2002 05-02Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 2, 2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, May 2, 2002, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, and Leslie Mathes.
Members Absent: Commissioner Keven Shreeve.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Nicholas Wollen, Sharon
Smith, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-call Attendance:
X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers
X Leslie Mathes O Keven Shreeve
X Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, May
2nd
. Begin with the roll-call attendance.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
Borup: We don't have minutes on, but we did receive minutes, correct? We have
already done those? Okay. No minutes this evening. There has been a request for the
applicant on Item Number 4. They thought they were later scheduled and they
requested that they could be moved down after the next hearing. If they are not here, I
guess the other choice would be to put them after Marlin Subdivision, if that's okay with
the Commission.
Centers: Yes.
Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 02-009 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
residential development consisting of four town-house style units in a two
story building in an O-T zone for Thornton Four-Plex by Scott J.
Thornton – 121 East King Street:
Borup: That being done, we'd like start with Item Number 5, then, Public Hearing CUP
02-009, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a residential development, consisting
of four townhouse style units, two story building, in Old Town Zone for Thornton four flex
by Scott Thornton. I'd like to open that Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, to orient you, the
subject property is here. Here is East First on the west and East King Street to the
north. This is in Old Town, which is reflected by the orange color, and then there is the
alley here behind. The existing site -- here is a couple of photos. The existing house
on the parcel, which is approximately .15 acres in size, is there on the left. There is an
existing tree on the right-hand side there. Here is from the alley looking west behind
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 2
the property. We are simply including these dead and dying trees in the rear -- not to
highlight it, but I'd point out it is reflected in the conditions in terms of mitigation. We do
have an ordinance, you know, it says we have to replace healthy stands of trees, but we
don't feel that this one would have to be mitigated for. Here are the neighbors of the
property. One to the east there, an existing single-family house, and then Meridian
Cycles is there on the right. That's the west. Let's see. I guess we'll go with the other -
- each unit is going to offer 1,092 square feet of living space. Again, they are proposing
a four plex. It is a two-story building. I'm going to refer to a couple items in our staff
report, dated April 30, 2002, and one of those is on Page 2-A. I guess I will just
highlight a couple features of the site here first. Again, here is King on the left-hand
side and the alley is here on the right-hand side. This is the entry side of the building
here as you come off of King, and then is gray of the sidewalk, and then each of the
four units does have a patio area behind them. They are proposing tandem parking
behind the four plex, so, obviously, these -- as I understand it -- the applicant can go
further on this, but the two parking spaces on the bottom would be assigned to one unit
then another one here and then the fourth one here. The -- Item A on Page 2 does
refer to the fact that tandem parking -- at this point, as you may recall, the Commission
gave us some discussion at a previous -- under a previous ordinance. What they are
proposing doesn't necessarily meet the guidelines of what this body discussed as
approved tandem parking, but that hasn't been adopted as an ordinance yet in terms of
the tandem parking. Actually, the city doesn't have an existing ordinance that sets the
guidelines and the parameters for tandem parking. Since it is a Conditional Use Permit,
they have the option to -- you know, to propose this. The -- further discussion of the
tandem parking is on Page 4, Item Number 1 there, and we are in support of the
proposed tandem configuration if a carport covering is provided for the inner most stalls
and there is an item there that says staff is investigating the building code requirements.
We did do that. The building official Daunt Whitman said that the five foot setback of
the carport posts would be fine and would meet the Uniform Building Code, but we are
recommending that the Commission make a finding as to whether the proposed tandem
parking configuration is acceptable. I will just point out two other items. On Page 6,
Item Number 7, we do have -- regarding the landscaping. I discussed a little bit about
that, but the rear trees are likely to hazard. The front tree appears to be healthy, so in
terms of the additional landscaping, it does not appear and maybe you could address
whether the three would remain and the applicant could do that. Item Number 8 has to
do with the fencing and we do support at this point no fencing requirements for the
project, since there are existing fences. Certainly if the applicant proposes those we'd
probably just recommend they be handled under the normal fence permitting process.
Staff is recommending approval of the project, so I will just leave it at that to answer any
questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Brad, I'm just curious. Why would we require the carport
on the inner most -- what's the rationale?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, there is -- the rationale is -- in terms of covering, there is some
differentiation between the two if that were to happen. The garage -- as you remember,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 3
the garage was one of the items that we would recommend approval of tandem parking
if there was a garage and there is on-street parking.
Centers: Why is it required for the inner most and not all four -- or all eight?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Are you saying that would be the same -- kind of the same situation as a single
car garage with the second parking being in the driveway in front of the garage, so we
would similar circumstances?
Centers: Well, we are not going to cover all eight. I mean that's not your requirement.
Hawkins-Clark: That's not our proposal.
Centers: You're just proposing to cover two.
Borup: Four. Four spaces.
Hawkins-Clark: Four. Right.
Centers: Okay. I still don't understand that, why four and not all or why none -- why not
none?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The -- I mean, like I say, it is just a recommendation. The
applicant could address that.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions?
Zaremba: Well, the same subject. Is it my understanding that in the ordinance there is
no provision for tandem parking and it would not be acceptable. Our discussion earlier
was whether or not a second space could be outside of a garage. I don't see room to
put garages here. I kind of support staff's opinion that there should at least be a carport
over some of it.
Borup: And that's the way I interpreted staff's opinion was that would be a good
compromise to allow --
Zaremba: As opposed to having to have one them in a garage.
Borup: Right.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: I guess the other question where is -- where is the cut between -- do the parking
requirements say on through four units or just on duplexes? It's the same? Four units -
- four units still require two?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 4
Hawkins-Clark: Two. Correct.
Borup: Two off-street parking spaces.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Well, of course. Apartments do, too.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Apartments do.
Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here and would like to make a presentation?
Thornton: Well, I don't have a lot --
Borup: Start with your name and address, please.
Thornton: My name is Scott Thornton. I live at 1284 South Ashley Place in Meridian
and I don't have a lot to add to what the staff report says. They have gone along with
the -- or they have recommended the project, which we noted, and as far as the talk
about the carport, that actually pleases us. We wanted to put a carport there. It just so
happens it worked out to be good for both of us, so -- it's been my experience it seems
that we have a little easier time renting places that have some covered parking.
Anyway, so I really would prefer that to -- as far as the tree in the front, I believe that
where we show a tree there I -- originally when I drew that tree on there I hadn't thought
about that tree that existed. It's right about in that spot, so I believe that will be able to
stay, if that's the best considered use of that.
Borup: Did you understand staff's concern on that and how that applied with the city
with the ordinance?
Thornton: I did and --
Borup: If the tree had to be removed that --
Thornton: That there had to be trees replacing it.
Borup: Right.
Thornton: And we were proposing a couple of trees, which that particular one was one
of them, to replace with a new one, but, heck, if that tree can stay, that's fine with me. I
don't think it's in the road for any proposed new --
Borup: Well, the replacement would need to be similar caliper, so that would take more
than a couple of trees to replace that big one, probably.
Thornton: Well, yes, but as in the staff report, they also noted that it might be
impossible to fully mitigate, so --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 5
Borup: Right. I mean that would be good if it can stay. That would help that.
Thornton: Yes and I think that would be just fine. I honestly hadn't looked that closely
at that particular tree, so I think that would be just fine. We were really pleased that we
were able to get some extra buffer in the front. When we first looked at the property, we
had to have a survey done to find out exactly where the property lines were and to meet
up with Ada County Highway's requirements as far as right of way. We actually found
out that we had 10 more feet of right of way than the Highway Department thought that
was on that street when we looked it up. That allowed us a little more buffer between
the streets and allowed us to give you the little grass buffer, which we were told that
was part of the new ordinance was to be included. That new little buffer in there, which
is kind of interesting to me that we go back and forth from the style to the new style
every now and then. That's kind of interesting. It makes it look nice, so I don't have
much more to add, other than we thought this was the best use, which we were trying to
get all the ingress and egress in the back through the alley and keep as much as we
could off the main street. With that, I'll leave it up to you guys for questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners for Mr. Thornton?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, maybe I missed it. Probably asleep. Do you have an old
house you're going to tear down?
Thornton: Yes, we do.
Centers: It was that first one on the screen wasn't it?
Thornton: Yes.
Centers: Secondly, have you read the Meridian Fire Department comments?
Thornton: Yes, I have.
Centers: And that's not going to be a problem?
Thornton: I don't believe so, if you're referring to the fire hydrant.
Centers: Yes. That's most of his comments.
Thornton: Yes.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Thornton: We will work something out with the Fire Department. I don't know if you
guys want these copies. We can look at that, I guess. This is kind of what we are
proposing. It wasn't brought up in the staff report, but one of their concerns was the
look of the King Street side of the building. Give you that whole -- you guys might want
to look at that. This shows the original site elevation, which was pretty flat, the planes
over here on the left. What we did is just add these little pop outs that we are going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 6
put some stucco on the center just to kind of dress it up a little bit. When we were
talking to the staff we actually had another set of double windows on the right, but there
is actually some walls right there that don't tend to work out. These extra windows
would be in the living room area on that end of unit, which will kind of make that unit a
little nicer and add a little character to the side, so it's not just a flat wall. I think we are
doing a good job of addressing that concern about having a bland wall there. Then we
will have some landscaping that will -- you know, bushes and things that will pop up
right in front of that.
Zaremba: You read my mind. I was going to ask if you could put some more shrubbery
in the other blank space.
Thornton: Yes. You can't see it very well on the site plan, but it's proposed in there.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Thornton. Do we have anyone else to
testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: I would only comment for the record that we have a letter from Allen and
Lola Dansereau who said they probably were not going to be able to make it to the
meeting tonight. They had no objection, since there are other similar -- apparently, they
are neighbors of this, but there are other buildings like this in the neighborhood and
they had no objection.
Borup: Thank you for noting that.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Mathes: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Zaremba: I think the applicant has addressed most of the concerns. He is agreed to
the carport and to salvage the tree if possible. I see that there was a second tree
shown on the other side of the property.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: And the facade facing the street appears to be not so bland.
Borup: That helps that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 7
Centers: Yes and I think the -- it's a definite improvement to the neighborhood based
on what he's taking out and what he's putting in. That's the main thing. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would make a motion that we recommend approval to the City Council Item
5, CUP 02-009, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a residential development,
consisting of four townhouse style units in a two-story building in OT zone for Thornton
four plex by Scott J. Thornton. Including all staff comments and Item 6, Page 6, the last
sentence should read, over the inner most four parking stalls. Including Meridian Fire
Department's comments, which they state would be a requirement and per the
applicant's revised elevation that he showed us at the hearing tonight. End of motion.
Zaremba: I second it.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? I might just maybe note for the
applicant, we don't have a copy of that elevation for our files, so if you could bring that
to the Clerk that would be good. Ready for a vote? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4: Public Hearing: CUP 02-008 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
drive-thru window and drive-thru lane at an existing Moxie Java coffee
shop by Avest Limited Partnership – 1800 North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: I don't believe Avest has got here yet. Okay. Everyone that needs to be? Oh.
We will continue with Public Hearing CUP 02-008, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a drive-thru window and drive-thru lane existing at Moxie Java Coffee Shop by Avest
Limited Partnership. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff's report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I refer to our staff report
dated April 30, 2002. You all, I'm sure, are familiar with the proposed site here at the
Fred Meyer, Locust Grove Road on the left and East Fairview here on the south. The
proposed project is on a separate legal parcel from the Fred Meyer complex, actually,
that has the multi tenants building there. Here is an overall layout of the Fred Meyer
site with all parking and landscaping, et cetera. Here is the proposed building that we
are discussing now. As was written in the report, this application has come before the
city a few times before, each time has received a denial. The reason for the most
recent denial was due to the fact that the proposed use along the existing heavy traffic
in the general area would add to the traffic concerns, public safety and would be an
incompatible use. That's quoted from the 2001 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law. The applicant has resubmitted, feeling like they have addressed the initial
concern there. The City Council did instruct the applicant -- as you can see there on
Page 1, to propose a different design that will eliminate the potentially hazardous
intersection with existing drive-thru lanes that serve TCBY. I will just point that out here.
Here is a blow up of the site itself and the new design proposed is -- is to have a new
drive-thru window that would be located at this location towards the north end of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 8
building. Their proposal is to have an order -- the call menu order thing here and then
they would make the curve, pickup window, and then curve to the east. As you can
see, they have got a bump out added here and that's the primary difference. The one
that was denied last year, their potential conflict was here with the TCBY window, which
is here. This is the stacking lane here, so there was concern about this intersection.
They have essentially forced Moxie Java customers to curve to the east and then
potentially exit here at the north. In the staff report I will just point out one of the
findings, Item G on Page 3, there is certainly some potential conflict in the design of the
parking lot for the staking depth still. That would be if you order from this point and you
have cars backing up it would block this access drive here. We have made a
recommendation to shift the order here and move it to the north slightly, so that there
can be at least two cars that are stacking there. The proposed stacking depth is about
60 feet enough for three vehicles, and the standard for the city is 100 foot stacking
depth. That's certainly going to need to be a finding that this Commission makes. In
that regard, as far as the site specific requirements that we have talked about or that we
have recommended to you, the menu order board on Number 3 there to be moved
north, my understanding is that the applicant has agreed to shift that to the north. Just
to wrap up, here is an elevation of the east there on the top and you can see the order
window, pickup window, would be here and this is the stacking lane here. The north
elevation, no proposed changes to either the north or the south elevations of the
existing building. With that, I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes. Would you go back -- yes? That view right there. I like the addition of
the push out there. Could that be made a little longer, either by paint striping or running
a little longer? It seems like that's just a hair short of what it should be. We can discuss
that with the applicant, maybe. This is a question for staff, though. The number of
required parking - and I'm guessing that this is the parcel line and that outside of that is
not available for making adjustments.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: Of course, that eliminates the suggestion I was going to make, I think, but
would it be possible to close this opening by extending that island and giving them more
stacking space. Take away six parking spaces, make another entrance into that area
there or does that impact the parcel that’s not involved here, and therefore make it
impossible?
Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Durkin may be able to answer it, but typically the -- you know, if
there is a Cross-Parking Agreement on the site, the ordinance requirement that all off-
street parking stalls be on the parcel of the building, there is more flexibility. If there is
no Cross-Parking Agreement in place, it does appear that they would not be able to
have a reduction.
Zaremba: The number of stalls?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 9
Zaremba: Okay. If that is not possible, then let me ask a question about how the CUP
affects the building. The staff report notes that this is a -- pretty much a coffee service,
which is not going to be a long line like a hamburger service would, that there probably
would not be as many cars stacking there. Does the CUP run with the building or does
it run with the business that is currently in there? In other words, if Moxie Java left and
McDonald's decided that they wanted that spot, would that cause this window to be
eliminated?
Hawkins-Clark: I don't know that I can give the right answer to that. I would have to
check on that. Typically, the Conditional Use Permit is issued and they run with the
land.
Zaremba: So it wouldn't go with the business?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I don't any questions at this point further.
Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward?
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. I'm here tonight on behalf of Avest Property
Management. They are the owners of the entire shopping center. We respectfully
request your approval for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-thru window on the
east end of the Moxie Java building. This request is consistent with all ACHD
requirements and it meets their highest standard. This request is consistent with all of
the Meridian ordinances. This request is consistent with the current Comprehensive
Plan and the latest draft of the new Comprehensive Plan. The center was designed
and built in early 1990's. At the time, it was the closest city center location site available
at the time. While it does include a large Fred Meyer, the site is geared to a
neighborhood use with local uses like a bank, sandwich shop, drycleaners, grocery
store, beauty salons, Christian movie rentals, et cetera. We are required to go through
the Conditional Use Process for drive-thrus in the City of Meridian and I will stress that a
denial will result in our tenant relocating to a space that will not have the neighborhood
features such as this center. There have been concerns expressed by former members
of the Planning and Zoning Commission about parking on the east side of the drive-thru
lane. You should be aware that the City Ordinance for parking in the shopping center is
far exceeded. There is a Cross-Easement Use Agreement in place in the center, we
were required to do that when we built it and it had to be approved by the city. The City
Ordinance calls for five cars per thousand per parcel and the Cross-Easement
Agreement calls for five cars per thousand for parcel. Our parcel has five cars per
thousand right now directly in front of the building. There are 32 parking stalls on the
parcel and nine additional directly in front of the building. While there happens to be
parking available to the east of the drive-thru, it is far less convenient parking to the
building under discussion and there is ample parking in front of the building. There
were comments at the City Council level about the drive-thru lanes and their interaction
with the Loop Road behind or to the north of the building. You should remember that
this is a private drive within the overall development. The Loop Road is controlled and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 10
maintained by the developers, yet a review of this concern with ACHD resulted in ACHD
saying that they had no concern over any interaction. Their letter is in the file with the
city for that. We had two different traffic engineering companies that we have hired to
look at the interaction that we are proposing, both of whom have written letters saying
that there is no concern and, in fact, there is far less intersection with traffic in that area
than many other areas within the very shopping center. For example, if you walk out
the front door of Fred Meyer or walk across the parking lot to McDonald's there is far
heavier traffic. From a traffic flow standpoint, pedestrian traffic, vehicle traffic, bicycle
traffic, this is about the lowest area of the shopping center. The City Council denied our
previous request and recommended that we re-apply to the Planning and Zoning and
eventually to the City Council with an alternative drive-thru arrangement. We have
complied with that request and we have presented that to you tonight. I want to remind
you that centers must change with time or they die, tenants must change with the times
or they go out of business. It's amazing to me to say this, but when this center was built
the design there was one drive-thru coffee facility in the entire Treasure Valley and that
was located at Kootenai and Vista Avenue. It was the former Alaska fish building and
Moxie Java converted it to a Moxie Java with a drive-thru. That was it. There wasn't
another one in the city -- or in the entire Treasure Valley. Now there are many, including
several in Meridian. We have spent an unusual amount of time and money going
through the approval process, because we believe and we feel so strongly that a
successful coffee shop is a crucial component to the neighborhood center and the
neighbor retail building. We are really appreciative of the staff and the time and effort
that they have taken to help us arrive at an alternative plan, a plan that works for us. It
works for our tenant and it generally meets and exceeds the comments and concerns
expressed at the City Council level. The comment about extending that pointed area I
believe can be done and should be done. I think it could also, instead of painting, which
I don't think is real successful, I think it would be done in concrete and we would
propose that. The idea of changing the driveway entry where it interacts with that that
would be a very difficult task. There are in the shopping center about seven Conditional
Use Permits on record with the city. All of those Conditional Use Permits have this drive
lane approval and they are all in interactive. While I don't think the city would
technically require a modification to all those permits, a variety of tenants could require
it. That would be an enormous process to go through. I want to remind you that the
present use -- and you raise a very good question about future use, but the present use
is a coffee shop. We do have a long-term arrangement with the tenant and he's here
tonight if you have any questions. The applicant would be okay with the idea of putting
a limitation on the drive-thru for a coffee -- but I would like to add language in there, or a
similar non-intensive business. There are hamburger stands throughout this project
and throughout the area and I think it's unlikely. We develop a lot of shopping centers
and this format does not fit the criteria for a fast food, more intensive drive-thru
operation. Now in the center in the front of the project, we have another identical
building with a Subway on one side and a drycleaners on the other. We have had no
problems with that. That's a low -- what I would call a low intensive use. I just don't
know how to put that wording in a Conditional Use Permit, how we would word that, but
if you were interested in taking a stab at something like that, we would be interested in
that. Our main reason for going through this process -- this is the third time -- Moxie
Java was the very first tenant to sign up with us on this project before Fred Meyer went
up. Moxie Java and Subway, and it's been a very successful 1,500 square foot coffee
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 11
shop. The neighbors walk there, there is outside seating, it's an important component
for our center, and we think that to lose that, any other coffee shop operation would
require the very same thing they are asking. We would lose that component from the
neighborhood center. We respectfully request your approval this evening, so we can
continue with the updating and modifications necessary to insure a successful, long-
term Meridian development. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Well, the topics I brought up, I have -- first, let me say I think the drive-thru
window has to be a good addition to this and I'm not sure that anybody would be
against that. The concern is making sure that it's the safest possible traffic
configuration and there is not a time when there would begin to be accidents in there. If
you can extend the little push out there -- my concern on that was not so much the
traffic leaving Moxie Java. The traffic trying to find the entrance to the other drive-thru
for the yogurt place could swing wide and come around that corner and to encourage
them not to extending that a little bit I think would be helpful. The safety difficulty is
apparently the -- the ordinance is that drive-thrus are required to have 100 feet for
stacking. I can see that having this drive-thru window probably would eliminate the
need for some people to park. The purpose is that people stay in their car, keep
moving, and, therefore, there is probably going to be less use of that one little driveway
there. If that can't change, that's not a problem for me. I think I would ask if -- and you
may have answered this -- if you and the applicant are comfortable with saying that this
Conditional Use only applies to this or a very similar business, so that some other
business can't come in and suddenly have a stacking lane for six or seven cars. I think
I heard you say that you would be amenable to something like that. If we were to say
something like service through this window, drive-up window, is limited to beverages
and to such packaged -- prepackaged food items that require no on-site preparation,
would that solve Moxie Java and any future -- what takes long is if something has to be
prepared.
Durkin: I would say that another use would be -- a possible future use would be a
relocation of the drycleaners, for example.
Zaremba: That's true.
Durkin: I think that it could be documented if you were to say a low intensive -- but I
think it's going to be difficult to -- for example, if the video store were to move to that
end and have a drive-thru drop off for video rentals, that would be a low intensive -- but
I'm not -- I have no idea if that would ever occur. I think we would be comfortable with
something about a low intensive use. I think the safety issue is --
Zaremba: Not to interrupt, but would you be comfortable, since you assume Moxie
Java is going to be a long-term tenant, if the restriction were just that if Moxie Java
moves out the CUP needs to be reapplied for, so that whatever use needs to be
considered again for whatever use.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 12
Durkin: I think so, although, you know, I was -- I sat on the Meridian Sign Commission
when we changed the Sign Ordinance you know. I watched the Kentucky Fried
Chicken situation -- and I hope that they are not behind me tonight, but there are things
that change in the city. I think that when you start with something and you're dealing
with intensity, that's what our -- that's more important to us. As I stated in my testimony
that the critical component for us is to keep Moxie Java there and happy in the long
term. I would just very much appreciate some language in there that either Moxie Java
or a like tenant -- because they could change their name. They could -- Todd Mason is
the franchisee, he could sell it to someone else and change it to Starbucks or -- I mean
there are so many things that could occur that wouldn't change what we are approving
tonight. It would trigger a take-down-the-bucket and that could be harmful to what the
intent is for us to keep that type of use in the center. I want to also, just for your record,
as it would relate to a finding, during the Council process the Mayor or one of the
Council people asked the Chief of Police to address the Council on the safety concerns.
The Chief testified that they do not keep records of the internal accidents in the parking
lots in the city.
Centers: They don't even give citations.
Durkin: But they do on external and they were not -- the Chief was not aware of any
accidents occurring anywhere in the City of Meridian related to any drive-thru. He had
a week or two to prepare himself for that testimony, so it wasn't just off-the-cuff at a
meeting. I think from a safety standpoint the record shows that it is -- the way that the
City of Meridian is now it is not as big a safety issue as we may perceive it to be.
Borup: At one of the previous hearings there was some testimony on the hours that I
think may be pertinent to this. I don't know if you were or the store manager would be
the person to address that. I don't mean total hours, I mean it was -- and I don't
remember, but it was something like 60, 70 percent of the business was before 9:00 in
the morning, which, if I remember, most of the businesses in the shopping center
weren't even open at that time. Is that an accurate statement or is that the extent on
that?
Durkin: That's accurate, although I'm really -- you know, I'm really -- we want to do
anything we can to keep Moxie Java. I don't want to do anything stupid, so that the City
Attorney and I are having a discussion about it. There isn't a drive-thru in Meridian,
there isn't a store or business in the City of Meridian that has a limit on their hours of
operation.
Borup: No, I'm not talking about limiting it, I'm just saying that the most -- it seems like
from the testimony most of the use was early in the morning --
Durkin: It is.
Borup: -- when there was not a lot of business in the shopping center to conflict with.
Durkin: And I think that relates to the whole intensity issue. I'm real comfortable with,
you know, committing to you that we are not out shopping for other tenants to -- that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 13
would be more intense, that it's a long-term investment for the Allen family. It's a long-
term goal for them and it's not something that -- they are not trying to do anything
irresponsible. Coffee shop hours for the drive-thru are busiest before people are
thinking about yogurt or before people are thinking about -- before the banks open and
-- I think McDonald's would be open, but it's quite a bit -- quite far away.
Borup: Any other questions?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Dejavu, like the third time is a charm, Mr. Durkin? I think
you have made enormous improvements. Are you saying that you will extend that?
Durkin: My recommendation would -- as I see it tonight on the board is that we should
extend that a car length in concrete, not paint. I don't think paint works.
Centers: What's that, 14 feet is what you're saying? Is that a car length? What's a car
length?
Hawkins-Clark: Standard 18 -- terms of a parking stall, our requirement is 20, but your
typical is 17 to 18.
Centers: Okay so you are agreeing to that?
Durkin: Yes.
Centers: And I think you have made enormous concessions and I commend you for
your persistence. I felt all along at the previous hearings that, you know if it's private
property and I assume Fred Meyers doesn't have a problem with this.
Durkin: No. All of the tenants were not -- all of the tenants in the center are supportive
of the project.
Centers: I would highly recommend, if you gain approval tonight, that prior to City
Council meeting you take that in writing with you, that Fred Meyer, the major tenant,
doesn't have a problem with that. This stacking here doesn't bother me. The only thing
you're hurting is your own private parking. If you stack beyond the entrance there,
you're just hurting yourself. That's you're parking for your business correct?
Durkin: And the businesses won't tolerate that.
Centers: Right. Personally I feel the 60 feet, three car lengths, is adequate. Primarily
because it's my feeling that a McDonald's or a Wendy's or whatever, you have the kids
in the car, they can't decide what they are going to order, and it's -- you know, they are
stacking up at the microphone to place the order. When most people drive up, you
know, I'd like a latte on rocks and, bingo, I'm out of here and the next car the same
thing. They know exactly what they want when they get to that microphone. Am I --
thank you. They are doing this. You know, I think a three-car stack is very adequate.
As far as the CUP going with that business, I would be very comfortable with -- as you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 14
suggest, just language that would -- minimal use type facility and not a McDonald's and
not a -- you know, I'm not the attorney here --
Durkin: I'm happy use the term not fast food. The stacking that we have here is the
same as -- that we are proposing tonight is the same as the Subway stacking. Is not --
we have been watching it throughout this process. We have watched that carefully, and
it never stacks up. That would be a similar intensity of over at the Subway. The
cleaners are -- that's just a drop and go. Subway would be considered fast food. I
would have to say no fast food restaurant at that --
Centers: That language. Yes. I think, you know, our chairman brought it up and I had
forgotten about that. Seventy percent, I think, was the figure -- 70 percent of your
business is prior to 10:00 before anybody gets there to speak of, other than employees.
I think you have done -- you have done a good job and been very persistent. I
commend you for that and I don't want to see a tenant lose business because we are
too restrictive.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify in this application?
Seeing, none, Commissioners?
Centers: I said my peace.
Zaremba: I move the hearing on Item 4 be closed -- the Public Hearing be closed.
Mathes: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Do we need any discussion before we have a motion?
Zaremba: Well, I don't want to beat it to death, but do we need any language that says
limited to --
Centers: Well, I think the applicant stated he would be happy with the language that
fast food -- no fast food facilities be allowed and he agreed to 18 feet extension of the --
Zaremba: Push out.
Centers: Push out is what you call it.
Borup: That's the only addition to the staff report.
Zaremba: Just ask staff a question. The menu board is a sign right? It falls under the
Sign Ordinance?
Borup: I don't think so.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 15
Hawkins-Clark: The definition of a sign is that it does have some logo or language that
advertises a product or service on the site. I have not seen an actual copy of the menu
order board. The only thing close would be a directional sign, which we have a
maximum height of four feet on those and a maximum square footage four of feet,
which my guess is that would probably -- four feet -- I don't know the height, but we
have not regulated menu boards and signs in the past.
Borup: But didn't he say that the applicant had already agreed to move it to the north?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Borup: The reader board? That maybe needs to be made note of, too.
Centers: That reader board, but not the microphone? Not the order microphone?
Hawkins-Clark: Are they not one and the same?
Centers: Yes. That's what I thought.
Zaremba: Menu and order board together.
Centers: And we had a stacking depth of 60 feet from --
Hawkins-Clark: Pick up window.
Borup: That's from the window.
Centers: Right. Okay.
Borup: It's being moved to allow stacking up to.
Zaremba: So essentially moving it forward one car length. Is that -- is that what you're
aiming for?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. If I could just point out, apparently there is no
microphone in the order menu board. It's just strictly the board with the menu items.
Borup: So you place your order at the window.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Mathes: So why do you have to move the board?
Zaremba: I'm not so concerned about where the board is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 16
Borup: What's this right here?
Hawkins-Clark: That's the board. Correct.
Borup: Well, I guess the reason --
Hawkins-Clark: You would still have people stopping to read --
Borup: And then, the person behind the board would be blocking the driveway, but they
are not ordering through a microphone. Why does it make any difference where the
board is?
Centers: And the applicant didn't object to moving that, so that's fine.
Borup: Okay. Someone ready for a motion?
Centers: Go ahead.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4
on our agenda, CUP 02-008, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru
window and drive-thru lane at existing Moxie Java Coffee Shop by Avest Limited
Partnership at 1800 North Locust Grove Road. To include all staff comments, with a
minor modification -- I'm sorry. Item 3 already says move it north a little bit, so that one
isn't. Item 8 on Page 4, adding language that this CUP allows only a similar low impact
business and no fast food restaurant in that -- in that position.
Centers: Before I second that could I -- Item G on Page 3, are we certain that the
applicant is fine with all staff comments?
Hawkins-Clark: That is not actually a condition.
Centers: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: That's simply a finding. That would not go forward to City Council as a
condition.
Centers: Great. That's just what I wanted to clarify. I second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed. Thank
you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Hawkins-Clark: Excuse me. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, you did not address the bump
out, did you, in your motion?
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 17
Borup: It did not. Would you like to redo that motion?
Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry.
Zaremba: May I make an amendment to the motion?
Borup: Second agree to that?
Zaremba: The Commission has requested and the applicant has agreed to extend the
bump out one car length, approximately 18 feet more than depicted on the materials we
have been given.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to amended motion. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 02-007 Request for annexation and zoning of 40
acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Marlin Subdivision by
Winston Moore – north of I-84 and east of South Linder Road:
Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 02-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 152
building lots and 5 other lots on 40 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Marlin Subdivision by Winston Moore – north of I-84 and east
of South Linder Road:
Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 02-010 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for single-family residential lots in a proposed R-4
zone for proposed Marlin Subdivision by Winston Moore – north of I-84
and east of South Linder Road:
Borup: Okay. The next project consists of three Public Hearings. AZ 02-007, request
for annexation and zoning of 40 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Marlin
Subdivision by Winston Moore. PP 02-008, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 153
building lots and 5 other lots on 40 acres. CUP 02-010, request for Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development for single-family residential lots in a proposed R-4
zone for the same proposed Marlin Subdivision by Winston Moore. I'd like to open all
three Public Hearings at this time and begin with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, before I get started I
would like to ask if you received a May 2nd
letter from the applicant Hubble Engineering.
Okay.
Borup: Yes. We got it on May 2nd
.
Hawkins-Clark: Since it was today I wasn't sure that you received it. That's great.
Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 18
Borup: Just barely.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Well, in terms of the annexation Public Hearing, the
property is existing Ada County rural urban transition zone. It is outlined on the aerial
photograph here in red. The request is to be annexed from the county to the city with
an R-4 density with an R-4 zone. Here is a vicinity map. We have the existing County
Primrose Subdivision here on the west side of Linder Road. The elementary school
here, Peregrine Elementary, North Linder. We have the Landing Subdivision that is
adjacent to the project on the north. I believe that's Phase 7 that abuts the property of
the land to north and then we have Phases 9, 10, and 11 that abut it to the east. I-84
abuts to the south. Here are a few existing site photos. Looking south on Linder on the
left, as you can see the barricade. Looking west down Verbena, which is a proposed
extension street into the project. Here is the property north of the Marlin Subdivision
that is looking from the -- close to I-84 looking north and then looking down Linder from
the site, looking north towards Franklin Road, just across southeast. I want to refer to a
couple of items on the April 30th
staff report. It is -- they have proposed 152 detached
single-family homes. It ends up to be 3.8 dwelling units per acre, so it does comply with
the R-4 dwelling units per acres request. We have highlighted on Page 2 there some of
the comparison of the city requirements and the proposed standards. Before I go onto
the Preliminary Plat, I'll just give a brief overview here of generally what they are
proposing. Again, here is Linder on the left. They are proposing a single primary
ingress-egress point along Linder approximately halfway -- at the halfway point in the
48-acre parcel. It enters here and then Verbena continues on through and connects
with the existing Verbena stub street that comes out of The Landing right here. They
have proposed a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along Linder. They have a -- two fairly
sizeable open space mini parks within the project that are fairly centralized here. There
are no stub streets as you can see along the north. There is a path -- there is a
micropath that is proposed right here that would connect with the micropath in The
Landing. There is a 50-foot wide landscape buffer here along I-84, which is an
ordinance requirement of the city. I have a couple of points for your consideration.
They’re on Page 7 that in order to allow one of staff's recommendations that the
Commission tonight will need to approve a waiver. One of the city's requirements is
that there is no fences allowed in common lots, they need to be placed on common lot
boundaries, and the applicant is proposing a fence within this I-84 buffer here. That
would involve a waiver. We are in support of that, given that it would help the sound
mitigation from the I-84 traffic. Staff has received, as you -- as we talked about early,
the May 2nd
response from the applicant. There are three items, I believe, that there is
either some disagreement or just need for clarification and so I will just hit those. Item
Number 5 on Page 8. This has to do with how the cross -- how the I-84 landscape
buffer would be -- would be designed. If we could actually put on the -- this is -- and the
applicant may have brought an amended cross-section of this, but -- this Item Number 5
has to deal with a concern that staff had about this tunnel effect, that here is potentially
the rear lot lines of the houses. Again, here is I-84. You would have potentially a six-
foot vinyl fence on top of the berm, 26 feet and then another six-foot fence, so you
would have this thousand foot long space between the two fences. That was a
concern. The applicant does agree with us that that's a problem. I think we are --
where we are at is what do you do instead in order to mitigate against that. There are --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 19
the ordinance requires a 50-foot wide buffer. What the applicant is talking about -- and I
will just go back -- is that these rear lots -- these lots here along I-84 would actually be
extended and have a landscape easement into that common lot so that this rear lot line
would be moved to the south. It would provide for only one fence if they did that, but it
would get rid of the 50-foot wide common lot. Essentially, you would potentially still
have 50 feet, but it wouldn't be in a common lot, if you follow me. It would be
essentially maybe 35 feet of common lot with 15 feet of rear landscape easement in
those. That -- we could also do it -- possibly add a note to the plat that, you know, said
that -- that the use of the rear yards is restrictive, so that no sheds, for example, could
be built within that 15 foot wide stretch along the backyards and you would keep away,
so -- keep away from encroachment of that. We don't necessarily come with a real firm
yes or no. I mean it's clear the ordinance says you have to have 50 feet and it begs the
questions if you say -- if you reduce to 50 foot on this one. Then do you have the next
person that comes by and says we are only limited to 35 feet. If it's a safety issue in
terms of avoiding a tunnel effect between the two fences, then we are in agreement
there. I think we are in agreement. It's mainly an issue of what would the design look
like.
Borup: Brad, is there -- it sounds like you're saying -- is there such a thing as a buffer
easement on a lot? I haven't heard of anything -- but you're saying something similar to
that would be --
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Would probably -- obviously, wouldn't necessarily involve the
planting of trees or something, I think that would probably be a little overreaching, but
that's the reason we like the common lot, because it is a separate lot that is under
ownership of the entire subdivision, maintained by the subdivision. It does keep the 50-
foot, which is --
Borup: But the subdivision is still going to be doing that on the freeway side of the
fence and that's kind of where the maintenance would be anyway, isn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: So the effect would be making larger lots, but -- okay. I think I got a little bit --
and the applicant may have some more input on that.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead.
Hawkins-Clark: That's fine. That is just a summary there of Number 5. The last line on
Number 5 -- we did talk about the -- we were talking about the -- increase the noise
buffer and the ordinance requires 35 -- one tree for every 35 feet of frontage. We were
suggesting in order to get a little bit more sound buffer that 25 feet might be appropriate
there. There is an agreement on the next several proposed conditions, so I will just
jump to Number 11 on Page 9. This deals with the future overpass of Linder. Ada
County Highway District had in their staff report as much as 17 years before that would
be constructed. Of course, that's a crystal ball question, nobody really knows. If the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 20
growth continues with the middle school north on Linder, the Hawk's corner
development north on Linder, it could be that it gets pushed up a little bit. I don't think
anybody knows. As you can see it, tapers right here. It's wide and then it kind of tapers
in. I wanted to put up one other figure. This is just a -- maybe a little better depiction.
As you can see, the applicant has shown what the buffer would result in should that
overpass be constructed and you would be down to, you know, approximately eight feet
of buffer width behind the rear yards. The concern there, of course, is how with the --
the design of the overpass, typically we have an earthen berm. That's part of the
reason this is 100 feet from the centerline of Linder to the east and potentially it would
be the same on the west for our 200-foot wide right of way here and then would taper
down to 48 feet here. I think we are fine in terms of meeting the ordinance in the future.
It really becomes a question of what in the future will it look like, because until ACHD
actually constructs the overpass, obviously, if they have -- they actually exceed
ordinance in terms of the buffer width. They are able to get a License Agreement to
build that buffer within Ada County Highway District's right of way. It really becomes
what it looks like in the future. We have had discussions with Jonathan Seel from W.H.
Moore. I guess there is the potential that some of that berm on the future overpass --
they could get a slope easement and within that slope easement on the overpass
landscaping could potentially be placed to maintain some of that in the future. We
would be most comfortable having something probably in writing, you know, stating that
that could be obtained if that were the case. The last item I wanted to point out on Item
Number 12 on Page 9. This has to deal with the Kennedy Lateral, which courses the
entire east boundary of the project here. It is tiled. It's not an open lateral. Fifteen talks
about that the lots the way they are designed actually encroach quite a ways into the
easement. We are simply saying that should they get an Encroachment Agreement,
which we understand that they have talked with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, and
they are willing to able to get that -- there are about four irrigation boxes. I think one
here, one here, one here, and then one south of Verbena that they will be able to come
within about five feet of those irrigation boxes. We would require that that be their new
rear lot line, that these be moved up, and that a new common lot be created that would
be the balance there.
Centers: Brad, are you moving onto the CUP?
Borup: Right. That's the end of the Preliminary Plat comments.
Centers: Before you do, could you go back to the plat that is adjacent to The Landing?
Even further. Well, that's fine. Is this correct, the lots in the landing go back to this
point?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes Commissioner, that's correct. There is not a common lot.
Centers: So we don't have it in The Landing.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. The Landscape Ordinance that requires the 50 was adopted
after The Landing was approved. I don't think we have any photos of that, but they
have practically a one-to-one slope. I mean it's almost a vertical berm in the backyards
of The Landing that is just basically a dirt wall that's very difficult to do something with.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 21
Centers: Yes. I can imagine but this project, obviously, is going to be a lot better off
than The Landing?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. In terms of noise mitigation and other things, yes.
Centers: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: That's all on the Preliminary Plat. I just have one -- two items on the
Conditional Use Permit hearing and that would be Item Number 3 on Page 13. I
wanted to go back here. This has to do with the open space and you should have
received -- this is a redesign, it was just done today by Hubble. If you compare the
other plat, this section of open space was not included. They had houses that came
right up here to the corner of this intersection. Our suggestion was as you enter the
subdivision provide some open space here, so they have reconfigured to provide this
arrangement, which we support. Item Number 5 deals with the amenities. All Planned
Developments, as you know, have to have two amenities and the 10 percent open
space is one. The applicant can address this further, but my understanding is they are
proposing a picnic area as their second one. That is up to you as to whether or not you
feel that's appropriate as a second amenity. It would certainly fit the ordinance as long
as there is adequate detail on what that involves and it's more than just a bench that
somebody calls a picnic area.
Centers: What is the list, Brad? It's short, isn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: For Planned Developments?
Centers: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It includes six --
Centers: Playground equipment?
Hawkins-Clark: -- items that -- right. A pathway system --
Centers: Sandbox.
Hawkins-Clark: Basketball court that type of thing. It's very flexible, though. That's all I
have.
Borup: Any other questions for Brad at this time? I think we have asked most of them
as you went along. Is the applicant here and would like to make their presentation?
Seel: Good evening, Jonathan Seel of the W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead,
Boise, Idaho. First, maybe I can give you a -- okay. First off, before I get started on the
actual presentation -- and you may already be aware of this, but yesterday ACHD
approved this project on their Consent Agenda. It has been approved by the ACHD at
this point. I guess I -- this is, of course, our project and I think it's representative of that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 22
A couple things that I'd like to mention first and I think as Brad mentioned. This is an in-
fill project. It currently borders the City of Meridian. It's going to provide for affordable
housing. I think this is the type of project that I think will do well in this city. Right now I
think many people that are looking for this type of housing are forced to go to places
like Nampa, Meridian, Kuna, even though they are working in Meridian -- or even
though they are working in Meridian or I'd say Nampa or Caldwell. I think even though
it's affordable housing it will be a quality project. I think -- you can't see on this plan, but
if you were to pull up the other one -- can you pull up the plat for a minute, Brad? It
shows the property bordering -- if you look here these properties right here conform in
size to these lots right here, so we haven't deviated from that. We are sensitive to that.
This project, as you're, I think, well aware is going to be developed by Winston Moore. I
know I have been up here in front of you before and said this, but I'll say it again, as you
know, Winston Moore builds quality projects. I don't think there is any dispute in that.
His reputation is important to him. I think you if go around and you see some of the
type and quality he does, it speaks for itself. This will be no exception. This won't be a
Banbury, we are not presenting it like a Banbury Subdivision, but it will be a quality
project. You know, it's important to Winston. He would not build something that would
not be quality. We are in the process of putting together the CC&R's on this. There are
approximately 60 pages in the CC&R's. They are going to be very extensive in terms of
addressing designs, restrictions, the maintenance, the storage of the vehicles,
landscaping and fencing and things like that to -- again, to insure that this will be a
quality project on an ongoing basis. This meets with the Comp Plan, so it certainly
satisfies that. Another thing I'd like to mention before I get into a little more of the
project itself, last Thursday we did have a neighborhood meeting. In The Landing
Subdivision we had one neighbor that showed up -- I understand there is a neighbor
from that subdivision here tonight that apparently his notice was shoved back in his
mailbox, so he was not aware, so he may be speaking. The balance of the neighbors
was from the west part of Linder. I know they are here tonight and they will express
their own opinions, so I won't steal their thunder for them. As far as the project itself,
we can maybe look over here -- I'm sorry this is not a little bit larger. I think some of the
amenities, the quality, as Brad mentioned, we have got two large parks right here. We
think that there is a real benefit to the city for that. I know the city struggles to try and
provide more and more parks. This type of project will provide the types of parks that I
think will serve not only the residents here, but potentially other people within the area.
We are not putting an additional burden on the City of Meridian as far as the parks go.
As Brad mentioned, right now, what we are looking at is probably a picnic area that's in
this area, probably in the upper one. It will be a nice one. It wouldn't be a bench or
something it will be more extensive than that. We don't have any specific designs, but,
obviously, we will prepare those. If you're going down to this area right here -- and we
will get more into it -- as Brad mentioned, there is a 50 foot wide common lot right here
and we are not disputing that. What we are looking at along here is we will have a six-
foot high vinyl fence on top of the berm and I will get into the issue of that in a few
minutes. I think what I'd like to mention, if you have ever priced fencing, the cost of a
vinyl fence is almost double what it is for wood. If we wanted to go cheap, we could put
wood up there and it would look very attractive for a couple of years. I think as we all
know in times it deteriorates. That would be cost for the fence. We have also agreed in
this area that typically it requires to have one tree every 35 feet. We have agreed with
the city that we would put one tree every 25 feet. Again, we are trying to create a buffer
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 23
here for this project and also make it attractive and make it attractive for the long term.
If you go here along Linder -- and I think you can see in your package -- you will see it
over here and also here. This is an elevation of Linder Road. What we are proposing --
you see in your package right here, that we will put a berm -- it won't be a large berm,
but it will be a berm and a fence, which, again, will be vinyl. It will be a six foot fence,
will be at the edge of the property line, but our intention is that that berm will be sloping
here, so even though it's six feet, it will actually be essentially more like seven or eight
feet. Again, we are trying to increase it. We are sensitive to the fact that the neighbors
across the street over here I don't think particularly want to look at these homes, so
we're trying to shield it as much as possible. This will all be sided, it will be landscaped,
and there will be trees through it. As you come in here -- and this reflects it here -- this
has not been changed -- you will see the park there. We have moved the homes at the
request of the city, so that this is an open area and you will see an open park area,
which we think will be attractive. I think, again, as we mentioned, we have got the vinyl
fencing. I think it's going to be a nice addition to the project. As far as the homes, I
think you got in your packet some examples of some of the homes that we are going to
build. Again, we are going to be selective in the type of builders that we do. We are not
going to take one builder that can come in there and slam 50 houses up at one time.
We are selective. I think you can see some examples in there. In fact, you can see the
kind of quality of homes that we are planning on doing. As far as the actual staff report,
I guess I would like to go back to the berm right here. What I'd like to do -- I don't know,
Brad, if you could put that one up. Again, the elevation of the berm. Okay. This is a
little blurry, but I think you can see it. It's real blurry. The situation is -- this is -- right
here is what will be the 50-foot wide common area. We don't dispute that. We are not
here to question that. We accept that there is going to be a 50-foot wide common area.
What our thinking is is that we would also want a berm across here. We are looking at
a six-foot, approximately, it might be a slightly higher berm, and our thinking is we would
put a fence at the top of it. You would have let's say a six-foot berm and you would
have a six-foot fence. You would have 12 feet of basically sound and visual barrier.
The dilemma we have is that we -- if the city says to us you can't have a tunnel, which
means you have to do the -- the homeowner has to put a fence here. If we eliminate
that, we have eliminated six feet of basically visual and sound barrier. What we are
trying accomplish here is not to avoid or to really gain anything as far as the lots back
here. I think to increase this visual barrier, if you take the top of that berm and move it
over to here, you have got this huge slope in the back. That's not very desirable. I
think one of the compromises that we looked at is instead of this fence being say 25
feet we move this to the top of the berm and back to approximately 35 feet. You're still
going to have a fair amount of common area, we will have the fence at the top and what
the homeowners with have will gain us about 15 feet. We are not doing it, again,
because we are trying to gain yard -- a bigger yard. We are doing it because,
otherwise, I don't know how you get around -- if you have a fence here and a fence
here or if you eliminate the fence here and you -- you know, you basically have a much
more noisy environment for it. That's the thinking behind that and we think that would
be a fair trade. Really, if you think about it, if you have got the 25, nobody is going to
see this part anyway. If you bring it back five more feet you gain a little bit more of the
landscape area here and, again, you still have a fence there and you cut the noise off
from here and enhance the marketability of those homes. It adds to the privacy of the
homeowners in there. That's our thinking in that particular one.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 24
Centers: Excuse me. Would it be acceptable in the CC&R's for there not to be a fence
allowed on those backyards?
Seel: Well, what we are thinking of is that --
Borup: Go ahead.
Seel: Oh. What we are thinking is this would be the only fencing. I'm sorry if I didn't
make that clear.
Centers: Yes.
Seel: There would be no fence here. Yes.
Centers: That portion wouldn't have to be deeded. You know, that could be a common
lot to satisfy the city. That wouldn't have to be deed to the people.
Seel: No, sir. Commissioner Centers, I agree. I think all we are trying to do is get the
fence at the highest point and try to create as much of that barrier as we can.
Centers: I mean if the homeowner that lives here and utilizes that common area, so be
it.
Seel: Sure.
Centers: They don't need to own it and we still have the 50-foot buffer correct?
Seel: Yes. Yes. We have 50 foot they would just be encroaching 15 feet into it. We
could put -- I think we have in the past --
Centers: Put a lawn or what have you.
Seel: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Seel: Right.
Freckleton: Excuse me. Commissioner Centers, just maybe a point of clarification. It
looks like we are kind of going around here. I think what the applicant is proposing is
that the lot line -- the rear lot line would be the peek of the berm.
Seel: No.
Freckleton: You want to have a common lot across the back of the lots that each
homeowner is going to have use of?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 25
Centers: Yes.
Seel: Bruce, you know, I think we are indifferent what this is. If this is common we say
they can't build anything on it, there could only be some landscaping and that would be
it. Or if you wanted to take the lot to here -- I think from our perspective it doesn't make
any difference. All we are trying to do is achieve as much maximum height as can and
we can't see any other way around it.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, I guess I would
recommend not going with a strip of land that is owned in common by the owners in the
subdivision. My recommendation would be that the lot line be set at the fence line and
that the lots would extend to that. My concern is, is that everyone in the subdivision is
going to share in the liability if that strip of land across the back of private lots.
Borup: That makes a lot of sense. The other question I have along the same lines, if
you're saying 35 and 15, why is there a problem of leaving the fence where it is at the
25? I mean I realize that -- I realize that reduces the technical buffer, but not the
practical buffer.
Seel: Mr. Borup, in our view it was a compromise. We are certainly willing to make this
at 25 feet. Again, it was just a compromise to try to preserve, as much of the common
area here along the freeway, but still be able to put the fence up there.
Borup: Well, by doing that you would decrease the slope into the backyard of the
house by not moving that and probably make it a more usable area.
Seel: Yes, sir. That would be our preference. We were just trying to find some middle
road. That's why we suggested 35 feet. We are certainly open to the 25.
Borup: And your proposal is those lots would stay the same size and then be increased
by whatever is encroached in that buffer.
Seel: Yes, sir.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Borup, if I could just add while we are on that that would
be a 50 percent reduction from the ordinance requirement. I mean that's to us -- you
know, you are talking about the -- and everything recognizes the markability of those
houses is somewhat dependent on that being an adequate buffer. I think we would
support the 35.
Borup: Even leaving the lot lines -- I mean the street is not moving, so the distance is
staying the same either way. The fencing is staying the same. The buffer from the
freeway is the same.
Hawkins-Clark: But the width of the landscaped portion between I-84 and the fence
could accomplish a greater negation of sound --
Borup: You're saying increase that, rather than --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 26
Hawkins-Clark: Because they wouldn't be proposing as I understand it, any
landscaping on the north side of the fence.
Borup: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: Period. You can get more landscaping in 35 feet than you can 25 in
terms of sound mitigation.
Seel: I think this is one of those rare occasions when staff is arguing with you and I'm
okay either way.
Borup: I don't think we are arguing, we are just discussing. Do you have any idea the
size of the freeway buffer on the subdivision on the east side of Cloverdale, north side
of the road?
Seel: No, Commissioner, I don't.
Centers: That's on the east side of Five Mile where they put the new vinyl fence?
Borup: No. The one that's got all those willow trees there.
Mathes: Walden Pond?
Borup: Oh, Walden Pond. Yes. Walden Pond. That look's like a pretty effective buffer.
Centers: Yes. I don't want to belabor this, but, you know, in Sportsman Point where I
live there are homes with backyards that back up to the common areas with no fences.
None. That's -- you're talking the same thing here, in effect. Correct?
Borup: But aren't those common areas maintained by the subdivision, though?
Centers: Correct.
Borup: Here they would be maintained by the --
Centers: As far as the liability and that kind of thing, Bruce. There is common lot
liability.
Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, the way I'm understanding what Jonathan is saying
is basically the strip would be incorporated into the backyard of each lot. There would
be a section of common lot that would be incorporated into each lot that they would
have enjoyment of, but yet as far as the liability of that strip --
Centers: But I think they could cover that in the CC&R's. That's my personal opinion.
Now and -- I don't know. That's my thought, anyway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 27
Zaremba: My question would be if -- assuming we went with a 35 on the interstate side
of the peek of the berm and 15 that the property owner would be able to use. If they
were to run their side property line fences all the way to the fence on the top of the
berm, it would make more sense for me to incorporate that into their property, rather
than have it common area. They either can't fence their whole yard or it needs to be
part of their property with a restriction that nothing could be built on that last 15 feet.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Centers, I just had one other thought that
might help. Being the President of my Homeowners Association I have been involved
with the insurance aspect of our common areas and the liability insurance that we have
to carry -- maybe this is a question for Legal Counsel, but I don't know how an
insurance company would treat something like that. You know, if it was a common lot
that was owned in common by the subdivision, but yet the subdivision -- the entire
subdivision doesn't have enjoyment of it, it's included in somebody's backyard -- I don't
know.
Zaremba: What I was visualizing is that it's not common area. It actually belongs to the
homeowner.
Freckleton: That's my thought.
Zaremba: Instead of a 50-foot buffer, they have -- they have a 15-foot restriction.
Freckleton: An easement, Landscape Easement.
Centers: They can't build on it.
Zaremba: They cannot build on it.
Centers: And that clarified that.
Zaremba: But it actually belongs to the person that owns the rest of the property, it's
not common area.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Centers: Yes. Yes. I think the 35 feet personally is okay.
Seel: Okay. I think the next issue that came up -- and you can go back to -- well -- or I
can talk about it on this one. You talked about this area right here and Brad talked
about that with the right of way that ACHD will be taking, that the buffer would get down
to approximately eight feet through there. I'd like to give you just a little bit of history
behind this. When we first met with ACHD on the right of way one of their first
comments was we need 100 feet of right of way and I thought we don't even have a
hundred feet of right of way on Overland, what are you planning on building here? I
couldn't believe they would use 200 feet of right of way. I began to ask questions, I
talked to ACHD, and I talked to ITD. What I found out -- I can pass these around and
I'm sorry I don't have duplicates of these, we just -- I better take a look at those. If you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 28
will notice on those pictures -- and that's Maple Grove Overpass. What the ITD and
ACHD is faced with is they need to bring the road up from the grade of the road there --
and you have probably been over on Maple Grove. I have never paid attention to it until
today, but there has to be almost 25 to 30 feet of clearance from the top of the bridge to
the top of I-84, the highest point, the crown of the road. As a result, they have to go up
and you have to create a slope on either side. That slope can only be two to one. As a
result of that, you have to take considerably more land to compensate for that than you
would if that road was just flat. I have got -- I'll show you -- I'll pass this around. There
is the actual Maple Grove design, the black asphalt you see here. You can see how it
slopes in both directions. I'm sorry this is not particularly good, but, again, I think it
gives you a little bit of the idea. The point that I want to make is that even though
ACHD is asking for 100 feet, if you say, okay, their right of way is going to come over,
it's going to leave you eight feet. That's misleading, because there is going to be a
great deal of area, as you look at those pictures, that could be landscaped and we can't
get any slope easement from ACHD on this. What I'd like to say is -- is that we are --
we can leave it this way, we can go ahead and get a slope easement from ACHD at the
time that they actually develop it or even now, really, I guess. We will landscape that
area. If we have to move this back, so we have the 25 feet, we end up carving some of
this park area out and I think that's more critical. Again, as I think as you look at those
pictures there is a lot of area there that's not asphalt and I think we can make it
attractive. I think it would benefit the city, I think it will benefit this community, and I think
it will be a nice appearance than what you see with the weeds and the grass and
everything.
Borup: Mr. Seel, you're saying that even though ACHD wants a greater right of way, the
difference from the paved road is not reduced?
Seel: Commissioner, I'm not sure if I follow you.
Borup: Well, the buffer -- the effective buffer from the paved -- from the paved road
would not be.
Seel: Commissioner Borup, that's correct. I guess what we are saying here is that
even though they will put a road in, we don't even know when that is and what that's
going to look like. Based on what we know now that there is going to be a substantial
amount of what I will call landscaping, from lack of a better word. I think we can utilize
that. It's a little misleading. If there was a plat grade and we said we want 100 feet of
right of way and we have got to take it to the edge of the pavement and then get five
feet of property line, that's a different issue. Then we say, okay, yes, we have to extend
it. Here I think just because this road has to go up at such a slope -- and so the road is
very wide, because it has to take into consideration the slope on either side. That we
can give you the landscape buffer without having to basically move all this back and
take out some of the park there, which we would, frankly, like to preserve.
Centers: You're thinking to get the slope easement now?
Seel: Yes. You can make that a condition and we will get that from ACHD. As an
example, over there on Magic View, which we did -- in fact, there is an example where
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 29
we put the fence up on the berm along there. I think we all remember that project. We
had the landscape -- that's ACHD's land, we can landscape that, and we are
responsible for it. Again, I think it enhances the appearance and benefits everybody
and you're not looking at some of the pictures you see there, which are not terribly
attractive.
Zaremba: My guess would be that ACHD is using 100 feet as a standard, but you
make get some advantage in that where Linder Road ends its elevation is, what, eight
to ten feet above where the interstate is already. They are not going to have to berm up
as much as they might if it was level. You get some advantage there.
Seel: Commissioner, I would agree. I think it's just like they say, they don't have a
specific design, so I think you take as much as you can and then you deal with it later.
It could turn out to be 75 feet or something down the road, whenever it's developed. It's
not even in the five-year plan. They say it's well into the future, whenever that might be.
I think with the exception, Brad -- I think Brad did an excellent job. We provided him
with some of the things -- we revised this, as we mentioned on here. I think we have
provided him with all the information he needs at this point and we are in concurrence
with the balance of the staff report.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Seel? Maybe just one quick one. You had
mentioned you did not have a design yet for the picnic area. Your response letter dated
today mentioned it would have some type of hard surface, either stone or concrete, with
tables and a barbecue pit. Is that still what you're planning or --
Seel: Commissioner Borup, that's correct. We just don't have a specific drawing --
Borup: Okay.
Seel: -- at this point that I could hand to you.
Centers: I have one question on that. I'm glad you brought it up. We realize that the
subdivision will be home for a lot of children. Would it be advisable -- you know, we
went along with the picnic plan or the option for playground equipment. Don't you think
that would be better suited -- because I think that playground equipment, correct me if
I'm wrong, Brad -- is that would meet the requirement for the planned development, too,
wouldn't it?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it would, Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Do we have to require how much or -- in each or --
Hawkins-Clark: The Commission does not. It's highly subjective given the build out of --
build out of the population.
Centers: Well -- and if you had the opposition to do either, you know, it would be my
recommendation that you go with playground equipment for the children in the
neighborhood, because that's not going to be a retirement community, I know that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 30
Seel: Well, I can talk to Mr. Moore about it.
Centers: That could happen prior to the City Council.
Seel: Sure. Sure. We can get those kinds of things worked out.
Centers: Yeah.
Seel: As I say, we want this to be a nice environment for the residents.
Zaremba: Let's see. The northern park of the two, where you took some homes out
along Verbena, you originally had --
Seel: We had them down here.
Zaremba: In here where you took some homes out.
Seel: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Are you still asking for 152 lots or does that eliminate three of them, so we
are looking at 149?
Seel: Yes. What we did is we took two of the lots, we moved them up here, and there
was a pathway right here in these homes through there, we slid these down, so we
haven't lost any lots.
Zaremba: 152 is still accurate?
Seel: Still 152. But I think as I said, I think it benefits from a tier standpoint, it's coming
down from the – it’s probably nicer looking because you can see the park and open
area with the landscape and everything.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you.
Seel: Thank you very much.
Borup: Okay. We have several individuals that signed up. We' like to give the public a
chance to testify on this. Those that would like to come on up at this time.
Hill: First of all, thank you for letting me speak tonight. My name is Ron Hill. I live at
1155 Hartford Court, Meridian, which is in Primrose Subdivision, which is west of this
propose site. I have a couple of concerns. First of all, I'm not sure everybody was
present at the other meeting. I'm the gentleman that found this stuffed in the paper box
two days ago and so I might be addressing some concerns that have already been
addressed. A couple of concerns I have. In last ten years we went from a goat farm to a
pasture to a corn field to several homes, several hundred homes down there, the
school, and now business on Linder and there is only one way out of that -- all that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 31
area. So I'm afraid that if we ever had a major storm of some kind that would block
Linder, we have several homes that would not be able to have any kind of emergency
response there. So I would hope before you consider approving this that we address
some of those other problems. If you look at the plot, this one empties onto Linder on
the west side, it goes in to -- I forget the name of the subdivision on the other side, but
they don't exit, they come back to Linder. Everything that is south of the canal that's
about 150 yards south of Franklin Road could be blocked off if that bridge were out or
something happened in that area. There is not a way out of the subdivision -- any of
those subdivisions. When they put the school in they said we made an emergency exit
which is down the canal bank that I guarantee you if it's wet no emergency vehicles can
go down it. So that's one -- a big concern I have. It seems to me that throughout the
county and throughout the city when we put in places there is more than one place to
exit that facility and down there right now we don't have that. So I hope that you would
consider that before you make a decision on that. You know, that's a great concern and
I have been down there for the last 30 years and it's getting bigger and bigger and I
have always known it could happen, but I hope you address that before we fill it the rest
of the way up. Thank you.
Borup. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Come forward.
Gorton: My name is George Gorton, I live at 1155 South Linder. My last name is G-o-r-
t-o-n. My concern with my wife is the crowding situation at the school. If you go and
stick 152 homes in there that school is going to be overran. You really need to look at
that. If they start doing busing and stuff, who is going to get shifted across town? My
kids or the new kids? Most likely mine. So my main concern is the overcrowding of the
school and we just -- we just feel this is way too many homes in that area, like the
gentleman just said, traffic and emergency and the school is my big concern. I'm going
to have kids in school there for many more years. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else?
Zanders: My name is Terry Zanders. I live at 1701 Verbena. And everything has pretty
much been covered. I just want to go along with all the issues, but your traffic issue is --
like this gentleman back here -- is one of our biggest issues when you look at all these
houses -- 600 houses already exist in there and have been built, so that's a lot of cars
and just agree with them and take that into consideration. Of course, the size of the lots
depends on a lot of houses in there that -- there is nobody that's lived there for a long
period of time that's -- happy with that, but you get that all the time. That's it. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Zanders.
Zaremba: May I ask you a question, sir. Mr. Zanders was it?
Zanders: Yes.
Zaremba: Did you say that you live on Verbena now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 32
Zanders: Yes. 1701.
Zaremba: How do you exit your property?
Zanders: I live here and the only route out is down Linder. Down --
Zaremba: I'm sorry, I thought you were in the other subdivision on the other part of
Verbena.
Zanders: No. Right here.
Zaremba: Yes. Your answer should have been obvious to me if I knew exactly where
you lived.
Zanders: Yes. Even if you live over here or no matter where you live around here you
have only got one access out right here and, you know, several years ago we did have
a problem with a flood there, we had a nasty storm, I think it was '79 or something like
that, and, of course, back then there was only about own eight houses in there and we
managed to, you know, find our way out, and when there was wrecks at the corner
before the stoplight was put in. You know, there has been problems there back when
there wasn't as many people, but mainly it's a big traffic issue.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that wants to testify?
Hansen: My name is Richard Hansen. I live at 1195 South Linder. Right there. And it is
noisy. I have been there 18 years. A lot of diesel fumes, the freeway with its influx of
heavier traffic. One of my concerns is the irrigation water that comes to our subdivision,
the Primrose Subdivision, and is that going to be interfered with? I wasn't at the last
meeting.
Borup: We can answer that. It will not be interfered with. The water will still be delivered
to your subdivision.
Hansen: Oh. Okay. I also have a problem with traffic that comes down Linder. Right in
now in the last 15 years I pull a vehicle, oh, about two a month out of the -- I'll walk over
there. The irrigation ditch comes here and then there is one that goes down here and
also down Linder and people come down here, although it's posted, and turn around
and end up in the ditch and I'm afraid with this more traffic going down there, it's -- and
it's going to be a problem and I don't know what -- right now it's hard on me, but I have
to -- I do get some seclusion, which is probably on its out anyway. Anyway, I'm
concerned about the traffic and the irrigation water so -- and if that's cool. Also, as I say,
I have lived there 18 years. It's almost level with the freeway there, so I don't know if --
there was something if it's higher or lower. The other side of the freeway is lower and --
anyway, that's -- that's a thought. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 33
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? You need to come forward.
Hileman: My name is Michele Hileman and I live on 1660 West Verbena Drive and I
have the same concerns that my neighbors have on the irrigation, on the traffic, there is
one way out. It's extremely difficult to get out already. The streets that come off of
Mallard Landing and other the places, people don't stop. You're coming off onto Linder
to leave, they shoot right in front of you. It's already dangerous. I have children that live
here also and then I'm concerned about irrigation, I'm concerned about the quality of
life. I said something about that at the pre-hearing we had last Thursday and they said,
well, we don't -- you didn't buy the view, you didn't buy this -- it's kind of insulting. You
know, I have lived there 17 years myself and I love where I live, you know, and we are
Ada County, that will be city, what's going to happen with police? If we have a problem
there, who has jurisdiction? In other words, the major issues that we already had
trouble with Ada County and the city being where we are at. So those are some
concerns I have that I think need to be addressed. Emergency vehicles being able to
get into the area is already difficult. I just -- I think 152 houses, even if you have one car
or two cars, that's going to majorly impact the traffic in that area and the speed limit
people will drive and just have those basic concerns. And I have -- I hear a lot of them
saying, well, we are going to do this, we are going to check into this, I can't see how you
can approve this until they have some more specific facts of what they are going to do
and how that's going to impact that area. You know, they said we don't want this to be a
commercial area, which is what it's currently zoned for is mixed use and then when it
changed to residential -- if we did get mixed use in there, that would be -- we might get
a Moxie Java, but nobody could put one of those things in until there is another way out,
see? And that's the really important thing I feel, that there needs to be another way out
of there at least and -- before it's turned over to that many people living in that area.
And I think the threat of them saying, oh, you don't want it going commercial, you don't
want this, that's a pretty empty threat, considering there is no other way out and if it's a
commercial place they would make sure there was another exit. So those are just my
main concerns. I apologize for the time. I'm just leaving. And we have llamas, we have
horses, we have a lifestyle there that most people would envy and we don't want 152
houses, even with vinyl fences and the trees, so people can't -- I mean this is -- anyway,
those are my concerns.
Centers: Mrs. Hileman?
Hileman: Yes, sir.
Centers: You need some clarification. That's me. Right here.
Hileman: Oh.
Centers: It's not zoned at all presently.
Hileman: Okay. That's what they --
Centers: Mixed use is the proposed usage of the land in the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan. Mixed use allows for residential and many other uses. So it's not presently zoned.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 34
Hileman: Okay.
Centers: Okay.
Hileman: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Come on up.
Thompson: Commission, my name is Dan Thompson, I'm with the firm of Hertzak. My
address is 3071 East Franklin Road in Meridian. We prepared the traffic impact study
for this project. When we first approached ACHD about this project they basically
debated whether or not they even wanted to have an impact study for it, but they
decided for whatever reason to go ahead and do it. It is an in-fill project. It's something
that they saw was a good use. If it were a commercial use there would be far greater
amounts of traffic than any residential use would do and ACHD in their report had no
problems with it. Just to summarize briefly, we did look at the Waltman, which was the
street in which the school is located, and at that location on Linder we had about 150 to
160 cars during the a.m. peek hours, which the school generates at the peek -- in the
a.m. peek hours and that's going to equate to about 15 to 16 hundred vehicles per day.
Linder Road is classified as an arterial road at that location. Obviously, it's not
functioning as that right now. Fifteen hundred cars, that would be acceptable for any
local road by ACHD standards, so it is well below any kind of standard that it would be
expected to function at in the future. As far as the one access out, we do -- that has
always been an issue in that area, but even up at Franklin Road it's still only about
6,000 vehicles per day coming out of there and that is even acceptable with the
volumes for a collector road. And, again, this is an arterial road which can carry far
larger volumes of traffic. From our study and ACHD's review of our study there aren't
any major issues that should be in there and I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Thompson? In your traffic study -- I don't know if you have
looked at the surrounding areas. Do you know anything on the status? I mean we are
showing two stub streets there to the east. I don't know if there is any proposed
development for those areas or -- is that eventually going to have access out?
Thompson: That would be development driven.
Borup: But at this point there is nothing proposed there that you know about?
Thompson: No plans that I --
Towns: I do have a statement that I would like to make.
Borup: Come up to the microphone, ma'am.
Towns: My name is Peggy Towns. I live on the southwest corner of Verbena and
Linder. Our main concern isn't getting all the way up to Franklin, we can only make it to
Waltman -- if there is a bad accident on Waltman and Linder, nobody gets to us and we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 35
get to nowhere. The Landing can get out, because over here in the yellow they can
come out and around the 40 acres, yes, and they come right there. They can get out. If
there is an accident on Waltman, we cannot, in the Primrose Subdivision, we can go
nowhere and nobody can get to us. That's what my main concern is.
Borup: So you would like it if maybe you could get through here over to here and out?
Towns: If they do that road first -- I will mean -- evidently the building is going to
happen, it's going to go in, but if they can get us an exit out, at least past Waltman.
Borup: Okay. Did you see the previous -- did you see the design, because they do,
they have got Verbena coming through and --
Towns: Yes. But at last week's meeting they only have to go so far per so many
houses built, so while all their equipment is coming in and --
Borup: You're saying on the phasing?
Towns: Yes. Exactly. So if there is an accident, there you go. We are right where we are
at. And we do have a lot of older people in that subdivision. So that's my main concern.
Get me past Waltman somehow.
Borup: Okay.
Kuntz: I'm Nick Kuntz with Holland Realty, 4720 Emerald. I frankly expected more
questions about the product in the subdivision, so I'm kind of here to talk about that. I
have been involved in the Meridian real estate market for over nine years, do a lot of
new construction, have represented two subdivisions, I'm doing one right now, Autumn
Faire, and I'm very concerned about what type of product goes into these subdivisions. I
represent builders that are mostly small builders, you know, less than 25, 30 homes a
year and those are the kind of people that will be building in here. So if you have ever
seen Autumn Faire, I just want to use that as an example, it has very strict architectural
control and it is just a little above the price range we are talking about here and
everybody has the same concerns about Autumn Faire as we have here. So this is
going to be a quality project. I am down and determined -- I'm very serious about my
job, I know Winston is very, you know, serious about doing a quality development. So I
was mostly here to talk about the product, because I'm going to be responsible for
marketing the lots, I'm going to be responsible for selling houses and I'm going to be
responsible for bringing builders in. So if there is any questions about the end result, I'm
happy to answer those, if not --
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. Did the developer have
any final comments?
Seel: Jonathan Seel. W.H. Moore Company.
Borup: The one -- I think that last one from Mrs. Towns, you want to comment on the
phasing and -- is this going to be a phased project?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 36
Seel: Yes, Commissioner. Our plans right now are for three phases, approximately 50
houses per phase. The phase we want to avoid is coming in, trying to do all of the
phases at once and you have got homes strung out all over the place. We think it's
more attractive and more of a benefit as far as marketing to do it in phases. Now it may
very well be that phase one comes in with phase two right behind it. We don't know
that at this point. We are a little bit down the road before we actually start the
development, but our plans right now are approximately 50 homes per phase and I
don't think that that's -- in my experience is unusual in a residential development. And
we did submit to Brad a phasing plan.
Zaremba: Would you be willing, regardless of the phasing, to complete Verbena from
Linder to the other subdivision behind you?
Seel: Well, I'm going to let Mr. Moore answer that one.
Centers: Let me interject. I think to complete Verbena at the beginning would be more
hazardous than not, because you're going to have people -- and we don't have any
people here tonight from The Landing next door for one good reason, they are going to
want to use your access in the future and I think if you extend the street and you're
working on phase one, you're going to have all those people in The Landing utilizing
that access street with construction going on and I think it would be more hazardous
than helpful. I really do. In regards to Mrs. Towns' comment, if there were an accident I
guess the same would be true without this development going in, if there were an
accident tomorrow and you couldn't get out to Waltman, you know, I realize you're going
to have more cars, you know, that kind of thing, but --
Borup: Mr. Seel, could you -- which are the phases?
Seel: This -- let's see. This would be the first phase, which includes this park. I think
our plan is as we complete the second phase we would add the second park to it and
then the balance of it would be third phase. And, again, that might vary. Again, it will
depend to some degree on market conditions, but that's our estimate about how the
phases would work out. So by the time the second phase ends the park and everything
would be here and in the phase one what we will do is all this. The third area on both
sides it will be constructed before a house is built.
Borup: So the first phase you're going to have Verbena 130 some feet from The
Landing anyway?
Seel: Yes. Approximately. It would be to about here.
Borup: Oh. Okay. It's not quite to the intersection then. Okay. I see the line now. That's
a little bit further than that.
Seel: Yes, Commissioner. Any other questions on that before I continue? A couple
other things that I just wanted to mention. We have talked about access. We know that
the neighbors have expressed that concern before and as I say -- as Dan Thompson
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 37
said, there was a traffic study done, ACHD, we spent I think almost 4,500 dollars on
ACHD's look at that, they did not see any concerns in that, so -- and, you know, that's
something that they review and they are pretty strict and we have had to deal with them
before where we have had to come in and do things that we prefer not to do. As far as
the crowding of the schools, that was another question. In our last one that was also
brought up and as Ashley, who works for Hubble, explained, it's kind of the chicken --
who comes first, the chicken or the egg. Unfortunately, in the City of Meridian the
schools have to get overcrowded before you build a new one. We all deal with that. We
live up in Eagle, but we deal with the Meridian school system. So, yes, that could be,
but that's kind of a chicken and the egg type thing. As far as the number of lots, we are
-- this would be R-4. We are actually entitled to four lots, it would be like The Landing.
We are not suggesting that. I mean we put in the open space here, even though you
have got lots, there is a fair amount of open space. So I don't think there is as many lots
as I think could be potentially in here. We are not saying that would be approved, but it
certainly could be. As far as the irrigation water, again, as we mentioned to the
homeowners at the last meeting, we are not going to impact your irrigation water. We
understand the importance of irrigation water. This will be designed so that their
irrigation water will get to them and those designs, as you know, will be very detailed.
As far as the gentleman at the end of Linder who mentioned about the traffic there, I'm
not sure there will be anymore traffic coming into this project -- they will come in here
and turn here, so there is no reason for them to go down here -- that's not to suggest
people don't go down here, but anyone coming to the subdivision they are going to turn
here. The comment by the one lady as far as being insulted and -- that she interpreted it
that way about the view, I apologize. As we tried to explain to the homeowners, they,
again, expressed their concern with the view here and explained to them that when you
purchase a lot -- and this is no secret, you buy the land, but you don't buy the view on
the adjoining lot. So it was not intended to be insulting, it was just trying to give her
some information.
Woman1: No. Somebody said we should have bought the 40 acres.
Woman2: Right. It was never --
Borup: Ma'am, we need to --
Seel: Okay. And I think the last ones that people mentioned about it being mixed use, it
strikes me that if this was commercial it would be far worse than it would be residential.
To me residential is probably the least intrusive use for this land. So I think I just wanted
to comment to some questions that were brought up and certainly be glad to answer
your questions. Again, we think this is going to be a quality project. You know the
individual who is developing this, Winston Moore, he does quality projects, we have a
quality residential realtor involved in it, we are going to make sure that the CC&R's are
very strict, we will make sure that this continues to be a quality project and I think things
like along here if we really wanted to go cheap we would skip the berms, we could put
wood fences in here -- we don't, we want to make this an attractive thing, we are trying
to go the extra mile on this thing. I understand from the neighbors that they would love
to have this a field, I can understand that, but we will try to mitigate that as much as
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 38
possible and make a quality project that I think the City of Meridian and the surrounding
community will be proud of. With that I will --
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Any final questions? Thank you.
Seel: Thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Seel. Commissioners, how would you like to proceed?
(Comments from audience.)
Borup: This is really not a debate. We had an opportunity for everyone to speak and
then the applicant has a final chance to answer those questions. There will be another
Public Hearing, depending on what happens here tonight. Well, either way, what
happens here tonight there will be another Public Hearing at City Council, so everyone
has an opportunity. Commissioners, how would you like to proceed?
Zaremba: I think I would just -- the applicant has made some explanation. Does staff
have any further comments on the applicant's May 2nd letter?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, we did have a
chance to look over their response. It appears that they have addressed all of our
issues. We would support and recommend, I think, the connection of Verbena. In part --
and maybe Bruce can address -- there was a water main that is in -- proposed to be in
Verbena that would connect through and there -- I didn't count the lots, but there are
upwards -- let me go back to -- Ten Mile Creek is here and I believe as several people
have pointed out, there is a stub street here and another one right here, but, of course,
there is no development proposed at this point in time for these lots, so south of Ten
Mile all of these houses, including Marlin, including Primrose, the school, this is all --
everything south of Ten Mile does have one way in, one way out. I don't believe that fire
addressed that. I don't -- I did not count the number of houses. It's probable -- I'm going
to guess is upwards of, you know, 400 with the inclusion of Marlin. And essentially what
you have -- because of the Ten Mile, which doesn't have any existing crossings, you do
have a cul-de-sac that begins right here and it's -- it's a concern certainly in terms of
probably emergency services more than anything else. I don't think it's really even just
to Waltman, I think you go up here to Ten Mile where -- you know, because there are no
streets that cross Ten Mile Drain as you can see in here. All of these funnel out to exit at
this point, this point, this point, and then Marlin has got one here. So there is four onto
Linder south of Ten Mile, but essentially it is a one way in, one way out situation from
that point for between 400 and 600 homes and ACHD's report did say that, obviously,
these connections in the future are going to be provided, but nobody knows at this point
when that is, so we failed to see that in our staff report and I think that Verbena would
offer that, the interconnectivity.
Centers: That's Verbena right here?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 39
Centers: At the outset.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Centers: Yeah.
Borup: You're saying the first phase or --
Hawkins-Clark: First phase.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to maybe add a little bit to that. Part of the -- I got
this phasing plan tonight, so I'm seeing it as you're seeing it. But I would like to see the
water main connected to The Landing Subdivision from the phase -- basically the
section of Verbena, I'd like to have that gap closed with water main at a minimum, if
your recommendation is not to require the street be built. By doing that it's going to give
me redundancy in the subdivision to be able to provide water. Otherwise, I have one
main feeding this until that phase three connection can be made.
Centers: That would be a good alternative if Verbena could be cut through, but not
necessarily would have to be paved. Isn't that what you mentioned, Bruce?
Freckleton: No. I'm saying if -- because I kind of sensed before that you were headed
on not having it improved.
Centers: Yeah.
Freckleton: And I guess my -- at a minimum I'd like to have that water main connected.
But I share Brad's opinion that I think it would be better for interconnectivity to have it
built with that first phase. I think if you don't build it it's going to get used anyway, unless
you got a real good barricade system.
Centers: Uh-huh. Yeah. And as far as paving, it would probably be less expensive to
pave it all at one time anyway.
Freckleton: Well -- and when you're talking of hazard and that sort of thing, I think
probably have more of a hazard with people going boondocking out across there than if
it's a fully improved road.
Borup: Well, I have got some of the same concerns as Commissioner Centers on
having it immediately along with construction, but I have also got concern on
emergency access. That would provide another emergency access, not only to this
subdivision, but even -- you know, Primrose, maybe, if this street was blocked
somewhere along there. I don't know the best solution, other than like say a barricade
that emergency vehicles could still get through. Whether that's practical or not, I'm not
sure.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 40
Zaremba: Well, as long as the constriction or accident or whatever didn't happen right
at Linder and Franklin, they would certainly have circulation possibilities for getting
around accidents farther south on Linder.
Borup: Yeah. Anything south of here it would provide for -- I mean any blockage south
of there could still get out.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, just for Commission's information, that is a 300-foot gap.
Borup: Oh. Right. That's --
Freckleton: From The Landing Subdivision to phase one is a 300-foot gap.
Borup: I came out about 250 something, but --
Freckleton: I had my scale calibrated today.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: The Public Hearing is still open, but was there any other testimony that -- I
mean do we want to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: The applicant had his final --
Centers: Yeah. Well, I would move to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Centers: Give them the opportunity.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Do we have some discussion?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I guess, you know, it's another one of those situations where
you have traffic and you have Meridian growth and you have concerned neighbors and I
totally understand that. I do. I live in an area where I have growth and it's coming and
can't do anything about it. But it is in-fill and I don't think there is any other use for that
land, other than somewhat higher density residential. I mean, actually, the density is
less than the R-4 requirement due to the planned unit development project and the ten
percent open space and that type of thing, which I think is a great way to do it, because
that neighborhood will have their own little parks and won't be relying on the city and
that's why I recommended the playground equipment. But I think -- I think it is a good
project for that piece of land right next to the freeway and I guess -- I guess I would be
in favor of the 35 foot buffer and, you know, a lot more than The Landing has. I realize
that our ordinance took place after The Landing, but it's 35 feet more than The Landing
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 41
has, wouldn't that be right? Yeah. And very attractive. That white vinyl fence I was
hoping that was the case. The project I refer to east of the Five Mile along the freeway, I
think the neighbors went in with the state highway department and got that put in and
paid for. I don't know how it happened, but it looks nice. It really does. And I don't think
the 35 feet -- I think the 35 feet is acceptable, in my opinion. And I guess I would have
to concur -- you know, initially you're thinking why put Verbena all the way through and
why was The Landing approved the way that was originally, wow. We need that to be
developed, so The Landing can get out and so the fire department can get in and out.
So I guess I agree with Brad, that street should go in. It really should. And The Landing
should be thankful that they had a stub street there. Those are my comments. I think
that as far as -- I would require a slope easement and see that prior to City Council.
That's where I'm at.
Borup: Commissioner Mathes, what's your comments?
Mathes: I agree with Jerry.
Centers: You don't want to say it that way.
Mathes: I agree with your decision. How is that?
Zaremba: Well, he makes some very good points. Under an R-4 there could be 200
home in here.
Borup: Well, we are --
Zaremba: Theoretically.
Centers: R-8 you would have a lot more.
Zaremba: You could go for an R-8, but --
Borup: That's entirely true. Not to meet the frontage requirements you couldn't, but
strictly on the per acre that is true.
Zaremba: Well, I think the existing problem with Linder isn't really going to be solved
until there is an overpass and Linder connects all the way through. I also agree with
Commissioner Centers that these being smaller lots, smaller homes, are likely to be
starter homes and, therefore, small children homes. That does put pressure on the
school system. Every time we bring this up and there is anybody from the school
system here they say they respond when it happens.
Centers: Should I comment?
Zaremba: I don't see a better use for this land, as long as it's not going to continue
being farmed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 42
Centers: And I want you to continue, Commissioner Zaremba, but the school district on
the four plex that we saw earlier this morning with four townhouses we got the same
identical letter from the school district on that project as we did -- right. As someone
said earlier, the schools are going to be built when they need them.
Zaremba: As a result.
Centers: Excuse me.
Zaremba: No. I'm agreeing with you.
Borup: Do you have anything else? Were you concluded?
Centers: I interrupted you.
Zaremba: Well, I was at the end anyhow.
Borup: It sounds like --
Centers: Chairman Borup, how do you feel?
Borup: I'm thinking on tying to Verbena. No, it's a nice project. I like the open space. I
agree on the freeway buffer. You know, the difference -- the difference between this and
the subdivision next door is -- the houses will be further away from the freeway, so
reducing that buffer doesn't have any effect on changing the distances. I'm just still
trying to decide the most effective way on that Verbena tying to the land, whether it is
necessary now or -- it should be at least emergency access or wait for a later phase or
what. I don't know. But I think Mr. Freckleton had a pertinent comment that at the very
least the water should tie in to provide adequate service to the project.
Zaremba: The difficult is if Linder went all the way through it would be easy to say that
this would be a fine addition to the city and I think it is, it's a good project, and a good
addition to the city, but the biggest problem I have is the same as others have
expressed, we have already started putting a lot of houses on Linder. I could be a lot
more comfortable if Verbena connected.
Borup: To begin with you mean?
Zaremba: Yes. And I realize that's going to attract people out of The Landing
Subdivision to go over to Linder sooner than they are now, but it also gives other people
the opportunity to go around constrictions that they have.
Borup: That's why I wondered if the second phase might make sense, when a lot of the
traffic -- a lot of the construction traffic would not be along that same area. I don't know.
Centers: I have got a solution.
Borup: Let's hear it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 43
Centers: We could require Verbena to be continued at phase two and pass the buck to
City Council. I did that two weeks ago, didn't I.
Borup: Well, if it's continued in phase two with full improvements, it's going to require --
I would assume they may want to change their phasing plan if they had to do that,
because, otherwise, you have got lots there that the approved road would eventually be
using, but I guess that would be up to the applicant how they want to do that.
Centers: Brad, you said the fire department didn't address that, did you? I mean isn't
that what you said?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct,
Centers: Right. So I guess between now and City Council the fire department could
address that and we could require that Verbena be completed after phase one and
subject to what the fire department says.
Hawkins-Clark: The proposed phase one?
Centers: Right. When they start on phrase two then they would complete Verbena to
The Landing.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Certainly you could do that. I think we remain firm at doing it at
the beginning and I think the applicant is agreeing to do it at the beginning, so --
Borup: The applicant is?
Centers: Do we have a nod?
Hawkins-Clark: We have a nod.
Centers: Well, then let's go with the nod. Moving forward. Shall we? Anymore
discussion?
Zaremba: Not from me.
Centers: I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to recommend that we recommend approval to the City Council
regarding Item 6, Public Hearing AZ 02-007, request for annexation and zoning of 40
acres from RUT to R-4 zone for proposed Marlin Sub by Winston Moore, north of I-84
and east of South Linder Road, including all staff comments.
Mathes: I will second that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 44
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Handle Item 6.
Centers: I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval regarding Item 7,
PP 02-008, request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 152 building lots and 5 other lots
on 40 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Marlin Sub by Winston Moore, north
of I-84 and east of South Linder Road. Now the fun part.
Borup: One was the landscape freeway buffer.
Centers: Yeah. Including all staff comments, with the addition or exception of Verbena
Street to be cut through to The Landing at the beginning of development, including the
water main. That would be sufficient, Bruce, or do you have something to add on --
Freckleton: Maybe just a little clarification. How about just that -- Verbena connection to
The Landing to be included with first phase.
Centers: So worded. Page eight, item five, 35 foot buffer in lieu of the 50-foot buffer
would be acceptable. Yeah. The remaining 15 feet to be covered in CC&R's and/or
property owners are to know that they cannot build on the remaining 15 feet with
storage sheds or what have you.
Borup: You know, that's been mentioned, but I'm not sure what the problem is with a
storage shed back there.
Centers: It's not, but --
Borup: Worried about the tools may be stored or --
Centers: It's part of the common lot.
Borup: No, it's not a common lot.
Zaremba: But some of it has slope and it's a clear buffer zone. They enjoy the use of
the space, but that's enlarging their lots if they plan to the buffer zone.
Borup: Well, no, the distance is still there. That part of the buffer zone is just distance.
Centers: I never understood it either, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 45
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could maybe try and clarify that. How about that the
balance of the 15 -- or the remaining 15 feet is to be included as part of the adjacent
lots -- or incorporated into the adjacent lots.
Centers: Deeded land?
Zaremba: Deeded land.
Freckleton: With a 15 foot landscape buffer easement.
Centers: Strike the previous comment regarding buildings on the 15 feet and the
CC&R's, strike all of that. The 15 feet can be deeded land to those specific lots. Okay?
Borup: Period.
Zaremba: With a restriction that nothing could be built on it.
Centers: No. No. No restrictions.
Borup: You mean so they can't put a swing set out there, can't put a little gazebo, can't
do --
Zaremba: They'd have to put that on the other part of their lot.
Centers: Because we are reducing it to a 35-foot buffer that can be deeded land.
Correct?
Borup: Yeah. And that could be up to the fence.
Centers: Yeah. And they could do what they want.
Borup: To the fence on top of the berm.
Zaremba: Okay. Well, I was trying to preserve the 50-foot buffer, only 35 of which
would be common area.
Centers: Yeah. But I think that -- you know, if we are going to go with 35, go with 35
and let those people have bigger lots. Don't you --
Borup: The lot size isn't reduced. The buffer stays the same. You know, if they took
this other 15 feet, added to the lots, and then moved the road 15 feet to the south, then
-- then, yes, you're reducing it, but if the street stays where it is, the lot size is just
increased, the respective buffer size stays the same whether it's parking lot or --
Centers: Yeah. If it's deeded instead of --
Borup: Right. So the practical benefit -- I mean the benefit is just distance.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 46
Centers: Exactly.
Borup: And all the noise mitigation is going to be from the top of the berm towards the
freeway. I can see they could do some nice landscaping things back there if they so
chose.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: I'm agreeing with all of that, except that I thought that we were going to limit
it to only landscaping in that last 15 feet.
Borup: What difference does it make? I don't know. Is there a reason for --
Zaremba: Still trying to satisfy the 50-foot --
Centers Not if we are going to allow a 35-foot buffer. Right?
Borup: I mean a building back there would even be more of a buffer.
Centers: Right.
Borup: It wouldn't do anything, but --
Centers: Well, that would be part of the motion, 35 foot buffer, the rest of -- the
remaining would be deeded land or lots within the subdivision.
Freckleton: Not or.
Centers: I guess in this case deeper lots.
Borup: Not or.
Freckleton: Not or. In would be absorbed on the adjacent lots.
Centers: Right.
Freckleton: I'm on a roll. You guys --
Borup: I know. He's on a roll. Does the attorney have any questions on --
Wollen: I'm trying to get a clear motion. I had it up until the 15-foot area and then I got
just a little bit lost on -- is it all to be deeded land?
Centers: The 15-foot. Yeah. Strike that. Thirty-five foot buffer.
Borup: But the lots did increase by 15 feet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 47
Centers: Right. Continuing. Page nine, item eleven. Applicant to secure slope
easement from the Ada County Highway District to satisfy that requirement. Now we get
back to Verbena. What --
Borup: How about item 10?
Centers: Pardon? Did we finish with Verbena? Did we -- okay. And Verbena will be
connected to The Landing, per the applicant's agreement. What did you say, Mr.
Chairman?
Borup: Never mind.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: It clarified it.
Centers: Just bear with me. All right. That takes care of that for the easement. Okay.
That would be the end of the motion on the Preliminary Plat.
Borup: We have a motion. Do I hear a second?
Mathes: I will second.
Borup: Any discussion? Commissioner Zaremba, I guess one comment on building
anything in that 15-foot buffer area. It was -- I'm thinking maybe one of enforcement,
even though it's in the CC&R's, I mean that could be a hard thing to enforce, if someone
wants to build a little garden shed out there or something.
Zaremba: Well, as long as the City Council is going to be comfortable with making this
a 35 foot buffer and giving up the 15-foot, I don't have a problem with it.
Centers: Yeah.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, maybe for Mr. Zaremba's benefit, setbacks on that rear lot
are 15-feet. So you're not going to have any permanent structures back there anyway.
That's not to say that somebody isn't going to build a shed, but that's not a permanent
structure. It could be moved if it had to be.
Zaremba: That's a good point. Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to recommend approval to the City
Council for Item 8, CUP 02-010, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned
development for single family residential lots in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed
Marlin Subdivision by Winston Moore, north of I-84 and east of South Linder Road,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 48
including all staff comments and the applicant has agreed to install a picnic and
barbecue pit area, which would satisfy the planned development ordinance, but I think -
- I think I would like to require that playground equipment in lieu of and playground
equipment to be included in both park areas. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, would we like a five minute break at this time?
Centers: Yes.
(Recess.)
RECONVENED AT 9:56 P.M.
Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 02-005 Request for annexation and zoning of
196.20 acres from RT to R-4 zones for proposed Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and
south of East Victory Road:
Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 02-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 455
single-family lots, 38 common lots and 1 other lot on 190.47 acres in a
proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem
Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and south of East
Victory Road:
Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 02-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development consisting of 353 buildable lots and 31
common lots on 138.88 acres for proposed Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and
south of East Victory Road:
Borup: We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting this evening and begin
with the next project, which is Items No. 9, 10, and 11, Tuscany Lakes. I'd like to open
Public Hearing AZ 02-005, request for annexation and zoning of 196.2 acres from RT to
R-4 zones for proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision by Gem Park II partnership and
also open Public Hearing PP 02-006, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 455 single
family lots, 38 common lots, and one other lot on the same 190 acres, proposed R-4
zone for Tuscany Lakes Subdivision and, finally, I'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 02-
006, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development consisting of
353 buildable lots and 31 common lots on 138 acres for proposed Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision. With these hearings open, let's start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 49
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. The staff
report we will be referring to is dated April 26, 2002, by Dave McKinnon and Bruce
Freckleton. Addressing the first hearing, the annexation and zoning, aerial photo is here
and the proposed project again outlined in red. Victory Road along the north and Eagle
Road along the west there -- or east. Existing site photos. Looking to the east. We just
included the one on the right, because we thought it was kind of cool, but that's the
Ridenbaugh Canal crossing over the Ten Mile, I believe. There is a couple other site
photos. Here is outlined on a base -- parcel base map the proposed project, so, again,
the annexation request is from existing Ada county rural urban transition to an R-4 low
density residential zone. The proposed staff comments on the annexation I do not
believe the applicant has any opposition to. I will refer you to the front page of the staff
report where we summarize a little bit of the history. On the first submission of this
project -- and just briefly, as you know, the City Council on July 3rd of last year did deny
it and the four reasons for denial are listed there. A, the road infrastructure inadequate;
B, the subdivision would extend police and fire service farther than -- beyond Victory
than they felt was appropriate; C, the parcel is contiguous to the city limits, but the
proposed phasing would not be and that reason for denial is -- here is the point at which
the project touches existing city limits and makes it legally annexable. The last one
proposed phasing from Locust Grove to the east and not beginning adjacent to existing
city limits. So that was the third reason for denial. And then fourth was a statement
about the best interest, as they felt it was not the best interest of the property. So they
have submitted again. The annexation request itself has not changed from the first time.
The thing that has changed is the plat. So I will move on to the plat.
Centers: Brad, clarification. The annexation said 196.2 acres and the plat defined it as
190.47. Just for clarification there or --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Commissioner Centers, that is pretty standard on most projects.
The reason is right of way. We required annexing right of way and so the plat subtracts
out that adjacent right of way, so that -- but it's on the right of way on Locust, Victory,
and Eagle. It comes out in this instance quite a bit of ground, actually, six acres, of
future right of way.
Borup: Brad, this annexation increased -- adding another 40 acres to --
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I'm sorry. That's correct. Yes. This 40 acres here is new. That is a
new request that was not a part of the original. Or last year's. I'm sorry. That has been
added to the -- that does increase the number of ingress-egress points in the
subdivision. They had proposed one and we have discussed that, so that does add an
ingress-egress point. This 40 acres is a part of the annexation request, it's a part of the
Preliminary Plat, but it is not a part of the conditional use application. It was -- the
planned development conditional use request is all of the 2001 submission, all that
property. So in terms of any variance type waiver type request, they would not -- like our
standard in planned developments, we could not apply those to that 40 acres. The -- a
couple of highlights on the difference -- the differences between the 2001 submission
and this one. The location of the school has been shifted. Again, here is the
Ridenbaugh Canal, Victory. If you recall, the school was more or less in this location. It
has been shifted a little north and is along the east boundary. Another key difference is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 50
the addition of a residential collector from Eagle Road that comes in and abuts the
southern portion of the 12-acre school site. Another difference is the proposed phasing.
And you may be able to see it better on your copy. This is the phasing up here, but
generally they are proposing to start with three phases as they have -- they have
broken up their first phase into three -- sort of a 1-A, 1-B, 1-C kind of scenario, so that
there are -- at the first submission of the first phase here, first phase here, and first
phase here, and then sort of your second and third, they kind of move from the east and
the west and with this phase five being this portion here. So that's also a difference. So
there is essentially kind of three neighborhoods that they have proposed to create,
called The Lakes, The Hills, and East more or less. In terms of the -- just a few
highlights, I'll just let Kent Brown, the representative, kind of go over most of the
highlights, but there is a single ingress-egress point here on South Locust Grove Road,
a residential collector that comes in and does cross -- there is both man-made and
natural -- three man-made and natural features in this project, the Ten Mile, the Eight
Mile, and the Ridenbaugh, so there is bridges on this collector here as it comes through
the center of the project. They have -- and then there were cul-de-sacs here in phase
one. This is now created to be more or less a continuous loop in this first section. Staff
certainly supports that. Crosses over the -- that's Ten Mile. Eight Mile there. Eight Mile.
Yeah. Eight Mile there. Common lot area that is adjacent to the Eight Mile here and
there is a proposed pathway system within that and then moving to the east, a bridge
that crosses the Ridenbaugh Canal here, connects over and then into this 40 acres that
we were just talking about earlier. There is a proposed -- the proposed main entrance
on Victory is located right here near the east boundary. There is some open space here.
There is a -- entrance is here. The Highway District has made some comments on that
and I will let Kent Brown address some of those. The main issues I wanted to point out
on the proposed conditions that we have, on page nine of our staff report -- I will go
back here. We are proposing that -- staff is proposing a stub street in this location that
would sub to the north and I will just go back to show you the parcel that that would stub
to and this is approximately 7.6 acres and it would stub in this general location right
here. So we are proposing that that be added. As you may recall, the Comprehensive
Plan that the City Council is moving forward on and you recommend approval of shows
one of those neighborhood centers here on the south side of Victory Road in this
location. So one of our reasons is future connectivity into this -- into this center. That's
the South Florence Way. There is also a recommendation for a stub street to be added
here on the southeast portion of the project and that -- we would asking for that stub to
be kind of generally in this location, not -- probably not a direct alignment with this
north-south street, but to be shifted here. And then the other location for recommended
stub streets -- and I guess I should go back over here -- is to continue this north-south
here -- again, here is the Eight Mile. Continue this north-south here, continue this one,
and eliminate this middle stub. We are -- we did talk with the applicant earlier today and
we certainly understand that there is -- if you continue this stub straight here you do
kind of create a somewhat inappropriate pocket here in the corner, so in terms of
location on this north stub, we are open to, you know, working on that with the
applicant. The -- number eight on -- item number eight on page eleven, I will just hit
that. That's, again, here on this South Locust Grove. This is dealing with the required
landscaping and we are just -- the applicant is -- we were talking about this landscape
buffer on Locust to be continued south of the main entry as part of phase one. So that
could just be an adjusted phase one line. That phase one line would actually come
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 51
down here on the backside of this landscape buffer, so that all of this could be
constructed at a single time and you can get consistent growth of the trees, etc. In
terms of the planned development, the amenities that they are proposing are the ten
percent open space and they are proposing a -- shall we give that one? Maybe that
shows it a little better. Yeah. I'm going to shift over to this -- I think the colored version, if
that will help, but as you can see these dark areas that are supposed to be green, are
where they are having common open space lots. I believe a basketball court has been
proposed for this lot here. And then, again, the pathway -- they are proposing an off-
street pathway system that would come down off of Victory here adjacent across from
the school that would serve this area, an off-street detached sidewalk pathway system.
They do have a separated completely off-street pathway system that comes along
within the Eight Mile and Ten Mile network here. So those are the two amenities as far
as the planned development goes. The last thing I wanted to point out was the police
department did submit a comment via e-mail today. I think you should have that in your
packets and the bottom line of the police department's request -- and they give several
traffic citations, there are collisions -- they have noted 51 reported collisions on Eagle
Road, two of them on Victory at Victory and Brandys Jewel -- yes, between January and
April 2002. Captain Bill Munser is recommending that at a minimum they recommend
postponing the proposed development at least a year and a denial of the project is
requested, if possible, until the roadway situation can be fixed. Just bring your attention
to that and stand for any questions you might have.
Borup: Any questions from any Commissioners?
Zaremba: I think basically from your description of this what I'm understanding of the
four points that the city made -- City Council made in denying this on July 3rd of '01, the
applicant has pretty much solved two of them. They changed the road infrastructure,
which appears to be an improvement, and they have changed the phasing, which
appears to start closer to the current city limits. But I don't see the police or fire services
have been improved and it appears that the police department feels the same way, is
that what I'm understanding?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I would point out -- yeah. The phasing they have begun, even
though there is three phase ones, technically, but the first one does begin now adjacent
to the city limits, so that's how that addresses that finding, with the addition that there
are still two phases that would also begin, one on Locust, one on Victory. So certainly
there are some advantages to that in terms of connectivity out there, but that's up for
your discussion. And the phasing issue is -- as you can read in the report -- and I
believe Kent is prepared to kind of talk about some of the phasing.
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba mentioned, then, of the four items mentioned, they
addressed the only two they had any control or input over. The other two still -- it
wouldn't do any --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 52
Zaremba: They don't have direct impact on them, but they still exist.
Borup: And there is nothing they could do about that. Okay. Mr. Brown, are you
prepared for a presentation? For the audience's information, the board he has here is
the same one that's up on the screen.
Brown: For the record, my name is Kent Brown. My business address is 1800 West
Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. After all of our hearings last year we took into
consideration the things that we were discussed in our approval process and tried to
address those as we redesigned the site. The first thing that we did is that we moved
the school site. Through the process last time, to help you, our school site originally was
down in this corner and then we moved it up here a little bit and now we have moved it
here, but the school district tells us on this and other projects that we have designed
that they like the school site close to major roads, but a short distance off. They also like
the ability to have the residential collector very close by, so that you don't have any
people complaining about people driving passed their house to get to the school. So
you have no front-on housing on that residential collector that comes off of Eagle Road
and provides a good access to the school. The next thing that we did in our discussions
in our pre-design of this again was that we went to the Highway District, we had a pre-
application meeting with the Highway District, we took our plans and said, okay, this
project was totally approved by the Highway District before, the increased traffic
volumes were approved by the board. It showed that you would have acceptable levels
of traffic before, but there was some discussion about our connection to Victory Road.
Mr. Young -- he's sitting behind me here -- didn't like where we were connecting to
Victory Road and yet had I even invited Mr. Young when we were going through the
process before to go and talk with the Highway District staff and we tried to find out from
them if they wanted us to move that road, because we didn't want to mess with the road
anymore, we wanted to design it right the first time and get it all over with. They told us
that they liked where we were proposing the road, so we left it -- left in its existing
configuration. To kind of update some of you that -- what happened before. There was
some discussion about the Thousand Springs road being here and maybe lining those
two up, creating a cross, and then having that be the one entrance point, instead of
having two. They preferred two T intersections to a cross intersection. They say that
those are safer. So as part of that, that's why we designed it the way that we did. Some
of the other minor changes that we have made with regards to the cul-de-sacs, we like
loops, we are kind of redesigned this area a little bit, but for the most part we kind of
stayed with what we had. We have added the 40 acres. Both of these developers are
the same ones that developed Thousand Springs and Sherbrooke, which are the
developments that provide the connectivity for the subdivision or for us to annex. We
have tried to create, as we did in the past, a usable walking path system. We have a
path that's on the east side of Ten Mile and on the west side of the Eight Mile. We don't
own the Eight Mile and so we will have it fenced completely off from the residents of the
development, but then we will have our own man-made pond on the west side of the
Eight Mile with a walking path meandering through there and the idea is to create a nice
environment in the backyards of those homes. We have -- through our hydrologist just
have the groundwater that we can see is going to the Ten Mile and that will also create
a cutoff to stop that water from flowing through there and it will go through our system
and then dump into the Ten Mile. The pathways, from my years of experience in doing
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 53
development, are something that the public uses versus a soccer field. The liability for a
soccer field is, you know, as great as probably what our water amenities are going to
be. We wanted to create a pond system that is gradual and then we wanted a deep
spot on them. We were out there earlier in the year with the Meridian staff and saw on
the Eight Mile that it retained water all year long when it got down to a certain depth. So
certain spots in these ponds will have some deep spots that will end up having a place
where the water retains, but for the most part the rest of them will dry right up when the
irrigation water goes out. This ground is very porous and that's where the water comes
from. As soon as the water goes into the Ridenbaugh we start getting water flowing
through different cutoff drains and so forth in the area. As we discussed in our previous
hearings, we are going to put a cutoff drain running along here and either dumping into
the Eight Mile or we will run it over into our pond system into the Ten Mile. When the
water goes into the Ridenbaugh Canal this area in here they don't irrigate, the water
seeps across there from the side of the banks of the Ridenbaugh. We have the same
experience on this side, that they have a ditch that runs along the Ridenbaugh that
picks up that water. That ditch has cattails and different things in it that grow along
there, but it's all located within the Nampa-Meridian easement on the property. So we
will be fencing with wrought iron fence that area off to keep people out of the
Ridenbaugh and, obviously, we will have to have breaks for the ditch master and so
forth, but those will still be fenced off, so no one will have access to the Eight Mile or the
Ridenbaugh. The only place that they really have the access is for our man-made pond
and to the Ten Mile. The Ten Mile is called out on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as
having a greenbelt system. We would like to maintain our system until such time as --
well, I really don't think that it will go anywhere. That concrete structure that Brad talked
about, I think that's going to stop the City of Meridian from extending their pathway,
personally. You know, eventually they might be able to make this connection, but I don't
see them going south of us, because that weir structure. They actually take water out of
the Ridenbaugh out of that structure and dump it into the Ten Mile to supplement it and
to give it water. So -- I mean that structure is always going to have to be there. Nampa-
Meridian owns the property directly to the south of us, so they would have to be a part
of that and maybe that will happen, but I just don't really see it going anywhere. So we
are trying to create a path system that will really be usable and viable. We have had
hydrologists who have looked at this site before and those were a part of the things that
we hashed out in a previous hearing before the Planning and Zoning. He told us that
this cutoff drain would be recommended. We also looked at putting one here and along
our southerly boundary. Mr. Pullman, he lives directly south of us, and he would like
that cutoff drain put in there and, you know, if we open up the ground and we see that
we need it, but currently our hydrologist says that it's not needed for our project. Some
of the other things that we have looked at -- the police and fire, I guess you took that as
an issue that is kind of interesting that when we submitted and got denied, that since
then -- and that's the same general area, a little bit closer, but the Silverstone, because
of the commercial development, it was approved and there wasn't ever any discussion
about fire or police and yet those kind of facilities have a lot of bigger drain on police
and fire protection than the residentials do when they first in. When -- an older
residential, that's when you start having fire problems, other than emergency response.
They do have a fire station site located in the Thousand Springs Subdivision along
Eagle Road and the city will need to allocate that money and do that as a part of the
growth that takes place. They have approved, to my knowledge, three other
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 54
developments between Overland Road and Victory Road that are in that same general
area since this one got denied and those have similar constraints, but it didn't seem to
bother them when they approved those and it's kind of interesting that you go just south
of Victory and it's a big issue. We have tried to move our phasing around to address
some of those concerns. There is some state law items that take place, too. We do not
own the Eight Mile and since we don't own it, it's not part of our plat when we plat the
ground. The county engineer will not allow us to jump across there with a continuous
subdivision name, so you end up platting this all as one Preliminary Plat, but when you
come in for final it's going to have a different name on that other side of the Eight Mile.
So taking that into consideration, we have got the Hills in this area that would -- we
were hoping for like a Tuscany Hills and then Tuscany Lakes here and then another 40
acres over here that is another ownership, two phases on it, and the phase contiguous
with the city limits. The other part of making that work from our traffic study, we got turn
lanes that would be put in on Victory and Eagle and on Locust Grove and it's nice to
have those in before all the rest of the traffic comes in and by starting in those locations
we end up providing that traffic security there. I know it's late and I'm going to stand for
any questions. The one issue where they are asking for a stub here, we do have a
problem with that. My client met the two neighbors out there --
Borup: Which location again?
Brown: They were asking for a road to be stubbed in this location right here. There is
an existing neighbor here and then a neighbor here, an existing neighbor. We agreed
with them that we would put in a vinyl fence on top of the three-foot berm and they don't
even want us to know that we are there, basically, and I don't really see a great
advantage of stubbing that road as to what you get in this area. If your neighborhood
center is located in this area, you're going to put a bridge across the Eight Mile to bring
something over this way, but what makes more sense is that you're going to have
homes backing up to the Eight Mile, if that's what goes in there is homes, they are going
to back up along the Eight Mile, you're going to have a road entrance here, you're going
to have a road entrance here, then to be able to develop that corner you're going to
have to buy up all those properties and for the most part they are going to have to
remove most of the houses. At least that's the way I look at it if I was given that
responsibility to develop. This is the back of the house right here. To me it just makes it
-- it makes more sense if you're going to have a road here and a road here, so that
property would have two accesses and, you know, you would really get a great benefit
by stubbing that one in. I just don't really see it. We are not opposed to extending this
one up and extending this one up. We would like to move this stub further down to the
south, so that you end up with an island right there on that corner. In doing that they
asked for a pedestrian connection. We are not opposed to that. For the school. A well
site located here for the Public Works Department for water pressure in the area.
Borup: Is that already configured as a well site?
Brown: It is currently a residential lot and in discussing with Bruce and my clients
earlier today we are not opposed. You know, when you read the analysis they are
saying they need to put a school -- you know, it would be really nice if you could locate
the well site on the school property, because that's who the well site is for. Bruce
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 55
explained to me that, you know, the higher elevation you get the better that it is. It is
about 30 feet difference, but -- you know, if it winds his clock, you know, my client said it
would be okay. You know, we won't fight over that. He needs a place to discharge in
there. He's got to wake up anyway. I think I have addressed everything that -- if you
have any questions for me.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Not I.
Zaremba: While you were on the stub streets, I think they were suggesting one more
south in the Tuscany East.
Brown: We are not opposed to that one.
Zaremba: Okay.
Brown: We would prefer not to have it, but I can understand why. You see where this
house is, you really wouldn't want it to align here. You end up creating another
residential collector, even though it's not, if you lined up. If you move it over and staff
has written that into the report that it could go west of that street location and they could
speak to that.
Borup: But that stub street would need to cross the Eight Mile -- is that Eight Mile?
Brown: We would probably have to trust fund with the Highway District for a half of a
bridge and -- when and if the people to the south decide to develop or some one
develops their property, then a bridge would go in. This is the Ten Mile right here.
Borup: Ten Mile. Okay.
Brown: The Ten Mile feeder drops down in this location. There is also a drainage ditch
that runs here along this. That drainage ditch picks up the water from this canal that
flows this way and picks up what used to come off of our field that hasn't for a number
of years, because there is a sod farm on there. We have been raising grass on there.
Borup: Is that all one parcel to the south?
Brown: That's it.
Borup: Other than what --
Brown: Yes, it is.
Borup: So you would always have two streets going to the same parcel?
Brown: We have three -- we have. We have two already.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 56
Borup: And that would be a third on the --
Brown: That would be a third one.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Brown, what's the name of that street right there?
Brown: I believe that's Florence.
Centers: That's Florence? Okay.
Zaremba: That was the end of the question? Okay. You mentioned ponds that would
not entirely dry up at some time. When they are at their low point is there any
movement in them? I'm concerned that they not become stagnant and create
mosquitoes and --
Brown: Through the time of year that you would have mosquitoes -- the time that we
were out there with -- prior to us submitting this subdivision in February and we walked
down the Eight Mile and right here at this location where the water comes right out of
the Ridenbaugh there was a deeper spot and it retained water and in my opinion it's
because the groundwater is, you know, down that ten, twelve feet and so that water
stayed there, but the rest of the canal was totally dry. So, yes, through the winter those
ponds are going to dry up similar to what any of the other water amenities in the valley
do, because of the source of water. We would try to maintain those through the year.
We have our pressure irrigation thing system there for Nampa-Meridian and any
discharge we would try to discharge into those also to maintain water and if we needed
to aerate them we could aerate them. But we definitely do want those to be flowing
ponds and not stagnant. You made me think of one other item. We would like some
natural material in this area, maintenance free type, so that it would create a kind of a
wildlife habitat. In this area where we are along the Ten Mile you have the west side of
the pathway from the -- on that side we are looking at natural materials and maybe
some man-made manicured materials that butt up to those lots along that side.
Centers: What are natural materials?
Brown: We don't yet have a definition of that.
Borup: You're talking about natural grasses and --
Brown: Natural grasses, ones that aren't maintained. Ones that --
Centers: What's there now?
Brown: Well, there are some there now, but Nampa-Meridian has dredged the Ten Mile
for years and there are a few grasses in there. We're saying shrubs and so forth that
you're not going to go in and mow on a weekly basis and those kind of things. Ones that
after you get them established you really don't even probably need to water to be going.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 57
You want some place that -- you know, that different wildlife can be in there, but, you
know, it's not brush or maintained.
Borup: Any other questions?
Mathes: I have a question. Where is the concrete funky looking thing located on here?
Brown. The Ridenbaugh is here and the Ten Mile cross. What you were looking at was
looking south and seeing where the water comes out of the Ridenbaugh into the Ten
Mile.
Mathes: And there will be a fence along there?
Brown: Right.
Mathes: So kids can't --
Brown: Right.
Borup: So that's off site then?
Zaremba: That's not actually on your property.
Brown: No, it's not. It's on Nampa-Meridian. What we would like to put is vinyl fence or
wrought iron fence. Wherever we have farming that's taking place and they are going
to do burning, we are going to put the wrought iron fence. The other places we are
going to put the vinyl. We have agreed that these neighbors from previous meetings
that are through here and around to this point and then you're going to have wrought
iron here and you're going to have vinyl in this location. The Morgners are still farming
and so we will put wrought iron against their property and along the Ridenbaugh.
Borup: Any other comments, Mr. Brown?
Brown: I think that's it.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question of Mr. Brown?
Brown: Oh, no.
Freckleton: My clock's wound.
Brown: I woke him up.
Freckleton: This is just a question. As you were talking, Kent, you mentioned that the
Eight Mile Lateral is not a part, it's -- I'm assuming it's fee simple owned by Nampa-
Meridian?
Brown: I don't believe that's true. I think it's the United States government that --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 58
Freckleton: Okay. The questions I have got is contiguity of the western portion of your
project, if you have got a piece of property that's separating -- bisecting your property
you got -- this half is separated from the rest of the project by this strip of land between.
Right? You have included -- you have included the whole thing in your annexation --
Brown: Just like we would with the Lakes.
Freckleton: And maybe this is a question of legal counsel. Whenever we have dealt
with these and there is a ditch or drain or something is in there on easement, it's just a
matter of writing the legal and including it. When it's a fee simple ownership, doesn't
that raise other issues -- consent type issues?
Wollen: Well, that's something that I can't answer right now. With a little bit if research I
can still get back to the Commission on that. I apologize.
Centers: But it's a good point. How can we annex land of a property owner that is not
intending to consent to it and in this case the Bureau of Rec, the U.S. Government -- go
ahead.
Borup: Same item. I don't go through the rest of --
Centers: I know. But it is a good point. I'm wondering.
Borup: I thought your comment was how do you write the legal description.
Freckleton: No. I just -- annexation. The legality of the annexation was a contiguity
issue.
Brown: We would not have -- if I understand what he's saying, the Eight Mile therefore
separates the lakes portion from the city limits if that owner isn't in agreement.
Borup: So you're saying that's similar to a highway, but you're saying that ACHD is
already in agreement?
Brown: They never ask.
Borup: That's what I was wondering.
Brown: Nine years of writing legal for the City of Boise and there were water rights of
way, we crossed them all the time and the State of Idaho owns the Boise River, for
example, you cross it just like you would a piece of public right of way, with is a street or
a sidewalk, you're contiguous to a point that's on the other side and that is owned and
held for the public. The public owns that facility and can across it and -- I mean let's talk
about annexation. What does annexation do to the Highway District of the public right of
way? I mean they don't pay taxes on the right of way. So changing it to -- from a rural
residential to R-4 doesn't change the tax value. It's the same difference. They are not a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 59
tax entity, so it doesn't change anything for them. But those areas are typically,
throughout the State of Idaho, are crossed regularly.
Borup: Bruce, are you thinking it would need to be handled differently than a highway?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman --
Borup: Or were you just kind of thinking out loud?
Freckleton: No, it's thinking out loud, because it's kind of an interesting thing. Becky's
clock is wound.
Brown: She's given me an example of Bridgetower development with separated by the
Five Mile Creek that was owned in fee simple by the Bureau of Rec and was treated like
a right of way.
Freckleton: But I believe Bridgetower and Primeland had contiguity in more than one
spot.
Brown: But you annexed the right of way.
Freckleton: I think the issue is more of contiguity than consent, is kind of the angle I'm
coming at. Because you really don't have contiguity unless you jump the strip of land
that's owned by someone else, but --
Borup: It may need some research. Did you have anyone else in presenting your
project? Okay. We have -- we had several people signed up to testify. Mr. Pullman, do
you still wish to --
Pullman: I'm Herman Pullman, 4010 South Locust Grove Road. I just wanted to testify
my opposition to this. The development hasn't changed since the last time I opposed it.
I agree to the fact that the fire and police protection are not adequate. The access for
fire and police protection is not adequate. The other day I was sitting on top of the
overpass on the Meridian Road and an ambulance came out and had to go down the
opposing lane of traffic to get across going south. It's just a big problem. Until they get
some more access, I don't think there should be any more subdivisions. Another thing is
that if -- if I understood Mr. Brown correctly, the hydrologist said that there wasn't any
problem with the water. Well, I have lived there 31 years and let me tell you we have
had problems with water for 31 years. If this is the fellow, they are going to have to
come up with some process to eliminate that water, because it's not going to go away
on its own. If they put in the sewer trunks and so on and there is going to be another
subdivision, I would be -- if I were planning it I would be real concerned about making
sure that that's what did it, but there is french drains and so on that you need to put in
that would be -- to make an insurance policy, as far as I'm concerned. Another thing --
Borup: They were also doing some cutoff drains in here, too.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 60
Pullman: I saw that. Yeah. But along my -- I live on the south side of the subdivision,
from both subdivisions, and I would like to make sure that there is cutoff drains put in
next to my property. The other concern we have, of course, are the schools. No one
mentioned how soon is the school going to be built or if the school district even owns
the property there. Mary McPhearson can't take any more kids, it's overloaded and has
been for several years. Pretty much all the other questions I had have been answered
prior to this.
Borup: Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Pullman. Mr. Young.
Young: My name is Rex Young. I live at 2950 East Victory Road. We have lived there,
my wife and I, for over 31 years and we are directly across the road -- across Victory
Road to the north of the proposed subdivision. I think if my memory serves me correctly,
this is the seventh hearing that I have been involved in concerning this subdivision. We
have several concerns and primarily those concerns are centered around the road that
exits the subdivision on Victory Road. That exit road is right across from my driveway.
Any cars entering or leaving the subdivision and turning left, their lights will hit my front
window. If they leave the subdivision and turn right their lights will hit the front windows
of Jim and Mary Allen, who occupy the residence immediately to the east of ours. I
have some privacy shrubs across the front of my property now, but those will disappear,
and I get a degree of protection now, but I would not have that, because Victory Road is
scheduled to go to three lanes by 2005. And, of course, during the construction and so
forth I anticipate that Ada County Highway District will be looking for more right of way
and will take an additional 24 feet of the front of my property. Now to orient you just a
little bit about exactly what I'm talking about --
Borup: Excuse me. I'm trying to absorb what you said. Do you think ACHD is going to
take 24 feet from your property to add one more lane to the road?
Young: I was told earlier that -- and I can't really tell you who and I hope they don't take
24 additional feet, but I was told that the right of way requirements for Victory Road from
center line is 48 feet each way.
Borup: Okay.
Young; Okay?
Borup: Ninety-six foot right of way.
Young: Yes. And it's 24 foot --
Borup: That's more than -- that's a five lane, isn't it?
Young: You're saying they are going to take less? That's good, I don't --
Borup: Well, I don't know, but 96 would be for a five lane.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 61
Young: Yes. But I will still lose my privacy shrubs if they take -- if they take only 15
additional feet.
Borup: Okay. I just thought you might have had some information on that street.
Young: This is a picture of my home, an aerial photo -- this is the aerial photo of my
home and as you can see there it's taken looking to the north and you can see Victory
Road there and the privacy shrubs across the front and the drive -- or the -- if you look
up the driveway you can see the front windows there kind of in the corner of the home.
Can you see those? Also I have -- I have some handouts here that I wanted to give you
and attached to this handout is a couple of items. The one thing is a letter from Ada
County Highway District that was back in the 1st of June of 2001 and also attached to
that is a copy of some photographs. Now I have a colored photograph here, if I could
show this to you. This is looking up the driveway towards my house standing in the
location of the proposed exit where it enters Victory Road. So here are the windows that
you see looking from that exit. Then if you look at the bottom picture here, this is looking
from my front window towards where the exit will be and you can see this line here --
and this is not on yours and I will show this to you other Commissioners, but this is the
west edge of the proposed driveway. Now if you look on another page there, this is a
picture of the Jim and Mary Allen home and this is looking at their home -- it's taken
right from the proposed entry onto Victory Road. And as I indicated, we are proposing
that this road be moved to the west line and lined up with Brandys Jewel. If you take a
look at that letter included in that packet from Ada County Highway District, they have
said in that letter that the alignment with Brandys Jewel is acceptable, but marginal.
Now either an intersection meets the requirements or it doesn't meet the requirements.
It's kind of like being a little bit pregnant, you know. You either are or you aren't. It meets
or it doesn't. And they said in that letter that Brandys Jewel does meet the
requirements. I also propose that we shave off a little bit of the top of that hill and that
will come and flatten it out a little bit and improve the line of sight. Ada County Highway
District said you can't do that, because there is a high pressure gas line in there. But I
go down to the Intermountain Gas and talk with the engineering people and they tell me
no problem. If Ada County Highway District wants to agree to have that hill shaved off,
let them bring us the plans and Intermountain Gas along with all the other utility
companies will lower their utilities if necessary. So it's a doable thing. If you look at the
Ada County Highway District letter it also says in there that a school crossing would
have to be at the crest of the hill, which is about 30 or 40 feet to the east of where
Brandy’s Jewel enters onto Victory Road, so it would empty at the crest of the hill at the
currently proposed location or at Eagle Road, one of the three. The school -- when I
talked with the school people they tell me that -- some of the things that they want. They
want a school crossing, they want a light at the school crossing, they will staff that
school crossing with a crossing guard and -- and they also want access to the school
site property by pedestrians from the north, not a roadway going into the school site
from the north, but that's what Mr. Bingham has told me when I talked with him about it.
The comments that I have made here tonight -- I talked with Mrs. Hastings, who lives
immediate to my west and she agrees with everything and said that I could use her
name in vain as concurring a hundred percent with my comments. I have talked with Mr.
Don Heartsfield, who lives at the corner of Victory Road and Eagle Road and he has
said the same things. In summary, we recommend that the north exit onto Victory be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 62
moved west and aligned with Brandy’s Jewel, that the crest of the hill be shaved off to
improve the line of sight and safety and a school crossing be put in at the same location
and a traffic light be installed. Had Brandy’s Jewel been put in right to start with we
wouldn't have the situation that we have there now. But it still meets the requirements of
the Ada County Highway District. I don't want to -- I know I have probably taken too
much time, but this item really concerns me. It's not only a nuisance, but it's going to
affect our quality of life and I think we deserve better treatment than to, if you will, have
a sanctioned public nuisance brought upon us by the fact that that road is not located in
the property place. In addition to that, when I pull out of my driveway I'm going to be
pulling right out of my driveway into the middle of an intersection and that's not a safe
condition for me. I'll entertain any questions. If not I will be happy to move on. Thank
you.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Young? Is it -- do you know the present right of way of Victory
Road? Is that 50 feet?
Young: You say it is 50 feet?
Borup: I'm asking if you know that's what it is.
Young: I think it's -- I've got to think a minute. I think it's 48 feet is what it is, if I recall.
Borup: Okay.
Young: Any other questions?
Borup: Any questions? Thank you, sir.
Young: Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Marquart.
Marquart: Good evening, Commissioners, Mr. Chairman. My name Dave Marquart, M-
a-r-q-u-a-r-t, and I'd like to -- and on the form that I have checked it says for or against
and I have more of comment, I think, rather than --
Borup: That's fine.
Marquart: I think we in the city of -- 3100 East Victory. I'm sorry. I think we in the City of
Meridian have an opportunity here to do something in this particular area that I think
would work really well and to help solve the problems that Mr. Rex Young has
mentioned and the police and the fire and all the rest -- I'm not sure about the fire, but
the police, I think. Bruce, could we have the other site map up in that corner -- well, I
guess Brad has it. The less detailed one above the school. The one with the -- yes. I
had the opportunity to talk with the applicant's representative at the meeting at the
school house and we were concerned with this area up here, as Mr. Young is and
others. This area in here. The area of concern I think Mr. Young has is this street that
comes out directly into his street, which is across Victory Road, where as Brandy’s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 63
Jewel Street comes in down here. My thought and my compromise to the applicant's
representatives where that -- perhaps it might be better if we could -- as a Commission,
just close this totally, not even have the road at Victory here, and that would solve a lot
of things, I think, in that. My concern would be for this straight stretch right here next to
the school house and if we are going to have people that want to exit this way, and here
is a very straight stretch and I know that they have placed some trees and other
amenities along this road to help resolve that, but it is a straight stretch and I think for
the short length of time that this subdivision is being planned that if this roadway were
just lost, that I think we would have an opportunity to have this as a stub street that I'm
sure eventually will be planned to come down to here and I think the applicant's
representative has, I think, tentatively suggested to me perhaps it would be good or it
could be done to have some kind of an access stub to this canal area, so that when this
area in your plan comes into that community -- I can't think of the --
Borup: Neighborhood center.
Marquart: Neighborhood center. -- that you're going to have to have some kind of a
collector that goes out here and I believe in your plans you're going to have a light out
here on Victory Road. It just make sense to me that if we could plan that now, if we
could come out here in the future, get on that collector and get away from this mess that
we are going to have on Victory Road and resolve all that right now, we wouldn't have
to worry about it. We may have to put up with a little bit of problem with these homes in
here, but it would be contiguous to across the street, which is in Meridian, the police
would have their -- no traffic issues here with having additional access on this with
Brandy’s Jewel, Mr. Young wouldn't have the problem of having the lights going across
their property here and the safety issue. I think by simply just not requiring the applicant
to put a road there would solve many problems. And I have work in school districts and
I can this school right here, with the traffic running down here, trying to get out this way
as a detriment to that school. Having it access out onto Eagle the way that they have it
planned I think is a good idea. That road can handle it better, it's further away from the
intersection, it's flatter down here than Eagle or Victory would ever be. I'm sorry, I keep
pointing up here to that line. And so I would like to entertain to this group that you take a
look at this as a viable option of removing it and asking the applicant if that would be
something that they would like to do and see if that would be something that they could
make into their plans. Other than that, I like what they have there and I think plans that
they have made for the school and whatnot are very good. And I stand for any
questions about that if you have any.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Marquart? One. Did you propose that at the ACHD
commission meeting?
Marquart: No, I did not go to the ACHD commission, it was only at the neighborhood
meeting at the schoolhouse where we had the applicant and representatives there.
Borup: You realize they are probably the ones that have the major input on that. That's
why I wondered if you talked to them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 64
Marquart: No, I haven't, but as you read the letters that I have seen, you know, it
seems to be that ACHD is hesitant to have a road in there anyway. I mean, yeah, we
can have it down to Brandy’s Jewel, but we can also have it at the top of the hill, but,
you know, they are kind of wishy-washy and I think this group could make a good
statement there in the plans that we don't need it, especially if the applicant states that
they don't need it, if they will state that.
Borup: I'm sure they will have an answer for that.
Marquart: And I hope they do. And I can say one additional thing. This may be for
Bruce. The well issue, I don't know what transfer rights for ITW are with water, but there
has got to be a well on there someplace to irrigate that sod farm.
Freckleton: My understanding is that there is an existing well that is in the southwest
corner of the school site right now. When Mr. Brown and I spoke this afternoon, my
suggestion was that they would utilize that for the school -- to the open space at school.
Marquart: And I think that's just a thought. I didn't know if this Commission was aware
of that. That was already I think existing. Thank you for you time this evening.
Borup: Thank you.
Wollen: To address the question brought up by Mr. Freckleton, Idaho Code allows --
and this was allegedly the noncontiguous territory on the west ditch side with the
federally owned ditch running north and south. Idaho Code allows that kind of
annexation when the strip of land is railroad property -- railroad right of way property.
There is nothing specifically that I can find that allows it in any other instance. But it's
something that I will check further on and will get back to the Commission on that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That was all that we had signed up. Was there anyone else
that feels -- okay.
Allen: I signed up.
Borup: Come on up. I only had three names on here.
Allen: Jim Allen, 3040 East Victory.
Borup: Go ahead.
Allen: In answer to your question, yes, there is a deep well on the sod farm. And it is a
deep well. And there is water in the ponds during the wintertime. So that water is not
going to go away just because there is something with the hydraulics. There is water
there all the time. My major concern is not with Rex's window or my window, my main
concern is what are we going to do with the kids when the kids start going to school?
Because Rex and I live on the -- right up on top of the hill and if the kids are coming out
of the school, they come out up there where -- okay. The hill starts right about here and
gets up here and kind of levels off, but over here we have another hill that comes down
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 65
this way and levels off down here. If the kids are coming from -- to and from school up
here, I'm afraid we are going to have a lot of people that don't make it to school for one
reason or another. We do have a speed limit down here at 45. We have a speed limit up
here at 35 -- now I'll guarantee you they are not doing 35, they are going 45 and 50 until
they get up here where the blinking light is when you got to stop there. And I tried to get
my mail the other night -- how long did it take me to get across the road? My neighbor
tried to run over me. I have counted as many as 35 cars going passed the front of my
mailbox so I can't get across to get mail. There might be an opportunity to move the
mailboxes on the other side of the road and I was at the same meeting that Rex was at
when they told us we would lose another 24 feet of our property. So apparently it is
going to be a wide --
Borup: Who is it that told you that?
Allen: I am not sure, but it was here in this building at one of the meetings for --
Borup: Was it somebody that knew anything or just somebody that came walking in off
the street?
Allen: No. No. No. No. It was in our -- the meeting that we were told we would lose
another 24 feet if they widened the road.
Borup: To five lanes?
Allen: They did not mention anything about five lanes. Just that we would lose another
24 feet.
Borup: Okay. Well, you know, I don't know what that's based on. It does make sense.
Allen: I think it was based probably on what they were going to do with our property
when they changed us from being ag to whatever you're going to make us or whatever
you already have made us.
Borup: We haven't made you anything.
Allen: Oh, we are not anything yet. Okay.
Borup: That's up to you to make that application.
Allen: No, I don't --
Borup: Okay.
Allen: At the Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: Oh. Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 66
Allen: That was at the Comprehensive Plan meeting. So that's where that came from,
the Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: Okay. The one from the Highway District then?
Allen: No. It was not from the Highway District.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. I think there was one other hand up.
DeChambeau: Hello. I think a few of you might know who I am. There is some familiar
faces here. My name is Mary DeChambeau, I'm here tonight to represent the Morgner
Estate, which includes my sister Louise Kuntz of Boise, my sister Loretta Earnest from
Yuma, Colorado, and by brother Monty Morgner, of Tucson, Arizona. And I own the
property where your -- it says Tuscany Lakes up there. Obviously, we have lots of
concerns. I just learned tonight that we are going to be a neighborhood center. That is
news for me and I know you did have some meetings on the Comprehensive Plan, but I
was spending my mother's -- time with my mother in her last days, so I was not able to
come to any of those planning sessions. We still have farming. For you who don't know,
we have owned the property for 70 years. I have been associated with it most of my 45
years. I am currently residing on it. This is a rural area. I understand development is
coming, because it's right across my street and I watched people build houses right
across. I guess -- you know, this is my neighborhood. I mean I grew up riding bikes
when Victory Road was a dirt road. You know, I remember that. And, you know, so I
have seen a lot of changes. I know it's coming. But I don't see for this community the
best interest to have a subdivision at this time. I think I agree with the police that we
hold off a little bit. You know, I love this community and I just -- I don't understand, once
again, with, you know, the subdivision that was prior to us, you hear the same thing all
the time, I'm sure you hear this night after night, we are concerned about the amount of
police, the amount of fire, you know, protection. Our roads are crappy. I mean, you
know, I go out of town and people say, oh, you're from Boise, oh, they have a terrible
traffic problem there. I wouldn't want to live there. And I'm starting to hear that, you
know, and then when I say I'm from Meridian they like roll their eyes even more. So, you
know, the thing of it is, I was living in Oregon for awhile and there was a city called
Wilsonville and they have the same problem, you know, the growth just out of hand, you
know, and -- you know, I'm thinking we just to need slow things down. I mean, you
know, here is a family -- I mean we -- I have nothing to gain by not selling out, but we
just don't see that it's in the best interest of the community right now and I know that the
city has our property -- I don't know, they seem to have it targeted for something, but we
never -- nobody ever talked to you us, you know, about bit and, you know, it's
interesting to me, because Sally Martin's would have been, you know, the perfect park,
okay, because it had the vista view, this property right behind us, if you're wondering,
because we own that little V shape little pipe thing there, they were going to drain it --
that was a cow pasture. We could not farm it, because it always had water and if he did
any irrigating for any reason in August we would ask him to hold off, because just even
a little bit of water would drain into us. Now our property drains pretty good, except for
that little V thing and we bought that from someone, because they were hard up, that's
how we ended up with that little V, and -- but the property just directly south of us has
always been a pasture. But, you know, he had tried to farm it and he couldn't, you know,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 67
the crop was just crappy. You know, if we wanted to buy that we would have bought it,
but who wants that property and, you know, actually, I was telling -- that would be the
perfect park back there, because it's a wildlife haven, really, and the other -- you know, I
just think that the way this subdivision is set up it just is a lot of problems and I can't tell
the people what to do. I'm a little bit concerned about one of the drainage areas that
borders our fence. In talking to my brother, who is -- you know, has farmed this property
inside and out and also Jim Patterson who is the person that farms it for us now, we
have kind of an agreement to help him out, you know, he's losing his farmland rapidly
and that's how he makes his living and we just kind of, you know, let him farm it and he
said the same thing, that he's very concerned about that drainage, a French drain I
think they are calling it, right there on the border -- I mean of our property. And I don't
know -- they say they have addressed it with an engineer. I'm not an engineer, all I
know is that we have been farming it for a long time and we kind of know the property a
little bit. And concerning the police report about the accidents, the accidents have
increased incredibly. I don't know if you know that, but that hill where the -- I still can't
believe they put that intersection up there we were all discussing up there, because we
used to drag race -- I mean all of the teenage boys would come down that hill and by
the time they hit that bottom part they are going like 60, 70 miles an hour and every
time that I tried to turn into my driveway I -- almost every day somebody almost just
about hits me and if they hadn't -- the subdivision across from me, if they hadn't have
done their extra little pavement I probably would have been rear-ended countless times,
because nobody expects me to turn that way. But the point is, they are going faster than
45 and the reason that's a 45 now is because I asked that to be brought down, because
we still have our farm equipment and what I tried to explain to the Highway Department
is that, you know, if a family hits farm equipment you know who is going to lose. It isn't
going to be the farm equipment, it's going to be the family in that car, you know, and I
realize that we are still out there in the midst of farming and, you know, I don't think
people really care, you know, really, that we are farming. But I'm just telling you that we
are willing -- our family is willing -- we are going to keep the land and we are going to
keep on farming it for awhile and I just -- you know, I just -- I think there is a lot of things
in this subdivision that needs to be addressed and I'm not quite sure what the rush is,
you know, to keep building, now especially when Mary McPhearson is already full. I was
one of the ones that requested that the school was not in a good location, partly
because if you put a cross-road from the school the kids would walk down that canal
and I was very concerned about that, because even as a child I was not allowed on that
canal bank, because that's -- it's very deep and what happens is the way that gravity of
the canal is that it really deepens there and there is quite an undercurrent in there, so
I'm pleased to see that at least they moved the school away a little bit, but if you move
that road right there, the kids are going to be crossing that, like he said, if you don't put
the road there it might be a good idea, but what's to stop those kids from crossing there
up at Thousand Springs Subdivision to go to that school if you have got that slope, you
have got that canal, you know, I mean this same problem still exists that we talked
about less than a year ago. I mean this is July that we -- it was denied and here we are
again, you know, and I don't see a lot of things that have really changed. You know, until
they get Eagle, you know, widened, until Victory gets widened, I mean until -- because
you have got the four way stop on Locust Grove and Victory, you have got a four way
stop on Victory and Eagle and, you know, at any one time there is always four cars
there. I have been just kind of keeping track and every time I'm -- there is always four
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 68
cars there. I mean that's how busy it is. And I think I was told at one time in looking at
your map --
Borup: You need to wrap it up, though.
DeChambeau: I know. But I want to say this. This is important. Victory Road is
supposed to be kind of a -- what do you call it? A commuter --
Borup: What did you want to say that was real important? Were you trying to say
something that --
DeChambeau: No. I was asking what you call that road when --
Borup: Earlier you said you had something important you wanted to say, so that's what
I was --
DeChambeau: Are you saying that nothing I said was important?
Borup: No, ma'am. I said you have gone way over your time limit.
DeChambeau: Okay.
Borup: And I just wanted to give you a chance to wrap things up.
DeChambeau: I know I --
Centers: Ma'am --
Borup: We have some questions here.
Centers: Yes. Well, I just have a comment for you.
DeChambeau: Yes.
Centers: Regarding your comment about the City of Meridian, that that was going to be
a neighborhood center. The City of Meridian has no interest in your land, other than
what they would do with it if you sold it to someone else. If you farm there for another
70 years that's up to you.
DeChambeau: Okay. Okay. Well, my statement is, you know, the --
Centers: That's -- we are required by state law to have a Comprehensive Plan for the
impact area. Your land happens to be in the impact area. We designate that that would
be X in the Comprehensive Plan. If you never sell it and have it for 100 years, you're not
in the City of Meridian. It's your choice. But we have no plans for your land, other than
what we would do with it if someone bought it from you and came to us. That's it.
DeChambeau: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 69
Borup: I might just mention one thing. The Public Hearings started last June and they
are still going on, on the Comprehensive Plan, so we are --
DeChambeau: And the reason I wasn't there was because my mother was dying and
so I spent my time with her, so -- thank you.
Borup: Did the -- oh, one -- okay.
M.Allen: My name is Mary Allen. I'm at 3040 East Victory Road. I'm adjacent -- east of
Rex Young.
Centers: Are you Mrs. Allen?
Allen: I'm Mrs. Allen. Am I allowed to speak?
Centers: Sure. Go ahead, but --
Allen: It may not be important enough. I don't know how to measure that. The area in
front of Victory not only is busy with what they said, but every time the freeway is, for
whatever reason -- and more often than we'd like to know, all the traffic is directed to
our road. I go out there and it's bumper, bumper, bumper and you can ask any -- we are
very pleased with Briggs. They have done excellent work in the other area and we are
just concerned with that little stretch of high traffic area. Before they put the four -- the
blinking red light I was the one that had to call 911 every time there was a wreck and I'm
not exaggerating when I say that when I would just hear an impact and I just went and
called, because that's how many times it happened, and there have been fatalities. Mr.
Musser is correct in his thought -- submission to you. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Does the applicant have some final remarks?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: Before the applicant comes up, I would just comment that we also have
letters from Doug and Creda Webb and Allen and Sandra Malaise, which we have all
read. I just wanted to acknowledge that they are here.
Johnson: I'm Greg Johnson, I reside at 2433 Can-Ada Road. To just clarify a couple
things that were discussed. We are dedicating 48 feet of right of way on our side of the
street, so I presume that what Mr. Young presented with the 24 additional feet to the
existing 25 is correct. What they plan to do with that in the future, Mr. Borup, I don't
know, but normally a three-lane road could be built with an 80-foot section -- or an 84-
foot section. That is the same section as Overland Road.
Borup: The 96 is?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 70
Johnson: Yes. That's the same right of way we dedicated to them on Overland Road
when we did Sportsman Point. Our initial application was approved by ACHD without
having the collector road out to Eagle Road. We have now provided a collector road
that will substantially -- it actually cuts the Victory Road traffic that we were generating
by half. Mr. Marquart did discussion those things with me. You know, we don't strive to
cause heartburn for Mr. Young and others by locating that road there. It really doesn't
matter to us whether it lines up with the one coming out of Thousand Springs. I think
that's -- I can't remember the name of it. Brandy’s Jewel. Yeah. ACHD -- you know, we
have not had a chance to discuss it with the Commission. Their staff takes the position
that this is the best location for it in order to prevent a cross intersection. A T
intersection generates less traffic and less accidents, if it's not signalized. If it was lined
up with the Brandy’s Jewel -- it currently doesn't generate enough traffic with the two
intersections to demand a signal. If it ever got to the point, then it would be signalized.
But without it being signalized it's more dangerous to have it lining up. And I believe
that's why staff is taking the position that this is the best location for it. As far as the
school children, we have put the path across the street from Brandy’s Jewel and the
school district intends until they build an overhead walk that they would -- they would
have people there at the crosswalk to get the children across in the mornings and in the
afternoons and that's how they handle everything right now where you have a street
that busy. They would have to man that crosswalk. Their long-term solution, if there is
not a signal there, would probably be to build a pedestrian crosswalk. That would be
built probably in conjunction with the school being built. Right now -- and this schedule
could very well change, but right now the intention is the next school in this area will be
built in Pepper Hills. They already have the land, it's already part of the current bond
issue, so that school would be built. That school is intended to take pressure off of Mary
McPhearson and the other surrounding schools there. I believe Wendell indicated that
2007 would be the earliest this school would be built. And so we will actually have a lot
of our phasing done, but that's how -- why originally we had planned on phasing it and
having it in later phases. But if they need to build it earlier it will be available to them.
They could actually build in our first phase. We would have sewer and water there and
the access road would be built. I think I covered the other questions. Currently Eagle
Road from Overland to Victory is scheduled for construction in 2003 and the
development of Victory is scheduled for 2005. And those can change based on funding,
but that's the current schedule, as I understand it. I believe we have addressed the
things that we can control as well as we can. I think the school is located in a very good
situation. The traffic flow by creating a collector road out to Eagle and reducing the
traffic going to Victory and providing the other interconnections, I think we have solved
the traffic issues as well as we can. The site is very attractive for game refuge, if you
will. I walked it this evening before I came to the hearing and there were half a dozen
pairs of Canadian geese on the Ten Mile there with little ones. It's a wonderful site. We
have tried to create greenbelts and paths so that people could walk by, not disturb
these animal, and observe them and the ponds I think will be an amenity to it.
Obviously, we have some very difficult engineering to make sure that we do get the
proper flow through them so it doesn't become stagnant. The only time that it may
become somewhat -- that there won't be constant flow into them would be in the
wintertime and they would be either partially froze over or at least they won't be a
mosquito nuisance at that time. Because of the varying water depths it is a challenge to
keep them looking good all year around and we are working on some methods to be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 71
able to do that. If the canal company chooses to line the canals as they have done in
other areas as we have developed, typically they will come in, in the first year of our
development and go ahead and concrete the canals. If they do that we are going to lose
a lot of that groundwater and we will probably go ahead and end up lining the ponds, so
that we do retain water and then we will take excess irrigation water and flow through
those ponds and if we do that, then the ponds will stay at a fairly constant level all year
around. We do have one well that we can supplement those -- that pond system with
and that's what we are planning on doing. If you look at the ponds down at Two Rivers,
it is very beautiful to back up housing to them. I think this will be a wonderful
neighborhood in the community and we want it to be. We are trying to provide three
different housing products, so that we can have a variety and not just real expensive
houses, but medium priced houses in there, so that we can provide several different
products and that's another reason why we are starting in three different areas, as
those are three different products that are brought on for marketing. Is there any
questions that any of you have?
Centers: I had one question, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Marquart's option in closing the access,
is that a viable option?
Johnson: I discussed only with staff at ACHD. No Commissioners were there. Staff said
we -- it wasn't an option not to have access out to Victory, but I will discuss that with the
Commissioners when we go in front of them.
Centers: Well -- and that's what I was going to mention. As you know, we are still
waiting for their final report.
Johnson: I understand that.
Centers: They could include it --
Johnson: I had a tech review with staff, but we haven't had the Commissioners rule on
it and that -- I'm open to that. If Morgner's property doesn't develop at some time in the
future before the school develops, it does create a problem and with what she testified
tonight I would say we probably should put access out to Victory someplace. Any other
questions?
Zaremba: I was just going to comment. One of the other suggestions that Mr. Marquart
made was that the access cross here and come out this way. I think with Mrs.
DeChambeau's comments that's not likely to be developed in a long time, so that would
not solve the access problem. That leaves me a little bit concerned about the Youngs
and the Allens, knowing that when Victory Road is widened they are going to lose their
privacy screening and, therefore, have headlights coming in and out their windows, this
isn't anything we can enforce, but is there anything you could offer them in the way of
providing them with a new of set of privacy barrier of something?
Johnson: I would be glad to do that. Usually that is a negotiation of the right of way that
they -- ACHD replace that screening and provide either a -- in fact, they usually in this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 72
case where they are getting closer to the house, would even provide a decorative block
type wall and then shrubbery behind that.
Zaremba: You're saying ACHD is usually required to do that?
Johnson: That's correct. Especially if they are in a condemnation mode for a road. If
they -- if for some reason that's refused, we would be glad to provide screening in the
form of Arborvitaes or -- and if we need to, if that's in the future enough we could
probably put up an escrow or something for that, so that that would be provided if
something would happen to me and I'm not here when it happens.
Borup: You know, the problem -- I mean one problem I would see with that -- they are
talking 2005.
Johnson: Yes.
Borup: Some small plants now, which would not be very costly, would be the screening
wall three or four years from now.
Johnson: Yeah. It just depends on whether Youngs and them want to plant --
Borup: And they would have to agree to that.
Johnson: -- in the middle of their yard at this point.
Borup: Right. Right. Mr. Young would have to agree to that.
Johnson: But we could work on something like that, if that would be acceptable.
Borup: Any other questions? Was there anyone else from the applicant that wanted to -
-
Brown: I'll make it real brief. Kent Brown. 1800 West Overland. It is kind of interesting
to me that we submitted this application before Valentine's Day and the Highway District
told us that they didn't get it until March 25th. I mean we are waiting for the Highway
District comment, they got it the 25th of March and had it all the month of April and
couldn't get it together and there is language that --
Centers: Is that good news or bad news that they are taking so long?
Brown: I think it's bad news and I think it's bad news that I submit something before
Valentine's Day and it's accepted by your staff and it takes so long for it to get to the
Highway District and I mean, you know, it's kind of spilt milk at this point, but I mean we
have been out there a long time waiting for this hearing to come about and really the
only change that we have taken place is we have reduced the number of cars going out
on Victory Road and we have added the 40 acres with the collector and that's what the
Highway District is going to be looking at. They will address Mr. Young's concerns and I
just wanted to make that comment.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 73
Borup: I had a note here, Becky Bowcutt wanted -- were you representing the other
project, Tuscany East. That's been answered? Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Commissioners -- does staff have any comments? Well, I don't know that we are going
to finish -- do you want to come up, ma'am? Come on up.
Brodin: I live on 3515 South Eagle Road.
Borup: Your name?
Brodin: Sarah Brodin and I live at 3515 South Eagle Road.
Borup: Sarah Brodin?
Brodin: Brodin. I just want to reiterate I do think that there are an awful lot of accidents
out there and also if you have been on -- exiting I-84 during rush hour it is so backed up
for the traffic that is heading to the north that I think is an accident waiting to happen,
because some days the people the pull along the side of the road almost as far back as
Cloverdale and so people that are trying to exit to the south, you know, we kind have to
maneuver along all those cars. Have any of you been in that mess?
Centers: Every night. But they are all turning to the right.
Brodin: But they are all turning to the right and most of them go up to Fairview. What
frightens me is the fact that with more population being out to the south, it's going to be
exactly identical, we are going to be backed up to the south, you know, to Cloverdale
and I think I-84 is going to have to address this before a whole -- more development is
done at that intersection and also I believe -- I could be rephrasing, but I thought Mr.
Brown said that there was no residential housing in front of the school and I have a
home that's in front of a school and I also have a -- may I show you on the map?
Borup: You mean the school setup?
Brodin: Well, the school site --
Centers: Right here?
Brodin: No.
Centers: Here?
Brodin: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Brodin: And I'm concerned -- I have a hard time now getting in my driveway. I could
easily turn south, but if I want to turn to the north, you know, like coming to I-84, I have
to fight the traffic to get out of my driveway. And the water well, I'm concerned about the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 74
water table being -- I'm not quite sure on the studies on -- but the people with their own
private wells, like there at the corner of Victory and South Eagle, they had to put in a
brand new well and I fear that a lot of small, you know, individual homes that do have
their own private wells, they are going to drained by all the uses affecting -- you know --
you know, especially if -- I do know that the school -- I'll pass that for a minute, but the
school site does have a well. I know that it does have a well. And the sod farm does
have a well. And the animals, this is very true, the animals there are just wonderful. We
have foxes that run through our yard and some -- we are on a natural migratory path
that I -- you know, I'm not sure whether or not they done that study or not, but I do not
foresee the animals staying there. We do have some areas and the other subdivision
across Victory -- but, anyway, I just wanted to -- I agree with the police, I just think that,
you know, there is an awful lot of accidents out there. I thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioners, did you -- I think Commissioner Centers was -- the ACHD
report?
Centers: Yeah. That's what I -- that's what I see. I think it's, obvious, that we need to
continue the Public Hearings until we receive that and hopefully more comments from
public works and there was some comments in the staff report regarding those services
being available and I think we need to see the ACHD report also.
Zaremba: I certainly would like to see -- I'm sorry.
Borup: Yeah. Go ahead. I was going to say any other comments or discussions we
would like to make at this time before we continue it, if that --
Zaremba: I'd like to see what ACHD has to say about Victory Road. I like what is
happening bringing the road out to Eagle and I think that's a good advantage, but
ACHD is kind of -- it's on Victory Road that would be important.
Borup: Any other comments from the Commission as far as --
Centers: Yeah. As far as the applicant is concerned, you know, I think the project has
improved enormously and the way I view it, if the project meets city standards and we
have proper fire and police sign off and the ACHD sign off, I think the project has a lot of
merit. I really do. It's a large one, but they have made a lot of improvements and I was
here the first time, so I'm aware of them.
Borup: Okay. What would we like to do?
Centers: Well, I would like to move that we continue this Public Hearing -- do we have
an agreement on the date? Is it felt that the ACHD would have the report by the 16th?
The 16th happens to be the meeting that we normally hear continued applicants, so I
would move that we --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 75
Borup: Well, let me let you know on the 16th we have a continued hearing Sutherland
Farms and Utility Sub.
Centers: Is that it?
Borup: Yeah. And a fire station. You know, Meridian fire station is the only other thing.
Those two. Are we going to have the ACHD report for Sutherlands by this date -- or by
that -- in two weeks?
Hawkins-Clark: We did receive an e-mail and I believe they are on the 8th as well as
ACHD. So yes.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Well, it's up to the Commission. I'm fine with it. It's up to the rest.
Borup: I'd like to stay within our guidelines, so midnight. Maybe even ask the
Commission or the applicant if they would like to take the chance if it went on the
Agenda, they would be last on the Agenda and we may or may not get to it. We have
two fairly lengthy continuations that if you want to take your -- okay. And if we did not
make it, then, there would be room on the 20th and I guess we could -- of June.
Centers: Oh, yeah.
Borup: Which would be the next available. And they would be first on that if we didn't
get to it on the 16th. Does that sound reasonable?
Centers: Yeah. I would make that motion, that we continue the Public Hearing to May
16th as the last item on the Agenda, with the applicant aware of that, and our deadline
is midnight.
Zaremba: All three Public Hearings?
Centers: Yes. Continue all three Public Hearings that are -- items 9, 10, and 11. With
testimony received from new parties only. The people in the audience should know that
we took your name, we took your notes -- or I made notes, we all did, so that, you know,
there is no need for additional testimony to this body and any new testimony should be
something new and relevant. I mean I think we have heard where you're coming from,
that's for sure.
Pullman: Excuse me. I have some questions on the -- and this is simply a question on -
-
Borup: Come on up to the microphone.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 76
Pullman: Herman Pullman, 4030 South Locust Grove Road. Just a question I have. I'm
curious about why we are limited to three minutes and the developer gets all the time
they want.
Borup: Because there is only one of them.
Pullman: Pardon me?
Borup: There is only one developer.
Pullman: There was two tonight and they spoke --
Borup: That's also the guidelines. That's also the city -- that's also the guidelines for
these meetings.
Pullman: Did you answer my question?
Borup: Yes, I did. I said that's the guidelines for these meetings.
Pullman: That the developers get more -- the time they need?
Borup: Yes, sir.
Pullman: Is that right?
Centers: None of you were limited to three minutes.
Pullman: I know that, but --
Centers: None of you were.
Pullman: I know that, but there was -- I just had a question I wanted to ask and that
was--
Centers: That's the guideline and sometimes we follow it and sometimes we institute
the policy, because it gets late and that's it.
Pullman: Thank you.
Borup: We had a motion. I didn't hear a second, did I?
Zaremba: I will second the motion, that the three hearings be continued.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12: Roaring Springs Sign:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 77
Borup: Commissioners, we did have one other application. I don't know if you have had
a chance to look at that. Staff asked if that could be added to the Agenda at the last
minute. Would you like to go ahead with that, Brad?
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Commissioners. This is a real quick one. The code
basically gives staff the ability to come to you as a design review and so -- since we do
not have a design review board you, essentially, are serving as that in instances where
we at staff level feel like certain signs in particular are not able to be reviewed under the
existing sign code, so what we have here tonight is -- I'm just going to throw up a couple
of photos. The Roaring Springs Water Park, as you probably all have seen, has a new
slide. It's going to open up -- I think it's May 18th; is that right? Mr. Lee Hovis is here on
behalf of the Roaring Springs Water Park and they have submitted a sign application to
the City of Meridian for a sign to be constructed on the back of the Avalanche ride. We
responded to their sign application and said that it did not really meet the guidelines for
a wall sign and we had some concerns about what they submitted, so they have come
back with four different proposed options on a sign that would be erected to the back of
that. So we are looking for -- I think you should have these -- these first couple in your
packets. What we are looking for here tonight is basically a decision from you to staff as
to the type of sign that you feel is most appropriate given the entryway corridor here on
the -- so this is the existing sign -- slide, I'm sorry, as it stands. The next one here is the
-- underneath the slide. The water park is looking to potentially store some materials
underneath this -- the slide here and that's one of the motivations to construct a sign is
to provide a cover. This is just another shot. It is graveled underneath there right now.
One of our recommendations was -- rather than leaving the back of the slide the way it
is facing, you know, the I-84, Meridian Road, entrance there, was to provide a cover for
as much of that as possible and so there are three options that their graphic artist came
back with at first. That's -- that is one. This one provides a little bit smaller item for the
text and then a fourth one was submitted tonight. So our main -- staff's main concern --
our main concern was the number one, the Larry Miller portion of it, we feel is probably
in some ways an off-premise sign, that it may advertise something to the public that is
not sold or available on the premise, even though it says presents. That was one of our
concerns. They are unable to plant trees back there because the fence is so close to
the back of the slide, that there really is not adequate space to get trees to provide the
screening, so essentially the way it stands is we wanted to get your design review input
and a recommendation. I think from our perspective the -- to be able to match the
existing -- this is the existing artwork that is on the maintenance building that's right on
I-84. You have probably seen that. That's 3-D -- that's a 3-D kind of super graphic. So
this last one really matches up best and so mainly just in terms of your feedback on
these four options and how you feel about it being -- or having a sign at all and, if so,
are these appropriate for this entrance gateway portion of the city or do you have other
ideas?
Centers: Does that face to the west or face the interstate?
Hawkins-Clark: It faces east, actually. The back of the slide faces east.
Hovis: No.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 78
Centers: So westbound traffic --
Freckleton: If you're headed on Meridian Road -- Meridian-Kuna Road you would be
looking at that -- the sign. From the overpass. You would see it from the overpass.
Centers: Okay. So it faces the interstate?
Freckleton: Yes.
Centers: Right? It faces north. The sign faces north?
Freckleton: It faces ease. Correct?
Hovis: Excuse me.
Borup: Yes. Come on up.
Hovis: My name is Lee Hovis, I'm the general manager at Roaring Springs Water Park.
I live at 2581 East Clarene Court, Meridian. The sign actually faces northeast, mostly
towards east. So it's angled slightly. But it does face almost directly towards the actual
intersection.
Borup: So the stairs there and that little fence line faces the freeway?
Hovis: That is actually the opposite side, to get the graphic artist to be able to do
something without the fence in the way. The other picture that you saw without the sign
up there is the actual side of the slide and that's what you would actually see.
Borup: Okay. That's where I was confused.
Hovis: And I apologize for that. We had to give the graphic artist something to work this
as far as the actual slide and this was pre-construction, this was way back when we first
got the fiberglass up and this picture was up so we could give him something to work
with.
Borup: So it actually would be a reverse from that?
Hovis: No. We have actually reversed that. So that's the actual direction of the slide.
We have taken that picture and reversed it so he could have something to play with
graphically. I know it sounds confusing. The other picture that had the fence on it --
Hawkins-Clark: This one?
Hovis: That's the actual slide and that's the actual side going the right direction as you
look at it from Meridian Road.
Centers: Standing on the overpass.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 79
Hovis: Standing on the -- right.
Borup: Okay. I see the difference in the stairway.
Hovis: It's identical on both sides, except for the stairway.
Centers: You had five renditions and Larry Miller is on all five, so I guess that's not an
option to take Larry Miller off?
Hovis: We would like to get Larry Miller credit for it. There is absolutely no question that
they are a sponsor of that slide and they are a major sponsor of the park. We are not
trying to produce a billboard, we are not trying to produce a sign, we are trying to
produce something that is going to be a permanent structure that meets in with the
existing contour of the park and as I was speaking with staff earlier, we had a lot of
discussion with our graphic artist and that's why you have four different versions. You
can see the progression of where we ended up. The last one that you just received
tonight is the way we would like to go.
Borup: That is the way?
Centers: Yes.
Hovis: That picture right there is the way we'd like to proceed.
Borup: You have got two different sizes on the Larry Miller between the four of them.
And this one is the smallest?
Hovis: This is the smallest. This is the way that we would go.
Borup: And staff seems that -- you know, there seems to be some concern that it looks
like a billboard and advertisement. Looking at these, in my mind, the larger lettering on
the word Avalanche would take away from the Larry Miller portion of it, de-emphasize it.
I don't know. What do the other Commissioners think?
Centers: Yeah. That's true.
Borup: The Avalanche the size of the letters on the other two.
Centers: Yes.
Hovis: We can adjust that. We were trying to maintain within a certain smaller size
because of the way the -- as staff presented to us they wanted to try to eliminate as
much text as we could. So we shrank the Avalanche down, too. But that was the --
Borup: Does staff have a concern on the word Avalanche getting larger or just the Larry
Miller?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 80
Hawkins-Clark: If we are calling this a wall sign, the way that the code is written is you
can go a maximum of 18 percent of a wall. It's a little bit odd, because the way that it
says is a wall sign has to be on a building. This is a structure, not a building, but we
figured, okay, let's just call it a wall sign. So if we go with that, you call it 18 percent, and
I calculated it out basically that -- a maximum sign area of 136 square feet, if you go
with that, you know, taking -- taking essentially the full area of the back of that slide. So
I -- you know, I think the 136 square feet would be in terms of actual sign. I think the art
-- particularly this 3-D. I think the art could almost be classified as super graphics, which
would not fall in, but I think the words themselves, the Avalanche itself would need to
stay within the maximum area of 18 percent and I don't -- we'd have to get that number.
Hovis: I believe that's somewhere around a ten by thirteen area.
Hawkins-Clark: If you do a box around the Avalanche it's about 10 by 18?
Hovis: 130 some square feet or something like that is somewhere right around a 10 by
12 area, I believe.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, it's 130 square feet if it's 10 by 15. Yeah.
Hovis: This area right around here -- this is 12 feet from beam to beam and this is 16
feet from here down to here. So if we were staying within this one square we would be
within that 136 feet. That line. If I'm understanding that we are --
Borup: Wouldn't that be 18 -- 18 percent; is that what you said?
Hovis: Correct.
Borup: Is that measured by putting a box around each word?
Hawkins-Clark: Eighteen percent of the wall area. How big the wall area is? Is that your
question?
Borup: No. How big the lettering is.
Hawkins-Clark: The lettering -- it's measured around the -- a box around the text. Yeah.
Borup: But each word individually, not the --
Hawkins-Clark: All the text. All text.
Hovis: Of one box.
Hawkins-Clark: One box.
Centers: Eighteen percent of the total.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 81
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yes. That's for commercial buildings throughout the city. That's
the way most of them --
Borup: Then that --
Hovis: That may not be exactly the scale on the conceptual you have, but it could be
reduced slightly to meet that criteria.
Borup: So in this situation here, just draw the box around it, you know, is this what
you're talking about?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. If you drew a box around all the words and --
Borup: So you wouldn't do one around Larry Miller and then another one around
Avalanche?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, you could and you would hopefully end up with the same number.
Borup: Well, it would be less. I mean knowing you have the other large words if it did. I
just didn't know how it worked. So at this point we don't know what size the lettering will
be.
Hawkins-Clark: Well, it is contained within the maximum 18 percent, 130 square feet.
Our main concern was the general design. We don't need to get into micro design, that
wasn't my goal in bringing it to you tonight. The main thing was is it appropriate, do you
feel like the Larry Miller is an off-premise or not, and, you know, we can work with Lee
from that plan. Those are the reasons -- or whether or not, you know, some other type
of design is appropriate.
Centers: Well, if the Larry Miller would be considered an off premise, is that allowed
under our code?
Hawkins-Clark: Off-premise signs are only allowed in two situations, those are real
estate signs and as part of sign programs.
Centers: I think -- you know me. I consider that an off-premise sign. I consider that an
advertisement of Larry Miller and his auto dealerships.
Zaremba: When this was handed to us earlier and I looked through it, although I didn't
have this version of it, my first instinct was here is a big billboard advertising Larry
Miller, who is not on this premises, exactly the thing that you mentioned. I like the
background design of this one. I like the idea of putting something there to mask what is
the under belly of the slide and if that also provides you with a storage area that's kind
of hidden, I like all that idea. I'm not thrilled with what I think the general public would
perceive as a billboard for an off-site advertising.
Hovis: It's not on the --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 82
Zaremba: If it said Roaring Springs and said the Avalanche, you know, I wouldn't have
any problem with that.
Hovis: And I understand that and I'm going to be completely honest, the reason that we
are able to put this wall up is because Larry Miller is paying for it. Without Larry Miller
paying for it the park would not be able to pay for it.
Zaremba: Well, he's paying for the wall or he pays for the slide?
Hovis: Well, no, he's not paying for the slide, he pays for a sponsorship and he's going
to get a sponsor. We still have yet -- many yet who are associated on all of our tubes
that go around the park and we have Larry Miller included in our brochure. This is
something that we wanted to add, because this attraction is his sponsorship, he is the
main sponsor for that attraction. Sprint PCS has a banner, for instance, on one of the
other attractions at the finish line that says Sprint to the finish. Now that was within the
park, so it's not anything that's really -- that we do with regards to the Commission and
we want to work with staff, too, but definitely we'd like to put up some type of wall and,
quite honestly, the park is not going to spend a lot of money to put up a wall and put a
lot of decoration to it, unless we can get someone to that do technically for us, because
we'd rather spend it on the ride itself. They did not the spend 350,000 plus dollars for
the new attraction. That came from the park. But we would like to dress it up.
Mathes: So if their name wasn't on the wall then --
Hovis: If their name is not included, then that probably shouldn't have -- the wall would
not be an option without letters on it.
Zaremba: So they are buying a billboard. They have not sponsored the ride.
Hovis: No. They have sponsored the ride and they still will be a sponsor, but --
Mathes: What does that mean a sponsor of a ride?
Hovis: We have sponsor packages within the park. We have corporate sponsors. The
United Dairymen's Association our sponsors and we provide group packages for them
to the park. Larry Miller Honda is one of our corporate sponsors. They have events at
the park, they get a special discount, there is things that we do back and forth for each
other. Coca-Cola is a major sponsor of the park. We have functions for them in
exchange for an exclusive contract with the park so there won't be any Pepsi products.
The exact contract of the sponsorship is more than just a ride. There are other issues.
They are still sponsoring our tubes, they are still sponsoring other things. They have
already been included in our brochure. But the one element for us to add to them that
allows us to cover up a very ugly area. I'm not trying to create a billboard, I'm not trying
to -- I could personally care less whether the --
Mathes: Is there tubes on the thing, too?
Hovis: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 83
Mathes: Well, can you put their name on the tube?
Hovis: They are already on it.
Zaremba: Or you could put their name -- put their name on the face of the structure,
the other side of the structure that's not visible from the streets? It would be visible to
the patrons.
Hovis: The only thing about the other side --
Zaremba: It's the working area --
Hovis: Well, it had the tower that goes up and you also have the same -- it's not quite
the same.
Zaremba: What I was meaning was inside the dish.
Hovis: We can't really do anything with the fiberglass. That could cause some safety
issues with regard to tubes not going down right or -- trust me, we thought about that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Hovis: And we did check into that, but there is just not a way. That was our first choice,
but there wasn't a way to get that down and have it stay down and not cause a safety
issue. We are also talking about the opposite side, but the main purpose of having the
wall on this northeast side is for storage and the other side the storage is not possible
because of the piping system of the ride.
Centers: Isn't the word sponsor just another name for an advertiser that you're
collecting a fee from and you get a bigger fee if you allow them to have a sign right
there?
Hovis: I don't classify it as advertisement.
Centers: Coca-Cola, Dairymen, they are all paying a fee.
Hovis: They are paying --
Centers: To put their name on it.
Hovis: They are paying a fee, yes, sir.
Centers: And that's not advertising?
Hovis: They are paying a fee, but it's not necessarily -- we are not promising them a
billboard, we are not promoting their product, we are just acknowledging that they are
one of our sponsors. The same thing with --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 84
Zaremba: Except for their bookkeeping it comes out of their advertising fund I'm sure.
Hovis: Well, I can't talk about their bookkeeping. Where it goes on my bottom line is a
sponsorship, it doesn't go for advertising. We don't have an advertising department that
goes out and sells that. You know, some of this, to be honest with you, is not a cash
deal, some of it is trade where they have their company outing and they will bring their
group out here and --
Centers: Doesn't it go into your bottom line on income, though? I don't want to just
belabor it here, but --
Hovis: I'm not going to lie to you. Anyone that's ever had sponsors knows it goes to
their bottom line.
Centers: Right. I don't know. It's --
Hovis: And it's -- and I completely understand your position and I really appreciate
everybody taking the time and we have kind of gone passed the 12:00 time frame, so --
Centers: You can have more than three minutes.
Zaremba: I like the latest concept and the idea of it without the Larry Miller part. But,
unfortunately, as you said, it doesn't happen without that.
Hovis: Unfortunately for us it just is not possible. It's something we would like to do.
Borup: The design to me that de-emphasizes the Larry Miller is the larger lettering.
Zaremba: Having the Avalanche --
Borup: Yeah. The size of the Avalanche on one or the other proposals with the Larry
Miller lettering the smaller size. It looks like that doesn't meet the -- that doesn't meet
the percentage.
Center: That's the most prominent color.
Hovis: But we did change that. But it was a red and yellow and we changed it to a blue
and yellow.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I just came up with an idea. The other side where the tower
is, is there any room on the superstructure for the tower where a smaller sign could be
hung, maybe a smaller version of this, so that this exposure side would just say the
Avalanche and the other side would say brought to you by or presented by Larry Miller?
Hovis: On the tower?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 85
Freckleton: The tower side where your patrons are going to be going up and down and
seeing it. Or is your goal to have this visible from the on-ramp of the interstate?
Hovis: I don't know if you would consider it a goal, because, quite honestly, the land
beside us is not owned by the park at this point. A hotel could go up there and block
any view whatsoever.
Freckleton: I'm just -- from the -- I was just thinking and I'm just wondering if something
still could be worked out to where you could have your sponsorship, but have it on the
patron side of the slide and still have this graphic on this side, I think this graphic is
great, but have your sponsorship acknowledgement on the tower side.
Hovis: That's something I can definitely look into. You know, I'm sitting here in my mind
trying to put together what the top of the tower looks like. At that point what I would
want to do is put it on more than just one side, since we are really shrinking down the
size.
Freckleton: Just a thought.
Hovis: And I'm not opposed to that, either.
Borup: So what direction is this Commission suppose to give tonight?
Hawkins-Clark: What we would appreciate is mainly -- you know, I think what I'm
hearing is this is kind of -- it's really coming down to the Larry Miller and I think,
essentially, if we -- we are bound by code in terms of what we approve and don't
approve and, you know, we agree that this is what -- some kind of covering needs to
happen, the artwork is great, but this is the disagreement, so we need to know whether
or not this is considered -- the Larry Miller portion is considered off premises. It sounds
like what I'm hearing is the Commission is in support of something, so that was my first
reason for bringing it.
Zaremba: My opinion would be that the Larry Miller is advertising something off site. I
would not have any objection to that being visible to your patrons. The objection I have
is to have it visible to the highway and the streets off site.
Hovis: Could I ask if the Larry Miller logo were changed, but Larry Miller was still
included in the artwork somehow, would that be more acceptable to the Commission?
Centers: It's not a matter of personal taste, it's a matter of --
Zaremba: The off-site advertising.
Centers: Right.
Hovis: If it was smaller and more strictly blocked letters that weren't an aggressive
color, more of a bluish that just said Larry Miller presents -- and then the Avalanche
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 86
takes the highlight or are we looking at something that -- and I mean I'm not holding
anybody to anything, I just --
Zaremba: This may need a legal interpretation if it's visible.
Wollen: Yes. What is advertising? I mean the Larry Miller name is pretty synonymous
for, you know, the sale of automobiles, obviously, but, yes, I mean if you just have the
name Larry Miller in block letters that's not necessarily advertising in my -- you know,
and this is just my opinion here. I mean I don't know legally what would constitute
advertising.
Hovis: I didn't mean to open up a Pandora's box.
Freckleton: Everything we do is a Pandora's box.
Centers: Well, I think you have our opinion, though, Brad. Can staff take it from there or
do you want us to give a yea or nay?
Hawkins-Clark: You know, these design review kind of things -- and you will see them
occasionally where there is just a little bit of gray area of the code and -- I mean, that's
fine, I think essentially we have that and what we will come back with is potentially you
could -- you know, we will have to deny the permit in terms of ours, but you do have the
option to actually submit a formal appeal, which, then, that goes to the City Council. The
design review is a non-application, no fee, to the P&Z Commission, we come back, we
actually deny the sign permit, then you can appeal denials of sign permits to the City
Council.
Centers: And we pass it onto the City Council again.
Hovis: And I don't mean to keep you -- I could take it up with Brad, but is there a way
that you and the staff and the park can get together and try to see if we can work out
something without --
Hawkins-Clark: Oh, sure, yes, we do have the ability to work with you on that.
Hovis: Rather than do it through the whole appeal process and go through the City
Council and -- I'd rather work with staff than have to go through the appeal process as
well.
Hawkins-Clark: Sure, just so you mean, we are -- we would uphold the Commission's
opinion that the Larry Miller is inappropriate, so -- in any form, so the appeal process is
shorter, just to let you know, if that's what you choose to go with. It's not -- it's a 20 day
kind of thing, so --
Hovis: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Centers: But don't get us wrong, we think you should have the right to advertise the
fact that you have got the Avalanche there, you know, I think that's great.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 87
Hovis: I understand.
Centers: But the Larry Miller is the part that --
Hovis: I understand. That's why we wanted an opinion before we went forward. Thank
you.
Centers: Thank you. And I wish you luck with that new ride.
Hovis: It's very intense.
Centers: It looks like it.
Hovis: For the record it was very scary.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to move that we close the public meeting. Adjourn.
Mathes: I second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Meeting adjourned at 12:14.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:14 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
____________________________ _____|_____|_____
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
_________________________________
SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
May 2, 2002
Page 88