2001 11-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 15, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:15 P.M. on Thursday, November 15, 2001, by Chairman Keith
Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Sally Norton, Bill Nary, Jerry Centers, Keven
Shreeve.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, David Swartley, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Will Berg, and
Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X Sally Norton X Jerry Centers
X Bill Nary X Keven Shreeve
X Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to convene our regularly
scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Apologize for
being a little bit late. Our previous meeting went over just a little bit. This is Thursday,
November 15th, 2001. Like to begin with attendance roll call.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of September 27, 2001 Planning and Zoning
Special Comprehensive Plan Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2001 Planning and Zoning
Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from September 27th and
November 1st.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I'd like to approve minutes from the meetings of September 27th and November
the 1st.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 3
Borup:We have had some -- Commissioners, some discussion perhaps
adjusting the agenda a little bit this evening. We have a motion to -- discuss a motion to
that effect or should I go ahead and --
Norton: Why don't you go ahead.
Borup: Okay. Maybe we ought to clarify. We are assuming the majority of
the people here are on the school district; is that correct? Okay. We thought it might be
appropriate to move that up on the agenda, so you don't have to wait all night. Is that
okay? So what we'd like to handle is the next item, it would be Item No. 4 with -- we'd
like to do the conditional use for the Group Day Care first. Is Virginia Beberness here?
Okay. So we'll handle that next and then after that go to Item No. 9, then we'll move up
to Item No. 5.
Centers: 6 is first, is it not?
Borup: Yes. Item No. 6 would be first and then we'll go to Item 5. And then the rest of it
will proceed as, in the order that it is. So we'd like to begin with opening --
Nary: Need a motion to amend the agenda.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: I would so move to amend the agenda to reflect that Item 6 be moved as the first
item to be heard. Item 9 will be made the second item to be heard. And then the
agenda to follow after that in the published sequence, Items 4, 5 and 7 and so on.
Centers: Second.
Nary: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 01-033 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Group Day Care with approximately six children in
an R-8 zone for Virginia L. Beberness by Virginia L. Beberness -
Lot 14, Block 3 of Tremont Subdivision.
Borup: Okay. We'd like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 01-033, request for
Conditional Use Permit for a Group Day Care with approximately 6 children in an R-8
zone for Virginia L. Beberness. Did I pronounce that right? Begin with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. You should have received the staff
comments dated October 5, 2001, from Bruce Freckleton and David McKinnon. We just
ask that the conditions site specific in there be included in your motion. The screen
shows the subject property. The staff report does not discuss the surrounding uses, our
apologies for that, but, as you can see, it is located in the Tremont Place Subdivision off
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 4
of West Broadway Avenue there on the north side, West Broadway, that this area here
is the Nine Mile Creek easement, 100 feet wide, that her property backs up to. This is
an elevation of the house as it currently is, which your packet should have the
floor plan. The only thing I would point in addition to our comments, the building official
did reference that the second floor uses in these zones in terms of the Uniform Building
Code would require several changes and maybe Mrs. Beberness could address that. I
don't think that she's proposing second floor uses for the day care, but she can confirm
that. The application that she submitted just showed first floor uses for the day care. I
think the rest of our conditions are there. The applicant will need to meet all of the
licensing requirements of the state of Idaho prior to beginning operation and submit a
copy of that state license to the clerk's office. That's item number 6 of our conditions. I
think that's all I have on that one.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come
forward? Anything else you'd like to add? Okay. We may have some questions, too. I
guess first see if you have had a chance to read the staff report and if you had any
questions or disagreements with anything they said there.
Beberness: No.
Borup: You need to start with your name and address, please.
Beberness: My name is Virginia Beberness. 918 W. Broadway, Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
In the Tremont Subdivision.
Borup: Okay.
Beberness: The only course and concern I have is from the application I actually
submitted to what you guys have printed here in front. It says 6 children in an R-8 zone.
I had put in my application 6 children, not including my own, which I guess my children
in this state would be included, so that would be 9 children and they did not put that in
here. I did go in yesterday and talk to somebody about that, but they just said to bring it
up.
Borup: Okay. The -- then our -- the front page in ours says 6 to 12.
Beberness: Correct.
Borup: Brad, was that in there? So that would cover that for her own children?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. 6 to 12 would be inclusive of her own. Right.
Borup: Right.
Beberness: Okay. That's --
Borup: Okay. Then you were not planning on anything on the upper floor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 5
Beberness: No. No. Absolutely not.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Centers: I have one question. When did you make application?
Beberness: For the Planning and Zoning?
Centers: Yes. For this.
Beberness: Oh.
Centers: Because it says home to be built.
Beberness: Oh. Yes. I think I started this when I was still living in California and this was
back in April that I started to work on it.
Centers: And your application with the city was when?
Beberness: It must have been about May.
Centers: Okay.
Beberness: But it kept coming back and forth because of -- the building kept changing
from spots.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Yes. I just have a few questions. That did answer my one question. I wanted to
know how many children you owned yourself. So you have 3 children?
Beberness: Yes. I have 3 boys.
Norton: How many children do you own.Then your hours of operation are what?
Beberness: They are still open. I don't know what the laws are here in Idaho with child
care. I have always been 24 hours as needed, not exceeding more than 12 hours per
child at a time. But I have been used to working with military children, so I was thinking
more along the lines of about 5:30 in the morning until like 7:00 at night.
Norton: That's very generous. There is some people that would like have that. You state
you were licensed in California and have run a day care for 3 years and there is a
structured environment?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 6
Beberness: Yes, I do.
Norton: Okay. Sounds good to me. Thanks.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you, ma'am. Do we have anyone here to testify on
this application? Seeing none, thank you. Commissioners?
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Move to close the Public Hearing.
Centers: I would second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Norton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I would like to move to approve CUP 01 --
Centers: Could I comment first, Commissioner Norton?
Norton: Sure.
Centers: I'm going to be right there with a second. What I was looking for was the
property owners and notification of and there was -- certainly all the notifications were
given. I didn't see any opposition. No one was here to oppose the day care, so I don't
see why we wouldn't go forward.
Norton: There is a huge sign on her front door saying about the public notice. So
everybody is aware. She has a full six foot cedar fence in the backyard. She's ready to
go on day care. She's done all the rules, she's done all the --
Centers: Excuse me. Go right ahead.
Norton: I'd like to recommend approval of CUP 01-033, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Group Day Care with, a Group Day Care facility for 6 to 12 children in an R-
8 zone for Virginia Beberness, Lot 14, Block 3 of Tremont Subdivision.
Centers: I would second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 7
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 01-034 Request for a Conditional Use
Permit for an alternative school for Middle School and High
School age students in an R-4 zone for Joint School District No.
2 by Joint School District No. 2 - 930 West Pine Street:
Borup: Thank you. Okay. Our next item is Public Hearing CUP 01-034, Request for
Conditional Use Permit for an alternative school for middle school and high school age
students in an R-4 zone for Joint School District No. 2 at 930 West Pine Street. Like to
open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Before we begin, I just would like say that I need to excuse myself and will sit
out for personal reasons.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Thank you.
(Commissioner Centers excused.)
Borup: Mr. Hawkins-Clark.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. Again, the application before you -- you
have received a staff report dated October 26, 2001, from Bruce Freckleton and David
McKinnon. It does outline the project and we ask that our recommended requirements
be included in any motion you make tonight. In summary, the screen shows the location
of the proposed school. On the center of the screen here is East Pine Avenue, which I
believe is wrong. I think that should be West Pine Avenue. I don't take credit for the
maps. Northwest Ninth Avenue here on the north side. The Meridian Friends Church is
here on the south side and then the existing residential subdivision surrounding. A
couple of site photos for you of the proposed location. On the left the main entry to the
house from Ninth. That is the main entry, to point out. It's -- just to go back, it's not off
of -- not off of Pine. The primary entrance is located here, which is on that photo. On
the screen is the proposed site plan. Just to orient you, Pine Street is here on the left,
Ninth -- Northwest Ninth Avenue is here on the bottom of the screen. There is an
existing fence here around the property. A driveway -- the driveway entrance is here,
which is concrete. The main entrance to the facility is here. There is existing
landscaping and yard here along Pine. There is a walkway here coming off of Pine to
the main entrance. There is a gravel -- gravel area here, which is just between the
fence and the facility. Again, as noted in our staff report, the students -- this is for
students that have been expelled from the district's regular educational facilities will go
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 8
to school at this location. Staff's understanding is the students will not be permitted to
drive to the school, they will be bused from existing middle schools and high schools.
They are talking about 8 middle school students in the morning and up to 8 high school
in the afternoon and they are discussing converting the garage for the -- for this, so it
will not be available for parking. The garage would be converted for use as part of the
facility interior. On page 2 of the staff report we basically summarize the reasons that
this is a Conditional Use Permit. As you know, the city's ordinance does not typically
require a Conditional Use Permit for public schools. In this case staff felt there were 3
reasons to require a Conditional Use Permit. One, the subdivision was approved as a
single family subdivision and no other uses were shown on the plat at that time.
Number 2, the alternative school is not a traditional public school and we felt the
schedule of use control did not address alternative schools, so we felt it should come
before you. Then the third reason was the potential impact of the project on the
surrounding neighborhoods. We did make one finding. We felt that the proposed
development would change the essential character of the general vicinity. The main
other findings we felt were found to the positive. I guess I won't hit every single
proposed specific requirement, since you have that in your packets, unless you'd like
me to go through those. 3 of the ones I will hit on page 4, number 3 is that the applicant
needs to state the hours of operation at the hearing. They did simply say that the
morning would be for middle school and the afternoon would be for high school, but
there weren't specific hours that we received. So we recommend limiting the hours of
operation to 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 p.m. Number 4, we have a recommendation that no
students shall be allowed to walk, drive, or be picked off or picked up by family or
friends at the location and that's mainly for the traffic issue since it's there and that was
certainly up to you. In terms of landscaping, other things are there. They would need to
add one tree along Pine Street to comply with the landscape ordinance. So we -- our
recommendation was, obviously, just to rely on public testimony and to determine if the
proposed use is appropriate. We do have concerns about the placement of a high
school -- of a school in an established neighborhood and -- but I think in terms of our
conditions that's all I'll hit at this point.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for the Commissioners at this point? Is the applicant
here and would like to come forward.
Anderson: My name is Stillman Anderson. Address is 1735 Federal Way, Boise. I am
the architect for the school district on this project. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, Joint School District No. 2 asks the direction of Planning and Zoning staff,
have applied for a Conditional Use to permit them to implement on their property at 930
West Pine a federally mandated IEP school for no more than 8 students in the morning
session and no more than 8 students in the afternoon session. The length of time the --
or the daily operational time, 7:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., is agreeable with the district on
that. To give you a little background on how this location was selected, the school
district has had this program in existence for 3 years and in that time it has been at
Lowell Scott Middle School and then it was moved to Meridian High School. During that
time, through observation and research, the district determined that to have this
program on a campus defeated the purpose of the ramifications of the student's actions
that had culminated in their expulsion from the district. The federal government
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 9
requires that a student on the IEP, which is Individual Educational Program, even
though they are expelled from the school district, they, the district still has to provide
them with educational opportunity, as opposed to a student who is expelled who is not
on the IEP. They are expelled, they are out. So with this in mind, the district put
together some parameters. First of all, it needed to be centrally located as much as
possible, because of the fact that this district is large. Secondly, they needed to have
access that would be easily used by a bus. Third, they looked for a facility that would
have space for 8 students in the morning, 8 students in the afternoon, provide office
space for the instructor and also office space for a visiting counselor. They then looked
at a requirement of where ever it was located that it needed to impact the area as little
as possible. With these parameters in mind they started looking. They looked at a
commercial establishment and it had everything that they needed and, in fact, it was,
even had more, it had computer tie-in and everything. Mr. Bigham went to visit with
Shari Stiles to get some direction from her, went through it. He was directed that she felt
that they would have a better chance of getting an approval if it were located in a zone
where a school was permitted. In a commercial zone it would have to go through
conditional use. The zoning ordinance does indicate that in an R-4 school public is
permitted. So with that in mind they started looking. This house at 930 West Pine
became available, they looked at it, and determined that it provided what they needed
with very little interior remodel being necessary. So with that it was taken to the school
board for approval. They approved it. They purchased the property. We submitted for
a certificate of zoning compliance and on the 27th of July this year we were informed
that staff had determined we needed to go for a conditional use. So that is what the
district has done. With that I would like to go through some of these items that the staff
has outlined as site specific requirements.
Borup:You don't need to go through those that you agree with.
Anderson: Right. There are only a couple that they have concern with. Item number 4,
yes, the students will not be allowed to drive on that. Their concern is if for some reason
the parents cannot get a doctor's appointment or whatever for the student, other -- at
other times than when they are at school, the district doesn't feel that they can tell the
parents that they can't bring their student -- can't pick their student up or can't bring their
student back to the facility. So they would like to have that requirement deleted.
Borup: You're talking about pick up or drop off?
Anderson: Right. And if they pick up and drop off they will pick them up and drop them
off from Pine Street. The existing main entrance, as pointed out, is off of Northwest
Ninth. The school district will have the main entrance -- the front door off of Pine Street,
because the buses will come, drop the students off at Pine Street and they will walk into
the front door into their classroom. They will be supervised at all times on that.
Number 5, it requires 5 parking spaces, one of which will be handicapped, not 5 parking
spaces and a handicapped space.
Borup: So what -- could you -- are you saying that you need a total of 5 and that's
based on --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 10
Anderson: Classroom requires 2 and office space for the size, you have one space for
every 400 square feet and that facility is 1,200 -- almost 1,200 square feet.
Borup: So --
Anderson: So together that would be 5 spaces.
Borup: Counting the handicapped?
Anderson: Counting the handicapped.
Borup: Okay. I'd like to maybe try to hit some of these as we go, so we don't have so
many at the end. Brad, do those calculations --
Hawkins-Clark: 1,200 square feet?
Borup: So one per 400 would be --
Hawkins-Clark: That's 4. Then there is just one classroom?
Anderson: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: 5. So then I guess the only other the concern would be in terms of
ordinance requirements --
Borup: That's what i was --
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. I guess staff would be the other --
Borup: You say you have 2 teachers, plus a drop-in?
Anderson: Plus a drop-in --
Borup: Counselor.
Anderson: -- counselor. Right.
Borup: So there should never be more than 3 cars there?
Anderson: There is a possibility, because of the fact that the garage is going to be
converted into storage for the district --
Borup: Oh. Well, that's --
Anderson: Could be a maintenance vehicle coming in. That storage is basically for --
the district is donating cans, so that they can put it there. The other half will be storage
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 11
for the facility. So we won't regularly have maintenance people driving in, but, you
know, you would have maybe a maximum of 4 vehicles there.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Go on.
Anderson: Then the other item is item number 9. Planning and Zoning staff have
indicated that we need a 20 foot buffer between land uses, between school and existing
residence and they suggest that we discuss alternatives.
Borup: Was the concern on the western boundary? Is that --
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, that would be correct.
Borup: Just the west only or the west and --
Hawkins-Clark: Well, the ordinance requires any property lines that are adjacent.
Borup: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: But both of those you do not have the 20 feet?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Anderson: We have got -- on the west we have got 5 feet.
Hawkins-Clark: Only 5 here on the north.
Anderson: You may have 15 to --
Unidentified Speaker: 5.
Borup: We are going to need -- Mr. Anderson is the one that's speaking and we need to
ask the rest of you to not say anything while we are here.
Anderson: At the street on the north, yes, the distance is smaller. Up by the garage it
is wider.
Borup: Right. That's what it looks like, about 15 feet on the plat -- on the site plan
there.
Anderson: Right. Part of that, right where the arrow is right now, is going to be paved
for a parking space on that.
Borup: So the -- right now the only screening is --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 12
Anderson: There is a fence all the way along the north and there is a fence along the
west. It is a 6 foot fence. At the Northwest Ninth the fence does decrease for sight line
requirements. In addition to these site specific requirements, the school district would
like to have added 3 more. Number 13 being no more than eight students per session.
Number 14, the property, as long as the district owns it, shall not be used for any other
purpose than an educational facility of no larger than the current square footage with
the related storage building. Number 15 is the exterior characteristic of the existing
house and garage shall be maintained as they currently appear, other than any
requirements by this Commission. At this point I would like to have Bonnie Gallant,
supervisor of special services, come up and give you a little background on exactly
what the IPE requires, if that's agreeable with you.
Borup: Well, we may want to --
Anderson: And after she's through I will come back up -- and, in fact, we can both be
up here at that point and answer any of your questions.
Borup: Okay.
Gallant: My name is Bonnie Gallant. I'm the director of special services for the Meridian
School District. The Meridian School District office is located at 911 Meridian Street.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the purpose of this program is to fulfill our responsibility
in accordance with a federal education law which is Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, or IDEA. Under that law it requires the school district to fulfill all
educational obligations for students who are found to be eligible under one of the 14
categories listed within that federal law. What this means is is that not every student
who is expelled from the school is allowed to attend such a program. This is specific to
the federal and state requirements for what is called a continuation of education
services. Therefore, whom we would bring onto this campus would be students who are
either evaluated for the program or who have active educational needs prescribed.
According to the data that I have selected at this point in time over the -- since 1999 we
have had 52 students out of a population of almost 25,000. I have, as published by the
state department, 2,500 students who are active in terms of individual education plans.
As you can see by the numbers that there is a significant minor ratio of students who
would be created to be entitled for such a program. With that in mind, I think it's also
important for you to understand that students come in at staggered times. We may go
2 to 3 months and have only one student. We have gone as many as 3 months and
only had one student. So the numbers are varying, but certainly we have never
reached a fulfilled time of 8 students in the morning, 8 in the afternoon. The times of
which would be 8:30 to 11:30 in the morning for middle school students, 12:30 to 3:30 in
the afternoon. Do you have any questions for me?
Borup: Commissioners? Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Ms. Gallant, I'm going to guess that most of the people in this room aren't here
because they think we shouldn't provide an educational opportunity for these kids. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 13
think the whole issue is the location of this facility. I think I heard Mr. Anderson say the
current location is at the high school.
Gallant: The current location is not at the high school, Mr. Chairman. The current
location is that I have the teacher and the assistant going from home to home. We do
not have a location.
Nary: But the last fixed site was at the high school?
Gallant: Correct.
Nary: Now when it was at the high school were the kids always bused to that facility as
well?
Gallant: That is correct.
Nary: What happens when they want to drive? How do you prevent them from driving?
Gallant: Mr. Chairman --
Nary: I'm not the chairman, he is.
Gallant: I'm sorry. Sorry about that. Commissioner Nary. Let me explain to you what
that looks like. When you have a student that is coming in within special needs, you
meet with the family. Part of the process of this program is that you're in continual
knowledge and information sharing with the family. They have to agree to the
stipulations of what is required to get into this program. Part of this program requires us
to provide the transportation. It's not an option for a parent. They could not make that
choice.
Nary: Okay. But that doesn't really answer my question. If on the occasions, as Mr.
Anderson stated, that kids have to go to a doctor, they have to go to the dentist or
whatever, on those occasions -- I have high school kids myself.
Gallant: Correct.
Nary: On occasions they drive for those particular circumstances. How do you prevent
that from -- in this school setting?
Gallant: The terms and conditions of going into the program require that the parent is
only allowed to do the transporting if the child has a medical issue. The child cannot
transport to and from this program period. The child cannot bring a car to this program.
Nary: So -- okay. But my question, ma'am, is how do you prevent it, then? Do you
expel them from the program if they drive once?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 14
Gallant: We meet again and say it's determined that this is an inappropriate situation
for you. We need to think of what we are going to do otherwise.
Nary: The very first time a kid drives himself back from the doctor because mom has to
go back to work, you would sit down with those parents say not acceptable, don't do it
again. The next time your kid's out?
Gallant: Mr. Nary, I have been in this situation for 26 years and when a parent
understands that this child has been expelled -- you have to understand how far they
have gone into this system. When a parent --
Nary: I just want an answer, ma'am.
Gallant: I have never had it happen.
Nary: Okay. But what are you going to do if you do?
Gallant: You meet with the family, you call a team meeting, and you determine whether
that's an appropriate placement, at which time I'm sure we would determine that we are
going to be doing something otherwise.
Nary: Okay. The other question I have is I heard you use the term special needs kids.
Gallant: Yes.
Nary: Now as a lay person that has a different connotation to me than what I think the
school is, because most kids don't get expelled because they have special needs or
they have a physical handicap.
Gallant: Right.
Nary: That's what I think of as special needs.
Gallant: Right.
Nary: That's not what you're talking about; correct?
Gallant: That is correct. That's one of the --
Nary: Okay. What type of reason, for example, are these kids -- what kind of reasons
have they kids been expelled from the regular traditional school system?
Gallant: Well, we have had students that have been expelled because they brought a
knife to school, that they were incorrigible, that they could not follow the rules and
regulations, even with specific accommodations made for them. So we have a variety
of reasons as to why they have been removed from school.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 15
Nary: Now I'm going to -- I don't know. Is your curriculum -- are the kids in the facility
the entire 3 hours?
Gallant: That is correct.
Nary: So they never go outside?
Gallant: We have never had them go outside, except to get on the bus.
Nary: So they won't ever go in the yard, they won't ever walk out on the sidewalk -- I
mean it sounds like jail to me, it doesn't sound like school. But they never will go
outside ever?
Gallant: Mr. Nary, I only have a certain amount of time in order to get a significant
education into their day.
Nary: That's a yes or no question, ma'am. That's a no, that they will never ever be
outside? So if we added that as a condition that would be okay? They can never be
out in the yard, they can never be anywhere on the sidewalk or anywhere else around
this neighborhood? If we were to allow this, the school district would be comfortable
with that?
Gallant: We would be comfortable with that.
Nary: That's all I have.
Borup: Okay.
Shreeve: Just one other thing, same train of thought. When they go from the house to
the bus that is a direct access? I mean or –
Gallant: Well, I would -- yes.
Shreeve: They get on the bus and they are gone. They don't dilly-dally, they don't roam
around the bus and isn't --
Borup: I guess what you're asking, they don't leave the building until the bus arrives; is
that correct?
Gallant: Correct.
Shreeve: Okay.
Borup: A couple of questions. I'm not sure which one would be best to answer this, but
the school district owns, I believe, several houses on Pine Street now near the school
property; is that correct? Who is --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 16
Gallant: That's correct.
Borup: Do you know how many -- do you know how many buildings are there now? You
know, converted houses.
Gallant: We own 3.
Borup: 3? That's what I was thinking. What are those being presently used for?
Gallant: One of those homes is for our counseling center and that houses our
coordinators for counseling. We have one --
Borup: So do the students come there or just the counselors --
Gallant: They do not.
Borup: Okay.
Gallant: You have one for testing and assessment and we do not have students that
come there.
Borup: Okay.
Gallant: We also have one for curriculum coordinators.
Borup: Okay.
Borup: Had there been any thought to using one of those buildings for this alternative
school?
Gallant: I can't answer that. It has not been broached with me. It would have to take Mr.
Bingham to answer that.
Borup: Okay. I mean I guess you can see where I'm going to. I got the feeling that
maybe most of these neighbors would rather have one of those uses there, rather than
the school. Would it be that much of a hardship just to make a switch? Mr. Bingham.
Bingham: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners.
Borup: Name and --
Bingham: Wendel Bingham. 911 Meridian St. 83642. To specifically answer your
question did we think about it and the answer is yes. The overriding concern that we
had is not so much of could we swap the houses. 2 comments on that and the first was
of our own volition that if your child is expelled from school, it is sometimes hard for the
child to recognize the consequence that they are expelled from school when the bus
stops in front of Meridian High School and you walk into a house that's on the Meridian
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 17
High School campus. In many instances we know that the behaviors are best changed
in the children by pulling them out of the environment and putting them physically
removed. So we will pull that program off the campus for educational reasons. The
second reason would be simply one that came from a comment from the neighborhood
and I hope not to misspeak on this. In the discussion with the neighborhood meeting
we originally considered also utilizing this house in conjunction with this program for an
auditory screening program for the district for children's hearing screening and we
determined that wasn't a good mix, simply because the parking wouldn't work. We
would have cars on the street. We would be bringing the public there. But in the
neighborhood meeting I asked the group collectively and said what if we were to put an
auditory testing facility in there -- not that we could go back and do that today, we have
changed that plan -- and pretty much the message I got was, no, that wouldn't be
acceptable to us either. So that's just information on the side. But the biggest point is
the children need to be physically removed from this campus and that speaks to the
logic of why we really shouldn't put this program on any other campus.
Borup: I understand what you're saying there, but the buildings I have seen there
essentially are removed, they are within visual sight of the campus, but they are not
really a direct access, the access is off of Pine, isn't that correct, on those other
buildings?
Bingham: That is correct.
Borup: If they are inside the building all day, you know, the jail setting that
Commissioner Nary referred to, they are physically removed. I mean I understand what
you're saying, but I don't see that that's as much of a conflict as you're saying.
Bingham: I need to tell you that I'm not totally comfortable speaking to the issue.
Perhaps Bonnie can. But generally children who act out with these types of behaviors
aren't always able to connect consequences with their action. So while it's perfectly
obvious to you and I that when we get off in front of the school and wave to our friends
that we are not in that high school. It's not apparently obvious to these children and --
Borup: But you're not getting off in front of the school, you're getting off on Pine Street.
Bingham: Correct. You're getting off on Pine Street, but when you look up you are on
the school campus. Again, I defer simply to the educational specialist within the school
district to make that determination as appropriate. Probably the side light would be if
we were to change the use of the house and it's zoned in a residential area, would we
not be back here again?
Borup: Yes, you would. But I'm not sure if all these people would be here.
Bingham: Commissioners, I believe it would be a different group of people with the
same valid concerns.
Borup: All I was doing was seeing if maybe I could save some time this evening.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 18
Nary: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bigham, correct me, one of those houses you're talking about
used to have a preschool. 2 of my children went there, so I'm pretty sure that's what
you're talking about, that if --
Bingham: Yes. I'm relatively new. Yes. Apparently.
Nary: And I don't recall a lot of problems with the neighbors when you had a preschool
there about having a school setting, a school environment, buses coming and going.
Did the school district experience a lot of public concerns about a preschool when it
was on the high school campus mixing small children on a high school campus?
Gallant: Mr. Nary, we did not have any conflicts with that whatsoever and I think a lot of
it was the difference in the population. We are talking about 3 to 5 year olds that were
special needs students.
Nary: Well, they weren't all special needs students.
Borup: Well, I may have misunderstood --
Nary: I understand. What I guess I'm asking is is that what I think I heard Mr. Bingham
say is that this is simply a policy choice based on data from other areas that said it's not
a good idea to have an alternative school such as this program on a campus of the
school, based on material that I don't -- didn't hear him say was local data, it was an
educational specialist that may or may not have local data. Obviously, a school can
work in that setting, because there was a school there before. It was a preschool. I
understand that. But certainly people would have -- there are always people that would
have a concern about mixing small children in a high school setting, cars, traffic, kids
out smoking in the parking lot, lots of things like that. Again, but those things could
work. So I guess I'm a little bit with Chairman Borup saying I didn't hear anything
compelling from what you have said or what Mr. Bingham has said that it can't work, it's
just a choice that you have made based on data that may or may not be any real
reference to our community. Everything you said as to why these kids need to be in this
school is the same reason why I think these people don't want them in their backyard
and I don't necessary know that's what everyone is going to say, I'm hoping maybe
some of these kids' parents are here to give us their perspective. But I haven't heard
you say that you can't do it, it's just that you choose not to do it. Is that right?
Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary, we chose not to for a number of reasons.
There is an economic consideration which may or may not have validity in a compelling
fashion to move one group for one place to the other. The second compelling reason
might be that the houses on Pine Street are larger than the house we are proposing at
930 West Pine, so we simply would not be able to move all of the staff and the 6, 8, 10
cars and public and district traffic to that location. So we are not really comparing one
size of house office environment, however you would like to consider it, to the other.
Physically the move didn't work. In the grander scheme of things, should the district
ever be fortunate enough of build a new administration building, the houses on Pine
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 19
Street would then be vacated, the 2 -- the 3 of them in front of Meridian High School
would actually be vacated to provide a better educational setting. So we did look at it
and determine that it really didn't work and in the end we would still be putting
something in a neighborhood that would probably have essentially the same turn out
and same concerns, because it would be an office environment and, again, I go back to
the meeting when I questioned some of the speakers as to whether or not that would be
acceptable to them and they confirmed my initial suspicion that that, too, would not
have been acceptable, but our reason for moving the audiology was, again, part -- we
would have had a lot of cars stopping there.
Nary: One last question, Mr. Bingham. I think I heard Mr. Anderson say that part of the
reason that the school district chose this route was based upon the planning director's
recommendation that an R-4 zone would not require a Conditional Use Permit. Now
that we are in this situation, we are looking at a Conditional Use Permit, would the
school district consider again a commercial site that -- it sounds like it was discussed
previously, but the Conditional Use Permit was sort of the road block at that point.
Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, the specific conversation I had with Shari
Stiles centered around the office space that's adjacent to our marketing education
located on Water Tower just as you go passed the water tower it's the gray structure on
the right. That was our first choice -- best choice. It was not a neighborhood setting,
but it had the ability, the buses could come and go without impacting traffic in any
adverse way and we had some continuity with district wide supervision and district wide
infrastructure, computer network servers, routers, etc. In the discussion with Shari she
indicated -- and rightfully so -- that under her interpretation of the code we would be
seeking conditional use and a change and that we would probably have the similar
concerns of the business community that the neighborhood has concerns of, i.e., the
nature of the students that are attending the facility. So with that obstacle in front of us,
we looked for where the use was permitted and the distinction between when we look
and possibly staff's interpretation and yours is -- as close as I can tell and I'm no expert
at this -- it says public schools. Doesn't say public schools, except something else.
Nowhere else in the code or the zoning are public schools mentioned as alternative
schools traditional. Given the strictest interpretation that we are operating under today,
year around elementary school is a nontraditional school environment. Would a year
around elementary school require a conditional use in any of the R permitted zones? It
begs the question and that's kind of really the -- it's not our last hope, it's simply if we
can't depend on putting it where the zoning indicates us to go with the greatest chance
of success that would be consistent with the city's plans or vision, if you will, why would
we choose to have a zoning change and be in a conditional use? The conditional use, I
believe, is appropriate even though we are going in a permitted area, simply because of
the use and the reason we are here tonight. But in the absence of I'll just say approval
at this location, the question that we don't want to be left with from Planning and Zoning
or the city is where do we put it? Where do we go with it? We are looking to the city
under the zoning to give us guidance if not here, where, because we think we have met
the letter of the law and, quite frankly, the spirit of it. That's kind of our dilemma.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 20
Nary: Well, I guess, Mr. Bingham, what my question is -- and I know you can't
necessarily speak on behalf of the district tonight, but we are here now. We are here
now on a conditional use. No different than if you had requested this in a commercial
zone. It may be the room would be different, the people might be different. If that's
something that's still on the table whether we resolve this here or whether it goes to City
Council and -- I mean is that still something on the table that is an option or is it this or
nothing and then we will go back to the drawing board and decided whether we go to
district court or whether we reapply?
Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, without sounding adversarial, I think we want
it to go through the process. This is the stand that the school board took to the patrons
who testified on Monday night in opposition to this, that we would like to see it go
through this process and if we are turned down for whatever reason, we will be forced
to regroup. We must comply with the feds. We have no choice in that matter. If we are
forced to regroup will we come back in a different R-4, R-8, TE zone? Possibly. We will
come back in a commercial zone? Possibly. But we would come back with the fear that
we came forth originally in a permitted zone, we went through the conditional use
process, and we were turned down. I would be putting my money on if we came forward
through this process in a commercial zone we would probably again be turned down for
the same logic that would cause you to arrive at that decision tonight.
Borup: We have already approved one school in the subdivision -- the area you're
talking about. There is a school -- probably -- no one here probably realizes it. But that
has been -- and it did come before us as a Conditional Use Permit. I think it's just on
the next street over, Water Tower. I can't remember the exact location, but there is a
precedent for that having been approved.
Bingham: Okay. Having said all of that, I would like to see it run its course. I want to
have faith in the ability of staff and our appropriate architects to accurately interpret the
zoning and code requirements and we may consider this a test, but I would like to see
this process to the end, because it will simply answer the question, if not here, where
would you like to --
Borup: Well, I think staff said in their report that it complied with all the requirements,
except for they felt the -- changing the neighborhood was really the only item.
Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners --
Borup: I didn't word that correctly, but --
Bingham: I think that's really the crux of the matter here. We are advocating our position
is that we do not believe it will substantially alter the nature of the neighborhood if we
maintain the house in a like and similar character to other residences in the area. Our
hours of operation are shorter than the normal business hours. The program occurs on
the traditional school year, approximately 9 months. The summer the house is vacant,
other than maybe staff that might be running in there to fix something in the office. So
we believe the impact to the neighborhood should be minimal. It has less trip
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 21
generation, probably, or equal trip generation to a residence. The buses stop on Pine
Street and by pulling to the shoulder, turning on flashing yellow lights, and they do not
stop the traffic and there are 2 trips in the A.M. and 2 trips in the P.M.
Borup: Are those normally buses or a van?
Shreeve: They are buses. Short buses or long buses, depending upon the route that
they come off of, but they are buses.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Mr. Bingham, could you, please, educate us, you know, the Commission and
maybe the members in -- the people in this room, what is the difference between a
student being expelled permanently and a student who is expelled that gets this special
treatment of -- what was it? IEP program?
Gallant: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Norton, the difference is that a student who is
expelled -- when you're talking about expulsion, you're talking about -- for the most part
for a semester. A student that would be in this program has found or is in the process
of being found eligible for special education services. That is an education law that
requires for you to provide a continuation of services. That's the difference.
Norton: So 2 students could carry knives, one student is a special child, the other is
not. The one who is not a special child is expelled forever, the one who is a special
child gets special treatment; is that right?
Gallant: That's correct. The difference, however, is that with -- you're using at the end
of your sentence the word forever.
Norton: A semester?
Gallant: A semester. Yes.
Norton: Okay.
Gallant: That's the difference.
Norton: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Ms. Gallant, what is the difference between this program and the alternative
middle school and the alternative high school that already exist?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 22
Gallant: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary, the difference is is that this is specific only
for those students that are eligible for this service. When you have students that go to
the academy or to Crossroads Middle School, you are looking at any student that wants
to apply, wants to be referred for them for no special needs reason whatsoever. That's
just an alternate program.
Nary: Then maybe I just didn't hear you. What makes these students special that they
wouldn't just simply go to the alternative high school or the alternative middle school? I
heard you say people can apply, but why can't these kids be put into that program?
Gallant: Because -- because they are eligible under the specific --
Nary: What makes them eligible?
Gallant: But the criteria -- you have 14 different eligibilities under the disability act.
There are 14 different ways that you can be found to be eligible. Chronically ill. Were
you disabled? Orthopedically handicapped? I mean there is different -- and you don't
have time to --
Nary: Why don't you run through all of them, then, so that we know what they are,
because I don't understand -- I don't understand why these kids can't be in the
alternative school system that already exists. So could you tell us what those 14 things
are?
Gallant: You want all 14 eligibilities?
Nary: Yes, please.
Borup: These are defined by federal law; is that what you're saying?
Gallant: Right. These are students who have been referred for one reason or another --
Borup: I mean the 14 criteria, those are things that the federal --
Gallant: No. There are 14 different eligibilities. There are 14 different eligibilities.
Borup: That's in the federal statute?
Gallant: That's in federal statute. That's also part of the state guidelines for special
education services.
Nary: So these are physical handicapped? These are learning disabilities? Is that -- I
mean I just want to know what they are. I think these people want to know are these
people here going to break into their cars. So are these kids that have learning
disabilities and such? Tell us what they are.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 23
Gallant: Well, I don't have my code book in front of me, so I'll go as far as I can. You
have chronically ill, other health impaired, learning disabled, emotional disturbance,
orthopedically handicapped, cognitively impaired, language impaired, speech impaired,
traumatic brain injury, developmentally delayed. I think I have done pretty well thus far.
Those are the main ones.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: You know, we have talked about knives. I didn't hear knives as one of those
lists.
Gallant: No. What you're talking about is that this is a student that has been identified
as having one of these special categorical needs. Let's say you have a child that has a
learning disability. This child comes to school, his special needs are being met, and he
brings a knife to school. What the school has to determine is is that how are we going
to continue to provide services for a child that brought a knife to school, which is an
expellable offense, and meet the standard of the law which says that you have to
continue educational services for that student. So that's where -- I was bringing the
knife up, but I think someone was asking what would an incident be that would be the
generating focus of the student being removed.
Borup: I think what you're saying is that the student's disability -- and I think this was
already mentioned – 2 students can be expelled for the same thing, one be for the
semester and the student with disability you're required to keep providing education.
Gallant: That is correct. You're removing that student from school, but --
Borup: A little bit of reverse discrimination? Are we getting too far here? Never mind.
Shreeve: So let me just restate that, because that's exactly where I was headed, is --
and I don't know what the politically correct term is, but a normal kid brings a knife and
you get a kid that has a speech impediment who brings a knife. The, quote, normal kid,
I guess, the -- excuse me if that's not a politically correct term, but he would tend -- he
would then be expelled, because there is other reason, he brought a knife, he had full
knowledge of the whole thing, where this other student has a special need, he classifies
or falls into these categories and so they would -- yes, I tend to agree, that's almost a
reverse -- but that is correct, is that right, that they would tend to be expelled, where this
other student would go to the alternative --
Norton: But just -- I can understand the school district's dilemma is that this is federally
mandated. They have to do something. They have chosen this house, which the
neighbors aren't appreciative of.
Nary: So, Ms. Gallant, the kids who meet that special needs requirement, these kids
could not go to the alternative school, they have to be in a separate program all by
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 24
themselves with other kids that have special needs, as well as incorrigible problems that
caused them to be expelled. They cannot be in any other system, except this special
program that might have 3 kids at one time?
Borup: Well, I think, Commissioner Nary, what they are saying is the alternative school
is essentially mainstream. I mean if you're expelled from the regular school you would
be expelled one of the others, too.
Gallant: Correct.
Nary: Okay. But all I'm saying is that there is no other alternative. This is it. You have to
provide a program -- just so these folks understand -- you have to provide a program
that you're currently providing in homes, which I'm sure is very time consuming and not
cost effective, and there is no other alternative within the school system that we
currently have to meet this need.
Gallant: That's correct.
Nary: Is that right?
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Maybe one for staff. For
this building to be rezoned as office use -- I don't even -- it would take a rezone,
conditional use would not -- would not suffice; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, that's correct.
Borup: That's what it looked like, on the use, it would require a rezone.
Hawkins-Clark: A separate application for a rezone. Right.
Nary: Thank you.
Borup: Any other -- thank you. Commissioners, I'm wondering if we would like any
discussion before we start with public testimony that -- I guess I'm thinking it may speed
things along if -- well, I don't know. Too early to reach any conclusions. Would we like
to continue getting some more information from -- I mean we have read the letters, we
have read the --
Norton: Petitions
Borup: -- petitions. I just need to state -- you know, there was several things in the
petition that was incorrect, false information. It doesn't do me a lot of -- I mean it
doesn't, to me, say a lot of credibility to the whole thing when there is one of the things
that that's -- that much misinformation and incorrect statements. But having said that --
but you were -- someone was going to say something.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 25
Nary: Well, the only thing I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, is that we, obviously, need
to hear from all these folks that took the time to come down here tonight.
Borup: Right.
Nary: I think that the thing that we need to -- that all of these folks -- the people, as well
as all of us, need to look at and address it, is that we aren't really -- although I said it as
well and I think that's the mood of some of the folks at least, it isn't the character of the
kids that really goes to what the ordinance is talking about, because if this was a -- if
this was a preschool or an honors program, we may not have this many people in this
room. So I want them to understand if you read through our ordinance, it doesn't talk
about the character of the people in the building, it talks about the nature of the use of
the building. So if they are going to spend a lot of time telling us I'm really concerned
about the nature of these children, understand our ordinance doesn't really address
that. Now maybe I'm wrong, Brad, and please correct me, but, as I said, if this was an
honors program, I don't know that everybody would be here. If this was a preschool I
don't know if it would be either. So understand that if that's your number one concern,
we may not have the ability in our ordinance just on that alone to deny this use. There
are other things in our ordinance that does speak to how this use is going to be. So I
just want everyone to understand that if you feel frustrated because you don't think we
are hearing you, understand we are, but there are things that we are bound by, as well
as the City Council in evaluating use of property. That's what we are talking about. Not
who is in the building, how they are going to use it. So I guess, you know, that's the
only thing I wanted to say before we get started.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: Now that Commissioner Nary has mentioned that, I -- the statement that the
school district has made regarding -- regarding that they didn't think it was appropriate
for these students to be in a property close to the high school, because they don't get it,
they don't realize that they really have been bad and need to be put in a different
location. If that is the case, maybe we should put them close to the police department -
- you know, aren't they building a new police department?
Nary: Right on Water Tower where they wanted to go in the first place.
Norton: You know, and then maybe the kids would get that they have been bad, so --
you know, I don't know if that -- that statement sort of bothered me a little bit.
Borup: Any comments, Commissioners? Well, I definitely agree with what
Commissioner Nary has said. I mean a strict interpretation -- there is not a lot for us to
go on, but what the -- one staff comment that was made several times is -- maybe it's
because they didn't want to stick their neck out, but that -- staff recommends that we
rely on public testimony for a lot of these concerns. I guess the problem I have, I think if
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 26
it's -- if the regulation and rules are enforced strictly, you're never going to see the kids
anyway, but --
Norton: Well, why --
Borup: But I guess the overriding thing to me -- I mean whether it -- when we have this
many people that are opposed, you can't ignore that.
Norton: According to our ordinance it looks like a public school is a permitted use in an
R-8.
Borup: And an R-4?
Norton: And an R-4. So why are we seeing a conditional use?
Borup: The only reason, as staff stated, they felt that --
Norton: Because of the use of this; right? So we are back to that.
Borup: About the type of school. Right.
Nary: My last comment before we do public testimony, I don't fault the staff. I
understand the contentiousness of this issue. I think it is one that probably it is in our
ballpark. If you want to talk about sticking your neck out, the school board didn't do
anything. They just left it to us. These patrons are the patrons of the school board, too,
and they vote for those people just as well. So maybe they need to remember that the
next school board election that if you want to be on the school board, make a decision,
don't just pass the buck. Leave it to the free people.
Borup: Okay.
Nary: That's my editorial comment.
Borup: That being said, I don't know if most of you had a chance to read -- to read the -
- the information sheet back there on public testimony. When we have a group like this
we have to stay real close on time limits. The other thing I might mention, we do have a
provision of -- if we have a single person speaking for the neighborhood, we allow extra
time. I don't know if this has been organized well enough that you have a spokesman
for the group. We do have one. We have 2. Okay. Well, let's see where we are going
here. We have at least one person that wants to speak for one part of the neighbor and
--
Mitchell: 31 homeowners.
Borup: Okay. You want to stand -- stand up, sir, just maybe right there. How many
people by show of hands that this individual will be speaking for your behalf? Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 27
Thank you. You, sir. You said you had a group that are -- raise your -- okay. All right.
And you, ma'am?
Cantella: I'm speaking for myself.
Borup: Okay. Okay. Those are the only 2 -- it looks like those are the only 2 that are
speaking for -- how many others do we have besides that would like to speak? Okay.
So we'd like to go ahead and start that. The other thing that is often the case when we
have a group like this, people start repeating themselves. If we've heard it -- especially
if we've heard it twice, we really don't need to hear it a fifth time. It doesn't help the
case to repeat and especially to get off on a tangent that really doesn't apply to what we
are talking about. So that being said, I'm trying to decide whether we want to start with
the group or with the individuals. Why don't you go ahead, sir. It looks like you're ready.
State your name and --
Mitchell: My name is Robert Mitchell. I'm the president of the Clarindafaire Homeowners
Association. I live at 1085 West State Street. I would like to know where Ms. Bonnie
Gallant lives. She didn't state that when she got up here.
Borup: She stated her office address.
Mitchell: Okay. That plot map that you've got there on the wall is -- leaves something to
be desired. Where that driveway is going into the garage there is an island that comes
in off of Pine and --
Borup: Right. We have a site map that shows that.
Mitchell: The people would have to come in. You don't show it on any of these pictures
here either. Right there.
Borup: But we have a little more detail also.
Mitchell: Okay. The things that we'd like to bring up is this is a single family residence
area, it has been, and we continue to want to maintain that. The school -- Mr. Bingham
indicated that that house is going to be vacant. A vacant home in that area would
definitely invite vandalism and people hanging out and children hanging out around that
house when it's vacant. They also indicated that the maintenance of the building would
be done very very, you know, concisely and keep it in the neighborhood up -- in a
neighborhood condition as the other homes. The maintenance of that building has
really deteriorated since it was bought. It hasn't been watered, it hasn't been mowed,
the hedges haven't been trimmed, it has definitely gone downhill. You know, I realize I
can't talk about the character of the children that are going to be in that home. The
Idaho Statesman had an article in it just recently from Aaron Exline, the school district
sales spokesperson, indicating that these students are expelled for truancy, weapons
possession, incorrigibility. We all feel that having this in our subdivision will decrease
property values. We feel that if it didn't work at Lowell Scott and it didn't work at
Meridian, why would they want to put it in a single family residence area and try to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 28
make it work there. I have to agree with Commissioner Norton that possibly it does
belong down the street from the police station. If not, put them in the creamery
building. It probably would be a lot cheaper to give them a tutor than to buy a single
family residence. You have got additional parking spaces, you have got teachers,
counselors, more traffic, and now you're going to turn the garage into a storage building
and have maintenance trucks going in and out. You don't have the buffer zones that
you're supposed to have for that kind of a conditional -- for that kind of a facility. I don't
know why this has even gone this far. That's all I have got to say. Our subdivision is
against it.
Borup: Any questions -- any questions of Mr. Mitchell? Would you propose that the
school district -- is there any use that the school district could use on that site that you
feel would be appropriate?
Mitchell: Without having a homeowners association meeting and discussing it and
knowing what the conditional use they would propose, I couldn't answer your question,
Mr. Commissioner. Not at all. They have 3 other homes near the high school. Why
don't they use one of those?
Borup: That's what I was getting at. Well, then, they have got to move those people to
somewhere else.
Mitchell: There would definitely be less I think offense than what we have now.
Borup: To move those office staff or the --
Mitchell: Correct.
Borup: Even if that entailed rezoning that to an L-O zone?
Mitchell: I would have to say we would have to have a homeowners meeting before I
could speak on that for the homeowners.
Borup: Because an office space -- a conditional use would not satisfy the need -- I
mean the requirements for an office space, it would need to be -- is why I asked that.
Mitchell: I don't think the adjacent homeowners would appreciate it. You have got a
family with 2 children living right next door and a family that's on the other side, that's
within 5 feet of that home. So I don't know how an office use of that facility would work.
Borup: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 29
Nary: Mr. Mitchell, I'm going to guess before this whole thing started R-4 zones and R-
8 zones and L-O zones and all that probably didn't mean a whole lot to you.
Mitchell: L-O means limited operations on the --
Nary: But you did hear tonight that an R-4 zone, which is what this area is, a school is
a permitted use and if this was a different kind of school, it may have not even -- you
may not even know anything about it until they were moving in.
Mitchell: Quite possibly.
Nary: So what do you think about that? I mean I just want your feelings. I mean, like I
said, I -- and maybe I'm wrong, but my perception is if this was an honor school with 4
students in it, you may not have as big a problem with that, but I don't know that.
Mitchell: I can't say that we wouldn't have as big a problem, because you've still got the
problem with the setbacks, you have got the problem with the additional parking
spaces, you have got the potential additional traffic, you have got an island there that
you have to navigate if you come in off of Pine to try to get into that driveway with
counselors -- so they have got to come in from either Eleventh Street or -- to get into
there without coming into that turn around and coming back to get into that driveway.
So all of those homes are going to experience the traffic of that going in and out. That
alone would -- there is little children all along that whole area that -- they are not in the
street, but the potential exists that someone could run out for a ball and get hurt. And
having a vacant home for 3 months out of the year sitting on the corner and the way
they have maintained it so far, I got to tell you, there is no way you're going to convince
me they are going to maintain it all summer long, because they haven't done anything
there.
Nary: You do, I'm sure, Mr. Mitchell, understand me, the traffic, at least from what the
projection you're talking about here, probably isn't much more than most homes are
going to have, other than the bus. I mean a school doesn't pull up to a house every
day, twice a day, but -- or 4 times a day, but the traffic of the people going there isn't
really any different than a house that people live in. But I do understand the vacancy
concern that you have. I walk through that neighbor, too, so I see what you're saying.
But it wouldn't have a whole lot more traffic impact for small children in the
neighborhood or anything and any other cars driving down the street.
Mitchell: You could be right.
Borup: Ada county's numbers I think are ten trips per day for a single family home is
the number they use. The previous resident, apparently they did the same thing, they
would come in on Eleventh or would they flip a U'ey or -- don't know?
Mitchell: They -- I never saw them that much. They came in and flipped around in the
cul-de-sac and --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 30
Borup: Then came back. You had mentioned about the maintenance. Is this a recent
picture, an old picture, or --
Mitchell: It's old. I mean very old.
Borup: Well, it had to be after the application. Do you know the date on that, Brad, at
all?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I believe it was taken about a month ago.
Borup: Okay.
Mitchell: So you got leaves off of some of the trees and some of them are turning color,
so --
Borup: So it's fairly recent if they are turning colors. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.
Mitchell: Thank you.
Borup: Yes, sir.
E. Centers: My name is Eric Centers, I live at 925 Northwest Ninth in Canna Lily
Subdivision. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, you have made my speaking a little
shorter by far. You have touched on a lot of my things I was going to say. I think the
main thing that is kind of gotten to us is the fact that the school district went ahead and
purchased the property without getting the opinion of the area residents prior to buying
the property. If they were like a developer or a commercial investor they would seek to
get a Conditional Use Permit and an option to buy ahead of time, so they are not out 80
to $100,00 if they don't get the right zoning or if it's not --
Borup: Right. But I think that's why they are here, they thought they bought something
that was a permitted use in the zone they bought for. They weren't anticipating on being
here.
E. Centers: Right. But what I'm trying to say is --
Borup: So there was no need to act -- to do that condition like you say on -- a
developer normally does have that as part of their option, because they know they are
going to have to go through that process.
E. Centers: I guess what I'm saying is I find it hard for them to believe that they
wouldn't feel they would impact the neighborhood with this kind of a setting and maybe
thought that if they purchased the property ahead of time and would sneak it through or
something. But since then they have purchased this property up until just a week ago
they had been pursuing work inside the building, you know, moving desks in, moving
different articles in, plumbing and HVAC rigs in there. So, you know, the subdivision
residents feel that -- you know, that they are trying to go ahead with this no matter, you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 31
know, really what our opinion is. Another thing I guess I would like to point out,
currently if you notice that on the map, Ninth has a cul-de-sac at the end and turns to
State. It's not labeled there, but that is State right there and that road runs directly into
the high school. If you drove all the way down through that road you would be at the
high school. So currently we have a lot of traffic from high school students that use that
route in the morning to cut through, get to high school, and when they leave the high
school, lunch breaks, they cut through. So that being said, if a bus was to stop at Ninth
and Pine, those students or other people would know if they want to get to the high
school they could possibly take Ninth to State and down. Thus making more traffic on
Ninth.
Borup: I'm not sure what that's got to do with this, but go ahead.
E. Centers: With what? The traffic congestion problem is what I'm saying. If there is a
bus stopping -- if the bus is going to be stopping -- they told us Monday night that the
bus would be stopping going westbound on Pine.
Borup: Right.
E. Centers: Which would back the cars right on that -- on Ninth Street.
Borup: So there is no parking on Pine?
E. Centers: No. No parking on Pine.
Borup: Okay. Just the bike lane, that's all?
E. Centers: Yes. So, you know, that, you know, I thought felt needed clarified, if the
buses stop, you know, right before Ninth, giving the people advantage to take Ninth if
that bus is stopped on the shoulder. Also there were a lot of kids that, you know, as the
other representative said, that walk to Meridian Middle School and Meridian Elementary
right in front of there, with the bus stopping there would be a congestion problem with
people pulling into Ninth, people, you know, trying to go by the bus So I think the traffic
issue is pretty good. And I would back up. His assessment of the upkeep on the
property up until about 3 weeks ago, which may have been when the picture was taken,
there was nothing done. In fact, the property running between Pine and Ninth or lateral
with that is actually maintained by our subdivision, Cannalily, and we currently have
insurance on for our subdivision and we were trying to water their yard through our
system, because it was drying up, as well as the neighbor to the west of the property
was doing on her side. Up until 3 weeks ago after we had our first school board
meeting and they heard our concerns about how the upkeep was, they then came out
and had somebody mow the yard and that's pretty much it. But the bushes have -- you
know, it's an upkeep problem. It definitely is. So -- and then, you know, I know you said
keep your comments minimum on the students that would be in it, but we definitely that,
you know, there being a safety issue to the children around. Like they said, the closest
is -- two of them, as you can see, and the one to the north has children, the other one
had grandchildren, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 32
Borup: Is it your concern there them leave the building, whether or not it's permitted?
E. Centers: Yes.
Borup: Are you afraid they will sneak out and the teacher not notice or --
E. Centers: They do it at the high school and there is a lot more teachers watching over
kids over there than there will be at this one. I would feel that the students would feel a
lot more at ease at this one than trying to get out of a big high school or a big middle
school where there is –
Borup: You think so? Come on.
E. Centers: Yes.
Borup: I mean just looking at the teacher ratio I don't think that's logical.
E. Centers: Yes. Well --
Borup: Well, you got 30 kids in the class, the teacher is not going to maybe notice one
missing, but when you have got 4 --
E. Centers: Well, I'm saying, you know, if things got bad. I mean there is a lot more to
cover that problem at a high school than there is with just 2 teachers -- a counselor and
a teacher. So the other main, you know, issue would be property values. I can't even
fathom the property value situation if it does. It is a definite impact. Just to kind of
clarify or put my 2 cents in on what they can do with this property if they were to use the
property on Meridian High School or one of the 3 that you were talking about earlier, I
guess I don't understand why they couldn't sell it, get the money from it, and use it for
the hard times that they are facing right now with all the problems that they are having
with money and issues that have been in the news lately. So I guess I don't know, you
know, if they -- they could use that money to purchase -- you know, or to do something
with the property on Water Tower. I guess that would be my, you know,
recommendation, would be to -- if you tell them that -- you know, if you deny them this,
that they could, you know, put this facility up for sale or this house up for sale and a
family could buy the place like was there before.
Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Centers?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Maybe just a comment as well, Mr. Centers. You know, the -- the district court
doesn't look very much at property values and neither does the Supreme Court and the
reason is because it's very speculative. If this was the crummiest neighbor you had in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 33
the world that lived at that house and they had -- and since they are not part of your
subdivision or homeowners association, they don't maintain their yard and they have
lousy trees and their fence is falling down and they don't paint their house, that affects
your property values, too, and there is not a lot you can do about it. So just so you
understand and maybe these other folks as well, that's not a factor. It's not a factor to a
court and that's where this may be from this. So that, itself, is probably not the most
significant factor. I think there are some other things. But just so you understand,
because there is a lot of folks that do bring that item up on all types of these
developments that they affect their property value and I just want you to understand that
that alone is generally not something the court is going to find to be persuasive at all,
because there is no way to really know right now in comparison to this versus anything
else that can be there, just so you understand that.
Borup: Just adding on that, at least the experience I have seen here in this town is in --
here is nothing to back any of that up. I can think of a couple situations where that was
one of the big arguments and just the opposite happened, their values went up. It
wasn't a school, it was a different situation, but that was their -- one of their big
concerns. Unless you have got some statistics to show that, I think Commissioner Nary
is right, it's probably not pertinent.
E. Centers: No statistics.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
E. Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. I think those were the 2 that we had those representing, so anyone that
would like to come on up, please do.
Cantella: Hi. My name is Pam Cantella. Unfortunately, I own the property that's 5 feet
away from the fence line. I live at 988 West Pine. First of all, I would like to state that
my husband and I purchased the property almost 4 years ago. We retired out of Alaska.
It took us that long to decide where we wanted to retire, live, and die, basically. We
purchased our home there on West Pine 4 years ago, as I stated. Retired out of Alaska
a year ago. Unfortunately, I'm really saddened, because I thought that I bought into a
neighborhood, quote, family. All our children are grown up, but we have grandchildren,
nieces, nephews, that come to visit. We have done a lot of extras to the house that
when you sell it nobody cares, just I care. You know, something that we have planned
on living in, dying in, and be done with it. So we did lots of extras while we could afford
it, you know, before we retired. My problem is I understand that the school district --
when I left knew that -- when Jane and them had the house up for sale they were going
to -- back to Minnesota. When I returned from a trip the grass was all burned up, the
flowers that she had in the bed -- and I knew she and her husband personally, I had
been in the house several times, and things were burned up and the flower beds were
pretty bad, the weeds had taken over in the flower beds, plus the lawn. The lawn was
absolutely burnt to crisp. I mean there was no green at all in the yard. I didn't know if it
was in between realtors, I didn't realize it had sold. I thought, well, maybe it's in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 34
between realtors, you know, whatever. I tried to figure out how to get ahold of Jane in
Minnesota to see if, in deed, that was the fact. I spoke to Eric's wife and she told me
that it -- the property had been sold. Meanwhile, I had -- I, myself, had been flood
irrigating after I came home, because it was such a mess. This was the first part of
August -- into July, first of August when I came home. Everything was dead. There
was a few shrubs that were still alive, but as far as flowers and that, no, they were
dead. The only thing green in the flower beds were weeds that were up, you know, this
high. Like I stated, I personally went over and flood irrigating, not knowing if the
property was bought or what, other than kids walked by there, we had the kids from the
high school and, you know, just a lot of traffic and cars drive by, I thought all it would
take is a cigarette flipped out into the yard and it would have burned up. I mean it was
bad. So I flood irrigated. I also -- there was a hose sprinkler there, I got the hose and
sprinkler around areas that I couldn't get to flood irrigate and every time I would go over
to move the hose it was shut off, so I thought maybe kids were doing it -- I couldn't
figure out what was going on, other than I couldn't get ahold of anyone to take care of
the property. I went over -- I spoke to the gentleman from the maintenance department
--
Borup: You need to wrap it up.
Cantella: Okay. From the maintenance department on the 8th -- 7th of this month they
were over there doing some work. I spoke to them and I said you guys -- you know,
who does -- are you the ones that does the yardwork and keep the place up and he
goes yeah and I said, well, you know, no one has been watering or done anything --
Borup: Ma'am, is the essence you're saying they didn't maintain the yard?
Cantella: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Cantella: Let me give you these pictures real quick then.
Borup: Okay.
Cantella: These are the pictures that I took less than 3 weeks ago of the property.
Thank you. This is the property between the house and my house. They dug it up --
this is how it sat. Dirt was on the fence for a good couple of weeks, because they had
to change out some sewer lines. Okay. We -- here is the grass. Cannalily Estates
maintains this property. This is their line. One is burnt, one is green.
Borup: I think we are understanding this.
Cantella: Okay. This is my property. They stated that the fence is 2 foot tall. That is in
correct. The fence that borders my house -- the back fence that butts up the other
house is 6 foot. As it comes down the side, which is the back of the house that we are
speaking of, it is 5 foot, then it goes down to like 3 and a half or 4 foot. So this is if
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 35
you're standing in their yard looking over into my yard. So I get to look at this mess or
who knows what else is going to happen. They have tore out the hedge. They stated
they were going to maintain the property in the same state it was. No. The hedge was
tore out. They didn't do anything about it until just the other day.
Borup: Ma'am.
Cantella: They added the --
Shreeve: So your biggest concern is then just landscaping, in summary, is that really --
Cantella: Boise school -- I mean Meridian School District told us that they would
maintain the property. They have not. They also told us that they would keep the
garage in storage, now they are stating that maybe later they'll maybe make it into
another classroom. The gentleman that purchased the property told us at the meeting
with him, quote, I can buy dirt anywhere I want. So, consequently, we are upset. We
don't want a school, we want a family in that house. It's a subdivision, our children,
grandchildren, whatever, we live there and what they have told us that they would do in
the letter that they stated to you guys they have not done. You guys are welcome to
have these. I have copies. If you want to look them over. We are just upset, because
what they have told us is incorrect. They haven't told us the truth. So, therefore, we
don't know -- therefore, we don't know what's going to happen if the school is allowed to
go in there. Thank you.
Teixeira: My name is Wally Teixeira, and that's T-e-i-x-e-i-r-a. I live at 930 Northwest
Ninth Avenue. And basically what everyone has been saying here tonight I agree with,
except one thing. I'd like to see you folks put zoning rules aside, the laws, you know,
everything that can give the okay for that school to be there and think about being
neighborhood friendly. I look at that house as being bought by a young couple buying
their first home and raising their first child, not to have a school there. Your statement
earlier about how would I feel or how we feel about having honor students there, quite
frankly, I don't think it should be a school at all. Honor students, juvenile delinquents,
that is a home in our neighborhood and I'd like to restate the fact that when we had a
meeting with the school folks that Mr. Wydell Bigham basically told us that he bought
that piece of dirt. Well, to me and the rest of our neighbors, that's more than a piece of
dirt. Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else?
Hickey: My name is Jan Hickey and I live 1120 West Clarinda in Meridian. I just wanted
to take just a few minutes -- I will be brief -- and just have you just visualize the situation
with the bus because even in the documents the school district has stated they will be
using Pine. Well, this classroom -- the first one starts at 8:30, so I would envision that
what the district is doing is they are using -- students are eligible from all the junior
highs and high schools in the district, so in the morning let's look at the 8:00 o'clock
issue. There would be more than one high school involved and when that bus and the
end of the bus would be at the corner of Ninth Street and the problem that you're going
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 36
to -- that I foresee, there is -- one of the neighbors did a count -- there is at least 50
children that walk to the elementary school passed there, so if you will visualize that the
bus is on the corner of Ninth and a high school student is turning right and those kids
come flying passed where that bus is stopped, because there is zero visibility there,
there is some risk there to children that are on their scooters and on foot that are
headed to Meridian Elementary School. The other thing is that Mr. Bingham mentioned,
you know, that they -- physically there was an advantage not having the children at the
high school. But out of the 52 students that have been there in the last year I wondered
how many are Meridian High School students. I assume that the percentage would be
that as it would be district wide, which is a much smaller percent of those students that,
you know, are not going to punished by being at another facility that's close. I also
would look at the law and, you know, they did mention that it is a -- I believe R-4 zoning
and look at the fact that there is in the documents some footage requirement that is not
being met and I think solely on that point is reason to take a look at -- if we are going to
look at the letter of the law it is allowed. The other thing that I would consider in this --
Borup: Are you talking about the buffering footages?
Hickey: Right. That it does not meet the 20 feet on either side. So that, in itself, is
enough to decline. But one more thing and that is -- and I don't have this information,
but I would assume when you're looking at the language on that, which is public schools
allowed in R-4, that the school district itself defines alternative school differently. They
have a different category and a different definition. Now if that was intended that that
was under the umbrella of a public school, it would be interesting to look at, you know,
how the school district does describe or use the terminology for alternative school,
because it does not --
Borup: Our use only mentions, just public schools, period.
Hickey: Right. But what -- I guess my point is that if even the school district itself
defines alternative school differently than they do regular public school. They have a
different category. So perhaps in that that might be something to consider.
Shreeve: Excuse me. I have got a question. With the school bus, I guess it sounds
like that the schools are close enough that there is no bussing now within that
neighborhood; is that correct? Or is there --
Hickey: Okay. I'm -- are you talking about --
Shreeve: Any kind of bussing.
Hickey: There is several buses -- . The propose location is --
Shreeve: Well, I'm talking about -- I'm just talking about for the neighborhood kids for
their schooling. Is there currently --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 37
Hickey: Oh, yes. In terms of just our neighborhood, yes and no. Some of the residents
here are from further down toward Linder and there is bussing, I believe, that goes to
the middle school.
Shreeve: But even in your neighborhood -- I mean there has been concern that there
has been -- that the bussing would cause traffic problems. Well, if there is bussing
already in that --
Hickey: Okay. I'm addressing Pine Street from a Planning and Zoning standpoint.
There is a lot of traffic on Pine Street coming out of the subdivision and what happened
when the bus at the proposed stop stops on Pine, then you're stopping traffic on both
ways and those are --
Shreeve: So there is no bussing currently with your kids -- with your kids that stop on
Pine Street with current bussing today?
Hickey: I can't answer that.
Shreeve: It sounds like no.
Hickey: Well, I know that they walk --
Shreeve: Just maybe somebody could clarify I that for the record, but there is -- you
know, if we are talking about bussing, that there is concern and if they are bussing now,
I guess I don't see that that's much -- however, if there is no bussing -- currently there is
no buses and yet this may be unique --
Hickey: Well, the concern that I'm pointing out is that the buses will stop on Pine during
rush hour and you have -- so what you have -- it impacts all the other subdivisions,
because if a parent is taking a child from the Linder area to the middle school down
Pine, they are going to be using the Eighth Street route some of the subdivision routes
and it's the same issue that Mr. Centers brought out where if they are coming off the
direction towards the high school, then you have a safety issue, because they are
turning right on Ninth and that bus right there, there is no visibility, so the students are --
Shreeve: Well, I'm not worried about what will be, I'm just asking what is now.
Hickey: Right. It will impact traffic.
Borup: Okay. Thank you for those 2 minutes. Thank you, ma'am. Do we have anyone
else? Are we done?
Hanson: My name is Frank Hanson.I live at 1140 West Clarinda. Commissioner
Shreeve, I believe there are a couple of bus stops. They would either be for Chapparel
Elementary or kindergarten routes or special ed routes. I believe Superintendent
Donelle said there is -- there is one very close to there right now, but I don't think there
are many. Might be one or 2. I'm just going to defer and just -- I'm going to ask one
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 38
quick question. Are you considering at all the changing character of the neighbor? Is
that a -- is that a consideration at all? If it's not, then I can stop.
Borup: That was one of the main things that the staff mentioned in their report.
Hanson: I have worked with alternative at-risk and special ed students for about 15
years and I would say that definitely this school could change the neighbor, could
definitely impact especially the adjacent property owners. You know, the Meridian
school District is a great school district. I mean they are great public servants, but I
don't believe they can guarantee the safety. Some of these students can be -- to pose
safety risks. I can just think of 2 in the past that I have worked with who would qualify
for this type of program who are STB or brain injury students who were both violent,
who both possessed the capacity to run away at any given time and I don't believe
there is going to be any on-site school security at this facility. I believe it's just going to
be a teacher and an aide. They might possibly wind up with students like this. Both of
the students I'm thinking of from the past had parents or group home advocates that
really pushed for educational services. They would not allow their students to be
suspended without fighting and that's a good thing, they required that students, you
know, were given educational services. But some students might pose safety issues.
Runaways -- students with a propensity to run away, combined with violent or previous
sexual offender status and the 2 students I'm thinking from the past are -- fit the whole
umbrella. I'll stop there. It's late. You may have questions.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Hanson? Thank you, sir. Did we have anyone else?
Come on up, ma'am.
Meyers: Thank you. I'll be brief. My name is Mary Ellen Meyers and I live at 958
Northwest Ninth Street. I'm the second house in on the right as you enter from Pine
Street on Ninth. I wear 2 quick hats. I am the secretary of the neighborhood association
for Cannalily Estates. We were talking to the impact that we have the neighborhood and
can just give you the general demographics of our neighborhood. There are 12 homes
in the Cannalily Estates and we are responsible, as was mentioned previous, for the
common area, the cleanup and the maintenance. Of those 12 homes, 5 of those
homes -- we have one widow in one of the homes and of the 5 we have a widow, we
have a retired couple, and the remainder of those 5 are couples who have purchased or
built their homes there whose children are grown and gone. We have 2 families who
have high school students that within the next couple of years will have their children
grown and gone. So we are talking 7 out of the 12. We have one family that has grade
school and middle school children and we are talking about 2 children in that family.
And we have 3 families that have infants and preschoolers and we are talking about a
total at this point of 7 children in that category. Without a doubt, 100 percent of the
neighbors in the Cannalily have their own concerns. Most of them have been
mentioned this evening, but I wanted -- I guess I needed to let you know that Cantelilly
Estates is not a group of 12 big families, we are a cross-section of Meridian and very
proud of the health of our neighborhood. I put my -- take my Cannalily homeowners --
or my -- that hat off and put on homeowners hat and I have heard a lot of talk tonight
about the zoning. That was a very important message for us, too. We were aware that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 39
we were purchasing land in an R-4. We were not aware of the freedom that that
allowed that school district in that. When we purchased our property and built our home
R-4 let us have a little extra room for a shop in the back. It also allowed -- we knew the
high school was there and we certainly knew the middle school was there and we knew
that there would be issues with kids going -- walking to school and associates with
whatever happened as the come through. We off on that. We thought that R-4 zoning
protected us. We knew the lots were full, we knew they all had homes on them, and we
felt comfortable with our home. To the letter of law, you know, the school district can
probably -- which was a surprise to us -- that they can buy dirt where ever they wanted
to and they can use it for whatever purpose they have. We are retired, we are that one
retired family, and I'm just here to tell you we would hope that you would reconsider just
the impact on the neighborhood. We thought the R-4 zone was a protection and we
are surprised that it's not. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Does the applicant have any final
comments they'd like to make?
Anderson: My name is Stillman Anderson. Address is 1735 Federal Way, Boise, Idaho.
In response to some of the comments that were -- have been made by the public, first
of all, entering the driveway there is no need to go to the cul-de-sac and turn. There is
plenty of room between the end of that island and the existing driveway to get in without
having to go all the way down to the cul-de-sac. So there is no need to go into that
subdivision any further than the driveway. As far as the condition of the property, you
were told that those pictures were old. I'm the one that took the pictures. We submitted
for this conditional use on September 14th
of this year. Those pictures were taken 3
days before we submitted. As far as the water main or the sewer line as it was
indicated, it was water main and it broke, and so the school district repaired it. It went
in under the shrubbery and at the end of hedge. Yes, that was taken out. The rose
bushes have been placed there and a new fence. To replace that hedge you wouldn't
have known a difference anyway. You can't replace that size of a hedge with the same
size. But the hedge -- it was indicated that the hedge was torn out. Not all the hedge,
just approximately 4 to 5 feet in order to get that water main in. As far as bus stopping,
yes, the bus will stop there. As Mr. Bingham said, the bus will pull over to the curb, turn
on its yellow lights. Yellow lights do not require traffic to stop. Only when the red arm is
put out does traffic stop. If the situation warrants it, because of conditions, the school
district will opt to put the red arm out and stop traffic. But at this point that's not the way
its going to work. As far as parking on Pine Street, there is parking on both sides the
full length of Pine Street, along with a bus -- or a bike lane on both sides. As far as
students taking off without being noticed, as it was pointed out, when you have got a
very few number, it's a little hard to disappear without being noticed. You were informed
that the lady came back from vacation, found out that the house had been sold, couldn't
tell who owned it. We had a neighborhood association -- or a neighborhood meeting on
September 25th
at Meridian Middle School. The lady was present. She informed us that
on June 24th
of this year papers were signed on the house. She knew who owned the
house. The school district never received any complaints. Yes, the fence does change
heights and if you approve this I'm sure that the school district will go in and make sure
that it has a 6 foot fence as far as possible, so that they are satisfied and that there will
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 40
be no -- we will not put a fence in that will block sight lines for traffic. That hedge was
existing before. Mr. Bingham does have a couple of comments that he would like to
make also. Thank you.
Nary: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Anderson, maybe I missed it in all the
testimony, but on condition number 9, the site specific, I heard you ask that we
reconsider the 20 foot buffer, because that wasn't possible.
Anderson: Correct.
Nary: But I haven't heard an alternative and maybe I missed it. So what's your
alternative to the requirement of the 20 foot buffer?
Anderson: One of the requirements in the landscape zoning is a fence. A fence does
exist. We will make -- the school district would make sure that it is a 6 foot, the height
required. As far as landscaping goes, that is something that Mr. Bingham will have to
speak to you about.
Nary: So the answer to my question would be nothing. There is no alternative
compliance for the 20 foot buffer requirement, other than the existing fence that's
already there.
Anderson: At this point, yes.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'll try to be brief. The issues regarding
upkeep and the district custodial responsibility for landscape. Simple fact, we do not do
as good a job in maintaining lawns as the city parks or residents. We have 3.4
employees to maintain 580 acres of lawns and trees. They work day and night. Our
plan for this house was to put an underground system in. Staff's position is to put an
underground sprinkler system in. We totally concur. The irrigation water is unreliable
and it requires ongoing maintenance to make sure that it's turned off and on. Won't
guarantee it, but my recommendation is that we hire a lawn service to maintain this,
because our time is better spent maintaining schools. However, at the end of the day
we would simply ask that the requirements for maintenance, should they be a
consideration by Planning and Zoning, be no more stringent than those requirements to
be placed on a residence at that location in terms of caretaker or ownership of the
property. We are willing meet the bar that everybody else meets and we want to be a
good neighbor, we think we can maintain this house and we are willing to spend the
money to do it and I think, you know, we will pull that off if we can get on water. Why
have we done nothing since we bought the house? We thought we were eligible for a
certificate of zoning compliance. When that went south on us we saw no reason to
proceed with the sprinkler system, because we couldn't guarantee where the sidewalks
were going and the handicapped ramps, so we put the whole thing on hold. If we get
notification that we can go forward with this, we are going to get in there as soon as we
can this spring and get this facility operational. Our goal, if we did get your approval, is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 41
to bring facility on line immediately. The education needs of the kids are not being met
by servicing them at home. One comment -- and it's just -- I'll put it in the petty
category -- . I did refer to the property as dirt after 3 hours of listening to similar
testimony by myself. That question was simply in response to a really valid question,
why didn't we ask the neighborhood before we bought the property. The answer is I'm
really not aware of that precedent as a requirement. I am unwilling to set that
precedent that school district must go begging to locate schools to meet the needs of
the children of our community. It's not a requirement, not going to do it. And based
upon that my comment was I can buy dirt in any area where we are a permitted use
with the confidence that the City will back that decision for a public school. That's where
the comment came from. The neighbor is not dirt, it's a very nice neighborhood. They
should be proud of that. The Last thing on the students. We keep -- I see an
undertone that the students are bad. They are -- Wednesday they are at the school
down the street, they are okay, Wednesday they get kicked out of school, they show up
at this school Thursday, because they are expelled from the school -- they didn't come
from Mars. They came from the school down the street around the corner. They are in
our community. Once these kids arrive at this facility they do instantly become bad. We
have these same concerns that the neighbor has with the traveling public or the walking
public and the safety of all of our children. We do not believe a bus stopping and
quickly unloading up to a maximum of eight students at any one time is not a traffic
congestion and we are very aware of the safety concerns of all of the children in our
district, whether they are at an alternative school, a school for choice as alternatives,
like the charter high school, or the alternative middle schools that offer choice, or our
traditional schools. So I want you to know we care about these kids and our goal is
maintain our responsibility to meet the educational needs of students. Any questions?
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Bingham?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Bingham, I'm assuming the Boise School District has to follow the same
federal guidelines as the Meridian School District does; correct?
Anderson: Mr. Chairman -- Commissioner Nary, yes, they do.
Nary: So what do they do? How do they house this program in the Boise School
District?
Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Boise School District houses the program I
believe -- my information is only as good as my last employment date with them, which
was a little over year ago -- is that their Darrell A. Dennis Center on Victory Road, called
the Cooperative Alternative Learning Center, and it is a facility that addresses the needs
of this type of a student on a campus that has the vocational programs for the district
and it also contains classrooms that meet the needs of children that may come to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 42
Boise School District from such facilities like Intermountain Health Care and stuff. So
they operate that facility on school district property.
Nary: This type of program has -- are there further disciplinary problems with these
students in the program itself?
Bingham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary. I'll try to speak for Bonnie and if I'm
incorrect, Bonnie, please, correct me. As I understand it, there has been no revisitation
by any student that has gone through one term in that -- a few weeks, a semester, or,
you know, a semester and a half. But I believe the revisitation rate is zero.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Bigham.
Bingham: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioners? Where would we like to go?
Cantella: I have a question.
Borup: Can you do it quicker than your previous testimony?
Cantella: I have a deed here that was signed on June 5th
from and Jane her husband
Bill when the school district purchased the property. I did not realize this when I came
back, tried to run down who owned the property, whatever. The first place I came was
City Hall here. They said nothing was on the books for Planning and Zoning. I told them
that I had heard a rumor that the property was purchased, probably a school would be
going in, and I think I went to the clerk's office or something, I'm not familiar with the
office, but I went down to the end of the hall and spoke to the lady. She called Planning
and Zoning and said nothing was on the books. So we continued to try to run down
paperwork. That is how we figured out the school district had purchased the property
as of June 5th
. Nothing was taken care of. I talked to the maintenance man that was
over there the other day. He said that he had tried to irrigate, but he wasn't really sure
how to do that. The water wasn't on then.
Borup: I think we are repeating ourselves here.
Cantella: Anyhow, he said the water wasn't always in. In that canal the water is always,
always in that canal. Constant water flows. Unless he had waited and tried to irrigate
after they had shut it off earlier, then there was no water.
Borup: Thank you. Did staff have any final comments: No?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I guess not.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 43
Norton: I second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE EXCUSED.
Borup: Is somebody ready for a motion or would we like discussion first?
Nary: All right. I'll do it. Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at our conditional use ordinances in
Meridian City Code 11-17-3 and that's what appears to me governs this circumstance in
this application and the first one I come to -- and it's something that staff had pointed
out in the staff report that is somewhat of a quandary and I think Mr. Bingham also
mentioned it to some degree. The first one says that the application and the use at the
propose location will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by city policy. I
note in the staff report we talked about a couple times there is a little bit of a quandary
as to whether or not a conditional use is actually required for this and I think Mr.
Bingham mentioned it as well. At least the way I read this code, it says that a public
school is allowed or permitted in R-4 zone. So when I look up school, it says it's an
institution of learning under our city ordinance definitions 11-2-2. An institution of
learning, either public or private, is supported, which offers instruction in several
branches of learning and study requiring to be taught in public schools by the state of
Idaho. When you look up institution, institution says it's a building and land designed to
aid individuals in the need of mental, therapeutic, rehabilitative counseling and other
correctional services. This isn't a school, it's a program, and it's an admirable program,
but it's a program. It's not a school. So, therefore, I think a conditional use is required,
because I don't think it fits the zoning table without a conditional use. So that may
sound like a lot of semantic mumbo jumbo to everybody, but it really does matter. Trust
me. I think it applies -- I think a conditional use is warned. I think the staff maybe didn't
hit on it in their report, but I think they are right, because I don't think this is a school, I
think it's simply a program, and we have lots and lots of programs, but just because the
school district runs it doesn't make it a school. It is harmonious to have a variety of
uses in neighborhood and so it probably at least is arguable either way, that it could be
harmonious, of course, with the comprehensive plan. So I don't know that that's a big
problem. But I get to C that says under our ordinance will be designed, constructed,
operated, and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the
existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change
the essential character of the same area. Normally people ask for this before they do it
and I understand why the school district chose the path they took and I understand why
they thought they could do what they did, but I don't know find it genuine when they say
they want to be good neighborhoods. They should have been better neighborhoods.
Shame on them for not maintaining this property when they should have, because that
tells me I have a little concern that they are going to maintain the existing character of
that neighborhood. So I have a concern, because their evidence isn't very good on
their behalf to say we can do this. They got -- they don't -- they don't have the evidence
before us to show that they can. Secondarily, when you drive down Pine, other than a
preexisting use, a grandfathered in use of Tolsma Welding, most of those uses are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 44
houses. There is some apartments and there is some houses. It's not businesses along
there of any kind and there isn't offices along there either, except down where there is,
again, some grandfathered in uses. This is a new use. There aren't new uses down that
street that I'm aware that aren't already preexisting, so it would change the character of
this area to have a non-residence being allowed to be there. That is a concern to me
and that's not -- that's a reason to deny it under this code. The other thing, to back up,
the school district, Mr. Bingham's testimony was he agreed that a conditional use was
appropriate for this anyway, so I think under A they are still on the right track. Under D
it says will not be hazardous to the service of the existing or future neighboring uses
and that's a very tough standard to deal with, because we really don't know. Most of the
time that language -- courts are evaluating that for manufacturing and those types of
things when you talk about hazards. You're not talking -- I don't know about hazards,
but disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses, I think that sort of dovetails with C
as to changing the character of the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood full of
houses and although schools can -- can ask to be put there, I -- you know, in this
situation where they require a conditional use, that's what we have to evaluate. Will it
change the character. I think it does. The other one, the staff has indicated it probably
isn't a problem. It doesn't probably meet those, but any one of the ones that exist -- and
there is 2-- that we can't find evidence to support it, are enough to deny it. The other
thing that concerns me a little bit, even if we were to grant it, the school district has
asked for other considerations in addition. They don't want to have a condition that
doesn't allow pick-ups and drop-offs and things like that, yet they want to bus these kids
here. I guess in my mind you can't have it both ways. The other one is the buffer.
They offer nothing. It's a fence. That's fine, but this is not a house, this is a program
run by the school district that they want to have run like an office. They need to have a
buffer. There isn't a way to do it. So even if we were to grant it, I don't think they could
do it, because I don't see any reason to grant a waiver of the 20 foot buffer requirement.
And I don't think they can maintain it any other way anyway. That's my 2 cents. I mean
I will wait to make a motion, but I just don't think that there is evidence -- I think there is
evidence against two of the provisions of the requirement of the ordinance and I can't
support this school because of that.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: Simply put, I absolutely agree and -- with the overwhelming petition and
response here. I think our obligation is to listen to the public as well. So I concur with
Commissioner Nary's comments.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I would third that, that these fine people have taken right now about 2 and a half
hours out of their -- out their evening to talk with us and this is, obviously, not the first
meeting they have attended. They have attended various neighborhood meetings and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 45
it sounds like maybe a school board meeting or 2. In addition, we have had testimony
from a gentleman who has had 15 years experience with these types of students and
has agreed that perhaps this school district cannot guarantee safety. I believe 17 -- or
11-17-3, No. D, I would agree that this is not harmonious with the existing
neighborhood. So you want to make your motion?
Nary: Well -- and I will add one last comment before I do. I think the school district
recognized this at the beginning as well. Their first choice was a commercial zone.
That's where they thought this belonged. That was their best choice. The only reason
they are here is because they didn't think they would have to be here. But they
recognize that the compatibility with the neighborhood was suspect and they recognize
that their best location for this type of program is in a commercial zone. So they
recognized it themself. This wasn't what they intended, they merely wanted to be here
because they had some belief that maybe this wouldn't be necessary and maybe we
will be here again or maybe we will be in court over this, but I think they even recognize
it themself, that this wasn't necessarily a compatible use in the neighborhood, because
of the character that gets impacted by this type of program. That all being said, I would
-- Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend denial of the CUP 01-034, request
Conditional Use Permit for an alternative school for the middle school and high school
age students in an R-4 zone for joint School District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2
at 930 West Pine Street.
Borup: Would you like to state a couple of the reasons?
Nary: Yes. I guess the reasons, as I stated, is that this -- under this Meridian city
ordinance that -- I guess to make it clear under the staff report that's dated October 26,
2001, that this program would require a Conditional Use Permit by our city code and
that in evaluating the requirements under the City Code for Conditional Use Permit that
there is evidence that this program and the use of this residence for this program would
change the essential character of the neighborhood existing under 7-17-3, C, and also
would be -- maybe not hazardous, but at least disturbing the existing -- or future
neighboring uses, basically incompatible with the neighborhood as it is currently
situated. So basically under C and D this has not met those requirements and that
would be the reason for the recommended denial.
Borup: How about the buffering?
Nary: Well, that, too, as well. That there could not be adequate buffering to meet the
requirements of the ordinance creating buffers between lands uses. There is no real
reasonable way to create a 20 foot buffer between this residence and the surrounding
residences as required by the code as well and no alternative compliance has been
suggested by the school district to meet that need.
Borup: Okay. Second?
Shreeve: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 46
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ONE EXCUSED.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, I think I'd be open for a motion for a short recess.
Nary: I'd move for 5 minutes.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
RECONVENED AT 9:22 P.M.
(Commissioner Centers returned.)
Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 01-017 Request for annexation and zoning
of .193 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Packard Acres No. 1 by
Packard Estates Developers, LLC - east of North Wingate Lane
and south of East Ustick Road:
Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead. Apologize for the confusion. We had a staff report on
one of the applications that we didn't get, so what we'd like to do is go to -- we are going
to go to Item No. 7. I'd like to open the Public Hearing on AZ 01-017, request for
annexation and zoning of .193 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Packards Acres No. 1
by Packard Estates Developers. We'd like to open the Public Hearing and start with a
brief staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. On the screen is the sliver of subject
property. This is the Packard Acres Subdivision and, again, in general, we have
Fairview Avenue on the southern part of the screen. It's more or less in between Eagle
Road and Locust Grove Road on the north side of Fairview. You should have received
our staff report dated October 24th
from Bruce and Dave outlining a little bit of the
background. Essentially this is a clean-up application. This sliver of property, which is
13 and a half feet wide on the north side of Packard Acres, was accidentally left out of
the legal description for the original annexation for Packard Acres Subdivision. So the
reason for this application now is to annex it into the city limits, to clean up the plat, and
to have these lots be the size that they are on the plat that is already recorded. I think
our conditions, we just ask that they be incorporated. I think one note that staff
understands that the applicant has appealed to the City Council the decision to hold
building permits on these properties that are affected. At this point these parcels,
because of the error, building permits are being withheld and they have submitted an
application to our department that essentially is appealing that decision of the building
official and the Planning and Zoning administrator. That is -- I don't know the date. Will,
if you have that, it should be within the next 3 weeks, I believe. 2 to 3 weeks. Should be
on the City Council agenda. At any rate, that's the background on it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 47
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward. I
guess I'd just say that -- have you had an opportunity -- oh, well, go ahead, sir. State
your name.
Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey. I'm
representing the developer Packard Estates, LLC. Mr. Rose is here to answer any
questions.
Borup: Staff is -- have you had a chance to review staff comments any --
Tealey: Yes.
Borup: Staff recommend approval?
Tealey: Yes.
Borup: Have you got any comments on the staff comments?
Tealey: No, I don't. I'm sure you don't want to know the history of it, so maybe --
Borup: No. As mentioned, it was just basically a clean up.
Tealey: Yes.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Do we have anyone here in the
audience who would like comment? Please come forward, ma'am.
H. Sharp: I'm Helen Sharp. I live at 2445 Wingate Lane. I liked his expression clean up
for this piece of property that's being discussed here. When this subdivision started,
which is just west of our property, it was brought up at the meeting that there was a strip
of land that needed to be addressed. Of course, it was not. To say it's an honest
mistake, there are prisoners are saying the same thing. They knew it. They knew it.
You and I when we buy a piece of property get a legal description of that. If engineers
and surveyors are hired to measure your property, then they should know that this is
where it starts and this is where it ends and they started with the fencing. Everything
went through, Planning and Zoning, city commissioners, staff, it went through, they
started the fencing, and then Mr. and Mrs. Peterson who owned this land said, hey,
that's mine. I have a property description that says that 13 feet is mine. Okay. So then
deliberations started, because he had already sold these lots and he says that the
building permits were held up. There are 4 lots that are involved in this 13 feet. They
bought land that the developers did not own at the time. A quitclaim deed was signed
July of this year and all of this was done prior to that. That can be checked by the
records, as it could have been checked before as to where property lines were and this
13 feet was brought up, but it wasn't. I was told by staff that 2 building permits were
granted with a waiver by the people that they would not be able to claim that 13 feet
until after this meeting for the rezoning and annexation and they agreed. 2 lots they are
building and two they are not. I am really curious when they said the reason they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 48
granted these two building permits was that there was a financial obligation. Why and
what financial obligation was there at that time. In any event, 13 --
Borup: Ma'am, are you objecting to the annexation then?
H. Sharp: I'm just wanting you to know what's happening and I think that this needs to
be on public record. They granted an easement to Ada County Highway for the pond
that's on this 13 feet when they didn't even own the land. I have a letter, after talking to
Mr. Newhouse, who is the attorney for Ada County Highway, that says he was assured
that they owned that land and that was prior to the quitclaim deed that was signed in
July of this year. So they have an easement that was granted when didn't own the land
and I talked to --. One of the engineers for Ada county said you cannot grant the
easement if you don't own the land and anybody that goes up there can see that's
where the pond is, that's where their driveway is, and they have to maintain it and I
think that once they found out -- and I say they, I say the staff found out that the
measurements were wrong, they should have been required to go back and make it
right. But here we go again with 1,400 wrongs and we are finally going to make it right.
Now Mr. and Mrs. Peterson don't have 5 acres. They were gracious enough to sign and
sell this 13 feet, but they were given a waiver by Ada county to build a certain barn that
they wanted and had to have 5 feet, 5 acres to do it. When someone down the lane
wanted to put a 3 car garage in and couldn't because Ada county said because of the
size and all and you don't own 5 acres, you can't build your garage. So we are again
with all the rights and we are trying to make them wrong. And then --
Borup: Well, ma'am, yes, and your time is up. Is there something else you feel we
should be doing, then, beside annexing this?
H. Sharp: Oh, yes. Yes. One other thing. This isn't particularly pertaining to this, but --
Borup: But that's all this meeting is about, pertaining to this.
H. Sharp: Well, I can't have a rebuttal? But the --
Borup: Ma'am.
H. Sharp: The applicant got a rebuttal and --
Borup: Ma'am, why are you saying that?
H. Sharp: When I went to -- when we went to -- and, of course, it wasn't Planning and
Zoning, we went to the commissioner's meeting, we couldn't have a rebuttal, the
applicant got a rebuttal.
Borup: Yes.
H. Sharp: If you will talk to Mr. Fred Burns you will find out he isn't complying with the
request to --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 49
Borup: Is there something else that you would like us to do this evening besides annex
this?
H. Sharp: Yes. I'd like to see that the developer have to comply with the requirements
for getting a subdivision. He was told these are certain guidelines and that's your job is
to get on these guidelines and the City of Meridian, they have guidelines and they are
not complying with them and Mr. Fred Burns, who is the ordinance officer for the
Meridian Police Department, went out there to see the condition of the lake, which was
supposed to have been fixed, but is not. We had a meeting with the developers in July
of this year and October and they haven't complied with that and we have no way to go
or anyplace to talk unless we have got these Public Hearings to let people know. I want
it on record the developers do not have to comply with what they are required to do.
Borup: Yes, ma'am. You could also do that in writing and that would be on the record..
H. Sharp: We tried. Like I say, it isn't that they don't hear us.
Borup: Thank you. Commission Norton.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mrs. Sharp.
Borup: Yes.
Norton: I'm a little confused. Do you own the property where the red arrow is?
H. Sharp: No. I'm -- no. I'm down at the end of Wingate Lane. But we are involved
with the whole subdivision there. We are at the very end of Wingate Lane.
Norton: Okay. I just have a question. So do these people own the 13 feet or they just
put a fence up and say they own it?
H. Sharp: They put the fence up before they owned it, yes. They included the 13 feet
in their subdivision and when they started fencing it the owner said, hey, you got to
stop. That 13 feet isn't yours, it's ours. Then they sold it to them with a quitclaim deed
that was in July of this year long after everything was done.
Norton: I see. So now they own it; is that right?
H. Sharp: They do now, yes.
Norton: Okay.
H. Sharp: But they was trying to put in the cart before the horse.
Norton: Okay. Now just basically what is your complaint?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 50
H. Sharp: That the subdivider -- or that the contractors or the subdividers or whoever --
developers do not have to comply -- you know, he knew -- he had to have known that
he didn't own this land.
Norton: So what are you asking our Planning and Zoning Commission to do?
H. Sharp: I'm asking you people to make sure you know exactly what the property lines
are when they submitted their application and their plats.
Norton: The first time.
H. Sharp: Anytime. Look how many sessions this went through before it was finalized. It
had been brought up at the meetings about this 13 feet and nobody chose to act on it.
Norton: Okay.
H. Sharp: See, this is what I'm saying. I want it on record that they are not doing their
job, they are not measuring from here to here and that's my land. There is -- a fence is
there and there is nothing in the record that I know of that you have to put a fence on
your property line.
Centers: Ma'am, the bottom line is they are here tonight. They are doing their job.
H. Sharp: Well, we are going to have all these wrongs before they are going to make it
right.
Centers: We are here now.
H. Sharp: We still have somebody that doesn't have the five acres can still get away
with it.
Centers: They are here tonight and that's what counts.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I just wanted Mrs. Sharp -- because she said that she had tried to get this -- I
brought my note. You left me a message at my house, so I did bring my note that you
had left of what your concerns were. So I did want you to know somebody did hear
you. I brought it so I could put it on the record if you weren't here tonight. So I did do
that.
H. Sharp: Yes, because of --
Nary: So somebody does listen. I just wanted you to know that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 51
H. Sharp: See, I wanted to make sure that my --
Nary: Right. So I got it. I just wanted you to know I kept it and I brought it tonight, so if
you weren't here I was going to make sure that your issue was presented. So just so
you understand, people do listen.
H. Sharp: But do they hear. Thank you.
Nary: Well, we will find out in a second, so --
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to -- come forward, sir.
D. Sharp: I'm Dale Sharp, 2445 Wingate Lane, and it's beyond my imagination why this
ever -- this project ever progressed as far as it has when the developer knew that he
didn't own this land. We have -- we have 4 entities, both private and public, we have
the developers that are supposed to be professionals, we have land surveying that's
supposed to be professionals, we have Ada County Highway District that are supposed
to be professional, we have Meridian city staff, and you work with these people -- these
people work with boundary lines and property lines every day and it's inexcusable that
they didn't know that this 13 feet was not in this subdivision. They knew it. They were
told this. They were told this before this ever proceeded. I told Craig Rose that I would
not sign off on the fence until that situation was corrected. The fence went in and the
Ada County Highway District got their pond in and it's right -- takes up some of that 13
feet and it's amazing that the Ada County Highway District said that they were sure that
the property belonged to the developer and that's inexcusable for an official agency that
works with property everyday, that they are assuming and everyone of these should
have -- should have verified that that property was in that subdivision before it was ever
granted. The developer should be forced to comply with what he's supposed to do.
Centers: Mr. Sharp, I think it's good that you go on record and maybe people will be a
little more heads up in the future. Could you tell me where you live?
D. Sharp: This is our property right here.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
D. Sharp: This lane that goes down here -- and they are supposed to be bringing that
lane up standard. They were supposed to do it when they did some work on it, but --
and we keep meeting with them and meeting with them and Fred Burns has talked to
them and so far we haven't got anything. They are not being forced to do what they are
--
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 52
Nary: I don't know if any of it makes it any better for you, Mr. Sharp, but the fact that
they can't get building permits and they couldn't get the houses build as quickly, that
does impact the developer. You know, they are having to fix it and make right now and
it doesn't necessarily mean that it was okay to have messed around with it not and done
it properly at first. Mr. Tealey doesn't come here free. Not getting houses sold timely
costs them money. So there has been an impact to them. I don't disagree with what
you're saying. People do need to do it right. Things happen. That's the way things
happen sometimes. There was certainly a known condition. Whatever you believe,
there isn't an intent on the developer to delay the process to prevent them from building
houses. They really want to get them built. That's how they make money. So the fact
that it got delayed, they have been impacted adversely. Whether that means much to
you or not, I don't know. But they have had to fix it and make it right. That's what we
are doing right now is just fixing it so they can --
D. Sharp: They delayed for --
Nary: Well, we don't have a whole lot to do with that today, so all we have is just the
zoning and the annexation.
Borup: I might just mention the information that the Public Works Department reviews is
what shows on the legal description and they can check and make sure that it closes
and comes what it does, but the city does not go out and re-survey the property. Do we
have anyone else that would like to come forward on this?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I could maybe address that, too. The application, when it
came through originally, we did review those legal descriptions, we did close those legal
descriptions, and everything met legal requirements. The plat as it came through it
included that 13 feet. It was when the plat was signed and went I believe to the county
engineer -- Pat could probably clarify that, but it was very late -- in the late stages after
we had reviewed it that this was discovered this 13 feet was not -- not included. But the
plat that we did review did show the 13 feet as part of the subdivision and that was
consistent with the legal descriptions for the annexation and zoning, so it hit us as a big
surprise, too, so I just -- in staff's defense I wanted to clarify that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any final comment from the applicant? Okay. Commissioners?
Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a recommendation? This is for request for annexation and zoning.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 53
Borup: Commissioner Centers?
Centers: I would like to make a motion that we recommend to the City Council
approval of AZ 01-017, request for annexation and zoning of .193 acres from RUT to R-
4, for Patrick Acres No. 1, by Patrick Estates Developers, LLC, east of North Wingate
Lane and south of East Ustick Road, including all staff comments.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 01-016 Request for annexation and zoning
of 7.32 acres from County zone to C-G zone for proposed
Meridian Storage by Touchstone Construction, Inc. - south of
West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road:
Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 01-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Unit development and storage facility in a C-G zone for
proposed Meridian Storage by Touchstone Construction, Inc. - south of
West Overland Road and west of South Meridian Road:
Borup: Thank you. Thank you. The next item is Public Hearing AZ 01-016 and CUP
01-032, request for annexation and zoning of 7.32 acres from County zone to C-G zone
for proposed Meridian Storage by Touchstone Construction, south of West Overland
Road and west of South Meridian and a related hearing with this is a request for a
Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development and Storage in a C-G zone for
proposed Meridian Storage. We'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and
start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. The arrow on the screen points out the
subject property. Overland Road on the north. Elk Run Subdivision here to the
southeast. The Bear Creek Subdivision, which doesn't show up on this aerial, but has
been approved down here to the south. There is an existing C-G zone piece here to
the -- here to the east. You have the business park here to the north that has the
Roaring Springs and Boondocks and other uses. This cross-hatched parcel is the
subject parcel. Our staff report dated October 26, 2001, from Bruce and Dave is the --
includes the conditions that we are recommending. Here are a couple of photos. It is
existing vacant ag land. Here is a site plan. Just quickly here is Overland on the north
side of the site plan. They are proposing an RV storage area here temporarily. Our
understanding is that that area could potentially be used in the future for another more
permanent use. At this point they are proposing that to be an open gravel area that
would be RV storage. Entrance to the site is here on the center. As you come in they
have their storage units. There is another RV storage area here on the southwest
portion of the property. In our staff report I'm just going to point out -- point out two
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 54
things. On page 5, in terms of the annexation, item number two, we are recommending
that if you annex, that all the future uses should be required to be approved through the
conditional use and the reason for that is because of this area on Overland. Typically
when you receive annexation applications we don't require development agreements if
they have got an accompanying conditional use, because that essentially guarantees
what's going to be there. In this case we are recommending that a conditional use for
this piece on Overland, because of the high visibility and the frontage that it has be
included. The only other item I would point out is on page eight of the staff report, staff
is recommending delaying the approval until the applicant can provide a written
comment from the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. It states that they will allow the
improvements within their easement. There is quite a large Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
easement on the south end of this property, I believe it's 55 feet in width, and there is
some landscaping that is proposed within that. The applicant may be able to address
that further tonight. At this point our department has not received anything in writing
stating that they would be able to have those uses in that easement and if they are
denied by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District that would affect the site plan. So
that's the reason for that. Item number 6 on page 9, we are asking that they specifically
state the hours of operation for all uses within the facility at this Public Hearing. Then
item number one on the general requirements, we have come across this often. City
Ordinance 11-13 does require all off-street parking to be paved. I believe that that is an
item that the applicant disagrees with. So I'd just point out that that's the one. I believe
they agree with all of the other conditions. Dave McKinnon has had conversations with
them. We have on instances allowed the gravel to be used for temporary parking. It
essentially comes down for us to an issue of fugitive dust creation with the gravel and
so that's the off-street parking, depending on the amount of activity of use, could be --
could generate that dust. So that's the reason for us requiring that. I think that's all I
have.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions from any Commissioners? Is the applicant here,
would like to make a presentation?
Gibson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is James Gibson and my address is
38 North First Street in Eagle. 83616. And I am the project architect representing the
project -- the application this evening. The owners, my clients, are also present and will
be available if there are questions that they could best address. We will try to be quite
brief, because we don't perceive a lot of controversy with any of the items suggested by
the staff. We think that the proposed annexation is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the associated conditional use also. It fits directly with the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan. All of the items in the staff report we have reviewed
and we don't have any particular disagreement, except we had a couple of issues,
which we wouldn't say we have disagreement, but we need to discuss. First and
probably the major issue is the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easement which
occupies -- if you -- if you can see on the illustration, there is a dotted area going
through the center. That's where the Kennedy Lateral is presently located. The
proposal is to relocate and to tile that along the west -- west side from north to south
and then across the south end of the property. That is a 55 foot wide easement and we
worked at some length with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to assure that our
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 55
design complies with their desires. We have obtained as of today their written approval
of the design which we presented and we can give you a copy of this or do you want
me to read it or to how should we do this?
Borup: Yes. Let's have a copy. Is that an encroachment agreement? Is that what is
required on that or --
Gibson: What it is -- what it is at this stage, they require a license agreement. That will
only be issued after the final design is done, the site engineering, and so on. At this
stage we have a letter from them saying that if we do what the site plan shows, what
the preliminary site plan shows, that they have no objection to that. They will accept the
fencing and landscaping proposed within that 50 foot easement -- 55 foot easement.
Borup: So Staff does not have a copy of that either?
Gibson: They do not, because it just came late this afternoon, so --
Borup: Would you like to enter that on the record?
Gibson: Yes. Can I give that to staff or to you?
Borup: Right here.
Gibson: There are 3 copies. It was Mr. Anderson, John Anderson, of the irrigation
district that we met with several times and had several very productive visits there. That
we think is the -- is the major question. The site plan displayed does not really illustrate
the proposed landscaping within that right of way, because originally in our original visits
with the staff it wasn't thought that we needed to or could, but I believe and I hope --
Borup: We do have a copy.
Gibson: -- we have it before you a current copy that shows the landscaping there to
meet the letter and the intent of the buffering ordinance. Let's see. We note there is a
comment from the police department suggesting a security concern along the south
side of the property. That's the bottom of the picture here. We haven't thought of that --
that that would be a particularly dangerous area. It is presently an open field to the
south. However, it doesn't seem like it will remain an open field for long, because we
are aware -- that is we believe that other developments by other developers is proposed
in the area and that will become, then, simply adjacent accessible property. So we
don't see that as a particularly significant issue. However, the -- one of the comments
with possibly additional lighting there. We hesitate to -- shall we say agree with the
proposed lighting, because we are anxious that all of the site lighting be contained
within the site to avoid any glare or objection to the neighbors. So we don't think it
would be particularly desirable to the neighborhood to put bright lights back in that
location. We think that also that that video surveillance would be shall we say a tad of
an overkill there. However, we'd certainly listen to the Commission's advice on that
matter. Keep in mind that the property in question is really the easement of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 56
irrigation district, rather than the development proposed for this project. The hours of
operation, that was a bit of a question. There will be an office there, which would be
open from 9:00 to 6:00, normal operating hours. It's possible that some access could
be provided during evening hours. Sometimes people like to get to their storage units
after work. We don't think that those -- this is anything like people would be going in in
the middle of the night and causing any ruckus in the neighborhood that would be
noticeable by comparison with the traffic along Overland and so on. So the hours of
operation we think would be normal -- normal business hours, plus some evening
access hours. However, there is no great activity late in the night. One question is the
pavement versus gravel question. We realize that there is a normal requirement for all
drive-in parking areas to be paved and if that be the Commission and Council's decision
that's how it will be. The reason, though, for suggesting gravel with a dust inhibiting
surface is to avoid simply paving seven acres of -- creating seven acres of hard surface.
We feel that the on-site drainage -- the absorption goals would be much easier to meet
without solid -- solid seven acres of paved –
Borup: Why do you say seven acres? Aren't you just talking about the RV storage
area?
Gibson: Well, I said 7 acres, because that's the whole site.
Borup: Right. But most of that's already paved, so the area in question is just the RV
parking.
Gibson: Yes. I believe that that's the area in question. Also there was -- I believe that
that's the only question that staff has raised is that --
Borup: Yes.
Shreeve: -- that area. Again, the only reason for asking for -- shall we say a relief or
change of that condition is to avoid paving more hard surface, providing more easy
approach area. It isn't -- isn't a make it or break it factor for the development. So
whatever the Commission and the Council requires is what we will do. I don't think that
we have any other input. So if you have questions we would be pleased to address
them.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners?
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: Mr. Gibson, the part that you're talking about paving, how much more surface is
that -- that you don't want to pave. How much is that?
Gibson: Oh, well, to illustrate, it the area --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 57
Nary: The bottom left corner?
Gibson: The bottom left corner and the top right corner between -- yes, between
landscaping along Overland and the area there. That it seemed, frankly, as an interim
use, as was suggested I think in the staff report. There will be a future conditional use
request for development of that property.
Nary: So what would that be, if you want to point that out. Here is a copy. What's going
to be there and the front on Overland Road. A restaurant or something.
Centers: You're going to use it for RV storage or --
Gibson: Yes.
Nary: Okay. So that's not temporary, the RV storage?
Gibson: It's requested as the -- that's the request in this --
Nary: Right. That is temporary?
Gibson: Yes.
Nary: It wouldn't be there in the future if it's not --
Gibson: Whatever the market dictates. However --
Borup: Some commercial?
Nary: Some commercial?
Gibson: There is commercial development along Overland Road.
Nary: Some that's going to have to have pavement or cement underneath it anyway.
Gibson: Yes, it would.
Nary: Because there is, I don't know, almost 7 acres of buildings on there anyway that
are going to have cars going to --
Gibson: Right. A majority of the site is hard surface. Yes.
Borup: Any other questions? Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I wasn't clear about the hours of operation. Could you just tell me that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 58
Gibson: We propose that an office would be open there from say 9:00 A.M. to 6:00
P.M. Those would be the normal business hours, if you will. However, people like to get
to their units sometimes in the evening. That's when people are off work.
Norton: So there is going to be 24 hours, 7 days a week?
Gibson: Not necessarily 24 hours, but it -- we could do evening hours say until 10:00 or
11:00.
Norton: Until 10:00 p.m?
Gibson: For a reasonable time. Yes.
Norton: 7 days a week?
Gibson: I would presume so. Yes.
Norton: Okay. Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Well, the people going and out, they will have -- is it a card system with a
gate, they have their security card and they can get in at 3:00 in the morning if they
want?
Gibson: Well, the hours could be controlled so that the gate doesn't open after --
Center: Yes. That is my question. I know of one location like that where they do shut
off access --
Gibson: That can be done.
Centers: -- after whatever and then open access at maybe 6:00 in the morning.
Gibson: Yes.
Centers: If they could --
Gibson: That is a concern that --
Centers: So what are you proposing on that? Shut it off and --
Gibson: Well, because the question didn't come up until just now, let me ask the people
who will be operating if they have an idea.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 59
Borup: Let me -- another question that might be somewhat related. It looks like the
office -- is that is a full-time residence?
Gibson: It's not intended to be a primary residents, but a place where people could
have a --
Borup: So you're not going to have an on-site person is what I was wondering.
Gibson: They could be on-site there, yes.
Borup: I mean several of the others that we have looked have had an on-site full -- I
mean an on-site person living in a shared office residence and so there is someone
there --
Gibson: Right. They could be there 24 hours a day. Yes.
Borup: So it looks like the structure is built with that option is what you're saying?
Gibson: Yes. It will have that option. Yes. And now the hours of operation. We've set
basically 9:00 to 6:00 for the office, but in addition to that access are we going to do 24
hours, 7 days a week? That's what we'd prefer. That's what we would prefer.
Nary: Mr. Gibson, did you not have the staff comments somewhere near October 26th
when this was prepared? You said you just --
Gibson: No. Now --
Nary: Now. Right now that you needed to know what hours there were, but --
Gibson: Okay. It's in this report, the question. Yes.
Nary: But if it's in this report you're supposed to tell us that tonight anyway. Didn't you
know this in this report 3 weeks ago?
Gibson: Yes. We did know about it. Yes.
Nary: Okay.
Borup: Any other -- from Commissioners?
Centers: Well -- and I think, sir, at this time that you shouldn't -- I mean you should be
telling us that it's going to go forward from here. Is someone going to be living there
after it's built in the residence or not? It should be clear at this point.
Gibson: Okay. Let me ask the applicant if they think someone is going to be living
there or not. I, as the architect, I know it's designed so we could live --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 60
Centers: That would affect the security on the other end of this property that you're
talking about that the police had an objection for needing more lights.
Gibson: Yes.
Selee: My name is Brad Selee, 2271 Interlachen Way, Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Chairman
and Commissioners, the intent is to have an on-site manager full time for security
reasons. Also to address Commissioner Nary's question about the hours, we did know
that it was required, but we didn't know the office hours. The part we didn't know until
now is the questions about access. Typically access extends to -- public storage access
extends to beyond office hours and where I have been in the past it's been 24. So it
would be our preference to have 24 hour access. That's our intent on those issues.
Could I speak to one other item, please? On the graveled area and RV storage, one of
the reasons we thought to leave it gravel for future development is, yes, commercial
ground would end up being asphalt, but with underground utilities and so forth, we
wouldn't know at this time what future needs there would be, it would make any future
use much easier if it was only gravel and we wouldn't have to dig up all the asphalt.
That was the idea of maintaining that gravel for some type of future development.
Borup: I've got a question related to that, then. By past experience do you know what
the normal activity might be in an RV storage area? A lot of traffic in and out, et cetera,
or --
Selee: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any, you know, figures with me. In talking with the
Ada County Highway Department, they gave us some guidelines on usage. Typically
most of the usage is during office hours and those evening hours as Mr. Gibson
mentioned, the after -- what we call, quote, unquote, after hours.
Borup: I was speaking just of the -- you know, the amount of traffic would be on -- in the
gravel area. As far as traffic, a mini storage is probably the least amount of traffic
generator than anything that there is. I realize that.
Selee: Mr. Chairman, speaking as to the dust issue in the storage area, typically in an
RV storage there is not a lot of in and out traffic. Once -- you know, if it's anything like
my RV storage, it will sit there for 3 years, but once that -- an RV is put in there, it
oftentimes stays for quite a period of time. So it's not like there is people pulling in off of
the gravel many times a day. So we didn't really feel that the dust -- especially with an
inhibiting device, the dust would be an issue.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Nary: Well, just, Mr. Chairman, that back piece isn't really designed for a change in use
in the future. It's the front piece. Right. So you could pave the back. If we were to say
we believe that the south boundary area, you could pave that, because you're not going
to use it for something else.
Selee: Commissioner Nary, no, the use of that would stay RV storage.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 61
Nary: It's just the front.
Selee: It's just the frontage that we were concerned with.
Nary: Potentially could change.
Selee: Potentially could change.
Nary: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, this is about 120 feet right there and you have got a buffer --
landscape buffer 35 feet. Concrete walk. Parkway. Even if you just paved part of this -
- I mean that would be beneficial. But I guess I concur with you. When you take your
RV in there, if you use it 2 or 3 times a year like me you're lucky. So not a lot of traffic.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Did you have any other comment -- any final comments, Mr.
Gibson? Okay. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application from the
audience? Seeing none -- oh. Mr. Groves.
Groves: Yes. My name is Craig Groves, 3920 East Shady Glen Court, Boise.
Commissioners, I'm here on behalf of Bear Creek, LLC, the current owner of the
property south of this site. We are in the process of developing the property into single
family residential. It's an R-4 zone. We have not had a chance to visit with the
applicant about some issue such as landscaping and buffering between our houses and
storage unit facility. We believe that this could be a good neighbor for us, but we have
some concerns in the area of landscaping, exterior lighting, and just how that would
affect our residential development. Would ask that you allow us some time to meet with
the applicant, have them show us their proposal for landscaping, their proposal for the
architectural style of their buildings and their proposal for site lighting. The second
comment I have is in regards to the property there along Overland Road, I don't know if
ACHD has granted any additional curb cuts to the vacant -- vacant land there. From
that drawing we can't see anything there. So my question is for future use where is the
access and you might want to consider that in your final decision. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions of Mr. Groves? I had one. Did you receive notification?
Groves: Yes.
Borup: Do you know what date you got that?
Groves: I do not know. We were not notified of any neighborhood meeting or anything
along those lines, but we did receive notification. We just actually purchased that site,
you know, within the last -- well, since September.
Centers: But about how long ago did you receive notification that this was going to go
in?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 62
Groves: Within the last 30 days.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: And that's my question is did you attempt to call the applicant?
Groves: No, I did not.
Borup: Did you --
Groves: I was under the impression the applicant is required to have a neighborhood
meeting and so on and so forth.
Borup: No. You should know that in Meridian from other projects. Have you had a
chance to see the -- you haven't looked at the landscaping proposal?
Groves: No, I have not.
Nary: The other question I had, Mr. Chairman, I know that Mr. Groves is here. There is
a 25 foot buffer that's required in the site specific requirement on the south boundary
there. It seems, I don't know, fairly significant to me, as well -- I was just looking on
page –
Borup: In this case it's -- they have got 55 feet because of the --
Nary: Oh, because of the easement as well. Of course, all the lighting is required to be
maintained on the property to eliminate glare and eliminate -- I mean I understand what
you're saying on specific detail when you haven't had an opportunity to review, but it
appears at least from general comments it's going to maintain a fairly significant gap
between your property and this property.
Groves: Yes. From that site, yes, it appears that there is significant setback.
Borup: In my mind that would be the two concerns that we usually look at is -- in the
buffering is if the landscaping is dense and then the lighting.
Groves: Correct. Yes. Those were my 2 concerns, so --
Borup: Our standard requirement is to not have off-site lighting. I think the police
department is the only one that was advocating that, but certainly not -- it was not from
the staff.
Nary: Well -- and, Mr. Chairman, the only other one that may affect that south property
is if we were to allow that RV storage on the south end to remain unpaved, because
there would be dust and stuff, but I guess I'm not looking to leave it that way, but I don't
about anyone else, but it appears between now and maybe if we were to decide on this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 63
tonight, by the time it got to Council, maybe those other details you're concerned about
–
Groves: Sure. If the applicant is open to just a quick little meeting with us we would be
acceptable to that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think of Woodbridge about 2 months ago. There was a lot of
cooperation there with the mini storage that went in next to them. Woodbridge called a
lot of shots there. But in this situation they would compliment each other and I think it
would be beneficial for this applicant, this developer, to be in touch with that developer,
because that developer could send customers this way. So I think if there was good
cooperation there it would be beneficial for everyone.
Borup: Do we have anyone else on this? Okay. Any final comments from the
applicant? If not, I think we have got at least one item we'd like to --
Gibson: Mr. Chairman, just say that we are certainly open to meeting with the neighbors
to discuss the concerns. We would be pleased and would appreciate their input.
Borup: Okay. Well, I'd like to say we'd like to maybe see more than just being open,
that perhaps ask that you would meet with Mr. Grove or a representative of Bear Creek
to discuss -- it appears that, you know, the concern was mainly just the buffering and
perhaps the esthetics of the buildings facing their property. So --
Gibson: We will certainly do that.
Borup: Within the next 2 weeks.
Gibson: We are open to that.
Borup: All right.
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I did have a question for staff as well and I don't know whether or
not in this discussion with Bear Creek that that may be an issue. The 24-7 sort of
operation is a little concern to me. I don't know, Brad, do we have a lot of that type of
operation or almost -- or are the majority of our storage units in the city have some
limitation on time, do you know? It seems like the ones we did recently, like Mr.
Osborne, who is sitting here, we did place some limitation on them on time and then we
didn't have 24-7 operation and there is a good reason for that and I didn't know whether
or not we had a preference one way or the other.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner Nary, the -- I believe of the 2 that come to mind,
the Avest behind Fred Meyer. I believe the Avest is 24. Acorn -- Bruce believes Acorn
is 24. I believe Ed Buse's Ten Mile Mini Storage adjacent to the wastewater treatment
plant is 24. But it certainly is not addressed specifically in city code. But it would be an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 64
issue that would come up in this -- as part of a Conditional Use Permit based on
surrounding uses.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I didn't see it in the staff comments and I would highly
recommend it, maybe even make it a requirement if we do approve the applicant, where
they have a security camera at the gate that's filming the entrance. When people are
using their card or they are going to have a system of a key pad, possibly. That's
probably what you're going to have. Each entrance will have a code and a security
camera is very necessary. I speak from personal experience where a security camera
got the thief, because they watched someone enter the code with binoculars and then
they go back and enter it themselves. A security camera is very important. I don't know
if -- okay.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I have another question for staff. I notice that the sanitation department had
noticed there are no waste receptacles or enclosures on the property. Before they can
get occupational use or whatever, don't -- are they required that they have to have
waste receptacles?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Norton, they are required to obtain a letter from Sanitary
Service Corporation and submit that with their certificate of zoning compliance to us
prior to their getting a building permit. But they could come back and say that they don't
have to have it. We rely on the Sanitary Service Corporation.
Norton: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Anything else from the Commissioners?
Nary: One other note. I was just noticing as Commissioner Norton was commenting,
item 7 on page 10 addresses trash enclosures, but I was noticing also that it was
misnumbered, so whenever we make a motion on this there needs to be an 8 and a 9
as the next 2, rather than --
Borup: There is 2 7’s. So are we ready for a motion?
Centers: I think we need a motion to close the Public Hearing.
Borup: That's the motion I'm looking for.
Centers: Yes. I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 65
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: That was for both hearings. We opened 2, 1--
Centers: Yes.
Borup: -- annexation and the other on a conditional use. Do we have any discussion we
need to look at? It sounds to me like from what was -- the issue of the Nampa-Meridian
looks like it's been answered. Did you have a chance to read that -- rather that -- it
looks like that satisfied the staff requirement -- the staff's recommendation.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Chairman Borup, we are comfortable with that.
Borup: Okay. Then the other issue is probably the gravel parking area. What did you
say, Commissioner?
Norton: I was just thinking hours of operation.
Borup: Oh. Right. Well, that may be an item for discussion, too.
Norton: A security camera, perhaps?
Centers: Yes. I would definitely support that and the -- at the south end I think the
applicant said he was going to pave it and I'm not --
Borup: Well, he hasn't said it, but --
Centers: I'm not against not requiring the paving in any other area. The hours of
operation -- I mean I'm kind of -- I don't know. I know operations that shut down at
midnight and open up at 6:00. Most people don't want to enter their storage units after
that or before that. I think we schedule accordingly. The same way for getting their
boat out. They are not going to be there after midnight and maybe --
Borup: After it's dark, it's --
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Usually not too many people, I would think.
Centers: Because I can see cars going south and the headlights at – you know, at
different times and when you have residential properties adjacent. I think of
Woodbridge. I mean we were pretty strict on those folks.
Nary: I guess to add to that, Mr. Chairman, I mean I think they should certainly pave the
RV storage on the south property line. It's not going to be used for something other
than that, so I think it should be paved. I think there does need to be some restrictions
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 66
on time. You know, if you look at the map, this is oriented and basically all the vehicles
are going to be driving north and south on the property to get to the rear lot. Now there
may be 55 foot buffer and there is going to be fencing and the like, but you still may get
some lights -- I mean probably not, but there is still the potential for some light from cars
and things, so all night long does seem a little intrusive and probably isn't necessary
beyond midnight and it probably isn't necessary before 6:00. If it becomes a problem,
then they can certainly come and asked to amend it. I don't see a reason that we
shouldn't put at least some limitation. I think it's still adjacent to some residential
properties and the like and I don't have a real feeling on the security cameras
Commissioner Centers raised, other than it's just a detail that we don't normally include
in these types of things. That's something that they need to decide what's appropriate
and cost and the like. You know, we are more concerned about lighting and how that is
going to impact neighboring uses and I don't know whether or not requiring a security
camera is something that's really in our ballpark, but I don't really --
Centers: I would agree with that, Commissioner Nary. I was just -- you know.
Nary: It makes sense. I do agree with you, but --
Centers: It's highly recommended. It would also enhance their rental. It's a suggestion,
maybe.
Borup: So it sounds like from what's been said talking about paving the south area and
perhaps leaving the other --
Nary: Yes. I mean I don't think it has to be paved. I mean it does make sense that they
may want to convert that use, but if they use things to keep the dust down and those
types of things, I think that's reasonable.
Borup: To me it is --
Nary: It doesn't make sense to rip up asphalt a year and a half or 2 from now to build
something else and you have to put in electrical lines or something else. I mean I don't
think that's unreasonable. Where that's located there is enough buffering from the
street.
Borup: Well, that's -- to me a big factor is the density of the landscape.
Nary: Right.
Borup: There is fairly dense landscaping along there.
Nary: Yes. I think it will be fine. I don't think that -- I agree that as was stated that a lot of
that -- it's not going to be generating a tremendous amount of dust and what they can
do to remedy that is probably good enough for the meantime anyway. So with all of
that, Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend approval of AZ 01-016, request
for annexation and zoning of 7.32 acres from the County zone to a C-G zone for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 67
proposed Meridian Storage by Touchstone Construction, Inc., south of the West
Overland Road and west of the South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of
October 26th
in regards to annexation and I don't think there was any modification of the
annexation requirements.
Centers: I don't think so either.
Nary: I think all the modifications are regarding the conditional use requirements. That
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, was that an annexation requirement?
Centers: It was page 5. But according to staff they met that.
Nary: Right. I think that requires a development agreement and I think they have agreed
to all of those conditions, but --
Centers: I second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Nary: The second one, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we -- or I would move
that we recommend approval to the City Council of CUP 01-032, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development of a storage facility in a C-G
zone for proposed Meridian Storage by Touchstone Construction, south of West
Overland Road, west of South Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of October
26, 2001, with the following additions or amendments in regards to -- that the statement
on page 8 of the staff report, that the applicant has complied with the staff requirement
to provide written comment from the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District as attached to
this report, that the -- on page 9, that the third item down, which is actually numbered
number 6, should be numbered 7, and that the hours of operation for this facility shall
be from 6:00 a.m. until midnight on each day. That item seven would now be then
number 8. That the RV storage area on the site plan on the south boundary would be
paved, but the RV storage on the north boundary could have gravel and dust remedial
measures to eliminate fugitive dust from the site, but did not have to be paved at this
time. Let's see. On page 10, item -- the fourth item down would be numbered 8 and the
fifth item down from the top of the page would be item 9. Then, again, the
recommendation of page 11, that the applicant has provided written comment from the
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District tonight in regard to landscaping and fencing within
their buffer and then I guess just as a note for the City Council that we have also
recommended that the applicant meet with a representative from Bear Creek
Subdivision in the interim before the Meridian City Council sees this to discuss any
other issues regarding this particular project. I think that's all the amendments.
Centers: I second
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 68
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 01-019 Request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 115 building lots and 10 other lots on 29.93 acres in
an R-4 zone for proposed Woodbridge No. 2 by Woodbridge
Community, LLC - east of south Locust Grove Road and south of
East Franklin Road.
Borup: Thank you. Item No. 8, Public Hearing PP 01-019, request for preliminary plat
approval of 115 building lots and 10 other on 29.93 acres, R-4 zone, Woodbridge No.
2. Like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. This is on the screen the subject parcels.
I believe most of you are familiar with the Woodbridge project, so I won't go into much
detail. We are talking South Locust Grove Road here. Phase one has received final
plat approval well under way. Again, this property is more or less bisected by the Five
Mile Drain, which runs in a northwest to southeasterly direction. The bold here is the
subject phase 2 of Woodbridge that is before you tonight. The Greenhill Estates
Subdivision abuts the property to the north. As you will note in a couple of the
conditions that the applicant will address later, this is the Weatherby Drive access point
right here that goes into the Greenhill Estates Subdivision. Here is a detail of the
preliminary plat as submitted. I apologize for the difficulty of reading with the top lines
and what not. You should have -- or received this in full in your application. The bridge
across the Five Mile Drain is constructed. They are complying with the -- with the
conceptual plan that was approved by the city last year. They do have an approved
Conditional Use Permit that approved a conceptual plan for the entire property and this
preliminary plat had to meet the intent and the guidelines of that. They have not added
any lots from that conceptual plan. The open space is more or less provided here in the
center. At this point I will refer to a couple of items in the staff report dated October 23.
On page 2 I believe this was also copied to you tonight. Does everybody have that?
Should have received that earlier. We did receive comments from the police department
discussing the need for a secondary access and the need for conductivity. Again, they
were particularly pointing out this Weatherby Drive. They asked that that be a full
vehicular access. Staff feel that given the condition that was approved as part of the
Conditional Use Permit that said that would just be grass creek and bollards, that we
cannot revert back on that existing condition and comply and I did not talk with Captain
Musser, I don't know if the applicant has about that. I believe that they just were not
aware that that was an existing condition that was already approved. I think that's why
they submitted that. But we have addressed that there on page 2. In terms of the
vehicular access to the east, as you can see they are proposing full vehicular access at
this point here and I'll just go back to the overall plan here. Again, this is the Magic
View Subdivision. This the new St. Luke's Drive road that comes through here, there is
a signal, and then the Magic View here. It's more or less in this location. And the
condition that was approved, which is in the staff report, the condition that was
approved in the Conditional Use Permit last year required them to provide that prior to
the 200th building permit being issued. So that does need to be provided. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 69
applicant, I believe, has had discussion with Magic View, they can address that a little
bit further. All of our other comments are detailed there and I will just stand for any
questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Does the applicant have a presentation
they'd like to make?
O'Neill: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Derrick O'Neill, 158
North Ninth, Suite 300, Boise. I'm here tonight representing Woodbridge Community,
LLC. I will try to keep my comments brief, but I think it's probably important that I go
through some of the issues to help maybe bring you up to speed. Some of you weren't
here when the original conditional use was approved. I will start with the phase 2
preliminary plat. I just want you to know -- and Brad mentioned that we have prepared
the plat consistent with Conditional Use CUP 99-037, which was approved in December
of 1999. That was a conditional use for the entire project. It focused on areas such as
circulation, access, open space, common areas, landscape, fencing, pathways, total
units, homes site sizes, and various specific details, along with the development
agreement. So we have prepared this plat very consistent with that. I'm going to start
with some comments on the staff report and maybe expand on some of Brad's
comments. The first comment would be the emergency vehicle access on Weatherby
Drive. Our plat was submitted with an error. It showed that that would be a full road
and full access. We switched engineers for this phase of the project and he made a
mistake and didn't do that. We clarified that as you see in your staff report. I apologize
to all of the Greenhill Estates folks. That was an honest mistake. I believe staff has
reviewed it and we are very comfortable with the original condition that was written.
The Highway District did review it and approve that as emergency access. In terms of
the comments from the police department, I'm just not sure that they were clear that
there was another secondary access that would be a full access to the point. I think
once they see that they would be comfortable. I haven't talked with the captain, but I'm
sure he would be comfortable with that. We are certainly in support of emergency
vehicle access and I know there will be some people that will testify about that tonight.
We have reviewed our plan with the fire department. We are doing it very consistent, as
consistent as we can with what was submitted as a conditional use. We are also trying
to satisfy the fire department, so they can use it purely as an emergency access.
Number 2, secondary access, we are on track to satisfy that condition and certainly
realize we have to and we will do that. There may be a minor modification to the
location and it may move just a tad bit to the north. It's not going to materially affect the
plat at all. There would be no more lots added or taken away, it just may slightly move
up to the north. We would like to build it with phase two and anticipate doing that and
we anticipate building phase 2 this summer. So we hope that that would be in before
September -- or it will be in before September if we build it. So our intention now is to
improve that and build it before the 200th permit. We want to get that in as soon as we
can and it makes a lot of sense to do that with phase 2 of the project. Those were
some of the general comments on the staff report. As it relates to some site specific
comments on the staff report, we submitted the letter to you I think 2 days ago or a day
ago, written by Scott Beacham. Site Specific Condition No. 1, which addresses sewer
latecomers fees, we spent some time with staff and we have agreed to a modified
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 70
condition that was drafted by Bruce at his suggestion and we are comfortable with that.
That's written in the letter to you under suggested modification to staff comments. That
modification reads in that letter: Sanitary sewer and water service to this site shall be
via extensions from existing mainlines adjacent to the property. The applicant shall be
required to either pay the Five Mile Trunk sewer latecomer's fee in full or, with City
Council approval, make arrangements for payment prior to obtaining the city signatures
on the final plat. We are near to where we think there is an agreement between the city
and us. We are happy with the fee structure and they are happy with the fee structure,
we just want to make sure that we have the ability to be in front of the Council for that
goes into effect. No. 2, the water connection to the high pressure zone. As you may be
aware -- and I'm not sure if there is a general map, Brad, but we are watered now on
the low pressure zone which comes in through the regular entry to Woodbridge, but St.
Luke's went in there as a high pressure zone and now it's pulled further down to about
the middle of the Magic View. Ultimately, the Public Works Department and ourselves
feel that it is important to connect to the high pressure zone to the low pressure zone.
We agree with staff that it should be connected. We think it's good for Woodbridge and
it will be good for the homeowners in Woodbridge, but it also is good for the overall city
and the circulation of the water system, so there is a benefit to more people than just
Woodbridge. We are prepared to do that with phase two construction as well. We'd like
to just get it all done at once. However, there are a couple of things we want to mention.
The water model for this project shows that it will exceed the state and DEQ's
requirements for water pressure in a project. It may not be where the Public Works
Department wants to see it ultimately. It will be there eventually. But we believe that we
can provide water to the site and we can provide it at pressures that the state and
Department of Environmental Quality would be satisfied with. So, therefore, we are
going to ask that the cost of the off-site improvement, which would be improvements not
within Woodbridge, but the off-site improvements to get the high pressure zone to
Woodbridge would be shared with the city and that's what that condition number 2
modification, if you look down to the very last thing, that's what we are asking. Those
are the site specific comments, the only ones that we have. I would like to mention that
this is probably the best staff report that we have and compliment the staff for putting it
together. We got it well in advance. We have had a chance to react to it and I think it's
really good. Now we move into neighborhood comments and there is some
neighborhood folks who will talk tonight. We had a neighborhood meeting with the
Greenhill Estates Homeowners Association Board. We did not have a meeting with all
of the Homeowners in Greenhill Estates, we figured that going to the board would be a
way to get with as many of them as we can them and that they would represent that
neighborhood. At that meeting we discussed emergency access, we discussed
secondary access, and we discussed fencing and we feel that our answers to those
issues were okay with the board at that time. We discussed fencing, that it would be
consistent with the conditional use approval and the phase one fencing that we have in
there. We also met with several individuals not as a group with the Magic View
residents and we met with them individually. They were primarily concerned about the
secondary access. Individual neighbors and comments, I had the opportunity to meet
with Mr. Osborne this evening prior to the meeting and he gave me some comments
and concerns. Unfortunately, he wasn't made aware that there was a homeowners
association meeting, apparently, so he didn't participate in that. We did not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 71
communicate prior to tonight, so some of these comments I'm reacting to. The first
comment was he'd like to see a berm and fence between the property. I'd like to -- Mr.
Osborne's property -- I think you're all aware what it is, down there in the corner, it's a
pie-shaped property. Right here. I think he had some good comments and comments
we definitely will work with him on and some that I'm not sure we agree with. His first
comment was he would like to see a berm and a fence between the property along our
boundary there. As some of you will recall who were on the commission when we went
through this originally, there was a great debate about this and we are comfortable with
the fencing consistent with the conditional use approval. We also had a fencing plan
and diagram approved by the City Council and we are comfortable with that fence and
we'd like to see it stay that way. I think there will be some problems if we but a berm in
there. There is a drainage ditch on their property and some problems that would make it
tough to put a berm and fence there.
Borup: Would you elaborate on what the fencing -- what was the fencing agreement?
O'Neill: It's 6 foot fencing, a good neighbor fence, and it would be consistent with what
we have currently in Woodbridge.
Borup: 6 foot fencing.
O'Neill: Cedar. It would be cedar and a good neighbor fence.
Borup: Thank you.
O'Neill: It would be on our property, so it will be on our property and it will be maintained
by the homeowners who have that individual section of their fence. The next question or
comment he had is he wants to make sure that the Five Mile Creek pathway that we will
have come through the property is consistent with the path that's along Five Mile near
his storage facility and we are perfectly comfortable with that. I think the Parks
Department has a plan and we'd like to make it stay consistent so. It's a path that has a
benefit to the entire community. So we are comfortable with making it consistent. The
next comment is he wanted to see some open space at the corner of the property at
that location and there was some open spaces you recall in his storage facility and he
wants to see it compliment that and I think that's a good thought, however, I just want to
point out that Woodbridge has over 20 percent of its project in open space, which is
over 16 acres, and a large portion of that is down there right along the boundary. So I'm
not sure we are in favor of that. But we are open to talking to him. The next comment
he had was management of the dirt and the fact that he has a pool and that it was just
pure havoc on his pool last year and I certainly apologize for that, but when you're
constructing on an 80 acre project there is going to be dirt. We certainly will comply
with the city requirements and do the best we can to minimize the effect of dust and dirt
when we build this project. It's an ongoing battle and we'll do the best we can to do that
and we will certainly meet the city requirements. The next comment he had was the
banner on the back of a house in phase one that he could see from his house that says
for sale. We don't own that house, we are not selling that house, the house happened
to sell last week, so that banner will go down. We certainly will work with our builders
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 72
and ask them not to put banners up on houses that are facing other houses. That's not
a problem. But we can't control that, we don't own that house. So those are some of
his general comments and hopefully some responses to those. We are certainly
prepared to stay consistent with the original conditional use approval and all the details
in that approval. We would be happy to meet again with the homeowners association
board if they want to review more in detail those conditions. I would like to try to keep it
to meeting with the board or people as part of a board meeting, instead of trying to meet
with probably over 80 homeowners in that area and so I would like to do that if possible.
I mean we will do that and show them the details before we submit the final plat, which
is when we are required to submit the minute details. So, in conclusion, we ask that you
recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the modifications as written in our letter
to you by Scott Beacham, dated November 14, 2001. I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? I have got one probably for the staff
and that's on the high pressure zone tie in and the shared off-site costs. Any comment
on that, Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd just like to point
out to you that the state of Idaho and the Department of Environmental Quality don't
operate our system, therefore, they are not on the receiving end of the phone calls
when they start rolling in for low pressure complaints. We strive for a higher level of
service than 40 to 50 psi. We would like to see pressures in the range at a minimum in
the 60s. Provision was made in phase one for the installation of a -- we call it a clay
valve, it is a pressure regulating station with full intent of this development being
brought into the high pressure zone. In the last couple of weeks I have had the water
department go out with our pressure recorders, they are a 24 hour recorder, and I have
got 2 charts. Pressures were taken at the end of the cul-de-sac that you see that's in
phase one, which would be on the west side of Five Mile Creek. Pressures during that
period of time indicate that it will be about 42 pounds of pressure and that's at ground
level. You don't want to put a 2 story home on there or you can probably expect in the
neighborhood of 34 pounds. According to our plumbing official, a standard toilet
minimum operating pressure is 20 psi. You can see that that doesn't leave you much
room for cushion. I'd point out that at this point in time the development -- . There are
only 23 houses that are occupied and we are seeing these kind of pressures at this
point in time. It's just going to continue to get worse. The pressurized irrigation system
in the development does have a single point connection that is to the city system. As
you know this year irrigation water was shut off in September. During the month of
October the Woodbridge development consumed two million 90 gallons of water. That's
a pretty good demand on our system. We feel very strongly that this subdivision should
be brought into the high pressure zone.
Borup: Maybe just to interrupt a little bit. I think that's what Mr. O'Neill agreed with.
They want to be brought in --
O'Neill: I'm not debating that at all. We are prepared fully to go ahead and do that.
Freckleton: We don't have any mechanism to cost share this. I have explained --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 73
Borup: Where do they need to go to tie in? Right now it's not a loop system; is that
correct? It dead ends in --
Freckleton: It dead ends in Woodbridge phase one. Correct.
Borup: Where do they need to go to --
Freckleton: They will go right out the secondary access that they are going to provide
to the east and they are going to tie in with an existing high pressure main that's in the
Magic View Subdivision.
Borup: That is clear down there?
O'Neill: Right in here.
Borup: Is that a main that goes under the freeway at this time?
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Comes from --
Freckleton: Correct. It ties in Overland Road and it ties into Eagle Road, the St. Luke's
area. We have talked to Mr. O'Neill about the latecomer's process and that is the
mechanism that I would propose that they pursue. We don't have any means of cost
sharing with them. I mean in our respective it's a development cost.
Borup: Are there easements available for them to tie in then?
Freckleton: It's a public road. They are going to have to provide the access into Magic
View from that secondary access -- public access. So they will be in public right of way.
Borup: Okay. So the cost is the piping, essentially?
Freckleton: Correct. I would point out that they did -- in phase one they installed the
vault and they posted surety with the city for the cost of the installation of the equipment
in that vault, so that -- as soon as this tie-in can be made the city will install that
equipment and the conversion to high pressure will be accomplished.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from any Commissioners?
Nary: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just so I understand, Bruce, there is 2 suggested
modifications in this letter from Mr. O'Neill and what he indicated was that you had
either authored or had agreed with the first one, the first modification, essentially. The
only addition was that the latecomer fees would be paid or that they make
arrangements with City Council to do that -- do that some other way, as long as it gets
paid. Did you not agree with that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 74
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nary, I did author that and I do fully agree
with that first modification.
Nary: The other one --
Freckleton: The second one I strongly am opposed to.
Nary: Okay. Okay.
O'Neill: I knew that before the meeting.
Nary: I assumed you probably did.
Centers: What's the rationale for wanting the city to pay half of the water --
O'Neill: I didn't necessarily say that they --
Centers: I thought that's what you said earlier.
Nary: Cost share.
Centers: Cost share?
O'Neill: Yes. Cost share. I think the rationale was 2 fold. One -- and I'm not going to
debate Bruce's tests at all. We did some tests ourselves and they are a little bit
different, but I trust his tests probably better than ours, so I'm not going to debate the
tests. I think the rationale was -- is that by connecting the system and pulling it from off
site we are not just -- we are not just providing the benefit to Woodbridge, we are
probably providing the benefit to the other projects that are on this water line and the
city by having a loop system. So I don't think it's just a pure benefit for Woodbridge. I
think it is a benefit for the overall city and it is also a benefit to others and I realize there
is a latecomer's fee program and we are prepared to do that if we have to, I just -- it's
going to be about a 60,000 dollar cost to us, we have already put about $10,000 of
costs in the pressure reducing deal and that's a large number.
Borup: Any other questions? Bruce, on the -- what's been the normal experience on
the latecomer pay back? That's going to be -- in this case I assume it's going to be
when commercial development comes in. Is that the assumption?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I -- you know, the way the
Magic View Subdivision is changing --
Borup: I mean it would be development within Magic View would be the ones that would
be --
Freckleton: Correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 75
Borup: -- on the --
Freckleton: Correct. So I guess I would foresee the chances of getting pay back are
very good.
Borup: But it's not going to be next year. Probably.
Freckleton: That's a crystal ball question.
O'Neill: My only concern with that is I believe under the latecomer's agreement there is
a 10 year clause on that and if, for some reason, that within 10 years that didn't
develop, then we would not be able to recoup that money. So if there is some way we
can work within that I might be open to that, but --
Centers: You knew that when you signed.
O'Neill: Well, we had to build it and then we submit it.
Freckleton: Built right into that agreement is a clause that would allow a time extension
beyond the 10 year term. It does have a caveat, because the city's ordinance does not
provide for that right now. So the way this comment is worded -- or the agreement is
worded is that it says something to the effect that when and if the city ordinances allow
this by mutual agreement this can be extended out beyond the 10 year term. So the
reason we did that was because we wanted to open the door.
Borup: But I agree in light of hopefully a new comprehensive plan, 10 years would
probably be very conservative. Okay. Thank you.
O'Neill: You bet.
Borup: Do we have further testimony on this item? If so, please come forward.
Forsberg: My name is John Forsberg. I live at 2320 Cadillac Drive. My property is one
of the only 2 properties that abuts this phase 2 from the Locust Heights Subdivision. I
guess my main concern is the density of houses in that area. You know, I am right on
the creek, I have quite a bit of wildlife in that area and I just hate to see it go away.
There are foxes that live down in there and there is a family of raccoons and quite a bit
of birds and such things and I feel that if there were just, you know, maybe one or two
less houses in that area right there would be a little bit more beneficial for the wildlife
that are already being scattered with the rest of the subdivision now. Originally when I
saw this -- the original proposal, there was not as many houses in there, the lots were
bigger in this area, and I'm speaking about this -- this area right in here, right on the
creek, and, again, my -- probably 90 percent of it is selfishness on my part, because,
you know, I bought the property because I like the wildlife and I've tried real hard to
maintain that and if there was a little bit more buffer zone, a little less density in that
area, then that would be protected a little bit better and I just --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 76
Borup: Sir, was your lot the one on -- the furthest to the east?
Forsberg: No. Mine is the second one in.
Borup: Second one in?
Forsberg: That's correct. That one there. So it's looking like to me they are putting in 4
– 4 lots up against my one lot and it just seems like a lot of people are going to be in
that area and the original plans that I saw held for a pedestrian path down through there
and not so many houses. So I guess that's all I really have to say. I'm just, again,
concerned for the wildlife and, you know, you just don't see that many foxes in this area
anymore and it's kind of a nice thing. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions, Commissioners? Thank you, sir.
Centers: Just one. Does that creek run full year around?
Forsberg: It's not running full this year. In the past it has -- it has trickled through the
winter. This year it has not.
Centers: Okay.
Norton: Excuse me. I have one question. How long have you lived on that property?
Forsberg: 3, almost 4 years.
Norton: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Fender: Fred Fender at 2134 Autumn Way, which is immediately to the north of the
property in question and the property that's immediately to the west of the proposed
emergency access. I'd just like to address the emergency access. 2 years ago when
we were going through all of this -- some of you were here, some of you are new to the
Commission, but we spent many hours with ACHD first and then came here in front of
the Planning and Zoning and thought we had all this ironed out and hopefully we do and
I just would like to speak to that and encourage you to keep that emergency access. It
would make a lot more sense to come in off of Eagle Road with the way the traffic flows
are going to have a primary access through our subdivision in line in and around makes
little sense because of the construction of the road, the density of the housing, it's a
rather closed, tight-knit community there, and we would really not like to see a main
access through that.
Borup: There has been no proposal to change that.
Fender: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 77
Borup: It's still emergency access with the bollards and no vehicle access.
Fender: Okay. Good. Congratulations. Thank you.
Borup: Well, but that's what the applicant proposed. There was a mistake that was
mentioned.
Fender: That's what I thought. I just wanted to confirm and that -- I also just wanted to
affirm their project. I think it's a very nice project they have done, they have held to their
word, and those of us that live next door I enjoy looking off to the project and the
houses they are building. They are doing a nice project and I want to congratulate them
for that, so --
Borup: Thank you, sir. Any questions? Thank you, sir.
Cooley: My name is Keith Cooley, I live at 2586 Autumn Way in Greenhill Estates and
I'm on the committee of the Greenhill Estates Homeowners. We did have just a board
meeting, we had a very hard time for some reason getting even that many together and
on a very short notice and we haven't talked to all the homeowners, but our main
concern was the access and we appreciate that that's going to stay the same. I had
one more item and that was that we would like to have a chance to have the
homeowners, particularly those that live next to the Woodbridge, have a chance to get
together and discuss the fence and possibly work with the Woodbridge people to work
out an agreeable fence situation there, so that would be all my comments.
Borup: Are you -- you've got a concern with the fence that's agreed upon now?
Cooley: We've heard some comment about they would prefer some other type of
fence, but only from a couple of the people that live next there.
Borup: Do you know whether those are the people that expressed the same concerns
2 years ago?
Cooley: I don't know, because I was not able to meet in some of the meetings at that
time.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions?
Norton: I do have a question. Mr. Chairman, considering you were the only one on the
Commission at that time, we are all since December 1999, I came on in January 2000,
what type of fence are we talking about?
Cooley: Well, the fence that was approved is a good neighbor fence and we don't --
Norton: What does that mean?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 78
Cooley: That means it's the same on both sides, so you don't have one side that looks
like a back and one side that looks like a front. I'm not sure that that's going to be a real
concern, but we want to have a chance to have the homeowners meet and discuss that
and meet with the Woodbridge people to discuss what the majority want. I'm not sure
we'll get everybody that wants the same thing anyway, but --
Borup: So you're saying that some might not want a fence at all?
Cooley: I don't know, to tell you the truth. That may be --
Borup: Yes. Yes. They are putting it on their property, so I mean I think there is probably
going to be a fence. But I think you're certainly welcome to discuss that with --
Cooley: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Mecham: My name is Bryan Mecham, I live at 2159 Autumn Way, which is north of the
project and I'm the home –
Borup: Right next to the access road.
Mecham: Exactly. Just a couple of points I'd like to make. I was involved in a lot of the
discussion 2 years ago. I think Woodbridge and the late hours has something in
common. We were here until 3:00 in the morning discussing at one time I think --
Borup: It won't be that late tonight.
Mecham: -- Commissioner Borup knows about that one. Anyway, what we'd like to --
I'd just like to say that I'm glad to hear that this emergency access is staying. One of
our concerns is, just so the rest of the Commissioners know, is that in the decision that
it was going to stay -- I mean the emergency access, there is still that concern about the
secondary access and in our discussions last time it was said that if at the 200th home
they didn't have a secondary access that the project would be stopped and that they
couldn't go and petition to have the emergency access turned into their secondary
access and that was agreed upon. So I just wanted to bring that up again, that if it
comes to the 200th
home, we are not expecting to have the ACHD here. We have
ACHD -- I almost said AC-DC -- the ACHD come in and put that road in. The one
question -- or the one point I was going to make, I was involved in the meetings
regarding the fence. We did have a discussion to the east of our property along our
subdivision, our half acre division, there is a berm with trees that separate their homes
from the development that's going in and it's -- one of the things that's going to happen
is that we have thought about having a berm with a fence type a little bit higher. We did
-- we didn't push for that completely when we -- when we signed on. We would like to
be able to discuss that, because we now see that it's -- the development's continuing
down our subdivision from the east and there is a berm and I believe in our whole
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 79
subdivision we are going to have half a berm with trees and the other half is going to be
this little fence with -- you know, cedar fence and the other thing that --
Borup: You're talking about the berms in the commercial subdivision; right?
Mecham: Right. But if you notice, it's going to come halfway down into our half acres
and into the full acre lots. Right to there would be bermed. Then the rest of the way
down is going to be a picket fence in our subdivision. So the same for consistency we
maybe would like to have the opportunity to discuss that. We did find out that one of
our close neighbors, that O'Neill Enterprises made sure they put a berm up to protect
their subdivision from looking into the storage facility. So they requested a berm, so we
think that, you know, it's something that we should be able to look at. If that's what our
neighborhood agreed upon, it's allowed to be able to look at that. The last couple of
comments is the good neighbor fence. I heard Mr. O'Neill say that the neighbors -- I
mean that the homeowners would maintain that good neighbor fence. The question is
is that both sides or is it just one side? I mean are we going to be required to -- since
it's on their property are we going to be required to maintain our side or is that -- I just
want to get a clarification of what he meant by -- he did say that they would maintain the
fence, so, you know, I assume both sides, but -- the other point was on the emergency
access. I wasn't sure who -- on our property who's going to develop that. Is that the
ACHD? Is it a requirement of O'Neill Enterprises or Woodbridge to -- so that that
pathway between our subdivision and their subdivision is consistent or is there going to
be two different organizations that we are going to be dealing with?
Borup: Do you remember what was agreed to 2 years ago?
Mecham: Well, my recollection was that O'Neill Enterprises and the homeowners would
work together to put that together, but I didn't know if ACHD and -- if they are involved
or who's involved with that. So I was just hoping for some clarification what's being
required of -- so I know who I get to work with.
Borup: I think, yes, we will get some clarification. But my thought is I'm not sure what
they can do. It's not their property.
Mecham: I didn't know if that was a requirement of theirs to tie it in or if it's ours -- I just
didn't know, so --
Borup: Yes. That's ACHD property, is that not right?
Mecham: Yes. It's the ACHD's property.
Borup: All right.
Mecham: So they would be responsible for that. Do we need to be meeting with them
or –
Borup: I would assume if anything's going to happen it probably would -- I mean if they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 80
are -- whether they would look at doing something different, I – 2 years ago, I don't
remember the details. I guess in my mind I was expecting to see the grass creek and
landscaping area done on the Woodbridge side and then what happened on the other
side would be up to your subdivision.
Mecham: I guess I'm just a little concerned --
Borup: But I don't remember what was --
Mecham: I remember we were going to work together and --
Borup: I think we can get some clarification on that.
Mecham: Then the last thing -- I think Mr. Cooley mentioned it -- you know, in these
board meetings, if they have board meeting that are homeowners association, that the
Fenders and the Mechams could be invited, since we are the ones that are going to be
affected by this project and I guess the question as homeowners what do we do, do we
contact ACHD for the access and discuss with them how they are going to do it or --
Borup: Yes.
Mecham: Is that what we have to do?
Borup: It sounds like maybe you need to talk to your board members for notification.
Mecham: Okay.
Borup: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else? Last chance. Okay. Oh, Mr. Osborne.
Osborne: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Ron Osborne, 373 Thornwood Drive. Also
owner of the recently approved Franklin Mini Storage. It's almost midnight and we are
meeting too often. A couple comments. First of all, Commissioner Norton, the horses
are doing fine. Okay? The colts are doing nicely. I appreciate Mr. O'Neill's comments
about our discussion prior to the meeting and it wasn't quite as positive when we were
having that discussion as he portrayed, but I appreciate that that's changed a little bit. 2
or 3 issues I'd like to address. Thought we were going to have to break out the boxing
gloves out there, so -- the berm issue and the fencing. The -- along the south border of
the property, as mentioned by Mr. Mecham, the east side is currently bermed, treed,
and a fence. That will run down to the middle of the property. I was one of those 2
years ago that did request the berming, so -- at the meeting they had at that time and I
was in a minority. I think also the Fenders were interested in the berming at that time
and it may have been discussed. But we'd like to see something done a little different
there than the good neighbor fence, because I'm afraid it will become the good ship
lollypop, beings that everybody paints or stains it different colors on both sides.
Perhaps berming may not work and Mr. O'Neill may be right there, but I'd like to discuss
that. But certainly trees, shrubbery, and particularly trees that would grow really tall. I
don't want to see in their neighbor's bedrooms or anywhere else in their house and with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 81
the proximity of the houses along that side, including my own, that will take place. I
would think some type of berming, fencing, and particularly trees that may grow rapidly
would be appropriate there and then would be consistent along the entire property line.
Secondly, on the corner just where it meets the south corner of my property we did talk
to them about approximately a 120 foot setback there that could be treed and then it
would blend with my adjacent mini storage property and I'm sure, you know, that makes
sense to them, because we, you know, put in that little -- what we are going to call
affectionately the Snorting Bull Park at the back of my property and --
Nary: I thought it was Osborne.
Osborne: Well, Osbornes can maintain it, but it wasn't Osborne's idea and so -- okay.
We think that would -- as I mentioned before, to be for the benefit of the community.
Since that pathway will come right along Five Mile there, it would set back with some
trees that would -- between the back of our property. We think that makes some sense.
A couple other things, too, we'd like to address. The lighting issue, I haven't heard
much about that, and that is a concern, depending upon what kind of lighting will be
allowed on the houses on the back, porch lighting, outside lighting.
Borup: Mr. Osborne, your time is getting close, but I'm not sure if all your comments are
really that serious.
Osborne: Oh, they are. Very.
Borup: The concern about residential lighting?
Osborne: Absolutely.
Borup: Okay.
Osborne: Absolutely. If we could have berming, trees, and fencing there, I think it
would resolve many of those lighting concerns. The next item, they have immediately
to the south of my residence currently an extremely large mound of dirt that has been
there for some time. It used to be 35 tons and now a large portion of that is in various
places, such adjacent to the houses, and we expressed a concern about what the
future dirt would be and we recognize with a project like that there is going to be dirt,
but it has been for a year plus and it was stacked immediately behind those houses in
the southwest part of that. So that was a concern there. He addressed the banners.
The banners were hung on the back of the houses that were right behind our property.
That seems to be going away. And those are the issues we would. Be happy to stand
for questions, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Any questions from any Commissioners? Thank you. Maybe just one short
one. It sounds like you're proposing to make a change in the agreement that was
agreed on 2 years ago and not -- the developer not necessarily comply with all the
things they agreed to at that time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 82
Osborne: What change in what agreement are you --
Borup: The fence and the berming, etc.
Osborne: Yes, I am encouraging a change there.
Borup: Okay. Would you also feel okay if we let them change a few other things they
agreed to also?
Osborne: I would be open for those discussions.
Borup: Thank you.
Osborne: I'm not sure which ones you're referring to, so I don't know.
Borup: Lot sizes, maybe. Have a few more smaller lots against your subdivision or
things like that that they agreed to at that --
Osborne: If they can get them any smaller, that's great. They addressed the issue at
that time about the house pricing, the value of the house along there and agreed to put
the higher valued houses there, which was my concern at that time and that was
satisfactory.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. O'Neill. Because of the
lateness, I think I would like to limit maybe your comments to questions that the
Commissioners have, does that sound satisfactory? I have got -- actually, I have got -- I
have only got two, and we will see what the other Commissioners have. That was on a
comment by Mr. Thornberry, I believe that was his name, that the original plat that was
approved had -- that the amount of lots had increased and then a comment on the
pathway on File Mile Creek.
O'Neill: I can answer both those questions. The original density -- we are actually 4
home sites fewer than the approved original density. So we have less home sites --
Borup: Overall. But how about along his property?
O'Neill: Along his property line, as you may recall, we had an access -- a road which
would have brought vehicles in this area I was concerned about. That's where we
showed the access. So there was a road there. So there was one fewer home site,
because it was a road. I certainly think probably for his purposes and the concern he
has, having that road further away from thatarea will probably benefit him. There also is
a 20 foot buffer where that sanitary sewer easement is that can't be built on, so there is
buffer there and, in addition to that, he had mentioned a pathway and there certainly still
is a pathway that will run all the way along Five Mile Creek up to the edge of the
property. So there will be a pathway.
Borup: The pathway is still there?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 83
O'Neill: You bet. That pathway is still there.
Borup: Is there any concerns, questions the other Commissioners have?
Nary: I guess, Mr. Chairman, I'm a little unclear on -- and maybe I guess I should ask
Mr. Osborne, but on the residential lighting, I guess I'm not really that clear.
O'Neill: I can give you some thoughts on that. I mean those neighbors have lights as
well, so our people living in our houses are just as concerned about the lights that are
over there. Typically we have lights on the back that are focused down and not focused
out. Some homeowners today like to have those motion sensors and they like to have
lights that come on and off. I certainly don't want to put a homeowner in a position here
they can't have security and do things for them. So I guess we are open to lighting
ideas, but what's good for them, it's good for us. So with the lighting requirements we
certainly would like to see them have those, too.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Shreeve.
Shreeve: Then back to the berm. What's your thoughts on that berm?
O'Neill: I'm not in support of the berm. There is a ditch or a lateral that goes along their
property line and I'd hate to put a berm in there and to be able to put a berm on both
sides of that I think is going to be very difficult and I think we can provide them privacy.
We have neighbors, too, that have backyards and they are concerned about those
things as well. So I'm not in support of a berm.
Shreeve: Okay. Then just for clarification on the maintenance of the fence.
O'Neill: Good question. The fence is on our property. It will be the responsibility of the
homeowners who have that property to maintain it. Just to you let you know, we will --
Shreeve: Just on the back side?
O'Neill: We will have to work out an agreement with those folks and that's always a
problem in projects that are fence to fence, but we certainly have been able to do it in
past projects and hope the neighbors can be good neighbors and can work through
that. Just to let you know, we will stain the fence to begin with at our cost, so we will put
an original stain on it, but it will last a little bit longer than some of the other fences you
see. But if the homeowner doesn't want us to get on their property to maintain it, it's
going to be hard to do that. Hopefully they will be in support of that.
Borup: Any of other concerns from the Commissioners? Okay. Unless there is
something you feel is really important, then go ahead and then make any final
comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 84
O'Neill: I probably should stop, but I'm -- it's hard for me not to respond to a couple of
things. One, Mr. Mecham's comments about the highway district or our responsibility to
improve the highway district's right of way. I have the approval conditions and the
highway district's condition is to extend Weatherby Drive form Autumn Way into the site
and emergency access and pedestrian pathway with a 50 foot right of way. So it's clear
in the original condition that we were going to take it up to the property and we were
going to improve it and then we couldn't control what happened on the highway
district's property. We certainly will work with them, we will share with them our design
and we will do everything we can so they hope that it's consistent, but we can't control
what happens on their property.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Mecham wondered if they should contact the ACHD. So that would
be your assessment, too?
O'Neill: Absolutely. But we'd participate in the meeting with them if they wanted to.
Borup: Okay.
O'Neill: I don't have any other substantive comments.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
O'Neill: Thank you for your time tonight.
Borup: Any final comments from staff? None. Okay. Commissioners, any discussion? 2
of the comments from the applicant was -- the one I think was handled on the -- but the
other on the off-site high pressure water tie in is probably one of the issues.
Nary: I guess -- Mr. Chairman, I guess -- first I'd move that we close the Public Hearing.
Norton: I second.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Nary: I guess my only comment would be in looking at the staff report and looking at
how this project got to this point, I guess I'm not ready tonight to revisit a lot of these
other issues regarding the berm and the trees and all those things. That was done. It
just doesn't seem like something that we should be revisiting tonight on this, I guess. I
think the vehicular access I think makes some sense on what they wanted to do. The
fencing I think makes some sense. I agree there probably may be some problems with
it, but I still think it's pretty reasonable how they are trying to do that. I guess -- maybe
it's just our experience with Mr. O'Neill on a couple of other projects. It seems like he's
been pretty cooperative in trying to work through these things. I guess I don't see a
reason to start over with the whole Conditional Use Permit. All we are looking at is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 85
basically the phase of the plat, looks like the second phase. It appears to me that
basically there is 2 modifications that have been suggested by Woodbridge. One, the
city staff has agreed -- agreeing to this modification and the second one it's not and the
latecomer fee agreement can probably deal with that and that's something they can
work out together. So I guess -- I don't think we probably need to do a whole lot. I don't
see that this is something we should be revisiting some old issues and start over again.
I think it just opens us up for more problems than just looking at this for what it is, a
different phase of a project that's essentially been approved to some degree and there
is a little bit of change in there, so --
Borup: Any other comments?
Centers: That's my feeling.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I didn't see the applicant objecting to staff comments.
Borup: Just those 2.
Nary: Yes.
Borup: The one was in agreement already. I guess comments one and 2 from the -- and
3. Okay. Do we have any other questions or concerns?
Nary: Mr. Chairman, I guess I'd move that we recommend approval of PP 01-019,
request for preliminary plat approval of 115 building lots and 10 other lots on 29.93
acres in an R-4 zone for proposed Woodbridge No. 2 by Woodbridge Community, LLC,
east of South Locust Grove and south of East Franklin Road, to include all of staff
comments of the staff report of October 23, 2001, with the only amendment is to site
specific comment number one, that it can be amended to include the sentence: Agreed
upon by the applicant, as well as the city in the letter from Woodbridge of Scott
Beacham, dated November 14, 2001, essentially adding one sentence to that condition
that says the applicant shall be required to do A, the Five Mile Trunk sewer latecomer
fees in full or, with City Council approval, make arrangements to obtain -- prior to
obtaining city signatures on the final plat. To include all the remainder of the staff
comments as well and on this letter, as far as public record, to not include the
modification to site specific comment number 2.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Second. Any further discussion?
Norton: I just want to put on the record that it seemed to be very important to these
residents that this emergency vehicle access remain only as an emergency vehicular
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 86
access and not revert to a main access. I think it should be important and stated to City
Council that it should remain only an emergency access.
Borup: That -- you know, we do not have a revised plat, but I'm assuming that the plat
will go to City Council and will show that with the detail and that's --. I'll reiterate that
that's what was approved, strictly that. Any other --. All in favor? Any opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
Item 10. Public Hearing: PFP 01-006 Request for Prelminary/Final Plat
approval of 2 building lots on 10 acres in an L-O zone for
Tramore Subdivision by Thomas Development Co. - south of
West Pine Avenue and East of North Linder Road:
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 01-036 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
the construction of a 72 unit wood frame, three story senior apartment
complex in an L-O zone for proposed Tramore Senior Community by
Thomas Development, Co. – south of West Pine Avenue and east of
North Linder Road:
Borup: Let's reconvene from our short break and the next item is 10 and 11, Public
Hearing on PFP 01-006, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 2 building lots on
10 acres in an L-O zone for Tramore Subdivision and related is a request for a
Conditional Use Permit, construction of a 72 unit, 3 story, senior apartment complex in
an L-O zone for proposed Tramore Senior Community by Thomas Development. It's
south of Pine Avenue, east of North Linder. I'd like to open both these Public Hearings
and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup. Aerial photo on the screen of the
proposed site. Pine Avenue on the north side. I think you're generally aware. We've
already had a request tonight for a school at the -- just down there -- right here. We've
also had a request for a day-care just right over in this area. So I think you're well
familiar with the area here, South Pine. Here is a more detailed site plan of the
proposed lot. The existing Sunbridge Rehabilitation Senior Center is immediately
adjacent here to the west. This is a -- one of those Preliminary/Final Plat applications
before you, so we do have detailed comments on both the preliminary and final. It is
vacant piece of ground right now. There are I believe about 6 residences adjacent
immediately to the north across Pine Street that would -- that would be impacted by the
project. Here are a couple of site photos of the Nine Mile Creek, which bisects the plat.
This is the existing pathway, which I reference in the staff report here, that stubs in
Tremont Subdivision and it is referenced. Again, this would just continue directly west
along the Nine Mile. This actually is not the plat itself. We didn't have an 8 and a half by
11, so I apologize for that. But this is -- this is more or less the layout that they are
proposing. We do -- they are proposing a 2 lot subdivision. The flag lot here that would
access Pine and come down across the Nine Mile. This Conditional Use Permit is for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 87
this northerly lot here for the 72 unit senior apartment complex, so there is just the 2
lots. Before I go on, I will refer to a couple of particular points. You should have
received a November 13th
letter from Mr. Tom Mannschreck that did address a couple
of the issues. So I refer you to that letter. The staff report on page 3, which deals with
the Preliminary/Final Plat application, we do have in number one a -- several items
regarding the landscape plan. We did not receive a copy, to my knowledge, of the
revised landscape plan. I guess we at staff are comfortable with the confirmation on the
record from Mr. Mannschreck that they will be getting that to us. Most of these issues
are -- unless the Commission wants to see them, we feel could be addressed as a
revised landscape plan prior to the City Council. It's mainly some addition of some
trees. We don't see anything that would significantly impact the layout of the CUP or
the plat. The one that might -- item number 2 site specific, starting there on the bottom
of page 3, there is this -- this issue about the common landscape lot along Pine. Our
new Landscape Ordinance, as you know, requires in subdivisions for street buffer
landscape lots to be separate. The issue on this here is -- and here is the CUP for the
north -- you have got this corner of the building that's just 20 feet back -- 20 foot building
front setback and I did talk with Mr. Mannschreck and they are in agreement to put the
landscape in a common lot. What that will mean is still needing to adjust this building
so that the setback can be made correctly in order to avoid a variance. I put in number
2 that either they are going to have to submit a variance application to either allow the
front building setback to be calculated from the right of way line, because right now it
would be taken from the property line, or to allow the landscape buffer to be placed
within a landscape easement. They wouldn't need to submit a variance at all if they
could shift the building, you know, approximately 15 to 20 feet south. Basically
everything would just kind of move south. That would not -- that variance would not be
necessary if they could do that. So I will just leave that to see what their comment is to
that number 2.
Borup: Are you saying the whole -- all the buildings would shift or just that one that's
kind of angled?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, it's just a single building. It sort of appears -- it's got 2 wings,
more or less, to it, but --
Borup: With a breezeway between?
Hawkins-Clark: I don't -- no, I don't believe -- there is not -- you know, it's a connected
building.
Borup: Okay. That's what I meant. But just the angle would shift down so that you get
the clearance at the street?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I mean however -- in order to --
Borup: That would be up to them.
Hawkins-Clark. Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 88
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: We don't -- just basically meeting the building setback. I think they have
got room on the south to play with, but it just would basically involve some shifting to
avoid the variance application and if they want to go for the variance, you know, I mean
that's just their decision, so -- the item number 7 on page 4 deals with the -- deals with
the crossing of the Nine Mile. Again right here. We have got this issue of crossing the
Nine Mile Creek and I went into some detail there. Basically we are recommending that
the applicant make a written commitment as to when a private bridge will be
constructed and the general terms of how they are going to work that out. It was not
public, so it doesn't involve the highway district, so it's essentially left up to this body to
insure that somehow that happens. So we do have a recommendation on that. Item
number 8 on the top of page 5, you should have included in your staff -- in your packets
a copy of this supplement. Essentially we are just trying to think long range here in
terms of conductivity between these parcels. Our recommendation -- Ada County
Highway District does have a condition that this West Idaho Avenue and West
Broadway Avenue extend to the east -- to the west in the future. Obviously, that's --
this is currently owned by Meridian Friends Church. The church occupies just this
northern third of the property right now. The alignment of these 2 extensions and
whether and when all that would happen is, of course, a complete unknown at this
point, but we certainly have been supporting conductivity. So our recommendation was
not that these extend as public streets into the Tramore project, but simply that the
Tramore project provide some private access to this public street in the future and,
again, it would not be public and there could be some chokers, there could be, you
know -- or signs that it's clear that people will not be able to continue into the Tramore
project. The conversation I had with Mr. Mannschreck today was they had just strictly
some breakaway bollards here on this northern lot. We did not talk about the southern
lot. At this point there is just a single point of ingress-egress here at the north. So this
would also provide some emergency access into here and, you know, we are
supportive of that, if that's the way -- I guess this southerly lot is probably the more
important, since you do have the Nine Mile crossing to deal with to get there.
Borup: Brad, I'm a little confused on the parcels -- the dotted roads that you're
indicating there are present, those not on the subject property; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Borup: Okay. So the little -- the temporary turn-arounds --
Hawkins-Clark: See, these are 2 separate -- separate lots right now that are not a part
of the application.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 89
Hawkins-Clark: These 2 here. The church and then a vacant lot that's owned by a San
Francisco company. Then the subject lot. So there are 2 parcels in between where the
road's currently stubbed and where Tramore is.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Just 2 other items that I did talk with Mr. Mannschreck about today. The
one I hit, the landscape common lot, about the no variance should they be able to shift
that building. The parking item, the parking ratio, which was also pointed out in the staff
report, under the Conditional Use Permit section -- now that was item number two on
page 8. We wanted the applicant to address the parking needs. Mr. Mannschreck
indicated that on a couple of their previous completed projects that they actually have
less parking ratio than they do here. It seems to be adequate. You know, they
essentially met the ordinance, but we leave these cases where there could be some
leeway really -- you know, if they have experience with projects and I guess staff is
comfortable with what they have proposed at this point. I think that's all I have.
Borup: Any questions for staff? Did the applicant ask for any variance on the separate
lot landscaping along Pine?
Hawkins-Clark: No.
Borup: At all? Okay. I guess my only comment was I had -- I certainly agree with what
-- the intent of that, at least from what I understand. I think the intent is that probably
got a lot of projects, you have multiple tenants or multiple owners and it makes sense to
have it a single lot.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: I'm not sure if it applies to the same situation where one lot, one owner, one use.
Hawkins-Clark: I would agree, Chairman. It is the ordinance if it's a subdivision and
this is a subdivision. So that's the reason that we had it in there.
Borup: Okay. The applicant would need to ask for a variance?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Or would handle that if they -- okay. Thank you. The applicant's here ready for a
presentation.
Mannschreck: Mr. Borup, Members of the Commission, Tom Mannschreck with
Thomas Development, 413 W. Idaho in Boise. I'll try to be extremely brief given the hour
and thank you for your patience. I'm simply going to, I think, address the conditions of
approval that --
Borup: Please.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 90
Mannschreck: -- to take another look at. I'm going to pass around if I can a picture of a
very similar senior affordable community that we finished about 9 months ago in
Caldwell. It is at the intersection of Tenth Avenue south of Ustick. I believe Mr. Clark
and some others perhaps from the city went over to look at it. Tramore will be our 7th
senior affordable community. We are in Twin, Jerome, Nampa, Caldwell, Lewiston – 3
in Nampa, I guess, so some of what we have done is very much based on experience
in going in and talking to residents and those of you that know people who are 75, 80,
85 years old, they are generally fairly willing to both share their time and share their
opinion. We do spend a number of hours with our residents, both people on my staff
and the property management company, to ask what we have done right or what we
could do better the next time out. One of the things that we have done in this multi-
story building is create a lot more interior open space. The hallways are all on the
inside of the building, rather than outside. We have handrails that are very wide. We
can have two wheelchairs pass very easily and when we built our first multi-story
building we thought -- which, by the way, they have elevators -- we thought this may not
be such a terrific idea. The site really dictated we did that. It turns out it's terrific. These
people like to go up and down stairs for exercise and the elevator doesn't get used
hardly at all. A couple of things on the site itself. The -- and that really does not do it
any justice. Sorry. The common lot -- it seems to me that certainly, if I was -- for
example, Mr. O'Neill here with a 60 or 100 or 200 unit single family subdivision, it
doesn't make sense for this Commission to force a common lot and the homeowners
maintain perimeters or a barrier. This is a 10 acre parcel that's been -- that was platted
about 30 years ago and it's all zoned office and we are basically chopping it in half and
creating a flag lot. It seems to me in a commercial application that there is a bit of a
disconnect, because what we are really saying is the setback isn't 20 feet, it's 40 feet,
because there is a 20 foot common lot on Pine Street and then set back another 20 feet
we are saying in this development that the setback is 40 feet, so we would propose --
and if the ordinance requires the common lot we would propose to either do the
landscape easement or accept staff's offer to support a variance. The reason -- if we
could go back to the site plan there for the -- the reason we wouldn't shave or move the
building back -- and, believe me, we have tried this, is you can't simply move it back,
you have to rotate it and you rotate it counterclockwise and with all due respect to the
police chief, we very much tried and the representations were made at the
neighborhood meeting we had, that three people attended, and the representations to
the Sunnybrook people in the site plan is we wanted to sort of adopt a new urbanism,
and site planning philosophy, put the building between -- put the parking behind the
building and we could easily put that around and make it look like a K-Mart and have all
the asphalt out in front and the building way in the back. If you start to rotate the
building, you start to expose vast amounts of the parking, because you to have rotate it
clockwise and ten or 15 feet doesn't sound like very much, but to pull that back and
also honor the setback on the east property line, you really crack that thing around a lot
and you have a huge new vista on the west side of the property that exposes that
parking. So we would –
Borup: Do you need to rotate or can you just change the angle on the one building?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 91
Mannschreck: You have to rotate because of the -- because of the John Anderson
setback on the Nine Mile Drain and –
Borup: I'm talking just take your upper building and just move it down and the southern
building stay where it's at.
Mannschreck: Commissioner Borup, it's the same building. You can move them on a
disconnected basis. That center piece of the wing is the community area where the
kitchen and the library and the exercise room and the laundry and all that stuff is. You
can't break it apart.
Borup: Well, not once the building is built, but you can design it so it's changed.
Mannschreck: Well, it's more complicated than that. To break that angle -- I tried to
make it a 90 degree angle and it's so –
Borup: Well, I'm not talking about a 90, I'm talking, you know, another 20 degrees or
whatever.
Mannschreck: Well, I guess my point is that staff has offered, I think, to support a
variance. I'm comfortable with the 20 foot setback. I'd like to keep the parking hid and
I'd either like to do the 20 foot landscaping or an easement or a variance and not
monkey with the site plan. Condition number six on the plat talks about curb, gutter,
and sidewalk in a private versus public lot kind of a schism. We have proposed to the
highway district to construct this as a private street. Again, it's a two lot subdivision. So
-- and I will get to the location on this street in a bit, but sufficient it to say the highway
district now has their tape measure working properly and we can leave the access road
on the left side and we will address that in a bit. So we would like to not have to curb,
gutter, and sidewalk both sides of that -- that private road and would maintain it as a
private road and the bridge would be handled in that fashion as well. Item number 8
relative to the staff, if you do the street side planning on the property that we don't own.
Next one back, please. Yes. The property that we own -- these right here. So the dots
-- the dotted lines on the site plan are on property that we have neither any ownership
interest in nor any present intent to develop. For a couple of reasons, in addition to the
lengthy discussion you just had on Woodbridge on emergency vehicle access and not
encouraging multiple locations, we are not in favor of, number one, site planning on
somebody else's property and, number two, putting cul-de-sacs at terminus points on
our property for streets that we have no idea whether they will ever be there, if at all.
Our proposal -- and, by the way, we didn't see any staff comments relative to concerns
about a secondary versus emergency vehicle access. Our proposal would be if
requested to grass creek from the back of our existing parking lot to our property line
and bollard, if need be, for a connection as it might need it. My suspicion, having been
in this business for 15 years, is that those next 2 pieces will not develop as single family
subdivisions. I believe one is zoned L-O, is it not, Brad, and the pricing on L-O property
will not support single family subdivisions, so we are drawing streets in presuming a
land use that is very unlikely to occur. So I would be willing as a modified condition --
as a modification on number 8 to provide a fire department approved through the back
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 92
of our existing parking lot as designed, emergency vehicle access, should that
development -- the fire department, in conjunction with the development to the east of
us there are no present plans, want that access. Conditional use parking requirement,
I'll ask Pat Doby, our traffic engineer, to address that. We did submit a traffic study to
the city with our plat and conditional use application. I will tell you from personal
experience owning a number of these for a number of years, that parking on one to one
is plenty sufficient. We will have 72 units, we will probably have 90 people living there,
maybe, and of those 90 people I would guess less than half will drive. So in
development after development we have had one to one or maybe a little more than
that and there is always -- even on Mother's Day there is plenty of parking. So we are
really talking about trading asphalt for landscaping and I would rather buy landscaping
any day of the week, rather than asphalt. Mr. Doby can address the highway district's
confusion I think is the best way and most delicate way to put it on where the property
lines were and they have agreed as of today to leave the street access on the west side
of the property as we have designed it all along. The police department's concerns on
visibility, I guess I would say that we are very big fans of indirect outside lighting. We
feel that safety in our private communities is -- certainly in our senior communities is
one of the reasons that people rent from us, just as Mr. Centers suggested in our
previous application, a security camera might be a good idea. We feel that lighting and
safety and security are very important to our seniors. The doors all have key locks on
them and things like that. So we would certainly be happy to meet with the police chief
and maybe address any specific lighting concerns, but flipping the side and putting the
parking in front is something that we just -- we feel very strongly that we don't want to
do. I think with those comments I would stand for questions and ask Mr. Doby to come
up.
Nary: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Nary.
Nary: I guess just one question. I understand what you were saying, Mr. Mannschreck,
about the lack of driving by a lot of the residents in the community, but are your -- is
your experience in other communities in places where there is more of a bus system
and more of an ability to get around? I just don't know how these folks are going to --
they are not anywhere near a store. Most of the people aren't going to walk.
Mannschreck: That's correct.
Nary: So I'm not sure how they are going to get out and about to get things. I know a
lot of people out there driving are 85 years old, so I --
Mannschreck: Commissioner Nary, Members of the Commission, our experience in
other senior communities is family members come to pick people up. Those that can
drive will take the person that lives across the street and, you know, the cities and
counties in which we were located, Lewiston, Caldwell, Jerome, Twin Falls, they are not
mass transit towns. The point is very well taken, but the -- when you develop senior
communities, people move in fairly slowly. At least that is much slower than you have in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 93
family communities, but the move out is -- they stay. We have a community director
and we do, you know, bingo and they do quilting and we will do a scrapbook during the
course of construction and you can get a picture taken in front of your apartment as to
what it looked like when it was being framed. They develop a very strong sense of
community and the car pool.
Nary: Okay.
Centers: Was your concern the parking stalls?
Nary: Well, I mean I would agree that probably there isn't a lot of driving, but I just want
to make sure that we are not going to have a parking issue. But I figured without having
any real mass transit for a lot of access, there may be more driving, but they --
Mannschreck: If we were proposing a family community I would be at 2 to one plus on
parking. Absolutely.
Centers: I concur with what he said. My mother lived in a facility just about like this and
very few of them have cars and people come and pick them up and everything you said
was just about what --
Mannschreck: They really develop a sense of community. It's very nice.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Any other questions?
Norton: I just have one question and this might be for a question. Isn't it within walking
distance to our senior center -- senior -- is it three or four blocks or longer than that?
Oh, longer than 3 or 4 blocks?
Berg: It's a little bit longer than that, Commissioner Norton. The senior center also has
a new van that they just got from a grant from funds from the city and the Chamber of
Commerce and ITD, so that could be something settled into lunch in the staff report.
Mannschreck: As we move through the course of construction and start pre-leasing,
our marketing folks will go to the senior center and will bring people over and on the
same basis when the development is ready for tours to start to show them what we are
doing and we'll sponsor a lunch over there and things like that.
Berg: That's 11th Street. The senior center is on like 3rd -- 2nd or 3rd?
Nary: It's on West 2nd or West 3rd or something like that. So it's a pretty good walk.
Yes. Broadway and 3rd.
Norton: It's a long walk.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 94
Borup: I thought it was also an interesting comment on the -- and I'm very much an
advocate of interconnectivity in this type of project. I'm not seeing a lot of benefit tying
into Idaho, but at this point you do not anything specifically planned for the southern lot;
is that correct?
Centers: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, we don't own the southern lot.
Our sole interest is in the northern lot on developing the senior apartments.
Borup: Okay. I thought this was a -- so you --
Mannschreck: It was a joint application and the owner of the -- we are buying -- we
bought the northerly lot and when they presented the application they reviewed the
conditions of approval.
Borup: Okay. Well, I think that answers that. I guess just maybe for future reference, I
think it would be rather beneficial to have Broadway tie in just, again, for emergency -- a
real emergency access and the traffic --
Mannschreck: I guess the better case is to tie Broadway than it is Idaho, probably.
Borup: Right. But that's what I'm thinking. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Mannschreck: You bet. Thank you.
Borup: Did you say Mr. Doby had some -- do any of the Commissioners have a
concern on the issues of the -- other than we had the one staff comment that --
Centers: Well, the ACHD, the staff recommended delaying it, so --
Mannschreck: Well, Mr. Doby met with ACHD and after some challenges -- and I'm not
a mathematician, with either the wheel or the tape measure, we finally I think today got
them to understand where our property lines were, which I think was a challenge, and
they have agreed to leave the driving -- the ingress and egress on the west side. He
can speak to that in 30 seconds, I think.
Borup: Okay.
Doby: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, Pat Doby, 7077 Hearthstone Drive. The
ACHD staff was of the opinion that this site is about 130 feet west of where it's really
located. If you read the staff report in Fact and Finding F, it mentions that it's only 20
feet away from the driveway going into Sunbridge. In fact, it's 150 away from that
driveway. Once I explained to them exactly where the property was they realized that
they didn't have a problem with this. There is no conflict with their acceptable criteria.
Centers: Do you have anything in writing?
Doby: I'm sorry.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 95
Centers: Did you get anything in writing from them?
Doby: No. But we will be going to the ACHD Commissioners and it will be resolved at
that time.
Mannschreck: Mr. Centers, we would accept a condition of the initial improvement
subject to ACHD approving the ingress and egress as shown on the plat.
Doby: If you have any other questions I would be happy to answer them. These are
very low traffic generators. I have worked on a number of these projects. There has
been studies that have been done by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the
Urban Land Institute. They both identified a parking ratio of one space per unit as being
more than adequate. We are proposing 1.5 spaces per unit, there is quite a bit of
margin.
Borup: 1.5 did you say?
Doby: Approximately 1.5. That frees up about 10,000 square foot of additional
landscape area. That's a real benefit, rather than an the area all asphalt.
Borup: It was mentioned that you could put some basketball courts in there, maybe.
Any other questions from --
Centers: Shuffle board.
Borup: Any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify in
this application? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing.
Norton: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'm highly in favor of a project like this, I guess, because I have
experienced it with my mother at one time and I think there is a big need in Meridian.
You know, the 3 story I thought at first -- and then, you know, you addressed that and
probably perfect. I would like the staff to tell us -- I think the Commission pretty much
agrees with me. I'm confused here. I'd like the staff to tell us what they can live with
after Mr. Mannschreck addressed some of the concerns. Mainly the highway district.
Are we okay with that and we can push it on to Council? You can apply for the
variance, instead of the dedicated lot?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 96
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers, I guess the one thing I didn't catch was the
bridge. The bridge issue. In terms of the timing of --
Mannschreck: Mr. Clark, Members of the Commission, as I read condition number 9, I
believe it is, there is an alternative method of proposing the bridge be constructed and
it's tied to development on the southerly lot, as I read the condition in that final note.
Hawkins-Clark: That's fine.
Nary: So the reference -- seven of the site specific requirement.
Mannschreck: Condition 7 is fine for the applicant, yes.
Norton: I guess I had some other particulars. Brad, what about going up one, number
6, since it's going to be a private road you would not require curb and gutters and
sidewalks? Page 4. So we could strike number 6?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Norton, I -- you know, these private roads are a little bit
unclear in our ordinance and we always struggle with these when they come up, but it's
-- they are really not even proposing a private road, as I understand it. Essentially at
this point, you know, it's a driveway. It's a sharedaccess driveway into there and the
shared access is taken care of on the plat, you know, with the uncertainties of how that
south lot is going to develop, I guess at least on one side, I guess, we just feel that
some kind of, you know, decent sidewalk to get across there and get up to Pine is a
good idea. I mean some people are going to walk, regardless of what the southerly lot
develops as, you know, they want to get across that.
Borup: The last page I have does show a sidewalk along the east side. Is that correct?
It doesn't show on the site plan, but it does shows on the landscape plan. The site plan
shows sidewalks, but not along the road, so I'm not sure which is -- they are both
different. Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, yes, I guess on number 6 there.
Centers: Page 4?
Hawkins-Clark: Page 4. Right. We have agreement that there could be a modification
there to say -- on the third line that curb, gutter, could be eliminated. It would just say
shall revise the plat to include the landscaping on the west side of the lot and curb,
gutter, and sidewalk on the east side of the lot.
Borup: Okay. So is that road not going to be developed out the full width?
Hawkins-Clark: No. It would be. It's just essentially they would just, you know, run
their drainage off the west side into the landscaped area. But it's going to be full width
to their property line, which is, you know, the -- on the north side of the drain.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 97
Borup: So I'm not understanding why no curb and gutter.
Hawkins-Clark: You know, it's one of those design issues. If you want to essentially
leave it up to work with Public Works at the time of --
Borup: So when that lot to the west develops that's when the curb and gutter would go
in?
Hawkins-Clark: The lot to the west is developed.
Borup: That's the Sunbridge?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: Just going on to clarify number eight on page five, does there need to be any
change to that language?
Nary: It seems like that I had heard the applicant say is that they would be willing to
include language that they would provide fire department emergency access as
needed.
Borup: They were talking a grass creek emergency access?
Nary: Right.
Borup: Not a regular roadway.
Nary: Right. I don't know whether we need to amend that or add that. This just gives
an option in here how to do this and that's just the different options. That might seem
like either way, whether we are revising it or just adding it -- adding that language into
that would be sufficient.
Shreeve: Now are you also suggesting -- right. Just the secondary access, not
necessarily make provisions for -- that would be difficult.
Nary: Well, I think what he had asked for was -- or what he had suggested was that
emergency access as needed, as approved by the fire department. So that would be
something they would build now --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Nary: -- west of that property -- or east of that property is just a vacant lot anyway. If it
was needed in the future, then they could provide that.
Norton: So add it or --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 98
Nary: Is that right?
Hawkins-Clark: I think it's essentially they are just preserving it, they are not going to
slap a big permanent storage shed that's 500 square feet right there.
Nary: We could just add it to this provision --
Hawkins-Clark: Could just add it.
Nary: Just increases his options.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Nary: Yes.
Norton: Then I think the only other change that I can see would be on page 8,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2, regarding the number of parking stalls.
Hawkins-Clark: Actually, Commissioner Norton, I think as it reads it doesn't actually
require them to add any.
Centers: Right. The last line says --
Norton: So that number 2 is okay?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Norton: The way it is?
Hawkins-Clark: For staff it is.
Norton: Okay. Thanks. Are there any other changes?
Nary: The only other change or I guess -- in the motion would be simply that on page 9
CUP recommendation would be that the applicant would provide written approval from
ACHD in regards to the driveway prior to going to City Council.
Borup: Brad, a clarification. I'm still -- do we need anything else? I'm still going back to
this curb gutter thing on entrance. You said there would be landscaping?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Chairman Borup, that's correct.
Borup: My landscaping plan does not show any.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 99
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. We are asking for -- at this point -- the way that their
site plan is shown they are just -- they would just run asphalt to their west property line
more or less.
Borup: Right. Where is the landscaping if they landscape their property line?
Hawkins-Clark: The landscape plan did not show any landscaping along that west
boundary. We are asking for it.
Borup: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Just 5 feet.
Borup: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: I mean just essentially enough. Right?
Borup: Okay. I just wanted clarification on that.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. So then -- I think there is agreement about the landscaping strip
being added along that driveway on the west side. I guess the -- is that clarified for you
or was the only other issue --
Borup: I guess if it wasn't for me. I may be slow. It is now. Okay. Okay. I feel fine
about that. I was concerned about no curb and gutter, but it can look nicer without curb
and gutter with some nice landscaping.
Hawkins-Clark: It could.
Borup: That they have at this place quite a bit.
Norton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Norton.
Norton: I'm going to make a stab at a motion.
Borup: Okay.
Norton: With the help of the fellow Commissioners, can you clear me up on things I
make a mistake on? I'd like to approve -- I'd like to move to approve -- to recommend
approval to the City Council for PFP 01-006, request for Preliminary/Final Plat approval
of two building lots on 10 acres in an L-O zone for Tramore Subdivision by Thomas
Development south of West Pine Avenue, east of North Linder, to include all staff
comments with the following changes: On page 3 of the October 31st
letter from staff,
number one, that the applicant will give the staff a revised landscape plan. Number 2--
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 100
what do we do about the common lot? Leave the common lot? Oh, I'm sorry. For
number 2 he would -- the applicant would apply for a variance.
Borup: Right. He would do that at City Council.
Nary: Number 6.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 101
Norton: Number 6-- third line, number 6, applicant shall revise the preliminary plat to
include landscaping.
Nary: Then maybe, Commissioner Norton, that we put 5 foot of landscaping on the
west side of the lot.
Norton: 5 feet of landscaping on the west side of the lot with curb and gutter on the
east side.
Freckleton: And sidewalk.
Borup: And sidewalk.
Norton: And sidewalk. Number 8 on page 5 to add the words of the extra sentence
saying emergency access as needed -- to provide emergency access as needed.
Nary: Maybe, Commissioner Norton, if we could also put that it be approved by the fire
department for the emergency access, so it's clear that the fire department has to
approve that, not just the applicant.
Norton: As approved by the fire department. I think that's it on this one.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose one more.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Okay. It's on the next one. Sorry.
Borup: Pardon?
Freckleton: It's on the next one.
Borup: Yes. We are just on the Preliminary/Final Plat approval.
Centers: Number 7, page 4, when constructed -- I mean there was discussion, but is
that -- Brad, are we okay there?
Nary: Where?
Centers: Number 7, page 4.
Borup: That's on the conditional use. We are okay with that.
Centers: We are okay. Just as written.
Borup: You're getting into the next -- number 7. You said page 7?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 102
Centers: No. Page 4.
Norton: No. Page 4.
Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. I reversed that.
Norton: I think he's right. That the bridge would be installed with the development of
the south lot.
Centers: Yes. They are okay as written, so with staff comments.
Norton: Okay.
Nary: Maybe, Commissioner Norton, in looking at page seven on the Preliminary/Final
Plat recommendation, probably the same comments that we would need to make on
the conditional use, that that -- the applicant will provide a written approval from Ada
County Highway District in regard to the location of the driveway on the west boundary.
You said they have already got that, but it has that same comment and
recommendation that they do so it's just clear that they have to provide that before the
City Council.
Norton: Did our attorney get that?
Swartley: Yes.
Centers: But that was on the next --
Norton: Any other additions to the motion?
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Item No. 11.
Norton: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a recommendation -- motion to City Council to
approve CUP 01-036, request for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 72
unit wood frame, 3 story, senior center complex in an L-O zone for proposed Tramore
Senior Community by Thomas Development, south of West Pine Avenue and east of
Linder, to include all staff comments, with the change on the bottom of page 9, to keep
the first sentence, strike from however on the way down, and include the word:
Applicant will prove approval from ACHD before going to City Council.
Nary: Bruce had a --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 103
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'd like to propose a change to
site specific requirement number 2 on page 8. Would propose to strike the word may at
the second to the last sentence.
Norton: Council Commission shall?
Freckleton: Just put Council Commission allows --
Norton: Allows.
Freckleton: -- 111 stalls as deemed sufficient. So strike may and --
Norton: A reduction in --
Freckleton: A reduction. Yes.
Centers: It should say to 111 stalls, shouldn't it? Isn't that what they are going to have?
May allow a reduction to 111 stalls.
Borup: Well, the ordinance calls for 144 and he's saying they allowed a reduction from
the 144 to 111 is the --
Freckleton: Basically what we are wanting to say is 111 is sufficient. In the nutshell.
Norton: As long as our attorney gets that. Did you get it?
Swartley: I got it.
Norton: Okay. That's it.
Centers: He's home already.
Nary: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Before we close the Public Hearing -- as you know, I did not participate in the
Public Hearing No. 9 on the original agenda, but I have a comment that I'd like to make
for the record. Some of this was addressed, but, you know, the zone allows public
schools permitted in an R-4 zone, but when the city designated permitted uses
alternative schools were not even thought of, were not even in existence, and I'm sure
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 15, 2001
Page 104
that was many years ago. Traditional schools were thought of at the time, I'm sure. As
the staff commented in their staff comments, certainly the school district knew they
would have objections. They knew that. They should have talked to the neighborhood
in advance. They did not. They didn't simply -- they simply bought the property,
thinking they would push it through the neighborhood. Shame on the Meridian School
District. This is America, ladies and gentlemen. A permitted use in a certain zone
should not be cause to ignore the voices of the neighbors and citizens. I would think
that the applicant would not want to locate at a location with this many unfriendly
neighbors, believed they were continuing with the application just to simply not look bad
after knowing they probably shouldn't have bought it and knowing they should have
talked to the neighbors in advance and then either proceed or back away. Instead, they
elected to spend I heard 80 to 110 thousand dollars of the taxpayer's money. As
Commissioner Nary mentioned, remember this when you elect your school board
members. Thanks for your time.
Borup: Thank you. I'd like to thank the Commissioners for staying late this evening.
We were able to get through the whole agenda. I appreciate the extra effort. Do we
have a motion to adjourn?
Nary: Move to adjourn.
Centers: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:39 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK