2001 03-01Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 1, 2001.
This meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:03pm on Thursday March 1, 2001 by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, Richard Hatcher, and
Chairman Keith Borup
Others Present: Steve Siddoway, Shelby E. Ugarriza, David Swartley, Bruce
Freckleton
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
___X___Sally Norton ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___Bill Nary __ X____Richard Hatcher
__ X____Chairman Keith Borup
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: We do not have the minutes from the last meeting. We will handle that
at our next regular scheduled meeting.
Item 3. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2001: PP 00-
023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 building lots
and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed
Autumn Faire Subdivision No. 2 by Gemstar Properties,
LLC – east of Black Cat Road and south of Ustick Road:
Borup: I think all of you have received a copy of the letter on that. That item is
Preliminary Plat approval for Autumn Faire Subdivision. The applicant has
requested a continuance. There was a question on easement between the two
subdivisions, and I think they wanted to get clarified on the Cedar Springs
Subdivision before they proceed ahead with this because one or the other
subdivision is going to require a redesign. I think they felt if they were confident
on their design on the first one then they would know what they needed to do to
redesign on this. Do we have anyone here that was to testify on this application?
Their request was for the next available meeting. Shelby do you know when are
next scheduled meeting is, do we have room on the agenda to schedule it to that
meeting, or are we going to have to go to the next one?
Ugarriza: I think that one is probably pretty full already. I do not think that there
will be room on the 15th
.
Borup: Okay, so that would be going to March 29th
? Would that be the next
available meeting?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 2
Nary: April 5th
will be the next meeting.
Borup: Are you sure about that? Oh yea, we only have two a month. I am
trying to get us three meetings a month. So it would be April 5th
, the next
available meeting. It is suppose to be the 5th
.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there may already be 10 hearings scheduled for that
night because that was from the last deadline date. The February 15, 2001
deadline date goes on the April 5, 2001 meeting. I do not know how many have
already been scheduled, right off, but usually we are reserving the first meeting
of the month for new hearings and the second one of the month for the continued
items. I do not know how full that first meeting is off of the top of my head? Do
you know Shelby?
Ugarriza: I do not know either.
Borup: I was thinking the 15th
was not that full.
Ugarriza: I thought it was. Today I glanced at the agenda.
Borup: So that puts us to the 19th
. Okay, Commissioners looks like that will be
the next available date. Does someone have a motion to that affect? Would
anyone like to make a motion to continue to that date?
Centers: I would move that we continue Item PT00-023, request for Preliminary
Plat approval of 30 building lots and 2 other lots on 16.4 acres in an R-4 zone for
proposed Autumn Faire Subdivision No.2 by Gemstar Properties, east of Black
Cat Road and south of Ustick and propose that we schedule that on April 19,
2001.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Our next item, actually we have three hearings on the same project.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I thought maybe we could get a couple of things straightened out before
we went on to the Locust Grove Place. One is the very last hearing, No. 10,
regarding the amendments to a Conditional Use Permit planned development,
and that is going to be continued until March 15, 2001. Is that correct?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 3
Borup: Did we have anybody here on that item, Item 10? Okay. Thank you.
Norton: And then I know there has also been some confusion about Golden
Corral Restaurant, whether or not they are going to continue that or maybe
before everyone sits through until No. 9. We could get that straightened out,
what is going to happen with Golden Corral?
Borup: Do we have anyone here for that hearing? Anyone from the public?
Are you with the developer? Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Someone is here to testify on it. It has been noticed as a Public
Hearing. We should give them a chance to testify. The applicant has requested
continuation, so there should not be any final action taken tonight, but we can
certainly take the testimony and continue the item.
Borup: I guess I would be interested in hearing at the time the reasoning for the
continuation, and whether it is even necessary.
Siddoway: All was told is that it is design issues, but that is all I know.
Borup: I am not sure what design issues we have the rezone.
Norton: Okay, thank you.
Borup: I think they were probably looking at the project as a whole. Okay, so
ma’am we will take your testimony if you are willing to stay, but when that comes
to that -- next item for Locust Grove Place.
Borup: We would like to go ahead and open all three Public Hearings at this
time and start with the staff report.
Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 01-002 Request for Annexation and
Zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-40 and C-G for
proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west
side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Item 5. Public Hearing: PP 01-002 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 7 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.764 acres
in a proposed R-40 and C-G zone for proposed Locust
Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west side of Locust
Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 01-003 Request for a Conditional
Use Permit for a 180-unit apartment complex and a planned
development in a proposed R-40 and C-G zone for proposed
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 4
Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers – west side of
Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview Avenue:
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to, for the record, I note that the developer is Mr. Lee
Centers. For the record, there is absolutely no relationship. I am not related.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. You have up on the
wall in front of you a vicinity map showing the general location of this project.
This is the intersection of Locust Grove and Fairview. The project is in the
hatched area here. It is south of Intermountain Outdoor Sports, there is an
existing wrecking yard, Penn Station Apartments, which has also been proposed
by Mr. Centers and is currently beginning construction, and then it is surrounded
by Danbury Fair Subdivision. These are the existing site photos. The first photo
is looking -- this is Locust Grove looking north to the intersection. You can see
the lights in the background. You can see the existing wrecking yard. The
Seagull structures there next to Intermountain Outdoor Sports, those show up in
this photo right here, so that is turning us just a little bit more west, and you can
see Intermountain Outdoor Sports. This photo is looking basically due west.
You can see Danbury Fair Subdivision in the background. You can see the
construction taking place at Penn Station Apartments. In front of that turning and
looking due south, you can see where Danbury Fair Subdivision wraps around
the subject property. This is also the subject parcel taking from Locust Grove.
These are the existing structures that are on that site. That I believe would be
removed as part of this project. This is the proposed plat, just to generally orient
you with it, Locust Grove along the bottom, north would be to the right, along the
frontage of Locust Grove they have some parking and office, commercial lots,
and then behind those the apartment complex. This is their proposed landscape
plan for that project. Proposed elevations for the buildings. I have issues on
some of the blank facades, which I believe they have agreed to do something
with. I will get to the comments specifically in just a second. These were
submitted as samples of the types of commercial office type buildings that they
would be placing on those lots along Locust Grove. I think that is it for this one.
So let me just go through the staff report quickly and just highlight the items that
are outstanding issues and need to be addressed tonight. On Page 3, the
annexation site-specific requirements -- well let me back up, on Page 2 the
annexation and zoning comments. Item 2 for those commercial lots in the front,
the applicant has requested a C-G zone. We are recommending that that be
taken down to a C-C zone due to the intensity of uses that would be allowed in
the C-G zone. My understanding is that all of the intended uses that the
applicant has would still be able to be developed under the C-C zone. If you turn
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 5
to the next page, Page 3, under annexation site-specific requirements Item 4
there is a list of items there that are recommended to be restricted that are
otherwise permitted in a C-C zone. I do not why restaurants show up in that list.
I believe perhaps those should be taken off and allowed to go through just as the
C-C zone allows itself. We would like the applicant to address their intended
uses and whether the C-C zone would work for that. We also recommend in
Item 5, that they limit the hours of operation from 7a.m. to 10 p.m. as part of the
Development Agreement. Skipping ahead to Page 6, conditional use site
specific requirements, Item 5, along the north boundary of Danbury Fair
Subdivision, which is in this location here, and the property the Landscape
Ordinance requires a 20 foot landscape buffer between those properties
between existing single-family residential and high-density residential. The
applicant is proposing a 9-foot wide landscape strip followed by garage
structures to buffer that area from the adjacent neighbors. In addition, I believe
they have offered to the adjacent neighbors trees, 2 or 3 trees per lot to be
planted on their lots, this is submitted as a Planned Development, so as a
Planned Development they can request modifications to some of these
Ordinances without filing a separate variance. This would be one of the
modifications that they are asking for. The Ordinance would require 20. I would
be interested to hear if the adjacent property owners are satisfied with the 9-foot
buffer with the garages to separate them from the apartments. Then the
provision of extra trees on their own lots. If the neighbors are agreeable to that, I
do not have a particular problem with that modification. Also, there is a
requirement for a 25-foot buffer between the general retail and single-family
down in this location. This lot here is single-family residential, and it butts up
against the commercial area here. The buffer that exists between the lot line and
this building is 17 feet, and their current landscape plan shows no trees in that
area, and I believe they be willing to add some, but that would again encroach
into that required buffer as would the parking lot below it. Item 6, they would
need to add six trees to the frontage along Locust Grove to meet the one tree
per 35 feet linear requirement. Item 9 is in regards to visitor parking. The
Planned Development Ordinance currently states that the Commission may
require visitor parking up to one space for every three dwelling units. It does not
require that amount. It says up to that amount may be required. They do have
some visitor parking. I believe they have 36 stalls in excess of the minimum. If
they were required to have one per three dwelling units, it would be a total of 396
stalls. They are proposing, I do not see the number written in here, but they are
over their minimum by 36. Item 10 deals with the parking for the commercial
area. Right now they have exactly enough parking to the number if all of the
commercial buildings were built out as retail. It is my understanding that that is
not what they are going for. They are going for more of office uses, which would
require less parking, so if modifications are made to the site plan to reduce the
number of parking spaces, we would have to make sure that it was not built out
as full retail. I do not think they are intending to do that anyway. Item 11 deals
with the common open space. As a multi-family project, the requirement is for 10
percent common open space. In the response received from B & A Engineers,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 6
they had a calculation that I believe showed 26 percent open space, but that
calculation was including the street buffers and the area within – the ditches that
are not being improved, and those would not count towards that. I believe that
even excluding those they would meet the 10 percent, but we need to have that
verified. Item 13, this is talking about the architectural treatment of the buildings.
When you come into the project these are the sides of the buildings here that
would be facing the entrance with no windows on some pretty large blank walls.
We were asking for some architectural treatment to those, and I believe the
applicant is willing to do that. I will let them respond to that. Skipping ahead to
the Preliminary Plat requirements on page 10, Item 6 talks about existing natural
features to be preserved. I would also mention that the new Landscape
Ordinance requires that the existing trees, which you see in the site photo here,
be preserved or mitigated for. I do not know if that has been thought about, but
we need to have those trees preserved, or if they have to be removed they need
to mitigate for as per the Ordinance. Item 8 deals with the pathway. Mr. Centers
called me today. I guess this was one of his main points. They have been going
back and forth with the Parks Department as to whether the Parks Department
would take over ownership and maintenance of the path itself. After talking with
Tom Kuntz today, he indicated to me that the Parks Department will make the
recommendation to the Parks Commission and the City Council to accept
responsibility for a 10-foot wide pathway but wanted to make clear that is was not
the adjacent landscaping. The landscaping would need to be maintained by the
Homeowners Association, but that they would take over the pathway. Finally
Item 14, in the ACHD report, one of the recommendations to the City of Meridian
was that they consider requiring a pedestrian access – there is a stub street in
this location from Danbury Fair that goes to the property line. This project is not
proposing to connect that through. ACHD is not requiring that it go through, but
they have made a recommendation that we provide pedestrian access between
Danbury Fair Subdivision and the plat that could connect down through here in
this location. I believe the residents of Danbury Fair have concerns about that so
that is an issue that needs to be addressed tonight. That is all I have.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Page 2, Item 2. Page 3, Item 2. Are they one in the same?
Siddoway: They are the same issue yes.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 7
Nary: Steve, I was curious on that I guess the development is in agreement on
the C-C zone. It seems like in their letter. Is that right? I was just curious though
from a Development Agreement standpoint, what would be the difference? Are
we just limited to the same limitations in the Development Agreement for the C-G
zone if we were going to do that?
Siddoway: There are a lot more uses that would need to be restricted from the
C-G zone than are listed here specifically for the C-C zone.
Nary: I see, okay.
Borup: Anyone else? Okay, is the developer here and prepared to make his
presentation?
Pahl: Hi, I am Autumn Pahl with B & A Engineers, 5505 West Franklin, Boise,
83705. This is my first time in front of you all, and I salute you. I will get started.
This is an apartment complex along with the Preliminary Plat. We did not talk
much about the apartment complex, itself. There will be 180 units, 72 of those
are one-bedroom, one bath, 84 are two-bedroom, two bath, and 24 units are
three-bedroom, two bath. The average density works out to 20 units per acre.
Staff did ask in their staff report that we offer to cap the density at 20 units per
acre, and that is fine. Regarding the C-C zone just to clarify, we are fine with the
C-C zone in many ways it works out, I think even better than the C-G zone. That
is fine. We do agree to limit the uses that were requested in the staff report with
the exception of the restaurant. We would like to keep that option open.
Although, we would be willing to limit it on that lot right there, since it is rather
close to the residents.
Borup: You are saying you are excluding it from that lot.
Pahl: Yes. Regarding the Conditional Use Permit, we are happy to
accommodate the recommendations regarding landscaping. Although, we would
like to maintain the 9-foot strip along there and later I can show you how that
looks, and it is actually more advantageous to those property owners on the
southern boundary. It provides more screening. Over half of the open space is
actually in that area right there, so that would be about 13 percent of the total
space is in open space, which exceeds the requirement. I would think we should
be able to count some of the area along here because there is a proposed
pathway right there, it would seem to be common open space, so it still exceeds
it. We would ask that you modify condition of approval 7 on the Preliminary Plat
requirements. Something to the effect that the applicants shall send a letter to
the Meridian Parks Department offering the pathway for City ownership and
maintenance. Upon acceptance by the City, the applicant shall construct a 10-
foot hard-surface pathway. If that is admeanable to you all, we would like to
make sure that it is under the City’s ownership prior to building the pathway.
Steve talked a little bit about Scrivner dead-ending right there. We did talk to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 8
Highway District about whether it would be appropriate to stub that in, and
everyone felt that it would not be appropriate including the homeowners, so we
have not done that. We had originally proposed this as a public road entering
into the parcel. ACHD has asked that we either make that not a public road or
that we improve it so that there is a regular culdesac turn-around there. What we
are proposing now to do is create a separate lot. It would be lot 10, and it would
go right there, and that would be reserved as an ingress-egress easement for all
of those lots and then also the condominium lot. So it would just be an ingress-
egress lot. Regarding irrigation and drainage, we would pipe and relocate the
Settler’s irrigation canal, and it goes right at the back of those units right there.
We would leave the Jackson’s sub-drain open; it does require that you give us
special permission not to tile that drain, so we do ask for that. We will have a
pressurized irrigation system. The open space areas will also function as storm
water retention. We did hold a neighborhood meeting, and almost full
attendance by all of the property owners to the south of the project. The main
things that came out of that is, we are going to provide 2 or 3 trees, they would
be 6 to 8 feet in height, good quality trees, and they can plant those in the
backyard as best suits them. We talked about planting in the landscape strip, but
there were concerns about children using it to jump over into the backyards, and
it just being a maintenance problem. So we felt it was better just to offer the
trees and then they can put them where they like. We cannot put garages along
this side because of drainage issues, so in order to screen some of the
headlights that may come from cars using the parking areas, we are going to
double fence this property right there, and also that property right there. So that
the slats overlap and that so no light will get through the slats in the fence. We
also agreed to provide full cut off shields on all lighting that may be on the
buildings or in the parking lot. This makes sure that there is no glare getting into
the residents. We will also insure that the cone of light stays on the property and
does not go into the neighbors’. In closing, there are several things I need to ask
for. We need to ask that you wave the requirement to tile Jackson Drain, that
you wave the requirement for storage areas, as the staff report noted there is a
storage area near by. We ask you to wave the requirement for a maintenance
building. I forgot to mention this, we will put that pathway on a separate lot, and
once we create a separate lot for the pathway, we are going to have setback
issues. So we ask that you wave the setback requirements from the new
pathway lot, and modify that condition of approval regarding the pathway lot that
I mentioned before. Also, because this is the area noted as mixed-use on the
Comprehensive Plan, all new uses on the commercial lots would have to come in
for a Conditional Use approval, whether they were principle permitted or
conditional. In the application, we provided details regarding the structures,
regarding the parking space, landscaping, public utilities, elevations, and
example photographs, all the kind of stuff that you would get with a Conditional
Use Permit. So we ask that the City acknowledge that the requirement for the
Conditional Use Permit has been met with this application or to put it another
way, that the individual uses on the commercial lots will not require conditional
use approval. That concludes my presentation. I would stand for questions. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 9
did want to show you one thing. This is the third floor of the apartment building.
The second and a half floor, excuse me. So if someone were standing there, we
used someone 6 foot tall looking down into the backyards, so we are looking
south into those people that front the southern property line. The garages
basically break the line of sight so that you are not looking into those garages. If
we increase this setback area, then the garage no longer functions to block
those views. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Hatcher: I have a couple.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Based on what has been presented tonight, would you have any
objection of addressing the second half of Item 5 of the conditional use site-
specific requirements, specifically the landscape buffer between the commercial
buildings and the single-family residents.
Pahl: The addition of the trees there, is that what you mean?
Hatcher: No. The increase of distance and the addition of trees. I do not have a
problem with the 9-foot setback along Danbury Fair with what you are proposing
so long as the adjacent residents do not. I do have a problem with a commercial
building being that close to a single-family residence.
Borup: Was that one of the neighbors that you had talked to?
Pahl: Yes, we did talk to here, and we offered her trees. She was not too
concerned. Actually, the people by the commercial were a little happier than the
people by the apartment. They were like, jeez I am glad that apartment is not by
us, so she did not express a lot of concern especially when she found out it was
a light office user in office use.
Hatcher: Because what I am thinking based upon access to the stub street,
which is only partially developed, increasing that landscape buffer on the
southern property line. Basically increasing the width, adding some landscaping,
putting in a pathway, whatnot, and you could link Danbury Fair through the
southern portion of your property. That achieves several fixes if you will to a
couple of these issues that are on the table.
Pahl: I would agree that if the Commission chooses to require a pedestrian path
in there, we probably do need to widen it somewhat. I would like to be able to
look at the setbacks between our buildings and come up with how much
landscape buffer we can offer there given the size of them now. I am not quite
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 10
sure off of the top of my head. I do not think we are short by much. I think we
could accommodate the 25 feet.
Hatcher: Your buildings are pretty close together as they are right now. There
might have to be some slight adjusting to the north or maybe a reconfiguring of
the one last building. My other question is in the southwest corner where you had
mentioned doing the double fencing for those residents to assist in the screening
of light pollution from the cars and stuff like that. Have you taken into account the
topography issues of the land and stuff like that? Maybe right adjacent to that
fence will be fine, but what about cars pooling in and driving down. Basically, the
southeast corner, turning there, are the headlights going to be above the fence?
Have you take topography into consideration?
Pahl: One of the reasons we cannot put garages along here, is there a drainage
pond up here and then we are going to redirect it down here and then bring it
along Penn Station. It is actually the low point. Right here is the very lowest
point.
Hatcher: That is what I am getting at. Those are 2-foot contours on the map?
Pahl: I am not sure.
Hatcher: Let us assume they are 1-foot contours. If you count them up that is 6
feet. We are looking at 6 feet basically to the other side of the property.
Pahl: Okay, but the car lights are not going to get past all of those buildings.
Hatcher: I am talking about the southeast corner.
Pahl: Right there.
Hatcher: East, southeast corner, bring your pointer down. Right there. If a car
turns that corner, basically, those headlights are shining into the peoples house
over the fence.
Pahl: Okay, the garages are along here.
Hatcher: Yes.
Pahl: So just right here. I am sorry.
Hatcher: Can we have a laser pointer? What I am saying is when any of the
tenants of the apartment complex come in and they pull in this direction and
once they turn this corner their headlights are going to be pointing this direction
right over that fence into this lot. Same thing here. We have 3 feet here, so this is
not a problem with cars coming this way, it is not a problem. But I see a potential
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 11
problem with the current grading. It will not last long because once you get down
in here the headlights will be lower than the fence, but I still see a potential for
light pollution as a car turns here. I would like you to take that into consideration
into your design, so that that light pollution does not occur on these houses.
Pahl: Okay, I am curious, I am not quite sure how far a headlight actually
illuminates if it goes quite that far.
Hatcher: Have you ever sat on the street at night? You tell me how far they go.
Pahl: Yes, but with a 6-foot fence in front you. I really just do not know how far
the illumination level would go, but there is definitely some grade difference
there, but if you go back they do go up a foot, so it is not 3 feet it is 2 feet. Car
headlights typically are not 6 feet tall off of the ground.
Hatcher: You have your fences 6 feet tall. The grades slope up 6 feet, so your
grade is at the same height as the fence then add another 2 feet of where the
headlights of the car are. So the headlights of the car are shining over that fence
into those peoples house. It will not be until they are about halfway down that
southern road before the headlights are blocked by that fence. That needs to be
taken into account, and that is a very short distance, and I can guarantee you
that as soon as that car turns the corner the light from their headlights will be
waking that gentleman up.
Borup: The contours look like about 3 foot from what I can see.
Hatcher: I count 6 feet.
Pahl: As a general point, we did try to cluster the apartment units towards the
center to minimize the conflict with neighbors. We are limited on what we can do
along that western boundary because of the drainage issues.
Hatcher: I am bringing it up as a point of contention. That it needs to be looked
at, and it needs to be addressed. How you address it, I will leave that up to you.
The third and last issue that I wanted to bring up and get your response on is you
had mentioned about maintaining the option for a restaurant. I do not foresee a
problem with granting that request under the condition that we exclude the
restaurant from being placed in either of the two southern buildings. My logic on
that is even if a restaurant was in the second building, the overflow of parking
that is generated by that restaurant, everyone will want to park as close as they
can to it. Restaurants usually are open until 10 p.m., 11p.m., and 12 p.m. at
night.
Pahl: We did agree to limit the hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 12
Hatcher: So 10 p.m. Less of a conflict then in my opinion, but I still see -- you
have got four other buildings you could put a restaurant in if you exclude them
from those two buildings pushing them away from the subdivision to the south
and the private residents. Those would be my only three comments.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Hatcher: One more sorry. I would concur with staff in regards to the architectural
design of the buildings. They do not do anything for me and definitely for our City
they need to be jazzed up. The examples that were presented are handsome
looking buildings. I am familiar with both of them, but the renderings that were
submitted do not look anything like either of these buildings.
Pahl: Those are photographs of commercial in light office. The renderings were
the apartment buildings.
Hatcher: I would like the apartments look like the commercial.
Pahl: Oh, you just want them to be similar in style and appearance. I understand
now.
Hatcher: Not just blank boxes. Give them the same architectural characteristics
that you would to the commercial buildings i.e. make them look like this, and then
I would not have a problem with them.
Pahl: I might just make one comment on the lack of fenestration or windows on
some of the facades on the apartment building. It was purposeful to limit the
amount of windows facing on to the residential areas surrounding the property,
so it was not accidental actually the homeowners were excited when the side the
one side façade with no windows on it. They thought that was great. It was kind
of an interesting reaction to it, but that is the reason for minimal windows on
some of those exterior-facing units.
Hatcher: I can understand that. I can appreciate that, but it still needs to be
architecturally jazzed up, rather than just a blank wall. So, that is it, sorry.
Borup: Who was next? Did anyone else have any comments? Commissioner
Norton.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Miss Pahl, and what would you consider for charging
rent. What time of rent are you charging on here, let us say for the two-bedroom
apartment?
Pahl: I believe the two-bedrooms will go for about $575 to $600, and let me turn
around and get a nod from -- I was off by $100, I knew I was going to get that
wrong.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 13
Norton: Could you repeat that into the microphone?
Pahl: The two-bedroom units will be closer to $650-$675.
Norton: Okay, thank you. Then as for the parking, I have picked up some older
people in apartment buildings and there is no place for a visitor to park. So I
have a concern regarding your parking for visitors per apartment. How many
parking spaces do you have for visitors to come?
Pahl: I believe the number is 36 above the two parking spaces per unit. There
are a number of one-bedroom units that typically they only have one car, so you
free up some there. Depending on the time of the evening a lot of this may be
available for overflow parking. It is a little walk, obviously, over to there, but those
spaces may be available in a pinch.
Norton: A 90 year old woman cannot walk that far, so I think there needs to be
more parking for visitors in my opinion. Regarding the windows on the design,
the picture that you had up, did those include those windows that you were going
to put on?
Pahl: No.
Norton: So you are going to put another set of windows in the blank area, is that
right?
Pahl: I kind of misunderstood which façade he had been talking about. Can you
go through those Steve? He is talking about this one, and I thought he was
talking about this one in particular, but probably the ends are not as visible so his
comment makes more sense now. We did look, and we can put windows in the
bathroom area so that will not be a problem.
Norton: Is it right in the middle of the –
Pahl: I will have to take a look at the – did you put the floor plan out? Are they in
the middle?
Siddoway: I do not have the floor plans in this, but my recollection is that they
go bathroom, closet, and then a new unit, closet, bathroom.
Hatcher: It should have a window pattern similar to that below.
Norton: Okay, so two more windows on the side. Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 14
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Just one question, on the trees that you were going to provide the
Danbury people, why do you not plant them?
Pahl: Well it would require getting back in their backyards. We never discussed
it. We would provide them, and they would be able to plant them wherever they
choose in their backyards.
Borup: Do you have anything Commissioner Nary?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I was just curious Miss Pahl in your last comment you talked
about allowing certain uses so those commercial uses for the property would not
require a CUP to come back? I guess I was a little unclear. Are you thinking that
in the Development Agreement that we would simply outline which uses and
therefore that Conditional Use Permit would not be required?
Pahl: This is tricky, and I was not quite sure what to ask for, and I know that staff
has been struggling with this requirement as well, but it is coming from the
Comprehensive Plan, not from the zoning Ordinance which is always a little odd.
Perhaps, all we are asking for is that issue in the Comprehensive Plan is
resolved by this Conditional Use Permit, but not necessarily the issues raised by
the zoning Ordinance. That is one way to look at it. I am not sure how you have
been treating them on this kind of project when a use comes in that requires a
Conditional Use Permit if the Conditional Use Permit covers the Conditional Use
Permit for the one use going in. Different communities do it differently, and I was
not quite sure how to ask.
Nary: I mean that just generally we usually like to see it again. We usually like
to know what is going to go there, so that is the normal process; we still want to
see what those other buildings are going to be. The neighbors are going to want
to comment. Those types of things. General uses are generally going to be fine. I
guess I was just curious as to how you wanted us to fashion that.
Pahl: I do not have a very good answer, I am sorry.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: I may be able to shed a little light because I might be able to explain
what is happening. The Comprehensive Plan requires that any use in this are
goes through the Conditional Use Permit. Under the Zoning Ordinance, certain
uses are permitted if this was given a C-C zone for example, certain uses are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 15
conditional, and certain uses are prohibited. I believe they are asking that if they
come through with a use that is permitted in the zone that it go through as a
permitted use and not require a second CUP. If they propose a use that requires
a Conditional Use Permit in that zone, they would still do a second CUP for that
use. They just want to be able to do permitted uses as permitted uses in the
zone without coming back.
Nary: Isn’t that the way it works.
Siddoway: She is trying to make sure that is the way it works.
***End Of Side One***
Nary: -- is something different than what is usually said, which I thought is how it
works.
Siddoway: The thing that makes it not work that way is the mixed planned use
designation and the Comprehensive Plan requiring any uses to be Conditional
Use Permit regardless of them being permitted or not in the Zoning Ordinance.
Nary: I see, okay, thank you.
Pahl: Oh I am glad Steve is here.
Borup: The only question I had and think others that I had have been answered
was just a little bit more on Scrivner. Was there any discussion with the
neighbors on having a pedestrian path through there? It sounds like everyone is
in complete agreement about not having a vehicle access.
Pahl: Their original sentiment was that they did not want a pedestrian connection
there. I am not sure if there has been additional conversation amongst the
Homeowners Association. They do have a representative here.
Borup: So at the neighborhood they preferred not to.
Pahl: Right and we are happy to go with whatever the neighbors want, or
obviously what you require.
Borup: Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: If I may ask one final question, the landscape plan shows the
pathway coming down and dumping into the parking lot. This morning talking
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 16
with Mr. Centers he indicated that that had been redesigned and that the
pathway would actually go down and connect, because it will continue on the
other side of the street. I want to verify that that is going to be done, and I believe
that that would require the lose of a parking space. I just want to figure out how
that is going to work.
Pahl: Actually, more than one. If you go to the Preliminary Plat, the landscape
plan was done prior to us finalizing the Preliminary Plat, and we lost a couple of
parking spaces there and a couple there. We have shifted everything over. The
easement for the Settlers basically runs right through there, and that is where
would propose to put the pathway, is within that easement. So it will connect all
the way down there Steve.
Siddoway: The parking counts on the plat are actually short a couple of what is
shown on the landscape plan, is that correct?
Pahl: You are right.
Borup: Okay that makes a lot more sense to me on the pathway to be able to
connect with the sidewalks on the street. Anyone else? Thank you. This is a
Public Hearing and we would like to open this now for anyone else who would
have any –
Canning: My name is Joe Canning. I am with B & A Engineers in Boise. Mr.
Chairman and Commissioner Hatcher in particular, I think I can provide a little
more information regarding that south street and how the traveling along that
may cause light pollution on that home over on the west side. There is
approximately 3 to 4 feet of fall across the site; however, as a car is traveling
along that road, it is a little hard to visualize, but it will be tilted at the same slope
as the ground, so the headlight illumination itself would be similar to flat plane. It
is all heading down hill. However, I cannot guarantee you that a home could not
see the headlight. It may not be the illumination from the headlight but it could
see the light itself. The lots over in Danbury Fair along that area are slightly
higher than our particular property. There is a drainage facility that runs along
that west property line. So there is a little bit of grade advantage to that lot that is
right there. I would really like to point out one of the real issues that we have
here is that the storm water pond that is in Danbury Fair is a problem, it is not
functioning. It actually floods quite frequently during the year. I have been in
discussions with the engineer for the Danbury Fair project and the Ada County
Highway District to help solve that drainage problem. To do so we essentially
need to bring a storm sewer down through the Penn Station apartment project
into our project. Then bring it through the parking lot right in here and then back
out into this area, so we have a little bit of a problem right there of providing
some adequate screening on our property. I guess I am just providing some
addition information for the Commission to consider why that is a particular
problem right there. Perhaps the solution is once again to provide a little denser
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 17
landscaping on the gentleman’s property to the west, and I am sure the
developer would be willing to do that. A little bit more information.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify?
Centers: Lee Centers. 325 Meridian Street. Commissioner Norton, where you
said you saw a parking problem, was that in Boise or was that in Meridian?
Norton: It was in Meridian.
Centers: Okay, Boise only requires 1.5. Meridian requires 2. The projects that I
have, have 2 and some excess. We do not have the parking problems. When
you have that many one-bedroom units generally that offsets the three-bedroom.
It has been an adequate parking number, but if you were in Boise, they only
require 1.5. They are a little short. We are going to add windows on that wall
above the bathtubs to break that up so it will look good. You know and I would
comment this is affordable housing. If you start tiling roofs and stucco and do all
the kind of things that we are doing on the light office, they are not affordable
housing. Those are big buildings. They will look nice, but we cannot afford to put
that kind of façade on them. Does anybody have any questions for me?
Borup: I had one. What was the mix again on the 0ne-bedroom and two-
bedroom? And the rent on each?
Centers: There are 72 one-bedroom, 84 two-bedrooms, and 24 three-bedrooms.
The rent, the two-bedroom is easy for me to remember, plus or minus $650-
$675, the one-bedroom would be less. The three-bedroom would be more. This
has a clubhouse with a pool and all that stuff, weight room and so on.
Borup: Thank you. Okay, come on up.
Evans: Hi, my name is Kim Evans. I live at 1451 East Sothesby. I am the
secretary for the Danbury Fair association, and I just have two questions. The
questions I have is, will residents receive some sort of a list of maybe a small
choice of different types of trees that they will receive to put in their backyards? I
basically live straight across the street and I want to know if they are going to
have a choice of trees that they are going to be able to grow that would affect my
housing as well, the view between my house and that property line.
Borup: So you are on the other side of the street?
Evans: Yes, I do not back up directly to them. I am directly across the street, so if
they are planting different types of trees in their backyard, I just want to make
sure the residents have some choices. I know that they will be quality. I do not
have any doubt about that, but I would like to see for the residents that they have
a few choices.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 18
Borup: Okay. We will get an answer on that.
Evans: The other question that I had is, I am hesitant as a resident in the area to
see a restaurant per say go into the retail, commercial type spots. I as a resident
would not see any problem having any type of day use or small business in
there, a chiropractor or a Moxie Java, or anything like that. The nighttime
business part of it would not bother me at all, but I do not want to see a
restaurant go in there of any sort. Mostly because it would be the only one in the
area, and it is mostly residential right now. I like the idea of the small businesses,
but I do not want to see a restaurant in there. So I would like to maybe see some
other ideas brought up about different things that could be put in there. I just do
not want to see a single restaurant in there and that is it.
Borup: Thank you.
Leonard: Hi, my name is Damon Leonard. I live at 1332 North Penrith. I am
basically opened up and in my opinion most negatively affected by this than any
other lot in the subdivision. The people all along this wall that are receiving the
garages as a buffer between them and the whole project are fortunate. I
understand that there is reason they cannot build garages against my lot
because of the drainage situation. That is understandable. I just was kind of
hoping there was some other way, maybe a higher fence, I am open to anything,
but it seems like I – I am just opposed to cars parking in backyard, I guess. I
have been enjoying the use of my property thus far, and I am wondering if I am
going to do this much further with this activity in my backyard with three small
children. I was just hoping that maybe we could explore the possibility of a taller
fence if nothing else can be built there to separate that buffer zone. A wall of
trees, anything, and it is unacceptable to me.
Borup: Mr. Leonard, I think we have some questions for you here.
Leonard: Sure.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Thank you. Just first to kind of forewarn you. City of Meridian Fence
Ordinance without special conditions and a variance do not allow the fences to
go over 6 feet, so we are between a rock and a hard spot. We would have to do
a variance and either put the entire fence at a higher level, versus just having
this certain chunk high. However, I think the engineer, the developer, and the
owner probably would be more than willing to work something out with landscape
buffering. They did already address the fact that they would double slat the
fence. So I think for at that 6 feet you are fairly well covered. The potential of light
pollution above that. I think if we get some landscaping, buffering trees, maybe
some evergreens that do not lose their leaves in the winter.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 19
Leonard: Right. I know the type of tree that comes to mind. I have seen them
before. They are really tall and thin and when you line them up it makes a nice
wall. Beings that I have such a strong stretch that is just wide open to this whole
thing.
Borup: Is this your lot right here, Mr. Leonard?
Leonard: Yes it is. So I have 168 feet plus whatever they have added that is just
wide open to my backyard. I guess that would be as acceptable to anything. If I
could maybe get a few more trees out of the agreement or something beings to
how I am exposed to that.
Hatcher: Maybe get them to put a row of Chinese Arbor Vita in there, landscape
buffer and give you some trees to specifically put wherever you want to block off
that which you do not want to see.
Leonard: That would be fine. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. I want to make sure there was not anybody else that had
any questions first, and then you can hit them all at once.
Fastabend: My name is Greg Fastabend. I live at 1101 North Shreveport on the
opposite side of the subdivision. I am here as the president of the Danbury Fair
subdivision. We have been here before when we were here for Penn Station,
and at that time there was a lot more opposition in the subdivision to a
development project. The main issues there were because that project would be
connected to Stonehenge, and that the residents would be moving through part
of what we have considered the subdivision. There has been very little complaint
about this project. We have had a lot of good feed back from Mr. Centers in the
way that he has made some concessions to the concerns of the homeowners.
Most of them have been addressed in our discussions this evening. On the
western border of the project, we are satisfied that they have done what they can
with the 6 foot double-sided fence to prevent light intrusion from headlights there,
although the grade issue could be something that we have not considered that
Commissioner Hatcher has brought up. I would think it would be appropriate to
add a few more trees to that resident’s option. Mr. Centers has offered to provide
2 to 3 trees per homeowner for those living along the southern border of the
project. Seeing as this resident has 168 feet of exposed property and no garages
to buffer, I am sure that the Commissioners would agree that it would be nice to
include a few more trees to provide a reasonable landscape buffer there. We are
appreciative that Mr. Centers has agreed to work with Ada County to remove the
problems that we are having with the drainage system that was put in when
Danbury Fair was developed. We understand in doing that that prevents him
from putting the garage buffers along that western border that would provide the
sight break. Most of the residents along the southern border were very
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 20
appreciative of the garages going in. There were not concerns voiced about the
9-foot setback to those garages in that the garages would provide a sight break
to the apartment buildings that face into those. You have discussed adding
windows to those, and if they are of the type, since I suppose these will be
bathrooms facing on that border, if these are the small, long windows that
typically go over bathtubs, I do not think the homeowners will have an issue
there. The concern has always been, what the third floor apartment residents
would be able to see or to sit there and look down into these resident’s
backyards. The rendering that Mr. Centers has provided to us that show where
the fence line will be, and the line of sight to the top of the building does show
that the garages seem to provide a very good break for those residents along the
southern border. Those bathroom windows would not be windows that would
cause a problem to those residents. However, on the western border, the one
resident that has testified here tonight. Without the garages he does have a very
large view of probably from the second story up of that one building that faces
the western border. If we look just in the corner there, they have done a good job
with this project in positioning these buildings so that they do not dominate the
residential properties. With that one that we do have the mouse on now, that is
the only building that will be facing into this corner lot for this resident that has
testified. We do appreciate that the windows and the rooms facing those are
bedrooms as opposed to main living areas, but again it would be good if we can
provide some kind of a landscaping break for this resident and possibly the next
resident. Although, that resident’s property does not immediately abut up against
this project, it is on a very narrow triangle type space of the corner of the Penn
Station property. That resident my also be appreciative of some extra
landscaping in that the fence is the only border between his property and this
new development. On the issue of lighting as long as the lighting in the parking
lots and these buildings is shielded as they have said, and that we do not have
spillage into the property’s backyards. We are content that that would be a good
solution. On the issue of the walking path for the Scrivner stub, it is the opinion of
the homeowners that they would appreciate that to be made open as a walking
path as opposed to leaving it as a closed stub as it currently is with the fence. In
doing that, we would appreciate more landscaping than is displayed on this
rendering of the landscaping plan. Mr. Centers has indicated that several trees
have been added to this plan between the closest commercial building and the
property line. If we could go back on the slides to the slide that actually shows
that, yes, we do see that coming in off this street does face right into the side of
this commercial building because of the way that the lots are positioned. As long
as this path is made to blend well with the sidewalks and the existing property, I
do not know if we would run a sidewalk across the end of that stub. I am not
aware of how we would make that blend, but it would be nice as Mr. Centers has
indicated that extra trees will be added to the landscaping along that corner of
that building to provide more of break so that the residents that are coming down
Scrivner do not look at the side of a concrete building as part of the driveway. I
think he will be providing extra landscaping there, and if that is addressed, that
would be appreciated. On the issue of a restaurant and conditional use, it is the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 21
opinion of the homeowners that we would not like a traditional style restaurant in
these commercial properties as Mr. Hatcher has described, definitely not in the
commercial lots that are close to the residential line. I do not think any of the
homeowners would have any concern with day use type places or restaurants
like a coffeehouse or a deli, things that would not have consistent traffic and
noise in their use. If they are moved more towards the northern buildings, that
would be come less and less of a problem if that use is granted. Those are all of
the concerns that the homeowners have raised about the project.
Borup: Okay, any questions?
Hatcher: Chairman Borup.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Could you help clarify for me the current conditions out at that stub
street? If it is done under typical circumstances, you have a developed sidewalk
with a turn-down curb right here along this property, and I would assume you
have a turn-down curb possibly a sidewalk on this side against that single –
Fastabend: Yes, on the eastern border and on the western border of that street
there are both turndown finished sidewalks to the end of the stub. Currently, at
the end of stub is a 6-foot fence that has been repaired by Mr. Centers, and there
is also a no traffic barricade with the reflective tape on it. I think there is a slight
ditch at the end of that, but there is no finished concrete or anything at the end of
the stub.
Hatcher: So conceivably then this could remain open pending the developer’s
proposal or proposition. Taking this sidewalk, turning it down along the southern
property line, picking up this sidewalk so that whatever sidewalk you use brings
you a pathway down through here to Locust Grove for access through and
around here.
Borup: That is what you had in mind on a walking path?
Hatcher: Or are you looking at just having this sidewalk extend right out to the
parking lot?
Fastabend: I do not think an eastern walking sidewalk is what the residents have
in mind. I think the idea would be that if we have a walking path here, it would be
nice for residents who walk or jog in the mornings to have a way to come into this
commercial development and connect to the proposed walkway that will be going
along the ditch back to Stonehenge. Another issue with the path is that say we
have a dentist’s office or any type of commercial use where say a young family
or a child go to an appointment. It would be nice that they do not have to go out
to Locust Grove on their bike and then up and then in through the main entry to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 22
these commercial properties. If there were a shortcut that they could use to path
through then that would be nice. I do not think an eastern walk would be
appropriate or necessary just a connection that would get them to the
established sidewalks of these commercial properties.
Borup: So you would propose tying this sidewalk right along here and end it at
that point? Or come in through the back to the apartment, or does it make any
difference?
Fastabend: From these drawings, I have not been able to tell how they plan on
doing the actual sidewalks for the commercial. I would assume that the –
Borup: I am sure that there will be a sidewalk here along the front.
Fastabend: I do not think it would matter which side as long as there would be
access into the main walking areas of the commercial area.
Borup: Okay, I think that would have to come up in this area, because this
would be the back of the buildings here. You do not want it to connect to Locust
Grove, though.
Fastabend: No that is not our intention.
Borup: You would just assume that it did not?
Fastabend: I would assume that it did not. I would think that the main use of that
walking path would be either for a resident to get to one of these commercial
properties or for a resident to shortcut to the walking path along Settlers canal
without having to go out to Locust Grove.
Hatcher: I was just going to suggest that in my recommendation at minimum
have those sidewalks connect to the front and the back sidewalk at minimum to
provide for the subdivisions needs as described to us here tonight. Then any
further connection to the east to Locust Grove, leave that up to the developer. I
would just point out that if this subdivision or this immediate area of the
subdivision has a high number of children, you have Fred Meyer, Hollywood
Video, and some of the other places where kids are going to rollerblade, scooter,
or do their bikes and whatnot. If you purposely develop any sort of pathway, you
are going to have a lot of cross-traffic cutting through this stub street through this
development. As a parent, living here with children, I would want them to have a
sidewalk going to an existing sidewalk on the street rather than trying to weave
their way through a parking lot where people can back up over them. It is
something to consider.
Fastabend: We would not be opposed to an eastern sidewalk, but our thoughts
were more geared to these close residential properties. In either case, residents
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 23
who prefer to walk over to say Hollywood Video or the Eddy’s Bakery that is
there. They may appreciate a straight shortcut there so that they would not have
to walk through the commercial parking lot, but that could also be achieved by
going along the fronts of the commercial property there and then onto the private
road out to the main street there.
Hatcher: Oh, absolutely.
Fastabend: We would not be opposed to either way.
Borup: Anyone else? Greg, do you know the approximate size of the lots on
the southern – widths, approximate widths on those.
Fastabend: I do not. I would guess if the scale was correct on that that if the
western property there has 168 foot fence line that we would assume they would
be near 80 feet, but I do not have plats with me to give you that information.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: I had one question.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: You are representing Danbury Fair, President of the Homeowners
Association.
Fastabend: Yes I am the president this year.
Centers: How many homes in the subdivision?
Fastabend: 306
Centers: 306. How many are located adjacent to the project?
Fastabend: There is the one in the corner that is not adequately shown in this
map. There are actually 7 on the southern border, and there actually 2 in that
corner, the southwestern corner. There is one that has a very small connection. If
we go to the very south, right there, there is actually about a 10 feet wide alley
that connects into the drainage and that is part of what they are suggesting to do
here. The one property to the south of that has a very small frontage to the
proposed development, and the property to the west there –
Centers: What I am leading up to here is I can see possibly the need for a path,
but do really think that 90 percent of those homeowners will use it? Do you not
think that most of the homeowners, 10-15 lots there may use it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 24
Fastabend: It all depends. We have a lot of residents of the subdivision that run
the streets with their dogs or jog. A lot of young families where they take strollers
and walk all around. I think they would appreciate that path through, because
currently Locust Grove is a very busy street.
Centers: I agree with Commissioner Hatcher too. With a pathway going through
and directing them through the project, I do not think you would want to be going
through the project. A standard sidewalk that is a different story, so that would
lead to that dedicated walking path on the north side. I can understand that, but I
question the amount of use by 306 homeowners.
Fastabend: Is your thought that it would be better to leave it closed off as a stub,
or that a straight eastern sidewalk would be more. There have not been strong
opinions by the homeowners either way. The current stub is not an attractive part
of the subdivision in that it is just a barrier fence and a not traffic barricade, and I
think that this walk through would be a lot more of an attractive feature for the
subdivision. I do think that homeowners would appreciate being able to go from
the streets, from Scrivner through and be able to connect to the walking path
along the canal.
Centers: But it works both ways. Maybe some of the homeowners would not
want the pathway coming their way. It is a two-sided coin. Are there other
homeowners here to talk about that? I guess you just mentioned that you feel
that some of them are for it, or do you have a feel for it?
Fastabend: We have had no opposition to the idea of a walk through. You know
in the last newsletter to the subdivision we said, and from the open house at that
time, the plan was for it to be a walk through so we published that information in
our newsletter, and we received no complaints.
Centers: Okay, but you have not had a homeowners meeting or a group
meeting?
Fastabend: No not to concentrate on this issue.
Centers: But the letter went out a while ago so everyone has had a chance to
read it.
Fastabend: Everyone has had an opportunity to comment, and we asked them if
they had opposition or issues to direct that to me. No one had any issues.
Centers: Sounds like you have done a good job communicating with them.
Borup: Any other questions?
Fastabend: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 25
Borup: Did you have something you needed to add?
Evans: Kim Evans again. My comment is I live right on that street right next to
Scrivner. From my view of what I see and what I experience and what I live, most
of the people in the subdivision that run are mostly concerned about staying off
of Locust Grove. Because I live very close to the Locust Grove area, you very
rarely see kids on that road because it is so busy. I am sure that if I were to ask
my neighbors they would be much more inclined to have a pathway through
there so that they can avoid Locust Grove. No one walks to Hollywood Video. It
does not happen because if they do they are alone, and they are not from that
particular subdivision or they are going somewhere else, or they just kind of got
lost and some kid ended up on that road. They do not walk there, and with
Locust Grove going to be expanding pretty soon, it is going to be even less of a
nice place to walk. Most of the people run by the house would probably
appreciate a path to be able to walk and run a little farther.
Borup: Kim are you saying they would want the path to go to Locust Grove or to
end in the project?
Evans: I would like to have a pathway.
Borup: Right but do you want it to end at the commercial building sidewalk or
extend clear to Locust Grove sidewalk?
Evans: What I would like to see is that it goes to the commercial area and then
somehow connects to the other pathway to completely avoid Locust Grove.
Someone can walk across a parking lot. I do not see any problem with that. But
as far as runners or stuff, people that are moving, or carriers or strollers, I would
like to see sidewalks to connect the whole loop.
Norton: Could you show everybody where the pathway is?
Borup: Well, this is Scrivner right here and the commercial project is here. The
question is does it end here or go clear to Locust Grove? Were there any other
neighbors that wanted to come up? Okay Mr. Centers.
Centers: I will not take very long.
Borup: We will give you a chance to maybe answer some of the questions.
Centers: What I would recommend is if they want a sidewalk, and I do not care
either way, we will do what they want. If they want a sidewalk, I would suggest
coming out of here, going along that property line, which would connect them to
that sidewalk. At that point, they can go on or we will run it on, or do both, but me
are going to put in a meandering sidewalk at our choice to go through there, pick
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 26
up there, until the widen that. They are going to 3-lane that. We are going to do a
meandering one so that gets it off of the road. That would get them on to the
path, and it is only a matter of time. This is a wrecking yard. He is going to leave
someday. All of this property in here is for sale; it will be developed, so the
sidewalks sooner or later will get down there where they can go to the video
store.
Hatcher: South Locust is slated for this coming summer, or is it next summer?
Borup: North Locust is this summer.
Centers: This has not been funded. It is in the five year. It has not been funded,
but with all of the activity that is going on they are probably going to push it up
with the bridge going over and realignment and all that stuff. Mr. Leonard was the
fellow that had the most frontage, and I think that is him right there. If we did
some Kalmner Juniper Trees, 4 or 5 feet, 6 feet on center that creates a pretty
good buffer in there too. The thing is they have a problem with their storm drain
that we are going to try and alleviate, and I know that the Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District or ACHD do not like trees anywhere near those pipes. It has to
run right along down that side. We would give him the material and then he could
put them in his backyard, but he needs to stay far enough away to suit those
people. That apartment complex, what year was it built, do you know?
Norton: It is off of St. James place and Meridian.
Centers: Okay, behind Albertson’s?
Norton: Yes. It is the new apartments not James Court, the low income. It is
across the street.
Centers: The three story?
Norton: Yes.
Centers: The 2 per space went in around 1993. Those were probably built in
1994 or 1995.
Norton: At the earliest. On your proposed apartment buildings, do you have
visitors parking? Are you having assigned parking? Who is going to park where?
Centers: When you come into the complex there will be visitor parking right in
front of the clubhouse, but with over 2 spaces, there will be one assigned and
one first come first serve.
Norton: So you will have like one number in front of a parking place and several
parking places with no numbers.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 27
Centers: Yes.
Norton: Okay.
Centers: More than half will not have numbers. If you are visiting, some people
do not get home until 6 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. at night. It is just practically vacant
during the day if everyone is working.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions, Mr. Centers.
Centers: Back to Mr. Leonard’s yard, you said Kalmner Junipers or something to
his satisfaction. Did you say 5 or 6 feet?
Centers: The Arbor Vitas do not really do that well in this area. They are real
finicky with water, bugs, and all that stuff.
Centers: Usually you see a whole row of them and some of them –
Hatcher: That is absolutely true.
Centers: Sometimes you are lucky and here is this guy that has a beautiful row,
but I have tried them and we keep replacing them. They are not doing to well.
Centers: Then back to Miss Evans questions on would there be a choice of
trees supplied?
Centers: Yes, they will have 2, 3, or 4 choices. We are not concerned about that.
I do not want to say we are not concerned.
Centers: I understand. It does not make sense to have a whole page, but 2 or 3.
Centers: Yes, I think somebody mentioned it was pine trees, elm tree, that kind
of stuff. Not some Japanese thing that has to be shipped over.
Centers: That is not going to get them buffering very fast.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Centers if we were to limit the restaurant to the northern most
buildings, 7 and 8, would that be a problem? The ones on the opposite side of
the ingress-egress. If we were to say – because I do not have a big problem with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 28
the restaurant. I think there needs to be a few more food choices in the area, but
I can see the residents concern of saying anyone of those on the southern side
of that ingress roadway. There is always that potential for spillage and traffic and
noise, and trash and things like that. So if we were to limit the restaurant use to
those two northern buildings, I think 7 and 8 on the Plat, would that be a problem
to you?
Centers: I would be willing to compromise. I would leave these two out. I would
like to see these four left open, and I think if they do a restaurant that is a CU, is
it not?
Siddoway: Not under the C-C zone, it is permitted outright.
Centers: Then I would say on those two right there that maybe we could this, on
those two make it a restaurant, a CU, leave those permitted and eliminate those
two. I would be comfortable with that.
Nary: So if you put a restaurant in the northern two, no problem. If you put them
in the middle two, come back and see us.
Centers: Yes.
Nary: And they are not allowed in the southern two?
Centers: No.
Nary: I think that is fair.
Borup: Mr. Centers have you had any inquiries at all on restaurants?
Centers: No, I do not know how that is going to develop out until they start
working.
Borup: In hearing the testimony, what I foresee is a little sandwich shop or a
coffee shop. That is what has been going around the rest of Meridian. It is the big
free standing ones that have the traffic, like the Wingers across the street, but
some of those further down, it does not look like they ever have any traffic. I
guess they do; they are still there.
Centers: I do not see that as a full restaurant. I think it would be a day use deli,
coffee shop kind of thing.
Borup: That is what the building looks like if you go with that style.
Centers: It really lends itself to light office, we are just not trying to get limited
down to –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 29
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Were you going to ready some
up? Maybe before you do I just want to maybe real quick to Mr. Leonard, Mr.
Centers stated that a good screening fence would probably be some Juniper
maybe 5 or 6 feet. Is that something that would be an answer to your concerns?
Leonard: There does not seem to be many options. It is just kind of an
unfortunate thing in that, you cannot put the garage, or you cannot plant very
many trees in there. That whole area is cursed, but maybe we could back up with
some trees to where we are far enough away from the fence. We could line it
that way.
Borup: I have planted Junipers before and they fill in real nice and probably
they would probably be a little healthier than Arbor Vita.
Leonard: I think if I had enough of those to make a wall, I would be okay with it.
Borup: They are 5 or 6 feet. I mean the first couple of years it would not, but it
would fill in.
Leonard: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Canning.
Canning: I am Joe Canning again. I guess I am here to summarize, but I did just
have a question or a comment and that is on those potential hours of operation
from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. I would suggest that possibly with accountants offices or
attorneys offices, maybe those are appropriate for public hours of operation, but I
could not see accountants during this particular time of year being there for some
extended times. Although it really is not too bothersome to the neighbors
typically. Perhaps if a coffee shop went in, maybe an hour of 6 a.m. would be
more appropriate for an operation like that. That is it. The only real thing I have to
say is we actually appreciated the input from the neighbors, and I think you can
see from the Public Hearing tonight that for such a good sized project, we think it
went fairly smoothly. I guess that is one of the advantages of neighborhood
meetings. I think that is it. We would be more than happy to answer any more
questions that the Commission may have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? I would like to commend you on
having the neighborhood meeting. I think we can see that it does definitely make
a difference, and we appreciate that.
Hatcher: It is a lot easier to have the neighborhood meeting in the neighborhood
rather than in here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 30
Canning: True. The only other comment would be is if were possible to put up a
taller fence along that southwest boundary Mr. Centers would be open to doing
that. But as he pointed out there is a restriction in the Ordinance, but we would
certainly offer that.
Borup: Is something you can ask for in a variance?
Siddoway: The Ordinance restricts it to 6 feet in that zone; however, this is a
planned development. They are getting modifications to the Landscape
Ordinance and other things. You could recommend a modification to that as part
of the planned development without a variance. I do not know if the homeowner
wants an 8-foot fence.
Canning: I think Mr. Centers is suggesting a 7-foot.
Nary: That is what makes it nice. Both parties are willing to discuss.
Centers: Well, yea if you took a 7-foot or an 8-foot and then step it down, you
may have it. I think it is obvious that the developer is willing to work with the
homeowner if we want to give him that variance.
Borup: Steve, I did have a clarification. The applicant had asked for several
items to be waved. Are we in a position to wave those or are they still needing to
do a formal variance request?
Siddoway: The issues related to the boat storage, maintenance building, those
items are not required by the Ordinance. They are in the Planned Development
Ordinance as a – well maybe they are, let me grab my Ordinance book.
Borup: It was tiling of the drains, storage area, and maintenance building…
Siddoway: Those items have been waved in the past as part of the Planned
Development if it is felt that those issues are addressed in the area. There are
storage facilities as part of the Avest/Fred Meyer complex close by. I do not know
that we need to require –
Borup: So that has been fairly common? My question was just if a variance
would be required or waving.
***End Of Side Two***
Norton: Steve, I am sorry to interrupt you. I have a question regarding on Page
11 of your comments No. 14 where you recommended that the Commission
incorporate the ACHD recommendations on that pathway of Scrivner. Is that
essentially what we have been talking about?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 31
Siddoway: Yes. I would whole-heartedly support the connection down to the
commercial as well as down to the meandering sidewalk. The meandering
sidewalk is going to be off of the street. It will get them on to the sidewalk as well
as to the pathway. I think it is good connectivity.
Norton: That is what ACHD recommended right here.
Siddoway: That is what I recommended as well.
Norton: So essentially if we just accept your comments that is going to happen.
Siddoway: Yes.
Norton: Thank you.
Siddoway: Although the comments do not state specifically going all the way
out to Locust Grove sidewalk, but that would be my personal –
Norton: Is it in the ACHD report?
Siddoway: I think it just mentions quote: sufficient pedestrian access between
Danbury Fair and the subject plat.
Norton: Alright, thank you.
Centers: We do have a few amendments and comments, do we have those in
our mind well enough to close or does anyone feel we may need to get any other
input from the developer?
Hatcher: Who took good notes?
Centers: I was thinking that earlier. At this point I do not see any real big
problems. If we run into something real serious we could open up it again.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearings for the annexation
and zoning and for the Preliminary Plat and for the Conditional Use Permit for
Locust Grove Place No. 4, 5, and 6 on the Agenda.
Hatcher: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Swartley: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 32
Borup: Mr. Swartley.
Swartley: Just a real minor point for the record, very, very minor issue. I would
assume that the Commission was asking about the rental prices or what they are
going to charge for rent. I would advise the Commission not to take that into
consideration based on FHA. I do not think that that would necessarily be
appropriate, but I am assuming they just asked for curiosity sake. So I would just
advise for that reason, and I doubt it was even going to be taken into
consideration but for the record. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. The first item is annexation and zoning.
Norton: I would like move for approval of AZ 01-002, request for annexation and
zoning of 11.764 acres from RT to R-40 and C-C for proposed Locust Grove
Place by B & A Engineering west side of Locust Grove Road, south of Fairview
Avenue. To incorporate staff’s comments with the following exceptions: number
4, annexation site specific requirements on Page 3 of comments dated February
27, that a restaurant be allowed without resubmittal for Conditional Use Permits
on lots number 7 and 8, and will be restricted to have a restaurant on lots 2 and
3 and allowed with a Conditional Use Permit on lots 4 and 5.
Centers: I would second that motion.
Borup: We have a motion to second. Any discussion?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, there was sort of a last minute comment that was brought
up about 6am if it is a coffee shop, it says public operation, so I do not see any
problem if they are working in their office after 10pm at night, like accountants or
lawyers. The 6 a.m. I do not know if that was something the maker of the motion
wanted to include or not. It was just something that was brought up. It seems like
everything that had been discussed to this point had been 7 a.m. It seemed like
7am would be the most appropriate since that is what everyone has gone off on.
Borup: Usually things that have anybody coming earlier it is one or two people,
those annoying ones who like to get up early and go to work early. Here as you
mentioned it applies to the commercial development of those. Does that apply to
an employee?
Hatcher: No because it just said public operation, and I guess to me that would
mean in the Development Agreement, but that is when the public is going to
come use it not when the maintenance person comes to clean it or not when
someone is working in there.
Borup: I would think so. You are not going to get any public going early in those
hours anyway. So is that fine to leave it like it is? Is that the gist? We had a
second. Okay, all in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 33
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Second item is a request for a Preliminary Plat. No. 7, the applicant
asked that it would be deeded to the City, and they would agree to maintenance
before they actually paved the path.
Norton: -- and that variance for the tiling has to go through the City Council not
to tile part of it.
Siddoway: Well, we said that recommendation could wait. The actual decision
has to be made by Council; you can certainly support it. Staff supports it, we
supported it as part of Penn Station and it will not require a variance.
Borup: Are we clear on what needs to be added on that? I think essentially it
was that the pathway would be paved after deeded to the City and after the City
accepted the maintenance. They want to delay the construction until that was –
Nary: I do not recall any other requests for amendments to the staff report.
Norton: No. 14, you might want to include that the sidewalk goes all the way to
Locust Grove.
Nary: Oh, right.
Hatcher: We were comfortable with the width between the commercial and the
single-family dwelling, where the path would be?
Norton: What width are you talking about, the 10 feet, is that what you are
talking about?
Hatcher: No, he proposed the 17.
Norton: Oh, 17.
Hatcher: Requirement Page 25, we were comfortable with that?
Centers: With the garages.
Hatcher: Not the garages, this is up.
Borup: The 17 was at the commercial building area.
Norton: That was in the CUP that comes next.
Nary: It was not part of the Preliminary Plat was it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 34
Hatcher: Does that not go in conjunction with No. 8, the pathway?
Borup: Well, it could affect the design and the landscaping in that area. I mean
depending on how that was landscaped, 17 feet would be enough to definitely
get a path through there.
Hatcher: 17 feet definitely is. I am just asking the Commission a general
question, are we comfortable with 17 feet? That would be a waiver or a variance,
a PUD variance of our standard requirement. Seeings how I am not hearing
anything --
Centers: Well I am not sure that I am completely comfortable with that.
Norton: What do you suggest?
Hatcher: If we have a pathway going through there, we are basically about 8 feet
short of our minimum requirements. The adjacent property owner has not voiced
a concern. According to testimony tonight I say we keep it 17 feet.
Borup: How we have handled that in some others, not necessarily the way it
needs to be here, we have granted reduced setbacks. If there has been some
landscaping and usually a little more intensive landscaping to offset that, so if
there were no landscaping at all, I would like to see more than the 17 feet if there
is going to be some landscaping.
Hatcher: We could address that in Conditional Use No. 5, because that has to do
with the landscape buffering.
Borup: Well that is the one I was looking at. Yes, so that would be the best place
to handle that.
Hatcher: Better than PPA.
Borup: Okay, are we ready on the plat?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I would move to recommend the approval of PP 01-002, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 2 other lots on 11.764 acres in a
proposed R-40 and C-C zone proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers
west side of Locust Grove south of Fairview Avenue to incorporate all of staff
comments including the following amendments to Preliminary Plat requirement
number 7 that it be clarified that the pathway will be dedicated to the City of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 35
Meridian who will accept both the pathway and the maintenance of the pathway
prior to the construction of the pathway by the developer, and that on Item 14
that the sidewalk that is proposed from the Scrivner Avenue stub would be
extended all the way to Locust Grove to the meandering sidewalk along Locust
Grove that would be going east from the development to the meandering
sidewalk. I think that was all the comments that we had had.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion?
Centers: Well, you referred to it as Item 14 and it is actually covered in Item 8
too, is it not?
Hatcher: Yes.
Nary: Oh, you are right. So it probably should be reflected in both, the intention
is that –
Borup: Are not those two different pathways?
Hatcher: Oh yes, because that is the pathway on the north side –
Borup: No. 8, I think refers to –
Hatcher: We want both of them to extend to the meandering sidewalk.
Nary: Yes, so No. 8 should also be that that pathway that is going to build along
the Jackson drain area on the north side of the project also be extended to the
meandering sidewalk on the east side and connect with the Locust Grove
sidewalk that they are going to build.
Norton: I concur.
Borup: Any other discussion? Is that an amended motion?
Nary: Yes.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay, last item is the request for a Conditional Use Permit.
Centers: I guess we have at least one item.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 36
Hatcher: No. 5.
Nary: And would this also be the spot to mention the addition buffering that was
talked about on Mr. Leonard’s property?
Centers: I do not have a problem with that 9-foot light, and staff generally does
not have a problem with it. It is obvious that the developer is being very
cooperative with Mr. Leonard and all of the other homeowners. I guess it is a
give and take in my opinion.
Borup: Yes the 9 feet. I agree it is a better buffer, better shield at that distance. I
think the question on the second half of that paragraph.
Hatcher: I think under the conditions and considerations that the 17 feet here
would be adequate so long as we have two things. One is the increase in
landscaping in that buffer and two, adequate safety lighting both for the
commercial buildings and for the pedestrians.
Centers: Well, then you get into how many trees you want to require and how
many shrubs you want to require. I guess that is what you have to determine.
Hatcher: As deemed by our Ordinances.
Borup: It does not have to be in that location per Ordinance, so that needs to be
worked out with someone. I think they could work that out with staff could they
not?
Siddoway: There is an Ordinance requirement for buffering along there. That
the vertical surface would have to be 60 percent, at least 60 percent solid, so we
would be looking for that.
Centers: 60 percent solid, you are saying grass or –
Siddoway: Yes, as you look at it there can be some breaks in it, but at least 60
percent of that vertical surface has to be trees, basically.
Centers: So said just comply with the Ordinance?
Hatcher: I did.
Centers: So that and then do we need to mention something on Mr. Leonard’s
property in here too?
Hatcher: An additional requirement. I think the comment should be that the
developer was offering 2 to 3 trees for these southern property owners.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 37
Centers: 2 to 3 appropriate trees.
Hatcher: 2 to 3 appropriate trees. I think Mr. Leonard’s property would warrant
twice that amount because he has twice the frontage.
Borup: They have already offered each property owner 2 or 3 trees. Then they
would also have a list of 2 or 3 to choose from. Whether they want to go with an
evergreen or whatever. I think Mr. Centers has offered Mr. Leonard rather than
the trees a Juniper so they can do more of a screened wall.
Hatcher: There were two items providing the trees for Mr. Leonard, plant in his
backyard and to go with at the fence line in the landscape buffer, to install vertical
Junipers in the landscape buffer to assist in that buffering.
Borup: I understood that different. I thought the landscape buffer had the
problem with the drainage and that the trees needed to be in Mr. Leonard’s
property.
Hatcher: My recommendation was to put trees in that buffer. Mr. Centers came
back and said to put Junipers there and let the homeowner plant the trees.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, what I heard is what you were saying is that they could not
put the trees in there because of that drainage that they had to work on. They
could put the trees in Mr. Leonard’s yard, and they could put the fence and I think
part of what they talked about was if we wanted to recommend that they could
consider a higher fence for that particular portion of the property and then the
trees on Mr. Leonard’s side of the fence. There was that issue with the drainage.
Hatcher: So you are hearing that there would be no change to the landscaping
within the development.
Nary: Right, because they have to run the drainage through the property so
they could not put the trees on this project side, but they could on Mr. Leonard’s
side and put additional trees –
Hatcher: That chunk of fence that has the dogleg in it basically this section from
this corner to this corner, I would say we approve a variance and allow an 8 feet
fence to be installed there.
Nary: I would agree with that, at least something they can work out with both
the property owners and the City. I think that is appropriate for the project and
then also to assure Mr. Leonard that we recommend the trees as we talked
about, about him having additional trees for his property because of the amount
of frontage that he has.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 38
Borup: And not that the frontage is any more, it is just the direction of cars
facing I think, Mr. Hatcher brought out that that is the only one that would be
affected by cars driving down that street.
Norton: You think an 8-foot fence or a 7-foot fence.
Hatcher: 8 feet, you are not going to buy 7 feet.
Nary: I say up to 8 feet, and that would give him a way to be flexible.
Centers: I would like to see him have the option. Maybe that homeowner does
not want that 7 foot or 8 foot fence. The other people may want it the same way. I
think we put the requirement at the 7-foot fence. It might be ridiculous.
Nary: We need to recommend that option.
Hatcher: Exactly, if the homeowner wants it then the developer will need to put it
in.
Siddoway: Just say up to 8 feet.
Norton: They will do it.
Centers: At the option of the developer and the homeowner.
Hatcher: We need to make sure that we put in a waiver for No. 8 that has to do
with the storage units and all that stuff.
Centers: Actually that is on Page 5.
Hatcher: Is it on Page 5 also?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we would recommend to the City
Council approval of CUP 01003, request for Conditional Use Permit for 180 unit
apartment complex in a Planned development and proposed R-40 and C-C zone
for proposed Locust Grove Place by B & A Engineers west side of Locust Grove
Road south of Fairview Avenue to incorporate all of staff comments in the
February 27, 2001 staff report including the following amendments in regards to
site specific conditional use, site specific requirement number 5 that there be
included in the sentence regarding adequate screening plantings be planted in
the 17 foot buffer strip that it be in compliance with the current City Ordinance, so
it is clear that they have to have the 60 percent requirement that Mr. Siddoway
had talked about. We recommend on No. 8 that the condition regarding
requirement for additional storage and parking be waived as part of the planned
development that there be an additional condition that the property owners along
the southern boundary of the project – the developer will provide 2 to 3 trees of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 39
varying types of 2 to 3 types for the southern boundary property owners to plant
on their property as a buffer and screening. That also an additional condition be
placed that up to 8 foot fencing be allowed on the western boundary as agreed to
between the developer and the City and the property owners along that
boundary, but additionally for the one home with the 165 feet of frontage on the
southwestern corner of the property, the developer will provide additional vertical
Juniper trees to provide further screening to be agreed upon by the developer
and property owner to buffer that particular corner of the property. Does that
sound adequate enough Mr. Swartley? Is that everything we covered in this
section?
Swartley: I think so.
Norton: Did you include the waiver for the maintenance building?
Nary: Oh, yes and that we would also recommend a waiver of the maintenance
building. I guess it is not specifically required. It can be waived as part of a
planned development, and that we also would recommend that the Jackson
drain not be tiled along the northern boundary and basically be used as an
amenity to the project. Is that all of them? The 17 feet was adequate so we got
that in. I think that is all of them. Does that sound like all of them?
Borup: Does anyone have anything to add? We have a motion; did you get that
Mr. Swartley?
Swartley: Yes.
Hatcher: The only thing I would say is would you be open to excluding your
verbiage of tree types?
Nary: Oh, Juniper, and yes that would be fine. Something that can be worked
out between the developer and the property owner, but basically additional trees,
more than what is in the southern boundary.
Hatcher: Quantity for that gentleman, 5 to 6.
Nary: 5 to 6.
Swartley: Mr. Centers said every 5 to 6 feet. That is assuming it is going to be a
Kalmner type push. You could not plant trees that close together. If he went to an
evergreen or some full size tree --
Hatcher: But again leave it open so that the developer and the property owner
work that out.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 40
Nary: I think if we put that the developer will provide additional trees for that
property on that southwestern corner that has the large frontage on the property
that is adequate for both the property owner and the developer that is in excess
of what is being provided to the 2 or 3 trees in the south. I think it is pretty clear
that is more than just those 2 or 3.
Hatcher: Let us not limit ourselves to a quantity.
Borup: That makes sense. Did we have a second?
Hatcher: I would second it.
Borup: Motion seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. Thank everyone for being here on this application. Again, we
appreciate the developers meeting with the homeowners. It makes it easier for
us. We will take about a 5-minute break then we will reconvene and continue.
Item 7. Public Hearing: PP 01-004 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 11 building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres
in an R-8 zone by J-U-B Engineers for proposed Murdoch
Subdivision No. 2 – east of Locust Grove Road, south of
Medimont No. 2:
Borup: I will open the Public Hearing a request for Preliminary Plat approval of
11 building lots, 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an R-8 zone by J-U-B Engineering
for proposed Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 east of Locust Grove, south of
Medimont. We will start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission the Murdoch
Subdivision No. 2 is located off of South Locust Grove between Franklin Road
and the freeway about a quarter of a mile south of Franklin Road. It is the
hatched area on the site plan. The area just north of it in the blue, you will
recognize as the Woodbridge office that was before this Commission during the
last hearing. The Medimont Subdivision, a light industrial subdivision, is north of
it. In this location, Murdoch Subdivision No. 1 is west of it in this location and the
light blue is the Idaho State Police Training Facility. These are some current site
photos. Standing at the stub street to the property at this location right here
coming out of Medimont Subdivision and standing there looking off to the
southeast you can see Woodbridge.
Hatcher: Excuse me Steve, I do not mean to interrupt. Commissioner Borup I
just realized that this project has the proposed Meridian Police Facility as one of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 41
the lots. My office is doing that project, and I need to step down from this
hearing.
Borup: Okay that would be fine.
Siddoway: So the Woodbridge Subdivision is the fence that you see in the
background, that would be Locust Grove turning looking basically due south you
can see the project. This is the property here, I believe that is Jabil Circuits in the
background. Standing on Locust Grove now looking northwest you can see the
Woodbridge office here on its northern boundary, the Medimont Subdivision is
here, this is roughly where the street, I believe it is Water Tower Lane, would be
extended through to. This is the proposed plat. Office commercial sized lots
surrounding a larger lot in the southwest corner of the property for the Meridian
Police Facility. I think that is it. The staff report, I really only have two things to
point out. One is Item 7, that is a stub street issue to the south that I need to give
you a little background on. If I can go back to the vicinity map, actually the most
helpful thing might be to go to the arial photo. On this arial photo, this area here
is Murdoch Subdivision No. 1 you can see where the road is being built there.
Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 is basically in this area right here. Murdoch
Subdivision No. 1, well first of all, we are recommending a stub street to the
south along the west property line. We think it is a good idea. It is not a do or die
issue for us. It is a complicated issue that I think the Commission needs to
consider all the sides of in making a recommendation on this one, which I will try
and lay out, for you. Murdoch Subdivision No. 1 was granted a variance to
exceed the 1000 foot-block length with no stub streets to the north or south. If
this were to continue through to Locust Grove, it would be another quarter mile.
It would have a stub to the north, but no stubs to the south for a full half of a mile.
We would like to get a stub street in there for better connectivity and circulation
and access through these properties. Having said that first of all, ideally that stub
street would be able to connect down to Central Drive, which runs in front of Jabil
Circuits down here. As you can see there is a track here that is part of the Police
Training Facility that I do not see that road ever being able to cross in the
foreseeable future, which would limit the accessibility issue that we are trying to
achieve. Basically we would have access out to Locust Grove and probably
access out to Locust Grove in a couple of places. It would give some better
circulation for the Police vehicles as well as the future tenants of all of these
properties. The property to the south that is west of the, this is the Hunter Lateral
a ditch that runs through the property, is not sewerable to Locust Grove and we
would need to sewer through this property having a stub street could provide that
sewer. If as you consider all of the issues if the Stub Street is not required, we
would at least need to get a sewer easement in that location in order to make
this property developable. The only other issue that I would point out is No. 9,
and that is that the block length on this does exceed 1000 feet. It does need to
have a variance application submitted for that. That cannot be waived. It is not
part of a planned development, and a similar variance was applied for and
granted for Murdoch Subdivision No. 1. If we can get that variance in soon, if can
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 42
run together with this application to City Council without slowing down the
process any. That is all I have.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Do you have any
comments, Bruce, specifically on the sewer?
Freckleton: Maybe just one point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. The sewer
facility plan that the City has adopted shows the Hunter Lateral as being the
defining line between to drainage boundaries, east and west. That is not exactly
cast in stone. We have got pretty good depth on sewer in Locust Grove;
physically it probably could sewer all the way to Locust Grove. It is just that we
do not want to see that parcel get kind of blocked in without access to sewer. We
try and follow that facility plan pretty stringently.
Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here and have a presentation?
Schultz: Matt Schultz, 250 South Beechwood in Boise with J-U-B Engineers. If I
could, I read the comments and there are no real issues except for some of the
clarification I could provide. I will start with Item 5, which staff did not go over, but
it talked about the irrigation on the project, the pressurized irrigation. That will be
an extension of the Murdoch No.1 pressurized irrigation, which is a Nampa
Meridian maintained facility just for clarification. Item 7, which Bruce did definitely
enlighten a little bit on the issue there. Without having an application on the
property to the south, like Bruce said, it could sewer to Locust Grove. It does not
have to sewer to the north, but I think one solution may be the granting of an
easement across the parcel that could be utilized. Would not necessarily have to
put the sewer line in right now, but if at a later date that engineer or developer
absolutely had to go to the north, could. Really if you wanted to you could maybe
put a road within that easement with some addition right-of-way dedication or
something at that time. Without seeing that site plan it is kind of hard to justify
either way. We are not really proposing to do so, along with that on Item 9, we
definitely were not aware that you could not grant the waiver since it was not
PUD or the variance so we will be submitting a variance for that block length.
That Stub Street would not solve the block length problem, because we have
1300 feet per so the Stub Street would not solve that so we would still need a
variance. That is what we will be submitting. Other than that, I ask for your
approval with the conditions to move onto City Council, and we are happy to
answer any questions you have. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Schultz, you are saying that you could provide an easement
essentially between Murdoch No. 1 and Murdoch No. 2?
Schultz: No, it would actually be from Water Tower Street, which is –
Borup: Are you not saying right along this here, this area here?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 43
Schultz: Right here is pretty much what you are talking about, right here. That
easement would be across the police property, the City owns this piece of
property right now by deed, so it would be a grant of easement where the City
would be signatory on this plat, I believe. This was deeded to the City a few
months ago, and this plat will essentially clean it all up and make it legal law with
access and everything like that. So it would be a City easement across there that
could if absolutely necessary a roadway could be put in there. Our traffic look at
does not justify the need for that, but if the City so wanted it, it could be done.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I guess I put some thought into this since I talked to
Matt the other day. If you guys do not feel like a road is necessary, I guess I
would at this point in time rather not dedicate an easement of the plat. If and
when down the road it becomes necessary to serve that parcel, we could grant
an easement at that point in time because we own it. We have control of the
property.
Borup: And is the City going to maintain control?
Schultz: It is all one lot.
Borup: Yes, it is one lot. There was discussion before that part of the lot on that
side of the drainage was not going to be developed.
Freckleton: Yet.
Borup: Yet. Okay.
Freckleton: So I guess I would just throw that out. I would rather not put it on
the plat just because if it does not get used, if we do need to use it, then we will
have to go through the vacation process, and I do not want to do that.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Bruce, the way I read the financing arrangement that may happen on
that, you may have a problem.
Freckleton: With an easement?
Centers: Correct.
Freckleton: Granting one in the future or granting one now?
Centers: In the future. So you may want to reconsider that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 44
Freckleton: Okay, I guess I will have to do a little research. I have not read that
Agreement.
Centers: Well, just from what I have read about it. There is going to be a lean on
that property in held by a bank, and it could happen, but it might be –
Freckleton: More cumbersome to put it on later than to have it vacated.
Centers: Right.
Schultz: Either way.
Freckleton: I can get together with the City Attorney’s Office, and we can go
through that.
Borup: That makes sense to me. At least have an easement or the potential for
the sewer. It is a lot easier to plan for it now than later.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Schultz is there a reason why you do not want to put in this little
stub street?
Schultz: To be honest with you from this point of view, I am kind of speaking for
you guys, when I would say, yes I will put it in. It is kind of on your property,
technically. I feel really uncomfortable just offering that up when that side to the
south could develop where it would just not really be needed. We would like to
leave it open to in the future. It may just be a waste to propose it right now, and
that is why we did not offer it up, and plus I think the Police site, their plan has it
has an open space. I do not know what they had planned for it, maybe nothing.
Centers: Well, can it not be dedicated without developing it? A dedicated street
area.
Siddoway: It can never be built over if it were dedicated and not built.
Centers: Right, dedicate it then you have your easement.
Schultz: I think if you dedicate a right-of-way it would create a lot. What if there is
a gap between the lot line and the right-of-way would be a lot there. How wide
that would be would be up to whomever. You guys, I mean it is your property.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 45
Borup: Yes, Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: If that street could go through to Central Drive, Planning and Zoning
Staff would be pushing hard for it. The fact that Idaho State Police Facility pretty
much cuts it off limits the interconnectivity that we would get, so that is way we
are not pushing so hard for it. It would still improve connectivity, and we would
like to see it for that reason. It loses some value by not being able to connect all
the way down to the south.
Borup: That truly would depend on how that other parcel develops, is what you
are saying? On how much benefit it would be.
Siddoway: Yes, I should also mention that I have spoken with Chief Gordon
about this. They are planning to use that area west of the Hunter Lateral for
Powell soccer fields for the foreseeable future. He is not crazy about the idea of
a stub street in that location, but he said he would not oppose it. He did not
particularly want one there, but then he thought it might give better access to the
soccer fields that will be built out there so he was teetering either way. I just offer
that up as additional background.
Borup: Okay, any other questions, comments?
Centers: Is that the preferred location for the sewer easement? Or pretty much
the only location?
Freckleton: The Facility Plan that we have drawn has the Hunter Lateral as the
dividing line between the two drainage boundaries, so it needs to be somewhere
within the Hunter Lateral and the west property boundary. It made more sense to
put it on the west property boundary just so that it does not bisect that other little
piece of property, you end up with two little remnant pieces that are pretty
useless. So that is why we were looking adjacent to that west boundary. Because
it still leaves you a pretty decent parcel.
Centers: Personally, I think you would be better off to do it now and then if you
have to address the issue of moving it then so be it. Because your way, you have
to address it anyway.
Freckleton: One thing that I kind of thought of Commissioner Centers –
***End Of Side Three***
Freckleton: -- agreement evidently –
Centers: No I have not, what I read in the paper.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 46
Freckleton: Oh, okay. One thing I was wondering is just the idea of dedicating
right-of-way and not building, I can see some pros and cons with that. What if
you just had them plat a 50-foot wide lot and then retain ownership of it, the City
retains ownership of it.
Centers: Right. See it is not encumbered now. The City owns it free and clear.
Schultz: If I would elaborate on that, it might be beneficial to make it a little bit
wider to allow for the returns coming in. It cannot just T in straight. We will need a
little bit more than 50 feet, so maybe a little bit wider than that to allow for the
radiuses.
Centers: Can you not plat the lot to last the radius?
Schultz: Oh, we could, we could plat the radiuses in there.
Centers: Rather than going wider the whole way.
Schultz: Yes we could, that would be easy.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the downside of that is that if in the future that road
was necessary, the City would be building it not the developer.
Borup: What is the other option then? Build it now? Which does not seem to
make sense to build a road going to nowhere.
Siddoway: I almost think that the stub street issue should just go away. I do not
want to push for it. There are too many complicated issues involved with the Stub
Street.
Borup: But it sounds like the City would grant an easement in the future for
sewer.
Siddoway: (Inaudible) I think the City could work out. I do not know the issues
with the financing, but even with the lean on it, it would seem that we could still
potentially grant an easement across our property.
Freckleton: I think there might be a signatory on that. You would have to get
someone else to sign off on that, whoever that owner may be at that time, which
we do all the time on plats, so it is not unreasonable.
Centers: It is just going to be a hassle.
Freckleton: Yes, it is a hassle.
Borup: Okay, have we made this complicated enough?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 47
Centers: No, I think we have another 2 hours.
Borup: Did you have anything else Mr. Schultz?
Schultz: I do not. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else here that wanted to testify on this
application? Seeing none, final comments from the Commission?
Centers: If we can do it, just bring the matter up to the City Council and have
them address it at that time on the sewer easement.
Borup: That makes sense, just make them aware and let them. They have
been really involved with the police property. The Public Hearing is still open.
Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: It looks like Mr. Siddoway has back-pedaled on the one staff
recommendation. Is that correct on No. 7?
Nary: So can delete No. 7.
Norton: So eliminate No. 7.
Nary: So we want to leave something about the sewer easement, basically all
but that. Just all but the last sentence that a sewer easement should be provided
at this location to be decided by the Public Works Department and the City
Council.
Centers: Then on No. 5 I think it should be noted that they are utilizing the
pressurized irrigation from Murdoch No.1 and that is not a problem.
Nary: Right.
Centers: So I am prepared to make a motion Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Okay, Mr. Centers.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 48
Centers: I would make the motion and recommend that we send this to the City
Council for approval PP 01-004, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 11
building lots and 2 other lots on 20.26 acres in an R-8 zone by J-U-B Engineers
for proposed Murdoch Subdivision No. 2 east of Locust Grove south of Medimont
No. 2. Including all staff recommendations with the exception of No. 7, which has
been eliminated, and we would note to the City Council to consider a sewer
easement and that it should be provided at their discretion and also note No. 5,
the pressurized irrigation is utilized via Murdoch No. 1.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-003 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in
an R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering for proposed Ashford
Greens No. 6 – Black Cat Road, north of Cherry Lane:
Borup: I would like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, this a Preliminary
Plat for Ashford Greens No. 6, it is in the hatched area that you can see on the
vicinity map.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher has rejoined us.
Siddoway: Most of this area had been platted once before, this is a replat of
that area. The part that was not part of the original plat is down in the corner in
this location. The surrounding properties, the long linear spaces are the Cherry
Lane Golf Course, which weave through the subdivision, there are existing
phases of Ashford Greens north and future phases of Ashford Greens to the
west. South of the property is Golf View subdivision and east of the property is
the Villas at the lakes, it was recorded as Brenda Estate Subdivision. This photo
for your reference, I am standing on this stub street here looking west into the
property from inside The Villas and that line you can kind of see along there is
where the edge of the developed property is and the beginning of the Golf
Course. So the property kind of wraps around this way that is going to be
developed as Ashford Greens No. 6. This is the proposed Preliminary Plat. They
are extending road down and through, a small turn around with landscaped
island in the center and lots on the other side as you can see. The staff report
dated February 26, 2001, just a couple of issues, one deals with the 5 percent
common open space which as a replat they should comply with. Before the
meeting I meet with the applicant, they are very close to meeting that
requirement, and I will let him address that with the Commission. No. 7 under
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 49
Preliminary Plat comments is regarding the Eight Mile Lateral. There is some
question about an agreement that was made as part of the land swap with the
City. This may be better addressed at City Council, but there was a land swap
and some tiling agreements that were made for property along the Eight Mile
Lateral, which basically runs along this part of the plat. Those are the only real
outstanding issues that I feel I need to bring up at this time. I will stand for any
questions.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Did we get any comments back from the Fire Department on
accessibility? I am just curious as to why we are building phase 6 before Phase
5, and have we exceeded our housing count for accessible entrances?
Siddoway: I do not believe they will be building 6 before 5, 5 was platted a few
months ago in this location here.
Hatcher: Oh that has already been platted.
Siddoway: It has been platted.
Hatcher: It is not future?
Siddoway: It is future to be built. It is not showing up in the photos but it is
already platted.
Hatcher: Never mind. I see it, I was just thinking they were going clockwise
around.
Siddoway: The plat may not be recorded. It is not recorded yet, but it has gone
through the City’s approval process.
Hatcher: Okay, never mind, a moot issue.
Borup: Anyone else? Question on the Stub Street, Steve. You took one of those
photos from Stub Street from one of the lakes at Cherry Lane, so that stub street
does not tie in then?
Siddoway: It does not. It is a private street. It is not a public right-of-way. ACHD
allowed it to be a private street. It is not required to connect through regardless
of our desire to do so. It is a private street and we cannot require it to connect
through.
Borup: Why was it even put there then?
Siddoway: It was approved by the City that way.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 50
Borup: I mean did the applicant request that? Usually a stub street is because
they are required to do it.
Siddoway: I will let Bruce address it because I am not familiar with the project at
all.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, there is some
parking that comes off of that too. There were some narrow lots on that street
where it doglegs and there were some parking stalls that were set aside in the
plat. The way it was presented to the Commission at the time and the Council
was that it was not going to go through and that that was access for visitor
parking that sort of thing.
Borup: And that took less space than a culdesac would have?
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Wortal: My name is John Wortal, 50 Broadway Avenue. I am representing
Brighton Corporation this evening. If I can give you a handout as to what was
part of the previous Preliminary Plat and what was excluded before. That may
help explain a few of these issues. The total Preliminary Plat shown as Ashford
Greens No. 5 amounts to 9.24 acres. You will see in the drawing what is red is
what was previously part of the Preliminary Plat as the PUD came through
originally back in 1993-1994. Those lots were part of the previous Preliminary
Plat representing 5.65 acres. In the corner there is 3.59 acres in blue, which was
not platted. As I remember the history of the project as I read it, I was not part of
it, but if I get this wrong, Mike Wortal can correct me. They were looking at a
couple of different options of extending that property, taking in some additional
properties which I guess essentially where The Villas. That never occurred, so
Brighton’s property ended as it is shown today in the blue. In terms of the issue
with the landscape common area on site specific condition No. 3, there are two
landscape common lots that we show, which are lot number 1 and lot number 13.
Lot number 1 is 0.21 acres. Lot number 13 is 0.21 acres for a total of 0.42 acres.
The staff report says 0.46 acres. This is where the issue is a little tricky. If you
take it and exclude it from what the project originally was, which was a planned
unit development, which was a golf course. The City got the golf course. There
was open space, which was the golf course. There is not an issue. The staff
report indicates that we cannot count the golf course, so if you take what we
have today, we have 0.42 acres of landscape lots, but if you look at the area that
was not part of the original Preliminary Plat but which is represented in blue here,
we have 0.42 acres out of 3.59 acres of development that is new which is
actually more than 10 percent in that new area. I guess it is a technicality. We
could come through and do a Final Plat on that which was part of the original
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 51
Preliminary Plat, it would not be subject to the 5 percent because it is part of the
original PUD, and then we could come back and do a Final Plat of this 3.59 acres
and have 10 percent or 0.42 acres of the 3.59 acres that would be set apart as
landscape. I talked with Mr. Siddoway before. When we submitted the
application, we did not indicate what the acreages were. This does not include
the lot, which would encompass the Saford Lateral. When we were in the City
Council meeting on Ashford Greens No. 5, the City Council made it very clear
that they wanted to keep a common lot there just in case in the future that a
pathway was extended along there that they could work something out with the
irrigation company. At some point in the future that may be a pathway, today we
are going to fence it off and there will be an easement, there will a small
Encroachment Agreement in part of that, but there will be a common lot there
that could be dedicated in the future to a pathway if the City is able to work
something out with Nampa Meridian. As to condition No. 7, which talked about
the tiling of the Eight Mile. It appears that there was an agreement with Steiner.
We do not own that property. It is adjacent to our property. None of the Eight Mile
is on our property. I am not quite sure what those piping requirements are, and I
am not quite sure what staff had in mind in terms of working that out at the City
Council. I know from Brighton’s perspective they are not interesting in having to
pipe a piece of Lateral that is not on their property. I do not know exactly what
staff had in mind by including that in the staff report. I can show you for your
information what the project looked like back when it was approved. This was
another Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use which was James Place at Ashford
Greens, but he area that is included that was not included before is right here in
the corner, but the rest of this was part of the original Preliminary Plat. I do not
know that I have anymore comments, but I am willing to answer any questions
that you may have for me or that the staff may have.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Wortal? I guess we have none. Thank you.
Wortal: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here to testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners any questions for anyone?
Centers: I have a question for staff. No. 3, at that time that you wrote this; you did
not have the calculations.
Siddoway: That is correct. There were no calculations submitted. If it helps the
Commission, I am in agreement that they are basically in compliance. I do not
think any modifications need to be made for several reasons. One, 0.42 and 0.46
is just 0.04 apart, it is really splitting hairs.
Centers: 1740 square feet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 52
Siddoway: Yes. If we wanted to push the issue, we could. Actually, we probably
should if it were overall a fully new plat, but given that over half of the plat was
already approved as part of a planned development where the golf course was
heeded as open space, and the new part of the plat exceeds 5 percent, I think
that they are meeting the intent.
Centers: And No. 7, that issue I think he would really address to City Council.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: So that was the same question I had No. 7, so that will just be handled
at City Council?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Good. Anyone else have any questions?
Hatcher: Seeing none, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have anybody that would like to make a motion?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion that we approve Item 8 and
send it to the City Council for their approval. Item PP 01-003, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 23 building lots and 3 other lots on 9.24 acres in an
R-4 zone by Hubble Engineering for propose Ashford Greens No. 6, Black Cat
Road north of Cherry Lane and include all staff comments. Item 3 of staff
comments, they have agreed that 0.42 acres will be sufficient especially since
this was previously platted for the area around it. Item 7 to be dealt with at the
time it is presented to the City Council.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion?
Centers: I have a little discussion, 3 other lots?
Wortal: Those were the two landscaping lots and then there is one along the
Lateral.
Centers: Okay, I was just curious.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 53
Borup: Okay, we have a motion. Did we have a second?
Nary: Yes.
Borup: And a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 9. Public Hearing: RZ 01-001 Request for Rezone of 3.35
acres from R-8 to C-G by Hubble Engineering for proposed
Golden Corral Restaurant – 725 East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Have we got anyone here that came in late? Later on Item 9?
Nary: The lady left, hopefully she got her question answered.
Borup: Do we even need to go ahead and open this?
Nary: Can make a suggestion on this. From what it sounded like from Steve,
they did not really know what they were going to do, is that correct? If they could
not get their design down.
Siddoway: All I know is that is that I was asked to have it removed from
tonight’s agenda and postponed to a future meeting.
Nary: I would suggest postponing it indefinitely pending some sort of contact
from the applicant. At which time we can either remove the application, they can
withdraw the application.
Siddoway: If it is a Public Hearing would we not have to continue it to a date
certain?
Nary: Right, if you postpone it indefinitely – otherwise I think we would have to
re-notice it entirely.
Siddoway: April 19, 2001 is probably a good date. it is where we moved the
other one.
Nary: Okay. If they want to remove it again, hopefully they will have some
information by then.
Borup: Do we have a motion to that affect?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I would like to move that Public Hearing for the RZ 01-
001 –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 54
Borup: I am sorry. Do we need to open that Public Hearing first then?
Hatcher: To postpone it, no.
Borup: Okay.
Hatcher: Not unless we are going to take testimony tonight from somebody.
Borup: There was no one here to give testimony.
Hatcher: Then we do not need to open it.
Nary: I think you can continue it without opening the Public Hearing.
Borup: You can continue it, okay.
Nary: Can you not do that Mr. Swartley?
Swartley: Yes.
Norton: Mr. Chairman I would like to continue my motion to continue RZ 01-001
for the Golden Coral Restaurant to continue that Public Hearing to April 19,
2001.
Borup: We have a motion.
Hatcher: Second.
Borup: Motion seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: ZA 01-001 Request for consideration of
amendments to Title 12, Chapter, 6, “Planned
Development”, and Title 11, Chapter 17 “Conditional Uses”
of Meridian City Ordinance, along with related changes by
Primeland Development Company:
Borup: Steve do you want to comment on this first, also?
Siddoway: Sure, and then I think Mr. Swartley should comment. You should
have our staff report. We have not had a chance to review this proposed
Ordinance in any detail. It was submitted together with the British Tower Crossing
application, which is being heard on March 15, 2001. Which is basically two
weeks from tonight. We have requested that it be continued, postponed, tabled
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 55
whatever the right word is to that date pending input from the attorney as to
whether that gives them time to review it as well.
Swartley: And really that is not what the issue is. There are other issues.
Siddoway: There is another issue.
Swartley: March 15, 2001 will be fine. The issue is pretty much one of a protocol
as to how this – I do not know if this should have been an application or what is
should have been, but how it was presented to Planning and Zoning and how
City Council is going to want to hear this. The way it would be coming to them
right now, they would not want to hear this the way it is being presented. We just
needed a little time to make sure that City Council knew what was going, and at
this time, we do not believe they have any idea about this application. It is kind of
an effort to appease the Council and to get our ducks in a row. March 15, 2001, I
think would be fine. Have the Commission members had a chance to look at the
– okay.
Borup: It has been in for a month. It definitely was not turned in at the last
minute.
Swartley: No, no I am not saying that. The issue is more of one of City Council
desiring to have it originate or to have it basically come from them to be their
idea, so to speak.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess since we are early my two sense is what was
concerning to me. I think all citizens can certainly ask the City Council to review
the Ordinances as exist and propose changes, and that is not an uncommon
practice. What I thought was odd about this is this is an application by developer
who drafts an Ordinance for the City Council, pays $200 to have someone
consider that as an application. That is an odd process to me. That seems
inappropriate to view an Ordinance change like that. Bill and I discussed that and
decided maybe we could look at that as more of a processing type of fee. If the
$200 fee is related to the Bridge Tower Crossing subdivision it just does not
seem right to make people pay an application fee to request that the City Council
review an Ordinance that exists and make changes to it. Since anybody can ask
the City Council to do that for free, why should somebody pay $200 for it? That
looks a little strange to me. I think it does not send the right message publicly to
do that. At least my initial look at the Ordinance, I do not know that there is a lot
of problems with it, I think as Mr. Swartley it seems kind of protocol and what is
appropriate in how you process things and all that.
Swartley: Sorry to interrupt you that is because these issues have come up in the
past with other Ordinances that have attempted to be amended, and the City
Council had basically expressed their distaste with that particular process and so
that is kind of where this originated from.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 56
Borup: Mr. Siddoway is there any other history to this? Did it come about with
discussion with staff and complication with the existing Ordinance?
Siddoway: I believe that Shari Stiles has been talking with Becky Bowcutt, who
drafted the Ordinance. She had been requesting modifications which staff frankly
has not had time to address, and I believe Shari told her to go ahead and
propose something, which is what she did.
Borup: And that is what I had thought, I just want to get that on the record, so
there was essentially a request for the developer.
Siddoway: There was conversation with the Planning Director.
Borup: Saying if they want something make a proposal and then that could be
looked at.
Siddoway: But as far as the protocol with City Council –
Swartley: Mr. Nichols is going to talk to Shari about that. It is more of everybody
needs to sit down and address that issue and make sure they are doing the way
that the City Council would appreciate and approve.
Borup: I guess what I was trying to clarify is what the developer did was
essentially –
Swartley: What somebody told him to do.
Borup: Yes.
Swartley: They did.
Borup: It is definitely not easier to have someone prepare an Ordinance and
then review it rather than go ahead and do it yourself. I believe that was the last
– on number 10 we have not done anything yet have we?
Norton: They requested to go to March 15, 2001.
Borup: Oh, okay, which would be the same time as their other application.
Which may make it a pretty full evening. We will have to see. Well that is when
their subdivision application is too. So may need to take a look at that night to
see what is appropriate. I guess we could do to then and then decide then. Does
that make sense?
Hatcher: Put their application second to last and then put the Ordinance last.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 57
Nary: That might be the solution.
Borup: Okay, do we have a motion for that?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I move to continue the Public Hearing ZA 01-001 request
for consideration of amendments to the Title 12, chapter 6, Planned
Development to be continued until March 15, 2001.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Swartley: Mr. Chairman can I just get a clarification on agenda Item 3, when was
that deferred to?
Norton: April 19, 2001.
Swartley: I was only hearing out of one ear that time.
Borup: Maybe just one final thing and I think everyone already knew that, but
today was Shelby’s birthday, and I think she is disappointed we did not have
everybody sing her happy birthday at the beginning of the meeting.
Norton: Mr. Chairman before we sing happy birthday to Shelby.
Borup: Oh, I was not proposing that.
Norton: I would like to address this letter that we received from Dan Bogdanski
regarding the eyesore between Cherry Lane and Black Cat and Ten Mile. Have
our compliance officers been out there to look at the eye sore.
Nary: I think it is the fence.
Borup: I do not have any idea. What is it the eye sore between where?
Norton: The area is on Cherry Lane between Black Cat and Ten Mile.
Hatcher: You know where they tiled the irrigation ditch and then just left dirt.
Borup: It is better than the ditch and weeds before that. It is making progress.
Hatcher: He is basically saying it is an eye sore and as an entry to the city how
come we are not doing anything about it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 58
Siddoway: It is an eye sore and that was part of (inaudible) Ordinance
requiring street buffers to be a common lot, owned and maintained by a
Homeowners Association along there. Even though the fences are set back
probably 35 feet, the individual property lines run all the way out to the street.
Every individual property owner is technically responsible for maintaining their
little 80-foot strip, and it is not maintained well and it turns into a big ugly patch of
weeds.
Centers: Some one needs to write this gentleman a letter and tell him.
Siddoway: Was it addressed to Code Enforcement because I have not seen the
letter myself?
Norton: It was sent to Shelby. It says to Mayor, City Council, and Planning and
Zoning. Would you like this for code enforcers?
Centers: That is the only way to approach it –
Hatcher: The way I read that email was basically asking the City to do something
about improving that as an entry, a City entry. We do not have power to do that.
It is not our property.
Swartley: Mr. Chairman the other thing that complicates the whole issue along
Cherry Lane there is the fact that the easement still exists for Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District, and they will not allow anybody to do anything in there. The old
existing fences that were there for Cherry Lane village, a lot of them are still
there, but a lot of the people have built new fences. So you end up with some
fences are closer to Cherry Lane and others are still set back at the old line that
was there before the ditch was tiled. So you have a hodgepodge of fences
through there and then the fact that they have control of that easement, and you
cannot go out there and plant trees and do a whole lot with it. About the only
thing you can do is mow the weeds down.
Borup: So maybe that is where the letter needs to be addressed to be Nampa
Meridian.
Hatcher: Can those property owners, being that they own property, can they
move their fence out to the sidewalk and just have that easement run through
their backyard, so that they at least have a grassy backyard?
Borup: Would that not require an Encroachment Agreement?
Swartley: I think that if they could get an Encroachment Agreement from Nampa
Meridian that might be possible.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 59
Norton: Could I request somebody to respond to this gentleman? I know there
are a lot of letters that are sent to City Council and none of them are addressed
or answered. Can somebody, who would this be addressed to?
Siddoway: I will do it.
Norton: Steve, okay great, thank you.
Hatcher: Maybe copied to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District.
Norton: Thank you Steve. I will give this to you. Then there was a letter in the
editor this morning about the eye sore in downtown. It specifically address
Planning and Zoning, and our window to the eyesore downtown, I am assuming
that it is behind us. Is there any code enforcement, because I know that they are
in operation again?
Siddoway: There are ongoing enforcement issues, yes.
Swartley: We have several suits against –
Siddoway: There are lawsuits filed, he has been arrested I believe.
Norton: There was a whole pile of cars there when I came in.
Swartley: That property is owned by Jay Amicks, former Mayor of the City of
Boise, and he is very unresponsive.
Norton: Well is there not enforcement that we can do?
Swartley: There is enforcement. Legal violations and each one is $300 fine and
6 months in jail. It is a matter of cost benefit. We do not necessarily have the
resources to go out there everyday and site him with a violation, so we are trying
to get a temporary restraining order. Something along those lines. That is what
Larry Moore does.
Borup: Okay, anything else?
Hatcher: I move that we close the meeting.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED 10:16 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting
March 1, 2001
Pg. 60
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
___
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK