2001 03-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 15, 2001
The meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00pm on Thursday, March 15, 2001 by Chairman Keith Borup.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance:
__X____Sally Norton __X____ Jerry Centers
__X____Bill Nary __X____Keven Shreeve
__ X____Chairman Keith Borup
Members Present: Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, Keven Shreeve, and
Keith Borup
Others Present: Shari Stiles, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Bruce Freckleton, Tom Kuntz
Borup: The minutes will be handled at our next meeting, so we should be able to
proceed right to agenda Item 4, which is technically a continued Public Hearing
from March 1, 2001, even though we did not go into any detail at that time. It was
continued to this meeting. It is a consideration of amendments to a planned
development Title 11, Chapter 17, and 12 and 6 of Meridian City Ordinances.
Item 3. Continued Public Hearing from March 1, 2001: ZA 01-
001 Request for consideration of amendments to Title 12,
Chapter 6, “Planned Development”, and Title 11, Chapter 17
“Conditional Uses” of Meridian City Ordinance, along with
related changes by Primeland Development:
Borup: I would like to start with the staff report. Are you handling that Shari?
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: Thank you.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I apologize for just handing you this
report tonight. I wanted to give you a little background on what had happened
that resulted in this application being submitted. What I have given to you is a
two page memo outlining the history of this amendment, and then the following
pages, there are 5 pages for the Conditional Use Permit section and looks like 6
pages for the Planned Development section. What I have done is I have taken
what Mrs. Bowcutt submitted and I added some proposed text with an underline
if there is a strike through that is something that I would recommend that be
taken out. If there is Italics it is an explanation of things to possibly consider
about that section of the proposed Ordinance. I do not know if you have all had a
chance to review this yourself and if you have made some edits. It probably
would have been more appropriate to start out with a Strategic Planning meeting
where we could discuss this and hopefully in the future we will get some of those
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 2
meetings in place so we can get busy on some of the Ordinances we need to
change. The problem with the current Planned Development Ordinance is that it
is so ambiguous and it contradicts itself. It is not a good Ordinance and it does
not support what we would like to see at least as staff as some true mixed
development in the City with services, neighborhood, commercial, and office
services that support the residential use. That is what this proposed Ordinance
does. For example, on our existing Ordinance it says that you can get variances
to portions of the Ordinance, but it also says you have to meet the requirements
of the underlying zone so it does not make any sense. It does not give anybody
real direction on what they need to do to try and get a Planned Development
approved. Again, I apologize. I know it is to late for you to even look at this. This
Ordinance would need to be changed in order for the Bridgetower development
to proceed. I know we will still have the Public Hearings on that tonight and there
are some issues that have been brought up and will need to be discussed as
part of those Public Hearings. I would like your direction on where you would like
to go from here, or if you want any explanation on – if you had questions of your
own on some of the sections that were proposed that we could talk about.
Otherwise, we just need to continue this Public Hearing to the next date, and it
would be nice if we could get some dialogue going though tonight about some
issues you may have with this Ordinance.
Borup: I would like to spend a little bit of time on it. We have it on the agenda
and maybe the procedure would be just to handle each on separate. Handle the
Conditional Use Permit section first. That did not look as near as many items
does it? Then maybe we will need to take a look at the other, but essentially you
are saying your recommendation would be on those items that you have crossed
through to delete those?
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: In the first section there on the second page, it would be Item O.
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: That was really it on the first two pages.
Stiles: There is some narrative under B, under the supplementary conditions
regarding the Conditional Use Permit and the time.
Borup: Would you like to address that a little bit.
Stiles: If you do not mind I will just read what I have in the Italics –
Borup: The main concern was not on the 18 months but is a main concern on
the definition of commencement of construction.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 3
Stiles: Yes. I will just read what I have there so the audience can hear too. The
current Ordinance does allow the Commission and Council to prescribe a set
time period for which a Conditional Use Permit may be in existence. However a
time limit has rarely been set on Conditional Use Permits. The Commission and
Council may wish to consider shorter approval periods than proposed above for
specific projects if it is determined it is the City’s best interest that the project
proceeds sooner. The above language also does not have enough specificity
about how and when subsequent phases must be initiated or completed. With
the above scenario the applicant could get approved, start cutting a single street,
or construct a short segment of pipe and the commence construction portion of
their responsibility would be done allowing completion of the remainder of the
project to drag on forever even though there is under the Planned Development,
they do have a 5 year time limit for the entire approval. That would be back in the
Planned Development portion of it. But it does not set a time under Conditional
Use Permit because not all Conditional Use Permits are going to be Planned
Developments.
Borup: So what would be your recommendation on that? It sounds like you are
saying the 18 months is probably okay, but some time frame for completion of --
Stiles: In some instances you may want less time depending on the size of the
project. Also there should be a time when they need to submit a subsequent
phase so they do not just get a commercial section and do a small portion of the
residential and then the rest sits there for some time. I would recommend that
they still need to provide, if it is a phase project, to have those phases in an
orderly manner perhaps within a year similar to the Plat phases that we have
now. Also that there be language added and I am not sure what that would be
about, completion of improvements before they get occupancies for the
buildings. That needs to be spelled out.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Shari, would in make more sense in B to have some sort of language that
it would not be any longer than 18 months then that would give the Council and
the commission the ability to shorten it? Or have language that says: if no time
period is designated then it will not be any longer than 18 months or something
like that? So that way if it is not address specifically, that there is still some cut of
time. This kind of says it is 18 months only. That would give the flexibility I think
you are talking about if you had some language like that. No later than 18
months or something like that.
Borup: Or up to.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 4
Nary: That way whether it is the commission or the Council they can shorten it
like you are saying. If it is a type of project that they want to phase in sooner or
want it to be done sooner. If they do not address that all then at least there is
some time period so it is not left open.
Borup: I think the other concern was that the 18 months is to the start of the
project. By this definition a person could dig a hole, pour some footings, and
leave for 5 years.
Nary: I think there needs to be some definition as to what commencement is and
that they are continuing to progress along to be able to gauge that. I guess if the
City does not feel that it is being done then there is the revocation process that
they can go through to do that.
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: So maybe just something proceeding in a construction proceeding in an
orderly manner or standard manner.
Nary: I would think it would not be that difficult to give some – again I do not
necessarily think you want to tie a development to some very specific 3 months
this, 6 months that. I think they can give you some construction schedule of
some sort that makes sense that the City can at least use as a guideline.
Because the only option the City really has is revocation, so they would want to
have something to say look we want some idea of what this is going to be and
how long it is going to go. So when that is not happening then we have
something to fall back on and say look now we want to revoke this Conditional
Use Permit. You submitted this general construction plan that said you would
have this much of the project done in 6 months, 8, 10 months, a year, two years,
whatever and that is not happening. You are not at step 3 and it is 3 years into
the project. We have some way to guide that that would make some sense.
Stiles: That is a good idea.
Borup: The underlined passages were designating what?
Stiles: Additions.
Borup: Okay.
Stiles: That is why I had to add the unless otherwise approved by commission
and Council, the 18 months.
Borup: So you added the part on home occupation and childcare.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 5
Stiles: That I added later that the Conditional Use Permits for home occupations
and child care facilities would be required to back through the Public Hearing
process. Those would not be automatically transferred to new property owners.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I was going to ask on that particular point, when the person originally gets
a home occupation permit for childcare or for home occupation does the City
Council have a hearing on that? Now it says to transfer it the City Council has to
have a hearing on it, and that cannot be approved at the staff level? And it does
not come through the commission?
Stiles: A Conditional Use Permit for a childcare facility does come through the
commission and there is a second Public Hearing at City Council.
Nary: Right that is what I thought. This says if you want to transfer it, it only goes
to the City Council.
Stiles: That is how the current Ordinance reads. We used to have a provision in
the Conditional Use Permit section that required anything that came through with
the Conditional Use Permit if they sold that property, they had to get another
Conditional Use Permit. It applied to everything. For example, if somebody
wanted to buy any of the facilities or any of the occupants out of the Family
Center or the Crossroads Center, technically they would of all required to come
back through for a modification of the Conditional Use Permit. That was very
cumbersome particularly in old town where everything was a Conditional Use
Permit, and they would get an office established or a retail space established and
then may have to come back in for a transfer. That is the reason it was changed.
We did not have a problem with them transferring all of those retail/commercial
uses for the intended use and what they were originally approved for. But
because of the home occupation and childcare facilities we need to go through
background checks where the operators of the childcare facilities and also the
home occupation depending on who bought the property. They may think that
well we have a permit for a home occupation so that just means anything we
want to do out of our house is permitted. That was the reason for that.
Nary: Maybe I was not clear. I mean I think it makes sense because I think a
home occupation is most of the time really tied to the individual that is going to
be doing it. I think it makes sense to have it go back to the process. It seems the
language though says it is not going back through the same process everybody
else would have to do to have a Home Occupation Permit. It says if you apply for
a new home occupation permit you apply through planning then you go through
the commission and it goes eventually to the City Council. Is that not the
process?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 6
Stiles: Yes for an original Conditional Use Permit. For a transfer –
Nary: For a home occupancy permit.
Stiles: For home occupation.
Nary: Right, but what this new language says in B is that if you are transferring
it you only go directly to the City Council with one Public Hearing. I guess I was
curious as to why not just have them go through the same process that any other
person who is applying for a new – because they are applying for a new permit.
If it is a new person the circumstances may be different. It does not seem to
make sense to say that that has just so much shortcut to just go immediately to
the City Council. It should have the same process that you would for any person.
I guess that is what I was confused it. I did not understand why. I think it makes
sense to do it. I just do not know why it would only go to the City Council.
Stiles: I guess part of the reasoning for that is they have been through the
process once. They went through two Public Hearings. If they go to transfer it,
they have made all the site plan modifications that they need to make as part of
your review and as part of the Council’s review. Essentially they have the paving,
the landscaping, everything is done, but for example, say the daycare over on
Franklin wanted to sell it and change hands, it just seemed kind of –
Nary: But that is for a home occupation. That is what I am saying, a Home
Occupation Permit is tied to most of the time to the individual homeowner who is
going to operate that business. They are going to operate cutting hair or a nail
salon or whatever it is. Which means they are still living in that home, so when
they transfer, they sell their house and somebody else is going to buy that house
and operate the same kind of business or something similar. I was just saying I
guess it still does not make sense to me that they still should not go through the
same process that everybody else has to go through to get the same permit. I do
not know why you would only have one hearing instead of two. You really
essentially have two hearings, normal for new person; person who buys
somebody’s existing business only has to do one. I guess I am not clear from
what you are saying why that would make anymore sense than for a new person.
Stiles: Well again it is from the existing Ordinance and that is why we added it
back in. I can see what you are saying that the home occupation probably should
require the two Public Hearings. I would still think that the childcare facilities
could go through one, though. Because essentially they are set up and they have
already met the Ordinance requirements and it seems like a lengthy process just
to transfer ownership if you want to sell your business. Is that what you are telling
me, you want me to change –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 7
Nary: I am just bringing it up for discussion. But it just seems to me that it
seems like it is a quicker avenue to buy an existing business if you do not want to
have to go through a lot of Public Hearings. Those are fairly unique which is why
you carved them out, and I do not see why you should get an advantage to buy
an existing business. I think you should still have to go through the same process
that other folks do. I agree that grating and curbing or sidewalks and all that stuff
is probably done, but that is not what most of the folks come to the meeting for.
They do not come to make sure you have a sidewalk. They become because
they do not want that kind of business, it is not compatible to their neighborhood,
those kinds of things. So it does not seem very fair to let someone basically
shortcut one Public Hearing in our process just because the business is already
existing. Because there may be some changes. They may have been an existing
business for 15 years and now different kind of people are running it and people
might have some problems that they do not want to deal with. That is just my
thought.
Borup: But is that not addressed in the Conditional Use Permit process
anyway? If someone is not in compliance it can be revoked.
Nary: I understand all of that. I am just saying I do not know why it would not
come here. I do not know why it would only go to the Council.
Borup: Commissioner Nary is feeling like we are being left out.
Nary: Because we do not have enough to do. So we would like to have more.
Borup: My question is on the transfers, that is transferring for the same
business. A person cannot come in with a whole new business on a transfer,
right?
Stiles: Right. It would have to be basically the same thing that they were doing
before. Some of the home occupations that we have had are a nail salon where
they already have everything, the plumbing is in, and they have the sinks. If they
are cutting hair…
Borup: So it is going to be another hair salon or another like business.
Stiles: If that is your recommendation I can certainly change that.
Borup: Any other comments from other Commissioners? I mean on
Commissioner Nary’s discussion ideas. Okay Item C the recommendation was
for three of those items to be handled on a staff level, which makes sense to me.
Those all look like things we would usually just have the staff handle anyway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 8
Stiles: Yes, because the way it is proposed any of those minor changes would
require Public Hearings at Planning and Zoning Commission. If they are indeed
that minor, I did not think that –
Borup: You are talking about minor relocation of buildings, change in the open
space, and increase building square footage not to exceed 20 percent providing
all of the other parking and landscaping provisions are met.
Stiles: And the way that is written if any of those changes where proposed by
the applicant and there had been public testimony objecting to that part of the
project then we would go ahead and have the Public Hearing. If there were no
objections during the hearing process about the size of a building or a design of
a recreation area or where the buildings were then I felt that we could handle that
at staff level.
Borup: Okay. So really I think there are only three items in this chapter. Those
items that we just talked about, the transfer, and then we talked previously on the
completion time after the beginning of a project.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: On C, why not have number one as the staff, reduction of density. I do not
think most people care if you are reducing density. People usually care when you
are increasing it. That seems to me like something that you could review at the
staff level. Nobody ever comes and says there are just not enough apartments
there or they do not have enough houses in that subdivision. Nobody ever minds
that, so that seems to me like something if the Council wants it obviously but
consider as a staff review.
Stiles: And that would be fine. I would not see the possibility of that happening
ever.
Nary: Well it does not hurt if you do not ask.
Borup: But if it is going to be written it might as well be included in the staff level
approvals anyway, had it not?
Stiles: So we would and 1 –
Borup: Add 1 to that.
Stiles: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 9
Borup: We want to get some public input on this too, but it looks like the other
Chapter 6 has a few more items.
Stiles: Do you want me to just go through those?
Borup: I was trying what would be the best way to facilitate this, and I wonder if
that would. Or some public testimony would move it faster. Which ever would do
the trick.
Norton: There is a lot of explanation but very few changes.
Borup: Right. Do you want to just run through those real quickly, Shari?
Stiles: Okay. Under 12-6-2A2 I just had a narrative comment about the
residential density. That paragraph will be fine as long as – there may be
instances when a Planned Development is primarily office or commercial or
industrial and they may want to include some residential, so it would be
impossible to calculate the maximum number of dwelling units allowed because
the zoning district may not have a maximum. That was just a comment and all of
these things can be taken care of during the Public Hearing process when you
are looking at the overall development, and you can say whether you like it or
not, but that was just a note that there is no maximum density if it is a
commercial, office, or industrial.
Borup: Residential would not normally be allowed in that zone anyway.
Stiles: As a Planned Development they could. They could include some
residential as part of a Planned Development. It would go the same way as far
as a residential development being allowed a 20 percent exclusion for other
uses. A commercial development could also come in and get a 20 percent
exclusion for other uses.
Borup: I think the same meaning can be probably worded there some how. A
dwelling density just needs to be applied to the residential dwelling unit.
Stiles: Like I said that could all be determined during the process.
Borup: Maybe it just needs to be stated something along that line.
Stiles: Then under amenities they have A-F for proposed amenities. That
landscape open space of at least 10 percent of the gross area, they would be
allowed to pick and choose from these six items what they provided as part of
their proposal. Staff believes the 10 percent open space requirement should
apply to all planned developments as it does now. Then under B, the private
active recreational facilities, it may be covered under where it says of a size
suitable to meet the needs of the development. Mrs. Bowcutt had stated an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 10
instance in Boise where the amenity they proposed was a basketball standard at
the end of a stub street.
Borup: My only question there and I agree on the 10 percent, but in a normal
situation if a basketball or tennis court or something is put in or even a
recreational building would that area be subtracted from the 10 percent
normally?
Stiles: I would think it would be considered part of the 10 percent. It is common
area.
Borup: That is what I wanted to clarify because yes it should be, maybe there
needs to be something. A swimming pool or a clubhouse probably would be
worth some trade-offs, something more than a basketball.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess I was curious Shari because I like the explanation of the intent
was that is in this section. But I guess I am not clear, are you wanting us to give
you more direction as to how to make some more amendments because there
are not a lot of amendments in this section. I think the whole intent of the
Planned Development Ordinance is to give you that level of flexibility. That is the
whole purpose of having it, but I guess I am not sure what is it you are wanting? I
think the explanations make sense. Are you wanting us to sort of help fashion
that into what the actual Ordinance says?
Stiles: Yes.
Nary: Or do you think that is what it already says? Like the amenities section I
think is fine because there is a catchall. If somebody comes in and says we will
have a swimming pool and then we are going to put a basketball standard at the
end of the Stub Street, we still can say well that is not really an amenity. That
does not work. So I think the section is okay the way it is because that is the
whole intent to give that level of flexibility. F says well something else you can
think of, but the commission and the Council still gets to say no that does not
work or yes that is fine. I think your explanations are really well done. I am just
not sure if you want more language. Are you asking if it is sufficient the way it is
written compared to what you think it is supposed to say? I guess I am not 100
percent sure that I can answer every one of those today.
Stiles: And I do not expect you to. I cannot expect you to with just being handed
this tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 11
Nary: But is that what you are wanting? Is the Ordinance meaning what the City
of Meridian thinks that is what we mean by that, that is our interpretation of that
Ordinance, does the language here meet that. Is that what you are asking?
Stiles: Yes.
Nary: Okay.
Stiles: Under C you are talking about energy conservation measures. We do not
have any standards for energy conservation measures. This would be very
difficult to quantify without having any standards established. For example, could
not an awning be considered an energy conservation measure? Without defining
the above and establishing standards this would be a very difficult provision to
gauge. I do not know if Boise City, I know that some jurisdictions have their solar
Ordinances, and I just do not know who would be the person that would be able
to answer that on staff or even in the building department. I wonder whether that
should be taken out in its entirety. Do you have any comments on that? Do you
think it should stay in?
Borup: I think it could be judged at the time, what the energy conservation item
is by the commission. I agree I would not include an awning as appropriate. Then
you have Item M.
Stiles: Right. There just will be instances where somebody comes in and will
propose the standard at the end of a stub street and sticking an awning on or
they might have a 20-foot pathway that goes to the school and say there is our
planned development.
Borup: I think that is what we are here for.
Stiles: Okay.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess that one of the things that might be helpful too is so
that Mr. Moore has something to do as well that some of these things are
interpretations of the Ordinance. It might be very helpful for the legal staff to also
have that time to look through it to say that from the legal perspective we are
going to defend that. If we are going to deny somebody a project and they are
going to claim that they have complied with the Ordinance and we have been
arbitrary in making that decision or the City Council is arbitrary in making that
decision I think it would be helpful at this stage when you are looking at drafting
and changing it for the legal staff to provide that input too. That they think there
needs to be a little bit stronger language or definition or as you suggest if we
really cannot define it then maybe we do not need to have it. I do not necessarily
want to take it out because you certainly want people to be creative and you are
giving them examples of things that we would consider to be an amenity. I think if
somebody says we are going to have energy conservation by having metal
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 12
siding that does not necessarily mean that that is good enough or that is the
appropriate amenity for the project. So that might be helpful if we are going to
look at this again at the next meeting or the one after that or whatever that might
be real helpful Mr. Moore or if your office has time for that.
Stiles: That would be great.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to jump back to Conditional Use and just ask you why you
struck out Item O on the second page.
Stiles: The City had previously required applicants to come in and file a
reassessment agreement whenever they hooked up to sewer and water. Saying
that after a year’s period the City would reexamine what their fees were their
equivalent residential use, and what the historical use was. Obviously they are
going to have to pay the sewer, water, and trash fees, and it is kind of redundant
to tell them that they have to have a statement saying that they will when they
will have too.
Centers: I understand.
Centers: Shari, back on the amenities, the way this is written now it stated that
a person can choose two or more of these, so theoretically they could do some
of the other amenities without having the open space.
Stiles: They could argue for that yes.
Centers: And you would be more in favor of keeping the 10 percent open
space in as a standard requirement and then perhaps allowing some trade-offs
for some other amenities.
Stiles: Well, if they are only required to have two, I think that one of them should
be the 10 percent. Ten percent is not a lot when it comes to these planned
developments.
Centers: I mean if someone added a swimming pool and a jogging path, then
you are saying that would be on top of the 10 percent, or could that be
considered a trade-off for a reduction in the 10 percent?
Stiles: If they had just swimming pool and jogging path those should be
considered part of the 10 percent.
Centers: But not necessarily a reduction in the 10 percent.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 13
Borup: Well I can see some substantial amenities could qualify for a reduction if
every project is going to be different. Let us get some testimony later on that.
Stiles: Moving on to the driveway, streets, and pathways under Item 6, our
current Ordinance in the section that is referenced in that paragraph needs to be
updated to delete the reference to State Department of Highways and reflect
current right-of-way widths. There is an actual table in that section that shows the
widths for expressways, arterials, collectors, and those standards are not current.
They do not meet today’s requirements, so I would propose that we need to redo
that section. Also just reference a compliance with Ada County Highway District
and Idaho Transportation Department standards. Also, we have no standards for
private streets, and we to develop those standards. We do not have anything
about minimum widths, the method of construction of those streets, how many
units should access that street, those types of things, and I think if we are going
to get involved in a lot of private streets we do need to update that. That was just
a comment for your use.
Borup: So you saying you feel if that is in compliance with ACHD and ITD that
we would not need to have specific street widths, etc. It would be in compliance
with them and if they change we would not have to change our Ordinance.
Stiles: I think we need to change that section of the Ordinance, and I think we
do need to have some standards for private streets because we do not have any.
Borup: But other than the private streets the other would handle complying with
those two agencies –
Stiles: And take out the table that is existing there now.
Borup: Right, okay that is what I was trying -- so essentially say comply with
those and then add some private street standards.
Stiles: And by the next meeting that you have I will have the actual other two
pages. You may have noticed in your packet there were two pages that were
submitted for proposed amendments to other sections of the Ordinance. It is a
little confusing because the way it was typed it is not really written to show
underlines and strike throughs, and I will get that fixed so you have a better idea.
It is a little difficult to read right now. As far as the private street, I did not have
any private street standards established or maybe if some of you had some
ideas of where to go, or if somebody had a good private street standard that we
could incorporate into our Ordinance it would help. Under 12-6-32, no more than
20 percent of the total area of the project shall be devoted to the uses permitted
by the exception. Again I guess I did not need the narrative below that. The
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council could say 20 percent is too
much for this project or we do not feel it is really going to be supported by the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 14
rest of development, so I guess that was just a narrative. It is no comment really
needed on that. Under 12-6-4B3, I had added that the Council might grant a
waiver of the amenity requirement with the recommendation from the
Commission, so that they did not get through your process and did not get to City
Council and propose some waiver that had already been approved. Under 12-6-
6 that is just a little change in the wording. The way it was previously the public
benefit was by allowing site design flexibility that is not really a public benefit. It
would be a developer benefit. That the increased efficiency of the use of land in
public services was more for infill developments rather than all planned
developments. Again, under Item 3 the private streets would need to be
approved by Council and we need to develop some standards because it talks
about if designed and constructed to the standards of section 12-4-2-C. There
are none really or anything that is there is likely not even accurate anymore. I
made a suggested revision to item 6 that the conditions of approval shall be
consistently applied to each phase of the development unless specifically agreed
to other wise during the approval process or unless modified per section 11-17-
10. That way we can avoid a request after the fact of someone wanting to
change a condition and think that they can just get on the agenda for City
Council and get that changed. They would have to go through the process to
modify it. They need to spell out what they want during the process and if they
want something different then they would need to modify through another Public
Hearing process. Under 7, it is talking about the residential density bonus. I went
through several different scenarios on this to see how it would work out. It is not
clear whether the intent was a donation of land or a sell of land for the public
school or park or fire station or recreational facility. In either case, the dedication
should be encouraged as noted above. However, an applicant could try to
manipulate the density of a project by proposing a dedication of more than 50
percent the land. While the scenario would be rare, we do need to consider
these adverse scenarios that may arise by this provision and may wish to
consider adding something regarding the percentage of dedicated land to the
total project. For example, somebody if they came in with say a 40-acre project.
They are going to donate or dedicate 30 acres of that for a middle school site or
something, so they are only going to develop 10 acres. With this density bonus
the way it is written, they could develop that 10 acres at 16.4 units per acre.
Borup: Is that 10 percent bonus? It says the bonus shall not exceed 10 percent
of the amount permitted.
Stiles: The way it is written is they have 10 acres they can develop. They have
the other 30 acres. Say it is an R-4, 10x4 is 40 plus 10 percent would be 44 plus
the 30 acres they would be able to develop 120 units 30x4 would be another 120
–
Borup: On the whole parcel then, okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 15
Stiles: Like I say, it would rare but that would be a possibility if somebody did
that and it may not be bad.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Yes, I was going to say following with Commissioner Centers saying, I
could probably see a few a developers wanting to ask for a variance to have –
especially submit a plan and application that exceeds the allowed units per acre
with request for a variance. Unless you have language in here, what would be
applied without a variance? Because you do not want somebody coming in with
an application that exceeds the allowed units per acre with simply a waiver
application or a variance application as part of it and then decide to use that as
the trade off for the density bonus. Okay, we will take these outs, they would not
be allowed for anyway. I think you would want to have some language to make it
clear both what Commissioner Centers is talking about, and to make sure it only
applies to the land that is going to be developed. Or it would be the land not
including any waiver or type of variance or something like that. So we do not
have someone basically over extending the property as a means to trade it off
back the other way. Does that make sense?
Stiles: I am not sure I quite follow what you are saying.
Nary: I was just saying because sometimes we do see developers asking for a
variance or a waiver whether it is density or something else. So I think what you
would want to have in your Ordinance is that clearly if what you are dealing with
is you want the density bonus to apply to the land that is being developed not the
land that is being dedicated away as Commissioner Centers talks about. Then
you want to make that clear. What I am saying is that also sometimes they ask
for a waiver or variance to develop more density than would normally be allowed.
I would not want them to trade that off as well against this density bonus.
Basically, come in and ask for an R-4 with a request for a waiver to put 5.2 units
per acre as a way to then say I will take that 10 percent out, I will go back down
to the 4, and we still have an over crowded development. The intent of using this
density bonus is to get them to dedicate the land, so that is what you are
wanting. I was just thinking that you would want to make it clear both ways that it
is just the land being developed –
***End Of Side One***
Nary: -- variance that could be granted that is just that land that is going to be
developed in what ever the appropriate zone or whatever the existing zone is.
Stiles: So are you saying that the density bonus should not apply to the
dedicated portion of the land?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 16
Centers: That is my opinion. Why can you not just strike out plus the number of
units that could have been placed on the dedicated land? Strike out the last part
of that sentence.
Borup: You are saying just remove the 10 percent.
Centers: No leave it. Do you see the sentence? Where it starts with the word
plus after the comma? Just strike that out from there to the period.
Borup: Oh, you are saying that is all they are going to get is the 10 percent.
Centers: Right.
Borup: Not much of an incentive then.
Centers: Why should they get the – on the dedicated part they get 10 percent on
what they – but I think Shari’s example is pretty extreme that they are going to
dedicate 75 percent of the 40 acres or 50 percent.
Stiles: And it really does not get bad until you get to over a 50 percent scenario.
Even with the way this is written, most developments would be between 4 and 8
units per acre. So I kind of hate to take out the part about the undedicated
portion of the land because it is a real incentive, but this was more to make you
aware of what could happen. What we see might happen.
Centers: Then I think you need to have a maximum of, up to a maximum of.
Stiles: No more than the 50 percent of the total project may be dedicated. I
think that would take of it.
Centers: More could be dedicated, but you would not get credit for more than 50
percent.
Stiles: Yes that is a good idea. But I think that is a good incentive for dedication
to keep that in there just maybe clarify.
Borup: Just maybe credit up to 50 percent.
Centers: Do you really think it is important that it is clear whether they have sold
the land or donated the land?
Borup: I do.
Centers: A lot of the times the sell of the land is at cost or (inaudible) that land to
develop it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 17
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Shari, I had a question regarding your fee structure. In your letter you
had suggested that a fee structure accompany this Ordinance. Is that correct?
Stiles: That we propose a fee increase as part of this planned development?
Norton: Yes.
Stiles: Yes.
Norton: Does it go on the Ordinance, your fees?
Stiles: No, it would be separate. We do have to have a Public Hearing for any
increase in fees.
Norton: Okay, so we need another Public Hearing for your increase in your
suggested fees?
Stiles: Yes. The fees would really just need to go before a Public Hearing at City
Council.
Norton: Just through the City Council, okay. Thank you.
Stiles: But if you have any comments about that proposal.
Norton: What are the previous fees?
Stiles: The fees that are being charged now for planned developments are the
same as those for annexation and zoning, so if they came in for annexation and
zoning it is $400 for the first acre, $10 for each additional acre.
Norton: Okay. And for non-resident buildings?
Stiles: It is just based on acreage right now.
Norton: Everything is based on acreage, okay. So your proposed fee structure
for people who are not looking at this is $400 plus $10 per residential unit?
Stiles: Yes.
Norton: And then $400 plus $10 per residential unit plus $0.06 per square foot
for non-residential buildings.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 18
Stiles: Yes.
Norton: Okay. Thank you.
Stiles: And probably also consider a maximum, considering some of the huge
developments that are coming in. They may have a huge fee. There is an
example of a proposal at Ustick and Eagle with the square footage of what they
are proposing it would probably be a fee of over $30,000. We probably want to
set a maximum.
Norton: For the residential unit, what percentage increase is that for your fees?
Stiles: As part of planned development it is $400 plus $10 per acre.
Borup: Per acre and here it would be $10 per unit.
Stiles: Right. So it would be a significant increase.
Norton: Thank you.
Centers: It all depends on how dense. But presently there is nothing on non-
residential buildings, on a square footage basis.
Stiles: No.
Borup: And I remember that came up before where there is a lot of time spent
reviewing some of those projects with nothing in the fees to cover it.
Stiles: It used to be that we only charged the $275 for a Conditional Use Permit.
For example, the family center that is what they did. They paid the $275, and that
has been in staff time before we even got the packets copied, I think. That was
another reason for wanting to change those fees. All of our fees our going to be
changed, since this had come up I did put together what our proposal was for
just the planned development portion of it.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: The next item is on the Concept Plan.
Stiles: And that was just a narrative comment. It is great that somebody could be
able to come through a Concept Plan. That has not really been done in the past,
and then they would still come back in with their detailed plans with the future
planned development Conditional Use Permit. That was just letting you know
where our current Ordinance was and that this was a change from what we do
today. Changed on C, it did say phasing plan should be included, and we felt it
was important enough that they shall be included as part of the project
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 19
particularly when it comes to services and timing of utilities. We need to know
what those phases are and how the construction is going to proceed. Then under
the term of permits, initiation of work needs to be defined in our ordinance. Again
it could be like the cutting of a street or just pouring a foundation. Certain
improvements will need to be completed with the first phase, and prior to first
occupancy under sections of the Ordinance dealing with development time
requirements will need to be reviewed to see if this conflicts with any of those
provisions. Then see the comments under the Conditional Use Permit portion,
and again those can all be set out during the Public Hearing process and
conditions placed on the development at that time. I will have the other proposed
amendments to the rest of the ordinance ready well before your next meeting
and again I apologize I am sorry for the lengthy comments here.
Borup: I would like to proceed with some public testimony and maybe get some
additional notes. I do not know if we had anybody other than Mrs. Bowcutt that
was prepared to testify in this. Let me just ask the row first, do we have anyone
else? Am I making an assumption that you would like to say something Becky?
Okay good. Would you like to come forward?
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale, Boise. Just to kind of give
you an idea of how this Ordinance came about. Myself and your staff have talked
for 4 or 5 years on how inadequate your Planned Development Ordinance was
and how difficult it was to work with. The Ordinance was written in the 1970s and
over time a lot of changes have taken place as far as planning and planned
developments and Conditional Uses and how they are handled and evaluated. In
1999 your staff hired a consultant, Carla Olsen, to come up with a draft
Ordinance. She had been a senior planner for the City of Boise for many years,
and she drafted an Ordinance. It kind of laid around since 1999, and when I
began my Bridgetower project we asked your staff if we could take a look at that
and try to get that thing up and moving and before this body for review. Because
we felt that it was important and the time is right that that Ordinance be updated
and adopted by the City. In doing this, Mrs. Olsen had written this Ordinance in
just a rough draft form. It was based on the old format of your Ordinance. I took it
and put it in more of a codified format like your current Ordinance so it made
sense. I reviewed the City of Boise’s planned development Conditional Use
chapters. Ada County adopted a new Ordinance. I reviewed theirs also. I have
also worked with other Conditional Use chapters and Planned Developments in
other cities, so I am pretty aware of what seems to be working and what does not
work. There was no sense to reinvent the will here. Boise’s Planned
Development Ordinance has been very successful. It promotes flexibility. They
have also utilized it as a control mechanism on development as far as amenities,
densities, and just protection of the City. When you read through like this
Conditional Use chapter for example in your current Ordinance I think yours is
three or four pages, there is like three or four different findings that you are
obligated to make. One is like -- will in fact constitute a Conditional Use as
determined by the City. The way this one is written it lays out what those
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 20
Findings of Facts should be under current standards in reviewing open space,
traffic circulation, adverse impact, and compatibility. It sets forth guidelines for the
Planning and Zoning commission and the City Council in reviewing these
applications. It also specifies what information must be submitted and gives you
what we call supplementary conditions or safe guards that you may impose on
developments. As you are well aware under Conditional Use applications the
commission has as much latitude as is specified in the Ordinance. So the way
this is written it gives the commission that power to come out and deny an
applicant saying your amenities due not qualify based on the magnitude of your
project, or your calculations in your 10 percent open space do not meet our
definition under our Landscape Ordinance and what can be calculated and what
cannot. Those mechanisms are in the document. Jumping to the Planned
Development chapter –
Borup: Could we go back to the Conditional Use? I felt that probably the only
thing that we had much of a question on was what you mentioned under safe
guards, and that is on the time period. Do you have any comment on that? On
the 18 months?
Bowcutt: On the time period.
Borup: 11-17-4B.
Bowcutt: 11-17-4B, what I would recommend is a Conditional Use Permit when
granted shall be valid for a maximum period. So that would give you the latitude,
obviously I want your attorneys review this language to make sure that if you had
a situation where it was imperative that that development construction take place
within 12 months you had the authority to impose that. Shari had concerns about
phasing, someone built one office building, they proposed 10, and they sit and
wait for 10 years. You could put in there –
Borup: I do not know if that was a concern as much as starting a project and not
completing it.
Bowcutt: I think she had questions on both. Starting and completing. As far as
multi-phased I thought one could add if there is multiple phases in the project
subsequent phases shall be submitted within one year of the expiration of
whatever that time table is that the commission would impose on them. Whether
it is 12 months or 18 months, so if they built one building and a year lapses they
have to come back through. The 18 months that is used by the City of Boise. It
seems to work quite well. 12 months is a real short time period when you are
dealing with a very complex project or dealing with some unique agency
problems. We have used every day of that 18-month time frame in some of the
projects that I have done in the City of Boise. That is just how long it took us to
get everything in order.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 21
Borup: I think the other question was on that it just needs to commence.
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: Perhaps adding something like commence and proceed in a continuous
and diligent manner or something like that.
Bowcutt: I think so and give the Planning and Zoning commission the power to
revoke the permit. I think the example of the Smith’s Food King at the corner of
Fairview and Maple Grove is a good example. They started construction and
then they stopped. So if you had an incident like that you would need some teeth
that you could revoke their Conditional Use Permit, make them demo whatever
has been placed or completed or sell it or whatever. I think the City of Boise,
Commissioner Nary is probably well aware, is trying to struggle with that issue
right now. So I think we can learn from some of the mistakes from some of the
other cities.
Borup: Chapter six.
Bowcutt: Oh, excuse me chapter –
Borup: Is there anything else on the other?
Bowcutt: I agree with Shari as far as what would be staff level and what would be
commission level. If we have something that is pretty simple, non-controversial
as Shari said we had no public testimony in opposition to that particular issue. If
it could be handled on a staff level your staff is pretty conservative. If they feel
something is not minor possibly over that line, we come back to Public Hearings,
so I feel pretty confident that that would work. Jumping to the Planned
Development there was question if in a LO zone or C-G or C-N if somebody
where to propose a 20 percent exception, and let me just explain how that 20
percent exception works. Under your old Planned Development whatever was
specified on the Comprehensive Plan, whatever zoning designation either was
existing or allowed based on the Comprehensive Plan you were stuck with that
type of development. What happens is you end up putting single-family dwellings
up at major arterial intersections because they say designated single-family. We
had no flexibility at all to try to mix our uses even though it made sense when we
are trying to create communities with say neighborhood commercial or
neighborhood office and then some residential or maybe a mixture of some multi-
family or townhomes or whatever the case my be. Your Ordinance would not
allow that because as Shari stated the underlying zone was the one that
dominated, and you had to comply. Really your current Planned Development
Ordinance is really does not provide any flexibility that we need. The 20 percent
exception states if you bring in a project even though say on the Comprehensive
Plan it is designated single-family development. You may and I want to emphasis
may petition for 20 percent of that to be an exception which would be not a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 22
standard principle permitted use in that zone. So maybe you propose a couple of
office buildings at an intersection versus sticking homes up, or maybe some
duplexes or something like that even though your underlying zone maybe an R-
4. The way the document is written it is up to this body and the Council to
determine if that is appropriate. The findings are set forth. Obviously, if you felt
that capacity did not exist for whatever use they were proposing, the intensity
was too great, or the neighborhood opposition swayed you to believe that that
would adversely affect the adjoining properties, you have the ability to deny that
and say no, we will not allow that. So that is one advantage. Concerning the
energy conservation that was incorporated. That is in the City of Boise. Shari has
a good point; you guys do not have a solar access Ordinance. I guess it could be
omitted or it could be further defined. In my experiences with the other
jurisdictions I have never seen this option utilized, but that does not mean that
somebody over the past 10 years has not come in with solar panels and said this
qualifies. I do not know. I have never seen it. The private street standards, your
Ordinance sets forth a table that lists standards that are more like public streets.
I guess the City of Meridian needs to make the decision. In the past they have
always frowned on private streets. They have been utilized in two ways; one, on
a commercial project; two, they have been utilized for senior projects. In both of
those projects I believe we still met the minimum standard in that table because
we had no choice. If you are looking for some type of guidance on private streets
and you want to specify, the best table out there is the City of Boise’s because it
is based on the number of units. So the number of units dictates the width of the
right-of-way for the private road. It specifies that sidewalks are still required, and
it also requires a waiver by the City Council. So only under certain circumstances
if it can be justified is the private road allowed. Concerning the 20 percent, the 20
percent has kind of been that standard that has been used throughout other
jurisdictions. Shari said you might want to consider a lesser percentage.
Obviously, it would be discretionary and if one could put a clause in there, it says
no more than 20 percent --
Borup: It says no more. It does not say it has to be 20 percent, so I think it
would be up to the commission and the City Council each time.
Bowcutt: It is up to the commission. If they feel 20 percent on a particular project
is pushing the envelope they could always say that is too much. We will give you
15 percent or 12 percent but not 20 percent. In the issue of the density bonus,
that particular section you could take out that last sentence and just have it read
10 percent, the bonus shall not exceed 10 percent of the units permitted by the
zone on the undedicated portion of the land. That would give some incentive, but
not as much as the way it is written. I do see Shari’s concern there. We find with
new Ordinances that there are some things we do not think about, and then an
instance comes up and you kick yourself, why did we write that in that fashion?
Borup: Well again it says may be given. It does not say it is required.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 23
Bowcutt: That is true. It does say may be, so that does give you guys the
latitude. Also one important thing that Shari brought up and highlighted is the
issue of a concept plan. We cannot bring concept plans before this body the way
your current Ordinance is written. With the concept plans and how they would
work is one could bring in an overall concept for a large planned development.
You would not submit any elevations of the commercial or office buildings or
even the multi-family. It would be optional obviously, but you would be required or
it would be up to the commission to impose them to come back in with a detailed
site plan showing them more information. That is kind of how the City of Boise
works. If we go through conceptual approval we come back with a site-specific
conditional use. The only exception to that is for single-family developments, but
single-family developments this specifies they have to come through with a
subdivision plat, which then would give you the detail of dimensions and etc. as
specified in you current Ordinance. The beauty of the concept plan is we can
come in with less expense, and you guys can give us guidance on what direction
you want us to take. It is very costly when we have a lot detailed plans, and we
come in and we are going in the wrong direction. You say hey that is not what we
intended, and we cannot support that. So that provides that flexibility. As far as
the question on initiation of work, there should probably be some type of
definition because that is one item that could get tested. So some definition of
what constitutes initiation. What triggers that Conditional Use application as far
as its validity within that 12 or 18 month time period, we should specify that
because there has been confusion with the City of Boise. It has been
discretionary left up to the planning director. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Just one I had, the definition of dedication that was back on the density
bonus. Have any of the other City Ordinances defined that at all?
Bowcutt: I am sure there is some definitions out there. I do not have one in my
pocket at this time.
Borup: What did you have in mind? Do you have a thought on what you thought
it meant?
Bowcutt: Well, there are two sides of it like was brought up before. There are
developers who will sell these sites at cost. That is just raw ground cost and does
not include providing sewers and streets and so forth. So in my opinion that is
somewhat of a dedication. They are forgoing the profit on that property, and they
are spending money to provide services to the parcel. I know the School Districts
need as many incentives as they can to convince the development community to
incorporate these school sites in these projects. If this could be fashioned that
there was a little bit of an incentive to do so I think everyone would benefit, but
you would have to obviously specify what constitutes a dedication, whether it be
gift or whether at raw land costs and provide evidence to that fact.
Borup: Or a combination of both.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 24
Bowcutt: That is correct. That is how I would handle it.
Borup: Again that is something that could probably be handled, commission
that information could be obtained.
Bowcutt: Yes sir.
Borup: In my mind for it to be any type of concession it would have to be, I
mean it definitely would not be at full retail value or there is no concessions.
Bowcutt: Correct. I agree.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners?
Centers: But conversely it does not have to be a gift.
Borup: No.
Bowcutt: No, but if they are not making any profit I think that is what
Commissioner Borup is getting at.
Borup: Any questions Mrs. Bowcutt from the Commissioners?
Centers: For the most part you agree with Shari. It sounds to me like.
Bowcutt: I think it is just a matter of clarification and definition. I think she is pretty
happy that this is getting moving, and I know that we are excited about it.
Centers: I would like for the audience’s sake the very short definition of a
planned development compared to a planned unit development. Because most
subdivisions in the area are PUDs, technically. They have homeowner dues. A
planned development basically allows more density. It allows mixed use etc., etc.
Borup: By federal government definitions they are. Is that what you are saying?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: That they have a Homeowners Association under HUD is a PUD.
Centers: Right, you have to have a rider to the deed of trusts that says it is a
planned unit development. So I do not think the audience should be confused
with a standard subdivision that may have a planned unit development rider.
Bowcutt: I see.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 25
Centers: Do you follow me?
Bowcutt: Yes.
Centers: There is night and day difference. I guess we just explained it.
Borup: I think we have enough input to go ahead and get this written. Any other
input you wanted Shari?
Stiles: If in the next week or two any of you have any comments after you have
had a chance to review this and want me to add something or change something
I will put together another packet for you and get those other amendments
together so you can see if you want to proceed.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Perhaps our legal department could make comments to Shari within a
couple of weeks, would that work?
Moore: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Norton certainly we would try to do it in
two weeks. If we could have a month it would certainly be a lot easier I
guarantee you.
Borup: Has the legal department had a copy of this?
Moore: We have had a copy for a short period of time. Of course we have not
had Shari’s changes that she has made in it until tonight. We would like to get
the rest of her changes as soon as we possibly could.
Borup: Because I think we got our first copy a month and a half ago.
Nary: Chairman Borup, I cannot imagine we can take this up on April 5, 2001
because it seems like the stack is pretty high for April 5, 2001 anyway.
Borup: Before we proceed on I asked this earlier, but is there anybody else that
had any testimony on this? I think most of the people in the audience would like
to get this over with. It is more a bit of a housekeeping thing that is necessary for
us to get taken care, and we appreciate everyone’s patience. Commissioners do
we have a motion for a continuance?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 26
Norton: I move to continue the Public Hearing ZA01-001 request for
consideration of amendments to Title 12, Chapter 6, Planned Development and
Title 11, Chapter 17, Conditional Uses of Meridian City Ordinance to April 19,
2001
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
5. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2001: AZ 00-023 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R-4 for proposed
Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of
Victory Road and west of Eagle Road: Continue to April 19, 2001
6. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2001: CUP 00-052
Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential
Development in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and
west of Eagle Road: Continue to April 19, 2001
7. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2001: PP 00-024 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval for 353 building lots and 39 other lots on
156.21 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – south of Victory Road and
west of Eagle Road: Continue to April 19, 2001
Borup: There was some discussion on perhaps we may want to consider
handling these one at a time rather than opening all three at once. I do not know
if there is any other input from any of the Commissioners along that line. First
item is a continued Public Hearing request for annexation and zoning of 156.21
acres from RT to R-4 for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II
Partnership.
Nary: Mr. Chairman was that because it is such a large project? Is that the
concern? It seems really difficult for folks here three different times.
Borup: That is the main concern.
Nary: I guess my feeling is that the record is the record, but I would just hate to
have to have folks get up at three different times to comment on it. It makes it
awfully confusing for them. It is no less confusing for us to do them all together,
then it is to do them one at time. I think we have to do it separately by motion on
how we resolve them and decide on them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 27
Borup: Let us go ahead and open items 5, 6, and 7. 6 is a continued Public
Hearing for Conditional Use Permit for the same planned residential
development, Tuscany Lakes. Item 7 is the continued Public Hearing request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 353 building lots. I will open those public hearings
and start with staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup if you will forgive us we had a little technical
difficulty here with the Laptop, and I think it would be a benefit to everybody to
see the project on the screen so it will be just a couple of seconds. Thank you.
Chairman Borup and members of the commission, Item 5 here is a general
vicinity map for the proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. For orientation we
have Victory road here along the north, existing development Thousand Springs
Subdivision and Sherbrooke Hollows. South Locust Grove Road here, the bold
outline here is the Preliminary Plat that is proposed which is identical to the
annexation boundary request here. South Eagle Road here, there is just a small
portion of an existing drive that touches Eagle Road, for the most part it is a
quarter of a mile in to the west. The request to annex all of it from the existing
rural urban transition zone to R-4, rural four dwelling units per acre. The full
acreage would be rezoned to that Meridian zone. A couple of site photos as the
land is existing. Looking to the north on these. In terms of the annexation
application since I believe you did open all three of them, correct?
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: So I will just go ahead and hit all three applications. We do have
our staff report dated March 13, 2001 from Steve Siddoway and Bruce
Freckleton, which does have some recommended conditions as well as hitting on
some issues for annexation. The plat is here on the screen and just for general
orientation for you in the audience, again we have a collector road coming in
here off of South Locust Grove Road, which starts about a half of a mile down off
of Victory. There are some community pods here off of the main collector, some
culdesacs. We have the Ten Mile drain which runs here, and then the collector
continues with some more residentials, some common lots used for storm water
retention here and here. This is the Eight Mile Lateral here with some proposed
open space, about a 4 or 5 acre open space piece here just west of the Eight
Mile. The project continues then to the east having this residential section here.
The Ridenbaugh Canal is this large strip here which is actually outside of the
boundaries of the plat, but the boundary here is representing the eastern
easement line of the Ridenbaugh. Then there is about a 20ft section that runs in
here that I believe Kent Brown, the applicant’s representative can give more
details on what that 20ft is used for. This area here is a proposed approximately
12-acre site for the Meridian school, elementary school site. The access is
proposed to be here along the north, and then continued residential pods with
some open space, storm water retention areas, and this pathway here. I will just
hit a couple of points from the staff report. On page 2 under the annexation and
zoning comments, emergency access, there is a recommendation that a second
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 28
emergency access is still needed. The proposal is to phase this project beginning
here along South Locust Grove. This would be the phase 1 and then moving
east. I believe the eastern half of the project would start on Victory Road and sort
of be constructed south. That is sort of the phasing that they are talking about.
The emergency access as you can see there is just one access onto South
Locust Grove. We had some concern about the number of lots that would be built
with only one access of the subdivision there. We are recommending that no
more than 100 lots be developed within the subdivision until a second access is
provided. There is some question as to where the second access can be in this
design, and that would be somewhat up to the Ada County Highway District as
well as Meridian Fire Department and what they feel is appropriate. They feel
that 100 lots is appropriate, Meridian Fire District.
Borup: How many lots are in that first phase? Or do you know?
Hawkins-Clark: I do not know off hand. I will leave that up to the applicant to
address.
Borup: But the project as a whole would have –
Hawkins-Clark: 353 --
Borup: With two entrances.
Hawkins-Clark: -- in terms of total. That is correct, as this project stands alone.
There would be – there are stub streets that are currently proposed in about six
locations. There is a stub street here that heads out towards Eagle Road. There
is a stub street on the south here. There is a stub street right here that would
potentially head up to Victory. There is a Stub Street down here, another one that
would head south. At this point until surrounding lots would develop or redevelop
this project would just have the South Locust Grove. That of course is up to
commission and Council as to what number of lots you feel is appropriate. We do
have in our comments to ask that to be discussed as part of the public record.
Woodbridge subdivision had a similar condition for those of you that were not
serving on the commission. That was agreed upon that there would be a
requirement. I believe that was about 120 lots before they had to have a
secondary. Idaho Power has commented that this subdivision cannot be served
with any power until after September 1, 2001, and that date is dependant on
Idaho Power getting approval for a new substation in time for construction in the
summer of 2002. They have stated that they do not necessarily want to
recommend denial of this, but they do have concerns about the timing and the
power for the site. The sewer issue I believe is outlined there, and I leave that for
Bruce Freckleton to address as he needs to here after I am done. Page 3, there
are just three things that I would point out there. We do have for the school siting
here, I believe Steve has had discussion with Wendell Bigham and the Meridian
School District that the location is really not of great concern. The only concern
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 29
for them may be that access here close to this public road curve may be
somewhat troublesome for safety and bus radius turns and things like that. Steve
does raise a safety concern about the proximity to the Ridenbaugh Canal, which
is here. I do not believe the School District shares that concern. Then the third
bullet point on that page 3, there are still some unresolved issues related to the
pathway and the public use and maintenance of those. There are no pathways
currently shown on the plan so that will certainly need some discussion. We
asked for one addition that the commission make if you motion on this is to ask
for a pathway that would essentially start here at Victory and would run within a
20ft easement here along the Ridenbaugh all the way down. This would be
approximately about a half of a mile pathway that could be accessed from
Victory, and kids could follow that down to the school site. It could continue on
here. So we would ask that that not necessarily be a 10ft wide, paved pathway
but that it be a condition of approval. The final point on that page is the wetlands.
This lot down here in the very south boundary of the subdivision is an apparent
wetland that has not been deemed as such by the core of engineers, but we are
asking that the applicant provide the City a letter from the core regarding the
status of that. Just one item on page 4 that might effect design. The Dartmoore,
which is the collector street here, is currently not shown on the plat at the
collector width of I believe 66ft. It is still shown at just a 50ft, so that may impact
the amount of open space because they are counting all of these landscape
strips adjacent to this collector as open space. The applicant should address
that, and of course Ada County Highway District will need to comment on the
exact width that they are asking for. On page 6 number 13, I just wanted to point
out that we do have a letter from a Mr. Allen Malaise dated January 10th
that was
sent to the City regarding irrigation ditch issues, and that should certainly be
addressed as part of the record. Finally, I would just add –
***End of side two***
Hawkins-Clark: -- lots that they are using to calculate the open space. Are those
going to be left simply as natural unimproved areas, or are they going to be
designed and planted with native trees and shrubs or provided with irrigation? All
of those issues need to be confirmed before we can consider the 10 percent
open space as allowable. I think that is all I have at this point. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman, Brad, what plat do you have on there at this time? Is that
the one from the 26th
of January, do you know?
Hawkins-Clark: This plat is – yes, right – September 26th
was the original plat
that was submitted with this application. This is the revised plat that submitted
January 26, 2001.
Norton: Okay, so this is the plat that you are discussing on your comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 30
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Norton: I did not know if there was a newer plat where the school had been
moved north more.
Hawkins-Clark: It has been shifted up just a little bit.
Norton: And it looks according to this.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Norton: Okay, thanks.
Borup: Anyone else? Do we have some comments from the Public Works
Department?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, Commissioner
Norton you might recall the previous plat had the school site adjacent to the
southern boundary. It had a stub street going across the tail end of that triangular
parcel, so the school site has been shifted north. The road now connects through
to the bottom, bypassing that triangular parcel now.
Norton: Thank you.
Freckleton: I guess the only thing I wanted to touch on was under annexation
and zoning site specific comments on page 2 and 3, sewer and water issues.
You might recall from previous hearings that the applicant was proposing to
sewer this project contrary to how our facility plan showed this area being
served. We have addressed that issue. They have done some redesign. They
submitted a revised sewer layout to us a week ago. We turned that in to our
consultant for analysis. We do not have any results on that analysis yet so we
are still kind of up in the air. On the water situation, we are up in the air on that
analysis as well. Our consultant is out on some medical leave right now, so I am
kind of having some trouble getting that analysis run. Those issues as far as
Public Works is concerned, we would like to request that this be continued until
we can get those analysis’s back. The are very significant issues in our minds. I
just offer that up.
Borup: At first on those is there anything of great concern to you at this point? I
mean I realize you have not gotten those back, but is there anything that the City
staff –
Freckleton: We do have some concerns. Some of the concerns are with their
proposal certain properties will not have access to the sewer unless other lines
are ran to provide service to those other parcel, adjacent parcels. The way the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 31
facility plan showed it being sewered basically everything on the west side of the
Ridenbaugh sewered to back to Locust Grove and then north to Victory and
down west to where we could get into the Ten Mile drain. Everything on the east
side of the Ridenbaugh Canal sewered out the northwest corner by the
Ridenbaugh and then down Victory Road to the Ten Mile drain.
Borup: They are still proposing to sewer –
Freckleton: They are proposing to sewer the whole thing out to Locust Grove to
the west and then north. So that is their northwest corner up there of
undeveloped property would be bypassed.
Borup: So that is the main concern. But they are still both going to the same
trunk line, but by not bringing a line down Victory you are eliminating some of the
properties.
Freckleton: That is one concern. The other is just that we would have equal level
of service ability to properties beyond this project.
Borup: And without a trunk line going down Victory that may be a problem.
Freckleton: We do not know. That is what the analysis can tell us.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: And as far as the water situation –
Borup: So at this point the developer would be putting in the line down Locust
Grove and the line down Victory to follow the –
Freckleton: To follow the facility plan that we had done. Yes, they would be
putting two lines in. It would split at the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory,
and you would have one line running east picking up the eastern side at the
Ridenbaugh Canal roughly, and then they would have a line going south on
Locust Grove from Victory to pick up the other –
Borup: Do you know what size those lines were?
Freckleton: Right off the top I cannot remember. They are pretty good-sized
lines. The water issue just off of the cuff, we have a situation out there where we
have a pressure zone. The Ridenbaugh Canal is going to kind of set the
boundary of an addition pressure zone. So this area is an area that we know that
we are kind of out on the ragged edge right now as it is. We do have a well site
that was acquired when Thousand Springs went in. We also have a site for a
booster station that is up on the Ridenbaugh Canal. So this analysis that we
need to do on the water is more far reaching than just this development. It is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 32
basically going to have to look at the region and tell us when those facilities are
going to have to be installed, when that well is going to have to be drilled, or
when the booster station has to go on line, those sort of things.
Borup: Is that well station at the fire station site?
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Thank you.
Freckleton: That is all I have.
Borup: Do we have anything from the Parks Department? There was a
comment in the staff report concerning the pathways.
Kuntz: Just that the Parks Department would like to see the pathways built as
part of their project, and the City would be willing to accept the pathways only
with no landscaping along those corridors. The landscaping would be the
responsibility of the Homeowners Association. The other item we would like to
see is there is a pathway where the arrow is right now. We would like to see a
pathway on the other side of the street also. This quadrant calls for a 30-acre
community park, and there are some possibilities to the east of that pathway. We
want to make sure that goes in, or if a neighborhood goes in there that there is
some connectivity with a micropath. So we would like to see that added.
Borup: A clarification on that, was Ten Mile one of the designated pathways in
the Parks Comprehensive Plan?
Kuntz: Yes.
Borup: Any other staff comments? Anything from the Commissioners? Is the
applicant here who would like to make their presentation?
Brown: Hi, my name is Kent Brown. I represent Briggs Engineering and the
applicant. Our address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. Here is a
copy of our project. Hopefully all of you can see it. Can you see it Kevin? I would
first like to talk about our project. We are planning to do a number of the things
that staff has brought up, and we have tried to work –
Borup: Something I might just mention to the audience that plat that he is
showing us is the same one that is on the screen. They just added some color to
it.
Brown: I will start with this one first. If you can see the orange lots, the orange
lots are the small lots. Part of the reason why we had to do a Conditional Use
Permit, those are 7,000 to 8,000 square feet. They are called out in your staff
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 33
report. As you can see they are kind of closer into the center. The green lots
would be the normal lots for this zone: 8,000 to 9,000 square feet. The blue lots
are the 9,000 to 10,000 square feet lots, and the yellow lots are the 10,000 to
13,000 square foot lots. Then you see a number of lots that adjoin some of our
neighbors, and those are greater than the 13,000 square feet. I did not think I
needed to highlight those for you on the drawing. They kind of show you at least
in my opinion this is like a step above the normal residential subdivision by the
size of the lots and so forth. We are expecting to have some really nice homes
put into here. We plan on taking advantage of all of the water that is on this site.
What we would like to do, we are not opposed to the Parks Department
recommendation and the Comprehensive Plan requirement to pave the pathway.
There are existing trees, shrubs, and grasses that are in there. We are not
opposed to the staff’s condition that it cannot be weeds and so forth, but it is
pretty well greened up down in that location. We want to put the pathway through
there. We want to link it, we want to put the pathway on the eastside of the Ten
Mile and then link it to our open space that we are going to put on the westside
of the Eight Mile and have a loop. So you could go from the Ten Mile here and
walk on a private path, come through our open space, come back along the
Eight Mile, and then you can make loops for pedestrian walking within the
subdivision. The Ten Mile and it eventually happening for the City and being a
link clear across town, we do not see happening right away, but we want that
pathway to work for us right now. Those will be nice spaces. We do not own the
property that the Eight Mile Lateral is on, and our proposed open space is
outside of that area. We would fence the Eight Mile Lateral and the easement or
the property ownership, and then our facility would be on the other side and as
you can see the water we are looking at and we have talked with John Anderson
from Nampa Meridian. Keeping water in those and keeping the water moving to
make a nice water amenity in the back of those lots. Grating those lots to the
ones that back up to that to that open space. We have moved the school up and
have met with Wendel Bigham from the School District. Wendel is here tonight,
and he can talk about the entrance to the school. We are not opposed to moving
the entrance to the school down. We kind of put the entrance to the school at the
location because that is where the sewer master plan calls for the property to the
east of us to have that sewer mainline go. We feel that it could go down. We
would like the two to go together and speaking with the School District they look
at their traffic coming mostly from Eagle Road. That is going to be their better
connection, but that everyone in our development and probably the
developments as they come to the south this is going to be a means that they
can walk to this school site. They prefer that. They do not have to bus. It makes it
kind of nice. Brad talked about the Ridenbaugh Canal. Our ownership goes out
to the centerline of the Ridenbaugh Canal. Outside of the easement we still have
on this easement we have 20ft. We really did not know what to do with that. Do
we make those lots a little bigger and move that back? Staff is talking about in a
request that we had not seen or heard of before about making that a pathway. I
walked it yesterday. It is a long ways. It is a long ways out there. I would be
curious to hear what Wendel has to say about having a pedestrian entrance at
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 34
the back of an elementary school. When I worked for another City they were
opposed to some of these entrances in uncontrolled areas to their elementary
school. The first storm drainage pond up there as you come down the
rectangular space that definitely would work from a safety standpoint that you
could walk a loop like that around there. But with this long straight stretch there,
that might be from a safety standpoint and specially if that pathway goes all the
way back behind the school. We could definitely give that 20ft to the school, and
it could be a part of the school property instead of a pathway. I am not really
sure. Maybe one of the things that we could do is put out another pedestrian link
to shorten that up, but since I had not really thought about it and had not heard
about I really do not know what to say. We have some fairly good-sized lots
along there. Maybe that is a possibility, but I would be concerned about safety
walking along that portion if it is to get kids to the school. That is my personal
feeling. We are not opposed to working with the School District and coming up
with what best serves their site for their buses and moving that entrance down.
Secondary access, from our first original design when we first meet and put our
plans in, we received a number of comments back from the City and we saw the
Fire Department’s comments. Prior to us doing this design I met with Kenny
Bowers, I went over this and asked him if he had any concerns. He did not
mention to me any concerns about secondary access I told him if in through the
phasing that that became a problem that maybe we could take one of these lots
in here at either end, put a non-build agreement on those lots until we can make
a continuous loop instead of putting a road through. Let us say that down here in
one of these culdesacs we just put a temporary emergency access through that
area so that if they need another access point. I do not know that they will ever
really need with this collector road. There is no parking on it. This road here has
no front on housing. There is no parking aloud on it. We are proposing to put
landscaping on both sides. We would like to put a 10ft meandering pathway
along the northern side and just landscaping along the south. We would have a
34ft area with a license agreement with the Highway District where that path
would be and make that a really nice area to walk, and then landscape the
southern portion. There are other developments in the valley that have done that
and that was something that we really liked. Some of the conditions about the
plat, we have met with the Malaise’s and the Pullin's, they own property to the
north and to the south of our property on Locust Grove. There is a condition 13
under the platting conditions that speaks to the Malaise’s and their need for
irrigation water. They wrote a letter previously. We met with them, and we have
met with Nampa Meridian. We are willing to provide them pressure irrigation from
our development and go through the hoops with Nampa Meridian to do that. We
have also talked to them about having them share in the cost of a vinyl fence
along that boundary that abuts them. The Pullin's, they own the first 5 acres
down here in the southwest corner of our project. We have met with them and
talked similar things about the fence. They wanted something a little better than
just a straight chainlink fence. We have also discussed with them because of the
water problem and the water table in this area about installing a French drain
along our southerly boundary and having that pick up the groundwater that is in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 35
that area and then have that go into the Ten Mile. Currently in the center section
there is a ditch that runs along our easterly side here and along the northerly
side here that picks up water that comes out of the bottom Ridenbaugh, flows
across the Morgner property, and comes to our property. We would like to put a
French drain there and then have it daylight into the ditch that it is currently going
into.
Borup: How about the collector street? Dartmoore.
Brown: Dartmoore we are showing as a 50-foot right-of-way. To the Highway
District that would be a collector, does the City have a standard that requires a
66-foot? And we have approval from the Highway District on our staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup and Commissioners we do have the Ordinance
12-4-2C, collector streets minimum 60 feet, but unless the Highway District has
changed something 50 feet would be their standard local street, right?
Brown: Brookewood, They can build their collector in a 50-foot. They asked for
a 36ft. Street section, so the can build that in the 50 feet.
Hawkins-Clark: Well that is certainly Ada County Highway District call if that is
what the report says. There is a conflict with our Ordinance in that regard.
Brown: We would prefer to do it this way. Obviously if we had to pick up that
extra space we are just taking something out of those lots. I know that the lots
along the south side were like 12,000 square foot lots, so we would have the
space to do that. I feel very confident that we can build the collector to the
Highway District’s standard in that 50 feet. We are not opposed to the park
director’s requirement for a micropath connection to the Goldsmith property.
Borup: (inaudible) to the property to the east?
Brown: To the property to the east yes. We are planning on putting a landscape
berm and fence along Locust Grove and along Victory Road. We met with a
couple of landowners, and they are here to also speak on Victory. Up here in the
corner this is Mr. Young’s house. You can barely see Mr. Allen’s house. They had
me go out there and meet them, and I was concerned that the ground was
sloping off too much, and it is not a problem. We can put a berm in and it does
not run all this water off the back of the berm into our lots. Mr. Young has a
concern about the location of our road here and that cars that are turning west
are going to shine into his house. He has a hedge of Juniper trees along the front
and then he has a driveway. He has one window right here. This eastside of his
house is his garage. I went out and staked the area. I did not call him back out,
and I probably should have. I have got stakes there showing where our island is
at, and I just do not really see that we are going to be a problem to his house.
His house is a little bit elevated above where we are. I believe and he can correct
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 36
me if I am wrong, but he is a little concerned that when the Highway District
widens Victory Road that his trees will be removed, and that there will be a
possible problem with that at that time. We feel we have a very good project. We
have turned the sewer stuff in, and as talked about by Bruce by bringing the
sewer down here we can sewer all of this property and it can run to the east and
go to the other properties to the southeast of here. When we originally came up
with the design and I apologize to Bruce I thought that the reason the City asked
for profiles was that they wanted to make sure that we can be deep enough. Our
profiles brought us in with 36 feet deep sewer in some places, and that
concerned him. What we did was we put it at the maximum depth that those lines
would go, then we revised that and now we have brought it up. So we know that
definitely this area can sewer to this project, and our firm also did Thousand
Springs and Sherbrooke Hollows. We have installed sewers for the City out in
Victory Road, and the engineer that did Thousand Springs told me that she was
told to make sure that these people could hook on in the future. I do not know
about the properties down at this end, but it would be a short distance to bring
whatever that they would need. The Morgner property to the north of us as I
believe as looking at the master plan is supposed to come this way anyway, and
that is partly the reason that we have the stubs where we do to their property.
Borup: Your plans show that you would be able to service the area to the south
and to the east.
Brown: Correct. Because this is a main trunk line it is supposed to continue on.
One sewer is supposed to go out here at the very bottom below the school to the
south, and then the sewer here is supposed to go through this 40 acres here,
come out at the southwest corner of that property –
Borup: How about the property to the north? You said the plan calls for that to
service to the south, the property north of you. The Morgner property.
Brown: The Morgner property here would flow down here, as I understand from
looking at the J-U-B master plan.
Borup: Most all of the other staff comments you said you would be able to
comply to with. The letter from the core of engineers, etc.
Brown: I am not opposed to that. I spoke yesterday with Nampa Meridian about
that area that they are talking about. You can see at the bottom portion of those
lots right there where the road stubs that there is a lot of grade change in there.
In speaking with Nampa Meridian they called that the Ten Mile cut off, but it is a
drain ditch that picks up the groundwater or water from the fields in that area.
Borup: The question on the ACHD report, the first one they did was on the
original plat?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 37
Brown: Correct.
Borup: Which has not really had any substantial –
Brown: No, not really.
Borup: -- decreased some lots and the entrance is in the same location.
Brown: The entrances are pretty much the same, but we moved the south
entrance. It used to be over here because the school was all the way down in
this area.
Borup: Right, but the entrance to Locust Grove and Victory stayed the same.
Brown: The entrances to Locust Grove have not changed, and that report has
been approved by their board.
Borup: I have some questions on the emergency access aspect. Are you
looking at developing from both Victory and Locust Grove at the same time? Or
are you starting from one direction and continuing through?
Brown: Because sewer would be coming from the west and going to the east, we
would be looking at just moving along and to the school site and then up.
Eventually, obviously if we get in here we are going to need to punch up in here
sometime.
Borup: If that is the case, once you past that middle section your proposal for an
access road on Locust Grove really does not serve any purpose, does it?
Brown: Correct. But we could put in a temporary either here or down at this end.
Borup: That is what I am saying, does that serve that much purpose by the time
you get past the Ridenbaugh?
Brown: Well, we would be over 100 lots --
Borup: I know that.
Brown: -- if that is what they are concerned about.
Borup: I do not know if that is the direct – of course there is not too many other
directions to go. You would be over 100 lots by the time you get into that third
phase.
Brown: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 38
Borup: So at this point you are not sure when you would have the access to
Victory? It is going to be some where before the last phase, I am assuming.
Brown: Correct. We would have to that –
Borup: And does the School District have any type of time frame?
Brown: They are very interested in buying this site. They have one other
purchase south of the freeway that they need to do. It is to the east of us a
couple of miles, and that one would be the one –
Borup: So at this point they do not have a specific time frame. They are just
trying to stay ahead of the curve a little bit.
Brown: Correct.
Borup: I was just wondering if it was anticipating the school would be going in
before you were filling out.
Brown: If that became the case, we would definitely make that access because
we need to sell the school this site as a lot. We would make that access. We are
not opposed to that being a condition and putting that in immediately.
Borup: A question for you Brad. When you mentioned a secondary emergency
access, did you have anything specific in mind or the access on the north or
south of the development onto Locust Grove, did that satisfy your concerns
there?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, yes I think it would. If they are talking about
development from Locust Grove moving to the east then right. If for any reason
there was blockage or an accident on Locust Grove that kept emergency
vehicles from accessing the site at one point then they could access through
another. I think that would do it. I do not see how else unless you are proposing
once you get past the Eight Mile, Kent did I understand right, construct the public
street across the Ridenbaugh and then up to Victory as it is currently shown?
Brown: No, we were looking at doing the westside and having if you need an
emergency access. Maybe if we do the lots around the school site maybe that is
the time that we have a requirement for a secondary to Victory access. That kind
of makes sense. You are going to have some off site costs involved in getting a
roadway up to Victory but getting sewer over there and building a bridge and
everything else to get across the Ridenbaugh.
Borup: From past experience, would that emergency access need to
necessarily be paved or just a road that would handle the weight?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 39
Brown: We would definitely work with what Kenny would like. If he wants it
paved then we come back in and rip it back out, but having be a temporary
would be what we would be looking for.
Borup: I am talking about the one to the north of the school site that you just
now mentioned.
Brown: We would put the road in yes.
Borup: Well, yes once the school site opened, I would think this commission
would…
Brown: If you needed the secondary, we could do that as a paveable or a hard
weather surface and work with the Fire Department on that.
Borup: Why come up with 120 something in those first two phases –
Brown: Correct.
Borup: And that makes 124, is that correct or close?
Brown: Yes it should be.
Borup: Which may be a good point for the access to kick into before it went into
that third phase.
Brown: Before we cross the Ten Mile?
Borup: Is that Ten Mile?
Brown: This is the Ten Mile.
Borup: No, the second one there. That is where you hit the 124 once you past
that point. Once you pass the Eight Mile, I count about 124 in those first two. So
to go beyond that would get over that 124, okay. Any questions from any other
Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Brown is this the first time you have heard that Parks Department
wanted the path along the canal?
Brown: Yes it is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 40
Norton: At this Public Hearing tonight?
Brown: Yes.
Norton: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Maybe a clarification on that. That is part of the new Parks
Comprehensive Plan that is not adopted yet.
Kuntz: Chairman Borup and Commissioners that has not being adopted yet.
Are you speaking about the 20-foot?
Borup: Right.
Kuntz: That is something we were looking at with Planning and Zoning staff
today, and there had been some research done on was that an easement?
Borup: One early question I had, was that part of the Parks Comprehensive
Plan showing a greenbelt path along there?
Kuntz: It will be when it is adopted, but I guess to answer your question there
was some research being done whether that was part of the Nine Mile
easement. It was found out that it was not part of the Nine Mile easement and so
when that came to light, which was recently, when you look at the connectivity
there, it just made sense that we would recommend that.
Borup: I think that explains why the applicant did not know because that plan
had not been adopted yet.
Brown: When we originally put that space together, we had that extra 20 feet in
there. We thought that the Nine Mile ran along the easterly side of the
Ridenbaugh. We went and met with Nampa Meridian and discussed that. The
Nine Mile begins on our property and then goes underneath the Ridenbaugh and
then becomes something.
Borup: So you end up with 20 feet.
Brown: So we end up with an extra 20 feet that we did not have –
Borup: It would real handy for a pathway.
Brown: It would be real handy for a pathway. I guess my only concern is that it
is open to the canal. We would fence that canal easement so the Canal
Company would not be worried about it. It would have a 6-foot chain link fence
along that side, and that part is safe. It would really look really open, but you are
on the back part of all of those lots. When I walked on it yesterday it just seemed
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 41
like it went and went. That is a long ways down there, and unless you have some
places where people can see in it, it is just from my experience from dealing with
micropaths as a part of the Boise City Ordinance, you want short little strips that
can be supervised or else you want a lot of space where people can look at
them. Like our pathway that we are proposing around the Eight Mile, it is a big
open space, so someone can see you from a distance out there versus we like
20 feet, and 20 feet is from me to Brad, that is quite a distance, but that is a
space behind your back fence. What are you going to do, are you going to put a
solid fence up there. Do we put a fence restriction on what the people do, and
maybe require a 4-foot fence?
Norton: So essentially you need to do a little more thinking about whether you
are going to have a path.
Brown: I do not think that it is a bad idea. It is probably one of the few places that
you have that opportunity because there is a space within our lots that you could
do that.
Norton: But probably some more thinking on backyard fences. Does anybody
know how long that is from Victory to the school or past the school?
Kuntz: It is a half of a mile.
Norton: Okay, thank you. Mr. Brown, my other question is, we are sitting here
looking at the school site, and we are not thinking that that is really a great place
for a school site. Why did you all choose that particular position for a school site?
Brown: We like having a school in our developments. They are beneficial. Pretty
much from a planning standpoint makes it so that it is a neighborhood school.
That it is something that people can walk to. Would it be better over on this 40
acres? Yes. But then we go approach the School District and ask them do you
need a school site in this area? It kind of works for them. The more kids that they
can have walk to a school the less kids they bus, and depending on your
Comprehensive Plan shows this as a residential with no commercial and those
kinds of things taking place. It really could be a walking school. Those pathways
and the lengths where we were making a bridge crossing, currently this property
that this school site and the entire easterly site is a sod farm. It is pretty flat and
the area where that pathway is it is sodden right now. There is grass there.
Norton: It just seems like that the moms that are going to go pick up kids for
doctor’s appointments, etc., or take them to school have to go all the way
through the whole subdivision in order to get to the school and then back all the
way out again.
Brown: You can ask Wendel here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 42
Norton: That is probably a good idea. Okay, thank you.
Borup: Anyone else?
Centers: Just a comment. Linder elementary is very similar. Maybe not as far in
but it is in the middle of the subdivision.
Brown: I believe we are just as far from Eagle Road as we are from Victory
Road.
Centers: I had one question. This little access from Eagle Road. Do you think
that would ever be, could that be part of?
Brown: That really is not an access. There is a ditch there right now. It is part of
our ownership as how the parcels laid out. It probably could be a pedestrian link,
but again that is one of those – I mean this one is 30 feet wide, and it has a ditch
in it. That is another – we have to do something with it. It is our ownership, and
we definitely cannot put a house in there.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Brown. Maybe if Mr. Bigham is here let us hear from you
first. There have been several questions on the school site.
Bigham: Wendel Bigham. 911 Meridian Street, Meridian, Idaho. I am here
representing Joint School District No. 2. I have had this ongoing discussion with
Mr. Brown representing the applicant. I going to catch Kent flatfooted here on
one thing. In the discussion, the school would like to reserve the right, and Kent
has agreed as his plat progressed through the approval process that we actively
and aggressively work with them to site the school on this site to see whether or
not vehicular access makes sense here, here, here, or some combination of the
two for both vehicular traffic and bus circulation, and Kent is willing to do that with
us. Having said that, we concur that pedestrian access east here to I think
Goldsmith’s property is definitely appropriate, and that should probably line with
whatever access or roadway we have here. I would make a comment regarding
the park's walkway. The School District will not be in favor of – and it is strictly
our volition – from about this point on through this perimeter fence and back
down to this imaginary point here. We will install no openings in our exterior
fence. Water hazards are a known existence around here, but more importantly
so is adult behavior problems that present school ground security. We want to
make it clear that we want to be no party of encouraging parents that have their
children have only one route of walking to school along an open ditch. To that
end I concur that this really long corridor here in an unprotected stretch is not
something I would encourage my own children to walk down certainly at night or
in the fall. It may be good if at some juncture here there could be a pedestrian
walkway, so that those patrons north of us that choose to have their kids walk to
the school would have the choice of not sending them down the canal pathway
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 43
but into the subdivision and down a protected subdivision street. Or is there one
up there somewhere?
Brown: If they went down the canal pathway to that first open space they could
dump back out. That is a short distance, and we have a lot of room in there.
There are some existing trees in there, but that to me makes a natural sense
from a standpoint that someone could use that portion of the pathway. It is just
this long straight stretch after the bend.
Bigham: I think our concerns are similar. I think you, as parents would have that.
The sooner we could get the children having the option to walk through the
neighborhood the better off we would all be served.
Brown: That looks like going to that first open space there would be a short
enough distance –
***End of side three***
Borup: -- it looks like this kind of opens up there is it is a little bit wider visually
than you are down there.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, I am thoroughly convinced that no matter what we will do
it will not be quite acceptable to all patrons; however, it is prudent that we look at
giving the patrons an option to bring their children in and still provide the
appropriate community amenities to be in support of that. Again, our property
would be fenced. I will stand for questions if you have any.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bigham?
Nary: To me that is about the only thing that I have seen with this that is some
concern to me. Is that it seems that it would make more sense if the school was
over here. It is more accessible to the roadway. It is not winding around through
the subdivision. It would not be bordering the canal that is right here. You would
not have to fence off the entire backside of the school to prevent adults from
being there. It is far enough away from the water that is over here. To me that
site makes more sense for a school here or here than it does right there.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary we have the chicken or the egg
philosophy going there. We are trying to situation a school site in this subdivision
that serves a much greater area. If the school site we will just say for arbitrary
purposes was placed into this vicinity this discussion of this cross route link
would simply occur from this point to Eagle Road. Do you see what I am getting
at? This school is geographically situated upon the assumption that this area will
build out. That probably some build out will occur here so if you put it here today
you will be wrong there tomorrow. So it is more the opportunity that we have to
work cooperatively with the developer to adequately site and provide access to a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 44
school. The question was raised as to why so far interior in a subdivision. There
is one school of thought that says schools should be located dead center in the
center of a section so everyone can walk to them. With that comes cut through
traffic and the just nuisance traffic going to and from the subdivision. That
concern exists as stated for this route here. It is almost the best of all worlds if
that street did that. True to here. As these streets go through to Eagle Road this
provides very convenient access. Again it is the chicken or the egg.
Borup: So it sounds like the School District feels very comfortable with site and
the conditions at this point.
Bigham: Yes, we are comfortable with the conditions that we have talked about
to date, and the status of discussion with the applicant as to the acquisition of the
site.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Bigham, could you comment regarding that blind corner that you
were originally concerned about.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton, the blind corner, it may or may not
present a problem. Again in talking to Mr. Brown I believe the applicant is willing
that should this general concept be acceptable then we will take our architects,
and we will layout our imaginary school. It is 125 car parks. We know basically
the paved area, and we will look to see whether that access is better there.
Maybe it serves the school better here. Maybe the access should be more down
here with the playground area there. It would require us to do a little bit of
planning activities, and we are prepared and willing to that once we know the
perimeter is not going to be a moving target for us.
Norton: And the developer is willing to move the road around. Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I kind of looked at that distance where Mr. Brown proposed the access
for the children. It is about 400 feet. What do you think of that?
Bigham: I will just say it is a very subjective call that I would make. If I had young
age children that were walking in a group, I would do everything in my power to
discourage them from walking along an open ditch. It is not so much the sight
corridors; it is more the simple fact that it is an open ditch. I would almost feel
safer – it is a trade off, walk a quarter of a mile down Victory Road and then
maybe come in through some pathway there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 45
Centers: Or if you had both?
Bigham: I think this pathway system here needs to be more of a community
amenity and probably less importance placed upon safe school access issues.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Thank you Mr. Bigham. It is getting late, but we would to
get testimony from anyone else here on this application. Come forward.
Young: My name is Rex Young. My wife Marla and I live at 2950 East Victory
Road. Could I borrow someone’s pointer please? That is the piece of property
where we live right now. We have been there for 30 years. As Mr. Brown
indicated we have some concerns about the siting of the roadway that enters
onto Victory Road. I have talked with Ada County Highway District. There are
plans in the mill to widen Victory Road. When the widen Victory Road it is
supposed to go the 48 feet from centerline each way. The shrubs which protect
me from the lighting now if that roadway were there will be removed, and the big
trees in the front of my property will be removed. So I will have nothing to protect
me at all. I am not very anxious to have a situation where I have subdivision that
has 350 homes in it. I have the possibility of having every car that exits that
subdivision during the hours of darkness flashing their lights across the windows
at the front of my house, which are tree windows that are 5 feet tall and 30
inches wide.
Borup: Did ACHD give any kind of time frame on widening?
Young: They did not give me any time frame.
Borup: Based on what I am seeing in the rest of our City, 10 to 20 years
probably.
Young: Well it may be that long before this part of the subdivision is put in, but I
think we would be putting our heads in the sand if we ignored –
Borup: No, I mean on widening the road. We have Ustick Road that has a lot of
traffic that is still not even in the five-year plan yet.
Young: If you look immediately to the west, that road coming out of Thousand
Springs if the roadway was changed from where it is proposed to exit onto
Victory now. If it was changed so that it went onto Victory right there immediately
across with the exit from Thousand Springs. To me that makes good sense. You
have the potential for 350 homes using that particular exit coming out of Tuscany
Lakes entering on Victory Road going east or west. You have the potential
coming out of Thousand Springs for probably 350 homes there, and it would
appear to me that you are going to have to have a stop light in this area. You
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 46
could have one stop light through both requirements. Another thing, when they
were talking about the school and the concern about entry and so forth. They
were talking about people being able to if you will exit the Thousand Springs and
get over across the road and be able to walk on down to the school site. If that
roadway were pushed through right there, the people in Thousand Springs would
be able to cut across and go right down the inside part of the subdivision to the
school site. I think it makes a lot of sense to relocate that. I think I have pretty
much covered everything I want.
Borup: We will bring that up with the developer.
Young: Mr. Brown indicated that the Ada County Highway District had approved
their plan for locating that where he has it on his plan, but it does not mean that
they would not approve if it were further to the west. Also, I was particularly glad
to hear him put on the record that he had agreed or the developer had agreed
that they were going to put berms along Victory road and that they were going to
fence that. We had discussed that and he had indicated that to the affirmative.
Does anyone have any questions?
Borup: Thank you sir.
Allen: Jim Allen, 3040 East Victory. My property is right next to Mr. Young’s just to
the east of it. I have that little piece that has the V in it. If you look at Mr. Brown’s
roadway it actually breaks our property. It does not matter whether the traffic is
turning to the left or turning to the right at that point. Rex and I will not be able to
get on either road. As the traffic starts pulling out, this will happen to anybody
that is on those five lots. We have a hard enough time right now getting on, and it
is really going to cause a problem when this portion of it gets developed. As far
as Ada County Highway District saying 15 to 20 years, Mr. Brown is going to
have to dedicate part of his ground and widen part of his ground for easement
into the road. That is only going to give Ada County 24 feet that they have to do.
Is that right Mr. Brown?
Brown: We will have to do our side.
Allen: Yes, you will have to do your side so Ada County will only have 24 feet on
the north side to do. It is a lot cheaper to do 24 feet than it is to do 48 feet. I do
not think it is going to be that far down the road. Another one of my concerns and
I would like it written in to plot plan. Idaho is a Right-to-farm State. There are
quite a few of us there that do have stock. We do farm, and I would like that
noted. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Allen, it sounds like you agree with the location of the entrance to
line up with Thousand Springs like Mr. Young said. Is that your preference?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 47
Allen: I guess I have to look at it two different ways. It would be nice if it lined up
with Thousand Springs, but if lines up with Thousand Springs that puts a larger
lot – if you take where his road is now, where his road will come out onto Victory.
Borup: Well, I am sure they would have to redesign, so that is not necessarily
where the road would be.
Allen: I know we would have to redesign that, but at this point that becomes –
there is about a 20 foot easement to the east of his area that becomes park right
now. I would be losing a nice park.
Borup: That would become someone’s backyard.
Allen: I am losing an awful good front yard now. With the turf company being
there it is a pretty good front yard. I am going to lose that.
Borup: Okay, thank you sir.
Allen: Thank you.
Howard: I am Susan Howard, and I live at 3420 South Locust Grove. This is our
property right here, and we have significant bordering to the development. I just I
have a lot of questions. I do not expect to get answers this evening. I am curious
what kind of perimeter fencing there will be around the entire development.
Before we moved out here about a year and a half ago, we were in Boise on 34
acres surrounded by subdivisions, and we constantly had dogs wanting to get
out of their yards running through. We have had animals killed, horses running
through fences. My child is scared to go outside, and I love animals. I am not
opposed to people moving in with dogs, but the fact is that if there is open
ground those animals are gong to run. I am very concerned whether we solid
fencing that stops the subdivision from the animals and kids coming over as
opposed to something –
Borup: Did the developer talk with you about that?
Howard: No we have not talked to the developer.
Borup: Just about the water then, not even the fence.
Howard: Not even about the water.
Borup: Oh that was the other neighbor. I am sorry.
Howard: So I am very concerned about the fence around the entire perimeter. I
am concerned just what the setbacks are on the lots that border the adjoining
properties. Just if they are standard or they are going to have – I know in some
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 48
areas you have maybe 15 feet off of your back fence. Also, I know they are going
to do a lot with waterways through the development. We have a significant run of
Ten Mile Creek on the south side of our ground. I do not know if we are going to
be affected by water flow. If there are any conditions to guarantee that we will not
lose water flow.
Borup: Do you irrigate out of that?
Howard: We do not irrigate out of that one, but we do have running water for the
animals year round. Also on the waterways, are there any provisions within the
development to protect the existing wildlife and habitat that is there running on
that ground? Has there been any traffic studies done on the Locust Grove area
or the Victory Road? That is a significant increase in traffic especially on Locust
Grove. The road is not that wide, and it 50mph down there. I am sure there will
be a small widening and a small turnout, but the one in front of Thousand
Springs is not adequate. I go down Victory everyday, and you head up the hill
and you have that little piece of cement that was patched on the side and to me
that is not adequate if the road is to be widened just to put in a little small turn
lane. I think the speed limit needs to be decreased for a long stretch on Locust
Grove. It needs to be widened, and possible even a stoplight going in at Victory
and Locust Grove. That is already a really bad corner. I am unclear at this point.
Right now, is there only one entrance to the development off of Locust Grove?
Borup: Yes.
Howard: Okay, but as they develop across they will be required to put another
one in?
Borup: A temporary until the one on Victory goes in.
Howard: Okay. I also have concern over the location of the school, the siting of it
being that far into the development. My child has been in grade school and as a
crossing-guard, this was in the Boise area, he was almost run-over by a dad
zipping out on a cell-phone, who did not even see him. The fact is in this day and
age parents are getting their kids to school, and everybody is running late, and
they are driving too fast. I would encourage anybody to go and just sit in front of
a school especially in the morning as opposed to the afternoon, and I just do not
think embedded way in a development is a good idea. I mean you can have
speed limit signs, you can have bumps, you can everything else, but by golly
those parents are running late and they have a meeting at work, they zip in drop
the kid off and they are out of there. I think it is very dangerous. A small concern,
is there any provision on the Ten Mile Creek as it flows into our property and on
down to other people’s ground, can we get some kind of a grill or a screening
that will stop stuff from flowing. One of the neighbors pulled basketballs out of
there not even from development. But you get things flowing through your creek
and with increased development, kids playing, pop bottles, whatever there could
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 49
be significant coming threw the creek, and I guess I would be interested in some
kind of a drain or grill that can stop those things.
Borup: I think that is normal with Nampa Meridian. We will ask about that.
Howard: Okay. Those are main concerns.
Borup: I am sure Mr. Brown or the applicant would be happy to answer maybe
some more detailed things. Question I had on the fence, what type of fence is
your preference?
Howard: I am more concerned about the height and whether it is solid or not.
Chainlink is probably okay. I guess my preference would be something solid.
Borup: 6 foot, solid fence.
Howard: Something that dogs and kids cannot climb over. I know solid cedar
fencing is very costly, but my child watched a dog come and eat our cat. That is
not necessarily what is going to happen, but there has to be something to stop
kids and animals from getting through. I think you need height, and it needs to
visually pretty. I am more concerned about height and that it is solid.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Howard: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Chairman, my name is Sam Hoaglun, and I am a lawyer here in
Boise, and I am here on behalf of Farwest, LLC, which owns the site to the
immediate east from the school. The Goldsmith development is looking at
developing that piece of land. We are calling it the Salove Property. What should
be obvious from the prior comments is that when we punch into Eagle Road that
is going to be the key access point for the school, and all of the cut-through traffic
going to the school is not going to go through the Tuscany Lakes subdivision. It
is going to go through the Salove Property.
Borup: All of it is?
Hoaglun: I think that most of it.
Borup: If you were coming down Locust Grove you would go clear around to
Eagle to go in there?
Hoaglun: I think we might find that there would be a large portion of traffic that
would do that simply to avoid driving and curbing around through the Tuscany
Lakes subdivision. By the way, I sent a letter to Mrs. Stiles this afternoon. I do not
know if anybody had a chance to see that. I want to correct a couple of things in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 50
that letter. First of all I said that it was the property to the west and I meant the
east. Second of all I said that we had a traffic study, but apparently we have not
had a traffic study. We have just had the analysis by our engineer. What you
have before is what our engineers have put together as Concept A and Concept
B. The point being that our engineer believes that Concept B will be the concept
that is required by ACHD to accommodate the traffic going into the school. The
Concept B will cause significant financial detriment to Farwest in terms of having
to build the larger and longer connector, and we expect to lose approximately 6
building lots as a consequence of having to accommodate the traffic. We have
addressed some of these issues with the developer. They have not been
resolved as yet. We expect that they can be resolved. We wanted to bring this to
the attention of the commission at this point in time. We were going to ask that
this matter be deferred or tabled until we have a chance to work this out with the
developer. I guess it kind of sounds like from prior matters that it might be
deferred anyhow. We were thinking that it might be going through immediately
tonight. Maybe that is not going to happen, but we just wanted to bring that to the
attention of the commission for that consideration.
Borup: Any questions from the commission? Thank you sir.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Kuntz: I am Luanne Kuntz. I reside at 4800 West Holmes Street in Boise. I am
the trustee for the Morgner property. We have a number of concerns. Fencing is
a big issue. We are still farming. We want it noted that we intend to continue
farming, and whenever you start getting farmland surrounded by homes you start
running into all kinds of problems.
Borup: Fencing is part of the City requirements on the perimeter.
Kuntz: They do need to be aware. Some of the other people want solid fencing.
We have to be able to burn ditches, irrigation ditches, so I do not think cedar
fencing is going to work to well. It probably would not last too long. I do want it
noted that that is still farm property. Right now with Thousand Springs and
Sherbrooke Hollows we are inundated along the canal bank with recreation as
feeling that that is their private property, and that they can do what ever they
want. Maybe I do not understand but up there where you were trying to open to
Victory Road so people could walk or the kids could do whatever. Unless they
are going to block off those canal accesses, they can just kind of come down the
road and go down the other side. That will still be open. I also have concerns
where the Eight Mile Lateral butts up. Are they going to block off those roads so
we can keep people off? They will be going across private property if they do not.
I guess those are some of my concerns.
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 51
DeChambeau: My name is Mary DeChambeau, and I reside on the Morgner
Farm. So I get to see everyday the people that are walking up and down that
canal bank. I posted 15 signs, and they were all torn down in the last two weeks.
People do not understand that canals are easements for the canal system
through private property. It has been a real problem. The reason we are so
concerned about it, it only takes one person for that child to fall in, and we have a
lawsuit on our hands. They do not care who they go after. When you build
subdivisions around, I realize that that is not our property, and we cannot tell you
as a Planning and Zoning what you can tell other people to do. But I have a real
problem. We have been in this community for 70 years. I want you to understand
that we did not buy that property for speculation. We just happen to grow up
there. It has been in our family a long time, so I want you to understand that first.
We still plan to continue farming. It is very difficult even now with the traffic
getting our farm equipment in out there. We have already had a couple of
collisions. It is a 50mph up Victory, then it goes to 35mph up by the subdivisions
there has been several near misses. I think you need to do a traffic study. I also
have some concerns about these lakes or water reserves that they have on the
property. I am still am not sure if they are really going to drain into our property.
There is a great concern. Also, they mentioned sewer bypassing us. It seems to
me like the City has some real concerns about that. I guess my biggest question
is what is the hurry? Do you real need the tax bases that bad for the City of
Meridian? That you cannot slow things down a little bit. It may be surprising to
you folks that some of us really would not mind slowing down the development a
little bit. Obviously, we are not against the fact that we probably eventually have
to develop our property, but what is wrong with slowing down things until you get
your sewer system in line so that people like us will not be bypassed. It is done
correctly. If the houses are not built there then you do not really need that school,
and then you do not have to run in and put a school where nobody wants one. I
also agree because I agree we were never allowed as children to ever play in
that canal, ever. I would never let my child walk along there. That is why I post it
because I am so terrified that some child is going to fall into that Ridenbaugh.
There are undercurrents, and it is a very dangerous canal. To put a school there
and have people racing through it does not matter where they are racing
through; the mothers are going to race through that subdivision. I just think there
are so many issues with this subdivision that just do not make a lot of common
sense. I think that there is no reason why you cannot sit back and deny this and
just sit back and do this right. I am not sure why they are trying to rush this,
maybe they have some balloon payments, or they are trying to prove to their
banker that their project is going to go or something. It also seems like I kind of
heard where Meridian is going to try and not do such patchwork development. Is
that correct? Is that what you are trying to lean for, or are going to continue to do
farm development, farm development? Because the further you go out, you know
the more it is going to cost the City to pipe sewer out there --
Borup: The developer is paying for the sewer. The City is not going to be paying
for it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 52
DeChambeau: Well, you still have to do all of the other services that come
around it.
Borup: Right.
DeChambeau: I mean.
Borup: So you are thinking they should develop through your property first
before they do this one?
DeChambeau: Well, there is no development out there past on the other side of
Victory, yes. It makes more sense.
Borup: Okay.
DeChambeau: I mean I cannot tell you what you can do for other people’s
property, but it is common sense to not have these patchwork developments until
you get your road system involved. Also, Idaho Power told us last summer that
they had to have that transmitter station there. They had to have those power
lines in front of our power, or they would not be able to supply power to that area,
and now all of sudden, they can do it. It is really hard to make decisions when
you get told a lot of different things. I am sure you guys get told a lot of different
things all of the time that are not half truths and all truths. The other thing that we
have issues with is they have never addressed what they are going to do with
our irrigation ditches.
Borup: They will not be interrupted.
DeChambeau: So we will need to have that in writing then.
Borup: That is state law.
Nary: It is already in writing because it is state law.
DeChambeau: I know, but you can see that it impacts our property probably
almost more than some of the others, and we are still trying to make a living
farming. I just, I do not know, give it some thought.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Mr. Brown, obviously there are a
few questions that need some response to. Have you got those, or would you
like us to go through our list?
Brown: Let me start and the ones I do not get you can remind me. I do not want
to start with Mr. Young even though he was first, but I am going to talk about
fencing. My client is not real excited about putting in a cedar fence. We are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 53
looking at doing chainlink or something better than chainlink. Obviously, when
you are putting the kind of homes that we are hoping to get there, you want the
nice security. Obviously, where we have to butt up to the Morgner farm we have
with them farming, we are going to have something that is secure for their
animals and for them to continue to maintain their property.
Borup: Are there ditches along the perimeter?
Brown: There is a ditch on our side of the property, but I guess I was not aware
that there was a ditch along that portion. I thought that it was all on our side.
Borup: So you are not aware of any ditches along the perimeter that would
need to be burned?
Brown: Either way we would have to address that so that it would be at least
chainlink or better.
Borup: So it would be very secure as far as animals in and out?
Brown: Yes. We do not own the Eight Mile property. That is not a part of ours,
and as a part of your Ordinance we would be blocking that off from access. The
only access that there would be is where we go across it with a bridge. I guess
someone could hop down from there, but what our intent is is to fence that so
that they cannot get into that, and that they can be in our open space that is on
our side and work in that area.
Borup: And you said earlier that the Ridenbaugh was to be fenced.
Brown: Correct. The Ridenbaugh would be fenced. Our lake or our ponds, we
need that water to be continuously moving so that it does not become stagnant.
That is also in your staff report, and so that water continues to move through our
property. We have talked to Nampa Meridian about helping supply that water if
for some reason it would dry up but that we can supply that out of the Ten Mile. It
would run through and then dump back into the Ten Mile, so it would just run
through our property and then back. That is our intent with our lakes, so that it
would be a distance away from our neighbors and not dumping onto them.
Patchwork development, when you do 150 acres it is really not a patchwork.
Patchwork to me is all that I say for years as I worked for the City of Boise.
Where they come in with 20 acres, then try to make something match next to
that. I know that we have a narrow connection, and staff has spoken about that,
but that is where we connect. The Morgner piece is the one to the north of us,
and as they said they are going to continue to farm. We cannot tell them what to
do with their property, but eventually we see that developing. The discussion Mr.
Bigham brought up, if we needed a connection those lots are huge at that one
corner. I think they are 19,000, 18,000 out of that culdesac that if we needed to
go up to Victory Road. Instead of 400 feet as Mr. Centers, it would still end up
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 54
being 130 feet or 140 feet, but if that was much better and you thought it was a
safer route and away from the ditch. There is a 50-foot easement from centerline
on the Ridenbaugh. We will be fencing 50 feet away or 50 feet from that
centerline at that easement point, and then there is 20 feet behind that. We did
the Thousand Springs project. When we put that access there it was at the
recommendation of the Highway District staff. Later the Highway District staff
came back and said this really is not the best access. As you travel to the east
from that Thousand Springs entrance to the north there is an elevation, so it is
kind of a hidden spot. So as you pull out there, you really cannot see down the
road. We really do not have that problem where we have located it. We tried to
locate it on that property line for that reason. We have a 30-foot wide landscape
buffer on that side. We could have sucked it all over on Mr. Allen and then Mr.
Young would not have had a problem. If we took that landscape buffer that
comes up there and slid our roadway so that it was right there, the Highway
District would even allow us to do a half street section and force our neighbors in
the future to the east of us to share in completing that roadway. But we tried to
put it on the property line so that we had the least impact to Mr. Allen’s house
and to Mr. Young’s house. I went out with one of the surveyors and a landscape
architect and we looked at the location where Mr. Young’s windows are located.
As I stand at the street elevation, the bottom of his windows are about at my eye
elevation so it is 5 feet higher as where his house sits. Where the island sits in
the center of that road as it leaves our development, you would have to cut the
corner. Now if someone cuts the corner and hugs the island to try to go to the
west there is a slight chance after those bushes are removed that it is going to hit
his window. But if they go into the center of the street and then make their turn
instead of cutting the corner, and I cannot guarantee that people will not cut the
corner. In fact for Mr. Young’s benefit I would say most people do cut the corner,
but where the island is located, I believe that they are going to travel into the
road right-of-way before they start to turn. We felt that that intersection was
unsafe when we put it in for Thousand Springs because of the road rising and
realistically what has to happen is that road needs to be grated to the east and
drop that elevation to make that sight distance better. I think I have them all.
Trash in the Ten Mile because it is going to be our open space and we are going
to be operating and maintaining that open space. It will be taken care of better
than what is taking place now because it is like our park space. We plan on
paving the 10-foot pathway in that area. To say that kids are not going to through
boats in or something like that, that is going to happen, but because it is a creek I
am not away that you can put a trash grade in a floodway.
Borup: When I said that I was thinking of where a creek goes into a culvert, and
they always have them at those places.
Brown: This is open. I think I answered most of them. Mr. Goldsmith’s attorney,
Mr. Hoaglun, our location of where we put our entrance to his property currently
has to do with the sewer master plan. It shows it starting up at the northwest
corner of his property and then running to his southeast corner. Obviously, we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 55
moved the school down. Maybe on of the things that would help that is to off set
the school entrance, and they have to drive a block or so in ours before it makes
it sequentus. They are kind of serpentine. School buses are not the problem like
the residents have said. As I have met with Mr. Bigham it is the people bringing
their kids to school. The more kids you can have walk to school the less
problems you have other than dentist appointments and other things like that.
Are there any other questions?
Borup: Any other questions from Commissioners? Did you see anything else
Commissioner Norton? Did it look like he covered the questions you had asked?
Norton: We have heard several developers that will help neighbors with this
headlight problem. That will provide bushes or trees in the sight of line. Is that
something that you might consider?
Brown: We would be willing to meet with Mr. Young and do that. The problem is
that where that area is. It is his entire driveway. I looked at it and that is why the
landscape architect was there. I said let us go and plant trees now. We do not
know when they are going to widen the road but let us plant trees now. His
driveway comes down at an angle like that, so there really is not – unless I plant
trees in his driveway then I am going to block that window. His windows are right
there in that part of his house. The rest of the house does not have any windows
on the exterior. It is his southern window pane that just crosses that area. None
of the other windows can be seen. If you stand right on the inside island and look
across, you can just barely see just one of the windows where his current shrubs
and bushes are.
Norton: It sounds like you have thoroughly investigated it.
Centers: Well was it not true that right now there is not a problem, but when
Victory is widened that is when the problem comes up.
Brown: Right. So I tried to approach it from that approach in going okay, some
shrubs would be a pretty cheap thing to do, moving the island, making the island
smaller, we could move it over. Right now the inbound traffic lines up,
southbound traffic off of Victory into our development lines up with his driveway.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: One other thing there was a lot of discussion about traffic, Locust
Grove and Victory. Where there any traffic studies done?
Brown: Yes there was, and that is part of how the Highway District came up with
their findings for us. We had a traffic study. We are all serviceable at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 56
After sitting in your shoes for a number of years, traffic is bad everywhere. It is
worse at your own house. I have to agree that traffic is worse in Meridian than it
is anywhere else in the valley. The report said –
Centers: And that went to the staff?
Brown: Yes, and I have a copy of it here too.
Borup: Do we have any final questions? Come forward, we thought we were
done with the public testimony.
Patterson: I am Jim Patterson. I live in Boise, and I farm the Morgner place. I
farm the property that is being under consideration right now. There is a ditch
that runs on the Morgner property from the Ridenbaugh Canal down to the Eight
Mile drain. You are going to have to put some type of fence so you can burn the
ditch, clean the ditch, get near to it. A comment on the wetlands that they want a
running stream through. Water from the Smith property drains into the Morgner
property, underground water. So when we farmed the Smith property we had to
quite irrigating it so we could get crops off of the Morgner property. If there is
running water in those ponds, we are going to have a real big problem on the
Morgner property to get water out of there. Another concern is through the
subdivision from Victory there is a ditch that goes through there and feeds that
goes across to Ridenbaugh canal that feeds, and I have not heard it being
address at all here tonight. An irrigation ditch but they think it is a drain ditch, but
it is a live water ditch. Those are my concerns. There is definitely groundwater
that feeds from the Smith place to the Morgner property.
Borup: When you irrigate there is you mean.
Patterson: Well, if you have water running through those ponds we are going to
have the same problem. Through their ponds that they are talking about. You will
make the Morgner property unsuitable to farm probably.
Borup: Maybe I am mistaken. Aren’t those ponds in areas that already have
water running through them?
Patterson: You are talking about enhancing them, right?
Brown: You are saying right here and here that it is going to go over to here?
Patterson: Right here and right here it will drain. That was a pond at one time, a
holding pond.
Brown: A storm water pond.
Patterson: Well, it is the same thing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 57
Borup: No it is not the same thing.
Patterson: Well, if there is water in. If there is water on this side it would drain
clear down in there. I am just stating that. I thought these were on the other side
of the Eight Mile in here, but you will get water from here to there. I do know that.
I do not know if there is anything you can do about it, but that is a concern I am
sure the Morgner’s have because if you cannot make the ground suitable to farm
nobody is going to want to farm it.
***End of side four***
Patterson: -- like it anyway.
Borup: Thank you. Just a second.
Webb: My name is Doug Webb, and I live at 1975 East Victory. My property
comes right here. Chainlink may work real well. In fact it may be the only way
that they can work with the farm people. I do not want to look out my back door
and see chainlink fence. I like the 6-foot solid cedar.
Borup: Mr. Brown, a question on the waterways. Does that area have water
running through it presently?
Brown: There is high groundwater there. Currently it seeps out of the Eight Mile,
and our intent by having that is to help dry out the property. It would continuously
run to the Ten Mile.
Borup: So you are going to be dredging those areas out, so that the water
would go there rather than somewhere else?
Brown: Right. Into the rest of the property and to help – currently right here the
Eight Mile, the bottom of it leaks, and it comes across this way through the
Ridenbaugh to here, goes this way, the Ridenbaugh comes along here, and
there is water coming this way. We are aware of that. To meet the City’s
requirements we have to be 3 feet above with our roads and our storm drainage
and everything else to do that. We want to try and drop the water table. We want
the ponds to serve as a cut of trench to pick that water up, and it needs to be
free flowing to move back into the Ten Mile. There is some engineering to do
that. Currently in the piece where he was concerned about water coming out of
our storm drainage pond, we are looking at having a French drain there and then
have that daylight into the existing ditch that the water is currently going in. On
our property right now there is a cut off ditch to pick up that water. We just want
to enhance it by making it a French drain, so that it can be a part of the back of
those lots. So that would go from this point around over to here to where ever it
dumps into their ditch and then back this way. I can say I am not one of the of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 58
people traipsing around on the Morgner farm, so I have looked at it on our side,
and yes we see the ditches that come across our property. We understand Idaho
State law that requires us to continue that water running through.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the other Commissioners?
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: Just one question, back on the road access along Victory Road. I am
familiar with that access off of Thousand Springs. I am not quite certain what
ACHD requirements are, but if you move that down and I agree with you that is
not the best spot for an access right there on Thousand Springs, but that you are
committed to that, what difference would it be to move your access down to
match that? Since you are already committed to with Thousand Springs.
Brown: We chose not to do it at this point because it was difficult before. There is
a slight grade problem as you get closer to the canal it is a little steeper. It
causes a lot more filling to take place. We are already doing enough of that. The
rest of the property over to that point is a pretty gentle slope coming down, but
then as you get to the Ridenbaugh it drops off and would require a lot more filling
in there. So we did look at that as how you would do that and then bringing that
up so that is level –
Shreeve: Basically, constructability on your end.
Brown: Correct.
Borup: Did ACHD have some safety concerns with the sight coming up and
down that hill?
Brown: Because we did not propose that –
Borup: They did not address it.
Brown: No. If it had been a real concern from their standpoint, they would have
made us move it for the stoplight issue.
Borup: Heading east or at least pulling out at Thousand Springs heading east is
kind of a scary situation sometimes. You do not know what is coming up down
other that hill.
Brown: Correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 59
Borup: Thank you. Any other comments from staff? Well we may ask if we have
any others. Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, there were a couple of things I noted in the staff report on
the CUP, PUD requirements. I guess we did not really talk about very much, the
block length, lot frontage, are those concerns? I guess I did not hear a lot about
that.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Nary, right. Our goal in pointing them out in the
staff report is just let you know that as a Conditional Use Permit as a Planned
Development these are the standards for the R-4 that they would be asking to
have an exception to.
Nary: I see, okay.
Hawkins-Clark: It is simply so you know you can have exceptions to the R-4
standards. This points out what the exceptions are. They are allowed to be
exceptions since it is a PUD.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: A couple of thoughts that came up. There has been quite a bit of
testimony tonight regarding migrating groundwater. I guess I would maybe
recommend that some addition study be done with some recommendations
presented to the City from a soil scientist on that migrating groundwater.
Borup: Are you talking about the present water?
Freckleton: Correct. Recommendations on how to solve those problems, so that
it is not a problem for farming operations. Also, I would concur that that
intersection up there out of Thousand Springs is in my opinion very dangerous. I
think that there is probably justification for some traffic safety – it needs some
attention. Especially when traffic starts coming into the subdivision from Victory
Road, making those maneuvers south into the subdivision.
Borup: Into which subdivision?
Freckleton: Into Tuscany. Possibly maybe some reduction in speed, farther
reaching, maybe that entire mile. Also I do not know if Mr. Brown has addressed
traffic signal with the Highway District if that has come up. I think it needs to be
looked at pretty hard, because that is really a dangerous location.
Borup: So you are thinking an alignment of this subdivision would make it even
worse?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 60
Freckleton: I do not know. I guess it would depend on what kind of safety
measures where put into place. If it were signalized maybe aligning those
intersections would be the best solution. I do not know. It would take somebody
that specializes in those kinds of things to tell us. I think that by relocating the
entrance to line up with Thousand Springs is just going to compound the
problem. It is just going to concentrate more traffic there. Without some other
modifications, I think we are just adding to it.
Borup: Back to your statement on water migration. Have there been things that
have been done in the City in the past to help alleviate that as having a pond
with some depth in it or other waterways? Has that historically helped that?
Freckleton: We did have some similar problems with Sherbrooke Hollows. Mr.
Brown, his firm was involved in that. There was water that migrated north out of
the property that was Sherbrooke Hollows, and the cut-off drains that he is
talking about were put in there. I believe they are functioning quite well. Part of
the problem is that there are some impermeable soils that the water is perching
on, and it migrates. These cut-off drains that he is talking about basically as you
penetrate that layer and incase a perforated pipe in drain-rock down to where it
can intercept that migrating water and carry it off to a drain. It is more controlled.
Those are the things that I think somebody needs to – soil science needs to take
a look at that and give us some recommendations in a report that is his
recommendations on how we can solve these problems.
Borup: Has experience been that a subdivision going in helps or makes a
situation worse on groundwater as opposed to an irrigatible farm ground? Or has
there been any?
Freckleton: I have heard both. Arguments both ways. I do not know how to
answer that. In subdivisions people do put a lot of water on their yards. I do not
know how to answer that question.
Borup: Okay, I guess I have personal experience. Any other questions from
Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman I have one question for Brad. Mrs. Howard had a
question regarding setbacks. How far will these buildings be set back. What is
our standard setback on lots?
Hawkins-Clark: 15 feet on the rear is the minimum, so that would be no portion of
any permit building structure could be any closer than 15 feet to the rear. I would
point out that as a Planned Development if you feel that there should be
increased setbacks that can certainly be made a condition if that is appropriate.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 61
Norton: Thank you. I think there is enough questions on this we should probably
continue it. Get the soil scientist that is my opinion.
Borup: If commission feels there are questions I think we need to have them
listed then without just saying answer questions.
Norton: I would say one, migrating groundwater is a problem that we should
look into. The dangerous intersection –
Borup: The dangerous intersection is the one that is already there going into
Thousand Springs.
Norton: Right. Are we going to make it worse –
Borup: If it lines up.
Norton: -- if it lines up. Should the speed be reduced on Victory Road with
another intersection to a subdivision? I think the wetlands also had some
questions, and definitely the sewer and water.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, it seems like we have talked about this for quite awhile
now. Bruce, wasn’t your initial concern with setting this matter over because of
some concerns on the sewer, that we are not quite there yet to make that
decision on the sewer, correct?
Freckleton: Commissioner Nary, sewer and water.
Nary: Sewer and water.
Borup: And on the sewer was that correct that the property north of this would
sewer to the south into this property? The Morgner property would sewer into
this.
Freckleton: I am just kind of going from memory because I do not have a copy
of our facility plan with me, but I believe the property – I am thinking that there
was a dividing line that cut through the middle. It separated the triangular portion
of the Morgner property from the northern portion. Do you remember Kent?
Borup: That is all right. So you said sewer and water. That is four items.
Norton: Sewer, water, groundwater, the Victory Road intersection, and
wetlands.
Borup: What was the question on wetlands?
Norton: It was in staff’s report. They were concerned about –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 62
Borup: Where it said the applicant should be prepared to address the issue I
believe.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we had requested that they obtain a letter from the
Core of Engineers with the determination.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: Do you want more?
Borup: It depends. If there is more that needs to be answered then yes. If you
want the applicant to come back next time and give him more.
Centers: Well, the applicant heard a lot of things tonight if was taking notes. I do
not think that we need to remind him.
Borup: I think we do need to be specific on what we are asking him to do.
Norton: What about the canal easement, staff? You had a question about canal
easements.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Commissioner, I think just a clarification in writing though on
the Nine Mile in particular. It was shown Nine Mile in the plat, but it sounds like
there has been some change on that. Then of course the issue of how to use
that 20 feet in the pathway. That might be another question to get some
clarification on. A specific proposal on how to utilize that.
Norton: Okay, great.
Brown: Would that one be coming from staff then? Or are you asking us to come
up with something?
Nary: On the pathway issue? It sounds like a recommendation to work with the
Parks Department and the City to do that. It sounded like you were committed to
that and it was not a problem. I do not know that that is a big issue.
Brown: Let me go through the issues that were raised, and hopefully these are
the ones that you are talking about. Groundwater, migrating groundwater, the
possibility of a connection to Victory and impacts that that would be, I do not
what you really want Commissioner Norton on speed on Victory. Do you want us
to see if we can have the speed reduced?
Norton: Go back to ACHD. If they made a goof on the Thousand Springs, that is
what is sounds like that they goofed on where to put your entrance on Thousand
Springs because of the hill.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 63
Brown: The speed is not going to help it. It is still a problem.
Nary: It appears to me that what our concern is, is that if we have one problem,
we do not want to make two problems. If the roadway lines up, which does seem
to make sense in a lot of ways, it looks like it is far enough from the corner to
have a signal. It does not appear to be too close. Would that solve the problem?
Is ACHD in favor of that? Because that would make the most sense to me.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess what I would be looking for at that intersection would be
some sort of a documentation or maybe a preliminary warrant study if you will.
That if we did a traffic light there if they did line up, something from ACHD to
knock down the grade. I have not looked at it from that point of view, but if there
is maybe just some work in that section to knock down the grade. Something,
because I think idealistically in my opinion it would be better if they were in
alignment with each other; however, is that safety issues? Are there things that
maybe just need to be researched a little bit further?
Nary: And Mr. Chairman, just so the folks like Mr. Young understand, it does not
make sense to me to line those roads up if there is not a signal there. Then I
think you have even more danger. ACHD normally wants them offset if there is
not a signal, so that there is more safety. You can see the other cars, and that is
what has been proposed. All we are asking is if we looked at it and ACHD has
not, if they lined up, would they want to have a signal there. Then it would make
some sense. We do not want it lining up if there is no signal there. I think you
have an even more dangerous situation than already exists.
Brown: The other item that I show is the sewer and water. I have no control over
that. We will pay our fees, and we will do whatever.
Borup: I think they are talking about the studies.
Brown: We submitted everything to them. As Bruce maybe mentioned, their
consultant is sick. We will give them all of the information they want. We will pay
for the modeling.
Borup: So the sewer and water question is waiting for the consultant to do their
–
Brown: So that is not something that I am bringing to you. It is something that
staff will bring. Then did you want us to look at a pathway along Ridenbaugh?
Borup: Well discuss that with the City and Parks Department.
Centers: Would the School District be involved?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 64
Borup: I think the School District made their statement. Then it is just the
wetlands letter and the Nine Mile easement.
Brown: Do you want the wetlands letter by that time? I happy of taking care of it
as taking care of it as part of a condition of the plat. I did not see that –
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I think that has been our normal force is simply that it is
required before the Final Plat is done. That does not seem to be a real problem.
Borup: Do we have a motion then?
Nary: I am assuming that the Public Hearing will still be open since we are
going to be taking additional information. I would move that we continue items 5,
6, and 7 basically AZ00023, CUP00052, and PP00024 the request for
annexation and zoning of 156.21 acres from RT to R4 for proposed Tuscany
Lakes Subdivision along with the corresponding Conditional Use Permit for the
proposed R-4 zone, as well as the Preliminary Plat approval for the 349 building
lots now and 44 other lots on the same piece of property south of Victory and
east of Eagle Road to a April 19, 2001. Would that give you enough time Mr.
Brown? Bruce would that give the City enough time?
Freckleton: I believe it will.
Borup: That is four weeks.
Nary: We can always continue it again.
Norton: Second.
Borup: Motion made and seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Before we take a break and this would be a good time to do that, looking
at the rest of the agenda Commissioners I may be wrong but I am anticipating
that we are probably not going to get all the way through the Bridgetower
Subdivision. I guess we will need to see. We will open the hearing and start and
get as far as we can. So just to make mention of that for all of those here.
Nary: Is there a lot of the members of the public here for the Bridgetower
Subdivision?
Borup: Good question. How many are here for the Bridgetower Subdivision? No
one in the room, maybe someone in the lobby. Let us take about a 5-minute
recess.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 65
8. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2001: AZ 00-019
Request for Annexation and Zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT-R-4 for
proposed Cedar Springs by J-U-B Engineers, Inc – northwest of Meridian
and Ustick Roads:
9. Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2001: PP 00-018
Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 333 building lots and 25 other
lots on 99.83 acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Cedar Springs by J-U-B
Engineers, Inc – northwest of Meridian and Ustick Roads:
Borup: Continued Public Hearing from February 15, 2001. First, request for
annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from RUT to R-4 for proposed Cedar
Springs subdivision and along with that continued Public Hearing for Preliminary
Plat. I believe as we left that last time the issues were all covered at the previous
meeting except for that of the access to the park and the single-loaded street
Park policy. I believe we left the meeting with instruction for the applicant to meet
with the Parks Department and work something out. Let us go ahead and start. I
would like to reopen those two hearings and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you Chairman Borup and members of the Commission.
You should have in your packets a memo dated March 14, 2001. One dated
March 12, 2001 from Matthew Schultz addressed for four issues and then my
response to his dated March 14, 2001. There were a couple of issues on the
ACHD collector length. The issue of tiling the White Drain and open space. Then
as you say the single-loaded street. We have summarized those there. The
Parks Director, I will turn it over to Tom to address the rest.
Borup: So at this point you have not received a response from Settler’s
Irrigation?
Hawkins-Clark: That is correct. My understanding is that the board meeting has
not been held yet. Since the board meeting has not been held they are unable to
give us a firm reply at this point on that tiling issue.
Kuntz: Commissioners, just a brief recap Especially for new Commissioner
Shreeve. At the last Planning and Zoning meeting I believe it was on the 15th
of
February. A memo sent to the commission in regards to recommendations from
the Parks and Recreation commission and staff recommending a single-loaded
street on the southern boundary of Cedar Springs where it butted up to the park
property. We listed several benefits to a single-loaded street on such a large park
of this size. I think the main issue though was outlined by the memo by Police
Chief Gordon as potential safety problems created by restricting visibility across
such a large expanse. We went out and took some pictures, and I am not sure
how beneficial they are. These pictures are actually just showing a park, actually
it is Simplot Complex in Boise that has single-loaded streets all the way around
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 66
it. Same park again. This shows the actual property. The picture in the top left,
all of these pictures are taken from the very back corner of the park, which would
be the northwest corner of our park. The one on the left-hand corner is looking
back to the east. The one in the lower right-hand corner is looking due south.
Again this picture is from the back corner of our property, and it is looking
southeast. I believe that is towards the Ustick Meridian intersection. The area
where the pictures are taken from is where the baseball/softball complex/five-
plex will be built or is planned to be built. We feel like that is going to create a
hidden area far as buildings there will be fences, restrooms, dugouts, and those
type of things. With that I will move to the memo that you should have received
dated March 14, 2001. It calls out that we met on February 22, 2001 with the J-
U-B and the developer to discuss possible solutions. Park’s recommendation
was that a common lot be created combining 8 to 10 existing lots that would take
care of the visibility problem in that back corner. The developer was concerned
about the traffic that would be created by having that area single-loaded, and
attachment A will actually show a visual in your packets of where those common
lots would be. I believe I blocked out a total of 9 lots on that Attachment A. The
developer suggest then an alternative which is outlined on Attachment B that he
would be willing to stub in a small street that would come in off of Venable Lane.
If that were to happen then woe would relocate part of our large parking lot off of
Ustick into the northern corner there as shown on Attachment B, but there are
some problems with that and the staff does not recommend that as a good
solution. Probably the biggest one is that this would be prohibited by City
Ordinance 12-4-5, which states that all blocks should be two-tiered, no double
frontages and that would create a double frontage for those first five or six lots.
We contacted the developer's representative a week ago to see if they wanted to
get back together and meet for a second time, and they declined that invitation.
With that I will stand for questions.
Borup: Questions from any Commissioners?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup if I could just point out that the reason for the
arrows that this is the revised plat that the City received. The arrows point out the
new open space/storm water retention areas that they have changed from the
previous plat that you say at the last meeting. The others are the same.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: How many lots did they eliminate by doing that?
Hawkins-Clark: I believe it was four.
Nary: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 67
Borup: Anything else from the staff.
Kuntz: I just have one last comment. We are currently trying to select a site for
a skate park, and one of the main issues that have be expressed by the City
Council twice is the visibility in relationship to safety. I guess I would just like to
bring that to the front for the commission.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Getting back to the J-U-B letter says they went to a lot count of 264 and
on our agenda we had 333, so did they lose 4 lots or did they lose 69?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers I believe that that reference and maybe
the applicant can correct that is referring to the original. It is the original
application; the Clerk will typically keep the original application on the agenda. All
the revised changes are not necessarily reflected on agenda as the projects
proceed.
Centers: Okay, so when we heard this one-month ago it was 268?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Centers: Okay.
Shreeve: Again what was the purpose of deleting the four lots? Just making the
detention ponds larger or just more common space?
Hawkins-Clark: Meeting the 5 percent minimum open space.
Shreeve: Okay, but not necessarily to accommodate drainage or anything.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Okay, the applicant’s representative.
Schultz: Good even Chairman, Commissioners. Matt Schultz, 250 South
Beechwood, J-U-B Engineers representing the applicant. If I could speak to Mr.
Shreeve’s comment about the drainage. After the last meeting we did not
necessarily go back and put those lots there to move away from the park. We
kind of stood back, took some of Mr. Simunich’s comments, relooked at the
Landscape Ordinance, that when we first submitted this it was not adopted yet,
so we took a close look at it based on your comments at our last hearing. We
decided that those detention basin lots that we previously had in their previous
configuration would have had to have been deeper and not so usable. So in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 68
order to provide a little bit more extra stormwater protection and make them more
usable we widened them out so if you shower. In order to a provide a little bit
more storm water protection as make them more usable we widened them out so
they would be shallower and in doing so went back and counted the open space
and we met it. Those are the three discharge points for our storm water, and
those are the logical places for having those basins and combining them with
some usable open space, a nice entry feature coming up Venable Lane as well.
We thought that was the reason for the open space, and we do meet the new
Ordinance. We shaded the areas that were countable. We could not count the
buffers along Meridian and Ustick, and they are not shaded. The shaded areas
are 5.2, and we did lose four lots from the previous time that we were in front of
you. If I could go over a couple of the items in staff’s comments real briefly. Item
one is taking about the Settler’s irrigation and April 3, 2001 is when we are going
to go their board meeting and ask that that requirement to tile be waived. Fire
preliminary calculations a 66-inch pipe and we are asking for a waiver of that
since it is over 48 inches. It is a rather large drain. We are going to fence along it,
and regardless if we tile it or not it will be 25 feet wide, so the lot lines are not
going to change or anything like that. Number two; staff had a question about the
easement micro-path at the northwest corner of the City Park. It says the
applicant should address how it is utilized and measures are in place that will
restrict pedestrian access. That area right there is not shaded in this version.
There is a dashed line there if you can see it. That is where the irrigation waste
and storm runoff goes. We had always planned to have at least a storm drain
there to pick up some irrigation waste water, and originally we thought it is a
pretty good place to combine maybe put it underground and put a pathway to the
park. However, at the last meeting Mr. Kuntz suggested that you did not want
that there. We took the shading off of it, but since then we have talked to the
school, and they said that would maybe be a nice place for the kids to get into
the school. Actually, we would like to utilize that. Maybe if we could cut the corner
off of the park, they could not necessarily get into the park, but it would be a nice
location for the kids to get into the school, right at that corner. We need it at least
for a storm drain. We cannot really move it from there, so we might as well make
it 20 feet wide or 10 feet wide or whatever, put a micro-path down it, and
underground the storm drain so that it is no danger to anybody walking over the
top of it. With that I just ask for your approval as per staff’s recommendations
originally and I am here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I guess you lost me on that last micro-path right at the corner. Are you
just going to kind of wait? Because the School District has indicated the desire
for it, but the Parks Department has not. You are going to do your drain there and
then just leave it?
Schultz: No, we can put a path across there. I am just saying there is going to be
some coordination required for the legality of them cutting across a very narrow
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 69
corner of the park piece and not getting into the park or fencing it somehow. If
you understand what I am talking about there. We can actually slide it over 5 feet
so that it would be on the lot on the school side, so it would be straddling that
common boundary between the school and the park.
Centers: Move the lot line there of Lot 11?
Schultz: Yes. But still there is that very small area that the kids may walk across
to get into the school. The School District has expressed a desire for that
pedestrian traffic.
Centers: Could that also cut across Lot 11 rather than the park site too?
Schultz: You are absolutely right. It could. It could be totally on Lot 11. It is extra
deep right there. It could. We could still stub a little storm drain out into the park
property because that is where the water is concentrating.
Borup: You said addressing Item 5 that the new plat still does not show the
easement boundaries, is that correct? That is what you are waiting for, the
Irrigation District’s meeting?
Schultz: No, we have currently and we have always shown a 25 feet up on the
north property. It is not shaded but it is going to be an easement or a common lot
where the fence will be built up to the edge of that. We are asking to be able to
leave that as an open ditch.
Borup: You just do not have it labeled as an easement at all then?
Schultz: It is labeled as a common lot.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Schultz, I do not remember if you were here at the last meeting –
Schultz: I was.
Nary: Okay. At least my perception when we left that meeting was that part of
the reason that we set it over is because Mr. Howell said that this issue was not
brought up very soon. It was pretty far into the process about this access of the
street and all of that. That there had not been any real opportunity to discuss it at
all. My perception was that part of why we were sending it over to see whether or
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 70
not there could be some reasonable discussion between the City and the
developer as to how to address these concerns as well as the 5 percent.
Schultz: I understand.
Nary: Now when I read Mr. Kuntz’s letter, it appears to me that at least the
flavor I get out of his letter is that the City did attempt to do that and the
developer did not. Because the proposal that the City has here that is
Attachment A in our letter – I think there are some reasons to that. I think it
makes some sense. It is not just a street that is going to be fronting the park as
was originally talked about at the last meeting. It is providing some open space.
It provides some visibility if they limit the parking. There should not be a real
parking issue. People are going to park there visiting the micro-path to this park
on the development side. It does not really matter because people are going to
park there. They are going to walk to that side of the park anyway if there is any
pathway connection to it. But it appears to me that what was proposed by the
developer is not even reasonable. It is not even legal to do it. So to me that is not
coming to the table to discuss it reasonably to try and find a resolution to see if
there is some compromise on the side. Proposing one option that does not work
legally is not doing that. So you could you explain that to me, why that was
presented and why no second meeting was even considered.
Schultz: I will attempt to. After we left last time, I understand the reason why we
were kind of pushed in the direction to coordinate. There was discussion back
and forth whether the park should attempt to resolve its visibility issues on its
own site or whether we should sell property to the park – there were a lot of
different issues floating out there as you remember, a lot of different options. One
of the things that led us in the direction to coordinate was the fact that we were
short on open space. I know it was on everybody’s mind. That is where Tom
came up with 9 lots. He said you guys need 9 lots of open space, so let us just
do it here. Well, we went back to the office and looked at it. I had to step back
and get out of the park issue and look at the overall big picture of drainage, the
open space, code, landscaping, and I looked at it as objectively as I could. We
have always said and we said it pretty adamantly at the last meeting that we did
not think a single-loaded street was good for the development. We comply with
Landscape Ordinance. We met with the Parks Department. I was not at that
meeting. I understand there was a proposal to maybe possibly extend in
driveway access through the north part of the school. I do not know if that was in
the memo that the parks sent you. I was not at that meeting at that time, but it
appears that the park did not see that as a viable way to address their problem of
visibility. I believe that is it and for the Police Department. My client is here to
speak on the detriments of the single-loaded street. I think we made that pretty
clear at the last meeting that we are just not in favor of that. We would ask that
you review our application based on the merits of it, and I think we have
proposed a solution that would solve the problem as far as getting access back
there. I am just not sure that the reasons he used to say it was not a good idea
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 71
are necessarily all of the way true. I do not see it as being illegal to do what has
been proposed as you suggested. I think there is a legal way to provide that
access back there.
Nary: It creates a double-fronted lot, so it is illegal.
Schultz: Well, it happens all over the place. If you look at all of our side entrances
along collectors we have lots that front on and they have a landscape buffer on
the back, and the same thing could be done there. You could have a landscape
buffer behind those lots. We do it all of the time with a landscape buffer. It could
be something we could do at that location as well.
Nary: But would you not also agree Mr. Schultz that you are trading green
space for blacktop.
Schultz: I do not know. We are meeting your Landscape Ordinance with 5
percent, we have a 56-acre park, and we really do not know what else we can
provide. I think the school would be able to have enough room. He is here to
speak to that with that pathway if that was the path we took to accomplish
Kuntz’s desire to have that accessibility. If we decide to do that the school would
still work. The fields would still be big. There is 8 acres of open space around
that school. You would have slightly less; you still have 7.5 acres. There would
still be plenty of open space. I think it is a solution. I do not think that it is
impossible. I think it is reasonable, and if Mr. Kuntz has another proposal to do
something else in that area, I just do not see giving up 9 lots there just to give up
9 lots.
Nary: But what I was asking is that what you just said is that Mr. Kuntz had
another proposal. It did not sound like you folks wanted to meet with again.
Schultz: I was not at the meeting nor did I ever reject Mr. Kuntz’s proposal to
meet again. I am not able to speak to that rejection of that proposal.
Nary: So maybe we should set it over to give you more time to do that.
Schultz: Maybe the client could get up and speak to that as far as he was
involved in those conversations. He would have been able to talk – I think we
have come to a point where we provided a good solution and we think it is fair
and reasonable. Do you want 9 lots, Tom? Do you want us to just give you 9 lots
up there along that frontage to make it a single-loaded street? Is that what you
are going for? Is it visibility that you were going for because that solution would
provide the visibility?
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 72
Centers: Was there another proposal that you wanted to put on the table?
Kuntz: No sir.
Centers: Okay.
***End of side five***
Borup: Any other questions?
Shreeve: Just because of being new, but I take it that the proposed school
property is the developers property?
Schultz: It is. That is why the lot count went from 333 to 268.
Shreeve: Okay. Then the future City park -- that is not part of the developers?
Schultz: No that is the City’s property, City owned and developed property.
Borup: Did you say the developer might want to add some comments to Mr.
Nary’s question?
Schultz: I think Mr. Kuntz answered that in that there was not any alternative that
he could not bring to the table that he want to. I think we came to an in-pass. He
did not want what we offered, and we did not really want his alternative. So we
are back in front of you again and asking for your approval tonight as we have it
submitted to you. If there is something else that I would be able to answer for
you I would be happy to. If you need any more elaboration, we will do what we
need to do.
Borup: So who was at that meeting? Was it Mr. Howell?
Schultz: Mr. Howell was there.
Borup: I think if he would like to we would like to hear from Mr. Howell then.
Howell: Kevin Howell, 3451 Plantation River Drive. Yes, we had a meeting and
lasted probably 2 hours. We talked about everything that we could on it, and we
both voiced what either one of us wanted. I basically asked him if it was just an
issue that he did not have room on his land for his buffer that he could create or
roads, or if just wanted us to put it on our ground and foot the cost for it. He said
yes that is what he wanted. So the meeting only lasted about 10 minutes after
that. There was no other meeting scheduled. There was a meeting for Monday. It
was an irrigation issue, which is a separate issue on the whole thing. There was
nothing else to be discussed from the parks on any alternative. They suggested
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 73
absolutely no alternative or interested in anything that we had to say about
alternatives. Gary Lee was also there. So as far as not being cooperative, I have
to disagree with that 100 percent. I would love to find a solution, and I am open
for any suggests. I stated how I felt about the single-loaded street and our homes
fronting a regional park. Our subdivision does not want to be part of the park. We
want to be separate from it. I do not have much more to add then what I said last
time.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Howell, how can you say you want your subdivision to be separate
from the park? You want it to abut the park. You want to have a pathway to the
park. The last time you wanted to basically use that as your green space for part
of it as to why you did not have to have more open space. It sounds to me like
you want to have it both ways.
Howell: No. The reason we did not come in with the 5 percent, is that what you
are talking about to begin with?
Nary: Right.
Howell: While we discussed it that Ordinance was not in place, and the engineer
suggested that we go in with that and if there is a condition put on that, fine. We
have no problem meeting the open space. I do not want to put my open space
along an open space of a park. I want the people that are paying for the open
space in the subdivision to be able to use it. They are already paying once for
park fees when they go in there. They should not have to pay for higher lot prices
because our density is getting so low, and we have more open space along the
park. I just do not believe in a single-loaded road along that park. Putting the lots
right across the street from it and having the traffic through there. I have been
through this experience with homeowners many times before, and it is going to
make it a lot more difficult to sell. It can be done, but that is rather a large park.
They have plenty of room to get their emergency access vehicles in there or
whatever else they need. We can do it through our pathways. I did not volunteer
objective pathways to the park. It was in a letter from Tom Kuntz 9 months ago
that that is what he would like. I believe that Gary Lee submitted that with the
package, and so we provided them. We can leave them in or take them out. It
really does not matter to us.
Borup: Anything else? So you said you had one proposal and that was to do the
parking lot, is that what you were referring to?
Howell: One thing that popped up in my head, I was trying to think of it anyway.
All of sudden maybe we can get an access along the back there. It does not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 74
sound like that is feasible either, but I was trying to come up with something. But
they have plenty of room to put roads along that back. They do not need us as a
buffer. I have talked to other parks Departments and what not, and they would
prefer homes along the back end with a lower fence to where the people that are
living in the homes basically police the back end of the park because people do
not want to hang back there and do bad things because they do not know
whether they are being seen or not. They do not know whether someone is doing
their dishes or nobody is home or not.
Borup: Where proposing that and making that part of the plat condition or the
covenants of lower fences along there then?
Howell: I do not have a problem with that at all.
Borup: What were you looking at 4 feet? Is that what you are thinking?
Howell: I was thinking 5 feet, and I knew you would be thinking 4 feet. I was
hoping for 54. 4 feet is a little low because what happens is people’s dogs can
jump it. I have dealt with those on micro-paths and what not. People always want
to add on to the top of them. I just thought maybe 54 inches. We might be able to
keep people from trying to put something on the top of their fence.
Shreeve: Of course you know that is great for policing but I know personally that
I would probably want the 6 foot fence just so that they cannot see me in my
house. It kind of goes both ways.
Howell: It is a give and take there, but there a lot of people that like living on
those parks and like that visibility. I have done subdivisions up next to parks
before. People like it. It is not a detriment to live to the back of a park. A lot of
people with houses that back up to the school; there are probably 90 percent of
the people that would not want that. There is a certain type of people that I have
dealt with over the years, especially single women with a couple of kids. They
love that. They just love living back to that school. There are always people who
will take stuff like that. But the traffic going through the subdivision to use the
park that is just one thing that I cannot get past.
Borup: You had mentioned another medium about an irrigation issue. That is
something that I had not heard anything about. That is what I was wondering.
Howell: No we are just trying to solve where to put the waste water that keeps
building up on the west end of the park.
Borup: Along Venable Lane?
Howell: I think Mr. Simunich is here to discuss that. You will have to ask my
engineer.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 75
Borup: Did that get worked out then?
Howell: Not yet.
Borup: Is there a problem?
Howell: Just a design problem with the wastewater is what I have been told.
Where to discharge that. I still have to farm this for at least one probably two
seasons. I am not willing to just go in and cut wastewater right through the
middle of the thing.
Borup: So you say that you are going to be farming it? Part of it you mean?
Howell: I am going to farm everything that I can so that I can keep my property
tax down. If I do not it goes to residential ground.
Borup: Does anyone else have any other questions? Thank you Mr. Howell.
Howell: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Mr.
Bigham?
Bigham: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Wendel Bigham, 911 Meridian Street,
Meridian, Idaho, representing Joint School District No. 2. I would like to probably
make just three comments, one of which I hope you take as germane and the
other two please take as information. The School District in talking to J-U-B
representing Mr. Howell, we are desirous to have a pedestrian pathway to
connect to the subdivision. If not there then there, but generally in the corner of
the school site works better. It needs to be understood that this school
representation is diagrammatic. Our school may not be shaped like this, and this
would be consistent on any of the plats that we see. The parking lot area and its
size are essentially what we are looking for, for 124 car parks. It is conceivable
that the school may be better situated here. We are reserving that right to when
we do our layout. But either way, pedestrian access there. One other comment
on the School District, and this actually relates to my past life prior to coming
over here in July for the Joint School District No. 2. I have spent the last 12 years
as the Construction Program Manager for the Boise School District. I am
intimately familiar with the land acquisitions for the school sites up in Columbia
Village that surround the park that the color photographs were shown on. Trail
Wind elementary school exists just down the road from the park on East Grand,
East Lake Forest Drive and one of the problems that we have with that regional
park – well two comments, one you will noticed that it was burned off; two, the
road around that park is put there not for single-loaded purposes but the park
side is actually an old dump site that had to be corned off and actually has
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 76
monitoring wells on it. The road came to be. The bigger problem that we had up
there was day use of the park and the safety issues associated with Trial Wind
elementary school, which is approximately an eighth of a mile east of that park. I
think without seeing it in detail, I would have concern about students coming and
going from here. Walking in this corridor if you will, coming out onto this area
where there could be considerable loading of vehicles and I will just say older
kids doing things here. I envision in my mind what I want. My kids walking out on
the main drive that goes down the center of Ann Morrison Park. I do not have
any great insight other than that. For overall school site safety we try to situate
our buildings in an area where the public comes and goes from one area, the
kids enter the school grounds and they are within a safe confinement. If you will
go back to Tuscany that we looked at, the kids are behind and they were fenced
off in their own safe world. The reality is that we will need a pedestrian access
there, but the other reality is do we want those kids coming and going from a
street that will see considerable use at 5pm when you send your 6 year old
walking to soccer practice. I bring that up as a community concern, and I think
those are probably my only comments having lived through this one way or
another. Any questions?
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bigham? Thank you sir.
Bigham: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Butler: Mark Butler, 222 East State Street, Eagle, Idaho. I came here tonight to
kind of break the ice because I started my own planning business about 8
months ago, and I have an item on your agenda at the next meeting. But in
looking at this plan and knowing the developer and the friends of the developers
and having lunch with them today, I thought I would like to talk a little bit about
this plan, just to touch on a couple of issues because I know it is real late. Being
a regional park I think it is really important for you to consider what has been
brought up already about traffic coming into the subdivision to access the
regional park. I could see it differently and hopefully you could too if it were a
neighborhood park of maybe a couple of acres. Having homes clustered around
it and so forth, and you a little bit of a different type of an access situation. Being
a 56 acre park, it seems like if we are going to have an access point coming
through a subdivision it has to bring in a lot of traffic that will degrade the
subdivision. I believe this is on two arterial roadways or the plan is for it to be on
two arterial roadways. Which seems to provide plenty of ability for access. I like
the idea of people being able to police the back through lower fences. I think that
will be really helpful, but basically I just wanted to break the ice. I am in favor of
the plan, and I hope you approve it the way it has been planned. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 77
Simunich: I am Joe Simunich, and I reside at 955 West Ustick Road, which is
across the Ustick Road from this proposed subdivision. A couple of questions
that I have not been able to get answered even from Ada County Highway
District is a new Venable Lane center line going to line up with the existing center
line of Venable Lane, which is property deeded for street purposes. Also, the
drainage water from the new Venable Lane where it is going to be delivered to as
a discharge point. Thirdly, I notice on the plan that on the southerly part of the
property we have 4 or 5 acres, maybe 3 that are not included in this. Apparently
there is going to be some other intended use at a later time. Why is this not
being subdivided as a residential area rather than left open for what is going to
happen there in the future that we will not know until that time comes.
Borup: That was brought out at the last meeting. They are proposing I believe
neighborhood commercial use there, but they need to wait for a new
Comprehensive Plan. I think the applicant mentioned it. Access to Ustick is not
where they would like to have the housing. I think I expressed that correctly. Is
that what you were wondering about?
Simunich: I just do not understand. Here we only have 150 or a couple hundred
houses going in and we need commercial already. Who is going to use this
commercial at this point? Who is going to drive out there from Meridian to go to
this commercial business? Why do we not keep it all zoned like the Tuscany
subdivision, all residential? You have 3 square miles there that can be developed
into a real attractive deal rather than starting to have strip commercial on
Meridian and also on Ustick Road. You have a good opportunity here. I see no
need for commercial across the fence line from me or across the roadway.
Borup: Question back on Venable Lane. You were concerned about the
alignment of it? What is the width of that road now? Do you know, is there a
dedicated road easement there?
Simunich: There is a dedicated road easement 20 feet off of the Ward’s property
and 20 feet off of the property that I own.
Borup: So you own the property to the west of this?
Simunich: No, to the south and a little bit to the west.
Borup: Is your property north or south of Ustick?
Simunich: South of Ustick.
Borup: You said Venable Lane is off part of your property?
Simunich: Yes it is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 78
Borup: It continues on south?
Simunich: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Ada County Highway District are the ones who are going to have
to answer that or maybe the engineer may have an answer on that. We will get
an answer on that.
Simunich: Also I would like an answer on what they are going to do with the
storm drain water.
Borup: Right, I will ask them on both of those.
Simunich: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Was there any other public testimony? Maybe to answer
those questions.
Schultz: Matt Schultz again. As far as lining up Venable Lane, I think you can see
from this picture, it lines up pretty much. We are right on the section line with our
road. It lines up for all intents and purposes. It may be off 5 feet or 10 feet but it
is there. It lines up as best as we can put it given the section lines where we
have it on our property. The question concerning storm runoff, as we explained in
the last meeting, we have to discharge of that water in its historic flow location. It
will be about 300 feet north of Ustick on Venable to be a high point where some
drainage will come down towards Ustick. Not much is generated from our site;
most of it will be coming down Ustick past the park on the park site and just go
past our skinny little portion there. We will convey it by us in a borrow ditch. We
will pipe the borrow ditch. We are not going to change anything there. As far as
north of the high point, that is where we had a retention basin that you guys say
at that intersection of Venable as it hits our main east/west street in our site there
where that lower red arrow is pointing to. We will retain that and discharge it
appropriately in accordance with all regulations and standards. Any other
questions?
Borup: Are you going to be developing a half plus twelve then?
Schultz: Exactly.
Borup: That is a 40-foot easement, and then you are doing another 10 feet off?
Schultz: I cannot do the math in my head right now, but it is at least that.
Borup: Well 10 and 40 is 50.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 79
Schultz: It is not split evenly there. You can see the dash line. We are doing a 58-
foot right-of-way for a collector.
Borup: Okay.
Schultz: So it is not exactly that.
Borup: So you plan on having the 58 feet total with existing road easements in
there now.
Schultz: Yes. We are doing plenty of improvements on our property.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Schultz? Thank you.
Schultz: Thank you.
Simunich: Joe Simunich. Apparently my question is not getting answered. Here I
understand how they are going to move the road 10 feet this way or that way.
Borup: They are widening the road.
Simunich: Is the centerline of the new Ustick Road going to line up with the
existing centerline of Ustick Road.
Borup: I thought you were going to line up with Venable Road.
Simunich: Excuse me, Venable Lane.
Borup: They would have to go over on their neighbor’s property to do that.
Simunich: No they do not.
Borup: Yes they would. You told me it was 40 feet wide. They are making a 50-
foot wide road.
Simunich: Venable Lane, south of Ustick is deeded 40 feet wide. I am asking the
commission is a new Venable Lane centerline going to line up with existing
Venable Lane?
Borup: No sir.
Simunich: Why not.
Borup: Because it is 40 feet and they are making a 50-foot wide road.
Simunich: I said the centerline.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 80
Borup: To make it do the centerline they would have to build it on the property
to their west, and that is not their property.
Simunich: I thought you wanted these intersections to be at right angles with
each other. Why does this one have to be off centered?
Borup: Then tell us the solution sir.
Simunich: Let them line up with the centerline of the existing Ustick Road.
Borup: Would you let someone come and build a road on your property?
Simunich: I have already given 20 feet.
Borup: But they need more than that.
Simunich: The neighbors gave 20 feet. There is 40 feet already deeded. Why
does a new Venable Lane have to shift –
Borup: Because they need 58 feet. Where does the other 18 feet come from?
Simunich: Where is the centerline going to be?
Borup: The centerline is going to be in the middle of the 58 feet.
Simunich: Is it going to line up with existing Ustick Road? Are we going to have a
jog in this intersection?
Borup: The westside would line up with what you have. The eastside would
have a jog. From what the engineers told us. You are trying to line a 58ft wide
road up with a 40 foot wide. The westside would line up, I am assuming. If the
centerline lines up presently then the westside would line up.
Simunich: I am concerned about the centerline. If I have to –
Borup: We are not getting anywhere with this sir.
Simunich: I understand this, but I think I should have an answer. Here is where
this road will be.
Borup: I gave you an answer. The answer is no they will not line up.
Simunich: Well that is not right.
Borup: No that is the answer. I do not know what else to say.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 81
Kuntz: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, I guess I just want to clarify a couple of
points especially for Commissioner Nary. First off, I did contact the developer’s
representative, Matt Schultz, about meeting a second time. I know that Brad
Hawkins-Clark can back me up on that because he is the one that contacted me
about had I contacted him. I believe the developer declined to meet because he
did not feel like there is any other resolve to the matter. Part of the reason that I
wanted to meet was to see if we could reduce the number of lots from 10, which
was originally discussed at your last meeting on the 15th
, to something that would
be more suitable to him as well as meeting what we wanted, which was the
visibility into that back corner, to allow policemen to drive along Alexis Street and
view the park. Two, is the meeting that Mr. Howell is talking about was the
meeting that we asked for this last Monday, this week, to discuss the drainage
issue in regards to us tiling our irrigation ditches in the park so we can start
construction of phase one this summer. The developer’s representative met with
approximately 18 individuals on January 16, 2001, and at that meeting there was
a verbal commitment or agreement that the developer would allow us to channel
our wastewater to the north up along Meridian Road. One of those individuals is
here tonight, and I know he has chose not to speak, but his name is Dale
Cooper, he is one of the farmers. The reason that we discussed and informally
agreed that that would be the best way to route the wastewater was to not only
help the park site, but also to help the farmers that border around Mr. Howell’s
property from being flooded out as has been the tradition in that area. We set
about working with our engineers, WH Pacific, in pulling our bid information
together so we could get our irrigation lines tiled prior to the water coming on
April 15. We had a second meeting where the developer was represented again
by Mr. Schultz on February 7th
, and I will quote from the first paragraph, to insure
that Dale did not receive an excessive amount of water, the diversion box
requires a checks to waste any excess delivered water from the east into a pipe
or ditch placed along the west side of Meridian Road and diverted north into the
Settler’s irrigation ditches white drain. Matt said his client would dig a temporary
trench across the future Cedar Springs commercial site to divert his water right
and any wastewater northwest into their existing delivery ditch. When Cedar
Springs is developed they will install a combination irrigation, wastewater, and
storm water pipe along the westside of the ultimate Meridian Road right-of-way
and discharge it into the White Drain. We received a letter from Mr. Hughes who
was our engineer from WH Pacific received a letter from Matt Schultz dated
March 8th
informing us that the developer had changed his mind and did not want
that ditch going to the north on his property. In the mean time we had developed
all of our bid specifications and gone out to bid, and those bids open this coming
Monday. So now we are in a dilemma as far as being able to get our ditches tiled
so we can start building this summer because an informal agreement was not
lived up to. Again the agreement not only benefited the park but the downstream
farmers as well as that pipe will be put in by the developer when he develops this
it will go up the west side of Meridian Road to the White Drain. So the benefit is
to both the park and the developer to work together to pipe that wastewater.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 82
There was an informal offer made from Mr. Schultz two days ago that if the City
would pay to pipe 364 feet of that actually 346 feet of that 24-inch pipe up to the
existing drain ditch that that might be an acceptable solution to the problem. The
report I got from Mr. Schultz today is that was unacceptable to the developer. So
there were two meetings held that the developer was invited to. He declined to
come to either of those meetings. I guess it seems like from the City’s
perspective there is a little bit of a pattern developing of not wanting to work with
us to resolve this issue. We feel very strongly that there needs to be an opening
in the back of that park for safety reasons, and we sure would have appreciated
the opportunity to sit down and talk about it a second time. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Kuntz?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: One of the things though that Mr. Howell said was that your statement
was in essence that the City of Meridian wants him to build them a free road.
Kuntz: That is totally inaccurate. We are not asking to build a road. We do not
need a road in our park. We have a pathway.
Nary: I knew not a road in the park.
Kuntz: That is totally inaccurate. I never made that statement. I would not make
that statement. I am here representing hopefully the community, and I guess the
question I keep asking myself is are we doing what is best for the community
here or are we doing what is best for the developer?
Borup: Any other questions.
Centers: Yes Mr. Chairman. How do you address Mr. Bigham’s comments about
the area open and a front-loaded street?
Kuntz: The way I address those comments is those children, all they have to do
is walk down 10 lots and access the micro-pathway that is in the middle there,
and they will access the park that way.
Centers: I wish it were that easy with children. I wish it were that easy. You use
this route and that is it. You know that will not be the case. They will use
whatever route they want.
Kuntz: In fact I would hope that they would be able to use the micro-path that
connects to the school to go around there into the common lot and go to their
soccer practices after school.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 83
Borup: Mr. Kuntz I have two questions. Mr. Howell said that speaking of the
irrigation a drainage issue was more just a matter of engineering than design. It
sounds like you were saying something different.
Kuntz: We would have had the option if we would have known that wasting that
water in the north was not an option. Of designing the flows, the live irrigation
water, and the waste to be wasted out the northwest corner of our park where
the pathway in question, the school wants to have access to the school, we can
waste all of the water out of that site. The problem is there is still some questions
about the amount of water that will go out of that corner of the park and into the
development if it is designed and engineered at this point to handle the amount
of water that could go out of that corner if all of the users down stream did not
want to use their water because of a rainy day or that type of thing.
Borup: An interesting comment on the idea of a 54-inch fence along the park.
Kuntz: I think a 5-foot high fence would meet with our desires. We would want it
to be something –
Borup: Would that help on the visibility?
Kuntz: That would be fine.
Borup: Would that address some of the concerns on visibility?
Kuntz: No sir.
Borup: That was my question.
Kuntz: No. We want the police to be able to drive by there, look through there,
and see if there are problems into that five-plex area. That is our desire.
Borup: You do not feel that the neighbors would be able to police that
themselves well enough?
Kuntz: No sir. Not based upon the letter that we have from Chief of Police
Gordon.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Schultz, you had some response.
Schultz: If I may respond to Mr. Kuntz’s comments, which were quite varied, and
there were a lot of accusations. I will see if I can respond to all of them. First of
all when I was up here the first time and said that you never contacted me about
a second meeting, I apologize I thought you were talking about the park issue
specifically. Because I was not involved in the first one, so I was never contacted
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 84
about meeting about the park. You did contact me about meeting about the
irrigation, and as you said, we declined to meet on that pending that we thought
that we had all of our issues pretty clearly stated. If I can back up a little bit for
everybody’s information. I am a professional engineer registered in the state of
Idaho. I deal with gravity irrigation designs day in and day out. I have 3 or 4
under construction right now. My plans had to be approved by February 15,
2001. Approved. If that was going through lengthy review processes,
coordination with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District by February 15, 2001. I am
not the design professional on the park's side. I advise my client on how the
irrigation could impact his site. I was party to that meeting of 15 people where I
represented one ditch user of 15,and suggested that yes there may be some
alternatives at that early stage of the game in January. I got a little nervous
around March 1, 2001, and I wrote a letter to Tom Kuntz because I had not seen
any plans. All my plans had long since been approved for other projects around
town knowing that the water was going to get turned on pretty soon. I got
nervous and some of my verbal comments might have been implied that I was
getting approvals, and I had never ever implied any approvals and my letter
which I would like to introduce on the record dated March 1, 2001 clearly states
that. Just show me plans so that I can review them and look at them. 15 people
cannot really come to a conclusion real fast.
Borup: So you are talking about the drainage on Meridian Road. You are saying
that that was never agreed to?
Schultz: Can I borrow your laser pointer please? I apologize for the length in this
meeting, but I feel it is my duty and obligation to give you all of the facts seeing
how I am having to defend myself slightly right now for some of the judgement
decisions that I have made. Historically, the delivery waters come across here,
straight across the middle of the site. My client as a property owner and a farmer
right now for all intents and purposes. He could be for the next 5 years for all that
I know. He gets delivery water up here and we ask that that delivery be
maintained. Currently as it sits one or two of those 15 people are over here. They
currently get flooded by too much wastewater coming down here. Some of that
waste goes up through here through that drain easement I talked about earlier.
Some of it goes that way. It would suggest that that early meeting in January
which was probably prior, all these hearings get continued, we do not know
where we were at. We were thinking we were going to move ahead quite fast at
that time, so it was suggested that maybe we could coordinate, could, I did not
say that we would. I said it was a possibility. There might be some mutual benefit
to doing so. Since that time of course some other issues have come to our
attention that might slow this development down for a year, two years, many
years, so I started backing up and wrote that memo on March 1, 2001 saying just
give me some plans. I need some plans to review. I just want to see how you
propose to do this, who is going to pay for it or what because my client just wants
to farm for a couple of years. I need to look at it from a property owner’s
perspective not a developer prospective. What came out of that meeting I had
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 85
with my client after I got the plans on March 6, 2001 I sent a letter out March 8,
2001 which I will introduce for the record as well. This was written to Kevin
Hughes, he is not a professional engineer, but he is a designer that works for
WH Pacific and I responded to the plans that he sent me and outlined my
professional requirements to allow this thing to move forward. I will introduce this
to the public record as well. Our concern was that he wanted that waste ditch up
this area there across basically that future landscape easement which happens
to have a house on it right now. It is an abandoned house but still we do not see
baring the burden to basically take some wastewater that used to go this way up
this way. Especially at this stage of the game we are not going to develop for a
couple of years. I wrote a letter that it was not impossible to comply with the
recommendations. They were very reasonable. Yes it was a little late because I
got plans late. What could I do? I responded as expeditiously as possible given
the time frame. There is another alternative that his engineer could instruct him
to. I am not going to speak for his engineer. I am not responsible for his design,
but it would be to protect these people by wasting it that way and into the drain
that is there and bypassing them with the controlled check structures and things
that engineers do when they design irrigation facilities. That is another alternative
that would totally bypass this requirement. Those are alternatives that your
design professional gives you up front early in the game, and you make those
decisions early on to not have to go asking a developer at the midnight hour for
an easement. Again, I am just trying to defend my professional reputation as a
prudent engineer representing my client, and I would do the same for the Park if I
were in his position representing him. I just ask that you do not hold that against
me that something might have gotten misconstrued about my professional
abilities. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Matt? Looking at your second letter, and I have not
had a chance to look at it real close but it looks like they are all addressing
running the waste ditch along Meridian Road. Is that what –
Schultz: They could, but we just –
Borup: In reading your letter, all of your comments are addressed to that. Is that
correct?
Schultz: They are addressed to that because there is right-of-way there.
Borup: Okay. You are saying that 24-inch drain must be extended 5 feet into the
Howell property and certain boxes need to be built.
Schultz: I responded to plans that show boxes in certain locations. I was not
proposing the total destruction of their plans. I was proposing an alternative. It
may not be easy but doable.
Borup: But you did not say that running it along that area is not acceptable?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 86
Schultz: I said grating on the property is not acceptable more than the 10 feet.
We did not want to grate a ditch all the way up through the future area that may
not ever be future. We have –
Borup: Except for the 10 feet along the border of Meridian Road, so you are
saying the ditch would have to run in that 10 feet.
Schultz: Right.
Borup: You do not think that this is something a reasonable person construed,
that they could go ahead with the plans to run it that way after receiving this
letter?
Schultz: Yes they could. I am just saying to run up it in the right-of-way is very
explicit. You could do it. It is not impossible.
Borup: Unless I misunderstood, I thought Mr. Kuntz said since that time you
have withdrawn that and said you would not allow it to run there.
Schultz: He was talking about running the ditch through our site instead. I said to
shift the ditch over.
Borup: Oh, then I misunderstood what he said. I thought he was still talking
about running it along Meridian Road.
Schultz: Right, but against the road right-of-way instead of 50 feet into the site. I
just suggested they move it over.
Borup: Otherwise it is going to be in your property lines.
Schultz: I know.
Borup: So that is still acceptable to you to run it along Meridian Road?
Schultz: In the right-of-way.
Borup: Okay. In the road right-of-way?
Schultz: It is a legal path of drainage if they can get that approved through
ACHD. The other alternative like I said would be to run it down and divert it
through the historic location which we planned for a drainage easement down
there in the future anyway with a stub.
Borup: And the historic location is –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 87
Schultz: Where that dash line is.
Borup: Right here?
Schultz: Right there, yes. If I had to sight topography you would see a ditch
running straight north right into that area.
Borup: Does anyone else have any other questions?
Cooper: Dale Cooper. I am the one that Tom Kuntz was talking about. I am real
concerned about this drainage water that they are talking about going this way.
The excess water. That comes down right through my place and goes into a 12-
inch tile, and it has been there for 50 years, and at the time it was not designed
to carry. It was strictly for runoff water off of the fields. It has in the past we had
diverted it. If I do not use the water and the farms here do not use the water, we
divert part of it this way to the original drain and part of it down through the ditch.
Both ditches come onto my place. What really concerns me is too much of this
excess water being pushed over this way into this historic drain as he called it,
and the 12-inch tile is not going to handle it. The 12-inch tile dumps right into the
White Drain. So that is a concern for me.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Lee you have a comment.
Lee: My name is Gary Lee with J-U-B Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in
Boise. I just wanted to point out to the commission that I was in attendance with
Kevin Howell and Tom Kuntz, Daren Fluke from our office, and one of Tom’s
employees to discuss the park issues in that first meeting in February. There
were a lot of things discussed in that meeting about the parks and the
alternatives for that roadway business. Towards the end of the meeting it was
evident that things were breaking down in the communications, and there were
some things said. I wanted to clarify what I heard at that meeting about Mr.
Kuntz’s position on that roadway. Kevin Howell did ask him if he wanted the City
Parks to build that roadway and give up that land at his expense, and I am here
just to collaborate Kevin’s statement that that was in fact said. So it was evident
to me that Mr. Kuntz had made up his mind on what he wanted there. There was
not really any room for further discussion. One point that I would like to make,
and I am really not sure why it has not been a viable alternative if the Chief of
Police and the Fire Marshall are concerned about access around that ball
diamond, I just do not understand why they cannot use the existing pathway that
they have planned there already for that purpose. There is no reason why it
cannot be 10 feet wide instead of 8 feet wide to accommodate a vehicle or a
police officer on a bicycle or a horse. They do it all of the time in Boise. They
have visibility and they have access. I have no further comments.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, how would you like to proceed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 88
Nary: I think we have heard from everybody so I move that we close the Public
Hearing.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Would someone like to start with some discussion?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess I will. This whole project just reminds me while
these are so hard and sometimes very difficult. Sometimes all we are doing is
saying move one house over here or move a roadway a little bit. I think that the
developer is not being very fair to make the statement that we are basically
making him provide a road to the City because we do that in all subdivisions.
Borup: Can I just maybe interrupt. At our last meeting there is a staff letter from
the Parks Department stating that they are willing to pay for the cost of curb,
gutter and sidewalk and the 4 feet of street adjacent to the property. That may
not be half of the road, but that is the remainder of the half plus 12.
Nary: I guess what I was –
***End of side six***
Nary: -- is that road of Alexis Drive go against the park or go in front of a row of
houses, which is not really any different than we discuss in every other
residential subdivision that we look at. So I think to take the position that Mr.
Howell has that we are somehow trying to get a free road out of him is not really
very fair. That is not what we are doing. We are looking as to where does that
road go? As to what we are faced with, we have two things here. We have a
request for annexation and zoning and I think we discussed at length the last
time that we are not obligated to annex this piece of property. That is why we felt
as a commission generally in the discussion that the 5 percent should be
adhered to even though the issue was that is was not part of the Ordinance at
the time. We are not required to annex them, and if we feel that that is important
which I think most everyone does that it should be a part of it. There has not
been any testimony that I have heard that this is not the right piece of property to
annex at this time. We have not heard anybody say it is too big or it is too many
houses or it is too dense or the zoning is incorrect or it is not contiguous or
anything. So there is not anything that tells me that on the issue of annexation
and zoning that we have heard any evidence to give us any other conclusion
than this is probably the appropriate property to be annexed in at this time. It is
contiguous to the City. They are proposing a school site. I do not have a problem
with the LO, light office type of things because again it is a large piece of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 89
property. Having some offices, dentists, doctors, and things like that at some
point in the future is not a bad use of property. That is a pretty good use. So on
the next issue is this plat what we want to see? Is that the way we want it to
look? That is really what we are wrestling over. They have met the 5 percent.
The issue of the park, I guess it still comes down to in my mind that if we felt it
was that important then that is our obligation as the City to design it that way.
That we should have made it so that – we knew we would build houses there.
They knew houses would go at some point in the future on that other piece of
ground or something like that. If we felt it was important and I asked Mr. Kuntz
this at the last meeting, would we build it as the City of Meridian, would they build
a road there if we did not require the road to be placed there, and the answer
was no. That tells me that it is not as important as it would seem to be. If we do
not feel that it is required as the City to build it instead. If it was that important we
would. They are not going to because it is a preference. It is something that we
would like to have, and it is a good means to be able to have visibility on that
side of the park, but we could find other ways to have visibility than changing this
configuration. I think both sides here maybe could have been a little bit better
working together, maybe could have done a little better on some of these issues,
but is this a bad design? I did not hear anybody say that is a bad design. I did not
hear anybody say that it is too many houses, or that the streets are crooked, and
the streets are bad. We did not hear anything like that. All we heard is that we
would like to have an open space on that side of the park. That was the City of
Meridian’s responsibility to design that that way. They chose not to do that, and
then they come late to the table to say now we want to do that in this fashion,
and I do not think we are obligated to make the developer do that. It would have
been nice. It would have been nice if Mr. Howell wanted to that. I understand his
reasons for not wanting to do that. I understand the School District. I think that is
a pretty fair concern that the School District had. There is nothing to prevent the
City of Meridian from working out an issue with the School District. If we put the
parking lot on that side of the school site, you would have access to be able to
see that side of the park. Having the lower fencing allows that visibility. There are
ways to do this without moving that roadway because there is not any other
evidence that I heard that says the roadway needed to be moved other than just
have an open space there. I guess what I am saying is at least for me I did not
hear any evidence that we need to change this plat to any degree other than the
preference we have to have that space. I do not think it is reasonable in light of
all of the evidence that we have heard that we should deny this project based on
that little section alone. That does not seem very fair to me. It does not seem
very reasonable in light of all of the evidence. That is my discussion.
Borup: Anyone else?
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Centers.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 90
Centers: I was going to say about the same thing, but in a lot less words. I
guess even if they had worked it out before Mr. Bigham came up and told me
about his concern for the school children I would have changed my mind. That is
the deciding factor. My wife is a substitute teacher, and those children do not go
where you tell them. If you give them some access or different access, they are
going to take it. The only thing I would say on starting the project and letting
something out to bid, get it in writing from the owner. That is my
recommendation. Mr. Nary said it very well.
Borup: Anyone else?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I still have one more question for Bruce. About the White Trunk drain
trunk, how close are we to getting this across to this property? And before you
answer I notice in staff notes of February 14, 2001 on page two, it said that Mr.
Lee had recommended that a condition of the Development Agreement that
there would be no construction of the subdivision until there was more certainty
on the drain, on the White Trunk drain.
Borup: I think the next project will determine that. That we are supposed to be
hearing tonight.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton, exactly. The Bridgetower
Subdivision project that is coming up next is where that White Trunk is going to
start. You might recall from the last time we discussed this project, the developer
stated that he will assume all risk of moving this project forward with respect to
the timing of the sewer coming to his project. That should be on the record for
the last meeting, and I do just want to reiterate that so that we make sure that it
is in the record. That we are fairly confident that things are moving forward with
the routing and easement acquisitions for the White Trunk. We are real pleased
with the progress that has been made recently. We have a lot better level of
confidence.
Norton: But how long do think it will be until it reaches this particular property?
Freckleton: Again, --
Norton: A year, two years?
Freckleton: No, it will be – at the last meeting I passed out a schedule. That
schedule after we had some meetings with the developers of Bridgetower, that
schedule was able to be moved up. Some of the time lines in that schedule were
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 91
moved up. A lot of the timing hinges on the approval process for the Preliminary
Plat for Bridgetower.
Norton: Okay.
Borup: Anyone else? I had a question for Mr. Kuntz. I guess after reading some
of the letters up here concerning the wastewater drainage, what was the
intention of the City or the Parks Department that that ditch across Cedar Springs
property, where would that be located?
Kuntz: Chairman Borup, we anticipated that it will be inside what will become the
new Ada County right-of-way.
Borup: So it would have been in the right-of-way?
Kuntz: 48 feet from centerline.
Borup: And that was what you proceeded ahead with the designs and the bid
documents, etc.?
Kuntz: I do not want to say that that is for sure, but I will say this much, I know
that we would not have had to move any of the buildings that are currently on the
property to move this line to the north. The reason I say that was because we
planned on aligning that waste pipe in the landscaping that is required by the
Landscape Ordinance.
Borup: What was the applicant referring to when they talked about cutting it
across the commercial property?
Kuntz: There was discussion at the first meeting about the live irrigation water
and how to get that to the point of Mr. Howell’s distribution point which is right
here. We plan on building a box, a large box here.
Borup: Okay. That is the box that they stated would want to go 5 feet into their
property, and then it will just go from there over to his ditch then. Is that correct?
Kuntz: I am not sure if I am following you.
Borup: Their letter stated that when the Parks put theirs in it would need to
extend 5 feet into the Howell property.
Kuntz: Correct.
Borup: And you are saying they would take it from here over to where their
access point is now, and then later on it would go down there when they
developed the rest.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 92
Kuntz: Right, as a temporary one-year thing since we wanted to take this
concrete ditch that is in there now. We wanted to take that out as part of phase
one in development. Matt suggested and I think his comments earlier were
accurate, we did not have confirmation from Mr. Howell on this, but you can see
the minutes from our meetings that I submitted –
Borup: I was looking more at his letter.
Kuntz: -- that we could do a temporary trench across to distribute water at this
point and take this concrete ditch out. If you are talking about the letter on the 8th
,
is that the letter that you are referring to?
Borup: I am not sure. We have read so many. It was a letter from Matt that was
talking about some of that I think. But it would not go across the rest of their
property then?
Kuntz: Not the live water distribution. The pipe in question is what we would do
with the wastewater and it would go from here up to the White Drain.
Borup: Okay that would be a temporary ditch there too.
Kuntz: Well, we suggest a temporary ditch that come up to here because there
is already an existing drain ditch that would connect to the White Drain that runs
across here. It is already in place.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Okay, Commissioners?
Centers: I would just like to address Mr. Simunich’s concern on commercial. If
this were to be approved tonight it would be brought in as R-4. Any commercial
use would have to come back, and they would have to ask for a zone at that
time. That should have been addressed earlier.
Borup: The applicant calls for future commercial or multi-family residential. Mr.
Nary were you ready to make a motion? –
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I just make one minor point? This is just to
make sure that it is on the record. The fact that the Final Plat, and we fully
anticipate that this White Trunk is going to be built and this is not going to be an
issue, Final Plat cannot be approved until sewer is available. Just for the record.
Borup: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would move to recommend to the City Council for
approval of AZ 00-019, request for annexation and zoning of 100.71 acres from
RUT to R-4 for the proposed Cedar Springs by J-U-B Engineers, northwest of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 93
Meridian and Ustick Road. Pursuant to the staff comments from February 15,
2001 and I do not believe for the annexation and zoning that there were any
additions or amendments to the annexation. Is that right?
Borup: That would be my understanding, too.
Nary: Is that correct, Brad? I do not think for the annexation part, No. 6.
Hawkins-Clark: Just for the inclusion of my comments.
Nary: Right. I think we have talked enough and maybe the staff comment could
be amended to include that the developer has agreed to basically take the risk
that he cannot begin development until the White Drain is available for sewer in
No. 6, but I think it does state pretty clearly in No. 6 that they cannot begin until it
is available.
Borup: Okay, we have motion.
Centers: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
Nary: aye; Centers: aye; Shreeve: aye
Borup: Any opposed?
Norton: aye
Borup: One naye. That was item No. 8. No.9 is the Preliminary Plat.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend for approval to the City Council PP 00-
018, request for Preliminary Plat approve for 264 building lots, 25 other lots on
99.83 acres. I think they just removed the four for drainage, and I do not think
that they added anything else. In and R-4 zone for proposed Cedar Springs
subdivision by J-U-B Engineers to include all staff comments from February 14,
2001 as well as this incredibly lengthy public record that we have had over this
issue, but also to include – in appears in the letter dated March 14, 2001 that the
two questions outstanding Item 5 on page 6 of the February 14, 2001 staff report
is the only thing being asked by the staff is that they confer the 25 foot width and
it appears that they have done that, is that correct? And that the revised plat and
what is proposed as a micro-path along the northwest corner of the cities future
City park basically somewhere between lots 11 and 12 or approximately that
area of the revised plat. That there would be a micro-path there for pedestrian
access both to the park and to the school. I do not know what other conditions
you think the drain issues that we need to have in the staff comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 94
Borup: One thing that concerned me on the drain, after reading the letter from
J-U-B Engineers I would think that a reasonable person would apply that it is
intended that that wastewater drain would be going along Meridian Road, and it
would be reason for someone to proceed ahead especially with what we have
got so far. I do not know if that is something that should be made a condition.
Nary: I do not know that we need –
Borup: It affects this parcel. It affects the drainage across the property, but it
also has to do with another project that does not have anything to do with this.
Nary: Right and it does not appear to me that putting it in this staff report – you
can build it along the roadway. Does it need to be in here?
Well they are talking about doing a temporary and tying into existing drainage
that is already there.
Nary: Let me ask, do you think it would be necessary to put in the Preliminary
Plat site specific requirements and then additional condition No. 17, that says a
temporary drain can be built acorns the southeast corner of this project. Is that
necessary for the Preliminary Plat requirement?
Borup: Where else would it come if it did not come here?
Nary: That makes sense to me. If we are going to build a temporary drain it
makes sense that we would include that as No. 17 if that makes sense to you
guys. To include that as a requirement that a temporary drain will be built across
the southwest corner to allow delivery of water and for drainage and wastewater.
Centers: Southeast.
Nary: Southeast corner, I am sorry. Does that make sense?
Kuntz: Mr. Schultz, I just want to clarify. Where we are currently legally able to
send our drain waters to the northwest corner, Commissioner Nary, is that what
you are alluding to? Are you talking about going up Meridian Road?
Nary: I am talking about the other side along Meridian Road. I am talking about
right here.
Borup: As the earlier letter said running it through that commercial property to
the existing here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 95
Kuntz: I do not believe that is necessary because we just plan on leaving that
concrete ditch in place until the developer develops that area then we will
remove that.
Borup: So it does not make any difference to you then?
Kuntz: I guess I would like to have some kind of a commitment from the
developer of how long that concrete ditch will need to stay.
Nary: I do not know that we can put that in a Preliminary Plat requirement.
Kuntz: Okay, then let us just leave it.
Borup: Maybe the only other issue then is fence height.
Nary: Yes, and I do not know that there was anything – No. 14 of the site
specific requirements for the Preliminary Plat it says there is a 6 foot perimeter
fencing along the northern and western boundaries of the subdivision, and that
would probably be the appropriate place to include language that the property
bordering the southern edge of the development, bordering the City’s park have
fencing limited to 54 inches in height.
Kuntz: Commissioner Nary. The park’s preference is that that be of a metal
nature, no wood.
Nary: Well, I think what this says here is that it has to be detailed fencing plans
for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat, so the City has to review
and approve it, I think that is still a requirement. So on the micro-paths was there
not an issue on whether it is 8 feet or 10 feet wide.
Centers: I was going to ask you to amend that if you would not mind. Based on
the School District request, they want it just accessible to the school only, and
you had said –
Nary: To the park and the school.
Centers: Right.
Nary: The park did not want it accessible to the park.
Centers: They have one anyway.
Borup: You are talking about 11 and 12 right?
Nary: So there would be a micro-path between approximately here from 11 and
12 and it will be accessible to the school site only, and there will be another
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 96
micro-path further down that it is accessible to the park. Does it need to have a
certain width?
Kuntz: Mr. Chairman, on those micro-paths, the Ordinance does require that
they be a 10 foot paved surface. The new Landscape Ordinance requires 5 feet
of landscaping on each side. So you are looking at 20ft total width.
Nary: So a 2-ft path is what was required by the ordinance and you could be
bollards there so that you could drive through them if you have to.
Centers: What is the plat showing now? I wrote over the top of it.
Nary: 20 feet.
Borup: It says 20 feet storm easement on there now anyways.
Nary: Is that everything?
Borup: Mr. Moore does that motion need to be repeated a little bit?
Moore: You have taken half of it out, but you want it to include all staff comments,
discussions here tonight, you want it to include the micro-path on the northwest
corner for pedestrian access to the school only and that is to meet City standards
at 10 feet of paved surface with 5 feet on each side? Then you wanted No. 14,
that there be a fence along the northwest boundary of the subdivision, which is
the southern edge of the development and that fenced to be 54 inches in height
–
Nary: No more than 54 inches.
Borup: I think that was all. Just those two things in addition to the staff
comments.
Moore: The rest of it is crossed out because you guys decided that you did not
want it.
Centers: I second that motion.
Borup: Okay, motion seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor?
Centers: aye; Nary: aye; Shreeve: aye
Borup: Any opposed?
Norton: naye
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 97
Borup: One naye. Thank you everyone for being here on this item, and
Commissioners I guess we have a decision to make. It is now 12:30pm. I talked
to the applicant on the break. I was not anticipating that we would take this long
on this one, and I expressed a concern about being able to get through the
whole thing, but that it may be appropriate to open it.
Nary: And these folks have waited all night.
Borup: Okay, if the Commissioners are willing. I am just saying that we will not
get through everything. We are going to go ahead and at least open the next
hearings and see how far we can get. If this goes like the others, we are
definitely not going to get through it.
10. Public Hearing: AZ 01-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 371.42
acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLC – 2420
Ustick Road:
11. Public Hearing: CUP 01-006 Request for Conditional Use Permit of 692
single-family lots, 59 town homes, 17 office lots and 10 commercial lots on
370.55 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G zones for proposed Bridgetower
Crossing Subdivision by Primeland Development Co., LLC – north of
Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road:
12. Public Hearing: PP 01-005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 336
building lots and 58 other lots on 175.91 acres in proposed R-4 and C-G
zones for proposed Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision by Primeland
Development Co., LLC – north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile:
Borup: Item No. 10, 11, and 12, Public Hearing AZ 01-003 request for
annexation and zoning of 371.42 acres for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision.
Item 11 is the Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit on the same project, and
No. 12 is a request for Preliminary Plat. I would like to open all three of these
Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup and members of the commission, I will go
ahead and address all three applications at this time. In terms of general
orientation it is shown on the screen. The dark area is the proposed boundaries
of the annexation, 371.42 acres. They are proposing two different zones for you
to annex. The application does detail specifically which boundaries would be the
R-4 and the C-G. The only R-4 on this map is incorrect. They are proposing
another piece of annexation here at the northeast corner of McMillan
approximately 16 acres. That is proposed to be a C-G as well as a C-g here in
this very northwest corner. Otherwise they are proposing for all of the rest to be
an R-4 zone. We have Ten Mile, McMillian along the north, north Linder Road
here and Ustick. The City Council has approved a Final Plat for Bridgetower not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 98
to confused with Bridgetower Crossing. Bridgetower subdivision, which is here,
Five Mile drain is here. That has already been annexed. Here are just a few site
photos in the area. Predominantly not unlike what you have seen all-night and
last week. Farmland, the main difference is that there are some very large Idaho
Power poles the course the north boundary of this property, which this picture
you cannot quite get a feel, but they are the tall – I forget what the exact height of
them is. Here are a couple of proposed sample townhome elevations that they
are proposing as part of the plat, which we will get to in a minute. Again these
are samples in terms of the general design of being single story that they are
committing to this sort of single family appearance from the front, but yet is a
townhome style. Here are a couple of sample elevations of what they are
proposing for the office buildings. The lots are along Linder Road frontage and
along Ten Mile frontage. On this application this Item No. 11 for the Conditional
Use Permit, 692 single-family lots, 59 townhomes, 17 office, and 10 commercial.
The reason for the Conditional Use Permit, again this application is tied to your
first item of the agenda tonight which was the planned development amendment
application, which you continued. This project is seeking to incorporate one of
the new features of that ordinance if you approve that. That is the 20 percent
exception is that they can still have as an R-4 zone. The office use is here along
Ten Mile and a lot of the office uses here along Linder. So that combination, they
also have about 7 different standards that are required in the R-4 like minimum
lot frontage, widths, minimum lot sizes, block lengths, and those kinds of things.
Those things would change and they would have exceptions to those as a part of
this planned development. So those are two reasons for the Conditional Use
Permit. These are the boundaries of the Conditional Use Permit application here.
Generally lays out their concept plan. In the application it clarified that this is
strictly conceptual over all. They do have the collector road entering here off of
Ten Mile Road that splits. They have the collector road here coming in a northerly
direction and then another collect here that would go to Linder Road. So there
are three collectors along with the office lots, single-family pods. They have a
feature here which is the White Trunk drain, which you have seen some details
on in the plat. That they are proposing to make that an amenity. This is a
townhome 59 lots here off of McMillian that would be an interest, 59 townhomes.
There are multiple pathways with in the beauty and you have a copy on the
landscape plan, which detailed exactly the master pathway planned for the whole
project. So this is the concept over all. The landscape plan is generally here. It is
a little difficult to see on the screen. You have the details. The do have a
proposed elementary school site on McMillan road, here on the north boundary.
The plat is Item 12, and the portion that they are proposing to plat is again this
16-acre piece or it is on the northeast corner on McMillian Road. 5 lots there, and
generally this whole northwest corner of the project. The plat is broken up on the
screen here into 3 different slides. This is on the north, and then this is moving
south. Here is Ten Mile, and then coming off of the road here, and then single-
family uses. They are planning to plat all of this off of the collector on the west
side of the collector. At this point they would not plan any of this. Then here is the
southern portion of the proposed Preliminary Plat, Ustick Road down here
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 99
entrance across Five Mile. Phase one of the Preliminary Plat I believe would be
here. Phase two, and them they are proposing the other phases to begin off of
Ten Mile coming in on the new collector here. We have received written
comments from the applicant which you should have received dated March 14,
2001 from Becky Bowcutt. I guess I will just go through a couple of the issues
she had asked for clarification from us on. We do ask that our comments dated
March 12, 2001 be incorporated into your motion. Using Becky’s response dated
March 14, 2001 on page 2, Item 3, we agreed that that was an error about the
annexation comment. We had made a comment that the northeast portion up
here on McMillan would not be able to be annexed because of a different sewer,
and that was an error. They are proposing to take the new sewer line up Ten Mile
to the northern boundary of this and Public Works has comment that that is
serviceable so it could be annexed. That would need to be modified. Item No. 7
on page 2, talking about the sidewalk condition that we have which is quoted
from our new Landscape Ordinance, that is where that comes from. Our new
Landscape Ordinance talks about all new projects that are on arterial roads on
the extreme limits of the City limits, we are looking for meandering sidewalks that
are offset that are not attached to arterial roads. That is in the Landscape
Ordinance. It could be either way as far as we are concerned. Whether it is in the
new right-of-way or if it is an easement. The main thing is that it is detached. Item
No. 7 under the annexation and zoning standard, temporary signs like real-estate
signs or directional signs for model homes would be allowed. That is under the
new sign Ordinance. There are some conditions that are in the Ordinance on
that. Item No. 9 on page 3 under the Preliminary Plat, the clarification is right
there. It should be lots 23, block one, and then lots 3 through 6, block nine. So
we need to correct that in ours.
Norton: Brad could you hold up just a minute.
Hawkins-Clark: Do you not like my speed? I am trying to move this along.
Norton: Nine under Preliminary Plat.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it states I am confused about the lot and block reference in
the condition.
Norton: And what was your answer to that?
Hawkins-Clark: We agree that it should read lots 23 through 45, block one, and
lots 3 through 6, block nine.
Norton: Okay, thank you.
Hawkins-Clark: Item No.8 on the next page, talking about the landscaping issue
on the landscape plan. The landscape architect was working with staff and the
trees being calculated and the overall tree requirements, we are in agreement
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 100
with that. The main thing is that the Ordinance is complied with as far as the 35
feet on center along the main collectors would be the spacing of the trees there.
The last page talks about the pathway plan that the applicant may consider
public dedication of pathways if maintenance and liability issue can be agreed
upon. I think the Parks Department the City’s position as on other subdivision
that we are willing to take on the liability on those pathways, but not maintenance
responsibility of the adjacent landscaping. Any landscaping that is adjacent to
the pathway would not City responsibility but the liability issue in terms of the
pathway would be. Item No. 10 is in terms of the overall concept. It is just an
issue there on the connection to McMillan and generally we as staff want to see
some kind of connection to McMillan Road, and the applicant does not want to
have any connection. I think that is all of the highlights that I have to offer unless
you have any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the commission? Brad, to summarize, which issues
did the – it looks like the applicant covered most of the issues and questions
maybe other than the last two that you had mentioned on the pathway. Were
there any other staff comments that the –
Hawkins-Clark: I think the outstanding issues, the biggest one on the annexation
if you read our staff report, we laid out three different options to consider for the
annexation of the entire property.
Borup: Because of the staging –
Hawkins-Clark: That is certainly an issue that we have just left to you as the
commission, and you have seen that the applicant is wanting in terms of the
annexation on this to annex. They have submitted annexation for all of this
property, but in terms of formally approving an Ordinance to annex, it would only
be the boundaries of the Preliminary Plat, and we would formally annex through
the form of a Development Agreement at a later point. Everything more or less
on the eastern half of this project coming through here, so I would be happy to
answer any questions about the options that I laid out.
Borup: That would be the first item, the annexation.
Hawkins-Clark: Right –
Borup: Because of the phasing aspect.
Hawkins-Clark: And the issue of the School District and the timing of getting this
elementary school constructed. It cannot receive services until it is annexed, so I
do not think there is any disagreement from the applicant on that. They view the
school as an asset to the project and there is no question that it is going to go.
The main issue is the timing of annexation of the ground that the school sits on,
and that is somewhat left up to the school. I think it said 2003, so that is why we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 101
had recommended that they submit no later than June 2002 to start the process
of annexing it, so that the school would be in the City limits when they need their
school.
Borup: Okay. Most of the other items were –
Hawkins-Clark: We are pretty well set out on Becky’s. I think I clarified the
questions that were there. The access issue on to McMillian Road, like you said
the last point. This is certainly a big project. I think there is a lot of merit. It has
the mixed uses that the City has been looking for. The issues of amenities are
certainly there, and Becky can speak to some of how that will be worked out.
There is one point I would make that we were informed of yesterday, on the
posting issue. We are required in the application, we require the applicant to post
the property. We were made aware of a property owner here on the eastside of
Linder Road that said the property was not posted on Linder. The only way that
we have as staff to verify it, they come, they pick up a posting from us at the
Department, and they are supposed to post it 7 days prior to the hearing and
then the submit a notarized affidavit that says we posted the property. We are
unlike any other jurisdiction I think in the valley where we do not as City goes out
and post it. So we do not go out and take pictures of it, but our understanding is
that three copies of postings were made. Idaho State statute says property has
to be posted. It does not say where. It does not say how big. It does not say
visible from where. It just says post it. It could one time, it could be three times,
or it could be four times.
Borup: So you said there were three postings though?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Okay. So it was not Linder, it was McMillan, Ten Mile Road, and Ustick
then.
Hawkins-Clark: I will let Becky answer that. I am not sure where.
Borup: So the last two issues that staff had were – and I do not know if there
was. We will ask Becky about that agreement on the path maintenance. I think
City stated theirs. So the only other thing was access to McMillan, and you are
recommending on the west side of the school site somewhere?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Staff recommendation, and you are saying for the first phase or for the
overall project?
Hawkins-Clark: That is just overall. That comment is tied only to the Conditional
Use Permit at this point. It is not tied to the plat because the issue of access to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 102
McMillan is outside of the proposed plat boundaries. It would not necessarily be
an issue that would hold up approval of the plat. It is the concept of having a mile
of project here from Ten Mile Road to Linder with no access. For us it is mainly
an issue of some much short sidedness. When the north side of McMillan
develops certainly there is going to a need for some sort of integration of the
uses on the north side of McMillan with the residents of this property, and how to
get there to and from. We do not think that collector is necessary. Traffic studies
say they do not think a collector should come straight up here, which would
encourage cross cutting right through the sub. We see their point in protecting
the integrity and eliminating that, but we think some form of local road connection
in here, and maybe the School District can speak to that at some point too.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Applicant, ready for a presentation. Becky would you
like to start? I will let you state your name then I am going to mention a few
things.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 11283 West Hickory Dale, Boise. I am representing the
applicant in this matter.
Borup: From what I can see with all three applications, staff mainly had three
issues assuming their statement on the path maintenance. Are you in agreement
on that?
Bowcutt: I think we are. I do not think that we have a problem with that.
Borup: I was going to say there would be four if you were not. As far as I can
see there are only three issues. I do not know how much time you want to spend
on going over the whole project. I know it is a big one, but I would like to maybe
address those three things specifically then, the annexation phasing issue,
concern with the school, and then access to McMillan.
Bowcutt: Okay. I would just like to give a quick overview.
Borup: I think that may be good for others in the audience.
Bowcutt: Get them acquainted with the project. As you can see this is I believe
the largest project that the City of Meridian has ever –
Borup: And for the audience she is showing us essentially the same thing on
the screen except for the little area north of McMillan.
Bowcutt: This project runs one mile in both directions. Sewer is coming up Ten
Mile Road –
***End of side seven***
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 103
Bowcutt: -- and then it will be extended into the site. The path for the sewer trunk
line, which is the White Drain Trunk that there has been so many discussions on
will come down this collector roadway and then exit out this street and head
easterly and then the City will build it out supposedly three miles. We are kind of
the first leg of that segment.
Borup: Why is it taking so long to get that easement determined?
Bowcutt: Well a project of this magnitude takes quite a long time in planning. One
of the things that we had to look at was obviously collector networks and what we
are trying to create here. We are trying to create a community but yet a
neighborhood, so what we came up with is this pod concept. You have the main
collectors that come off of Ten Mile Road, come off Ustick Road, off of Linder,
and then you have pods coming off of there. So we have no direct lot access with
the exception of the clubhouse and pool. With this concept we are creating
neighborhoods within an overall large neighborhood as I said. We have
substantial open space running along here. This is the White Drain. Our
preference is its current location. It comes up here and runs and exits the
property there. We want to relocate it and make it a water amenity and have it
traverse through there with walking paths and landscaping adjoining it. All of the
collector roadways will have landscaping adjoining them in compliance with the
Landscape Ordinance. One of the things that we did, we did change from the
first one that you say, the Bridgetower No. 1, if you recall, this is the first phase
that came before you and it had another release here. At that time we thought
the location for the elementary was best down in this southeast corner. The
district came back and the School District said we prefer to have an elementary
up on McMillan. We have quite a few along that Ustick corridor and our
preference would be that it be located up there. We changed gears. Located this,
this is approximately 12.7 acres. It has direct access onto our collector roadway.
It would also have the ability to have access to McMillan if it wanted to bring in its
buses or have parent drop-off through there. Obviously that would just be
incorporated in their site design. What we show you here with this building is
their standard footprint for their elementaries at this time, and we just put that on
there to demonstrate that the size can handle the school and parking needs and
playground needs, but that is not necessarily how the district would configure
their site plan. In reconfiguring this particular here, this park was approximately 4
acres. We increased it by 3 acres. It is 6.99 acres. We were very careful to
allocate the 10 percent required open space that we agreed upon for phase one
of our Bridgetower, and we have excluded that from our calculations so we are
not counting this area twice. I want to assure you that. One of the other things
that we looked at in creating a community, we want to create some essential
services that neighborhoods need. Ten Mile Road is going to be a major artery
when the interchange is built. We see that in long term possibly becoming very
similar to Eagle Road. Since that would be the case, we did not want to put
single-family dwellings backing up to Ten Mile Road, so we came in with 35 feet
of landscape and then we have what we call neighborhood office. Typical users,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 104
we see dentists, orthodontists, along that line. Medical offices are very popular.
These do not take direct lot access to Ten Mile. There is a roadway that
accesses down the backside and functions like a driveway, so there would be a
cross access agreement between all lots. That keeps us from choking the major
artery here. This particularly corner here is designated for commercial. On your
Comprehensive Plan the properties that you see here are designated single-
family. At the intersection it is designated commercial, and then there is a bigger
circle around that that is mixed planned use development. What we are
proposing is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. We do need this new
PUD Ordinance for this office because this office does fall within that that is
designated single-family and the office along Linder. We have done this same
type of development with the office buffer along the exterior arterial at Bayhill
Springs at the Legends subdivision out on Eagle Road. It has worked really well.
We have created linkage here in meeting with staff in pre-application
conferences. They wanted some type of vehicular linkage, and we do have that
here. So one could come down behind these offices and go over here to a
commercial use. The commercial users would probably be neighborhood
commercial: dry-cleaners, pizza, conveyance store, and those things that service
neighborhoods. To buffer commercial for the single-family developments we
came in with this townhome concept. It has exterior access to McMillian, but it
does have vehicular access to the commercial and then it will have pedestrian
access internally within the development. The townhomes, those lots are about
5500 square feet. They would be single-level. We are asking for a 1200 square
foot minimum. Typically there would be pods of two, but we have a situation
where we have an odd lot. So we would have to deal with that. Either it would be
a detached single-family dwelling or you would to put three units together. Up
here on the corner, we are looking at as a possible site for a supermarket in the
future. Obviously, that would be quite a ways down the road, and it would be
dependent on substantial development out in this area. In this area here we have
the office. We are utilizing the same concept with access coming off of the back
of these lots versus direct lot access onto Linder Road. In this particular project
we have differing lot sizes with the exception of the townhomes all of our lots
exceed 8000 square feet. They range all the way up to half acre. These
particular lots here just for example; these are like 140 deep x 100 wide. We
have other lots that range from 70 to 116. This is consistent with the original
Bridgetower application that we brought through on our first phase where we
emphasized on deeper lots and then we cut down on the widths a little bit.
Instead of you standard 80 x 100, we went with 74 x 116 or 76 x 120. We are
trying to provide a true Planned Development with mixed uses, essential
services, and we feel that we have a pretty good project here. As far as our open
space calculations, we exceed the 10 percent. For the Planned Development we
have 55.23 acres. In that based on the 10 percent would be 37 acres. I also
subtracted from that 55 acres what I considered ineligible open space, which is
the perimeter arterial buffers as consistent with you Landscape Ordinance and
the 1.91 acres required to satisfy our condition on phase one, and that puts me
at an eligible open space of 48 acres and 37 are required. We are asking for that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 105
20 percent exception. We are not taking advantage of the maximum. We are
approximately 13.2 percent as far as what we are asking for as non-conforming
uses. We feel that we have good project. We are going to be planting trees
throughout the development even internally within the loops. There will be a little
over 1100 trees just within the residential development alone. About 570 trees in
the commercial development. We feel that this is a top-notch project, and we are
excited about it, and we hope the City views it that way also. ACHD has
reviewed the project internally. We do not the formal staff report, but we did
receive some comments from their staff. We have not gone to the commission.
They accepted the traffic study submitted by Washington Group stating that
capacity does exist. There are some improvements in the roadways as far as
turn lanes, possible participation in future signals at some of the intersections
that will be required other than that as far as the internal network, they
determined that the roadway connect to McMillan Road is not necessary. One of
the things that we looked at and one reason why I did not make a connection to
McMillan was one, the location of the school, and two, possibility of cut through
traffic. If you punch a street out say in alignment here, traffic coming from the
west going eastward would drop down into the school like this, so that was one
of my main concerns. The other thing was we do not want to become like a
Northview or an Edna, some of those streets, where there are very easy
convenient half mile jogs through there. We are building these collectors to carry
large volumes of traffic. Each one will carry approximately 3200 trips a day;
however, we do not want to create a situation where the traffic volumes are some
high due to cut through traffic that we are basically segregating this development
into four different sections. With the volumes they are far under the capacity of
these streets but they are within acceptable levels that you will still get interaction
across the collector roadways. If those volumes increase, obviously there would
be a threshold where you would limit the interaction from one side of the collector
roadway to the other. It is rare that you see a project building this much collector
roadway. You see a lot of non-continuous collectors that feed from an interior
core out to the exterior, but this particular project they have gone that extra mile
to assure that none of these residents would bare any burden of excess traffic.
We have also spent an immense amount of time on our pathways, making sure
that they connect. As you can see a lot of these peed paths coming through
connecting each one of these pods so children or people walking do not have to
go out the long way out of the pod for interconnection. We have them here, here,
here, and all through the project. Those pathways would connect here and then
the pathway would drop down here, here, and would come around and then
catch our park. It is probably hard to see, I think Brad said that you have a
pathway plan that he gave you, but there is an elaborate network more than I
have ever seen in a project in my experience. I will jump to the points that
Commissioner Borup brought up. One, the issue of annexation. It was imperative
and in the best interest of the City that this whole property is designed because it
is a priority that this trunk line is extended to the eastern boundary of this
property. In designing the whole thing we struggled with the issue of annexation.
Obviously when one annexes there is an increase in taxes. Staff has indicated
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 106
that based on agricultural designation that it would increase but substantially.
One of our concerns was that they may consider this not agricultural but
developable property, and I have seen that happen. I have been told by a few
residents that had like some 5 and 10 acres parcels adjoining properties that I
annexed into the City and got an approval on a development plan next door to
them that their taxes increased substantially because they were told by the
assessor that they were considered as developable property even though it had
one single-family dwelling on it, and they had no intention of developing it at that
time. We had to figure out, we obviously needed approval of this planned
development in its entirety. So that the City can be assured that our roadway
alignment is going to happen the way that we show it. We can be assured if that
sewer is installed that we have some type of at least a conceptual approval of
that roadway alignment. I came up with the idea of a two-phased annexation. It
has not been done here. We submitted fees and application on the entire
property, but what I ask for is that the implementation of the annexation
Ordinance be a two-phased. The Preliminary Plat consists of this area you see in
the darker lines here. The first phase of that annexation would run pretty close. It
would encompass just a little bit more of the property. I think approximately 167
acres. The remainder of the property would enter into a Development Agreement
with the City. Your Ordinance does state that you can enter into a Development
Agreement prior to the recording or implementation of the Ordinance, so I could
not find anything in the Ordinance that prohibited it. That second phase as far as
timing would obviously be contingent on our submittal of a second Preliminary
Plat for the remainder of our planned development. We also have to take into
consideration the needs of the School District as far as when that school needs
to come online and have services. I think in my written comments in stated that
we would like the date as far as the deadline for submittal of our second
annexation to coincide with the agreement between the School District and us.
Then obviously they would be assured that they would be annexed and have
availability of services. We will be providing services to that site through our
development. As Brad said the school is a priority to us with this many homes.
Obviously, having an elementary within walking distance is a great benefit so we
are cooperating as much as possible with the School District to make this a
reality. One issue that staff brought up concerning the two-phased annexation
was the fact that their sewer easement would be outside of the City limits on a
portion of our property. While the City is out acquiring easements for three miles
that are outside of the City limits right now so I do not see that that is a problem.
An easement I think is binding whether it is in the City limits or not. Obviously in
our Development Agreement we are willing to stipulate the details of this
annexation and make sure that all parties are protected. The second issue was
the roadway; Keith is that the second issue? I am getting tired.
Borup: Yes. I guess you addressed the school, which was also part of the
annexation. So access to McMillan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 107
Bowcutt: Access to McMillan. As I stated before, we consulted with the traffic
engineer. We did pre-application conferences with ACHD. It was the City’s idea
not ACHD’s for some type of a connection, vehicular connection there. ACHD is
accepting the analysis of our traffic engineer and obviously stating that our traffic
planning here is sound, that we do not exceed any capacities of thresholds of
these collectors, they do not see a need for a vehicular connection to McMillan.
But they do promote a pedestrian connection. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Questions from the commission?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I looked through here, but I cannot tell. What is this?
Bowcutt: It is an out-parcel.
Nary: Oh, okay.
Bowcutt: There are I believe three existing dwellings on that property I think, at
least two that I know of. I think there is three.
Nary: Is there a farm or something right there, or is it just residents?
Bowcutt: They are just residences. I think that is about 10 acres total. Now what
we have done here is we have a street connection here. Your staff has asked us
to extend this street to make sure it is a clean stub street, and we have agreed.
So they would have a stub street connection to us.
Borup: Anyone else?
Centers: Two or more of the following amenities. I see that you met the first two.
How did you meet without me going through there?
Bowcutt: I forgot the clubhouse.
Centers: It was mentioned earlier.
Bowcutt: We meet the 10 percent open space. We are also proposing a
clubhouse and swimming pool located in this central location here, and we have
another one here that went with the approval of this first phase and then our
pathway network so technically I see that we have three amenities.
Borup: The three big ones. Any other questions? I think one of staff’s comments
on the access to McMillan was projects to the north, but I am not sure what they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 108
would access other than coming into the residential area. Is that what you really
referred to Brad? Is for them to access other residential areas because it is not
accessing commercial.
Hawkins-Clark: The residents in this subdivision to access the services on the
north.
Borup: Like the commercial services?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Okay and the one north of McMillan would be the only one that would
probably be affected by that.
Hawkins-Clark: At this time. The whole north side of McMillan has yet to be
developed, and it could be that there is a neighborhood center of some sort
further to the west. They would not have to go clear down to the superstore at
the corner if that is what happens.
Borup: Any comment on that Becky?
Bowcutt: As far as accessing the commercial up here?
Borup: I am sure that your traffic studies shows that it is not necessary, but he is
saying are we taking into consideration the acreage around?
Bowcutt: As far as ownership here, our ownership comes to about this point
here. Then there is a property owned by Gibsons, I think it is a Turf farm or treat
farm.
Borup: You are talking about north of McMillan.
Bowcutt: Yes, north of McMillan and then this property here is I believe owned by
Kelly Fulfer, Superior Construction. Brad is stating the access to this point –
Borup: That or it is further up Ten Mile Road –
Bowcutt: We have vehicular access through here, and you can come out and
swing through. These two approaches are in direct alignment, so technically if
one lived in the neighborhood for awhile and go accustomed to the network they
could come in and come down this driveway, come down here through the
commercial here, and access this or come directly across the supermarket.
Borup: But there would never be a light at that location.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 109
Bowcutt: It is too close to the intersection, and these approaches would be full
access. They met the 440-foot offset from edge of future pavement for Ten Mile
Road.
Borup: This is possibly a 10-year project and less than half of it or a little over a
third in the first phase.
Bowcutt: You mean the first Preliminary Plat.
Borup: Right.
Bowcutt: You would still phase the Preliminary Plat.
Borup: So how does that get the school if the school is talking about going in at
2003?
Bowcutt: This is phase one that we are starting construction the bridge portion
next week. This particular loop would be phase two that we discussed going into
design on shortly depending on how long it takes us to go through the hearings.
Then phase three, we would come in here and open up this Ten Mile Road and
come in and do a loop, and then we will start working our way eastward.
Borup: So if it a 10-year project, that takes you through 5-years, which would be
way past the 2003.
Bowcutt: Well, it depends on what you include. I have seen projects where
maybe they built this loop here but they build a collector up to here. I have seen
it happen --
Borup: I have to it is just expensive to do.
Bowcutt: -- this location is they do have possible access out to McMillan, but we
would obviously need to get services and so forth to them.
Borup: But you are saying you would go ahead and proceed with the
annexation at that time?
Bowcutt: Based on the agreement we have with the School District. I believe that
is correct.
Borup: We may hear from Mr. Bigham on that.
Bowcutt: So Mr. Bigham, it is going to be dependent on what their needs are. He
has indicated to me that the school would need to be constructed prior to build
out of this project.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 110
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mrs. Bowcutt? Mr. Bigham
would you like to come up and get your part over with?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I am not sure exactly where to
comment on this.
Borup: I think things that we would be wondering is your timing, your time
frame, and would you be anticipating access to McMillan to the school site?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman there are two issues. Let us deal with the easy one first. I
have not seen the micro-path connections. I could not see them. Thinking out
loud here, I think it would be advantageous if there was some pedestrian
connection in there. Again, we back to the discussion of trying to be consistent
on the other two subdivisions tonight. We would like to protect the integrity of this
perimeter for safety considerations. Having said that there is probably a
population of people over here that would still choose to have their children walk
or walk their children to the school so it would be nice if they had an option to
come in somewhere like that or into the school site without having to walk clear
around it. Perhaps those where shown in the micro-paths. I think that is a detail
that could be worked out.
Borup: What would be the capacity of that school?
Bigham: 600-650, traditional with all of the elementary schools that we have built.
Borup: Okay, so about two and half times what this subdivision would generate
then for the – well your letter said 255.
Bigham: Yes. That is whole other discussion.
Borup: Right, that is what I was wondering, how many other subdivisions it
would accommodate in addition to this.
Bigham: The answer to the last question as to when There is one school of
though that says there is a possibility of yet another bond issue in 2002 with no
tax increase. Having said that the real trick is trying to find out when the school
will be needed. My guess is and it is a good best estimate guess is sometime
2003 or probably more realistically start of school in 2004, August 15.
Borup: That is when the completion would need to be.
Bigham: Yes, having said that it hinges greatly upon the fate of the school site
within Cedar Springs that progress was made on tonight.
Borup: Is there a concern about that school site?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 111
Bigham: The concern was the availability. We are currently negotiating on about
8 sites through the area here, and a number of them are in this Ustick/Chinden
growth corridor. One of the dilemmas that we face is not necessarily acquiring
the sites but acquiring the sites in the first phases of the development to support
the growth that may occur before the economy goes down hill. So are goal here
is probably an opening of 2004 and the caveat to that is the option for the 2004
opening my actually occur on the Howell property in that truly comes in. I am
trying to get two sites within about one and a half miles that allow us to deal with
growth and boundary issues. That discussion will be taking place over the next
three or four months, so at this juncture in talking with Becky representing the
applicant, we feel that if the Preliminary Plat is approved the next step for us is to
immediately enter into the discussions with the developer as to acquisition time
lines, some mile stones, performance things, letter of credits, bond, and so on
and so forth to guarantee that in the event that only 80 percent of this
materializes that we still have recourse as to get that school open. It is
2004/2003/2005.
Borup: So you have not talked to this developer about acquisition of property
then?
Bigham: Yes we have. Not in great detail. We are at the Preliminary discussions
where our attorney will call your attorney –
Borup: But you have talked price, etc. On the Howell property you said if it
comes about. I guess I have the assumption that that was pretty much an agreed
upon situation there.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, up until about one hour and half ago I was not sure that
the Howell property would come to be. If the subdivision is approved –
Borup: That is what you meant because of that reason. Okay.
Bigham: -- but negotiations are set.
Borup: Your original letter said that you would acquire it a reasonable price. I
assume that happened.
Bigham: We have yet to acquire it.
Borup: Well I do not mean that you have acquired it, but you have an
agreement.
Bigham: Yes, we are comfortable –
Borup: So I got off of the subject a little bit. Anyone else have any questions for
Mr. Bigham?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 112
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess I am curious Mr. Bigham in looking at your letter,
we seem to have seen a lot of these lately on all of these subdivisions, and some
are pretty good at wanting to provide an elementary school site. We have seen
two or three of those tonight, as well, but what are we doing for the other kids? I
know that in your letter I think 182 junior high school students and 170 high
school students, we talked about Tuscany Lakes at length. That is about 300
homes that they wanted to build, and they had an elementary school site. This
has twice that amount of homes and we are still talking about an elementary
school site. When does the School District want them to do something more than
that?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary, to try and make a long story very
short, the School District has formed a long range site selection acquisition
Committee that will meet for its first time on the 2nd
of April. That committee is
composed not of City officials nor of county officials since we seem to fall in
about six jurisdictions, it is made up primarily of engineers representing develop
interests from Eagle specialties to specialties in this area to specialties south of
the interstate along with School District personnel. Our goal is to within probably
six months have an adopted for lack of a better word a mini Comprehensive
Development Plan consistent with what the Parks do and the Highway District
has done to identify areas where we need to acquire school sites. We will start
addressing that issue, but to specifically answer your question without naming
names we are currently we are talking to one and possibly two people on a new
high school site in this area and one more middle school site and two more
elementary school sites. It is all driven by sewer or the approval of free standing
sewer plants. We will be looking at land. As a matter of fact we may have more
commitments than we can pay for right now, but we are looking aggressively at
that, and our goal is to get a plan before the approving agencies make it
available to the development community so that the School District and the
landowners and or the development community have a chance to talk and react
together as opposed to our coming in at the 11th
hour on a Preliminary Plat
saying time out we need a school site. That probably brings me to the last
comment that I keep forgetting to make, and I wanted to make it on the other
two. The new Ordinance requiring 10 percent landscape for development, if in an
area, we will use this as an example just for the sake of it, the contribution right
now I do not think that the Ordinance allows that the school site contribute
anything towards that 10 percent compliance. It is a good neighborhood amenity.
I am not advocating that it operate in lieu of the 10 percent, but that the
possibility exists that the school site may contribute to part of the 10 percent
requirement. I bring that up not so much for the sake of this large of
development, but as we look at infill areas when we go to a given property owner
who is trying to develop, we will just say 90 acres or 75 acres, meeting both the
10 percent requirement and working with the School District at something less
than market value for the property sometimes places a bit of a hardship. I think
the reality of it is a neighborhood elementary school or even possibly another
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 113
educational facility goes along ways to providing green spaces within that
community. Not totally in lieu, I do not know how you would address that from an
Ordinance standpoint, but right now it does not seem that you would have the
ability to make that.
Borup: So you would be saying a percentage of the school site could off set a
percentage of the 10 percent, which would be a good compensating factor.
Bigham: Yes a compensating factor. If you had a 4-acre community park would
that apply to the 10 percent?
Borup: Yes, if the developer put it in it would.
Bigham: The difference between a 4 acre neighborhood park and 6 ½ acres of
open play fields at a school is more or less analygis. I guess that is what I am
getting at. There is a lot of commonality between that and it just seems like a little
slice that maybe needs to be given the opportunity –
Borup: I do not think that was ever brought up in the Landscape Ordinance, or it
might have been addressed. It is probably a good idea.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Bigham, do you anticipate a road going from the school to McMillan
Road?
Bigham: No, we do not.
Norton: Thank you.
Borup: Let us see if we can get some public testimony. People have waited a
long time. So I would like everyone to try and keep their comments as precise as
possible.
English: My name is Margie English. I live at 4650 North Linder Road. I will try. It
is awfully late and I am very tired. I am actually really impressed by your integrity
to keep going at this hour. I am one of those people that get up at 5am to tend
my animals. I want to point out where our property is. I feel a little bit shell
shocked from all of this. Obviously, we knew that development was coming, but
we did not hear anything about this until just chance word of mouth. My husband
spent a long time on the phone this week talking with Shelby and Mr. Hawkins-
Clark trying to get information about this development that clearly will be
impacting us. We got today in the mail a package from Mr. Hawkins-Clark, but
that is the first that we have heard anything about it. We have heard from one of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 114
these individuals both that we have been on a mailing list and mailings went out.
We did not get any. Our two neighbors did not get any. I can appreciate that
maybe one got lost in the mail, but I am a little skeptical that three got lost in the
mail. I would like to have the time to consider what I have heard, to learn more
about it. I am very interested in a number of points like for instance the traffic
plan/traffic study that I have been hearing about. If it is public information, I would
like to have the time and the opportunity to review it. Obviously, I live on a
property that I just here can expect 3200 trips per day. I pull a horse trailer in and
out of property. I have some real concerns here. We also flood-irrigate our land,
and I am concerned what is going to happen with our irrigation return line, which
currently goes through this area that is to be developed. I do not believe lines up
if I am reading this right; I do not believe it lines up with where I see. I would like
to have the time to learn that before decisions are made –
Borup: You are talking about your wastewater that you are concerned with?
English: Yes, our irrigation return line.
Borup: It will be provided for. They have to provide historical ditches that have
been used; the other items may be of concern, but that is one that you do not
have to worry about.
English: I know that I am entitled to keep it. I just would like to understand how it
is going to change and when it is going to change, and how those changes will
be made.
Borup: It is not going to change your property.
English: If changes our made in the irrigation lines during an irrigation season, I
think it could affect my property. It appears to us that the irrigation return line is
going to be reworked, and I would like to understand how that is going to be
done and when it is going to be done, and how it could affect the separate
parcels. I am also interested in learning more about the water for this property. If
there are going to be any wells drilled and if so where. I have not had time to do
any research on that. I am very interested in learning more about the annexation
plan, and I am sorry that I could not see the presentation that Mrs. Bowcutt was
just making because she had her back to the audience, so I do not understand
the phases. I guess the bottom line is I know development is coming to the area.
I think clearly we are properties that are going to be affected by it, and I would
just ask the Commissioners to not make quick decisions here until the adjacent
property owners have had a chance to gather more information, to be able to
formulate questions, because really I do not have the questions formulated yet. I
am reacting very much off of the cuff. I am exhausted. This is a lot of information
to take in, and I guess first off I sat through the other presentations and heard
that the developer met with this property owner and that property owner. This is
the first that I have even had a chance to even see the developer, and this week
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 115
was the first that I knew that this was a go. I can appreciate that there is a lot of
hard work that has gone into this. It looks like from the reactions that you all have
that you are very impressed by the design and clearly it is intricate, but I would
ask that you consider the adjacent property owners and allow us to have some
time. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
English: I am Brian English at 4650 North Linder, and I did spend a lot of time on
the phone this week. I was the one and I have talked to Mrs. Bowcutt about the
posting of the signs. She indicated that three of them were posted one on Linder
at McMillan. I never saw that sign. We never got a message in the mail. We have
been told that it was mailed, but there is no proof. There is no certified mail, and
on a mailing list it does not have to be certified. If you take the mail with the list,
the post office will postmark your list and that is a proof of mail. I need time to
look at this. It works out to over 2 ½ cars a minute over a 24-hour period, but with
the elementary school, they said the elementary school is on McMillan, it is not.
There is an open ditch there; there are the power lines between where the
school property is McMillan Road. The traffic will come out the collector. We
heard for the other subdivision, it had few homes that two connections were
insufficient and they are looking to get the third trunk. This one has three
connectors accessing three side of square will twice the number of development
yet it is adequate. I need to take the time to look at that, and I am looking at 3200
cars a day coming out the driveway that is directly across from our driveway. It
will impact us. I will also ask that you involve other people because the notice
Ordinance involves people who live within 300 feet of the development and other
people impacted. The people who live on the eastside of Linder Road south of
our property where not notified and they are going to be dramatically impacted
by 3200 extra cars a day. The way I read the Ordinance that Miss Shelby gave
me today, it is the commission’s job to make the decision on how far the
impacted area extends. I would apply to you that with 3200 car trips extra on Ten
Mile Road, 3200 extra car trips on Ustick, and 3200 extra car trips a day on
Linder those will all be significantly impacted highways, and the people who live
along them for an extended distance will be impacted and should be involved in
this and know what is going to happen. The traffic between 7am and 7:30am in
the morning on Linder Road is already bad with the traffic from Eagle high
school. You sometimes have to wait at Chinden three rotations of the light. We
add this in and you are going to be backing up all the way across the square
from Chinden to McMillan. That is all I have to say at this time but I would like the
chance to review the plans and see if I have any further comments. Thank you.
Borup: Any one else?
Schultz: Matt Schultz, 250 South Beechwood. A quick question maybe Bruce can
answer this for me. The annexation boundaries of this are know are of
contention. I have read the staff report and there are a lot of different ways that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 116
they can take it down. Where does the annexation go? Does it go to the
centerline of the road, or does it go to the other side of the right-of-way? Legally,
where does that go?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that State Statute has been
revised or amended to require annexations to include all adjacent right-of-way. I
have spoken with Gary Lee. He was asking about there is one little piece up
there where their annexation was to the southern boundary, and I do need to
address that with the applicant. I think it was just something that probably got
missed.
Borup: Thank you.
***End of side eight***
Borup: -- we need to get your questions on the record.
McCall: I am Brian McCall. I live at 3647 West Valley High. I am the silent partner
of Farwest Development, and I have my lawyer here even though I am lawyer as
well. I did have several comments tonight or at least or team had several
comments. I told Becky that I did not think I would be talking tonight and given
the length of the time that the Public Hearing is going to stay open, I would pass.
If the Public Hearing is going to be closed then I probably want to say a few
things.
Borup: Okay, why do we not wait and see what happens, and then call you up
with that. Does that sound all right? Anyone else? Commissioners, so we want to
have the developer back up for their concluding comments? What would you like
to do?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I do think that we do need a little bit of time to adjust this
project. I think overall there are some real positive things. I think there is a lot of
information that certainly the English’s have brought up, and there is a lot of
information to digest about this. I guess that would be my preference if the rest of
the commission is of the mind that we do continue this Public Hearing, but again
I think as you did earlier Mr. Chairman, I think we need to at least put on the
record, what are we continuing for? If we want more information then we need to
make sure that we are clear about that so that we just do not spend the next time
that we talk about this figuring out why we continued it. I think overall we do not
need to make a decision on this tonight. I think we do need to leave the Public
Hearing open and see what other information we think we need to have before
we can make a decision.
Norton: Or at least let the neighbors have some time to look at it and be
informed. If they are not getting the notices that something is happening. They
should have some time to look at this.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 117
Nary: The City amended the Ordinance 6 or 8 months ago that said we did not
send out certified mailings anymore because one was the expense, secondarily
a lot of them did not get picked up, so it was a lot of wasted expense. I think this
is a lot of information to think about.
Borup: Is there anything specifically as mentioned Commissioner that the
commission needs more information on other than time?
Nary: I think one of the things that we probably need some input on is this
annexation issue of whether it – my initial thought is that phase thing. I do not
know how that works. It does not seem legal. But it is 1:30am and maybe it is. It
just does not seem very legal. Mr. Moore and his office maybe can give us a little
bit of guidance on that if we chose that particular avenue, how could we do that.
Centers: I would like staff to maybe zero in on there option A, B, and C. Whether
your definite preferred, you give a lot of pros and cons.
Borup: I think he was leaving that up to us to analysis those three things.
Centers: But I wanted to back them into a corner.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I did want to point out too that we are waiting for
comments from Ada County Highway District staff report.
Nary: It would appear to me that one of the concerns as the English’s brought
forward is most of the neighbors is the traffic from a development this large, so I
think we would need the Highway District’s input on signalized intersections. Is
that the proper place for the collector roads to be? One obviously seems kind of
close to the intersection on northwest corner. It cannot be signalized but yet we
are going to try and have a cross access across McMillan to another
development across the streets. I think all of those issues we need but the
Highway District has to provide that for us.
Borup: That is probably a pretty big issue that ACHD report on a project this
size. We have a lot of pages from a traffic study.
Centers: There was a conflict too. Mr. Bigham stated that there would be no
access off of McMillan but Becky stated there would be access to the school.
Borup: I think she said they could be.
Centers: Did you say could?
Borup: She said it would be up to the School District if they felt that they need
to.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 118
Norton: Just a comment on that, I can see people cutting through the school if
there is access from McMillan into the subdivision. People could zip out through
the school and zip back. So if there is no access I think that is better than having
access at the school.
Borup: I think that is what Mr. Bigham said the school’s strong desire is.
Shreeve: I would also encourage the developer to meet with the property
owners.
Borup: That is what I was going to mention. Meridian does not have a
neighborhood meeting Ordinance, and if something could be done along that line
because it sounds like a lot of the things are just more questions than anything.
Bowcutt: I spoke in length with the English’s out in the lobby prior to the hearing,
and they just want a clear understanding of the project so they know how it
impacts them and their current lifestyle. We agreed prior to coming in here that
we would meet with them and if they would help organize some of there
neighbors maybe we will find a joint meeting place and go over the project so
that they become informed. We will answer some of these questions so that we
are taking up time in the Public Hearing.
Borup: We would really appreciate that. We have had some others that have
done that with the neighbors and it is really helpful.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, the only other thing and it is the City’s Departments
responsibility, this is such a large project and the one thing that I do like about a
large project is that it is not the patchwork. I like that aspect of it. It seems to me
to be a concern on police and fire needs for this because we are talking about
quite a large number of homes, quite a big growth to Meridian. I recognize it is a
10-year phase in project, so something from police and fire as to how do we deal
with this with our current facilities and what else is going to be needed. I know in
Boise with a project of this large we would be looking at a fire station site as well
as a school.
Bowcutt: They have one on Ten Mile Road.
Nary: It is pretty small. It is a pretty small station and that is the concern that I
have. If they think they can service this then it is fine, but those are the other
types of issues that we would be looking at.
Bowcutt: Would you like me to approach them, or would you like your staff to
request a transferal?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 119
Nary: I guess the planning department can ask for some more detailed input
since it is such a large project. What we get is what we get, Brad cannot control
that, but I think it is the departments responsibility to provide something.
Bowcutt: This is a complex project.
Borup: Anything else? Have you got a method to meet with the neighbors?
Bowcutt: Yes, I gave them my number, and I have their address.
Borup: Okay. I think maybe just one brief comment, clarification for Mr. English.
He had mentioned on the other projects there was concern that they needed
another access for the traffic. The concern was not for the traffic. It was for
emergency access, just being able to get fire and ambulances in there. That was
the discussion for that not because of the traffic volumes.
Nary: Is April 19, 2001 full?
Borup: Previously we had two items, the Golden Corral which may or may not
be back and the other one is Autumn Faire. That second phase of Autumn Faire,
so that was the only two things on the agenda, and then the two things that we
have continued.
Nary: You can see when we only have four or five projects it does not take us
very long.
Borup: The Autumn Faire was continued and Golden Corral. Staff have you
heard anymore on that? Are they completely withdrawn or are they still
wondering –
Hawkins-Clark: I believe that they are withdrawn. Have you received anything
Shelby? Our Department has not received a formal withdrawal. We heard
indirectly that they were withdrawing.
Borup: Okay that would not have been a big one anyway. I do not think. That is
what we had on. Then the two Tuscany Lakes and the Ordinance that we
continued.
Nary: May 17, 2001 seems like a long way away. Or we can push it to May 3,
2001.
Borup: What we have been trying to do is have most of the agenda on the first
meeting of the month and then the second one available for continued items.
Nary: We are looking at May 17th
or April 19th
.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 120
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Are we expecting ACHD report by then? Prior to April 19, 2001 not the
night of.
Bowcutt: When we submit our traffic study, they know that all of this development
is going to take place on these other parcels so they are doing a six mile
expanded study utilizing the Washington Group who conducted our traffic study,
so that they can determine what future intersection upgrades will be required
when all of these developments, some of them obviously have not been
submitted, but when the trunk line starts moving they will be. They are kind of
taking a proactive approach here and that study, the six mile expanded study, is
due next week. I feel confident on the 19th
of April we will be ready to go.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I move that we continue the Public Hearing for AZ 01-003, CUP 01-006,
and PP 01-005, the proposed Bridgetower Subdivision by Primeland
Development Company north of Ustick Road and east of Ten Mile Road be
continued until April 19, 2001.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I am open for one more motion.
Nary: I move to adjourn.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion is seconded to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
Meeting adjourned at 1:53 a.m.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 15, 2001
Pg. 121
APPROVED:
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK