already that he
project has 7.3 percent common usable area including the private park pathway
and the common areas along Ten Mile. In addition to the private park and the
common area we will be paying the City’s park fees so that we will not only be
relieving pressure on the parks system because of the private park. We’ll also
be paying the park fees and again this same developer that provided the land in
Autumn Faire No. 2 for the proposed Municipal Park. We also provided the
green ways, pedestrian access to the parks. That’s what I had Scott point out to
you in the corridors. I went through the housing diversity. This allows for a
significant diversity in housing types and styles. We submitted with the original
application the proposed restrictive covenants, those restrictive covenants
precluded the use of mobiles, manufactures, move-ons, modular homes. It did
have the minimum square-footage of 1,400 square-feet for a single level. We
are looking at how to revise that to take into account what would be appropriate
for two-story houses. That hasn’t been finalized yet. With regard to the general
annexation requirements that I found in the Autumn Faire No. 1 report existing
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 9
drainage ditches have to be tiled. We have an irrigation ditch on the north
boundary that already shows and showed on the original plat submitted in
September that that would be tiled. That would not – that doesn’t require any
further analysis. The Ten Mile Drain has to be left open. We did provide the
common area and the walking path that was requested by Ms. Stiles even
though we’re not entirely sure where the Ten Mile Drain rests. We originally
referred to this in a prior presentation saying that we have some conflicting
surveys and we’re not exactly sure exactly where those property lines are going
to lay until we get approval of the Preliminary Plat and we get out and start doing
the actual survey work on the ground and setting the pins. Existing domestic
wells and septic have to be removed upon approval the Janicek well and septic
would be removed, which would be required. We would obviously have off-street
parking in accordance with the zoning Ordinance’s. We would have a drainage
plan designed by a licensed engineer that happens to be Mr. Stanfield. Outside
lighting has to be designed and placed as no direct illumination. Signage in
accordance with Meridian Ordinance’s. Five-foot sidewalks are planned
throughout. Paved public roads. Requires a Development Agreement. We just
completed the Development Agreement with Autumn Faire No. 1 it was approved
by the City Council on Tuesday night. We would be utilizing similar terms for this
particular Springdale development. So that doesn’t need further review. Mr.
Nichols and I have already been through that exercise and would find it relatively
easy to go through it on this particular one. The site specific requirements we’ve
already addressed the Development Agreement with regards to the sewer the
applicant is constructing the trunk line to the tune of I believe somewhere around
two million dollars. On Preliminary Plat general comments we have to submit a
letter from Ada County Street Name Committee and coordinate fir hydrant
placement with Public Works. We also have to coordinate sewer and water with
Public Works that has to do with the sizing of the mains. The water would be
coming in from Turnberry wee would have to coordinate with Public Works on
those sizings. All of those items are already in place. We have to provide year
round pressurized irrigation that’s already provided for and was provided in the
September submission. We are in the process of working with Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District the same as we are with Autumn Faire No. 1 on ownership of
that particular system. We’re going to be having the landscape buffers required
by City Ordinance along McDermott it’s 20-foot minimum. Where staff had
previously recommended a slight berm. Similar treatment is Ashford Greens or
Autumn Faire, which is exactly what we would be doing here. Detailed
landscape plans for McDermott and any other landscape lots have to be
submitted for approval with the final plat. We have to provide a six-foot high solid
perimeter fencing along the north and south boundaries up to I believe the Ten
Mile Drain. I believe the requirements would be the lots that would be along the
pathway would rather than having non-sight obscuring fencing it’s my recollection
from Autumn Faire No. 1 when we talked about the pathway that that would have
to be -- excuse me I misspoke myself. Instead of sight obscuring it would have
to be non-sight obscuring fencing along that pathway. The remainder of the
south boundary would have to be sight obscuring. It’s my understanding that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 10
Turnberry is either in the process of or has completed the fencing on the east
boundary. That matter is taken care of. Storm-water retention areas have to be
designed to provide usable open space with accumulated water disposal within a
24-hour period. Mr. Stanfield assures me that has been done and he can
address that issue. Again we talked about the interconnecting paths. The
reason I’ve walked you through that is I wanted to see if there was any stone that
we had left unturned for staff. We were trying to sort of stay ahead of the curve
as best we can on this thing. I think that we have moved with great alacrity at
every opportunity. We didn’t wait for a staff report to come out. I talked to Shari I
even talked to her Tuesday night at the City Council meeting. I said okay you will
have tomorrow morning we have redesigned it we’ve addressed the frontage,
we’ve addressed the stub street, we addressed the common path, we’ve done
every single thing you have told us that we’ve identified it. We did the revisions
Mr. Stanfield was up until about one o’clock making sure they were done. They
had everything the next morning. We’ve moved as quickly as we can on this
thing and I honestly don’t think that there is much of anything left to have a long
further analysis by staff. They’ve done a good job they’ve worked really hard
with us. I know that they have been short staffed the past week, and I know that
Ms. Stiles is out working on the Comprehensive Plan, which why we made sure
that we’ve had as many telephone contacts as we can to address concerns that
they brought up. I thank you for your patience after that long-winded abbreviated
discussion. Thank you sir.
Nary: Any questions?
Centers: One comment. A couple meetings back we were trying to look at this
and the Ada County Highway District had not looked at so we postponed it –
Wildwood: That’s correct.
Centers: -- if it weren’t for the Ada County Highway District we wouldn’t have this
revised plat would we?
Wildwood: No.
Centers: And we wouldn’t have known about this if we had acted then at that
time.
Wildwood: Known about which?
Centers: The revised plat and their recommendations.
Wildwood: No.
Centers: They hit it pretty hard.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 11
Wildwood: No actually Mr. Stanfield can address it. We had two revisions.
Centers: Let me interrupt you.
Wildwood: Sure.
Centers: Didn’t the Highway District really – aren’t they the ones that reduced
the size of the sub from 400 to 385?
Wildwood: I’m going to have to let Mr. Stanfield – it had to do with the street
redesign.
Centers: I’m guess I’m defending us too in – if we had acted that night we
wouldn’t have seen this revised plat.
Wildwood: No that’s why it was continue each time to get to try to get their
information in.
Centers: Right.
Wildwood: I don’t think the City is dragging their feet.
Centers: Okay.
Wildwood: I would not suggest that. That’s why I’m saying they have worked
hard with us. That’s why I talked to Ms. Stiles and she took the time to say okay
here is our concerns and that’s why we took the time to drop everything and to
move right in with those things. Because I think that she took her time, she in
fact met I believe with Scott or either talked with Scott on Wednesday morning
when she was trying to get out of the office. Brad’s looked at it. I think that
we’ve all worked really hard to try to pull all of this together.
Nary: What I think I’m hearing you saying Ms. Wildwood is you would prefer that
we not necessarily delay this another two or four weeks for an additional staff
comment. If we’re going to move this on if we can move this on it would be
better for your applicant to do that.
Wildwood: That would truly be the case. I think that if there needs to be
additional changes we can do that between now and the City Council meeting.
That’s why I’ve done this provide the same list to staff so that we can – if there
are any items that we have left unturned we’ll be right in with staff going over
them between now and if you approve it, the City Council.
Nary: Thank you.
Wildwood: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 12
Centers: Thank you.
Stanfield: Scott Stanfield with Earl and Associates, 314 Badiola in Caldwell. I’ll
try not to repeat some things that Ms. Wildwood did. Traffic study if you have
any questions on that I’ll be able to answer that you may have. The density I
didn’t hear her mention that our density was reduced done to 3.25 units per acre,
which is quite a bit less than your typical 8,000 square-foot lot subdivision you’ve
seen over the years. 1400 square-foot lots is the – or houses is the minimum. I
believe Ms. Wildwood said 14,000; its 1,400. Regarding the engineering and the
Public Works Department, regarding the water and the sewer, several months
ago I engaged in several meetings with Mr. Brad Watson, and a few of those
Gary Smith attended regarding how we are going to sewer this thing. What we
can do, what we can’t do, where’s the water going to come from, what size those
lines have to be and where at. We pretty much have beat that to death with
Public Works and I believe they’re quite happy with our progress. Most important
we’re not requesting that the City not partake in the costs of the trunk line, which
they welcomed with open arms. I think its important to point out that I
understand that the reasons for general and site specific comments but at the
same time we have to follow the City’s Ordinance’s and we will follow the
Ordinance’s. The plat you have before you I believe we’ve met every single one
of them with the exception of the pathway that breaks up that block line. I
believe that’s the only one. Simply missing it either by us or the staff doesn’t
mean we can get away with it. Bottom line is we have to follow the Ordinance’s.
With that I’ll answer any questions.
Nary: Mr. Stanfield there was a testimony on the 18th
that we had and there is
just two things that I made note of and I don’t know id there is an answer to
them. Mr. Crookston spoke on behalf of Tom Tebolt from Dew Right Nursery one
of the things I guess he wanted to see was some sort of vinyl fencing. I don’t
know where that is in relation to this and I don’t know if it was vinyl fencing I
assume it was wood.
Stanfield: It’s approximately – his property, as I understand it sits right in here
where the Ten Mile takes a turn –
Nary: Okay.
Stanfield: -- to the south. He was concerned with a fence along his boundary
and wanted something more stable than your typical four by four cedar posts that
every other one gets concrete and two years later they’re all leaning, warped and
fall over. We spoke with him immediately after that hearing and explained to him
that we really want to stay away from the vinyl but we will put in the metal posts
verses the four by four. At that time he that would be great you do that and I am
happy with the fence staying up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 13
Hatcher: Excuse me -- clarification. Wood fence with metal posts.
Stanfield: Correct.
Hatcher: Thank you.
Stanfield: Six-foot cedar with metal posts.
Nary: The other question he brought up at that time he had a concern about a
walkway or a micro-path to his property or is he talking about along the Ten Mile
Drain that – put there.
Stanfield: I am only assuming he was talking about the Ten Mile Drain in overall
concept. After the meeting he did indicate to Ms. Wildwood and myself to the
south of there his property borders both sides of the Ten Mile and he was
actually against pathways. For the reasons being that he felt though while he
still operates and owns his business there, which he foresees going on for some
quite some time. That he really doesn’t want people walking out there because
he’s got backhoes, tractors and everything running back and forth with
landscape equipment moving trees around. So he was against that. We only
added that because it was staff’s concern and I believe it may even be a
requirement. We couldn’t address his issue on that matter but we did talk to him
about it.
Nary: I didn’t have any other questions. Commission?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman.
Nary: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Just a point of clarification for the record there’s been several points
of discussion regarding the trunk line I would like to point out this will require a
fairly significant lift station as well as trunk line. Maybe just for the record Mr.
Stanfield can clarify their client’s position with regard to the lift station.
Stanfield: The lift station and the force main in the trunk line and all the
necessary pertinence in designs will be born by Gemstar, the applicant. Brad
Watson did have one interjection there and that is at the point that the force
main, that’s the side downstream of the lift station would be under pressure at
that point. That once we meet the reach the Wastewater Treatment Plant
boundary on the west side he would like to take over from there. For obvious
reasons he knows where the piping is at and he knows what's going on, on the
Wastewater Treatment Plant. I assured him once we get to that boundary he can
have it if he wants it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 14
Nary: If there’s no other questions this is a public hearing hear from other
members of the public.
Stanfield: Thank you.
Nary: Thank you. Are there other members of the public that wish to provide
any comment or anything else in regards to this application? Looks like there is
no public comment other than what has already been provided. Is there any final
word from the staff in regard – especially in regard to the issue of delay and an
opportunity to provide other detailed comments?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Nary – a couple of comments I would concur that
there has been a lot of changes to the positive made on this plat. To point out
we also have an annexation request before you. Besides a detailed review of
the plat, which I would also concur that I think many of those things, are standard
they are Ordinance they have to do them any way. We simply put them in there
for the purpose of the public record. There was no detailed review of the
annexation either request there about five or six things that to me stand out as
potential negatives. I guess I’m a little hesitant to point them out to you now
because again you are at a disadvantage of not having anything in writing. I
think in terms of whether or not the City should annex 118 acres out on the
extreme west end of our area of impact. I think number one is there diversity I
think that they have done a great job of diversity of lot sizes however the
diversity of housing types. There is none its still single-family detached
residential houses. School, Wendell Bigham of the Meridian School District in
his October 25, 2000, letter said that they could not support this application
unless land was dedicated or made available to the Meridian School District. I
guess I would ask that that be addressed. Services, again these are required
findings for annexation. Services I think certainly if they provide them all it’s a
great advantage in terms of tax payer dollars but I think services is more than
just public utilities I think it includes library and school and police. I think she
spoke well to the fire department and their plans and I think they are certainly
with in the service radius of the fire department. Density, in terms of density I
think 3.25 is average for the entire City of Meridian the comp plan does say that
density should decrease as we go outward from the City center 3.25 is not a
decreasing density compared to the rest of the interior of the City. I think that
probably low would be in our mind and I think in most planning terminology would
one to two dwelling units per acre. In terms in the best interest of the City I just
would challenge – it is true that is your decision and the City Council decision
given some of the concerns as to whether or not we should annex. I don’t know
that its been proven that it is the best interest of the City. It may be in the best
interest of the people that live here and I think with the five-acres of open space
it’s certainly got some features that – and the pathway that will be to their
advantage. I’m not sure given that commercial centers and employment centers
are quite a ways away that for the entire City it’s an advantage to annex this
property at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 15
Nary: Thank you. Are there any other questions from the Commission?
Hatcher: I have some discussion but not questions.
Nary: You certainly may.
Wildwood: Thank you Mr. Chairman. With regard to the comments that have
just come out I’m not sure that a delay id going to answer – going to provide a
staff analysis to necessarily answer those questions. The question that Brad
brought up is whether or not you should annex. The benefit to the City of
Meridian is to have sewer and -- water is already there. But to provide sewer
service in this area including the lift station and has been well supported -- as my
discussions have gone. My understanding from the Public Works side of it has
been very supportive of this extension of the construction of the trunk line into
this area. There have been no negative comments from Public Works with
regard to this project. As far as diversity of housing types this is the same
discussion – the same note that Ms. Stiles put on Autumn Faire No. 1, it’s the
same note that was in the two-page memo on November 14, 2001 from staff.
That is what Ms. Stiles wants to out in this area is mixed use. This is shown as
an R-4 designation on the comp plan today that’s what we brought you in is an
R-4. Part of the goals of the City of Meridian is to have diversity of housing
styles, types and affordability’s. These areas are not designated as
neighborhood commercial on your comp plan they are not designated as
showing those other uses. I know you are in the midst of Comprehensive Plan
revision I’m not sure this is even shown on your revised or the draft
Comprehensive Plan as being in that mixed use. I think its still shown as R-4 so
we would still be with in the Comprehensive Plan as it exists today. I’ll go back
over again I guess I wasn’t clear enough with regard to the schools. After the
October 25, 2000 letter I went in and personally met with Wendell Bigham to
have the discussion with him as to whether or not he wanted to see a school site
in this property or immediately adjacent to it. At that time he said no they did not
what they were identifying what they were looking for – there was a committee
that had been established and they would be going through section by section
and making a determination section by section as to approximate locations for
schools. High school, junior high, middle schools and elementary schools. That
he was not interested in having a school site on this particular piece of ground.
We committed to him at that time that we would work with him if they identified a
school site that we could purchase and help the school district purchase we
would be doing that with them. That committee has not identified any other sites
and I am just telling Mr. Bigham told me at the time. I think that addresses the
issues as far as services for a school. No there is no library and I’m not sure that
all public services need to be provided in any one subdivision. We provided this
developer at its no expense is bringing an extensive sewer improvement to this
location as well as having provided a public park as well as providing pathways
along the Ten Mile Drain. I believe those are well within the issues of services
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 16
that are provided and benefits to the City of Meridian. We don’t have any
negative comments from police. The Fire Department comments are fairly
straightforward. The comments as far as density going 3.2 average citywide
means that it’s an average citywide. I guess what I find a little bit confusing even
in discussing this matter and the density question with Ms. Stiles is what she told
me is that what she didn’t want to see. This is her personal opinion she didn’t
want to see mile after mile of 8,000 square-foot lots unbroken by any sort of
diversity. Well this isn’t mile after mile of 8,000 square-foot lots when you – there
are a number of similar subdivision’s with some interconnectivity. It doesn’t
mean that doesn’t allow for diversity of housing styles. If the City of Meridian
wants to see the neighborhood commercial, wants to have those mixed uses.
We would hope those would be the kinds of uses that would be designated on a
Comprehensive Plan map so that we would come in with those kinds of projects.
Again I would just reiterate her final comments to me were that her disagreement
with the project is the density and the fact that there is no commercial or town
houses within this. Again we are well within the Comprehensive Plan, well within
the zoning Ordinance we’ve exceeded all of the requirements and we would
hope that you would look upon this with favorable consideration and pass it on to
the City Council with a due pass recommendation. And thank you for your time.
Nary: Commissioners any questions?
Hatcher: I move that we open for discussion amongst ourselves. I don’t want to
close the public hearing in case we have further questions to ask.
Centers: I have a question for Brad. Brad you first comment was referring to the
fact that it was Item No. 3 the annexation and rezone. That we could act on that
but you would like more time on the Preliminary Plat. Isn’t that what you were
saying? Or did I read that wrong?
Hawkins-Clark: I think you may have read it wrong. I think we would like more
time on both.
Centers: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Again I don’t know that are a lot of brand new issues per say
now that we’ve had some of this verbal exchange. I think there are – most of the
comments are in from all the agencies. It would be for the advantage of more
detailed review on our part.
Hatcher: Basically what I would like to do I would like to go ahead address a
couple of issues –
*** End of Side One***
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 17
Hatcher: -- possibly start some discussion on a couple of them. First one in
regards to adequate time for review from staff I can understand the need to
review the most current latest plat that has been submitted for additional
consideration. However had we moved forward a month ago, six weeks ago with
it and had an ACHD report at that time we would have addressed ACHD’s
concerns and addressed the current concerns staff had. Based upon that
review, which we currently have today would have made recommendations to the
applicant that well approve it or deny it or what ever based upon these
considerations based upon these conditions. That they would have implemented
those before it went before City Council. So delaying the project for additional
review because the applicant has been proactive and has implemented
everything to their knowledge to date I don’t think is a justification for delay. I
believe that the City staff has had more than enough ample time to review the
project. They’ve had it since September October sewer is sewer is sewer. How
much do you need to review it? I want to compliment the applicant on the
proactiveness of this application and the thoroughness of the package that has
been presented before us. It is a very refreshing to see something that is
complete and somebody has taken the time to go through all the issues verses
given us half of a package. Thank you. I think it’s commendable upon the
developer with this development to present to us in this package they would
provide the City with the sewer. It’s a healthy chunk of money on his behalf and
its quite – quite honestly everything boils down to money he’s doing it so that he
builds this project so that he can make a profit. Its not rocket science there but
at the same time its an awful nice gift to the City for our utilities. However for him
to be able to make money to do this project to pay for that two million dollars
worth of sewer he has to have minimum size lots. I have a problem with this and
there has been a lot of discussion as to what is diversity Shari Stiles opinion, my
opinion, and the Ordinances opinion. It’s all based upon interpretation of written
words and personal feelings. The way I interpret our Ordinance to read is not so
much diversity within a project so in this aspect I have to concur with the
applicant. Planned developments or PUD’s have diversity within the project.
Our Ordinance as I read it states that it is our responsibility as the City as this
board to review its own project on its own merits and provide diversity based
upon the projects. In my opinion this is a con to the project. This is a downfall of
the project I’m not happy about having such low square-footages on the lots. I’m
tired of seeing these average subdivisions. I’m tired of seeing the developers
throwing up postage stamp lots so that they can make a buck and move on. We
don’t need that stuff any more in our City. As a Commissioner of this board I
would really like to see larger developments. I would rather see 1.75, 2.0 units
per acre I don’t want to see 2.5 or 3.0 units per acre. We’ve got enough of them.
Right now I’m torn as to is this a benefit to the City. There is a lot of benefits that
come along with it but are we willing to pay the price to have another 385-post
stamp lots. Yes there are a couple that are over – I wrote down the percentages.
It’s still common, there’s nothing spectacular there’s nothing that other than
sewer and some open space that this brings to the City. There’s no diversity we
don’t have upper middle class houses this is just run-of-the-mill middle class
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 18
housing. There’s no upper middle class; there’s no upper class there’s no
dedicated park although the developer has worked with the City in the past. We
have dedicated parks and I respect the developer for he has done. I think he is
cognoscente of the City’s needs. With that said that’s kind of where I stand right
now and would like to hear what the other Commissioners have to say.
Centers: Go ahead. I’ll be last.
Nary: I only have a couple of different comments. The concern I have is that this
Commission over the past at least few months that I have been here has tried
very hard to make sure that when we pass these projects on to the City Council
they’re complete. The concern I have here is that it isn’t complete on the City’s
side. I understand staff concerns and I understand there’s time. Receiving this
last Friday on a three-day weekend there was a holiday this week. Its makes it
very difficult for some of the staff reporting and all of those things to get done
timely. I guess I’m torn in the sense I don’t like to pass things on to the Council
that – will just fix it when it gets there. I don’t think that’s really our role and I
don’t think its very responsible of us as a Commission to move those things
along when it isn’t complete yet. On the other hand part of the reason this isn’t
complete I’m a little bit unclear. The only thing I can see from when we first
looked at the project back in November to now, the only real significant change is
making less houses more open space and changing some streets. It’s not a
significant amount of change that this should not really be pretty complete. The
annexation issue really hasn’t changed other than there is a few less houses
than there was two months ago. Those issues really aren’t something new that’s
come up in the last two months. I look at it and although I would prefer this be
complete before we move forward I don’t necessarily think that the applicant
should be delayed just because its not complete when I don’t see any real
reason that a lot of this should have already been done. That should already be
addressed. I do agree with Commissioner Hatcher that I think this applicant –
better than many others that we see here has sort of taken the preemptive strike
opportunity to say this is always what you have asked for in the past we’ll
address them now because we anticipate this is what its going to be like. We will
agree already in principle to comply to with all those things that you would
normally ask for and that we would delay waiting for a report that says well we’re
already agreeing to do now. So I agree with that and I like I said I am simply torn
in that regard. I think this project has some merit to some degree but I think that
issues Commissioner Hatcher brought up are valid also. The lift station and the
sewer and all those things that are being added to the City are very nice. The
main benefit to the City is going to be in addition to those at project completion is
that then we can just build more houses over there. I don’t know that necessarily
what in the big picture is everything the City of Meridian wants today. If we don’t
build that sewer line then we’re not going to build more houses there for a while.
I don’t necessarily think that that’s a good or bad thing. I don’t necessarily have
an opinion on either one of those things. It’s a nice addition but if we don’t have
it it’s not going break the City at this juncture at least not me. The green space is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 19
very nice and some of the diversity of housing I would agree with Ms. Wildwood
that – I don’t necessarily think commercial and neighborhood commercial is
necessarily is what we are looking for on that edge of the City. I don’t know if we
want other types of housing out there like you said. What I’m torn with is what
Commissioner Hatcher comments are. I think they are fair is that when we’re
looking at low density and reducing density, as we get further out from the City.
This project doesn’t really do that. It really provides a really similar type of
housing development that if we picked this up and moved it in a mile it would
look just like all the other ones that are between here and there. I think the intent
of the comp plan was to as we went west down Cherry Lane that it would start to
dwindle on the number of houses and this doesn’t do that. There is no way we
can go any further west because Canyon County is right there. It doesn’t really
accomplish clearly what we would like it to be but I don’t necessarily thinks it’s
prohibited by the plan. I just don’t think that’s what our intention was. I guess
that my comment for what it’s worth. I don’t know what the rest of the
Commission feels. Now its Commissioner Centers turn.
Centers: I have a question for the applicant. By the way my compliment also on
the presentation and all that was submitted. Has there been any talk on the
minimum sales price and maximum sales price?
Wildwood: Yes in fact contained in the restrictive covenants is the comment that
the – its projected that the lot sales – the house plus the lot the package would
be $150,000 to $250,000.
Centers: Minimum, max?
Wildwood: Yes.
Centers: Thank you. I would like to – I don’t know if a lot of the Commissioners
or people are aware that – Commissioner Hatcher I respect you comments and I
understand them. I think part of them at least the way I gathered it; it was you
were assuming they were maybe first time homebuyers and those type.
Hatcher: Actually, no. What I’m concerned about and what I’ve been seeing to
often in the City of Meridian that I really feel we need to get away from. It’s not
so much the first time homebuyers when were talking about $100,000 to
$150,000 houses. These numbers a lot of this is land flat out I know that a lot of
this land. We’re talking 1,400 square-foot minimum houses on those 8,000
square-foot lots. You’ll be lucky – I mean a 150,000 yes you could fit it on those.
You are talking 49 percent of the subdivision is going to a 150,000 square-feet.
250,000 square-foot houses that’s the other 19 percent and those are the 10,000
12,000, 14,000 square-foot lots.
Centers: First-time homebuyer maximum sales price in Ada County and Canyon
County for the Idaho Housing program is $110,000 for a new home. I think that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 20
those people need a place a place to move up to. If they want to stay In
Meridian there is not a lot of subdivisions in Meridian with that diversity. There is
not. You either have the low end or the high end. You don’t have a lot of them in
the City of Meridian that I can think of off hand, with that diversity. One that I can
think of is the subdivision I live in Sportsman Pointe. I don’t have a problem with
the density I really don’t. As far as the applicant pressure you might say I
understand where they are coming from because time is money. I was reminded
of that again when I got that in my Commission box. I think you got the same
letter didn’t you? It was an article that a planner wrote the amount of money that
can be lost – you know the article I am referring to. It’s just that simple time is
money. I just think that the first time homebuyers in the City of Meridian a lot of
them need another subdivision to move up to. Do we have any competing subs
on the planning stages now? That’s my comment. Its not a first homebuyer or a
high density sub in my opinion. There are numerous others in the City of
Meridian. On the other hand I know where staff is coming from and I would
rather see their comments in writing.
Nary: The public hearing is still open.
Hatcher: If there are no further questions then I think we should motion – from
(inaudible) that we close the public hearing.
Centers: I second.
Nary: Moved and seconded to close the public hearing on these two items. All
those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Nary: Commissioners, the public hearing is closed on Items No. 3 and 4 the
annexation and zoning request as well as the Preliminary Plat.
Centers: I would move that we reschedule Items No. 3 and 4 to a hearing date
suitable to the planning staff.
Nary: Any particular thought in mind two weeks four weeks.
Centers: I think we got to – the February 15, 2001.
Nary: Move to delay to the February 15, 2001?
Centers: Right. Is that suitable to the planning staff?
Hatcher: For the record I can’t second that motion but would you be open to
amending that and putting it as Item No. 1 on our February 1, 2001?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 21
Centers: That’s fine if that suits staff. I’ll amend it to February 1, 2001 Item No.
1 if we want to do that.
Hatcher: Because I don’t think it would take that long if we put it as Item No. 1
on the February 1, 2001 that will give staff the time that they need and we can
hammer it out as fast as we can.
Centers: So amended to February 1, 2001.
Nary: I’m looking at the agenda for February 1, 2001, and it appears there is a
public hearing for Preliminary Plat for Autumn Faire No. 2 so were you going to
be here Ms. Wildwood any way?
Wildwood: Actually Mr. Stanfield will.
Nary: I would agree with Commissioner Hatcher that I don’t know that there
would a tremendous time in discussion of it. I think – is there a second?
Hatcher: Yes I’ll second the amended motion.
Nary: So its been moved and seconded to – delay this item to February 1, 2001,
meeting. One other question was there a previously continued item on February
1, 2001? So this would be the first item that we would take up on February 1,
2001, if that were to be approved since it would be a continued item. Any further
discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Nary: Would we like to take a couple of minutes break just so Chairman Borup
can come back?
Hatcher: Yes I would like to do that.
Nary: We will take a very short recess to allow the real Chairman to come back.
(MEETING RECONVENED AT 8:17 P.M.)
Item No. 5 Public Hearing: PP 00-021 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 5 building lots on 6.95 acres in an L-O zone for
proposed Mallane Commercial Complex by The Land Group, Inc.
– northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and North Hickory Lane:
Borup: Let’s go ahead and reconvene our meeting Commissioners. Item No. 5
was a continuation from our last meeting mainly because of technicality and
paper work I think it was – we discussed the aspects and it was brought back so
that we could do the proper notice. Is that what the other Commissioners
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 22
recollect? I don’t know how much brad your staff report. Anything you need to
add beyond that?
Hawkins-Clark: I don’t really if -- certainly came in prepared to go over any other
details you want. On the plat I believe it’s the same plat as I recall you requested
at your last meeting to see a concept plan, which I believe was a part of the
original application there was a concept plan in there. I believe Russ Hepworth
of the Land Group representing the applicant did with Steve in our department
and said he was revising or tweaking the concept plan that was in the packet a
little bit. Other than that I don’t think there is any change other than the
withdrawal of the rezone request.
Borup: It’s under a Conditional Use Permit from a previous application also still.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: All this is just strictly for a Preliminary Plat approval. Conditional Use
Permit is still in force for future development.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Wasn’t there a question of some sort because the Conditional Use Permit
that is in existence the current concept plan doesn’t meet up with that and there
is going to have to be some amendment at some point in the future. Wasn’t
there something about that? Is that something we need to be concerned with
this application? I can’t remember exactly what it was but it was something in
that regard correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes I believe that our position – I don’t know if it was stated
here, was that the last CUP on this site was just for the Louie’s Restaurant.
Shari's position is that essentially replaces and revokes all previous ones and
that are now the only CUP that exists on this entire piece. Our condition is that
should you approve this plat all the future lots would require a Conditional Use
Permit.
Borup: That was my understanding from the last meeting.
Hatcher: That’s my recollection as well.
Borup: Is the applicant here? I think we hashed out all the questions last time
and this was – I don’t know how much more you wanted to say.
Hepworth: For the record my name is Russ Hepworth with The Land Group at
128 South Eagle Road in Eagle, Idaho. Representing M&L Limited Partnership.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 23
We have – the developer has decided that if the Commissioners approve this
that all the should be and will be required to go through Conditional Use Permit.
It is a note that we will put on the Preliminary Plat to require (inaudible). The only
other issue that was brought up was that he was discussing the requirement of
the sidewalk along Hickory Lane with ACHD. He has worked that out. However
on the original concept plan that was shown as being a meandering sidewalk he
is requesting that that be an attached sidewalk along Hickory the sidewalk along
Fairview is still a meandering sidewalk. The attached sidewalk along Hickory
does match that design of the subdivision to the north.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Thank you. Do we have anyone
here from the public to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners.
Nary: I would move to close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I think (inaudible) we just had a couple of questions why we brought this
back and I think the questions have been answered. I think the CUP issue was
probably the only one that was of any real importance we wanted to be sure
about. Otherwise I think they’ve pretty much answered everything else we’ve
asked for. I would move to approve PP 00-021 the request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 5 building lots on 6.95 acres in an L-O zone the proposed Mallane
Commercial Complex by the Land Group at the northwest corner of Fairview and
North Hickory Lane.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. Does that include the –
Nary: As well as to include all the staff comments –
Borup: And the ACHD –
Nary: And the ACHD report yes I’m sorry.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 24
Hatcher: Does that include the two deviations?
Borup: -- sidewalk --
Hatcher: The sidewalk and addition of the notes to the Preliminary Plat.
Nary: As well yes also the note – that there would be a note on the plat that all
the property on this would – on this Preliminary Plat would be required to have a
CUP for their use and that there would -- apparently they want the sidewalk to be
an attached sidewalk along Hickory Lane. Is that correct?
Hatcher: That’s correct.
Borup: Yes.
Nary: With those two comments as well yes.
Borup: Second concur with that?
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6. Public Hearing: RZ 00-010 Request for rezone of 8.88 acres
from R-4 to L-O for proposed St. Alphonsus Regional Medical
Center Ambulatory Care Center by BRS Architects – southeast
corner of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road:
Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 00-056 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center to construct a
Planned Development for an ambulatory, out-patient care center
with adjacent bank development by BRS Architects – southeast
corner of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road:
Borup: Next item is Items No. 6 and 7 public hearing request for a rezone for
8.88 acres from R-4 to L-O proposed St. Alphonsus Regional Medical
Ambulatory Care Center. Then related to that is request for Conditional Use
Permit for the same project by BRS Architects. I would like to go ahead open
both public hearings at this time, Brad your staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup. The property again is here at –
there is actually separate parcels existing. The project would encompass both.
Cherry Lane along the north, which in this location is already constructed that it is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 25
full right-of-way width with curb, gutter, sidewalk, five-lanes. They were not
required to provide any additional right-of-way the same situation on Ten Mile
Road. The Albertson’s store is directly west. There is a church to the north. The
subdivision – there is two churches actually to the south here. Haven Cove
Subdivision is here on the east and south. Site photos currently fallow
agricultural ground. There is this existing hedge here separating the subject site
from the church. This is looking from Cherry Lane looking south Haven Cove’s
homes there. Looking west from the middle of the site there is currently a chain
link fence that comes from Ten Mile heading east. Some ball fields for the LDS
Church on the south side. Here is the proposed site plan and I would just ask
that our conditions in the staff report dated January 16, 2001 be included. There
are – I have had some discussions with Mr. Doug Racine of BRS there seems to
be – large agreement I would just point out two items for you. The applicant
would like to clarify on Number 6 on page 4 that they are not intending 3
separate legal parcels. They are just intending to move the existing parcel line,
which is more or less I think about here. Shifting that here. The site plan refers
to what could be deemed as three parcels but they just want to clarify they’re not
looking at three its just two. We did discuss – here on the entry off of Ten Mile
Road they have a right-in right-out driveway here on the southern boundary.
They are proposing 15 parking stalls which would have head-in parking here.
We had a concern, which is number – I forget what number it was. Seven on the
CUP. That these stalls in terms of backing up while you have both incoming and
outgoing traffic may have some problems with vision and speed increasing here.
We talked about increasing the stacking distance from the entrance I believe it
would be like 50 to 60 feet increasing it to a 100 so they would lose some stalls.
What it would do is basically give a little more stacking distance should
somebody be backing out. I’m not sure we have complete agreement. I think
there are still some safety concerns of having parking down there at all myself.
They do – they are looking for getting some additional parking on the site and
that seems to be the one place that can be achieved. They are proposing some
fencing and I think Doug can speak to that. There is existing fencing here along
the eastern boundary with Haven Cove that’s in pretty decent shape. These five
or six homes here do not all have fences and they’re proposing to just go ahead
and construct a fence the full distance. I think that’s all I need to pint at this
point. There are some proposed elevations here on the screen of the facility.
The bank is not here they are proposing that would come in with elevations at
the time of the building permit. If you do approve the concept of the bank with
the two drive-thru aisles and we would support approving it as shown but if they
want increase the number of drive-thru aisles to three or more they would have
to come back. Or if they want to want to change the orientation or some other
things that I listed there then they would need to come back on the bank.
Otherwise I think we’re comfortable with that being approved at this time without
the elevations. Thanks.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commission?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 26
Centers: Brad regarding the parking, the head-in parking. I have experienced
that in fact was in a minor collision in a parking lot. Would speed bumps help?
Hawkins-Clark: I think some kind of traffic calming could certainly – yes probably
on both ends as you have the service drive sort of angles down chokes down
right here. That certainly would provide some traffic calming. I don’t know how
much traffic you are going to see. There certainly is a lot of I’m assuming
potential employee parking down here. A lot of patient parking on the north part
of the complex. Being the only entrance and exit onto Ten Mile right here. Yes, I
think – as people come in the one argument you add a 100 –feet people can
actually increase their speed in that amount of distance. They may not see
somebody backing out. A speed bump fairly close to the entrance would give
cause for hesitation and slowing.
Hatcher: Brad in your earlier discussions with the applicant did you discuss
reconfiguring that space. I could see some potential of putting the drive aisle up
against the LDS property line and taking those 15 stalls and incorporating them
somewhere in and around the bank circulation. You might be able not be able to
get 15 but you might be able to re-coop some of them while maintaining a
straight drive aisle to eliminate any potential. It is literally a drive aisle. We’ve
got to consider it as that. I think it would be better to be preventative than to try
to fix a problem we know exists.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes Commissioner Hatcher we did not discuss that per say, no.
Hatcher: Okay.
Borup: Anyone else?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: At least looking at the staff report Brad the recommendation that is in the
report is just simply eliminate those spaces entirely. Isn’t that correct.
Hawkins-Clark: That is. I don’t know that that would – again Commissioner
Hatcher comment about potentially getting them in. It is fairly restricted width at
that point of the parcel. I don’t know how much – given that a stall is 19-feet
deep reconfiguration you can do and still accomplish that. Especially with the
assumption they are – the Ordinance requires that parking stalls be on the same
parcel as what they serve unless there is some kind of cross access agreement
or something. They are proposing to separate the bank off into its own parcel
right here and here. Essentially you would be putting these parcels – I mean
these parking stalls off site for the hospital if you did that. I don’t know that is an
impossibility.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 27
Borup: You eluded to – I think we will probably ask the applicant this. I wonder if
that could have been intended for employee parking for the bank where it
wouldn’t be in and out through the day. Did they mention that at all?
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Hatcher: I think it’s a question – I’d like to address the applicant when he gets up.
Even if that’s the parcel layout right now just gut instinct is that the stalls for that
bank is a little shy.
Hawkins-Clark: Actually Commissioner Hatcher they do meet the parking
requirement.
Hatcher: Do they?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It’s because of the nine stalls that are right here.
Hatcher: That are really orientated towards the hospital rather than the bank.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct, which is why we suggested putting some kind of
pedestrian access right here. Because right now this landscape strip goes right
here. It keeps all of these nine stalls from – you get out of your car and don’t
really have any direct pedestrian access to the bank. I think they are like four or
five over from what they are required for the square-footage shown.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I read Item Seven on the report. Rather than eliminate them totally how
would you feel about parallel parking at least give them five or six. They are
trying to make use of the land. As far as parking for the bank, banks are
discouraging personal contact now days so I think that’s probably adequate.
Use the machine not the person.
Hawkins-Clark: We could – I think the limit to reduce the reversing in to the drive
aisles is our concern. I think if you were parallel parked you would at least have
the advantage of a –
Centers: That would give – well we can talk to the applicant.
Hatcher: Parallel parking on the ingress and egress.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 28
Borup: Let’s ask the applicant to come forward. I think we’ve all read the
application probably best use of time if you would like to address any of the
specific staff comments.
Racine: My name is Doug Racine, BRS Architects, architect for St. Al’s Regional
Medical Center. We’ve gone through the staff comments and Brad has reflected
them all accurately all the things we’ve discussed. In particular with regard to the
number of drive-thru lanes at the bank. The nature of our proposal on the banks
approval is conceptual. We don’t have a specific bank tenant at this point. So
that parcel is subject to massaging a t his point. What we are looking for
conceptual approval in the CUP context of a bank on that corner. With regard to
the fencing at the south property line adjacent to those parcels we’ve agreed to
go ahead and install a six-foot wood slat fence comparable to fences in the
neighborhood to provide additional screening in addition to the 20-foot buffering.
Evergreen trees in that buffer. With regard to the 15 parking stalls I think Brad
has a good point I had suggested to Brad in conversation that perhaps we could
get 100-feet, which would allow reasonable stacking for possibly for right-in. In
other words please be aware that it’s not a full access both directions. Its only
right in so only northbound traffic off of Ten Mile will be turning in there. We
certainly do want to create a traffic hazard. I would propose that we work with
staff to come up with a reasonable solution that Brad finds acceptable prior to the
City Council hearing. If it’s a suggestion for parallel parking that’s good if we can
integrate it in with the bank parking that’s another option. There is the likelihood
that there will be some sort of cross access and cross parking agreement
executed with the bank just by the nature of the development. His comment on
this nine spaces I quite frankly didn’t think of that when I was laying that out. I
don’t think there is any problem with punching through the pedestrian access for
those nine spaces. Again I it’s intended somewhat to be shared parking likewise
if those 15 spaces on that one property line remain or some facsimile of that that
could also be construed to be bank parking some cross parking.
Centers: Employee’s.
Racine: Yes, it could be. I don’t think it was specifically intended to be that way
but via cross parking it can certainly end up being that way. What we’re trying to
do is provide reasonable parking for – would be the west end the ambulatory
care center. We want to provide reasonable parking spaces in that area. We did
try to minimize the straight shot access down the service drive. That was kind of
the logic for the offset around the trash dumpster, landscaped screened area just
so people couldn’t have a direct line. The suggestion of speed bumps is
reasonable we definitely want to calm traffic as they pass into that lot. The
nature of people using this development, ambulatory care would encourage that
sort of a device for that end be it a speed bump or signage. Hopefully a speed
bump will work for us. I think all in all he clarified the issue of the number of
parcels that we’re proposing. Again I think we’ve addressed the screening issue
at the south property line and the conceptual nature of our bank approval. Other
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 29
than that we really don’t have any opposition to staff’s recommendations and
would entertain any questions that you may have at this point.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? It sounds like really the only item
that maybe is not 100 percent resolved at this point is was that on those parking
stalls on the –
Racine: If we can’t –
Borup: -- or a drive – or whether it goes 100-feet or what ever is worked out.
Racine: If it came to we absolutely had to eliminate it we can. Obviously we want
to retain as much as we can.
Borup: What do they intend for bank employee parking?
Racine: That could be done in those spaces via cross parking agreement. Or in
the nine spaces that are on the other side of the landscape buffer, which we
would provide access through.
Hatcher: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I think it would be prudent just to bring up the fact too that we are
looking at a Rezone and a CUP. Were not trying to solve an issue that’s on a
Preliminary Plat or a Final Plat.
Borup: That part is true but that access is going to be there before the bank goes
in. Is that correct or not?
Racine: Its possible – they could go together but –
Borup: That’s an access point to the hospital.
Racine: Correct.
Borup: That access will be in when the hospital is built.
Racine: Yes that’s correct all three of those accesses –
Borup: -- without the bank going in.
Hatcher: Right but we would be addressing that issue in the Preliminary Plat
review. It would give the applicant time to resolve the issue as to how to fix –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 30
Borup: You mean Preliminary Plat of which?
Hatcher: Preliminary Plat of the project itself.
Borup: Okay I’m sorry.
Hatcher: Because the Preliminary Plat –
Borup: Right –
Hatcher: -- will come back before us.
Borup: On that design.
Racine: I think we’re proposing just to clarify – because we have an existing
property line there that we create the bank (inaudible) –
Borup: (inaudible) they’re not presenting a plat –
*** End of Side Two***
Borup: -- bad tape for reason. We’re ready to (inaudible) now
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: In the recess I had made a comment do we want to go through that?
Borup: Yes probably be good just to summarize it.
Centers: I had made a comment and asked the applicant (inaudible) St. Luke’s
on Eagle Road, they have numerous speed bumps. He said he had and they
were really considering that. Related to my previous personal experience in
backing out and your response –
Racine: My response was yes I think we’re going to want to try to calm traffic
especially in its relationship to the signalized traffic so that we don’t encourage
people to try to circumvent the traffic light for our development. I think it’s going
to be pretty much common sense on our part to install speed bumps or some
traffic calming device. Then further I mentioned with regard to those 15 stalls
that I hadn’t really considered the potential problem when I laid that out with
people backing out of those 90-degree stalls and conflicting with incoming traffic.
I mentioned to Brad in a phone conversation that we work out some sort of a
mutually agreeable solution with staff. Either through quantified analysis by a
traffic engineer or just come to some agreement with staff. If it’s determined that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 31
all 15 stalls do need to go that’s in the sake of public safety that’s something we’ll
do.
Borup: Had you considered moving the road down south --
Racine: I had at one point –
Borup: -- and then sifting the whole site and putting the parking like
Commissioner Hatcher had mentioned.
Racine: I had considered at one point. But what I was trying to do – we are
somewhat limited if you move further to the east. On that site when we start
looking at the structural modules for the ambulatory care center and the required
gateway landscape buffer and the parking stall depths, the drive aisles and
adjacent parking to the building that only left one location for the service drive
more or less adjacent to the LDS property.
Borup: I see you’ve already got it on the hospital at that location.
Racine: Yes I’ve it (inaudible) there. I specifically tried not to make a straight
shot through. I wanted to try to create some sort of again traffic calming so that
people couldn’t just come in on that service drive and punch it and go down that
drive.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Upon further review after you pointed that out it’s a valid concern. It’s a
valid solution.
Racine: So with regard to those 15 spaces we’ll work – I propose we work that
out with staff even if it means total elimination of it. Then we revise our site plan
prior to the City Council hearing submitted and seven days prior to that that
would reflect the revision to that parking. The punching through the berm for
those nine spaces that could serve as employee parking for the bank. We would
add the – a reference to a new six-foot high wooden fence along the south
property line adjacent to t hose residential properties. In the interim I’ll touch
base with the sanitary company and see if we’ve got reasonable access for that
one trash enclosure. That’s located near the bank right now there may be a
problem getting garbage trucks to nose into that. That might sift to the east
slightly. Those are all things I would intend to address prior to Council hearing.
Borup: Okay anything else? Thank you Mr. Racine.
Racine: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 32
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone here that would like to testify on this application?
Come forward Ma’am.
Sander: I’m Jill Sander and I live in the Haven Cove Subdivision and I’m one of
the lots that will be backing up to. One of my questions I have to him is lighting,
is this a 24-hour-type thing? Is it until 6 o’clock? Where will the lights be? Will
they be on all night? He addressed the fence and that was my concern and
that’s satisfactory to me. I wasn’t sure exactly what it is backing up to the -- there
of – is that landscaping?
Borup: That’s the landscaping buffer. So it would be the fence, landscaping
buffer and then parking.
Sander: And then parking coming up to it. Then how far is it from –
Borup: Are you one of the ones with out the fence?
Sander: Where the fence is not where he is going to –
Borup: Along there.
Sander: Yes so how far is it from the lot to the building? There is that one down
there on Fairview that backs right up to it. It looks like its pretty far away.
Borup: We can take a look and get an – it looks far as like they have moved it
about as far as (inaudible).
Hatcher: Can we get that on record?
Borup: Yes Bruce that was scaled off at 150-feet?
Freckleton: Yes its approximately 150-feet from the extreme south corner of the
structure to the property line. The north property line Haven Cove. The
landscape buffer is 20-feet wide.
Sander: The only thing I guess is the lighting.
Borup: Is there anyone else that has any – why don’t we go ahead and go
through then he may be able to address them all at once. Lets go ahead and do
that who ever would like to come up.
Lingal: Dwayne Lingal and my question is –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 33
Borup: Could you repeat your name again?
Lingal: Dwayne Lingal. I live on 2153 Turnberry; it’s around the corner. Did I
understand that there was a single lane going in from Ten Mile?
Borup: No it’s two-way but its right-in and right-out. So hey cannot come out and
turn left they will coming out and have to turn right. So they won’t be doing cross
traffic on Ten Mile.
Lingal: But could traffic coming south turn in?
Hatcher: No.
Borup: No.
Hatcher: North traffic can turn in and if you turn out you can only go north. Right-
in, right-out.
Borup: That type of traffic would have to come from Cherry Lane.
Hatcher: The concrete barrier put in the road to prevent people from –
Lingal: And are you going to discuss the building itself and what you’re doing
with that at this time?
Borup: It’s a hospital –
Lingal: What are you doing when you say hospital? Full size.
Hatcher: We can have the applicant further clarify that when he comes back up.
Lingal: Has this been discussed before or is this first time?
Borup: No this is the first time –
Hatcher: This is the first meeting.
Lingal: It appears like this has been discussed many times and –
Hatcher: It has not.
Lingal: -- this is the first time I’ve heard of it.
Borup: This is the first public hearing. The applicant has spent a lot of time going
over it with staff –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 34
Hatcher: This is the first time it’s been in front of us.
Lingal: So if you could help me understand what your are proposing it would help
it would help.
Borup: Are you wondering about the size of the building and hours of use?
Lingal: Yes I would like to know if you’re looking at an emergency care facility or
whether its long term care or short term care. Those kind of things.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Is the applicant making notes?
Racine: Yes.
Borup: Okay Ma’am.
Gugan: I’m Judy Gugan, and I live at – actually down the street on Cherry Lane
in Sunnybrook Farms Subdivision. My concern is already the traffic that is on
Cherry Lane. With this going in even though you’re going to have right-in right-
out you are also going to impact the traffic on Cherry Lane. I have trouble
getting out of subdivision at times now do to traffic on that – if I am going to turn
and go to the right and go toward Ten Mile I am okay. But if I’m trying to go back
toward Eagle Road or anywhere in the that area I have a difficulty getting out of
that area. My concern is partly traffic also my concern is need. We have a lot of
medical facilities within a short span of space from where most of us live. There
is a clinic on the opposite corner from where this is proposed that is affiliated with
St. Alphonsus. I don’t notice that they are extremely busy so I do question need
at this point for something this big. I don’t know exactly – I’m concerned like this
other gentleman as to how big it is, what the hours are these kind of things and
the noise level. I mean are we talking ambulances coming up and down this
street. This is a very busy street already and is there access into the facility off
of Cherry Lane?
Borup: I can answer the last one. Yes there is access on Cherry Lane.
Gugan: So that’s going to truly impact Cherry Lane even more than it is now. So
that is my concern.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Hansen: My name is Penny Hansen, and I live in the Sunburst Subdivision and I
live right across the street from this thing. I’m curious about how many
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 35
employees there are going to be coming and going out of this. The noise,
ambulances. If you’re going to purchase my place so I can move. The traffic is
terrible I work ten minutes from my house it takes me 20 minutes at least now to
get to work with a 1,000 employees coming in and out of there. That’s my
concern.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Lingal: (inaudible) comments now or do you want them (inaudible) –
Borup: I didn’t understand the question.
Lingal: I have concerns of the same nature but I would kind of like here what
they’re going to propose.
Borup: That’s what we are doing they are answering all the questions that were
brought up.
Lingal: (inaudible) speak again?
Borup: Not necessarily. You need to state your name again.
Lingal: Dwayne Lingal.
Borup: I thought you said you were just repeating the same questions already
been brought up.
Lingal: No.
Borup: Okay.
Lingal: Dwayne Lingal, my concern not knowing exactly what they are proposing.
But we have been a resident at our home for five years it’s around the corner in
Cherry Lane Golf Course. This is an area that provided a quality of life where it
was quiet and it was peaceful. My real concern and I strongly oppose what
you’re showing me on paper without knowing exactly what you are doing. I really
think you have traffic issues and you do have noise issues. I hope you will really
consider what you are doing regarding the property that’s going to need to be
rezoned and the impact you are going to have on the community and the people
that live there for the purpose of quietness and low traffic. Those are the main
concerns that I have right now. I personally do not feel it would be community
friendly to put something of that size and that nature on that property. I can see
you putting it out by the freeway where there is more access and an easier
possibility of getting in and out of there without bottle necking the intersection
that’s already a problem by the development that you’ve out in there already.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 36
Hatcher: Thank you. Chairman Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I think it would be prudent to make a comment right now – I hadn’t
thought of this until public testimony. I live in Sunburst Subdivision I don’t feel
there is a conflict of interest here unless the Commission – someone else on the
Commission feels otherwise that I need to step down.
Nary: Do you live within 300 feet?
Hatcher: I don’t live within 300 feet. Maybe 305 but not within 300.
Borup: I guess my only question would be do you feel you can be objective and –
Hatcher: Like I said I don’t feel there is a conflict of interest.
Borup: I agree by the definition of conflict of interest. Okay, Mr. Racine.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Nary: I guess to follow Commissioner Hatcher’s lead I live in Sunnybrook Farms
Subdivision. I live down where the other lady does. But I also don’t feel there is
a conflict. I don’t think there is a problem with it.
Borup: Good because that would only leave two of us.
Racine: Doug Racine with BRS Architects in response to the first ladies concerns
or questions about lights. The current City Ordinance – there you are – the
current City Ordinance requires (inaudible) lights are directed (inaudible) –
Borup: You probably need get into the microphone.
Racine: It can’t be seen from your property line and we’re going to have to
comply with City Ordinance. We would have lights adjacent to that landscape
buffer to light the parking. As to the duration of those light s being on I think this
is a key question that a lot of the folks seem to have. I would like to mention that
we did conduct a neighborhood meeting on the 13th
of December and we mailed
invitations to the same list as the official mailing notice.
Centers: What date was that?
Racine: The 13th
of December. We did have a turn out of approximately 8 to 10
neighbors to review that.
Unidentified: How far did you go?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 37
Borup: He went to the list. 300 feet.
Racine: The list within a 300-foot radius, which is the public notice requirement.
Unidentified: I’m sorry if you didn’t but we mailed to the same people that if you
were noticed by the City of this hearing you would have received a notice from us
about that neighborhood meeting. We did the mailings – my apologies if you
didn’t receive one. Just to get to the nature of this facility it’s not a hospital. It’s
an ambulatory care center. By definition in the Ordinance that means the patient
stays have to be less than 24-hours. This can never become a hospital unless
it’s allowed by conditional use, which means another application to this board at
some point in the future. Its not intended that it be a trauma center, an
emergency clinic its not where – ambulances are going to be bringing in trauma
patients and then transporting them off to a hospital care center. I think –
Borup: You said no ambulances then?
Racine: Well you could have an occasional ambulance if somebody collapsed in
an outpatient scenario. But there’s not going to be an emergency trauma
component to this. To where you are bringing in people from traffic accidents.
Again the key to this thing is –
Borup: So the ambulance will be taking someone out not bringing someone in if
at all?
Racine: That’s correct.
Hatcher: No different than any other place –
Borup: It could happen in a grocery store or anywhere else.
Racine: That’s correct. It’s intended to be essentially for healthy outpatient type
care. There’s going to be a medical office building component for example there
could be an optometrist that does laser surgery. Any sort of those outpatient
stays. That’s the intention of this facility. Its not a 24-hour operation the hours of
operation is intended to be somewhere in the neighborhood between eight and
seven at night. I think as far as need of this and the community I’ll let the
business development director from St. Al's speak to that in just a moment as to
the need and the functions that are planned for this facility. But I want to
emphasize its not a hospital its an ambulatory care center. As far as Cherry
Lane traffic I think you gentleman have a copy of the ACHD staff report that
identifies Cherry Lane right now as having a existing level of service C. I’m not
all that familiar with the actual definition of level of service C. A being the best F
being the worst. C seems to an acceptable level of service in their report they do
note that with the project build out it would still be better than level C service. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 38
understand the frustration with traffic I’ve lived in Boise my whole life. I’ve seen it
go from a small community to a rather large community and traffic is one of those
frustrations. I think as far as traffic goes with regard to this project it seems to be
acceptable at least in ACHD’s definitions of levels of service. I believe I
addressed the type of the use, the lights whether it’s a 24-hour operation and
there be helicopters and ambulances coming here, there won’t be. It won’t be a
hospital. It can’t become a hospital, which by definition the patient stays over 24-
hours unless we come back to this board and the City of Meridian for another
Conditional Use Permit. As far as the rezone of the property I think the proposed
Comprehensive Plan for Meridian currently indicates or would suggest this
property be zoned commercial, which would allow retail type establishments. I
think our L-O use or district that we’re seeking – zone change that we are
seeking is a lesser impact than a retail to the surrounding neighborhood. The
type of traffic were generating – I think there was a question about the number of
employees and we’re looking at roughly at – again I’ll let Mike speak to this more
precisely but somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 to 80 full time employees.
That’s staffed in shifts its not at any one time you would have that many
employees. We’re not looking at a 1,000 employees as may have been
mentioned earlier. I don’t that there were any other questions that I missed.
Borup: That was the last one I had down (inaudible) it was employees so –
Hatcher: I would like to –
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: -- testimony from the business manager.
Racine: If I could introduce him right now.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Looking on the site map here it appears the building is – three separate
buildings.
Racine: That’s correct –
Nary: Each building is – the two main buildings Building A Building B are each
approximately 30,000 square feet each one.
Racine: That’s right two floors.
Nary: Then the single-story building says 18,000. I think on the site plan.
Racine: That’s a single-floor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 39
Nary: I’m not an architect or builder can you give me some example of how big
that building – each of those buildings is in relation to the Albertson’s that is
across the street.
Racine: Well the Albertson’s across the street is probably in the neighborhood of
about 65,000 I think is what they usually build their stores at. The typical top
(inaudible) wall elevation is roughly 24-feet, 8-inches. We’ve got slopping metal
roofs in the elevations the peak of those mansard roofs would be in the
neighborhood of 32. The underside of those I believe are –
Hatcher: The LDS church is a lot taller.
Racine: About 24.
Hatcher: That’s not including the steeple.
Nary: It’s smaller in scale and height than the Albertson’s across the street –
Racine: -- well the Albertson's –
Nary: -- each building is smaller –
Racine: Smaller yes.
Nary: -- than the Albertson's building across the street. The two of them together
are close in size to the building.
Racine: We want to emphasize to that -- if you could flip the site plan back for me
– were looking at two two-story buildings as an initial phase one. Then the
angled wing, which is single-floor. I would like to emphasize it was purposely
made single-floor for the neighbors. We met with staff when we first started
talking about this conceptually as you can see it would make a lot more sense to
put the multiple floor portion of the development essentially where we have the
single wing because there is a lot more parking available to that area. But when
we met with staff they suggested that because of the residential nature of the
surrounding properties to go in with multiple story building in that portion of the
site would be – staff wasn’t sure they could support it. Based on that we went
with the single wing at that portion of the building that’s most close to the
residential properties to lessen the impact. We kept the higher multi- story
portion closer to Cherry Lane and to the church, which is a little more compatible.
Lingal: (inaudible).
Racine: I don’t know -- speak into the microphone
Hatcher: Yes please.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 40
Racine: This is what we are proposing in the context of the Conditional Use
Permit planned unit development. It’s a brick veneer with a standing C metal
roof. It’ll be a mansard so in other words it won’t go up to a single roof peak. So
any of the mechanical units that will be needed for heating, venting and air
conditioning will be screened by the mansard roof. Brick veneer, green tinted
windows we proposed these color schemes initially just as a starting point they’re
compatible with cancer treatment center we just finished in Caldwell. They are
subject to some minor revision only in the context of what staff would feel
acceptable. I think that staff could reiterate what we’re proposing is a planned
unit development we’re going to be restricted to develop within the general
definition of the planned unit development. In other words we cannot come in
and suddenly make it three floors or drastically change the architectural style or
increase the square-footage of the buildings with out coming back to this board.
Minor variations like a change in colors color hue, small architectural details,
acceptable building orientations that can be handled by staff.
Lingal: (inaudible).
Racine: Why a metal roof? We used a sloping roof to try to fit in I think more in
context with the residential around as opposed to just a flat roof situation. Metal
does afford I think -- it’s a better roofing product than other types of roof materials
you could put on a sloped roof in many cases. There is concrete looking tile;
asphalt shingles a lot of others. We just picked this again – its compatible with
our cancer treatment center in Caldwell, which has a metal roof on it. We’re
trying to develop kind of an architectural style if you will.
Lingal: (inaudible).
Racine: Yes. It’s the same tone of brick, same color metal roof, green tinted
glazing.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Racine: I think you could by and say it doesn’t –
Borup: We need to interrupt his here. This is going the wrong direction on the
conversation.
Racine: Okay.
Hatcher: You do have a right to know but technically he is to address the board
and not the audience. We’ll address your concerns. You address them to us he
addresses them to us. We’ve given leniency for the one-on-one conversation.
Chairman Borup.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 41
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Doug could you address the exterior finish materials for architect to
architect. What exactly are you looking at? Are you looking at a Solex three
type glazing?
Racine: It would be an insulated low E green tinted glass.
Hatcher: What type of window framing are we looking at a clear anodized?
Racine: Clear anodized aluminum.
Hatcher: Clear anodized or dark bronze no clear?
Racine: Yes clear.
Hatcher: What kind type of brick finishes are we looking at?
Racine: It’s a standard modular brick veneer.
Hatcher: Are you looking at like an intestate brick?
Racine: Yes it’s an interstate –
Hatcher: Veneer or structural?
Racine: It’s an interstate –
Hatcher: It is an interstate?
Racine: Yes. It’s very preliminary what we’re proposing –
Hatcher: Right but conceptually I want to get a –
Racine: We’re probably looking at something -- steel framed building with a brick
veneer. Interstate brick type.
Hatcher: The metal roofing –
Racine: Metal roofing standing seams –
Hatcher: Pacific Clad or something?
Racine: Or NBCI. We used a bright silver out at the cancer treatment center.
Hatcher: Are you proposing a silver metal roof on this one?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 42
Racine: We we’re thinking about it. I think that’s subject to – I’m not sure what
the processes are for color review if that’s the venue here.
Hatcher: Its part of this board right here.
Racine: Again we were proposing gray silver to fit in with color palette that we
had out at the cancer treatment center. It was my discussions with Brad that we
could function – we may not end up with these specific colors. We would review
all colors with staff and if they felt it was acceptable they would let us proceed.
Unidentified: (inaudible).
Hatcher: Okay thank you.
Racine: I don’t think –
Hatcher: You’ve answered my question. At this time since we don’t have a DR
sub-committee established yet there’s little more we can do about it.
Racine: Okay.
Borup: Did you want any comment from the –
Hatcher: I would love to hear from the
Borup: Business manager.
Hatcher: St. Al's personnel.
Ondracek: My name is Mike Ondracek I’m the director of business development
at St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center. I appreciate the comments made by
some of the neighborhood residents out there. Again to address this is not a
hospital that we’re putting out at Ten Mile west Cherry Lane. We’re putting a
comprehensive ambulatory care center to meet the growing needs of the citizens
in Meridian. Those types of services are going to be same day operations; you
referenced our primary care clinic at catty corner there at Ten Mile and West
Cherry Lane. That’s a primary care clinic we’re looking to compliment our
primary care clinic with our specialty services. Same day surgery, dermatology,
outpatient rehab services. The things that we see our patients across the street
for primary care could have continuity could come over for specialized services.
It will not be 24-hours it will be as Doug Racine indicated Monday through Friday
Probably eight a.m. to seven p.m. We will grow with the needs of the community.
We found with prior experience that working families like to have after-hours care
and access. So as that demand grows we would have extended hours in the
evening. Again seven eight o’clock at night would be the very latest. We could
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 43
have Saturday clinic as well. Specialized care but more predominately it’s going
to be Monday through Friday. Its not going to be a trauma center so the
gentleman that indicated only ambulances that would leave actually this facility In
the event they would have to go a hospital setting no ambulance would be
coming in a trauma nature at all. The number of employees looking at any given
time 40 to 50 employees would be there. The building on your left Building a
represents a public medical office building with physician clinics. Its typically you
would have about two point five staff members to every full time physician. Then
the other building on the right Building B represents more of a diagnostic, which
is X-ray, lab a pharmacy in there. We could have again some outpatient surgery
at any given time we could have additional maybe 15 to 20 staff in that side. So
collectively 40 to 50 employees at a given time. But maybe up to 75 employees
through out the given working hour of the day. Part of St. Al's goal is to grow
with the community Meridian has represented a tremendous amount of growth.
I’ve only been here actually for the last seven months but still recognize a
tremendous amount of growth to this community. Part of St. Al's mission is to
grow with the community’s needs providing health care that has represented
what they want. A focus group that was done last year – they did not want a
type of St. Luke’s, which is off the freeway that’s not really growing with the
community. St. Luke’s Hospital off of Meridian does support a good (inaudible)
need to the community. But that’s not why St. Al's wants to be in Meridian our
goal is to grow with community in an ambulatory care setting. Same day we will
blend in Doug Racine talked about the color of the facility we are looking at
branding St. Alphonsus as far as a look out there. But more important to St.
Alphonsus is to have a look consistent with that neighborhood. It’s important as
we recognize structurally what we did in Caldwell. They have a very nice facility
out there the cancer center off the freeway. Really our goal in this community is
grow with that and share that the integrity of our facility and the colors
dimensions supports that growth and surroundings. So as far as a shiny silver
rooftop we probably wont do that. But it will be something compatible with the
neighborhood with that development out there so that was a point I wanted to
make as well. I think that addresses most of your questions but I would be
happy to entertain any more that you may have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Ondracek, I heard you say what was in Building A and Building B what
is in Building C?
Ondracek: Building C right now that’s actually in phase two. We have thoughts
about maybe more of a women and children’s center. Its not clearly defined right
now. There is a lot of talk in the medical community has far as specialized
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 44
niches of health care and one of the latest trends (inaudible) women’s and
children’s center. If that trend continues it will give us the option and flexibility
down the road to look at something like that. Again it would be more of the same
day medical care nature that is consistent with the other two facilities. We
wouldn’t look at building out phase two, which is Building C for probably two to
three years at the earliest after we complete phase one. We would look if all
would go well with City approvals that we would not start construction until later
this year. It would be at least two to three years out from December of 2002 so it
would be down the road. Health care is always changing so we need to be
flexible to those demands.
Nary: Mr. Chairman there was some other question that was brought up by some
of the public about the traffic concerns. I looked at ACHD’s study I’m assuming
this is a typo because they refer to the building as 188,000 square-feet –
Ondracek: I think we called t at to their attention it’s a build out of 95,000.
Nary: They don’t list any particular what they perceive that the trip counts will be
from this facility. At least I didn’t see it. It talked about what the current level of
traffic is. Has there been any traffic studies done or anything like that by you
folks?
Ondracek: I believe so and Doug Racine can speak to that as far as looking at
additional trips to the site. I can speak to (inaudible) philosophy that there is
going to be a tremendous amount more traffic coming into this center more of a
destination point verses people surrounding the community just coming in for
care. I think it will be two fold I think they will be a number of neighbors within
the community that live in close proximity to this site that will come right to this
site. By the nature of as our specialized same day care there will be traffic that
will come lets say one to three miles away to the center as well. But we
represent a good percent of population coming right around the nucleus here but
some traffic would come. Lets say one to three to five miles from the site. Doug
Racine can speak to additional traffic counts.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission?
Nary: The only other comment I was going to make because – is it Mrs. Hanson
is that your name ma’am? You live on Ann Street? Okay because you are listed
on the list of mailings you had said previously you hadn’t received it.
Hanson: I got this last one for this but I didn’t get any others.
Nary: I see okay. That’s all.
Borup: Okay thank you. Mr. Racine did you have some information on the
traffic?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 45
Racine: In response to questions on an additional traffic study no one was not
done for this. In reviewing the project with ACHD staff as you can see in their
tech report one wasn’t required. There is a line –
Borup: They base there – on type of building and type of use and normal traffic –
Racine: Type of traffic type of use that’s correct. I did speak to Christie
Richardson at Planning and Development with ACHD and did point out that they
had an error on the total square-footage of the proposed building. She did
acknowledge that could affect their trip generation figures, which of course is
important to us from traffic contribution to Cherry Lane not to mention the ACHD
impact fees that will have to be paid for this. Even with that higher traffic count
and the I do not see – I see a total traffic count on October 4, 2000 of 9,224. I’m
not exactly what period of time that is if that’s for the whole day I assume that’s
what it is. I don’t think there was any – there’s nothing that I can see that
indicates what the trip generation for this facility would be. The only thing I see
in reference to this is that currently that Cherry Lane has a better than C level of
existing service and then the line below that refers that it would still be a better
than C existing service including the project build out level of service. I’m hopeful
with the correction in their analysis getting the right building square-footage the
trip generation would even improve.
Borup: Makes sense.
Racine: I hope that’s helpful.
Nary: Would it be fair to say then just so these neighbors understand. ACHD
miscalculated their error as to the size of the building but even with that what
they perceive to be a larger facility –
Racine: That’s correct.
Nary: They didn’t anticipate that he traffic would increase significantly.
Racine: That’s correct.
Nary: So what you are saying with the decrease in the size of the building it
shouldn’t make any significant difference either.
Racine: That’s correct you should still have a better than C level of service on
Cherry Lane.
Nary: Thank you.
Racine: You’re welcome.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 46
Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commissioners? One last time before
we started we went over the agenda that the applicant would have his chance –
Lingal: I sure appreciate you letting have mine again.
Borup: Go ahead.
Lingal: Please keep in mind St. Luke’s when they first went over on Eagle Road
they were not going to be hospital.
Borup: Yes they were.
Lingal: In the first phase.
Borup: Right and they weren’t.
Hatcher: The first phase they weren’t.
Borup: They had a –
Lingal: My concern now is that would be an opportunity once they are in there to
be more than what they are creating here.
Borup: You are afraid they are going to go in and tear out the houses and
(inaudible) –
Lingal: No I’m afraid that we’re going to change our community in the fact that we
have a golf community, a quiet neighborhood and in my opinion you’re changing
the atmosphere of our community that we live in at Ten Mile and Cherry Lane. It
might not affect your lives but it certainly affects mine.
Hatcher: It affects my life a whole lot more than you could possibly imagine.
Borup: Half the Commissioners here –
Lingal: But it does affect our lives –
Borup: Sounds like you would rather see another retail store there then?
Lingal: Not necessarily it’s a resi – what's R-4?
Borup: R-4 is residential. As was stated the Comprehensive Plan calls –
Lingal: Residential.
Borup: No Comprehensive Plan allows for commercial use.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 47
Lingal: And please respect what you have out there. It’s not like were a
commercial area we're a community of rural setting. It’s not as much now
because of the planning and the zoning that’s out there. It was a quiet
neighborhood not long ago and we would like to keep it that way. I think I’m
speaking on behalf of many of my neighbors and equally the people that are
here.
Centers: Do you shop at Albertson's?
Lingal: No I don’t.
Centers: Communities require services. Whether they are isolated communities
or –
Lingal: They don’t require –
Centers: I don’t mean to be smart about it but you need them.
Lingal: No, I appreciate that exactly.
Centers: But you do have to shop someplace. You do have to have healthcare
someplace.
Lingal: But we’re not living In the City. I mean you’re bringing everything out to
us.
Hatcher: You are in the City now.
Lingal: If we need something we can go into town for it.
Borup: And create more traffic.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Lingal: If that’s the response of the Commissioners I’m here to say please
respect what we have out there. I’m not here to cause a problem I’m here to say
we have a community that’s quiet that has more traffic now than its ever had but
we certainly don’t need more from every direction coming in to this area. I hope
you will respect that.
Borup: I think we do but this Commission also has responsibility of the City as a
whole the community as a whole. I think – does staff have any final comments?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 48
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner I think the only other thing to point out I don’t think
has been mentioned is the Ada County Highway District in terms of access into
the site did require a change. I think the one woman mentioned that there are
currently – there’s a driveway here on Cherry Lane the main entrance is here
and then they are showing an entrance here but they are moving that to the east
60 or 70 feet. It really doesn’t result in much of a site plan change other than
some sifting of the parking lots but I did want to point that out. I believe Doug --
will that align with Sunburst and the main entrance? It will not. It will offset form
the Sunburst so it will not be a direct shot from Sunburst into that driveway they
will be offset 150-feet or so.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: One of the things I was curious about in reading the staff report and
reading the application as we were talking tonight with all the testimony I was
looking trough here. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of conditions in the CUP
portion of this application on some of the issues that were addressed tonight. I
guess I’m kind of curious as to why. 24-hour facility is obviously a significant
concern to the neighborhood and neighbors in this area there is no condition that
prevents that at this point. They – I guess that would be the number one thing to
me that I didn’t see that kind of condition. That I would like to see that this not be
a 24-hour facility. I don’t think that should be a problem with St. Al's but I think
that is significant concern that the neighbors are justified with. I was going to
make one comment I have some others I understand where Mr. Lingal and the
neighbors are coming from I don’t think they necessarily want to have a big
hospital on Cherry Lane. I don’t know that this Commission does either. I don’t
personally either want to see a hospital there. There is not enough land to build
unless it’s 10-story building. There is not enough property to build a hospital on
this –
Hatcher: -- can’t do it.
Nary: Unless they buy up the churches behind them and the houses on the other
side. There isn’t enough space in that location to do that. But to do it would
require them to come back to this Commission to do it anyway. It just isn’t
physical site to do it on there anyway. They would have to buy up all the homes
of the people that are living by it. We have a limitation on height so they can’t
build a 10-story building. They can’t build a building higher – just roughly they
can’t build a building a whole lot higher than what the Albertson’s is across the
street. They can’t build it that way so they have to ask for those types of things
and again you receive no. There are some safeguards for some of the concerns
you have. It isn’t that we aren’t listening to those I just want you to understand it
not quite that easy to do that and there just isn’t enough property to do that. You
can’t build a five-story building on this spot. Anyway Brad I don’t know if you had
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 49
a reason that wasn’t there or a reason that it wasn’t included or thought it wasn’t
important. I don’t know.
Borup: We can certainly add that.
Hatcher: We can certainly add it that’s right. I think we have –
Borup: Brad was (inaudible) –
Hawkins-Clark: I’m done.
Borup: Okay.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I think it’s also pertinent to bring out to the other Commissioners and to
the public also in this situation this type of facility. I think its fair so that’s you
guys can have a better idea of what it is we are dealing with there is that in a risk
of insulting St. Al’s what we’re looking at here is a doctors office on steroids.
That’s all it is all right. We are not looking at a hospital we’re not looking at
ambulances; we’re not looking at trauma facilities. We’re looking at a two-story
building in phase one. We’re looking at a one-story building in phase two. This
is a glorified doctors office that will allow them to do procedures that doctors
offices can’t do and that you wouldn’t have to go to a hospital to have done.
Quite frankly it is my opinion I am in Sunburst I am literally not –
***End of Side Three***
Hatcher: -- at least 305 feet away from this project. I welcome this project as a
neighbor. I live probably closer to the traffic than any of you except for this lady
here. Because my house backs up to Ten Mile I don’t live on a golf course I live
on Ten Mile. I welcome this project because your alternative is retail. You want
to talk about traffic problems retail is going – which can be put on that property.
This one however is going to provide to our neighborhood a service that is
needed. It’s going to provide to us an hour of operation that’s going to be in little
conflict to the rest of us. Because most of the people that will work there will
have already left before we get there on our way home. You want to talk about a
disruption to our neighborhood to our rural community that Albertson's not this
project. I have no – there’s nothing in this for me but I would much rather see
Albertson’s never been built. That’s a disruption, that’s a traffic problem. I think
that basically some of the concerns that are being brought up I believe that there
is a legitimate with lighting that lady here and it’s going to potentially affect you
too. That’s is on the burden of the designer and it is part of our City Ordinance
that those lights not disrupt you. If that light does disrupt you at any time after
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 50
the power has been switched on you have a right to come to the City and
complain and have it changed while it s still under construction. Because there
shall not be any glare or disruption of light in to your property. That’s part of the
City requirements. We as a board here not only need to protect the public and
that’s you and us we don’t get paid for this we’re volunteers officials. We are the
public it’s the City Council that makes final decision. But as a board we also
have an obligation to the City what is in the best interest of the City. What is in
the best interest of the community? I will vote for this project and I live just down
the street.
Borup: Thank you. Maybe just a question for probably for Mike on hours of
operation. As stated right now it would be about seven a.m. to no eight a.m. to
seven p.m. Is that correct? You say in the future if there was public need you
could go to eight o’clock?
Ondracek: Eight o’clock even on Saturday.
Borup: So if we had some type of restriction from eight a.m. to eight p.m. on the
hours.
Ondracek: I would caution the Commission –
Borup: We probably need to get you on the microphone.
Ondracek: In response to your question about a restriction of hours of operation.
My 10 years of health care experience in primary care and specialty care in an
ambulatory setting would suggest that you grow within the needs of the citizens
of the community. For me to stand here and say I would restrict our ability to
meet that growing need I probably wouldn’t be in the best position to do that. At
current state that would be fine I would think staff would get there by seven-thirty
patients would start coming in about eight a.m. Some patients would actually
love to come in at seven a.m. for their appointment before work so we are trying
to meet that need as well. I don’t envision we go beyond eight o’clock if we are
doing outpatient surgery we would have the capability to schedule cases later in
the day again to meet the customers needs. If that was an hour-and-half
procedure we could be there until eight-thirty. So I would hate to say we would
have to close by eight o’clock if it was eight-thirty. Within that general parameter
you are correct. But I would hate to put a stipulation on that.
Centers: You’re not going to be there until midnight?
Ondracek: No heavens no.
Centers: You would never –
Ondracek: No.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 51
Centers: Okay. I would have to agree with you and Chairman Borup to be
restrictive on eight to eight I don’t think we can do that.
Ondracek: It is our full intent to generally be eight to eight or eight to seven.
Hatcher: I would say 6 to 10.
Ondracek: Yes if you said 6 to 10 again with same day or circle cases if you
historically had outpatient surgery sometimes people get in at 6 a.m. to be
prepped for or by seven a.m. So if you want to put something like 6 a.m. at the
very earliest scenario would be and 10 p.m. would be the very latest scenario.
Within in those parameters I would be very comfortable.
Borup: It sounds like you are saying on the hours on the extreme ends you’re
talking maybe one or two patients that may have requested those hours and a
small staff that would be accommodating them it sounds like.
Ondracek: It would be a small staff to accommodate those few patients it would
be very rare –
Hatcher: You have to take into consideration too I just made the comment 6 to 10
but you have to take into consideration not just the applicants needs also the
communities needs. If 10 p.m. is to late for the adjoining neighbors then it’s our
responsibility to say sorry St. Al’s you can’t stay open after eight. You need to
shut down at eight because of your neighbors. If you want to be part of the
neighborhood shut down at eight.
Borup: Albertson’s in open until when?
Nary: Midnight.
Hatcher: I think Albertson’s is open until midnight I think they open at six and
close at midnight.
Borup: I think we can –
Centers: What does staff think?
Borup: I think the other thing they can still come in with an adjustment or
amendment on the CUP if the need arises too.
Centers: That’s under Item No. 7 anyway. The CUP. The hours would be under
the CUP.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 52
Borup: Right yes. Okay maybe just before you leave Mike just for the record
could you spell your name?
Ondracek: Sure Ondracek.
Borup: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess I just had a couple of comment son the heels of Commissioner
Hatcher as I said I just live on the next subdivision over and I recognize what one
of the members of the public said about traffic and all of that. I think what
everybody needs to understand is we are trying to look at what is the best use of
the facilities along Cherry Lane. It is currently zoned R-4, which if some of you
were here earlier when we were discussing the subdivision that was an R-4
subdivision but they are talking about three house per acre. This about almost
nine-acres so you’re looking at 25 to 30 houses they may be able to squeeze
into that space depending on the size of the lots. If you were actually just to
build more houses on Cherry Lane. We have to make a decision as to – in our
Comprehensive Plan calls for this to be more commercial. Most of you weren’t
here a few weeks ago we had a discussion about the other empty weed patch
down the road by Linder Road and Cherry Lane. And they wanted to build a
commercial facility there that might have been a 24-hour facility and might have
been at least until midnight and we weren’t real clear as to what they wanted to
do. I’ll tell you my opinion and I am not speaking on behalf of other
Commissioner or myself. Is I don’t necessarily believe we need to build a whole
lot more houses right on Cherry Lane. I don’t think that’s going to help anything.
Some part of what we’re looking to evaluate is relieving trips from people. If
somebody has to currently drive from Sunnybrook Farms Subdivision or
Sunburst Subdivision all the way to Boise or to the St. Luke’s facility or
somewhere else just to get this type of care. They are driving down Fairview
they are returning down Fairview they are going to be driving down Cherry Lane.
They are going to be causing more traffic than if they can drive a half-of-a-mile
and then drive back home. Or they can even depending on what it is some of
those are doctors offices probably I’m sure people can walk there for some of the
needs that will be provided. The hope is it’s going to relieve some of the traffic.
Its not an exact science by any stretch of the imagination but that’s the hope that
some of these things can do. We have to evaluate as a Commission is if we
decide that this is not the appropriate use on that property and that’s not what we
think should be there then we can deny it. If we deny it something else will come
along and propose to be there. Currently the plan is to make that a commercial
site. I’m sure most of you would prefer not to have that. That generally has
more traffic it generally has more hours of operation it generally has more people
coming from a further distance away than this type of facility. I don’t think this is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 53
something that going to have people drive from Nampa or Caldwell regularly to
service. This is the type of facility that is meant to serve a fairly small area of the
community to be able access (inaudible). Part of the reason I asked the question
the earlier in regards to the size of the building again I’m not an architect so
when you put the number up there it doesn’t mean anything to me. But I want to
know if I’m driving down Cherry Lane how does this relate to the building across
the street? At least the information I received was that the two buildings together
are approximately the size, the two main buildings are approximately the size of
the building across the street. That doesn’t offend me visually that offend me as
a neighbor to this project because that’s at least in my opinion compatible with
what should be there. Smaller profile buildings smaller profile project is a better
use than what potentially what could be there like a retail store like a Target or a
K-Mart smaller scale. Those are things that are more troubling to me along
Cherry Lane. I understand what Mr. Lingal is saying that we would like to have a
more – more of that particular part of town to be more somewhat I guess urban
rural as it has been. But its not realistically going to be that way that’s not was
intended by the City in the Comprehensive Plan. Realistically along Cherry Lane
we’re trying to look at what can we do to sort of break up the houses a little bit
provide some services and offices and things like that that people can use. So
they don’t drive all the way down Cherry Lane and all the way down to Boise.
That’s what we are faced with. To put that all in a nutshell at least what we’re
faced with is this good or bad? Is this the very best use we may ever see for this
property? I don’t know. Is this the very best use before us for what could be
there for what it’s trying to provide what they have put together as a site plan for
this? Yes I think it is I think this is probably better than what we could have
instead. Its not perfect the City Council ultimately gets to make that decision on
this if we choose to approve it as to whether or not this is appropriate. That’s
what we have to look at. What can we do here to make this a better usable site?
At least in my opinion I think St. Al’s has tried to do that. They’re providing
something that doesn’t exist currently that is different than what we have in that
location and yet they are providing it at least in a style and a manner that still is
at least reasonably compatible. It doesn’t look like a big house so its not going to
look exactly like the neighborhood buts its going to look better than a big cement
block building that is across street that at least its trying to do those things.
Again it the type of use that still isn’t going to generate as much traffic as the
other uses that might go on there instead of this.
Borup: We do have both hearings open at this time.
Hatcher: If there is no further questions from the other Commissioners I would
move that we close the public hearing.
Nary: Second.
Borup: On both items?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 54
Hatcher: On both items.
Borup: Been moved and second to close the public hearings on Items No. 6 and
7. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Item No. 6 is request for rezone of 8.88 acres from R-4 to L-O.
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval to City
Council for RZ 00-010 request for rezone of 8.88 acres from R-4 to L-O for the
proposed St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center Ambulatory Care Center at the
corner of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile Road to include all staff comments.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion?
Centers: I would like that motion to include the fact that that parking –
Borup: We –
Hatcher: This is the rezone.
Borup: This is just for the rezone
Centers: Excuse me your correct.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: The second one is for the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner
Hatcher.
Hatcher: I would like to recommend approval to City Council for CUP 00-056
request for Conditional Use Permit for St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center to
construct a planned development for ambulatory outpatient care center with
adjacent bank development at the southeast corner of Cherry Lane and Ten Mile
Road to include staff comments and to include the following. First item is that we
restrict hours of operation in CUP from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Second that prior to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 55
City Council meeting that the applicant resolve to staff satisfaction the east west
access road connecting Ten Mile Road as it relates to the safety of parking.
Borup: The applicant had committed to fence on the southern boundary.
Hatcher: Third item would be that the southern most property line be provided
with a standard six-foot cedar fence as per City Ordinance requirements.
Nary: I think there was a request by the staff to amend Number 6 to reflect its two
parcels not three.
Hatcher: Good catch I forgot to write that one down.
Nary: And that there be a through the nine parking stalls on 12F.
Hatcher: That’s in the staff comments.
Nary: Oh you’re right I’m sorry.
Borup: So you want to add –
Hatcher: We just want to add Item No. 4 clarification that we’re not looking at
three parcel that we are looking at the relocation of a parcel line.
Borup: Did you get all that Larry? Okay that was very lengthy –
Hatcher: That was only four items.
Borup: That’s good we need to include it all in.
Centers: I’ll second that.
Borup: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?
Nary: I just wanted to add one more thing for the record Mr. Chairman again so
partly maybe the record is clear. What we’re required under 11-17-3 of the City
Code is to look at the applicant complies with approximately nine different things.
At least in the testimony that we have heard and again not to diminish the
neighbors testimony. I think what we tried to do in some of these changes is to
meet the requirements of the code and I think the applicant has attempted to
meet the requirements of the code. There isn’t really anything at least in my
opinion and looking at this section of the code that we haven’t at least attempted
to address by this Conditional Use Permit. Just generally its things like design
and compatibility with the neighborhood and trying to find the best use of the
property and not providing something that’s hazard or dangerous to the
community and the vehicular approaches will be compatible and ACHD has done
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 56
that. In what is required by the City code that we need to address and making
that I think the applicant and the modifications we’ve suggested and what the
staff has already come up with do meet all of those requirements. I think that’s
what we’re here to be looking at.
Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 8. Public Hearing: CUP 00-057 Request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct an Office / Warehouse in an I-L zone for Big D
Builders by Treasure Valley Engineers, Inc. – King Street and
Baltic Place, 200 North Baltic Place:
Borup: Thank you Commissioners and thank you for those who attended here.
Item No. 8 public hearing request for Conditional Use Permit to construct an
Office Warehouse in an I-L zone for Big D Builders at King Street and Baltic
Place; address is 200 North Baltic Place. I would like to open this public hearing
and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup. This project is single building on the
parcel that is crosshatched here. This is the Meridian Business and Industrial
Park just off of Franklin Road the new fire station is here. The purpose for the
CUP is that the building is proposed to be within existing 100-year floodplain,
which is pointed out here on the map, the darker color gray scale there is the
boundary. Pointing to the site is just within the southern boundary there.
Existing uses around include the block business to the east this is a nine-foot
block wall along the eastern boundary. This is on Baltic looking sort of north
easterly here. The buildings adjacent. This is taken this is the north property
line and as you can see they have already brought in some fill here. As far as
the conditions here’s some proposed for the building. We just ask that the
conditions in our January 12, 2001, memo be incorporated into your motion. As
far as discussion on the site plan itself that staff has had along this north
boundary their will as I understand from Steve a shared driveway, and maybe the
applicants can speak further, but shared driveway here that will access the other
existing facility they have some overhead doors that will be used for storage.
The landscaping actually will not be required according to our new landscape
code if its going to be shared and get a joint use the landscaping would get in the
way there. There’s a retaining wall on the north boundary and then I believe the
other change is Ada County Highway District did ask to move the north driveway
to align with King Street. Here’s King Street coming in along the – little line here
instead of being here at the north end it would come down. I’m sorry when I was
talking about the retaining wall and landscaping I was referring to this boundary
here not this one. This is Baltic that landscaping will remain. I think that’s all we
have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 57
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Is the applicant here? Would you
like to come forward?
Durrant: My name is Dennis Durrant. I reside at 8352 South Old Farm Place,
Meridian, Idaho.
Borup: Dennis, I think you might notice staff recommends approval of the
application. They had number of comments sand requirements is there any
concern or question on any of those?
Durrant: I would just like to further clarify a little bit on the landscaping I spoke
with Steve Siddoway, and I made a few notes in my conversation with him that
he wanted me to share with you tonight. On the south, which is the bottom
portion where you see site plan that’s going to be a shared access with the
neighbor to the south. What we had agreed to do in my conversation with Steve
was instead of landscaping that portion of the south property line we would put
some landscaping right up against the south edge of the building. That would go
from the start of the sidewalk at that point and continue eastward until the edge
of the building right there. That would cover the landscaping requirements on
that side according to our discussion. On the north side of the property the
utilities are going to service the building from there. Meaning gas supply and
power supply so we arranged to have a concrete access on the north side five-
feet either direction of the building and continuous across the building for access
to servicing those utilities whether it be a meter reader or who ever. The we
would continue with some landscaping behind the building going eastward to the
northeast property corner. On the east property line there’s an irrigation
easement that runs along that property line as well as about a 12 to 15-foot wall
from Masonry Builders. I think that landscaping there wouldn’t be much of an
enhancement. Steve concurred with that that wouldn’t be necessary. Those
were the only things we had discussed Steve and I on this agreement.
Borup: He felt those proposals would meet the new Landscaping Ordinance?
Durrant: Yes he felt those were adequate.
Hatcher: Could I have you -- landscaping on the south wall of the building would
be added but then no landscaping on the east property line?
Durrant: Correct.
Hatcher: Okay. There was a third one there was another one.
Durrant: Landscaping on the northern boundary.
Hatcher: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 58
Durrant: Starting from the northwest corner there would be landscaping that
would continue to within five-feet of the building. Then from that point it would go
concrete for a concrete access for utility. Then commencing at five-feet east of
the building a landscape buffer would again resume to the eastward boundary.
Hatcher: So you would have a five-foot sidewalk around the building but the rest
of it would be landscaping.
Durrant: Correct. There will be a retaining wall on that side because there is an
elevation change from one lot to another regarding the floodplain issue. One of
the requirements was we need to be at least one-foot above the floodplain,
which we will comply with and it just creates a little bit of a problem in the
property to the north in a transition because they are not in compliance with that.
Which I’m sure you are probably well aware of. I think everything else – I’ve read
through all the requirements and we’re happy to meet all of those.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Do we have
anyone here to testify or question on this application? Seeing none.
Centers: I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Motion to close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: And a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Does anybody want to make a motion?
Centers: I think Commissioner Hatcher has his notes.
Hatcher: I could do that. Chairman Borup I would recommend -- I move that we
recommend approval to City Council for CUP 00-057 request for Conditional Use
Permit to construct an office warehouse in an I-L zone for Big D Builders by
Treasure Valley Engineers at King Street and Baltic. To include all staff
comments and to include the following. That landscaping be provided on the
south wall of the building from the west end of the sidewalk to the east corner of
the building. That landscaping not need to be required on the east property line.
Third that landscaping will commence all the way across the north property line
with the exception of within five-feet of the building where a five-foot concrete
sidewalk would be placed. Did I cover everything?
Nary: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 59
Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 00-058 Request for Conditional Use
Permit for a child care center for 24 children in a n R-15 zone for
proposed ABC Club Daycare and Preschool by Janet Torgensen
– 650 West Broadway:
Borup: Mr. Durrant would you like some of these extra plans that would be a use
to you. Item No. 9 public hearing request for Conditional Use Permit for a child
care center for 24 children in an R-15 zone for proposed ABC Club Daycare and
Preschool at 650 West Broadway. I would like to open this public hearing at this
time and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes again the application here is the site plan the Broadway
Avenue West 7th
– there are dominantly industrial uses here across the street on
the south side. There are fourplexes here to the west there are some single-
family here. Also a multi-family to the north that front on Idaho. The site plan
that they are proposing you already have I think the site plan clears up most of
the questions we had as far as the fenced area. They are showing that this
existing fence I did go out and look its in good shape. They are proposing to go
ahead and construct new fence along the east and west here to for the rear play
area. We had a couple of conditions in the staff report recommended to you as
far as the parking area. I guess I won’t go into detail on those assuming you’ve
read the report. I’ll just ask that our January 17, 2001 memo and conditions be
incorporated.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to
come forward?
D. Torgensen: My name is Dahl Torgensen and I’m the husband of Janet
Torgensen who is the name on – she’ll be running the daycare. We own the
property together and she asked me to answer the questions. We’re working on
this as a team so I’m here to help you understand. I think one of the – I assume
you would like me to go through the conditions and talk about any. I think that
specifically they wanted us to address the parking issue. There were some
questions –
Borup: Right and I think if you’re in agreement with any of the staff comments
suggestions then we don’t really need to go into that. Those that may need
clarification or if you have a different opinion on any of them that’s what we would
like you to address.
D. Torgensen: Just one question, I would like to – on the parking the only
question that we had is we – according to the side plan and I had talked to Steve
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 60
Siddoway and asked him for clarification on parking. We’re going to have two
employees in the garage and their cars will be parked there throughout the day.
What we would like to do in order to provide three parking spaces over and
above the two employee parking spaces is to turn that parking around and be
able to park in front of the garage drop off point. I’m not sure if that’s allowable
or what we can do to accommodate that. The other option, because we do need
three parking spaces I believe – we’re going to have 22 children. Actually 24 but
two of those children will be employees’ children. They will be taken care of in
the garage there. We do have room where the handicap spot is and the next
spot. There is room there also for another parking space, at least the way I
figure. I measured it and tried to take in consideration right away and all of those
considerations.
Borup: Are you talking about adding another parking spot here to the south of
the other?
D. Torgensen: Yes, that would be able to have us pull in straight.
Hatcher: That would give you the three that you need if you put the employees
in the garage.
D. Torgensen: I think we’re okay either way I just want to make sure that there’s
a couple of different options I think for us there.
Hatcher: Do you see any problem with that Brad?
D. Torgensen: Excuse me?
Hatcher: I’m just asking staff, do you see any problem with that?
Hawkins-Clark: We didn’t receive any written comments from Ada County
Highway District, did you?
D. Torgensen: We met with them, they said they were going to send those over.
They have made a requirement of us to have curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Originally when we sat down with the staff they indicated that they would be okay
if we had sidewalk just up to the asphalt that we had put in. Then we got an e-
mail back saying that an engineer had come back and said that we couldn’t use
that asphalt as sidewalk and we need to take that out. We have appealed that
piece of it with the commissioners and we have a meeting set up for February 7th
at noon to address that. Bottom line is one way or another we’ll either have
sidewalk all of the way across the front of the property meeting up with the
sidewalk with the duplexes next door and curb and gutter. Or we’ll have curb
and gutter all the way across the property and sidewalk up to where the asphalt
begins. Unless we can convince them that we don’t need curb and gutter at all
but we’ll see how that goes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 61
Hatcher: Can we address this and act upon this without any – can we make it a
condition of approval that they meet ACHD requirements.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, that was the reason that I asked because typically Ada
County Highway District will require – they will only allow a maximum driveway
width.
Borup: We need to get a testimony on the –
Hawkins-Clark: In that case they’re showing it with I think 24 feet right here.
Essentially if you put another parking space here -- I mean your driveway is
basically 44 to 45 feet wide essentially. Even though you’re serving it as parking
there’s no – to go full all the way across. If you do choose to go that way that
would nullify our recommended condition five. We are suggesting as staff, that
the applicant remove all of the existing asphalt in the front yard that’s beyond the
30 foot driveway which would be this area here that was just talked about to use
as I understand it is currently asphalted right now.
Moore: Commissioner Borup, I do not have staff comments in my materials I will
need them.
Borup: I think those just came after the first –
Nary: It was in our boxes.
Centers: Yes.
Hatcher: It was January (inaudible) sitting here on the desk.
J. Torgensen: We had to pick ours up yesterday.
Borup: Larry, here’s a set coming.
Moore: You have a set coming? Thank you, I appreciate that.
D. Torgensen: So just so maybe I can clarify with Brad. What you’re saying it it’s
44 feet from the left or from the – from there to there and that the driveway can
only come down how far?
Borup: He’s saying ACHD’s saying 30 feet where it meets the road, 30 feet
wide.
D. Torgensen: Okay, where it meets the road? Okay, I have you. That’s
according to ACHD?
Hawkins-Clark: Like I said that is their typical policy.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 62
D. Torgensen: So if we were to agree to abide by whatever ACHD decides that
needs to happen there then you guys would be okay with that? Or were you
saying that if we had parallel parking up here in front of the garage and the
handicap space over to the left that that would not create any problems at all for
you?
Hawkins-Clark: That was my original though in order for you to meet your off-
street parking. Instead of putting it facing east west to put it north south but
that –
D. Torgensen: We would much rather do that, we were kind of under the
understanding that we couldn’t stack in front of the garage. I couldn’t see any
reason why not but that would be our preference to be honest with you, would be
to do it that way.
Hawkins-Clark: The only reason I took back on that was because of ACHD’s
typical comment. This width that you’re showing is all that they may allow. This
24 feet which means that this is going to have to go away and then you would be
forced back to where you are at now.
D. Torgensen: They did that, they did look at the plan and as far as I understood
they were okay with the asphalt as long as there was curb, gutter and sidewalk in
front of it. The width up here.
Hawkins-Clark: (inaudible) that they saw this plan right here that showed 24 foot
wide?
D. Torgensen: Right.
J. Torgensen: Actually, they went out and looked at the property itself. They had
the tech’s go out and they had the engineer go out also. When they came back
their comment was that we need the curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Borup: For the record we need to say that was Janet Torgensen that was
speaking.
J. Torgensen: Janet Torgensen yes.
Borup: So they did see the sight after the asphalt was –
D. Torgensen: Right.
Borup: Brad are you saying maybe two parking spots in front of the garage and
then maybe where the handicap is now can be the third? Or even that add an
angled parking that you would be able to get in and out?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 63
Hawkins-Clark: Originally what I talked about was they could fit a total of five
stalls across from their west property line. You just come in off Broadway and
you have head in parking. You have one here, one here, one here, one here,
and one here. They would all go head in and yes that would include –
Borup: That would wipe out the landscaping buffer and everything.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. There would be no landscaping here where they
currently show the white area. Once again it’s your call but that would reduce
five and six. It – certainly if they’re asking for curb, gutter and if your appeal is
successful at Ada County Highway District then it really is no issue. If they
require curb, gutter and sidewalk then the curb cut, you’re going to have a curb
cut in there unless they allow rolled curb over the whole thing.
D. Torgensen: That’s what they’re telling us we have to have is rolled curb.
Borup: They would still be expecting grass in the other area though?
Hatcher: What I would propose in lieu of sitting here and trying to solve it. It
would seem to me that it would be prudent of on our behalf to do one of two
things. Either to continue this to a new meeting after their appeal to ACHD has
gone – you said February 7th
is your meeting with them?
D. Torgensen: Right.
Hatcher: So we could put it on the 15th
docket which should get ACHD enough
time to draft up a final letter, and allow you to go to your appeals meeting. The
other option is that we could recommend three adjacent parking lots, tanned
them to the garage, minimum City requirements as far as size and width per
staff’s final approval pending ACHD’s review and comments. That leaves a lot of
loose ends floating around.
D. Torgenson: Can I just do you mind if I ask a question and just clarify. If you
as Meridian City this is new to me so that’s why I am asking questions. But if you
as Meridian City say to us that its okay that we have those parking stalls straight
in and that we meet the requirement of three parking stalls and then we do
whatever needs to be done through Ada County Highway District. Would it be
possible to get an okay from you for what your requirements are rather than
coming back to another hearing?
Hatcher: that’s what I’m saying we have two options as the board. We can either
just lay low and see how things pan out with you and ACHD and then approve it
or deny it or fix it or whatever. Or we can take action now and approve it or deny
it based upon City of Meridian requirements. Pending there is no conflict with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 64
ACHD. If we do that we’re not going to basically be relying on staff to solve any
problems that we potentially generate tonight.
D. Torgenson: So the loose ends jus to clarify you feel like the loose ends would
be –
Hatcher: Basically how you are going to do your curb cut or whether it’s a roll-
down. Whether you’ve got a 24-foot driveway or 30-foot driveway. Whether it’s
going to be perpendicular parking. Usually we require -- this is a very plan
compared to some of them that we get. But we’re talking about changing it we
usually require that the plans reflect that, which we approve, which would be
another reason to put it off until February’s docket.
D. Torgenson: We can get the plan changed no problem.
Hatcher: That way it would reflect what you and Brad work out and would reflect
ACHD in your appeal does.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: The only other concern I would have is February 15, 2001 that we end up
sort of behind the eight ball sort of like we were tonight.
Hatcher: Exactly.
Nary: They meet on the seventh for ACHD it takes them a day or two to get their
report in it doesn’t get to our folks until the day before the meeting and they really
don’t have any time if there is a lot of change. I guess that a problem to me if we
are going to delay it if we only delay it to February 15, 2001 with your appeal
hearing on the seventh (inaudible) adequate time to make an analysis and come
back. I think you folks were here earlier that makes it awful difficult for us to be
able to go forward. Then we’re delaying it again. I guess my preference is if
we’re going to delay it lets delay it to where we really think we can be done with it
and make a decision to move on. I recognize delay doesn’t help you in that –
having to sit around and wait may not be the easiest thing. But it doesn’t help
you if we come back on February 15, 2001 and we still can’t make a decision
anyway then we would still have to wait another couple of weeks.
D. Torgenson: Whether this is here this neither here nor there but I would kind of
like to understand if I could once you approve it and I have the stuff back from
Ada County Highway District and we’ve taken care of all those issues
approximately how long before we could actually open for business? Any
estimates on that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 65
Nary: Understand our approval goes to the City Council for their final approval. I
don’t how long –
Hatcher: Usually two weeks.
Borup: We would be making a recommendation to them.
Nary: The other concern I have and you probably heard earlier part of our
responsibility as this Commission is to try to have a complete package to send to
the City Council. Not one we anticipate will be complete once it gets there, and
that’s kind of what I think we’re wrestling with. At least what I’m wrestling with in
my preference would be we send them the completed project rather than
assume it will be done when we get there when they get it. If we were to delay
this to say the March 1, 2001 meeting and then the City Council a couple weeks
– they meet every week so they would get it two, three, four weeks somewhere
in that range when ever their agenda can deal with it. Once their approval if
finaled then you can apply for building permit.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup. Sorry I just want it interject that typically we do
receive Ada County Highway District decisions the day after, which would be
February 8, 2001. 120-acre verses this as far as were concerned its up to you
but I don’t there will be a problem at a staff level to handle between February 8th
and February 15th
the review of something this small.
D. Torgenson: We do like feel like small potatoes compared to (inaudible).
Hatcher: All businesses are just as important it’s just the matter of time it takes to
deal with them.
Borup: The only other question I would have from staff is Brad Commissioner
Hatcher made a couple of options. Have you got a preference either way would
it make any difference? Would staff feel comfortable with either one?
Hatcher: (inaudible) or could we put it back on your shoulders?
Hawkins-Clark: I really don’t feel with something – you know with this we can
surmise that Ada County Highway District is going to come back with one of two
things. Neither one of them will really have a significant impact on the project. I
guess we would feel comfortable as staff working it out. If you are in agreement
with all the other conditions –
*** End of Side Four ***
Hawkins-Clark: -- the driveway width is limited then basically we are back to this
arrangement here. If not then we would just go with the four stalls that are head
in parking.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 66
Moore: Commissioner Borup legal opinion here would be you should not put this
on your staff. That it’s your responsibility and therefore you should set it over.
Borup: Okay. We have received very strong direction from City Council that I
think maybe what's kind of been indicated the complexity of the project is a
bearing there too. They definitely don’t want to see a subdivision plat that has
changes being made to it. I don’t know if they’ve expressed real strong opinions
on an application like this but I understand what you are saying.
Nary: Mr. Chairman is the normal process though once if we were to approve this
project wouldn’t it normally go to the City Council in two or three weeks from
tonight?
Hawkins-Clark: I would refer that to Shelby.
Nary: Would that just be the normal course within two weeks, three weeks –
Borup: Depending on their agendas.
Nary: Two or three meetings it would probably be on there?
Ugarriza: If it were approved today, it would go to February 20, 2001.
Nary: February 20, 2001?
Ugarriza: Yes.
Hatcher: But the appeal isn’t until the seventh it wouldn’t be prudent of us to act
upon it tonight. Because it would be premature. It would be going to City
Council prematurely.
Borup: February 20, 2001.
Torgenson: February 20, 2001 right?
Hatcher: Oh February 20, 2001 I was – two days never mind.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I have a question for staff and it’s definitely off the subject here. I see
the Central District Health’s response and then I see we have a daycare center
for 24. They want to see the plan and contact Susie Simmons.
J. Torgenson: Can I address that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 67
Centers: Let me finish. How do we arrive a t 24 children at a specific location? I
assume square-footage I’m curious about that.
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct.
Centers: So when you put the 24 in here has the Central District Health
approved that?
J. Torgenson: Can I address that?
Borup: Please do.
J. Torgenson: Janet Torgenson. I called Susie Simmons yesterday she’s been
out and looked at the house and given me written instructions of what I need to
do, which we are doing at this time and have almost all of them completed. She
told me yesterday that she didn’t write that up and I guess the person who wrote
that up didn’t know that she had already been out to the house. She told me to
carry on. Those were her words. She needs to come out two more times before
we get final approval from her also. At 80-percent finish and then when we have
children in the facility.
Centers: I was curious too.
J. Torgenson: It’s a long process.
Borup: You said you’ve complied with their request to contact?
J. Torgenson: Yes I called her yesterday morning. I wondered why it said she
needed a plan and she doesn’t need a plan because she’s already come out and
seen the house.
Centers: Well you’re not going to do some remodeling?
J. Torgenson: Pardon?
Centers: You’re not going to remodel?
D. Torgenson: We’ve actually done that.
Centers: Oh you’ve done it.
D. Torgenson: Yes we’re trying to stay ahead of the (inaudible).
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 68
J. Torgenson: We enlarged a bathroom is all and opened up a doorway.
D. Torgenson: To make it ADA compliant.
Centers: Very good thank you.
Borup: Any final questions from any of the Commissioners?
Hatcher: None. I would move that we continue this project – hold on. Let me
back up a second. Shelby if – are we moving to the February 20, 2001, meeting
because of their current load already rather than like (inaudible) two weeks from
now?
Ugarriza: The noticing requirements – I have to have so many days prior to the
meeting to notice in the paper and to the property owners.
Hatcher: We can’t get it rotated?
Ugarriza: The 6th
just passed; the deadline for February 6th
. It would be February
20, 2001, as the next available meeting date.
Hatcher: We have a meeting the first, which isn’t going to take care of the appeal
because that will be the seventh.
D. Torgenson: Can I ask maybe I want to clarify I’m not sure on the appeal
mainly all the appeal will do is just make it so we don’t have to put in as much
sidewalk. If ACHD comes back and agrees we can use the existing asphalt then
we wont need to put in as much sidewalk. Otherwise were going to have
sidewalks across the whole front of the property and were committed to do that
we don’t have any problem whatsoever in doing that. In speaking with them they
did not express any concern with us with the width of the driveway except for
down there, which is going to be taken care of by curb and gutter and sidewalk. I
just wanted to clarify that. The only thing that we are appealing is to try to get
them because of financial reasons to let us use existing asphalt for sidewalks as
opposed to regular sidewalks. That’s the only thing we’re appealing is just to
have a little bit less sidewalk.
Hatcher: Another thing you have to consider is we don’t have an ACHD report in
hand at all.
Hawkins-Clark: Mrs. Torgenson just handed we one this evening we had not
received one prior you are correct.
Hatcher: I don’t think we have any alternative.
Centers: I think we have an opinion from our legal advisor here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 69
Hatcher: I don’t think we have any – exactly.
Centers: We have his advice.
Hatcher: We have to continue it to the earliest date.
Borup: The earliest date for us?
Hatcher: The earliest date for us would be our next meeting after the appeal.
Borup: Which would be February 15, 2001.
Hatcher: Which would be February 15, 2001.
Borup: Its up to the Commissioners.
Hatcher: I would motion that we continue this project to February 15, 2001.
Centers: We need to close the public hearing.
Borup: No.
Hatcher: No if we’re going to continue it I would like to keep it open.
Centers: Okay.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. Any discussion?
Hatcher: Just for the applicant’s knowledge, when would that put them on City
Council? Trying to work with you here the best that we can but our hands are
tied.
Ugarriza: It looks like March 20, 2001.
Centers: If we act tonight it would be February 15, 2001.
Borup: It would be a month either way you –
D. Torgenson: If you had the just to clarify if you had the ACHD report and it
talked about that their requirement was the curb and gutter and we had agreed
to that and we weren’t appealing in anyway –
Hatcher: That’s correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 70
D. Torgenson: Would that change the –
Hatcher: If we had the ACHD report seven days ago and there was no appeal we
could act upon it tonight. But because of those two reasons we legally have to
postpone it until February 15, 2001. Sorry.
Borup: When did they write the report? What's it dated?
Hawkins-Clark: January 9, 2001.
Hatcher: That was nine days ago.
Borup: Did they hold it because of the appeal do you think is that why they didn’t
send it to us?
Hawkins-Clark: I don’t know.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman under Site Specific requirements there are only two
Item No. 1 says construct curb, gutter, five-foot wide concrete sidewalk to match
paving on West Broadway Avenue abutting the entire parcel. The second Site
Specific was there standard moratorium comment regarding the five-year no cut.
Hatcher: Should we act upon that? Or did you just say that’s a draft?
Freckleton: This is a draft.
Hatcher: That’s a draft.
D. Torgenson: That’s not changing I know except that we would like to have less
sidewalk.
Hatcher: Again legally we can’t act on a draft even. If that was a final
document –
Borup: Well we have before and I think we can – its sounds like if we act tonight
it would have to be on how ACHD has written their report right now, which is
requiring curb, gutter. If its goes in to appeal and anything changes from that
then need come back before us again. Would that be the procedure?
Hatcher: That take the risk we can act upon it tonight.
Borup: If you want to take the risk or not.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I guess I’m curious as to why we can’t – if we did choose to
act and again I don’t like to send incomplete things. If we simply require that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 71
they have to meet the ACHD requirements no matter what they are. What
difference does it make?
D. Torgenson: And then you would have up until the 20th
of February; right?
Nary: They are going to either have to build the sidewalk as the Torgenson’s has
said they will if they have to. Or they won’t have to build a sidewalk and they can
use the existing asphalt that is there. If our condition is that they are going to
have to comply with the ACHD requirement before they can have a CUP. What
difference does it make if we make a decision tonight?
Hatcher: The only thing I could see Bill is up to five minutes ago we didn’t have
anything in writing.
Nary: I would agree –
Hatcher: From ACHD as to what the requirements were.
Hatcher: It sounds like there’s only two Site Specific one is boilerplate and the
second is simply the one they are appealing. They’re either going to have to do
that or ACHD is going change it and all we’re going to require is that they comply.
And they are going to have to do either one what ever ACHD requires. The
spaces are only going to change configuration of where the spaces go in relation
to the sidewalk or the asphalt. They have to have five no matter – whether they
have a sidewalk there or asphalt there.
(Inaudible discussion amongst Commission)
Nary: You have to have them regardless so I guess I don’t see – like I said I don’t
want to send something incomplete but this is not 388-acres of 400 houses. This
is really not the most major thing. I think –
Hatcher: It’s very simple it’s just – very simple scenario. I would like to act o nit
tonight but I also don’t want overstep our legal boundaries.
D. Torgenson: I understand. We’re ready to do what needs to be done.
Hatcher: Do we have legal opinion if we were to act tonight based upon this
discussion we just had –
Moore: (inaudible) has over there you can probably do it but if something goes
wrong you would have to start all over again anyway.
Hatcher: Right.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 72
Hatcher: Which is going to take just as long as us postponing it anyway. But we
can act because we do at least have that draft copy. Good thing you brought
that.
Moore: (inaudible) –
D. Torgenson: They gave us two of them.
Moore: -- act it on it. Because that isn’t correct.
Hatcher: We would have to do a verbal description of what's required.
Moore: Exactly.
D. Torgenson: We could bring you – I can get you a new plan too and get it here
probably tomorrow or the Monday.
Hatcher: Right. It would go to Brad or Steve.
Borup: Brad, I noticed that staff didn’t have any comments at all as far as
landscaping is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup no number five and six deal with landscaping.
I’m sorry 5 doesn’t pertain 6 does minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer –
Borup: I thought I had read that earlier and I was –
Hawkins-Clark: They’re connected and you cannot do number six if you don’t do
five.
Borup: That’s my concern or my question.
Hawkins-Clark: There’s a certain amount of beautification issue there. You’re
really not talking about a great amount of area. Technically the Ordinance is off-
street parking if you – at this point this plan does not meet the off-street parking
requirements for 24 kids. Because they have four off-street parking. That’s why
I had suggested I think number three that if you approve this way the number of
kids would have to be reduced to meet City Ordinance.
Borup: Or redo the plan or ask for a parking variance.
Hawkins-Clark: Or ask for a parking variance that’s correct.
Borup: Mr. Torgenson –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 73
Centers: Excuse me. You do have a motion and a second on the floor to
continue this –
Borup: I know we kind of got off base here in a discussion phase. Let me finish
Mr. Torgenson how – I think you’ve heard what's been said. We are going to
need a vote on this motion either way. How big of a gambler are you? If we
went ahead and voted on this and ACHD said something different it would be
different than our motion. (Inaudible) different than our motion and come back
before us.
D. Torgenson: My understanding is at least the way I’m thinking of it’s probably
not going to delay me that much more. I would rather –
Borup: Take the gamble.
D. Torgenson: I would rather take the gamble because I feel pretty comfortable
after meeting with ACHD –
Centers: It sounds like you are moving forward you said you are 80-percent
complete.
D. Torgenson: Were trying to be proactive. Simply because we have ways of
taking care of – our daughters going to move in for a little while and a few things
like that. But come May we really need to be going with the business if we
possibly can. I would rather just go ahead and try it and I feel comfortable with
the people we’re dealing with ACHD that they are being straightforward and I
understand what they want to do.
Borup: Do we need to clarify the motion that was made?
Centers: It was simply to postpone this item No. 9 to the February 15, 2001
meeting.
Borup: I think we have beaten the discussion to death. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ONE AYE, TWO NAYES, ONE ABSENT
Hatcher: To continue it?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: So that motion is – do we have another motion?
D. Torgenson: The concern with lowering the number of kids –
Borup: I think we all understand that. That’s probably not a viable option.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 74
J. Torgenson: (inaudible) difference on the parking.
D. Torgenson: I think you can get three parking spaces no problem.
Borup: Isn’t that right Brad you need to lower it 10 to make a difference on the
parking?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Borup it depends on the number of staff I think in
part. It’s one per 10 children and then one per staff.
D. Torgenson: And we’ll have two staff with 20 kids.
Borup: So 20 kids and two staff would be 4 parking places.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct yes that was another question we raised. The state has
a certain ratio that you have to have certain number of staff if you have kids that
are it thinks its under 18 months. Then you have to have a greater ratio and then
up to two years and then up five years old.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: That was the reason for the question on – if they are committing
to you a maximum of two staff then this plan meets it. I was thinking they may
want the flexibility to have three staff if for instance there are younger kids. Then
the ratio would increase. Not going to take it okay.
D. Torgenson: We don’t want little guys, real little guys.
Nary: Do you have to have four stalls plus the handicap stall?
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Nary: So you would need five? Or is it four including the handicap stall?
Hawkins-Clark: Including.
Nary: Okay.
Hatcher: So we just got rid of a parking stall?
Hawkins-Clark: Sounds like we did.
Borup: Well if they go to 20.
Hatcher: So now that plan is in compliance.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 75
Hawkins-Clark: Yes it is.
Hatcher: So we don’t have to change it.
Nary: Because this said three for staff and they are saying two.
Borup: Well that’s with 20 kids – 20 kids would be two staff. So if they are
changing their application to 20 then it’s in compliance. Is that what you are
saying? Isn’t somebody saying that?
Nary: Or we can limit the condition to 20 children and two staff. Then the
requirement – the ACHD requirements.
Borup: And what's your preference?
D. Torgenson: I want to make sure I understand. We could have 24 – if we went
with 24 kids
Borup: You would need to get one more parking space.
D. Torgenson: -- need to get one more parking space. I believe they clarified
earlier was that if we did that vertical, straight in that we would have three more
parking spaces. But that doesn’t match the plan –
Borup: Correct.
D. Torgenson: We’ll go with –
Borup: You've got both that and the ACHD 30-foot policy to contend with.
D. Torgenson: Just one clarification just for you guys. If we determine then that
we can have three spaces there and we got that all done. What would we need
to do to come back and say we can have 24 kids what would that – in the future?
Nary: I guess I want to clarify on condition No. 2 it says one space for every 10
children. The proposed number is 24 a minimum of five stalls are required 2 for
children three for staff. They’re saying two is for staff so we don’t need three –
so they can have two spaces for 24 children at least the way this is written.
Correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. That’s a rounding issue and there’s no – as I
understand it no state or City Ordinance that clarifies that. Typically we round 24
would be 2.4 it’s less than 2.5 so you go down to 2.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 76
Nary: If we were to amend condition two we would only amend two for staff and
we would still – and you would be comfortable with that still in compliance is what
we would normally request from other people. 24 children two parking spaces
for staff and two parking spaces for the children drop-off is adequate.
Hawkins-Clark: That’s correct. I was assuming in that three staff the highest
possible ratio. Of the youngest kids –
Hatcher: We would have to –
Nary: We don’t have to limit with the children we just limit with the staff –
Hatcher: In our approval we would have to state –
Borup: We could just state in compliance with –
Hatcher: -- children younger than 18 months.
Borup: We (inaudible) state regulations would handle that.
Nary: The state would require that.
J. Torgenson: Exactly.
Nary: So we wouldn’t have –
J. Torgenson: Susie Simmons yesterday asked me again are we taking infants.
We are not taking infants. That right there -- our ratio is 12 children per
employee. That’s why we went with 24.
Nary: That’s compliant with the state?
J. Torgenson: Right. We will not be taking infants at any time. We’re not even
set up for it.
D. Torgenson: We’re grandparents now we don’t want to change diapers.
Hatcher: Just your own grandchildren they’re fine.
Borup: Okay well the last motion died.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I would move that we recommend approval of CUP 00-058
the request for Conditional Use Permit for a childcare center for 24 children in an
R-15 zone for proposed ABC Club Daycare and Preschool by Janet Torgenson
at 650 West Broadway with the following modification of the Conditional Use Site
Specific Requirements No. 2 that it be limited to no more than two staff as for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 77
parking spaces so that the current site plan would then be in compliance. Then
Site Specific requirement No. 5 that it clearly state the applicant must comply
with what ever requirement is placed by ACHD in regards to the driveway the 30-
foot driveway or asphalt use of asphalt for driveway what ever the requirement
ACHD has that they are going to be required to comply with that. Does that
meet the two things I think we’ve beat to death here?
Hatcher: And any additional –
Nary: And any other additional ACHD requirements.
Hatcher: Then the appeal – is own your own gamble it doesn’t effect this at all.
Nary: If they do something different that you have a problem with or concern with
you have until February 20, 2001 to fix it before the City Council reviews it.
D. Torgenson: Thank you
Borup: Wait a minute if we’re making a motion for approval then we probably
need to close the public hearing.
Nary: I would move that we close the public hearing I’m sorry.
Centers: I second that.
Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing. Now do we need to repeat
that motion or can you –
Nary: All those in favor of that one.
Borup: All in favor of closing the public hearing?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Nary: Our we clear on the motion to approve?
Borup: Does everybody still remember the motion that was made even though it
was in the wrong order? Motion is second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 00-025 Request for annexation and zoning
of 8.15 acres from RT to R-4 by Leavitt and Associates Engineering
for proposed Staten Park Subdivision – Black Cat Road and
Ustick Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 78
Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 00-027 Preliminary Plat approval of 24
building lots and 5 other lots on 8.15 acres in a proposed R-4 zone
for proposed Staten Park Subdivision by Leavitt and Associates –
Black Cat Road and Ustick Road:
Borup: Should we get on to something different? Does anybody else here still
want us to continue? Item No. 10 and 11 public hearing for request for
annexation and zoning of 8.15 acres from RT to R-4 by Leavitt and Associates
engineering for proposed Staten Park Subdivision. With that is the Preliminary
Plat approval of 24 building lots on the same parcel. I would like to open those
two public hearings and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Again we have the property on the south side of
Ustick. The Wilkins Ranch Subdivision, which I believe you, saw several months
ago is immediately to the east. The Lakes at Cherry Lane Subdivision is here to
the south. This is currently unincorporated County, currently agricultural
pastureland. This is looking south from Ustick. As far as our conditions we ask
that the memo dated January 12, 2001 from Steve Siddoway be incorporated.
Clarify three different points in his memo on number five just to point out we did
ask that the applicant address the walking path and how that will be fenced.
Again we are referring to this southern most southern boundary of the plat. I
believe the applicant did submit and should have received at you desks this
evening an 8 ½ by 11 that showed the proposed 4-foot chain-link fence on both
sides with an eight-foot I guess that’s a five-foot base there. On number seven
we are asking that the applicant verify that the five-percent open space is indeed
medded (sic). No calculations were submitted it appears that they do meet it but
we wanted to have that confirmed with you as the Commission. Then number
nine we had concerns about the offset road alignment. ACHD did not have a
problem with that. That was something that Steve raised the point being you that
as you come off this stub road here from Wilkins the traffic in the right lane here if
you take that straight across is more or less right in alignment with the right travel
lane heading eastbound so you may have headlight glare there. Christi
Richardson at Ada County Highway District seemed to think that as local road
and with only an eight-acre plat the amount of traffic and potential conflict with
that alignment didn’t warrant in their mind a realignment of that street. Steve did
make a suggestion there as far as possible modification if this lot. Here was –
you carried this road alignment off the north part of this lot and then kind of
maintained the curvature here that given the size and depth of some of these
lots. It may still be able to keep this same number of lots here in this cul-de-sac
it would just change the configuration of them and still be able to meet that. To
make that less of a glare issue. Then Item No. 13 the applicant has requested a
waiver from the requirement to tile the Eight-Mile Lateral and City Council of
course is the body that has to make that final decision. We do ask that you do
make a recommendation on that. That’s it thanks.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 79
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to have
anything to say?
Smith: Good evening my name is Kurt Smith I work with – I guess I need my
address I live at 2587 Southside Boulevard, Melba, Idaho. I work with Leavitt
and Associate Engineers and will be representing my client here tonight. We are
planning a modest in-field development with homes ranging from 135,000 to
150,000 dollars. These homes will range from 1,450 square-feet to 1,800
square-feet. We are adjacent to Wilkins Ranch it lies directly along our east
border and Cherry Lane No. 9 is to our south. There is another project on the
west side of Black Cat that we’re unfamiliar with the reason we know it exists is
because they are out there moving dirt although we don’t have any details on
what's going on there. R-4 zoning is compatible with adjacent properties and the
property is within the urban service planning area. Essential City services are
also available. A Development Agreement will not be required and there will be
a walking path along the Eight Mile lateral as staff said. I’m glad you did get that
typical cross section we did turn that in today because we got this report
yesterday. We’ve been working trying to get things accomplished. As far as
staffs requirement on the five-percent common area it is compliant with the
Ordinance. We are providing 22,650 square-feet or approximately .52 acres of
open space. This equates to 6.38 percent of the subdivision area. The concern
about the off-set road alignment with Morningstar Circle and West Campfire we
did look at this today it was possible to meet ACHD’s requirements as far as
lining them up exactly we could not keep the same number of lots. ACHD
requirements for your information are that they will allow this size of a road to
offset centerlines at the intersection18-feet. That’s pretty much where we are at
so we do meet their requirements. Our plan at this time is to connect our
pressurized irrigation with Wilkins Ranch Subdivision in conversation with Bill
Hensen at Nampa Meridian Irrigation District he said it would be better to have
one large system than two separate systems for their maintenance. There is a
high ground water table and it will not be a problem to design the streets three-
foot above that. We’re requesting a waiver for tiling the Eight-Mile Lateral as was
mentioned. One of the main reasons for this is that this complies with Wilkins
Ranch what they have done and also Cherry Lane No. 9. Plus this is -- it
provides one of our amenities to the walking path a water – a view of water
instead of a piped system. All common lots will be kept clear of trash and weeds
and the developer is planning to keep all applicable codes. Streets and street
name signs will be constructed and installed before building has started. We are
planning to make the street name changes that are requested by the Ada County
street naming committee. The right-of-way of the Eight-Mile Lateral will be
protected and made accessible for walking as I have talked about earlier. Storm
water management we will follow the recommendations of Central District Health
Department. We will be following best management practices of The State of
Idaho. Specifically numbers 38, which is a vegetated swell and also number 48,
which is a dry extended retention pond this will negate any mosquito ponding
there so that shouldn’t be a problem. We are planning also to discharge a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 80
predevelopment flow to the historic drainage way for this property. As far as
density we are proposing a subdivision that has 8.15 acres with 24 building lots.
This equates to a density of 2.94 lots per acre. This does conform with the
adjacent subdivisions. Staff has recommended approval of this application we
would hope that you would recommend this also to City Council and there is no
opposition present in the room. I would like to point that out also. At this time I
would like to address any questions that the Commissioners might have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Centers: How did you know there was no opposition in the room?
Smith: I know everybody here.
Borup: Did you address the staff comment on the fencing along the lateral? I
missed that if you did.
Smith: We did turn in that detail with the chain link fence along the lateral there.
We wanted the pedestrians to have a view of the waterway.
Borup: So you are proposing a six-foot chain link fence?
Hatcher: It’s in this.
Borup: That was the one that came earlier I am sorry. Any other questions from
the Commission? Thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to testify on
this application? Seeing none.
Hatcher: I move that we close the public hearing.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Is there anything else you would like to do?
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to move that we and make a motion that we approve and
send to the City Council recommend for their approval AZ 00-025 request for
annexation and zoning of 8.15 acres from RT to R-4 by Leavitt and Associates
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 81
engineering for proposed Staten Park Subdivision at Black Cat Road and Ustick
Road.
Borup: Did we close the public hearing?
Commission: Yes.
Borup: Did we close both of them?
Commission: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Go ahead.
Centers: With that motion of course include all staff comments as submitted and
recommended by them.
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Thank you that was Item No. 10 the annexation and zoning. No. 11 on
the Preliminary Plat.
Centers: I would like to send to the City Council for their approval I move that we
approve Item No. 11 PP 00-027 Preliminary Plat approval of 24 building lots and
5 other lots on 8.15 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Staten Park
Subdivision by Leavitt and Associates. Included there in all staff comments as
submitted.
Nary: And probably the supplemental of the walking path –
Centers: Correct.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 12. Public Hearing: AZ 00-026 Request for annexation and zoning
of 5.4 acres from RT to R-8 for a proposed Planned Unit
Development for proposed Kodiak Development by Hubble
Engineering – Meridian Road and Overland Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 82
Borup: Thank you. Okay do we still have the last applicant here? Item No. 12 –
11 o’clock is when we decided we wanted to have these meetings over. We’re
not going to quite make it. Item No. 12 is a public hearing request for annexation
and zoning of 5.4 acres from RT to R-4 for a proposed Planned Unit
Development for proposed Kodiak Development by Hubble Engineering. I would
like to open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup I think you’re fairly familiar with this
area. Recently approved Bear Creek immediately to the west and this area here,
which does include this piece immediately north. (Inaudible) subdivision the
proposed Valley Shepherd Nazarene immediately to the south. South Meridian
Road. I would correct the presentation slide here its says R-4 should be R-8
that’s also wrong on the agenda they are proposing an R-8 I thought one of them
said R-8 somewhere.
Nary: It says R-8 on the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: The transmittal dated January 16, 2001 actually does say R-8 on
the request line. Here are site photos as the plan currently is. There is an
existing residence on the east end fronting on Meridian Road. Meridian Road is
at currently five lanes in front of this project with a center turn lane. Picture on
the right is a southern boundary here is a current driveway. Existing this is
looking south. Our staff report dated January 16, 2001 has some discussion
about the three different concepts that were submitted to you. This board has
probably seen this before the Ordinance does allow the applicants to come even
before submitting a formal application to get your feed back on design of plats
and layouts. This was the applicants desire in this case was rather than come in
with a plat at the same time as this annexation to get your feed back on some
options. It is a fairly unique configuration sandwiched between these two. As we
discussed in the memo we are recommending that this concept number one of
the three be something that could be approved. Again none of these are
approved or would be approved with the annexation request. This is one we
would support the most and we give our reasons for that here on page two.
Concept two was to have flag lots similar design on the east end. Then concept
three was to do pretty much your straight R-8 minimum frontages. If Bruce
wants to speak to it he can. In general the sewer on this project there’s only the
first something like 60-percent – Jim Jewett may be able to speak to the depth.
Currently you will only be able to sewer back from Meridian Road to
approximately this point here. At this point since Bear Creek is on a lift station
the assumption there is at capacity and they would not be able to pump back.
That is the reason for this open space here. Just one item to point out on
Number 2 under Site specific if you do recommend approval I wanted to clarify
that the wording on that condition of the Development Agreement shall be that
the build out gross density of the entire 5.4-acre parcel shall not exceed 4
dwelling units per acre. Then to add they’re not to exclude the bonus density
allowance. Meaning that the overall density of R-4 can only be achieved if they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 83
receive the bonus density for the open space. I just wanted to clarify that. I think
that’s all I have.
Borup: The proper zoning is for R-4 not R-8?
Hawkins-Clark: R-8 is the request. In order to get the proposed housing type R-8
is the only thing that would allow town homes.
Borup: Then why are talking about for per acre?
Hawkins-Clark: that would actually be the density of this entire 5.4-acre parcel at
build out it would still be four units per acre. If you see what I mean – if you take
the proposed what is it –
Borup: You are saying add that in as – that was part of the –
Hawkins-Clark: Just a clarification. If you I feel its okay then that’s fine then you
don’t need to do anything.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess I have a concern was this advertised as the title states R-4 planned
unit development rezone.
Ugarriza: Commissioners, I just checked everything, and it’s supposed to be R-8.
The only thing that’s wrong is the agenda.
Hatcher: Look at the front of the staff comments that’s the proper –
Nary: Okay.
Borup: Is the applicant here and would like to come forward.
Jewett: My name is Jim Jewett; I reside at 4002 West Teter here in Meridian. If I
may I would like to go ahead and hand you Commissioners a smaller copy of this
so you can have it front of you. What we have here is a left over piece of
property that once Bear Creek got approved and the church got approved to the
south that we had a difficult time figuring out what exactly to do with it. That’s the
reason why we’re coming in with an annexation with a concept so you
Commissioners could look at what we’re faced with and try to help me decide the
best way to go. Through the process of working with ACHD and working with the
staff its been voted on I guess by consensus that –
*** End of Side Five***
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 84
Jewett: -- is the concept that is most acceptable to ACHD and to staff. What it is
it’s a concept utilizing patio homes, which we’ve given a couple of elevations
here to show what those patio homes would look like. The reason for the R-8
zoning is the different uses that R-4 wouldn’t give us. The R-4 density, which is
what Bear Creek is, is what we’re trying to maintain just trying to use the R-8 to
give us the versatility of town homes and also the non-residential use up front,
which under R-8 we could use a daycare facility or medical dental. We didn’t feel
that resident housing right up next to Meridian Road was appropriate there and
R-8 gives us that ability to come and Conditional Use for a non-residential use
right there on the frontage. We’re utilizing in this particular layout we’re utilizing a
density bonus by putting tennis courts and the RV storage area in the back,
which is an area that’s going to be sewerable through the existing sewer line on
Meridian Road. With the Black Cat Trunk being some ways off and Bear Creek
not having capacity we felt it best to use that back as open space, recreational
facility and RV storage. I’m negotiating with Bear Creek now to jointly share that
as a Homeowners Association. They would use the RV storage they would use
the tennis courts to further enhance the Bear Creek Subdivision as well as this
little plat. Again the other two concepts were basically showing a road going
down along side the church. The church has no use for along there they take
their frontage off of Meridian Road. The church has agreed to a joint shared at
this location that was a recommendation from City Council and it was a
recommendation from ACHD that the church joint share an access. The church
has agreed that’s the best way to go. That’s why you see kind of a half street
there shown now because the church is going to share the other half of that
entrance. What I am asking of you tonight is give me some feed back on what
you think on the concept and then I’m asking for recommendation for approval of
the R- 8 zoning with the staff comments. I agree with all the staff comments. I
want to go home so I will stand for questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Jewett?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. How do they get back to the RV storage?
Jewett: They would come through Bear Creek for the actual storage they would
come through Bear Creek and there would be a pedestrian path connecting the
two so they could walk back to their houses.
Centers: So that’s a Bear Creek –
Jewett: That’s a stub street coming out of Bear Creek.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 85
Nary: Who would own this recreation area and maintain it?
Jewett: The proposal would be the joint Homeowners Association of Bear Creek
and this plat.
Nary: Okay. But if Bear Creek doesn’t want to do that –
Jewett: Then it would be just this plat. The road still comes through so I’m not – I
don’t know if they would stop people from Bear Creek from using it. I think the
people from Bear creek are going to be – they have been warm to the idea.
Nary: At the minimum at least this particular homeowners group would be
required to maintain it if the other one doesn’t work out. Then the stub street
would probably have a sign right in front of it of some sort.
Jewett: Probably.
Hatcher: Question, Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Lot 1, you’ve got listed as a non-residential area about 32,000 square-
foot lot. I assume you’re looking at probably a commercial development there?
Jewett: Like I stated earlier under R-8 the uses that would be under Conditional
Use would be daycare, medical, dental, retirement that type of uses. What we
would generally be looking at would probably be day care.
Hatcher: It would be appropriate. It is commercial development? Okay well
that’s fine. Feedback like to commend you on this proposal I’ve seen several
PUD’s that don’t nearly work as harmoniously as – and you’ve got a sliver of a
piece of property you’ve done better than I’ve seen a lot of other ones.
Commend your architect I like your town houses, nice looking.
Nary: Mr. Chairman I would probably add on to that I think the – I like it for the
same reason Commissioner Hatcher does. It’s something different it is a better
use of a property that there is probably not a whole lot of uses for that property.
It does green space; it does have some recreation space. You have done as
much as you can with this piece of property with something different for the City
that I think is just better than just putting 10 houses along this strip.
Jewett: I have to commend staff because they worked very hard with me to come
up with some uses that – I currently live in the Lakes at Cherry Lane and I have a
motor home and I get yelled at every time I park it out front even to unload it. I
wish I had an RV storage over there where I could park my motor home and walk
to it. That’s boats and motorcycles on trailers; I think the RV storage is an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 86
excellent idea in PUD’s. It gives the residents places to park without having to
go down to the mini storages.
Hatcher: Because you have those postage stamp lots you can’t park it on your
own piece of property.
Nary: On these patio types of homes none of them none of them (inaudible)
connected like a row house type of home?
Jewett: No what we have been proposing if you look at – is a zero lot line on one
side so they would all have a zero lot line but would not attach.
Nary: One other question Lot 20 is that an open space or is that just a really
teeny little house?
Jewett: Lot 20 is just an open space that’s the back of that turn around.
Borup: One other comment and it really doesn’t matter from our standpoint what
you do in the recreation area do what ever you want to do. I just in other
developments I’ve seen probably a basketball court get more use then a tennis
court.
Jewett: Actually what we would propose here – we would put a basketball hoops
probably on both sides and then a quickly removable net --
Borup: -- in the middle – (inaudible) a double use.
Jewett: Yes. I did get a proposal for that and it really wasn’t that much more
expensive to do that and it gave it the multiple uses.
Borup: I’ve seen a lot of tennis courts sit vacant.
Hatcher: A simple wall too a lot of times in situations here too. Is having blank
wall so a person can practice their serve in tennis or the racquetball or handball.
I mean some very simple things can go along way.
Jewett: And we will be open to that as far as the recreation – that’s why we
classified a recreation area and we drew a full size tennis court so that we could
kind of reference the amount of the area there.
Borup: It sounds like the comments have a been positive –
Hatcher: The only other thing I think needs to be addressed is the emergency
pedestrian access. I think it needs to be noted that on both ends of this that I
would highly recommend one is obviously the downgrading. This is an open
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 87
space I would highly recommend that this been with like grass pavers you know
what I am talking about?
Jewett: I do.
Hatcher: Do this with grass pavers so that it appears to be an open grass. And
or make sure that we have knocked down bollards.
Jewett: We would have that.
Hatcher: I can see two things happening here. If I’m a teenage living in Bear
Creek and I know that’s there zoom I’m going through there.
Jewett: No the breakaway bollards would be required and the only thing we
would have to meet is the fire and emergency standards for weight.
Borup: That’s what I was wondering on the –
Hatcher: Yes those grass pavers meet UFC requirements. It would just be
whether or not Meridian has had bad experiences or good – but they are a viable
solution.
Jewett: And they do add more green instead of just having –
Hatcher: Exactly instead of having this strip of gravel or asphalt through that
open space.
Jewett: They should have had the bollards –
Borup: We understand its just concept and that will be on when the plat is turned
in anyway so that’s not really critical.
Hatcher: I commend you this is nice.
Borup: Yes a tough piece of property to do something with.
Hatcher: It looks a lot better than a cow pasture. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: If there is no further discussion I move that we close the public hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion is second. All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 88
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Hatcher: Commissioner Borup.
Centers: Excuse me I have a question for staff.
Borup: Okay do you want to before a motion?
Centers: A motion to approve would include the concept number one is that it?
Hatcher: No this is just the –
Centers: So it’s just to approve annexation and zoning to an R-8 zone and you
do want you want to do regardless of our opinions?
Hatcher: Well he will bring it back to us as a –
Centers: Right we know we have to see a Preliminary Plat. There isn’t much you
can do with 100-feet there on Meridian Road. I think that’s scaled out to about
100-feet. Is that’s 100-feet frontage?
Hatcher: 190.
Centers: On Meridian Road. 190?
Nary: One other question with an R-8 zoning what other type of uses for the
record would be there – I assume just multi-tenant apartment types of complex
would be the other types of uses normally.
Hawkins-Clark: there are actually numerous Conditional Uses’, which is why we
included as a condition everything would be Conditional Use.
Nary: That would be part of the Development Agreement?
Hawkins-Clark: That would be part of the Development Agreement right. But as
far as housing types duplex and town homes you could not do apartments. No
more than two.
Nary: Okay.
Hatcher: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: I motion move that we recommend approval to City Council for AZ 00-
026 the request for annexation and zoning of 5.4 acres from RT to R-8 for a
proposed Planned Unit Development for Kodiak Development by Hubble
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 89
Engineering west of Meridian Road, south Overland Road. To include staff
comments. To include staff comments.
Borup: We have a motion.
Nary: Second.
Borup: And a second. Uses of the permitted – it looks like the main permitted
use would a library or museum.
Nary: I think (inaudible) because the church wanted to have to have an R-8 for
the other side.
Borup: You could put a museum in there. Do we have any other discussion? All
in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Thank you. I assume we see you back again some time in the future.
Hatcher: Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Just a couple housekeeping items I’m assuming you’re going to make a
motion to –
Hatcher: I was trying to.
Borup: Just a reminder there is a workshop on January 30, 2001.
Nary: Just as a note, I won’t be able to be here on January 30, 2001.
Borup: Oh, you were going to do a presentation.
Nary: I know, but it is also the City of Boise’s night to review the Booting
Ordinance, and I am the author of the City of Boise Booting Ordinance, and
since they pay and this doesn’t, they win.
Centers: Will Kristy be calling us?
Ugarriza: I’m sure she will.
(Inaudible conversation amongst Commissioners)
Nary: The question I had, and I guess I’m seen a few of them that we filled out by
Chief Gordon, public safety concerns is all he writes on there; correct? There
are no explanations as to what that means.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 90
Borup: What she has on – oh you mean that’s the standard thing.
Nary: (inaudible) public safety concerns but no explanation of what that means.
If there was an explanation then it would be included I assume?
Borup: Yes and if its more – that’s why she puts on some see attached
comments if it’s longer than she can type out in one line. She copies the whole
thing. If it’s a one-line comment it’s typed in if it’s more than that we got the copy.
The other thing – did all of you there was a seminar if there is any interest in that
Will would need notice of that with in the next few days. He told me a deadline
and I don’t remember.
Nary: It looks like February 3, 2001, in Nampa.
Borup: But he would like to get it by the first part of next week if there is some
interest there.
Hatcher: The third is a Saturday.
Borup: Yes its all day thing.
Nary: They’re not very nice are they?
Centers: Does anybody know anything about the value of it or the –
Borup: This one a little different than some of the others we’ve had. It covers a
couple of items.
Nary: I do know Will Herrington is the former president of the Association of
Idaho City Attorney’s. Jerry Mason is either the current or either the immediate
past president. Jerry Mason probably in Idaho from a lawyers perspective the
authority on Planning and Zoning Law thus far other than Larry here for example.
Borup: And they normally have done a – they’ve done seminars on the state
Planning and Zoning. This is something a little different. The one part that may
be – when it talks about – what does it say about hearings?
Nary: Jerry has done -- I’ve been to presentations that Jerry has done for the
National Risk Management Associations and the (inaudible) –
Borup: I can see (inaudible) three fourths of it could may be benefit us.
Nary: It could be good.
Borup: Its optional.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
January 18, 2001
Page 91
Hatcher: Why don’t you go and then come back and give us a lecture on what
you learned.
Centers: Are you thinking about going?
Borup: Yes I am. I‘ve got to double-check my calendar too but – I’m going to do
that right now.
Hatcher: I move that we close the meeting.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Moved and second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:28 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK