2002 12-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 5, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, December 5, 2002 by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Michael
Rohm, and Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon Smith,
Jessica Johnson, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers
X Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm
X Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to call to order our regular
scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for December 5th
and start with the roll call of Commissioners.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of November 21, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item on the agenda, unless any Commissioners had any changes to
the agenda that's outlined, it would be approval of minutes for November 21st
.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I have a comment on those. On Page 2, on the vote on the minutes of the
previous meeting where it says motion carried, the vote was actually two ayes, one
abstain, and one absent. The statement by me that appears below Item 12, actually
applies to that. I abstained from voting because I was not at the previous meeting.
Borup: Oh. Okay. That should move up and change that, too.
Zaremba: Just to make that vote accurate. That's my only change.
Borup: Okay. So noted.
Centers: Would you like to move to approve on that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 2 of 74
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approved the minutes of the meeting of November
21st
as amended.
Mathes: Second.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second all in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Tabled Public Hearing from November 21, 2002: CUP 02-033
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to open a retail shop for children’s
gently used clothing, toys, etc. in an O-T zone for Johann and Rachael
Kretzschmar by Johann and Rachael Kretzschmar – 124 East Pine
Street:
Borup: The first item on the agenda is a Tabled Public Hearing, tabled from our
November 21st
meeting, CUP 02-033, request for a Conditional Use Permit to open an
retail shop for children's used clothing in an O-T zone and we'd like to open this hearing
and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Just to refresh
your memory, this was tabled from the November 21st
meeting because of a problem
with the noticing. The project has been noticed properly since then. We have a
notarized statement from the applicant stating that it was posted on November 26th
for
this meeting so you should have a staff report dated November 14th
for this project. It is
for a used clothing store in the current Old Town zoning district. You can see on the
wall screen a vicinity map with the subject property outlined in black. Here is an aerial
photo of that same property showing you the character of the surrounding uses,
basically residential in nature, and as with many places in Old Town, going through the
conversion process to nonresidential uses. Here are some existing site photos, one
from the alley, one from the front and their site plan. Okay. The basic issue on this one
-- if you go to Page 2 of the staff report, it is the parking situation. They are basically
proposing two parking spaces, a handicapped parking space in the existing driveway
and a staff parking space in the existing garage. There is no other, you know, parking
provided on the site, which is technically out of compliance with the City's Off-Street
Parking Ordinance. There are some calculations provided there, but the gist is that
they don't meet it. At the same time, we realize a couple of things. One, the city does
own a parking lot that's available for public parking on the other side of Pine Street.
Also, Pine Street does allow for on street parking in front of the business. Also, that
putting a parking lot in the front of this building would be different than the character that
we are trying to move towards in the Old Town District. We have a situation where the
ordinance that would require that parking conflicts with some of our goals and the
realities of that area. The solution to that would be a Variance application that Council
would have to approve. We would suggest that if other issues are resolved tonight, that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 3 of 74
the applicant simply submits a Variance application to accompany this Conditional Use
Permit to the City Council. In that Variance, we would also have them address the
landscaping issues. The only landscaping issue there is the -- if you read -- take the
strict reading of the buffers between the land uses section of that Landscape
Ordinance, a buffer would be required between this property and the adjacent
properties that remain residential. In order to address that, we have just suggested that
they include both the parking and the landscape buffers as a Variance request to the
City Council. We have some fairly basic site requirements and our recommendation is
for approval of this project if the Variance is applied for and granted by City Council.
With that I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Steve, could you put the aerial back up and maybe show
where the city parking lot is? Maybe that's better.
Siddoway: Yes. It doesn't show up on the aerial, because it's across the street. Okay.
This is the Generations Plaza and the Generations Plaza building sits here. Behind it is
a parking lot for the building itself and then the city parking lot is right adjacent to it,
either on this lot or that lot. I'm not sure which one, but one of those two lots contains
the city's parking lot.
Centers: Well, I guess it would be a City Council decision on the Variance, but is there
any thought to the precedence given to these people using the city parking lot and then
other adjacent businesses or owners wanting to use it, too?
Siddoway: I think that we would support it, simply because our direction through the
city and the downtown revitalization -- Meridian Development Corporation, is to, in the
future, have the -- have that group provide structured parking for businesses, so that we
can avoid having masses of on-street -- or not on-street, off-street parking lots through
Old Town, to try and get more of an urban feel without continuous parking lots.
Centers: Well, I was just wondering about the precedence that's being set. Anyway --
Siddoway: If it were anywhere other than Old Town, we would not be in favor of it.
Zaremba: Steve, has any survey been done of how full that parking lot is now?
Siddoway: No. One thing that needs to happen for Old Town as a whole is a parking
study to determine, you know, throughout the area what parking lots are available, but
that has not been done.
Zaremba: Meridian Development Corporation probably would do that survey, I think.
Siddoway: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 4 of 74
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Anything else? Is there anything the applicant would like to add? Any
Commissioners have any questions for the applicant?
Zaremba: Just to know if they are willing to apply for the Variances that are being
asked for. Would you testify to that, please?
Borup: State your name and address.
Kretzschmar: Johann Kretzschmar, 9980 Rose Meadows Drive, Boise, Idaho. At this
time, we are willing to apply for the Variance for the parking and the landscaping. We
have already gone to Ada County with the alley situation, with the paving, and what not.
Zaremba: How was that resolved?
Kretzschmar: For the amount of traffic that the business is going to -- that they
anticipate will bring, that they feel that we will not have to pave at this time. There
wouldn't be enough traffic. Hopefully, the business will bring in some business, but at
this point they feel that, again, we will not have to pave the alley.
Zaremba: Congratulations. I don't know if you know how unusual it is for ACHD to
change their mind.
Kretzschmar: We are very luck. Feel fortunate there.
Borup: Anything else?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Well -- and that was in the staff report from the ACHD. I
think they indicated -- I forget the reason for the waiver. I had a couple questions. Did
you read the site-specific requirements by the staff?
Kretzschmar: Yes.
Centers: And specifically regarding the landscaping for the property, which shall be
continuously maintained?
Kretzschmar: Yes.
Centers: Okay. My main concern was the -- all the exterior lighting and the neighbors.
This is kind of common verbiage whether attached to the building or located within the
parking lot, shall be down-shielded. Does the house have porch lights now and that
type of thing or exterior lights?
Kretzschmar: There are a couple exterior lights in the front right under where that tree
is and then there is one in the back by the garage.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 5 of 74
Centers: Do you intend to change them?
Kretzschmar: No. What we intended to do was some low profile yard-type light going
down the sidewalk, maybe a small light shining against the sign and which would be
turned off when the business closed at night.
Centers: Well, the other lights should be down-shielded.
Kretzschmar: Yes.
Centers: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Kretzschmar: Anything else?
Borup: Thank you.
Kretzschmar: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Centers: I guess I would move to close the Public Hearing, if we have no one else
here.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. We did not have anyone sign up on the sheet.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, that was my main concern, if we had neighbors that were here,
and I'm sure they were noticed and it wasn't properly noticed the first time, they were
this time. There are no objections and staff recommends approval so I would support
that. Moving right along, I would move that we recommend approval to the City Council
for Item 4, which was the Tabled Public Hearing from November 21st
. CUP 02-033,
request for a CUP to open a retail shop for children's gently used clothing, toys, et
cetera, in an O-T zone for Johann and Rachael Kretzschmar by Johann and Rachael
Kretzschmar -- and if I abused that last name, I apologize.
Zaremba: Actually, the first name is Johann.
Centers: Including all staff comments and, in particular, where the applicant has agreed
to apply for a Variance prior to City Council, for the landscaping and the parking.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 6 of 74
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Public Hearing: MI 02-009 Request for adjustment of area of impact
between the cities of Meridian and Boise in an RUT zone for Winston
Moore by Winston Moore – northwest corner of North Eagle Road and
East Ustick Road:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing MI 02-009, a request for adjustment of the area
of impact between the cities of Meridian and Boise in an RUT zone for Winston Moore,
located at the northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road. I'd like to
open this Public Hearing at this time and, again, start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject
property is along Eagle Road north of Ustick outlined in black there. That parcel is
currently in the Boise area of impact. This miscellaneous application is to modify our
area of impact to allow this parcel to come into the City of Meridian's area of impact. I
guess that's the only slide I have. You should have a letter from Tye A. Ketlinski. I was
told he's in the audience tonight and I'm going to allow him to address the issues in his
letter. I would simply point out you do not have a staff report on this one, if you're
searching for it. This issue has been before the Meridian City Council, as well as the
City of Boise's City Council, and has basically received approval -- tentative approval
from each body. Specifically, they went before the City of Boise in February of 2001,
just under two years ago now. It was presented to them. We do have a letter from
Mayor Coles on Boise letterhead basically stating that they have reviewed the request
and are in agreement with it. At that time, the city was unwilling to provide -- the City of
Meridian was unwilling to provide a will-serve letter. As of September of this year, there
was a letter dated September 9th
from Mayor Corrie of the City of Meridian stating that
we will agree to serve that property with city services. Basically, both cities are in
agreement at this point with this -- with the inclusion of this parcel into Meridian area of
impact and staff recommends approval of the application. I will stand for any questions.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Steve, basically, what we are saying is that we will serve it with
services, if and when we can annex it and it becomes contiguous to another city
property?
Siddoway: That is correct. I'm going to let Bruce address that one.
Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, the City of Meridian
is in the process of constructing the South Slough Sewer Trunk. That trunk line will be
bringing sewer out onto Ustick Road and right across the frontage of Mr. Moore's
property. He owns this property as well. Our sewer and water -- we have water down
Ustick Road already. Sewer will be going right in front and so services will be able to be
provided from Ustick Road. As far as the boundary lines -- the existing boundary lines,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 7 of 74
Summerfield Subdivision is in this area right here. There is a proposed development
here. We have not had the application formally approved. There are other properties in
the neighborhood around here that have expressed interest in annexation as soon as
the route of annexation opens up. This property on the corner is the Caven parcel that
you heard several months ago so it's the logical progression of the city out into this
corner.
Centers: Yes. Bruce, wasn't this annexed because of being contiguous across the
street with Wal-Mart? I remember that. What was this?
Zaremba: This is by Summers Funeral Home.
Centers: Okay. Okay. Not to steal Mr. Ketlinski's thunder, but all we are deciding
tonight is that, yes, we will agree to provide services, because we will have them
available, if and when it's annexed. It would have to be contiguous to be annexed.
Some of the things in Mr. Ketlinski's letter can't be dealt with at this time. True?
Siddoway: That's true more specifically, this application tonight -- sorry, Bruce. This
application tonight is to amend the area of impact.
Centers: Right. Right.
Siddoway: And many of the issues in the letter would be dealt with upon an actual
development application on the property.
Centers: And annexation and --
Borup: Annexation and zoning and a Development Plan.
Centers: Right. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Okay. Anything else? Would the applicant like to make any additional
presentation?
Seel: Good evening. Jonathan Seel, 600 North Steelhead in Boise, Idaho. W.H.
Moore Company. For what it's worth, I will stick this up here. That depicts the area that
Mr. Moore owns. Something else, first that I'd like to pass out I think it depicts this a
little bit better. This is the actual area of impact that we are talking about. It's a little bit
smaller. What I just wanted to mention, I have given you an eight and a half by eleven -
- you can see the crosshatched area is the actual area we are talking about. The issue,
as I understand it tonight, is simply to modify the area of impact to include this land
within the City of Meridian or within the Meridian impact area and take it out of Boise.
As Steve says, back in, I believe, 2001 City Council for Boise and Mayor Coles said it
was a fair and reasonable request. We have since then met in a renegotiation meeting
with Ada County and the City Council for Meridian and they feel it's reasonable. What
has already been addressed is we have been provided with a will-serve letter, which
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 8 of 74
says at the time that services are available we will have that. That's really, in my
understanding, not an issue tonight and we will also agree to consent to annexation at
the time it is available so we will not oppose it. Tonight we are simply here just to -- as
you can see, this area right approximately here, this is Eagle Road, this is Ustick, Mr.
Moore owns this land right here kind of in this purple area and it's this area right here
that is currently within the City of Boise that we are talking about. Any further work with
this as far as the annexation and rezone, we will come back for an application at that
point. Hopefully, that clears that up so I'm glad to answer any questions.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Seel?
Zaremba: I'm just assuming the point is to unify the property and deal with one city.
Seel: Exactly. We have got 58 acres and it's a little difficult to have a project in there
where part of it might be within the City of Boise, and part of it's in the City of Meridian.
Where do you stop sewer for one and start sewer for another, police, fire, and the
various other things. Yes, we feel that this would be the most beneficial all the way
around and, obviously, Boise feels it makes the most sense, too. We had a hearing and
that hearing with the City of Boise P&Z formally was set for next Monday, December 9th
.
Unfortunately, we did not advertise this within the two-week period, so there was
concern about that. It's now been postponed until January 13th
. It will be heard on
January 13th
in front of P&Z and go on to City Council, so --
Centers: That's really the biggie. They have got to release it. I think it's a real plus for
us, but that's your main hurdle, I suspect.
Seel: Well, Commissioner Centers, I don't think it's really a hurdle at this point. I think
they have indicated to us that -- as they say in the letter, it's fair and reasonable is the
term they use. We don't see any opposition. I have talked to Wayne Gibbs about it,
too, and no one has at this point opposed it. In fact, my verbal communications with the
city so far is they don't -- there has not been any opposition. Yes, formally, it hasn't, but
I think if you're a betting man, I think it's going to go through.
Centers: Of course, the letter is dated almost two years ago.
Seel: Yes but we have talked to them and resubmitted and since then we have talked
to them and they are aware of the reason why it was postponed. They are still in
support of it. Thank you very much.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? If so, come forward at
this time. Now is the time.
Ketlinski: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Mr. Attorney, I'm Tye Ketlinski. I wrote the
letter.
Borup: You might need to get the mike up a little closer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 9 of 74
Ketlinski: I'm Tye Ketlinski, I wrote the letter to the Commission regarding some of the
citizens concerns in the Jasmine Homeowners Association, which is just north of this
parcel. You didn't steal my thunder per se I know that we are not addressing the issue
of what they are going to do with this. Quite frankly, the people that I represent realize
that change is inevitable and I don't think I would want to be in Boise either. With that, I
just wanted to note that my letter I think pretty much explains the concerns. I think
everybody's fright is that their house in a nice area as this, is going to end up with a
Wal-Mart next to it with two trillion watts of candle power flashing into their bedroom
window every night. I just wanted to come, express my concern on behalf of at least
three of the residents of the Jasmine Homeowners Association, and just say that we do
have some concerns about the future of this particular parcel. If there are no questions,
I'll have a seat.
Borup: Any questions?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. I think you're fortunate to have a quality developer and I would
highly recommend that when the development starts, that you have your neighborhood
meetings. We highly encourage that, with the developer, and that's when you do your
talking about, you know, the lights that you mentioned and you get things ironed out.
Ketlinski: With all candors, I did have a conversation today on the telephone with Mr.
Seel --
Centers: Good.
Ketlinski: -- and he explained to me what their -- he was willing to sit down, at least with
the neighborhood association, and talk about what may go on that property.
Borup: And there will be notification both when it comes time for annexation and zoning
and any development, all that would be notified and we -- as Commissioner Centers
said, we want to see on projects of certain sizes, we want to see the neighborhood
meetings. Right now we are encouraging it and soon we are going to be requiring it, I
believe.
Ketlinski: Well, I appreciate that and I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
Zaremba: I would just say I noted as I read through your letter that the homeowners
association is split between the two cities. We would welcome those that are not in
Meridian to try and join Meridian in the same process that we are going through right
here.
Ketlinski: And I think they are considering that, because they want to be in Meridian as
well. Thank you.
Centers: Are they in the City of Boise now, though?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 10 of 74
Ketlinski: I think they are in the area of impact.
Borup: Are they still in Ada County city limits of Boise?
Centers: That's the way I read it.
Borup: That surprises me.
Zaremba: Well, I don't think we will ever get them back if they are actually in the city,
but --
Borup: Okay. Yes. If it's in the city limits, then, I think so. I think it's -- I was assuming
it was just area of impact.
Ketlinski: I think it was three years ago. I'm not sure now. I can't --
Borup: Okay. That's for them to research. Thank you. Do we have anyone else on
this? Okay. Seeing none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval of Item 5 on our agenda, Public
Hearing MI 02-009, request for adjustment of area of impact between the cities of
Meridian and Boise in an RUT zone for Winston Moore by Winston Moore, northwest
corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road, with applicable staff comments.
Mathes: Second.
Zaremba: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 6. Public Hearing: MI 02-011 Request to remove certain parcels in Dunbar
Estates Subdivision from City of Meridian’s area of impact for Packard
Estates Dev., LLC by Packard Estates Dev., LLC – south of East Ustick
Road and west of North Cloverdale Road:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 11 of 74
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing MI 02-011, request to remove certain parcels in
Dunbar Estates Subdivision from the City of Meridian's area of impact for Packard
Estates Development, LLC. They are trying to do just the opposite.
Rohm: That's going to be a little tougher.
Borup: We'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As Chairman
Borup rightly says, this one is just the opposite of what we just went through. It is -- it
also is an area of impact adjustment, but in this case they are requesting that the area
encircled on the screen be allowed to be removed from the City of Meridian area of
impact and go to the City of Boise. It consists of 75.8 acres that would be taken out of
Meridian and given to Boise if it were approved. A lot of the issue and the reason for
this application, as I understand it -- I will let the applicant make his own presentation on
that, but it has to do with the availability of city services. The City of Boise, apparently,
currently has water and sewer in Ustick Road, as well as Cloverdale Road, and a sewer
trunk is being installed in the parcels to the east. The City of Meridian domestic water
supply also exists in Ustick Road and stops about 450 feet shy of Duane Drive, which is
this road right here. Sanitary sewer for this project is still currently west of Eagle Road.
There is a project under way to extend sewer, so that it's available to the east side of
Eagle Road. That project is on schedule to be completed by spring of 2003. You
should have a --
Borup: Go to what point in 2003?
Siddoway: I was just looking to see if I had a better vicinity map. Where it will be at the
end of that project, it doesn't show here, but -- okay. I'm going to let Bruce tell you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the South Slough Sewer
Trunk line that I spoke of with the last application is the same sewer trunk that would
serve this area. That trunk project that is under construction will extend sewer under
Eagle Road -- to the east side of Eagle Road is where the project limits stop. It's
approximately -- unfortunately, the map on the wall doesn't --
Borup: Well, that's fine it stops at Eagle Road, on the east side of Eagle Road.
Freckleton: Correct. We are going to be boring under Eagle Road and then we will
stop on the east side, so --
Borup: That's right there at the South Slough?
Freckleton: Yes.
Borup: Or are they going through -- are they going down the Sough Slough or down the
street to Carol Sub?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 12 of 74
Freckleton: It comes out to -- into Carol Sub and Leslie Drive and will extend out to
Eagle Road at that location.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Bruce, is Wal-Mart being served now?
Freckleton: Wal-Mart?
Borup: Wal-Mart is a mile away.
Freckleton: Wal-Mart is clear down to Fairview. We are a mile north. This is Ustick
Road.
Zaremba: Oh, Ustick. I'm sorry.
Borup: Did you have anything else, Steve?
Siddoway: I would just point out that you should have a staff report on this one hot off
the press, dated today, December 5th
, from Brad Hawkins-Clark and Bruce. The only
things I feel to point out in there -- on the second page of that report, near the bottom, is
a section called application findings. In the Meridian City Code, while it doesn't
specifically address required findings for area of impact changes, it does site three
factors in defining the area of city impact itself. Those three factors are, one, trading
area, two geographic factors, and, three, areas that can reasonably be expected to be
annexed in the future. On the next page, Brad goes through each of those one by one
and the summary of that is there in the middle of Page 3, where two of the above
findings and C can be found in favor the City of Meridian. B, which is the geographic, is
neutral, because it is adjacent to Boise, as well as Meridian. It's right on the edge.
Under the additional considerations it talks, again, about the ability to serve the property
with urban services. The main road block is -- for developing this property would be,
one, annexation route, because it's currently not contiguous with city limits and, two,
securing a route to bring the sewer from Eagle Road over to this parcel. The staff
recommendation on the last page is for denial. We don't feel that there is strong
enough evidence to remove these 75 acres from the City of Meridian's area of impact.
We would recommend that it remain in our area of impact. The city will be able to offer
services within the required 10 years, as stipulated by Ada County, and likely much
much sooner than that. We have an amended boundary description for this that I'm
going to put up now that was just handed to us. Okay. The area outlined in orange
there is apparently the proper request. I believe that as it was submitted it included this
parcel in its description of -- I would also point out that with -- by taking this area out and
not these, it creates a little island of Meridian city impact that's all by itself, surrounded
by Boise City. With that, I will stand for any questions.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff back to this development of the water
and sewer. I would assume that the City of Meridian has moved forward with a
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 13 of 74
development based upon the annexation of this parcel at some point in time down the
road. If, in fact, the trunk route is capable of handling that, then, it seems like that
capacity would potentially be wasted if it weren’t tied in at some point in time down the
road. Is that a correct assumption?
Freckleton: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission that is true. The City of
Meridian hired consultants several years ago to prepare Master Facility Plans for the
city. Those plans basically looked at the entire urban service planning boundaries and
tried to determine the routes for sewer and trunk lines and sizing of the mains to take in
the service areas of, you know, the properties that would be going to those certain
mains. Yes, you're entirely correct. The main sizing is there for that and --
Rohm: Well, that's the purpose of having these in the first place, so you can plan for
your future development, and it would -- it seems like it wouldn't be in good keeping to
change it at this stage of the game.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: This parcel, is that Mittleider? Because I had a letter in my packet, Mittleider,
and the applicant will probably address it, where he's saying, hey --
Borup: That's what I was wondering, too. It might be the other corner down there.
Centers: Okay so Mittleider is not included. Okay. I have a question, also, Steve. In
Brad's summary where he considers trade area, geographic factors, areas that can
reasonably be expected to be annexed in the future, he's saying that he finds A and C
part of that equation and it can be found in favor of the City of Meridian.
Siddoway: Correct.
Centers: C is areas that can reasonably be expected to be annexed in the future.
Siddoway: Correct.
Centers: How far is this property from the City of Meridian because you talk in your
comments about other property owners that may want to be annexed in the future?
How long -- or not how long, that's -- who in the heck knows. How many properties are
in between there?
Siddoway: Currently, the closest city limits is that Stokesberry Subdivision on that office
park that's in front of River Valley Elementary on the west side of Eagle Road. We have
city limits that come over to Eagle Road, but not east of Eagle Road, because it's
currently not sewerable. That is supposed to change by spring of next year.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 14 of 74
Centers: Well, that still doesn't answer it, because, you know, I can see where you're
talking about, but I guess the best question would be how many property owners are
involved between this property and the city? I got to think that, C, as Bradley Hawkins-
Clark is addressing, is hypothetical. He has no idea when those properties will be taken
into the city or even if they want to be and for this property to sit there -- anyway, go
ahead.
Siddoway: The left side of this map would be Eagle -- yes, Eagle Road. This is Ustick.
Current city limits come over to this area adjacent to Stokesberry.
Centers: Is this a quarter section right here so that's a quarter mile?
Siddoway: Yes that's a half-mile.
Centers: That's a half-mile. Okay.
Siddoway: Yes this would be Cloverdale so it's on the half mile. You know, if this parcel
and this parcel came in, there are two to get to here. Of course, we just learned that
this one is not really in but it depends on the annexation route. It could be a few it could
be several.
Centers: Well, I guess that's my point. I don't agree with Mr. Clark that it can be
reasonably expected to be annexed in the future, because it all depends on these
people.
Siddoway: Well, it --
Centers: And I don't think Mr. Clark went out and talked to those people and said, you
know, do you have plans for development here. It could be 10 years it could be 20. It
could be two. I agree but I don't think we can sit here and say that it's going to happen
soon. Go ahead.
Borup: Well, I think there is some interest on some of these. I can see that soon. It's
when you get further east that --
Freckleton: Commissioner Centers --
Centers: Let me finish one thing while I'm on the thought process here. In the last
application we gave a will serve. Why couldn't we do the same thing here or consider
the same thing? By the summer of '03 you say you will.
Siddoway: The will-serve letter means that we will provide services once it's contiguous
and able to be annexed. This already has that agreement in place by definition of being
in the area of impact so it has that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 15 of 74
Centers: Could you do a will serve and will provide? I'm with you, I hate to see it leave
the city, but if we are going to have services there, why can't we agree to provide them?
Does it have to be in the city, Mr. Chairman? I don't know.
Borup: To provide services?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Well, that's been our policy. We do have a couple of projects that are outside
the city, but that gets into the precedence that -- and some of the problems that Boise
has.
Zaremba: In a previous meeting when we discussed a requested amendment to the
urban services area in the Comprehensive Plan, it was this kind of subject. If there was
a leap frog development, the Comprehensive Plan says that their utilities have to be
connectable, but not necessarily connected, so that when we eventually are annexed to
that point, that they be brought into our service area under our quality standards. That
was the statement in the Comprehensive Plan that we discussed pretty thoroughly.
Borup: Well, I think besides the annexation path, there also needs to be a sewer path
that's feasible. Okay. Anything else? Did you have -- you were done?
Siddoway: I'm done.
Mathes: Steve, I have a question. Is that the soccer field on the corner?
Siddoway: It is. Yes.
Mathes: So they could go up that direction?
Siddoway: Yes. Well --
Borup: No.
Mathes: The soccer field is not sewered yet?
Siddoway: Yes, it is contiguous with the ShopKo Subdivision. Meridian Crossroads so
that is a possibility, too. Yes. Yes. I should clarify that is a possibility for an annexation
route, while the sewer would still have to come from the west, not the south.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: And is this City of Boise right here?
Siddoway: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 16 of 74
Mathes: Can you go from two different ways, sewer going one -- as long as it's
contiguous with the city? If the whole property gets developed, is that going to be on a
different sewer line? If annexation is from this corner, but sewers from that corner, does
it all go -- get all the rules?
Freckleton: If the annexation route is through the Criner property on the corner, sewer
would still need to come out to this line that's being stubbed to the west -- to the east
side of Eagle Road. This property on the corner, that's where it's going to be sewered
to as well.
Mathes: Oh. Okay.
Freckleton: Yes. One thing I did want to point out, this is the Caven property right here
that you met on a few months ago. We have had several inquiries from people about
this property. The Winston Moore property is right here that you heard about. I spoke
of another piece that's next to Winston's piece that is a future development. My point is
there is a lot of interest and activity happening out in this area, although applications
have not been formally filed for them, because what we are -- they have to happen in
consecutive order, the contiguity, but I do -- yes, I definitely agree with Brad's statement
that it's reasonable to assume that it will happen real soon.
Mathes: Where is Summers at?
Freckleton: It's right -- what, one of these, isn't it?
Borup: Right there. Yes.
Mathes: It's not city yet?
Freckleton: It's not city yet, but it is served by city water.
Mathes: Okay.
Freckleton: One other -- if I could. One other thing I did want to point out is in my staff
comments on page -- on Page 3, under additional considerations, where I talk about
Public Works Departments from both Boise City and Meridian City have met. The plan
that I spoke of earlier, our Facility Plan that we developed, in answer to your question,
Commissioner Rohm, both Boise City and Meridian City are looking at our Facility Plans
as to how can both cities serve certain parcels on our entire common boundary from
Chinden Road all the way down south of Victory. What the intent is is for our staffs to
basically come up with a line that is not just a line in the sand, but it is a line that both
cities can serve per their Facility Plans that have been developed over the -- you know,
for their systems, their sewer and water system. What our proposal would be that once
our staffs agree on a line, a logical line, that one application would be filed for
adjustment of our common line between us and Boise, take care of this once and for all,
so that we are not back in here with each of these individual parcels with several other
applications, we will do it one time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 17 of 74
Zaremba: Are you finding that that's a decision-making process or are you finding
places where geographically the slope requires it to go one way or the other?
Freckleton: We are finding that it is a geographic -- yes. Definitely most definitely there
are parcels that really don't make a lot of sense being in Meridian and there is parcels
that don't make a lot of sense being in Boise, so --
Zaremba: Based on geographics?
Freckleton: Geographics.
Zaremba: Elevation.
Freckleton: Exactly.
Borup: So is there any type of time frame on that understanding between the cities? I
mean is it going ahead or --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't have a solid time line.
However, this is a subject that has caught a lot of attention from members of our City
Council and the authorities with Boise City as well. I think there is some mutual interest
in getting it done.
Borup: Okay. I just wonder if it's one of those things that are going to take 10 years or
sooner. Any other questions from the Commission? Are we ready to move on? Would
the applicant like to -- apparently you do have some presentation you'd like to make.
Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. I'm representing the applicants in
this matter. For the record, I did not prepare this application, nor did I submit this
application to the City of Meridian. I was approached a couple of weeks ago by the
applicants, asking if I would take this project up, represent them at this hearing and see
if I could clarify some of these issues. First up, as Bruce and Steve indicated, the map
as submitted with the application is in error. It is incorrect. There were two properties
that were included in the map. Somebody inadvertently at a particular engineering firm
just drew the line and squared it up and made it look nice and that is not correct. One
property is owned by the Smitchgers, it's a one-acre parcel located on Ustick Road.
The other property is this five acre parcel located in the southwest corner of the one
that you received the letter on from the -- the Mittleiders, is that how you say that?
Mittleiders. I want to go on the record that those two properties are not part of this
application. Those owners did not consent to being a part of this so I don't want any
confusion to take place. Area of impact is a difficult thing. In 1990, I worked at Ada
County Development Services and Ada County was the mediator between the City of
Meridian and the City of Boise on where to draw these impact boundary lines. As you
well know, when those lines are drawn, that city is assuming responsibility for providing
at some point in the future serviceability with sewer and water, that they have the other
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 18 of 74
services that can handle that particular property or development of that property. I
asked at one point in time when I worked at Ada County why didn't you pick a roadway
like Cloverdale Road, why would you go one quarter mile west and draw this arbitrary
line that may -- and most generally separates properties which are owned by the same
party? And they said because we did not want Boise City mains and Meridian City
mains, sewer mains that is, both in the right of way, it's too difficult. They said that's
why we picked this one-quarter mile and we said, now, topographically we think that we
can serve over here in the City of Meridian and then the City of Boise serving onto the
west Boise Sewer Plan. I'd like to show these aerials. It kind of gives you an idea of
what's out there now. The applicants had these taken. The subject property is here in
red and this is correct showing those two parcels that were erroneously included
outside. As you can see, this Dawson Subdivision is right at that one-quarter mile. My
clients own this 20 acres right here that is in Boise's area of impact and fronts on
Cloverdale Road and then they also own to the west and then over here in a northwest
direction. As you can see, the City of Boise, here is downtown, here is Fairview
Avenue, and you can see how the city has grown out. This is Cloverdale Nursery,
which is one of the last few remaining open areas. This parcel here at the corner of
Ustick and Cloverdale and here you can see Boise on the north side of Ustick, how it's
grown out. Then everything seems to come to a screeching halt at that one-quarter
mile line. If you look at this other aerial photo, this gives you a good idea of the City of
Meridian. You're looking west. This would be north. Here is Ustick. Heather Glen
Meadows. Here is the Summers Funeral Home you can see. Here is our subject
property outlined in red and you can see how the City of Meridian has grown and you
can follow --
Borup: I think you just pointed out the grade school when you said Summers.
Bowcutt: Oh. Is that the grade school?
Borup: Well, no, next to --
Bowcutt: Oh, you're right. Sorry. I'm sorry. It's there. Good point. That's a church.
That's a new church. That threw me off.
Borup: Okay.
Bowcutt: There is a grade school. That's a new church facility. Summers is down
there. I apologize but you can see the city limits. This is Summerfield so right now your
city limits are right here at the eastern boundary of Summerfield, which is approximately
one half mile west of the intersection of Eagle Road and Ustick. Then, as Steve
indicated, the city limits are down at that school on Eagle Road, I believe right down in
this location there. This aerial photo was taken I think about a week ago, so it is
current, and it gives you a real good idea of what's out there. I'd like these submitted
into the record. We met with the City of Boise, John Johnson, one of the City
Engineers, and we spoke with him about the possibility of sewering this property. For
the record, there is an existing Boise City sewer main, it's about -- it's approximately 14
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 19 of 74
feet deep right in front of this subject property. It's a 15-inch line, transitions to the east
into a 10-inch line. He went through and looked at the elevations from aerial photos
that they had taken when they do their sewer planning to evaluate the possibility of
sewering this and he realizes this is a political question. This is not an engineering
question, but more a political question, when we look at something along this line of
excluding from an area of impact. He's extended these lines, as you can see he wrote
down inverts and it was his determination that there is a break line where this northern
portion would go out to the Ustick Trunk and then the southern portion. The
southeastern portion would go into a trunk line that's located over here that is -- goes
out to Cloverdale Road. When we look at a map of this property, it's very unusual in the
fact that it's almost an island surrounded by what we call estate-type residential. These
were acre lot subdivisions that were approved in the county years ago most of them are
on septic and well. This is the Perkins-Brown along that western boundary over here.
Here is the Boise area of impact. We have Briarwood. This is Dawson Subdivision,
that's the one that you see in the aerial photo that's under construction here and then to
the south of us this is Clover Meadows. This is a new development here, Autumn Leaf,
that came in a few years ago and this property would sewer -- they stubbed here and
the portions that's in Boise's area of impact would sewer into this stub street and then
this southern portion would sewer here up to this zig line. This ziggy line is kind of a
break in topography. Everything would go north to that trunk everything would go south
into this eight-inch trunk line there. When we -- we had the engineer for the applicant
take a look at the possibility of -- the possibility of -- I have got too many drawings. The
possibility of when Meridian sewer is extended what -- what would that do to the
property. Well, you got your South Slough Trunk running, it will come and bed bored to
the east side of Eagle Road. Based on the preliminary determination of the applicant's
engineer, the trunk would have to be extended down Ustick to this northern portion or
the northern 37 acres and then this would flow but the southern portion could not flow
into that line. Now, you have to extend along the South Slough the other trunk that
you're bringing across and boring here at Eagle Road, extend that up, somehow get
through this unrelated parcel, somehow get through the Mittleider's parcel here to get to
this parcel. It would basically have to come from two directions and that's based on the
preliminary information that I received this evening from the engineer so that does
cause a problem. We start looking at, from a cost perspective, how can we cost
effectively service these properties. That was never considered when they drew that
line at the one-quarter mile. Nobody ever considered it. If you look at your land use
planning map, you can see that there is kind of a zigzag through here where areas were
deleted and went to Boise based on the ability of Boise City to provide sewer and the
inability of Meridian to provide sewer. It wasn't based on just timing, but it was also
based on topography. I did this area of impact adjustment where we removed that from
the Meridian's impact area when I did Cameron Park, Madison Park, and I did The
Legends. I have done a lot of projects over here on this McMillan, Eagle Road corridor.
Down here, you can see the line comes -- and it's nice and straight and then it kind of
zigs out. Well, that's Edgeview Estates and I did an area of impact adjustment there
that was one of my projects. Then it zigs over here and that's Ironwood and I did an
area of impact adjustment there, and it was due to topography. That's the Ridenbaugh
Canal and nobody ever thought when they drew that line that that Ridenbaugh Canal
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 20 of 74
would prohibit the ability for this to sewer to the west to Meridian and the majority of
those properties at that time lied within the City of Boise's area of impact. The line is
not -- I guess my point is the line is not hard and fast and to just on a map arbitrarily
draw a line one quarter mile without consideration of topography at times and
ownership, makes it difficult. We would like -- we know that the ultimate decision is up
to the Council, because it's a political issue, but we'd like you to take into consideration,
because your opinion is important to us also, that there are circumstances that are
unique to certain properties in certain areas. Boise has, obviously, released some
property in the application that was before us. Their staff has indicated to me there is
property at -- I believe it's the northwest corner of Overland and Cloverdale, which they
determine they cannot service -- is it southwest? Southwest. I stand corrected -- so
that they would be interested in giving that to the City of Meridian. They are not always
looking to just to take. I think we are passed the '90s when it was a turf war. We had
two cities butting heads, vying for area for future growth, and when we look at the map,
we -- I have been spending most of my time working on North Meridian and, as you can
see, that North Meridian area -- this is your area of impact to the northwest. It is wide
open. One of the arguments you guys had with the Caven area of impact removal
application, which, by the way, I did put on hold. We intend to most likely withdraw that
application, because I convinced my clients under the circumstances of that property it
was best they stay in Meridian. In that case, you guys focused on the fact that that was
going to be highway commercial, a high dollar generating development, which is
absolutely correct. Here we are talking single-family development. On your
Comprehensive Plan it's designated medium density residential. On Boise City's
Comprehensive Plan adjoining it is low density residential. Residential. Sorry. We are
not talking those high tax dollars like was argued with that 40 acres there on that
northeast corner of Eagle Road and Ustick, we are talking residential. It is always
difficult for a planner to take a piece of property that is split between two jurisdictions
and try to plan, because we are always looking at it from -- we are dealing with two
different types of standards, two different types of priorities and Comp Plans, two
different Public Works. It has been done, but it is not preferred. We think that it makes
sense that this go to Boise. As you can see from the aerial photos, the majority of that
development out there is the City of Boise. Meridian has got a lot of land to be
developed Boise, there in that west area, they are definitely running skinny. We have
kind of chewed up most of that land over the past I would say 10 years. I will stand for
questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Rohm: Good presentation. Good job.
Borup: I have got one. You were talking about the sewer feasibility. How accurate was
that? Do you know how much time was spent on that? I realize -- I mean it's very
preliminary, but you said it wasn't feasible to sewer. Could you expand on that a little bit
more?
Bowcutt: Okay. I think what I was getting at is it is feasible, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 21 of 74
Borup: Well, you said it would have to be split, but you said --
Bowcutt: Split. Right.
Borup: -- you can't service the whole parcel with one line.
Bowcutt: With one trunk that is correct. That information -- I believe they have been
working on it for approximately one week. Call it -- I call it preliminary information,
because I have not provided that information to your staff for them and, typically I like to
provide the information to your staff to also look at their data and see if everything is
correct.
Borup: So you're saying any -- there is not enough depth with a single trunk line, either
one?
Bowcutt: That is correct for one line to service the entire property, which lies within the
Meridian impact area. Based on their preliminary study, we would have to bring a line
down the North Slough, somehow get easements across these properties, easements
across that property, and get into here. Then it could only service about up to this mid
point, then we would have to extend sewer in Ustick Road down to this northern parcel,
and only this parcel can go that direction. That's the data that I have received today
right before the hearing. That's why I call it preliminary, because I have not had time to
confirm it, and, like I said, provide that information to your staff for their review also.
Borup: I'm sure they'd like to review it. All right. Thank you.
Bowcutt: And the cost for extending the line along this slough is between 300 and
375,000. That's just for the one trunk. That does not include the Ustick extension.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman if I could ask a question, just for clarification for my own use.
Becky, didn't you say that Boise City's line couldn't serve the one trunk either basically it
had to split, part north, part south?
Bowcutt: It splits north and south, but both trunks are right there adjoining the property.
Yes, sir. That is correct.
Borup: So this would be one of those situations where there would be trunk lines in two
jurisdictions in the same area if it came down Ustick?
Bowcutt: It's already in Ustick.
Borup: I mean if Meridian's came down Ustick.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Borup: That's what I'm talking about.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 22 of 74
Bowcutt: Yes.
Borup: Two trunk lines in the same right of way.
Bowcutt: Yes. There is United Water and Boise City sewer in Ustick at this time across
the frontage of this property.
Borup: It goes to the grade school?
Bowcutt: It goes over the Heather Glen Meadows.
Borup: Oh, clear to Heather Glen. Okay.
Bowcutt: And so, yes, we would have to find a corridor in Ustick to extend your water
and sewer also and I don't know how you do that. I have never had to do that before.
Freckleton: We currently parallel United Water in Ustick Road with the water line.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Bowcutt: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Come on up.
Smitchger: I am Virgil Smitchger, 4350 East Ustick. This is my 40 and seven years ago
-- it's in the Meridian minutes -- Boise would not take this, because they couldn't serve it
with sewer.
Borup: How many years ago?
Smitchger: Seven years ago about. They took the other side of the road in, but they
left my place out. It was the only one that got left out.
Borup: Okay. Is the subdivision across the road?
Smitchger: Yes.
Borup: It's on sewer, isn't it?
Smitchger: Yes and they said they couldn't serve me and that was when Kingsford was
in here. I don't know, I just -- I can't believe they can't bring that from the back, the way
that land slopes. My water comes towards Ustick Road, everything irrigates that way,
and the back part isn't much lower than I am, that adjoins me on the back, so all I can
say is I would like to stay in Meridian. That's what I would like to see.
Rohm: Which parcel is yours again, sir?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 23 of 74
Smitchger: This 40 on the top. Mine is right there and then this three acres that --
Borup: So at this time you do not have city sewer is that correct?
Smitchger: Pardon? No.
Borup: You're on a septic tank?
Smitchger: Yes. I got a septic and my own well and I got my own water from Nampa-
Meridian on my acre, so if they subdivide, they are going to have to provide me water
for a quarter of a mile to get the water to me somehow. Okay. I guess that's all, but I
did -- I fought it pretty hard and Boise said they couldn't take us, the engineers. Thank
you.
Borup: Thank you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Could I --
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: -- make a point here? This application excludes these parcels. These
parcels are currently in our area of impact. If this application were granted those
parcels would be Meridian, this would be Boise. Boise is across the road. We would be
-- this would be an island of Meridian here inside Boise's area of impact. Getting city
services -- Meridian City services to this island isn’t going to happen. It creates a real
problem when we have -- when we are trying to create -- we are going to create an
island of Meridian inside of Boise. I don't think we can do it.
Rohm: Well, I think you'd just end up having to vacate that as well, don't you think,
Bruce?
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify? Come on up, sir.
Belcher: My name is Art Belcher, 2920 Duane Drive, Meridian. Our property would
adjoin Boise if this goes through. I live in one of these two and a half acre parcels to
the west there. I would much rather see this stay in Meridian, than go to Boise. I'm
concerned about the density. The lady that did the presentation said that Boise would
have low-density housing in that area. The property that's under development now on
that 20 acres has 80 some sewer hookups marked out. That's four to the acre and if
this other goes in, that's another 400 and some houses. We would be looking at, on the
whole thing, with the other 40 on the east and we have 460 homes at four homes to the
acre. When you break out 25 percent for roads and sidewalks and everything else, it
gets pretty dense to be up against our property. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 24 of 74
Grant: My name is Elvina Grant. I live at 2525 North Cloverdale. My parents have
owned some of the property since the 1930s and the rest of it since 1955, which my
brother and I and our spouses now have. Our desire is to have sold our property in one
parcel -- in one sale to one party. Can the city provide city utilities, sewer, and water, to
the entire site without demanding annexation to other landowners? Our farms are our
retirement and the time has come for us to start this process. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Becky, did you have
any final comments? Maybe one thing if you could clarify the differences in density
designations between the two cities. You said Meridian was medium density Boise was
low density?
Bowcutt: Yes. Low density and the Boise Comprehensive Plan is a maximum of four
dwelling units per acre. Your medium density is four to eight is that not correct, Steve?
Do you recall four to eight?
Siddoway: Three to eight.
Bowcutt: Three to eight so it's a range, whereas Boise puts a cap. I just want to --
Borup: So going to Meridian could end up being denser than Boise.
Bowcutt: Yes, sir.
Borup: Possibly.
Bowcutt: Possibly because Boise has a four cap. One thing I forgot to mention, that
the question arose when the city designs these trunk lines, Meridian that is, they size
them as far as planning for future service to properties. Brad Watson, the City
Engineer, indicated to me that your design standard is to handle 3.5 dwelling units per
acre. In the North Meridian Plan, with the input from Smart Grow and some other
agencies, they are trying to push us to four to eight dwelling units per acre in some
projects and they are trying to boost our density. One of the questions that were asked
of Brad Watson in one of the roundtable discussions is is there capacity in these trunks
and in the treatment plant if we try to boost and maximize our density to promote
commuter ride and mass transit? The answer was probably not, not if they are boosting
them up to eight dwelling units per acre. That is something to keep in mind, that they
are designing these at 3.5. I did ask the City Engineer for Boise do they have capacity
to service this development and he indicated yes.
Rohm: What changed? This gentleman back here that testified a little bit ago, said that
when he requested annexation for consideration some time ago, Boise City said they
didn't want it. Isn't that kind of --
Borup: Well, he said they couldn't sewer it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 25 of 74
Rohm: Just a question.
Bowcutt: Well, over time they extended the east and west Eagle Road trunks. I worked
on those projects where we took those out of the plant, up the bench, across Chinden,
and there is a west line and an east line. There used to be a bottleneck at Hewlett-
Packard in the trunk that went through there and then dropped down the bench, but
when they took that other -- those Eagle Road trunks out at the bench, then that added
capacity. At one point in time he's probably correct, they did not have capacity to
service this property, because of the bottleneck at Hewlett-Packard. In fact, I was told
the line was surcharged and that it could not handle anything until we brought those
Eagle Road trunks on line. This was in the mid '90s to late '90s. Mid '90s, I guess.
Borup: Okay. Does that conclude your comments?
Bowcutt: Yes. Thank you.
Borup: All right. Thank you. Commissioners, discussion?
Reagan: Hi. I'm Sharon Reagan. I live at 12499 Briarwood Drive.
Zaremba: Would you raise the microphone up, please?
Reagan: I live at 12499 Briarwood Drive.
Zaremba: Your name.
Reagan: Sharon Reagan.
Borup: This is Briarwood here?
Reagan: Right and we were part of the -- like you folks that got forced into Boise and
our taxes go up to four percent for nothing. I'm really curious about how they are going
to access the property, if they are going to come through our street, which is a dead
end.
Borup: At this point they don't have a project they are proposing, but they own this
property right here. Or here. I'm sorry. Right. This is where that other subdivision is.
I'm sorry. They own this property right here, so they would have access to Cloverdale
right here and to Ustick up there.
Reagan: I was just curious. I didn't know if there was any proposal or anything, but --
Borup: Some of that may depend on the design, what ACHD wants to be happening.
Reagan: Okay. Thank you. That's what I was curious about. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 26 of 74
Borup: Did I state that properly?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: I read through the materials. I came prepared to be dead set against this.
Mrs. Bowcutt has put together in apparently what was only two weeks a tremendous
presentation and I could easily be swayed to flip. I can see the logic and I'm generally
against giving up Meridian area of impact for any use, but I can see the logic for this
one and I could be convinced.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I felt the same way and, actually, now I'm on the fence here
and as Mrs. Bowcutt stated, she wants our support. The final decision is by the
Council. I think that's going to be a hard, hard sell for the Council to release these 75
acres. Whether we support it or deny it, the big sell is to the Council and she knows
that. I think she's going to go right home or tomorrow morning get a hold of that
engineer and get it in writing that the sewer cannot be serviced to this property and
presented to the City Council am I right or wrong? That's the ammunition, because if
we can't provide service, we should release it, whether they want to put sewer -- or
septic tanks and wells, but if we can't provide service within ten years, we should
release it. Isn't that the way it reads, 10 years? Yet, I think that's the hard sell to the
City Council, too. You're going to have one little acre there right surrounded and
landlocked two or four whatever but landlocked by Boise and Meridian and they are
sitting in that county, so I --
Borup: We have that right now.
Centers: Yes in the middle of town. Yes. My big thing is I hate to see property sit, I
hate to see people that want to sell it to developers not be able to. I think -- I don't want
to use an adjective here, but I think that's wrong. I think they should be able to develop
it if services are available. Now, if the City of Meridian can provide services and say
that we will be there -- but, then, how can we say we are going to be annexing that in
one, two, three, four, five years? I don't know. As I said, I think the hard sell is to the
Council. I would tend to agree with Commissioner Zaremba, I had no feelings before I
came to the hearing. I read the entire notes. The only problem I had was Mr. Mittleider
being included and he wasn't, so that was revised.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: So I guess I would tend to support the application.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 27 of 74
Borup: Any other comments?
Mathes: What happens to the little island? Does it just stay in the county?
Borup: Until it's either -- under five acres, it could be forced annexation, but it wouldn't
be to Meridian, though.
Centers: They can apply, though, can't they, Mr. Chairman?
Zaremba: As I understand the process, even if we --
Borup: No, not to Meridian, to Boise.
Zaremba: If we recommend approval of this change to the City Council and the City
Council subsequently approves the change, then, under the auspices of the Ada
County Commissioners, Boise and Meridian sit down and work out what the line is
going to be and they would make that decision, I would assume. Is that correct?
Siddoway: It would be the line that's being talked about. The problem is that that area,
unlike the holes in our city limits that are currently Ada County, which I think Chairman
Borup were referring to. This would be -- this is different. This is the City of Boise in the
middle of -- well, what would be the City of Meridian, but there would be no way to get
city services there. I would say you could not, you know, take this area out without also
taking those out.
Borup: Yes. That's just logical. It would be an island in Boise, not Meridian, it would
stay county and it would make sense to take it out at the same time.
Mathes: So what happens if they don't want to go?
Borup: Then they stay in the county.
Centers: Yes but, understand, it's -- excuse me. All you're doing is taking them out of
the air of impact. You're not putting them in one city or the other.
Mathes: They could stay in the county forever right?
Centers: Exactly.
Borup: No. Not necessarily. Boise could force --
Centers: Right.
Borup: I came with the same -- kind of the same thoughts that Commissioner Zaremba
and probably the one biggest fact to me is the sewerability. I mean they are looking at
10,000 -- I mean it could be 10,000 dollars an acre just to bring sewer into the property,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 28 of 74
which does not seem real feasible. Running the parallel trunk line down Ustick to a
Boise Trunk doesn't seem to make a lot of sense either. Then an annexation path and
a right of way for the sewer are also in question.
Centers: Well, I don't know if this is true or not, but an ex-P&Z Commissioner here in
the City of Meridian that had been on the Commission for some time, quoted to me that
with a 1,400 square foot home, the City of Meridian broke even after providing services
and the receipt of the taxes, with a 1,400 square foot home at that time. That was
probably 10 years ago. I think Mrs. Bowcutt makes a good point, tax revenue from
residential properties doesn't make the city rich, after they provide services, so -- and I
guess the other comment, political, that's a big part of it, too. Anyway --
Borup: I think somebody's City Council is going to have to really hash it out.
Zaremba: Well, the two choices would be to forward this to the City Council and I'm
inclined to do so, you know -- well, the other option is to continue it until we hear the
evidence of the engineering studies. I'm more inclined to move it ahead and at this
point I'm in favor of approval.
Centers: I thought of that, too. You know, I hate to bring back your study, but then the
study really is more applicable to City Council.
Zaremba: They are the final word.
Centers: So let's move on.
Zaremba: Have we closed the Public Hearing?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the request to remove certain
parcels in -- this is MI 02-011, that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of the request to remove certain parcels in Dunbar Estates Subdivision from
City of Meridian's impact area for Packard Estates Development, LLC, by Packard
Estates Development, LLC, south of East Ustick Road and west of North Cloverdale
Road.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
Rohm: Naye.
Borup: Okay. Three in favor, one opposed. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 29 of 74
Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 02-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Care Center for up to 30 mildly ill children, ages two to ten years, staffed
by nurses and certified nurses assistants for Sniffles ‘n Sneezes Care
Center by JC Anderson, Co. – 217 East Pine Avenue and portion of 834
East 2nd
Street:
Borup: Move onto our next item. Public Hearing CUP 02-039, request for Conditional
Use Permit for a care center for up to 30 mildly ill children ages two to ten for the
Sniffles 'n Sneezes Care Center by JC Anderson Company at 217 East Pine Avenue,
and 834 East 2nd
Street. Open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application is
for the Sniffles and Sneezes Care Center, which is a day care for children who are too ill
to attend their regular day care and for parents who still need go to work. It is supposed
to be staffed by a nurse and primary care givers that are intended to be nursing
assistants. They are requesting permission to care for up to 30 children between the
ages of two and ten years of age. You should have a staff report, dated November 19th
,
on the subject property. This is a close-up of the subject property from an aerial photo.
There is an existing building apparently in use. Pine Street would be on the north and
2nd
Street on the west. Surrounding uses would include existing church United
Methodist Church on the east of the property and south is the Masonic lodge. To the
north and west across the streets are existing residential uses. These are some photos
of that existing building on the site today. These are from the rear of the property where
the parking lot exists and this is their site plan. We have five site-specific requirements
similar to the ones that you saw for the previous Old Town application and we do
recommend approval of this -- of this project with the conditions in staff report. With
that, I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant here and wish to
add anything to the presentation?
Anderson: Jared Anderson, 623 East Woodbury Drive, Meridian. Mr. Chairman,
Commission, we agree with all the site-specific requirements and I don't have any
further presentation and would stand for questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: I have one, Mr. Chairman. In the staff report the children in this day care will
not require a need for an outdoor play area and there is not one proposed. They never
go out?
Anderson: These are mildly ill kids.
Centers: Yes. I read that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 30 of 74
Anderson: They will be having low activity and cared for by nurses and nursing
assistants. They won't go outside the building during the time that they are there.
Centers: I guess it's totally fenced or will be?
Anderson: No. There will be --
Centers: So you're not going to provide for a fence, because you're not going to let
them outside?
Anderson: Yes. That's correct.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: So any play area would be inside the building?
Anderson: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: I have a question about your hours of operation and I guess my question is
whether or not you're being generous enough with yourself, if you're dealing with
parents who perhaps work in Boise downtown someplace.
Anderson: That's 7:30 to 5:30.
Zaremba: 7:30 to 5:30. Are you going to have to be extended for somebody that's on
the freeway still at 5:30 and not getting there?
Anderson: That is possible. We have already talked with some employers that would
want us to open up at 7:00 so it's going to depend on demand.
Zaremba: Stay open until like 6:00?
Anderson: Yes 7:00 to 6:00. One of the employers in east Boise brought that up.
Zaremba: While you're there, let me ask staff a question, if I can. Are the hours of
operation, as the applicant has stated them, do they become part of the Conditional
Use Permit?
Siddoway: They can if it's part of your motion.
Zaremba: And they would be restricted to those?
Siddoway: We have restricted hours of operation through Conditional Use Permits
before.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 31 of 74
Zaremba: With the surrounding uses, is there any need to do that or should we let
them pick whatever hours they need?
Siddoway: Certainly a 24-hour thing would not be appropriate at the location. I don't
think that it would ever turn into that. If it went a little before 7:00 and a little after 6:00,
is that a problem? I don't think so.
Zaremba: Okay as long as we don't stipulate it in the CUP.
Siddoway: Right. If you put a condition for a specific restriction on the hours of
operation, they would be limited to that, so you need to make sure there is enough
flexibility in whatever motion you would have or just --
Zaremba: The CUP is actually okay without such a restriction?
Siddoway: It is okay without a restriction.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: There is no residential, I didn't see, near it?
Siddoway: There is residential. I'll go back to those site photos where I was showing
the -- this is the subject property. The property across the street, across 2nd
Street, is
residential, and the property across Pine Street is residential but the ones that are
abutting the parcel that share a lot line with it are not.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Okay any other questions?
Zaremba: If we did add to the CUP a restriction that your operating hours should be
6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., that doesn't mean you have to be open all those hours, but
would that give you a sufficient leeway?
Anderson: Yes. 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. is --
Zaremba: 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. is --
Anderson: Would be more than we want.
Zaremba: Okay. All right.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? We had no
one sign up on the -- no other testimony, Commissioners.
Rohm: I move we close the Public Hearing on this issue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 32 of 74
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner.
Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 02-
039, request for Conditional Use Permit for a care center for up to 30 mildly ill children
ages two to ten years. Staffed by nurses and certified nurses assistants for Sniffle 'n
Sneezes Care Center by JC Anderson Company, 217 East Pine Avenue, and a portion
of 834 East 2nd
Street. To include all staff comments, with the additional requirement
that their hours of operation be 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. or less at their choosing.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: RZ 02-006 Request for a Rezone of 0.85 acres from I-L
to O-T zones for Meridian Head Start by Friends of Children and
Families, Inc. – 321 and 333 West Broadway Avenue:
Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 02-037 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
two classroom center serving young children and families, and a 400
square foot community meeting room for Meridian Head Start by Friends
of Children and Families, Inc. – 321 and 333 West Broadway Avenue
Borup: The next item -- the next two items, actually, on our agenda, Public Hearing RZ
02-006, request for a rezone of .85 acres from I-L to O-T zones for Head Start by
Friends of Children and Families, Incorporated, at 321 and 333 West Broadway.
Accompanying that is CUP 02-037, request for Conditional Use Permit for a two-
classroom center serving young children, families, and a community meeting room for
the Head Start at the same location. At this time I'd like to open both these public
hearings and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed
Head Start project is on West Broadway Avenue on the south side, currently zoned I-L,
but in an area that the Comprehensive Plan now designates as Old Town. The
requested rezone would rezone this parcel from light industrial to Old Town and that
would be in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The west side of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 33 of 74
parcel you will see there is 15 feet of unimproved or unopened right of way, I guess, is
the correct term. The applicant currently is in negotiations with ACHD to vacate that.
ACHD does not see a need to ever develop that right of way, as it abuts the Union
Pacific Railroad here and they have no ability to cross the railroad. A condition of
approval of this application would be to carry that vacation through. You should have a
staff report on this project dated November 20th
. This is the existing site photo. The --
this being Broadway, there is an existing couple of older houses that would be
demolished and replaced with a new building, which you should have elevations of in
your packets. Some existing site photos of those existing structures and their proposed
site plan. On this -- on this plan Broadway would be running here. I guess that's it.
Well, you know, we have the wrong plan up there. There has been a new plan
submitted, which looks pretty much identical to this, except flipped 180 degrees, so that
the driveway is now on this side of the building, so if you just --
Borup: That's what we have.
Siddoway: Okay. That's what you should have, the one that -- this is the older site
plan, which I apologize for. Let's see. The only condition of approval we have on the
rezone is metes and bounds legal description is needed. It is underway. I have spoken
with the surveyor that's working on that. For the standards for Conditional Uses, on
Page 4 of the staff report, it talks about landscaping. Again, a strict reading of the
Landscape Ordinance would require a buffer between land uses for this parcel and the
existing residential uses, even though they are zoned light industrial currently. They are
residences in use on each side today and there would -- there would technically be a
requirement for a buffer -- a landscape buffer between land uses on both sides. This is
-- this property is narrow and cannot accommodate 20-foot landscape buffers on each
side. We have the ability to remedy that through the alternative compliance portion of
the Landscape Ordinance. The applicant is requesting that they be allowed to do a six
foot buffer on the west side and an eight foot buffer on the east side, so it's not -- they
are not proposing to do nothing. We do support that, but we raise that to the
Commission for their consideration, as their proposed alternative compliance. We do
find that the site is large enough for all the other required features, however, such as
the required number of parking spaces, open space, yards, street improvements that
are required, et cetera, are all able to be accommodated on the site. Under additional
considerations on Page 6, there is a sanitary sewer easement issue where the Public
Works Department would like to work with the applicant to abandon existing sewer main
and extend two service lines. The applicant has agreed to that. I don't know that it's an
issue. If you need more details, I will stick Bruce on it. One of the conditions of
approval is along the south property line. The Rutledge Lateral runs along there. There
is a standard requirement to tile that ditch. It's Site-Specific Requirement 2 on Page 7
of the staff report. I believe that the applicant is going to be requesting a waiver of that
to Council, so I simply raise that for discussion. Staff does recommend approval of this
project, with that special consideration for abandoning the existing sanitary service --
sanitary sewer service line and providing for any new easements associated with the
knew one. You should have received several letters in support of this project as well, so
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 34 of 74
I just draw your attention to those for the record and make sure that those are
considered and I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman, the tiling of the ditch that you referred to briefly, Steve, is
that the same canal that the Police Department refers to when it says caution,
southside fence is the only barrier to the canals that are adjacent to the property?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Okay so tiling it would eliminate the Police Department's --
Siddoway: It would eliminate one of the two. There is two ditches there --
Centers: So we eliminate his caution and his worry?
Siddoway: No. We eliminate one of the two ditches that are there because there are
two they are only required to tile the Rutledge. The Nine Mile Creek also runs along
there, it's bigger than the Rutledge, and would not be tiled, because it's a natural
waterway.
Centers: Is it fenced?
Siddoway: The existing -- there is an existing fence, I believe.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: We can talk to the applicant about it when they --
Borup: The plat, obviously, shows a new fence.
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: Well -- and that was a question I was going to ask. Mr. Landry's letter
describes a solution that would not tile either one of them, but to put a fence a little
farther in on their property line, 50 feet from -- from 50 feet from the drain or the lateral,
that would keep children contained and away from that and then not tile it, which, of
course, the Comprehensive Plan is in favor of not tiling any open --
Siddoway: Where we have natural waterways, that's true.
Zaremba: Is not tiling an acceptable solution or are we saying they must tile it?
Siddoway: You know, to my thinking it is acceptable. We do have the letter of the
ordinance that says, you know, shall be tiled and, you know, any waiver of that has to
be requested by the City Council, so that's my two bits.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 35 of 74
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: And my thought on that, I guess, could be a factor, is whether the ditch runs
through the property or borders the property, and could make a difference on how that's
treated. There is a difference.
Siddoway: There isn't a difference in the ordinance.
Borup: No. No but in my mind there is a difference how it affects the property, is what I
mean.
Zaremba: So would they be willing to give up a space in the easement to put up a
fence --
Siddoway: There is an easement. Yes, I'm sure they would be willing to do that.
Zaremba: I think that's what they are suggesting.
Siddoway: Yes. I will let the applicant address that, then.
Zaremba: Let me, if I may, ask a question about Mr. James Cain's letter also and what
effect this project would have on the neighbors. One of his concerns is that this might
create a school zone and limit his ability sometime later to develop a business that
might sell liquor. Does this create a school zone?
Siddoway: It probably would restrict liquor sales. Yes.
Borup: Point Number 2 that was his Point Number 1, to make sure that it doesn't
change the industrial character. His Point Number 2 is whether or not he might make
future commercial use of his property for future alcohol sales in a school zone, which
would have a right to object to that so his concern there is justified.
Siddoway: Yes for liquor. He does not take away any existing rights based on zoning.
It's currently zoned I-L. It does not affect any rights that are -- those properties currently
have, under the --
Zaremba: So he is not currently using his property in that fashion, so --
Siddoway: I'm assuming not.
Centers: But that's designated Old Town in the Comp Plan, all of that.
Siddoway: From this parcel heading east it's Old Town in the Comp Plan.
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 36 of 74
Borup: But the parcel on the west side is I-L is that correct?
Siddoway: It is zoned I-L. The Comp Plan shows medium density residential.
Borup: So when you're talking about the buffer reduction, what's the stipulated buffer
between O-T and I-L?
Siddoway: It's based on use, not on zoning.
Borup: Okay. Okay. The present use is residential?
Siddoway: Right. If the joint property did develop industrial under its current zoning,
they would actually be required to put in a buffer on their property, because it would be
a more intense use next to a school.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: But it would be even more if it were a residence.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, unfortunately, I didn't bring my
volume of the Idaho Code that has that the provisions on restrictions of sales of alcohol
in a school zone or school type environment, but from memory I do believe that,
Number 1, this would qualify within that section. Number 2, the rights of a property that
wishes to sell alcohol would not vest until that property does -- there is the sale of
alcohol on that property as far as grandfathering that property in. That's just from
memory, though.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I believe Nick is right. I also am going from memory, but I
believe the distance is 200 feet.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I can't recall exactly what the
distance is either, but that does sound in the ballpark.
Siddoway: There is a provision I think we are all aware.
Centers: Three hundred for a church. I remember that.
Siddoway: Okay. It might be 300 feet.
Centers: It might be 300 feet.
Siddoway: Okay 300 feet probably is --
Centers: Do you remember that hearing?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 37 of 74
Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commission? Does the applicant have a
presentation they'd like to make?
Landry: My name is Louis Landry and I am the Co-Director of Friends of Children and
Families located at 4709 West Camas in Boise, that's our office. We are a nonprofit
program that has been providing the Head Start services in Ada and Elmore County for
over a decade. We'd just like, just for the Commission, again, we thank you for the
opportunity to be here and the excellent staff work and cooperation we have had
throughout the process. We have been providing services to children from Meridian for
years. We used to be in -- located in various churches in Meridian and had to move
when churches needed the space back. When we were able to inquire the property in
Boise, very much like this one that is in a neighborhood on Camas children from
Meridian were served and are served today in our site by being bussed to Boise. We
have had several parents discouraged from services, because they don't want their
children, four year olds, bussed that length of time with increased traffic. It really is a
problem. We sought, based on our analysis of the data we had, and met with the
Mayor and with members of the City Council Tammy de Weerd about the needs in the
community and there is a substantial need to serve -- and our services are for low-
income families in the Meridian area. Based on that we were able to get expansion to
operate the program so we have -- the operational funds are there. One other
significant thing I think to just mention in terms of the cooperation of many entities in the
state to make this possible, this project will be funded through a tax exempt bond issue
to the Idaho Housing and Finance Association and we will be able to borrow money at
three -- at 3.75 percent interest. It's -- I think we have been good stewards of the funds
and as taxpayers, I think you should know about that. What we are planning to do is
build a really remarkably beautiful facility that will also be, I think, very neighborhood
friendly. On November the 30th
, Saturday night past, the senior center was very good to
us and let us use their facility, because it's just two blocks away. We hosted a
neighborhood meeting and 14 of our neighbors, many of whom are here tonight, some
of whom have written letters in support and we had an excellent neighborhood meeting
where they asked many good, high quality questions about the safety of children and
how we will fit in the neighborhood. How we can be neighbors and that went
particularly well. We'd love to be here and we work with you. We have got a lot of work
and all of these issues -- and, certainly, one obvious one is in terms of the protection of
children, there will be a fence all the way around and we will have a playground, that's a
key part of our world is to be outside with the children. There will be a playground
enclosed in the fence and I don't have in mind the number of feet, but it's a long
distance between that fence and the next fence that goes to the canal. Our children are
four years of age and they are always supervised on the playground, there are always
two teachers out all the time with the children. These are highly supervised situations.
In terms of the property line, I have walked the property with a certified arborist, the
property has several 100-year-old trees, and we have a plan to keep those trees. They
would be key buffers on both sides of the property and that was one of the reasons
where the sewer easement issue came up in that the current sewer line that I
understand has very little utilization at this point. I think one or two properties are on it,
and I think your analysis is that it has even some problems right now with structural
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 38 of 74
integrity, that runs right along the property line where these big trees are and so neither
the city, nor we would desire, nor our neighbors, to destroy any of those trees. What we
would like to do is work out with you all that during the construction phase we could
work it out so that you could have an easement right down that driveway and, therefore,
be very serviceable and save trees. I must say that a few of the trees are old and
diseased and will have to come out, just based on that, and so I wanted to allay your
concerns about that. I don't know if there is anything -- I could go on and on and it's a
long night, you have other folks here, and I will stand for questions. You all have
patience and I admire your work, that you can do this.
Centers: I have -- it's just curiosity. I had heard about the loan from the IHFA. It's
nonprofit. Do you rely on grants and donations to pay back that loan?
Landry: Well, thank you. Several sources and, by the way -- by and by, this is a large
package. We are also building a facility in Garden City on city property, in a city park,
and we have three facilities, one in Boise, one in Glenns Ferry, and one in Mountain
Home. The three that currently exist are eight percent money, so we are refinancing as
part of this. To pay back in our operational funds, we get monies to pay back on the
mortgage so we are able to use operational funds to pay at least -- or to pay back on
the mortgage. That was provisions of federal code that were approved in 1992 and
before that Head Starts couldn't use their money to buy, so they were always in church
basements and various places like that and, you know, wonderfully generous, but we
moved a lot and some of the situations were less than ideal.
Centers: Where does the operational money come from?
Landry: These are -- Head Start has been federally supported since 1965 and we have
had great bipartisan support. In this project, we already have a grant from the Ada
County Realtors for 7,500 dollars towards the playground. We have already secured
those funds. In the Garden City project, I don't want to muddle it too much, but just to
mention the Boise Funds has contributed funds towards that and donors come up. We
will over the -- we can pay for this and it is all -- all the finances are there, but we expect
within the next five years that a generous donation may come in to help us pay off our
mortgage.
Centers: Okay so you rely on donations and federal grants?
Landry: Absolutely.
Centers: Okay.
Landry: Absolutely.
Centers: Thank you.
Landry: Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 39 of 74
Borup: Any other questions ask? Thank you.
Zaremba: Not really a question, just a comment. I think this would be an excellent
addition to the city and I understand that you already provide services to Meridian
residents and it would be nice to have a facility right here.
Landry: We like it in Meridian and we like it in that neighborhood. Yes, sir.
Zaremba: And it looks like we have in our packet quite a number of letters of support.
Landry: Thank you so much.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else to testify? If so, come forward.
Pew: My name is Randy Pew. I have property directly across from the proposed site.
One of the questions I had --
Borup: Go ahead and state your address.
Pew: My property address or my residence?
Borup: Your residence your residence.
Pew: My property is a 330 West Broadway. My residence is 1329 West Washington in
Meridian.
Borup: Okay.
Pew: One of the things that I am not familiar with, not knowing City Code, is why the
switching -- or they want this rezoned from Light Industrial to Old Town. Is there a
specific reason for that?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman I can answer that. Schools are prohibited in a Light Industrial
zone, but are a Conditional Use Permit in Old Town.
Pew: Thank you. One other -- well, a couple of concerns I have here, since they have
developed the west end of Broadway into a subdivision, of course, traffic -- the traffic
has increased down Broadway considerably over -- since they opened up that end just
west of Broadway Manor, if I remember correctly. That's one concern I have there and
I'm not familiar with the Comprehensive Plan. The other thing I -- the building at this
juncture looks a little out of place for residential area and the surrounding buildings. I
know most of the buildings down there are probably 50 years or older from exclusions
in and around the area. The building does look to be a little out of place, although, it
does sound like a very good plan for kids and so forth. The other -- I guess the other
thing I don't see addressed -- and I do not have the Comprehensive Plan -- is the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 40 of 74
amount of people that are -- children and staff and so forth that are going to be in and
around that site at this time. That's all.
Zaremba: Sir, your property is across the street from this --
Pew: Right.
Zaremba: What use is that? Is it a residence or a commercial use or --
Pew: I use it as a rental.
Zaremba: A rental residence?
Pew: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Come forward, sir.
Taggart: Commissioners, staff, my name is Dennis Taggart, I live at 436 West
Broadway, which is just about five houses down across the street from the property. My
concerns and comments tonight are -- have less to do with the program that these folks
have put together, which I think is admirable and seems to have addressed most of the
issues and have worked hard just to -- for a couple of the issues involved. My concern -
- and I will reverse my presentation, to go along with this gentleman, is that this street,
Broadway, has become a raceway. I have lived at this location, well, since I was little
and then I moved away and came back and I have been there full time since 1989. I
have seen quite a change with new apartments and housing being built and it has
become a raceway, particularly at the early hours of the morning and coming home
hours at night, because people come down off of Meridian and it's a mile of straight
road and not enough time to get there. In addition to that, there has been new industrial
and commercial uses that have been allowed to go into this area, which has increased
the heavy traffic. Some of it is moving also above the speed limit in the way of industrial
trucks and even semis and two houses -- two properties to the west of this is a
commercial operation that has semi deliveries several times a week. The problems that
you face on Meridian Road and Pine with no turn signal, forces an awful lot of that traffic
to turn down Broadway to go to 4th
Street, which is right behind this property then turn
back over to Pine to avoid that left turn at 5:00. It is a significant amount, they are all in
a hurry, of course, to get home, and there are many accidents. I'm sure the folks here
from the senior center will attest to the fact that it's very difficult with 45 degree parking
to curb and backing out onto Broadway, to even deal with that. I'm concerned about the
number of people that will be coming here will have to face that and -- because they are
at the end of the raceway at 8:00 in the morning. I would suggest that as a condition to
this that you throw your weight to Ada County Highway District to put speed bumps or
to the Meridian Police Department to put more patrols and some way to eliminate the
traffic that speed and the numbers that we have going down that road today. The next
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 41 of 74
street over to the north is Idaho, I believe, and we have got new apartments that have
been built there in the last two or three years. There is a section, the one lot that has
not been developed, therefore, that piece of road has not been improved and there is a
barricade that stops through traffic on Idaho Street, which forces all those folks to come
down either Broadway or Pine. Again, Pine is avoided, because the left turn issue
forces all those folks back down Broadway. It is a huge issue and I think it's something
that you need to consider in granting this application, is what can you do as a body
representing the interest of the public and the city to go to other jurisdictions and get
something happening to address that traffic issue. More importantly, I urge you not to
approve this project or any project in this area, based only on the fact that this area has
been notorious for lack of zone enforcement. There has been allowed uses in the Light
Industrial that are not allowed uses or are being done so in violation of zoning
conditions and the complaint to Planning and Zoning and enforcement has fallen on
deaf ears. Until and unless the city is ready to enforce the zoning requirements in a
Light Industrial, I don't think you should put any of your property with conditions that will
not be enforced. I specifically will tell you that two doors to the west is a steel
fabrication operation and Light Industrial says that manufacturing and wholesale are to
be clean, quiet, free of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and glare and operated entirely or
almost entirely with obstructions. There is -- none of this is happening at this location,
all of it is visible from the street, there is no building on this fabrication and it happens
out in the open, especially since they burned down their shed. There were numerous
complaints from the paint spray and, particularly, I'm telling these folks to deal with it,
because it goes that way, more than it comes my way. There is noise in the grinding
operations in the cutting of the steel and nothing happens there. There is also people
residing on the property in Light Industrial and working at this location. There are
abandoned cars, unlicensed cars that are parked on the street, which is in violation you
can't park on the street for more then 48 hours. There also needs to be a 35-foot
setback in the front, there needs to be landscaping, there needs to be sprinkler
systems, and that's just this one property. If you go five more properties down, there is
a construction yard, a contractor's yard, H&H is parking their trucks down there and that
is not allowed in a light industrial zone. In fact, it cannot be located within 300 feet of
any residence and there is also someone residing on that property as well. It's limited
to storage and maintenance incidental to the contracting work, which does follow that if
you say it's a parking lot, then, it must be paved. It must have landscaping, it must have
landscaping, must have an engineered stamp, none of these things have happened. If
you go two more doors down from that, you have a commercial concrete operation that
has been there for as long as I can remember, that allows for -- you cannot have
outdoor commercial industrial materials that aren't screened from any residence and
that's not happening. There are retail sales of materials out in front there. There is --
again, all the work is out in the open, there is no building there, whatever. These are
three things that many of us along that street have been concerned about and have
discussed with Planning and Zoning and Zoning Enforcement. We are told basically
that they would look into it, but that over at these folk's place, if you're talking
enforcement, enforcement informed me that there is not -- and the opinion of counsel, I
assume that's you, that we don't have the means or the will to enforce that zoning -- the
zoning issues. Until and unless you're ready to enforce the requirements of zoning, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 42 of 74
don't see how you can approve a project in this neighborhood that will require that
certain requirements be met and if they are not, to have enforcement. With that issue, I
thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Taggart, what was your address, please?
Taggart: 436 West Broadway.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Taggart: It's about the third house west of 4th
Street on the west side.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward?
Corneally: Can you see me? I live at 322 West Broadway, my name is Mary Corneally,
and I have a question about my side of the street. I'm across the street. Personally, I
think this would be beautiful site to walk out my door and see the -- what we are talking
about tonight. I have a question and I know you don't want to go into that tonight, but
what does it do to -- what you have changed, what does it do to my side of the street?
Are we light industrial or are we not?
Borup: You would stay the same. Their request for zoning is just on their property.
Corneally: On that side of the street?
Borup: Just on their property only.
Corneally: That's an unusual law that they ever did that to start with, one side of the
street is, the side of the street not.
Borup: Well, the property in this case is zoned just the property they own.
Corneally: Right but all up that street --
Borup: Oh, you mean what it was originally zoned. Yes.
Corneally: Yes. Originally zoned and the other side of the street when we found our
property, we thought it was zoned the same way. In fact, the realtor told us it was so we
had to pay a lot of money to just have a hobby shop behind our house. That was my
question, to see if you changed anything.
Borup: No. That was before everyone's time around here when that happened. I
assume probably because of the proximity to the railroad tracks, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 43 of 74
Corneally: But I don't really have anything against this. In fact, I think it would add to
the neighborhood myself.
Centers: What was your name again?
Corneally: Mary Corneally.
Borup: Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else?
Nesbitt: My name is Rich Nesbitt. I live at 717 West 2nd
Street. I also own the property
on the corner of West 4th
and Idaho, which would be 331 West Idaho. I have the unique
opportunity to experience the traffic flow that comes since they put the stop light in at
Pine and that's my major concern. I didn't get a chance to attend the town meeting, I
appreciate the opportunity, but, I'm sorry, I just didn't get a chance to make it. I don't if
anyone's discussed it with Ada County yet. I would not like to see speed bumps
through there. I think they are just sort of like a place to do wheelies with is what
people use them for. They did put a stop sign on the corner of West 4th
and West Idaho
going I guess east and west there to try to help slow down the traffic a bit and I would
like to see something addressed about the traffic that's going to occur when we put this
in. I understand they are going to be busing kids in, but I would imagine they are also
going to have cars bringing the kids in during the rush hour traffic. It's just -- it's like an
Indy 500 in there sometimes, cars are just zipping through the neighborhood trying to
get around and trying to get home. I don't know what the solution might be for that. I'm
not opposed to having a school there, I think it would be a nice thing to do, but I am
concerned about the traffic it would bring. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Mr. Landry, do you have any final comments?
Landry: Just a few. I appreciate the late hour. In terms of Mr. Taggart's concerns and
they are very understandable, I might just mention that in Boise where our Head Start is
located, I'm the president of the neighborhood association, so I work with our
neighborhood a lot. Just to assure you and Mr. Taggart, we are the kind of organization
that if you put conditions on us, we will abide by them. We will live up to that and that is
our reputation and on every one of properties that how it goes. In terms of the traffic,
we did discuss this at length with neighborhood meeting and definitely heard an issue
that I have heard a lot around all of our schools, because it's in all of the
neighborhoods, increasing traffic on side streets in Boise and Meridian. We are right
across the street from Cassia Park, there are speed bumps, we find young people --
and not to just to lay it there, but predominately a lot of the kids that pull out of that park
-- and it's a race from one speed bump to the next. We have definitely worked a lot in
our neighborhood on trying to do traffic calming. For example, on our little yellow
school buses, we are the pace cars, so we have got together with Smart Growth, and
we are a pace car. Our drivers drive the speed limit and that slows traffic down and we
encourage and we work with our parents around the safety issues of their children that
they become pace car people that will slow the traffic. There has been a lot of variety of
remedies to slow traffic. Speed bumps are one. We are not traffic experts. I personally
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 44 of 74
haven't seen a great success. The other thing that I can assure the neighborhood is
that we work extensively with the neighborhood police. When had our open house in
Garden City, almost the entire Garden City Police Force was in attendance that night.
They'd come over, they'd visit the school, they made presentations, and those police
cars parked out front had a traffic calming effect. The other thing is they bond with the
program and they come around a lot more so we have had those kind of, I think,
salutary effects on traffic in our neighborhoods. We will work with the neighbors just in
general because it's tough on all of us in the way our neighborhoods have become
raceways. See we will work together with our neighbors to make sure that we don't
have an adverse effect in the way.
Mathes: Someone had a question on how many kids.
Landry: Oh. We are funded for 34 children. There are 17 in the classroom that we
have funded for. We can, with expansion over time -- I don't have funds for expansion
beyond that. In time we have done A.M. and P.M. shifts. An A.M. shift starts at 8:00
and is over at noon, the other one is noon to 4:00, and those are our hours. Right now,
on average, we bus 21 -- 78 percent of our kids and about 21 percent are brought by
families. We have several centers and this is a neighborhood where there are a
number of families that live in the neighborhood, we would really like to encourage the
families to walk their children to school.
Centers: More curious question. What's the maximum income for a family to qualify?
Landry: Well, it's graded by size, but it's about 14,600 for a family of four, just to give
you a sense.
Centers: Excellent program.
Landry: Thank you, sir.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I had a question of staff.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Back to this Landscape Ordinance and the conversion to Old Town and the fact
that those two seem to be a little bit in conflict. It seems to me that when an applicant
comes before us with a request to move to an Old Town, wouldn't it also be
accompanied by a Variance request, if, in fact, the Landscape Ordinance could not be
adhered to and still keep within the flavor of Old Town?
Siddoway: Two answers for you. The first is that the Landscape Ordinance has an
outlet for these small in-fill lots called alternative compliance that allows them to submit,
through a staff level review, for an alternative that we would deem as meeting the intent
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 45 of 74
of the ordinance to the extent feasible. That would not require them to do a Variance.
It's a way to limit the number of Variances in situations where we deem that the
application meets the intent of the ordinance and maximizes the use as much as
possible. The second answer to your question is there is always going to be these
issues, especially with buffers between land uses in Old Town. To address that we are
now working on some new design standards for Old Town specifically and it does a lot
more than just landscaping, but that is one of the items that we are looking at. That's
not yet adopted, but that's probably the right way to address it is other adopt standards
for Old Town that make sense for Old Town.
Rohm: And I think that's where I was going with this is it seems like there is always that
conflict there and if, in fact, you address it up front, then, each time one of these
developments came forward, you wouldn't have that as a quote, unquote, issue.
Siddoway: I totally agree and so we are trying to adopt a new ordinance for Old Town.
Rohm: Thank you.
Centers: But yet, I agree with the flexibility. We don't have any neighbors here tonight
complaining it and we don't -- on either side of the property and that's what I look at and
consider. While I've got the floor, I noted that we have two neighbors down the street at
424 and 417 Broadway, two different people that write letters highly in favor of this
project. The lady right across the street at 322 West Broadway is anxious to see it and
just wondering about her zoning, which, of course, stays the same. You know, I'm
highly in favor of the project. I think most of the neighborhood is and a lot of other
people wrote letters that have worked at Head Start. I think we personally need to
move forward and make them comply with the staff comments and go forward.
Zaremba: I would just add, since Commissioner Centers brought it up, I think we
should at least read into the record the names of the people that have sent us letters. I
mentioned James Cain earlier, who was in favor with some conditions. The letters that
we have received are from Patty Miles, Marion Watson, Cara Curbs, Molly Strokeman,
Jan Cox, and Craig and Dawn Downen, all appear to be in favor of this project.
Borup: Thank you. The hearing is still open.
Centers: I move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend approval to the
City Council for Item 8, Public Hearing RZ 02-006, request for rezone of 0.85 acres
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 46 of 74
from I-L to O-T for Meridian Head Start by Friends of Children and Families,
Incorporated, at 321 and 333 West Broadway Avenue, including all staff comments.
Zaremba: I would like to make an amendment to that. Staff site-specific requirement
number two was that they tile Rutledge Lateral.
Centers: That wasn't on the zoning. Was that on the zoning?
Zaremba: I'm sorry it's not on the zoning. It's on the CUP. I second his motion as it
stands.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Continuing on. I would recommend approval to the City Council for Item 9 on
our agenda, Public Hearing CUP 02-037, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
two-classroom center serving young children and families and a 400-square foot
community meeting room for Meridian Head Start by Friends of Children’s and Families,
Incorporated, at 321 and 333 West Broadway Avenue. Including all staff comments,
with the additional tiling would not be required and a fence in lieu of. That was the only
other thing that I could see and all other staff comments.
Borup: That's a modification to Site-Specific Requirement Number 2 on Page 7.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: I'll second that one.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Before we move on, though, I would like to comment that Mr. Talbot brings
up some very heavy subjects in that neighborhood. I agree with not holding this project
hostage to those, but the city does need to make sure that its codes are being enforced.
Siddoway: Well, let me just offer this we hired a new Code Enforcement Officer this
week. He is -- the Code Enforcement Officers we have had up until now are focusing
primarily on weeds, cars, and things like that. This Code Enforcement Officer is to
enforce zoning regulations, conditions of Conditional Use Permits, signs, and the like so
if that gentleman would contact --
Zaremba: I would invite Mr. Talbot to make that list -- Taggart. I'm sorry to make that
list in writing. It was a very comprehensive and important list. I appreciate it, every item
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 47 of 74
you brought up but if you would put that in writing and forward it to Planning and
Zoning, I think that would helpful.
Siddoway: It is very good and we will have to see what conditions of approval exist that
we can enforce. We will have to keep in mind that some of those may be legal
nonconforming uses, but that is something that we can look into, definitely.
Zaremba: Thank you. Thank you for your thought on that one.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Landry, could you use these extra plans? Okay. Our next item
is Public Hearing RZ 02 dash -- Commissioners, do we want to continue on or does
anybody need a break?
Rohm: Let's take a break.
Borup: Okay. We'll take a short break at this time.
(Recess at 9:25 P.M.)
(Reconvene at 9:38 P.M.)
Item 10. Public Hearing: RZ 02-007 Request for a Rezone of 2.83 acres from R-
4 to L-O zones for Meridian First Baptist Church by Meridian First
Baptist Church – 428 and 506 West Pine Avenue:
Borup: I think we are ready to reconvene. The next item is Public Hearing RZ 02-007,
request for rezone of 2.83 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Meridian First Baptist
Church by the Meridian First Baptist Church at 428 and 506 West Pine Avenue. At this
time, I will open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a
requested rezone for just over two and a half acres along Pine Avenue. It's an existing
church from Meridian First Baptist Church. The properties are outlined for you on the
vicinity map. Let’s see. This is an existing site photo of those properties today. You can
see the existing church and the surrounding residential uses. This is a photo taken
from street level -- today, actually, of the church. The current zoning there is R-4 and
this is similar to two other applications you have seen recently of a church in an existing
R-4 zone, rezoning to limited office, to clean it up and make it a situation where the
church is a permitted use and not a prohibited use. You should have a staff report
dated November 27th
. Staff does support the requested rezone to L-O. There are six
conditions of approval on the property and we would recommend approval of this
rezone application with those conditions. I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Does the applicant have anything they'd like to
add to what the staff report --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 48 of 74
Touchstone: My name is Justin Touchstone I live at 400 West Farmall Way in Kuna,
Idaho. As you can see, it's a pretty straightforward application. We are looking to just
clean it up. We have recently purchased the house right next door, as you can see, to
the west of our existing property. We are looking to do this just to -- we are looking to
expand, adding some additional classroom spaces and some other facilities. It was
represented to us by a number of people that this would be a good way to clean up the
purchase property, along with our two existing parcels that we own. We are aware of
the staff comments and that we will meet them at the time that we do -- start to develop
our site in the future. We have copies of those in our file as well. Really, I mean what --
get my notes here. We are not looking to change the use on the site. I did receive a
phone call from one of the neighbors asking that question, if we were looking to sell the
site, move off, have it zoned for a limited office for another developer to come in and
change the use of the site. We are a long term and we are looking to stay at the site.
We like the site, we like the location in town, we think it's a good place for our church to
be. That's not really -- that's not the reason we are looking for the rezone, we are just
looking for the rezone. When we do develop, we don't do a Conditional Use Permit for
every little project we do and pay the fee every time. We would pay the one-time fee to
rezone it and then we are clear for permitting. Then we will have to come before you
for approval, of course, on the site plan and other things, but we don't have to pay the
conditional fee every time we want to go ahead with a development of the project.
Borup: And we understand. Steve had mentioned that we have had several others
recently doing the same thing and it's getting more in compliance with what the city
would like to see.
Touchstone: That's what Steve and I discussed yesterday.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? All right. Thank you. Do we have
anyone else to testify in this application?
Langley: Dean Langley, 3185 North Black Cat Road. Mr. Touchstone covered most of
the items that I would have covered, so I won't repeat that, other than to say that we
have experienced significant growth in the last year or two and that was part of the
reason why we did buy the 506 property on the west side. Our philosophy as a group
of Christian people is that we don't want to be a super church we don't want to put
1,000 people on that site. We do want to build it to its maximum potential given the city
guidelines under L-O. Then once we have reached that point, we will probably be
looking at starting another church somewhere else and having people stay right where
they are, rather than pick up and move and sell the property. How many people that
involves, you know, we will have to determine that, working with the city staff and the
other existing guidelines. We do like the site, we like the neighborhood, and we like
Meridian and see what potential is there for what we need to do and this is one of the
first concrete steps we need to take to make it a success. Thank you.
Siddoway: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 49 of 74
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item
10 on our agenda, RZ 02-007, request for a rezone of 2.83 acres from R-4 to L-O zones
for Meridian First Baptist Church by Meridian First Baptist Church, 428 and 506 West
Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 11. Public Hearing: ZA 02-002 Request to Amend Zoning Ordinance 11-9-
2, Supplemental Yard and Height Regulations, to allow architectural
encroachments to setbacks in residential developments by Wardle &
Associates:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing ZA 02-002, request to amend zoning ordinance
11-9-2 on Supplemental Yard and Height Regulations to allow architectural
encroachments to setbacks in residential developments. This is by Wardle &
Associates. Open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. What's before you
tonight is a request to amend our Zoning Ordinance to allow encroachment into
setbacks of two feet into the front, side, rear setbacks for architectural structures, such
as covered patios, porches, pop-out windows, could be fireplaces, and the like. It also
states that an uncovered balcony could project four feet onto a rear yard setback. In
addition to that, the -- it also requests that we allow for 15-foot front yard setbacks for
both side entry garages and living areas. A recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
already makes provision for living areas to be built up to the 15 feet, but does not -- it
excludes garages and this would propose to allow that for side entry garages only. We
would point out -- we have met with the Fire Chief and the Building Inspector, we do
believe that the requested zoning amendment is in compliance with the Uniform Fire
Code, the International Fire Code, and the Uniform Building Code, the International
Building Code, it's not in violation of any of those Uniform Building Codes that are
applied to developments. In general, we do not have any major objections to the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 50 of 74
request. We like the idea of encouraging the use of front porches and the like closer to
the streets. There are some recommended modifications to the proposed ordinance
language on Page 2, I believe, that Jonathan Wardle is here tonight with the proposed
write-up that incorporates all those changes. The one item for additional consideration,
as we met with the Fire Chief, was his concern over increasing the possible spread of
fire between structures. It was particularly an issue for him in situations where the city
has already reduced side yard setbacks for two-story structures to allow to be just
simply a five-foot -- as opposed to a five-foot per story setback. If you, then, take a two-
story building with a five-foot setback, that would be 10 feet between the buildings. If
you then allow a two-foot encroachment on each side, it could potentially be six feet
between buildings. If you then add a fence between the two properties, it becomes
difficult for them to access a second floor if they need to with a ladder. That's the worst-
case scenario that he's playing out in his mind. One solution to that would be to restrict
the use of fences in areas -- in situations where those reduced setbacks are granted on
the sites. I know that the applicant has prepared a presentation with lots of pictures that
will help you to visualize this a little better, so I think with that I will just stop, stand for
any questions, and then we can go from there.
Borup: Questions?
Centers: Yes. I have one question, Mr. Chairman. You say you met with the Fire
Chief?
Siddoway: Yes. Actually, Joe Silva, who is the Deputy Fire Chief.
Centers: Okay. Yes Deputy Fire Chief but he wasn't prepared to give you an amended
letter? His letter still stands? I mean -- you know what I'm saying? He didn't give you
an amended letter stating that -- I mean he still feels that it would be a high potential fire
risk?
Siddoway: He does.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? I don't know, Steve, do you want to answer this or maybe
the applicant -- several of the letters of support mentioned that this would bring us
closer into compliance with other cities in the valley. Is that your understanding?
Siddoway: It's my understanding that the City of Boise does allow these architectural
projections into the setbacks. I don't know what other cities do. Just ask the applicant
to address that.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: That was one of my questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 51 of 74
Borup: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 50
Broadway Avenue in Boise. Just to start out, I have a handout and I'll state for the
record the additions by staff we are in agreement with and those are included in this
handout, so it's complete. What we submitted, as well as what the staff recommended,
be amended to that, so I'd like to give this to you before I start.
Borup: When you say you agree with, do you mean the changes that they had
recommended?
Wardle: On Page 2. All right. I did put together a PowerPoint presentation, just so we
weren't dealing with just black and white here. I think sometimes it's a little hard to
visualize what were attempting to accomplish with this. I had also provided some
graphics. I'm not sure if those were given to you in your packets, but as part of the
application there were some exhibits included -- those are the exhibits. Great. I don't
know how in depth you want to go in this. I would like to just show you a few pictures of
where this is in practice and also, for the record, we were just discussing it, the City of
Garden City -- and I'm not sure if it's by Conditional Use or not. They do allow three-
foot setbacks, so six feet between structures and they have allowed fencing down the
middle of those as well in at least one case.
Borup: Single-story or two-story?
Wardle: Actually, it's a combination. The one project I'm thinking of is down at the river
at Glenwood, just south of the river, I think it's called River's Place, they have both two-
story and single-story, but all the setbacks in there are uniform and they are three feet
from the property line, six feet between structures. Steve, if we could go to the third
slide there. Right there. Probably the big issue -- and you're going to see a lot more of
these. We have got one project currently under development and another one that's
going to be coming in front of you and these are front door porches and this is in an
alley in one of our projects. We have got some variety in depths here, but these are -- I
these are 12 feet to the front of porch and I think minimum of 12 or a minimum of 10.
It's between 10 and 12 feet to the front of the porch and then there is an additional
setback there the next one, Steve. This is actually a side entry garage. They projected
the -- the front of the porch bumps out. It's a15-foot setback and on the right-hand side
is a garage with a side entry. Let's go ahead to the next one. This we have -- you can
see the garage is actually in front of the living space, but the porch bumps out in front of
that garage, so you're given another protection out there. Let's go to the next one. And
this is an example of what I was talking about with a second story balcony, allowing that
setback. I don't know that this one encroaches too much into the setback, but it allows
some flexibility as well. Let's go to the next one. This is probably the issue that was
covered most in the ordinance and the staff comments. What we are talking about are
these projections. On the picture on the left, that's a fireplace, a direct-in fireplace the
picture on the right that's also a direct-in fireplace. These are two story structures.
There is ten feet between them and the two-foot projection there. Let's go to the next
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 52 of 74
one. Same thing here two different structures here. What we have is actually a fence
on the -- the one on the right, a fence behind that direct fireplace vent. The one on the
left we have two yards with a fence down the middle and with a direct fireplace vent.
Let's go to the next one, Steve. Right here are a couple bump-outs with both windows
and seats. On the left, there is a window, a bay window, as well as a fireplace vent. On
the right -- I had a hard time trying to figure out what this was, but it's on the second
story and I think they bumped out in a bathroom. Let's go to the next one. This was a
good point raised by staff. This is a side entry garage. This garage is 15 feet from
property line. Staff recommended that we put windows in those and I think that's a
great suggestion. It's going to add some -- instead of having a blank wall there, you will
have a nice feature of a window and all the ones that we have been involved with we
require those windows. We found out that a lot of people just put blinds in there or
some other type thing. This here -- you both have a living space and a front porch in
front of the garage. The last one same thing here where you have living space and
porch in front of the garage. What we are really trying to accomplish here is some
flexibility in the design, with all these features, to give some flexibility to both the
builders and in some cases the lots are a little bit smaller lots that allows them to do
some things that adds some variety to these structures. One thing that wasn't -- that
wasn't addressed in our amendment and it wasn't brought up to me -- I didn't really
think about it myself until someone mentioned it, and it's on the third page of my
handout there and what would be the fourth column over, where it says interior side,
five feet per story. I personally have been in here with two applications, both
Conditional Use Permits in the last year, we will have another one coming forth, and
there have been a variety of these asking for deletion of that additional five feet per
story. A couple of pictures that we showed you tonight were two-story structures, 10
feet apart. I want to note that it's not in violation of the Uniform Building Code or the
Uniform Fire Code, as well as the International Codes. It wasn't -- we didn't request
this, but we put it forward to your consideration to do with as you might to eliminate that
requirement for the additional five feet per story in the R-4, R-8 and R-15 zones, just
allow a five foot setback period and not have an additional setback per story. Just for
note, we have discussed this with the Building Contractors Association, with a number
of builders, as well as other developers and the City of Meridian and they are all
supportive of this. I think it will add some variety to the structures, instead of having just
blank walls you will have some undulations and other design features such as that. I
put this forward for your consideration to adopt what is on this three-page document, as
underlined or scored through. This does include the staff's comments. We are
supportive of the comments that staff made and also put for your consideration the
elimination the requirement for the additional story per additional floor -- or additional
five-foot setback per story. I'll stand for any comments you might have.
Centers: Mr. Wardle, does this application come forward based on a recent application
approved by the Council and this Commission? A project?
Wardle: It does not. It's something we have considered for some time. It's one --
another project we are working in, we have looked at it, it doesn't relate directly to any
one project, we just feel that it would be beneficial to the entire city, instead of going,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 53 of 74
Conditional Use to Conditional Use, to provide some opportunities for all that are
building homes.
Centers: And then relating to the Chairman's comment and neighboring cities to the
east, Boise doesn't have a similar -- you mentioned Garden City, a subdivision that they
had allowed it, but what is Boise's present requirement?
Wardle: Mr. Centers, this very much reflects what the City of Boise allows.
Centers: Day in and day out or on a CUP?
Wardle: Day in and day out.
Centers: You don't have their guidelines handy?
Wardle: We looked at Boise City's guidelines and kind of looked at what they had and
this is almost verbatim. I don't know if Commissioner Borup has that much experience
with these types of things in the City of Boise. I can provide a copy to staff tomorrow,
but what the City of Boise allows is similar to what -- very similar to what we are asking
for here.
Centers: Including the side setbacks? You know, I tend to agree with the Chief and
then your picture, wow, you know, how are you going to get in there? It looks like those
two buildings -- if you had a good fire in one, you're going to have a fire in the other
one. I mean it's going to be too hot and you're going to have a fire in the other home.
Does Boise go along with that?
Wardle: Boise does. Boise does not have a requirement -- an additional setback
requirement in what you call your single-family zones, which would be R1-A, R1 -- I
should say R1-B and R1-C. It's five feet, doesn't really matter how many stories you
have, if you get into a multi-family situation with apartments, they do require an
additional setback, but in your single-family residential it's five feet.
Centers: Even with the two stories?
Wardle: Even with the two stories.
Centers: Five feet period?
Wardle: Five feet period.
Borup: In all zones?
Wardle: I would say it's the R1-B and R1-C zones. I don't think the R1-A, which is like
two units per acre, that -- I couldn't tell you for sure, but I know most definitely in R1-B
and R1-C it's five feet -- five foot setback on the interior sides.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 54 of 74
Mathes: When the homes are this close do they require a firewall?
Wardle: They don't. Actually, the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Code will
allow you to go to a three-foot setback with six feet between structures with no
additional fire penetrations required. You wouldn't have to do anything with you
windows you wouldn't have to increase the size of the wall, if I'm not mistaken. I have
got it right here. Kind of hard to read and it took me a lot of time to go through that, but
that's the --
Centers: So let's jump back to Boise. You said two units per acre.
Wardle: Yes.
Centers: If you had -- maybe that jumped right over my head. If you had two units per
acre --
Borup: That's what he's saying they don't have it reduced on those.
Wardle: I think it's very similar to your R-2 and your R-3 zones that you have here,
seven and a half feet. In those -- in that type of density people like a little more space,
they are not -- they don't fill the footprint, let's put it that way. With a project like -- that
we have done -- that we have proposed in the past, you use up a lot of that space,
because you're dealing with smaller lots, so in the less dense zones --
Centers: I think it's very attractive what you can do. I really do. Are you able to -- the
side setback is a big thing to you, more so than the front and rear; correct?
Wardle: The five-foot --
Centers: You wouldn't be able to live without the side setback, if that were eliminated?
Wardle: You mean the bump outs?
Centers: Yes maintain the present code for side setbacks and give you front and rear
and then you satisfy the Chief, too.
Wardle: Actually, if you read closely the Chief's letter, the very last sentence says --
Centers: Yes comply with the --
Wardle: I don't want to discount his concerns.
Centers: Right.
Wardle: Based on my experience --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 55 of 74
Centers: But it's the side setbacks you really want?
Wardle: Well, I think it's the combination of all those. I don't know that --
Centers: What you're saying is you would like that reduced -- the two-story, five-foot
per story, you would like that eliminated.
Wardle: Correct.
Centers: To five feet period.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? If I may, Mr. Centers, I believe it's not so much the -- that
the side setbacks are the most important, it's just that the side setbacks are the only
thing being contested. I think the front and the rear are very important to them as well,
but we are not contesting that at all. The only issue that's being contested is this
separation on the side, so that's why it's being addressed more.
Centers: Yes and that's why I'm zeroing in on the side setback, if they can live without
any change in the side setback, would they still be happy or fairly happy.
Wardle: I think we'd like it all.
Centers: Well, I know that. That's why I said fairly happy.
Wardle: Fairly happy?
Borup: I was thinking more of the aspect of design and just on small lots and that's my
question, is how much this is necessary is an R-4 zone.
Centers: That my thought, too.
Borup: On a small lot the side yards are not usable space for a homeowner. The more
the building can inject into that or use up that space, the larger their backyard is and
that's where the family wants to spend their time, not -- the side yard really has --
Centers: Yes. I agree. There was one project that I was thinking of recently approved -
- or a few months ago, where it probably, with the small lots and the neighbors don't use
their yards anyway and the side becomes wasted, where it probably would be very
helpful, but I just couldn't see the need in an R-4.
Borup: That's my only question on --
Centers: Is R-4 and R-8 and R-15.
Wardle: Maybe we can compromise in R-8 and R-15.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 56 of 74
Borup: Well, I think -- does the idea of the projections in the R-4 still make sense? I
think the only question we've got here is the five-foot per story, in my mind.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: You know, the side entry garages, which you can't -- a side entry garage on a
50-foot lot is not going to work anyway. It's not going to happen so these narrow lots
with side entry garages aren’t a factor anyway. It's got to be the larger lots to do that.
You've got to have a turning zone but having those with a 50-foot setback, again, that
allows maybe a little more room in the back yard.
Centers: What had the staff thought about five-foot per story? Did you want to leave
that in place? Was that -- without me re-reading this?
Siddoway: Well, it actually wasn't addressed initially in the proposal, so it's not
addressed in the staff report. It just kind of came up tonight.
Centers: Do you want to address it now?
Siddoway: Sure. I certainly think there could be a problem with it, if we allow it to be
fenced down the middle. If we leave it as five-foot per story per the current ordinance,
you know, they can always still request it as -- as he mentioned, several other projects
have requested and been approved for that reduced setback through the Planned
Development process. You know, that would still be available, and then we could put
other conditions like the fencing in those conditions of approval.
Centers: The Fire Department's letter was not based on knowing that, the five-foot per
story being eliminated.
Wardle: That's correct. Like I said, that was a very last minute thing that was brought
up to me this evening, so --
Centers: Right.
Wardle: If I can defer to David Turnbull, who both develops, builds and has a little more
knowledge on this than I do if you're through with me.
Borup: Well, we may have some more questions, but go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.
Centers: It doesn't look like you're going to have a lot of competition for the
microphone.
Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull, my
address is 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. This ordinance revision is a result of
conversations that I and I think a number of other builders and developers have had
with your staff over a couple of years, actually. This goes back a little while. We have
all pretty much been in agreement that, you know, it would be nice to have some
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 57 of 74
consistency between jurisdictions. We develop a lot in Boise and Meridian and we have
a lot of builders that build with us that build both in Boise and Meridian. It becomes a
little bit confusing when you have one set of standards over here and one set of
standards over here, so that the plan you developed over say, for instance, in our Harris
Ranch project, can't necessarily be built over in our Heritage Commons project in
Meridian. The Heritage Commons project may be the one that Commissioner Centers
was thinking of. It was a project that was approved last spring that is just being paved
out now and construction will begin soon. We did request in our Conditional Use Permit
for those reduced setbacks but as we did that, you know, every time we do those
things, it -- you know, it just came back to the conversation that I have had for a couple
of years with the staff is why don't we get something done about this in the ordinance.
We finally -- I finally called Mr. Wardle and I said let's get something on the table and
let's see if we can get this thing resolved. It's important to us, because it provides
consistency with us and the builders and the city between jurisdictions in which we
build. If it's important, as Mr. Borup -- Commissioner Borup can understand. If you
have developed a set of plans and they work in one city, but don't work in another, that
becomes a costly venture to change those every time you move between cities. It's
important to cost effective construction, quite frankly, and it’s also -- and it's important to
create more interesting and esthetically pleasing architecture with your building. I think
you can see by incorporating some bay windows and some projections, instead of, you
know, if you have a rule that just says your setback is this, then the builder will tend to
maximize to that setback and you will have a flat wall across that setback. That's not
only on the interior side yard setbacks, that can be on the corner side yard setbacks
and so you're not able to create a projection with a bay window or a fireplace or
something like a porch or something like that. It would create boring architecture, in my
view. It's also a necessary component -- we have come forth and I'm Co-Chairman of
this North Meridian Area Planning effort. This is one of the components that would be
an important part of that effort, we have just chosen to bring this forward a little early
now and get this on the table and see if we can get it adopted. It really doesn't affect us
right now, because, like I said, the projects that we have approved in Meridian have had
those setbacks approved with a Conditional Use Permit, we just think it would be --
make sense to have them available without a Conditional Use Permit. There was some
confusion about difference zones between Boise City and Meridian City. Essentially,
the equivalent zones to an R-4 and R-8 in Meridian would be the R1-B and the R1-C in
Boise and in the R1 -- I believe -- and I -- without having the code here in front of me it's
hard to say. Like Mr. Wardle said, those R1-A is more like a -- in Boise City is like a
large, large lot subdivision so it's not really applicable to the R-4 or the R-8 that you
have in Meridian. I don't know if -- does Meridian have a density less than R-4?
Siddoway: We do have an R-2 and an R-3.
Turnbull: Okay so the R1-A would still be similar to those. It is not only permitted in
Boise City and Garden City, it's -- you know, as was mentioned before, it meets all the
fire codes. It meets all the Building Codes and the Fire Codes and I think that if it's
been a problem in Boise City, it would have been revoked by now. You know, I know
that Fire Departments have to state their concerns, they always do. As I told Mr.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 58 of 74
Siddoway before the meeting, if they got their way we would be building streets a
hundred feet wide and probably have 30-foot setbacks. We go by what the codes say,
the Building Codes are crafted with the public safety in mind, and so we feel like that, if
it meets the code, then there is no reason not to allow it. That's what I would present to
this Commission. If you have any questions for me I will be happy to answer them as
best I can.
Centers: Very good.
Borup: Apparently, there has not been a concern from Boise Fire Department on --
Turnbull: We routinely build homes just like you saw in those pictures. A lot of pictures
came from our Harris Ranch project.
Borup: My thought was if there is a major fire, does 10 feet make any difference on the
next building?
Centers: I don't think they have experienced it. Right?
Wardle: I can't remember ever seeing a news report of one fire -- of fire spreading from
one house to another house in the Treasure Valley in -- well, I cannot remember when,
so --
Rohm: I wasn't there, but I'm not sure that the setback is specific to fire only. I mean
there is esthetics that is involved in setbacks as well. To your comment about
consistency between jurisdictions, I don't know that that's necessarily germane either. I
mean in my mind, if Meridian wants to have a separate set of standards for their
development from that which is available to you in Boise, then, that's as it should be.
That's why each community has their own personality and those are just general
comments about -- in reference to your presentation, but --
Turnbull: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, I don't disagree with that. I would say
that when we are talking about setback issues, for instance, in a Boise City R1-A, if they
require a greater setback, it's not because of fire considerations, it's because they have
created a large lot subdivision ordinance and they may have chosen to go with greater
setbacks for reasons other than Fire Code issues. It has nothing to do with Fire Code,
because it meets all the uniform or International Building Code Requirements. I guess I
would also say in answer to your question, we have been encouraged -- and I think we
have, with planning staff here is some real vision for what it wants to create in the
Meridian area. That is to create something different and than what we saw through the
'90s and part of that would have a new urbanism appeal and to get many new urbanism
appeal, these are the kind of requirements that are necessary to make that happen,
which you don't have these kinds of code modifications. You will see less, rather than
more, and you won't get what the city staff has been trying to encourage us to build, you
will get less, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 59 of 74
Rohm: I like the offsets for sure. I mean that adds character to the structure and
doesn't appear to be a significant compromise to the intent.
Turnbull: I would say this is a picture of our Harris Ranch project and I was telling Mr.
Siddoway -- or Mr. Freckleton, actually, before the hearing started, I'm not more proud --
I couldn't be more proud of what we have created here. I mean it's compact lots --
those are 32-foot wide lots that you see right there, those are 22-foot wide homes, and,
yet, they are very interesting and they are very functional. They are not little homes.
Those are 1,800 to 3,200 square foot homes and they work very well but it's not for the
guy that wants a big back yard either. It's for the person that wants a minimum of yard
maintenance and provides other amenities where they can go play in a park or a tot lot
or somewhere else, instead of having everybody have their own park in their own back
yard. It's a different concept than maybe what some people want, but it is a viable
concept. The people that live in here, you would be hard pressed to find a for sale sign
in here. They move into it, they love it.
Rohm: It seems to me that this ultimately boils down to an issue on the R-1, R-2 -- and
I don't -- I'm new to the Commission, so you will have to bear with me here a little bit. It
seems to me that the smaller lot subdivisions this would be more applicable to and the
larger the lots become, the less applicable the setback Variance request would be. Is
that kind of the gist of the thing?
Turnbull: That's correct and we haven't requested it in your larger lot subdivisions, we
are only talking about R-4, R-8, and R-15 here.
Rohm: Okay so it's specific to zones within the residential?
Turnbull: Yes. These are zones where you get quarter of an acre lots or smaller.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: I would first state that I'm very much in favor of the increased densities, I can
think of a lot of the transportation needs, even a few of the North Meridian Area
Meetings and we do need to be going, one, towards greater densities and, two, towards
greater variety of product, if that's what you want to call it. My discomfort is probably at
the R-4 zone. We keep whittling away at the size of the lots and the size of the houses
by allowing smaller lots, but reducing the setbacks so we can get still the same size
house on a smaller lot. I'm not swayed by the argument that we should come down to
the level of Boise just to make the two jurisdictions equal. I could be convinced to do
this, probably, in R-8 and R-15, but I'm very uncomfortable packing any greater density
into R-4, particularly when you consider the development gets a 25 percent, you know,
increase at the point of development and I think the open space is important. It's only
one argument to say this was a fire issue. I think it's also an esthetics issue. The
space between the houses in an R-4 zone is important to preserve. If you need it
denser, I don't have a problem saying it should be an R-8.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 60 of 74
Zaremba: You seem to resist wanting to go to a higher zoning just to get more houses
in a smaller space and my feeling is rather than keep chipping away at R-4, just call it
an R-8 and --
Siddoway: I was just going to point out that that could work, given that a lot of our
residential areas on the Comprehensive Plan are medium density residential. By
definition, that corresponds to an R-4 or an R-8 zone so someone interested in doing
this could request an R-8 zone, where someone wanting to do something with the wider
setbacks could do an R-4.
Zaremba: Which is why my suggestion would be that we leave R-4 alone and I could
support this kind of idea for R-8 and R-15, I believe.
Borup: And I had some of the same concerns about the R-4, but sitting here and
listening, I was thinking about it, and your concern about chipping away on R-4, that's
not going to change that. It's minimum 80-foot frontage and 8,000 square foot. That's
not changing, unless someone's requesting a Planned Development on that.
Centers: Right.
Borup: So the lot sizes aren't going to get any different. The only thing it would add is
making larger houses, I guess.
Centers: That's what I was -- and I was thinking the same thing, the forest for the trees.
Give them R-4 give them R-2 -- what's the other one R-3? Yes. What are you going to
do, build a 10,000 square foot house with overhangs and they have a 10-foot sidewalk -
- or setback? No, you're not. I don't think that's going to happen. I think it's just a
common sense thing.
Borup: And the other thing that probably it's going to affect what's developed is the
marketplace.
Centers: Exactly.
Borup: If the homebuyers don't like the 10 feet between two-story homes, they are not
going to buy there, and there is a lot of people that don't. You can't force them to do
that, as long as there is competition out there for them to go somewhere else. I think
the developers realize that and to do a project that doesn't sell doesn't happen the
second time, usually.
Centers: I agree with Commissioner Zaremba that high density in projects like this
would be nice and reduce traffic and what have you, but, totally, it's a marketing
situation. Can you get them to buy it? I mean those have probably done well, but if it
were a -- you know, 75 percent of the development around Meridian and Boise, then,
no, I don't think there is that much demand for it, is there? No, there is not so it's -- you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 61 of 74
know, it's limited and -- but in thinking about it, too -- and I'm sitting here thinking about
the Fire Chief, the side setbacks and the staff will agree. I don't always agree with
them, but in this case, if the staff feels -- and that's why they are paid -- if the staff feels
that they would support this and they agree with it, then I have got to support it. That's
what they are paid to do. Now, where it's an opinion thing, their opinion against mine
and I don't agree -- I don't think this is an opinion situation, I think we are trying to get
uniform here and it's not because Boise has it or Garden City and make it easy -- it
does make it easier for the builders, but I think if the staff feels that it makes sense, then
let's do it. That's the way I feel about it and they know that I don't always feel that way.
Borup: I guess maybe I'm repeating myself, but back to what Commissioner Zaremba
said on the R-4. I was thinking maybe it would be appropriate to exempt from that, but I
just -- I don't think it's going to come up that often. Most of the homes are probably not
going to -- it's not going to be a factor and so I don't know why it makes sense to restrict
it on something that's probably not going to be a big factor. It could make some
interesting designs on some of the --
Mathes: I believe I live in an R-4 and I would have gone -- I would have moved my
house five feet over one way.
Borup: That would give you more room on the other side.
Mathes: I would have more room on the other side, so I can put an RV, a boat, or a
camper.
Borup: That is a big factor.
Mathes: I wouldn't make a bigger house.
Borup: So that ends up with maybe some more room.
Mathes: Yes.
Borup: And the neighbor would probably do the same thing and you would end up with
just as just space between homes anyway.
Mathes: Yes.
Zaremba: You mean a zero lot line on one side and --
Mathes: No five feet and then you have 15 on the other. Right now, we have 10 and
10. It's kind of hard to get a boat in 10 feet, but 15, and then I could actually back it in.
Centers: I guess we are discussing our thoughts, whether or approval or whatever, but
I'm in favor of everything proposed, other than that five-foot per story, because it was a
last minute thing and I would think the applicant would be better prepared when it goes
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 62 of 74
to Council and let them decide that issue. That's the way I feel about it. It was last
minute to staff and I put Steve on the spot and --
Turnbull: Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Centers, I apologize for that. I guess when we
approached this we were trying to create some uniformity. That's just one of the things
that was in a table, actually, and not in the text, that we overlooked the strike-through
on. It was pointed out when we came into this meeting we forgot to do the strike-
through on the table and -- when we were concentrating on the text so my apologies for
that.
Borup: That was your intention --
Turnbull: Correct.
Borup: -- originally?
Turnbull: Correct so I don't follow -- I don't know how you want to choose to deal with
that. If you want to forward it onto the City Council for them to consider it, but not make
any action on it yourself, at least as far as that goes -- I don't know how you have to
deal with that, but we would be happy to address it in a little bit prepared detail at City
Council for sure.
Centers: Yes and, Mr. Turnbull, at that time the staff would have commented on it when
it's presented to the Council, if you present it that way, and they will have it in their
comments at that time, which they don't now.
Borup: And to me that's probably the only -- in fact, I don't know that it would be -- I
don't know. In my mind, it makes a lot of difference for this Commission's consideration
whether we would have had it before or had it tonight. We still have a chance to think
about it and discuss it, but I don't know -- and I assume staff, when you review these
things, it's more -- I mean you sit down as a group on some of these type of things or --
I guess it depends on the application, but --
Siddoway: I was going to say -- never mind. I would -- I think I would address this
issue one way or another. If it -- if we take the tact that we are not going to address it
here, but staff should prepare a new amended staff report for City Council, with no
recommendations from P&Z on that issue. Then, they are likely to remand it back to
ask what P&Z's opinion of that is, so --
Borup: That's probably true.
Centers: I didn't know they respected us that much.
Zaremba: They actually listen to us.
Centers: I don't have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with it either way.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 63 of 74
Zaremba: I think my opinion on the five-foot per story setback is I would rather leave it
that way and hear each individual exception. I'm not comfortable with making a blanket
five-foot setback, regardless of the number of stories. We are, eventually, going to start
having three and four and five story projects come. I hope so. We need -- I mean that's
the way to get density is to go up and if we have eliminated the five-foot per story
requirement, we are going to started having, I hope, some tall buildings, but I don't hope
are too close together.
Rohm: Well, I think that there is a lot of thought put into it when that variable was built
into the ordinance in the first place. I don't think it's -- through this meeting tonight is the
right way to address the removal of something that has been given a lot of thought in
the first place. I think we need to have an opportunity to re-look at that issue and from
staff's position, as well as our own.
Siddoway: One option would be to continue this to your second meeting this month.
That would -- we could --
Centers: Why do we need to continue it?
Siddoway: -- you know, address it in the staff report.
Borup: And send something onto City Council that's finalized and a clear
recommendation.
Centers: Let me ask again. Boise City, you know -- and Boise is not God and just
because Boise does it, that doesn't mean we have to copy it, but -- but they have staff
and -- their side setback is five-foot regardless of the story.
Turnbull: Correct and --
Centers: In what zone?
Turnbull: I know that it is in the R1-C zone, which Harris Ranch is all R1-C and it's got
everywhere from the 32-foot wide lot to the quarter acre even half-acre lots.
Borup: That's a PUD?
Turnbull: Excuse me?
Borup: That's a Planned Development, isn't it?
Turnbull: But it's all in the R1-C zone. It's all allowed in the R1-C zone but, you know,
it's got planning and development for some nonconforming uses, like the commercial
retail. Yes, I mean in answer to your question, in Boise within an R1-C zone, which
accommodates their -- basically, it's kind of a hybrid between your R-8 or your R-4. I
mean it allows anything up to R-8. It's also the zoning for most of what you see would
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 64 of 74
be in your R-4, so I never did say Boise was, you know, God, I just -- I just said that
there is -- you know, if you can borrow ideas and --
Centers: Oh, yes. I totally agree.
Turnbull: -- find things in one city, like Commissioner Zaremba said, you know, if you
want to achieve higher density, there are things you have to do to achieve that. Now,
conversely, if you want to go to the five-story buildings and things like that, those don't
fit in these R-4 or R-8 or R-15 zones anyway. That's an entirely different zone that has
an entirely different set of requirements. I think what we are addressing here is the kind
of --
Centers: Well, I don't think this would be so bad. We pass it as originally proposed
without that and then if you had a two-story, you could go for a CUP for the last five-
foot.
Zaremba: I would still want to consider those and leave it in there.
Borup: Do we want to go through this every time someone wants to do that?
Zaremba: Yes.
Centers: But then why?
Borup: We have done it once or twice.
Centers: I heard one Council Member tell me directly to my face what he really -- what
the person really doesn't like is the CUP's, continually coming back to the CUP's, so --
Turnbull: Commissioner Borup, I think that if you can -- in answer to that question, if
you can adopt some kind of standards here that don't require a CUP every time
somebody comes in, it's going to cut down your homework, your paper work -- you
know. If it makes sense, I guess our argument is we have come through in our last two
or three projects and come through the CUP process and we have gotten it approved
every time without any decent. I think people have liked what we proposed, all we are
saying is if it works, why don't we just make it a standard that you don't have to go
through the CUP process and maybe make it easier on everybody.
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba, would you be more comfortable if it was exempted
from the R-4, just on the setback, but the projections can still stay the same?
Zaremba: I still have difficulty with eliminating the double punch of reducing the setback
and then, in addition to that, allowing intrusions to take two more feet is very
uncomfortable for me.
Borup: Those are non-living area projections.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 65 of 74
Zaremba: Yes, but they still prevent the Fire Department from getting their ladders to
you and, two, the home owner from getting their mower through the narrow -- if they put
a fence in, to narrow down the space.
Borup: They don't do a riding mower.
Centers: Yes. You can get a mower through, but not a riding mower.
Zaremba: You make it difficult to maintain. You know, the smaller it is, and the more
tendencies it is to be a dead space, instead of have some attractive beautiful lawn
there. I just --
Centers: You know, when we first sat down and started to hear this, I felt exactly the
same way, until -- like we had an applicant earlier where you had your mind made up
and then you changed. What changed me was just sitting here thinking about it and
that's to staff. They feel supportive of this, they are in favor of it, I think we ought to
move it to Council and right now I'd like to close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Well, I don't know if it matters if we close it yet, but --
Centers: But I've got to do it to make a motion.
Borup: What's your feeling on the setback per story, then, when you say move it onto
City Council?
Centers: Are you talking to me?
Borup: Yes, Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I'm going right with staff. I'm going to eliminate the five-foot per story, I’m
going to make that motion, and we will see where we end up.
Borup: Just as originally presented. Okay.
Centers: But --
Zaremba: I would state that if I'm going to object to your motion, it would be a very
limited objection. I'm still uncomfortable with R-4 and I'm uncomfortable with the --
Centers: The R-4 is --
Borup: You mean the projections in the R-4?
Zaremba: Giving up the five-foot per story.
Borup: Well, that's what he just stated, that wasn't included. Isn't that what you said?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 66 of 74
Centers: Yes.
Borup: That was not included?
Centers: Yes. I'm going to include that.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: That's my --
Borup: To include that in the motion?
Centers: Right five-foot, period. Remove the word story. Because I think it's a
marketing situation, too. Totally marketing and the R-4 argument, Commissioner
Zaremba, it -- if you really think about it, it doesn't really apply, you know, because --
Borup: I don't think too many builders would do that.
Centers: Right. You got 8,000 square foot minimum lots. Most of the R-4 lots are even
above that and, you know, you're not going to be -- you know, where it's really going to
apply is R-8 and R-15. At any rate, I move to close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and Second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: I'm over here working it out in my mind thinking about this and I don't mean
to muddy this more, but I want to jump over to the R-15 for a minute and just -- the
proposed table on the yellow sheet handed out tonight doesn't have a maximum
building height in R-15. I assume that's just simply an oversight. The ordinance --
Borup: This table is the existing table, isn't it?
Siddoway: For the most part.
Borup: Or has it changed?
Wardle: That was the table that was found in the Amberstone Ordinance Amendment
as provided to me by the City Clerk.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 67 of 74
Borup: Okay. This is the existing --
Siddoway: Well, R-15 is not addressed in the Amberstone Ordinance.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: The maximum building height in R-15 is 40 feet by the current ordinance, so
worst case scenario, you know, you figure 40 feet is four stories --
Borup: Well, no, because that includes the roof, doesn't it?
Siddoway: No. It does not. The definition in the Zoning Ordinance is to the top of the
bearing wall.
Borup: Okay.
Siddoway: So worst-case scenario is two four-story buildings in R-15 set five foot off
the property line. I don't know if you are ever going to see that.
Borup: Is that why we have all these two and a half story buildings, supposedly? Well,
Jon, we've closed the hearing, but -- unless we open it back up. There is no one else
here. Really, most of all this is applied in R-8.
Zaremba: Well, exclude R-4.
Borup: Because there may be a few cases that it -- well, I think Leslie gave a good
example of a -- how it can help.
Centers: Steve could we -- could we say a five-foot side setback to a maximum of two
stories. Above two stories would require -- what? A CUP or -- because, you know, that
is farfetched, four stories five feet apart in an R-15, but --
Siddoway: In talking with the applicant, they are more -- mostly concerned with the R-4
and R-8 zones where they are truly single-family zones where you would do a project
similar to the images you're seeing. I believe it was staff that added R-15.
Centers: Okay so leave it as is for R-15, which has the 40-foot building height.
Siddoway: You know, I don't mind the architectural projections being allowed in R-15
either, but maybe we should just leave the five-foot per story in the R-15.
Borup: I guess -- I thought we were leaning towards --
Centers: Let me ask you -- the way I understand it, Mr. Wardle gave us this, which
would be the verbiage that we could approve and send to City Council. Have you
proofread it? Is it sendable?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 68 of 74
Siddoway: I have not proof read it. I received it tonight.
Centers: So then we should refer to your notes in a motion and staff's --
Siddoway: That would be fine. I mean we could -- basically taking his word that they
have been incorporated. I could skim it over quickly and --
Centers: Do you think it would be fine to just utilize this for the motion?
Siddoway: I believe so. I can -- give me two minutes to just --
Centers: Okay. Take two minutes, because I think --
Borup: The thing that I was just thinking -- has this Commission ever seen an R-15
project?
Centers: I can't recall it.
Borup: I can't either.
Centers: Where is that in the Comp Plan? That little piece that we looked at earlier
next to --
Siddoway: Creekside Arbour is one.
Borup: They are all apartment complexes.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: No single-family -- that's not a single-family --
Siddoway: No.
Borup: -- type of project. We have had those. Either R-15 or R-40. I think they have
all been multi-family -- same thing, multi-family projects.
Centers: Well -- and just to keep talking here, because -- before we fall asleep but, you
know, all of these ordinance changes that McKinnon has been bringing to us and that
type of thing, you know, I'm interested, but I want him happy. I want staff happy and I
feel the same way about this. I really do. I'm not here to redraw ordinances and that
type of thing, especially when there is no -- not much Public Hearing involved. If the
staff is behind it, then, I'm behind it. I have never contradicted McKinnon on any of
those ordinances. Maybe a suggestion on verbiage and that kind of thing, but, still, I
don't want to be a proof writer either, you know. When he comes before us -- and this is
the same situation -- you know, I don't want to proof read everything that he's done. Tell
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 69 of 74
us what you want to do, let's make a motion, and approve it because it is State Statute
that we have to go that way.
Borup: Well, that is also part of the charge of this Commission.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Is to --
Centers: Is to what?
Borup: I believe -- it's been awhile since I read it, but propose changes and originate --
but that doesn't mean --
Centers: Based on staff recommendation.
Borup: We would have to sit down and --
Centers: And I'm not going to contradict staff.
Borup: All the stuff we have directed them to do, something -- or tried to get them to
do --
Centers: Like neighborhood meetings and those kinds of things that affect us
immensely.
Borup: We could refer to the staff notes, other than the -- other than the chart. That's
the only thing that probably --
Centers: All right. Well, Steve is getting comfortable there, I think.
Wardle: I did make one error. I changed any and made it -- or I put any instead of the
word the.
Siddoway: That discrepancy shows up in Item 3 on the yellow sheet. The following
encroachment shall be permitted in any front yard. Dave McKinnon had crossed out
any and added the word the. That's the only difference I see.
Centers: Okay. Mr. Chairman, we will see where we go here. I would like to make a
motion on -- get my page -- Item 11, recommending approval to the City Council, Zoning
Amendment 02-002, request to amend Zoning Ordinance 11-9-2, Supplemental Yard,
and Height Regulations. To allow architectural encroachments to setbacks in residential
developments as submitted by Wardle & Associates, including all staff comments and
the ordinance shall apply to the three-page yellow sheet as submitted -- or yellow
sheets. The last sheet showing interior side, the story -- the word story shall be
eliminated on the R-4 and R-8 zone, where the anterior side setback would be five-foot,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 70 of 74
period. One other minor change, in the first page of the yellow sheets, Item 3, at the
bottom, the following encroachments shall be permitted in -- cross out the word “any”
and insert “the”, end of motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed?
Zaremba: Naye.
Borup: Two ayes, one naye, and abstention. I guess that passes. That's not a tie-
breaker. That's not a tie there. The ayes have it. We will move it forward onto City
Council. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES, ONE NAYE, ONE ABSTAINED
Borup: One more motion.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: As a side note, I would simply point out that yesterday there was a meeting
at COMPASS, which Commissioner Zaremba attended, on -- it was an audio
conference regarding Planning and Zoning -- running Planning and Zoning Commission
Meetings. There was a really good packet of readings related to that exact topic
handed out and I have copies for all the Commissioners tonight, which I will hand out as
soon as we are done. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. That would be good.
Zaremba: I would comment that it was a very good meeting. I felt that Meridian and
this Commission run the meetings, with the help of Chairman Borup, at a very high
quality and many of the suggestions that were suggested in the meeting we do. The
one thing I took away that we do a little differently is in asking people to sign up to
speak. The suggestion was made that you're not to put them on the spot to say
whether they are for or against. Some people really aren't for or against, but just want
to express an opinion or ask a question and not make that distinction, just ask who
wants to speak and take them in whatever order they you come. Other than that, the
Commission and this Chairman is running the meeting in almost every way that was
suggested.
Borup: So they recommended not asking --
Zaremba: Not asking for or against.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 71 of 74
Borup: Well, I have been in meetings where they did that and it always bothered me,
so I have chose to ignore that, even though we have got some instructions someplace
but I felt the same way.
Centers: You know, we haven't adjourned, have we. The two seminars -- I forget the
name of the --
Borup: Harrington and --
Centers: Yes they recommend the opposite.
Borup: -- Mason.
Centers: Mason.
Borup: That's probably what I remember, yes. I just --
Centers: Sign up for and against.
Borup: I thought that -- you're right, a lot of people just have questions, and they are
not necessarily for or against.
Zaremba: I think it makes it more confrontational for them to have to choose.
Borup: Yes. Well, right now our sign-up sheets have that on them.
Zaremba: Right. They do.
Borup: Is that something we ought to discuss, whether we want to leave that off?
Zaremba: That was my suggestion just not have that column.
Rohm: I agree with that. I think it should be left off.
Borup: I tell you, I have seen -- maybe we haven't had any real confrontational projects,
but the last several that have come in had a real potential and they have had the
neighborhood meetings and it really cut down on that. I mean --
Zaremba: I like the idea of moving towards requiring the neighborhood meetings,
because they come in here with a lot of contentious issues already resolved or at least
clarified.
Borup: We have seen that on two projects in a few months.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 72 of 74
Rohm: You know, another alternative that you could just add a third column that is -- I
don't know what you would call it, but it's not necessarily for or against, but just would
like to provide comments.
Borup: For or against or comment or question.
Zaremba: Yes.
Rohm: Yes not necessarily. It may be that they just have query and --
Borup: A lot of the people do that. The rest of the Commission doesn't get to see
those, but a lot of people put a question mark in between the two or off to the side,
because they don't want to be pigeon holed into either category either.
Centers: Like that one lady tonight on the Head Start, right across the street, and she
just had a question.
Borup: And she didn't sign up either.
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think the for or against distinction
is good in applications where you're going to get a lot of public comment and may have
a comment and may have a very big controversy concerning something. I think it would
be helpful to streamline things, so you can have a block of people for and a block of
people against it, but most of the applications that come before this Commission, I think
it does have the potential effect of causing people to wonder if they are for or against it
or just want to comment.
Borup: You have missed -- we have had somewhere they take a page and a half.
Wollen: And maybe for those --
Borup: But we haven't had that lately.
Wollen: Maybe for those -- for that type of hearing it would be a good idea.
Borup: Yes. Everyone has their opportunity. When we have a big group, I have asked
for a spokesman to try to cut that down. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Centers: I move that we close --
Borup: Do you want to give direction on this? Just eliminate the --
Zaremba: I move that we eliminate the for and against column on the sign-up sheet for
public speaking at a hearing.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
December 5, 2002
Page 73 of 74
Centers: Do we have to have a motion for that?
Borup: Well, yes, Sharon says maybe we will talk to the City Clerk about that and I will
-- and if there is a strong -- I will just tell him how we feel and see if there is any other
reason.
Zaremba: I amend the motion to say I move that we express the opinion.
Borup: Okay. I will do that with the Clerks' Office.
Rohm: I move that we close this meeting.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:56 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK