2002 05-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 16,
2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, David Zaremba, Jerry Centers, Leslie
Mathes, and Keven Shreeve.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nicholas Wollen, Ken Bowers,
Sharon Smith and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Keven Shreeve
___X___Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: We'd like to open our regular scheduled Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting for May 16th. Begin by roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
B. Approve minutes of May 2, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting:
Borup: On the Consent Agenda we have Items A and B, which is minutes from April
18th and 2nd. Anyone -- any additional comments? Anything needed to be pulled from
the Consent Agenda? If not, I'm open for a motion.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we approve the minutes of the April 18th and
the May 2nd meeting, Items 3-A and 3-B on our Agenda.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 2 of 87
Item 8: Continued Public Hearing from April 18, 2002: AZ 01-015 Request for
annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L zones for proposed
Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek, LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road:
Item 9: Continued Public Hearing from April 18, 2002: PP 01-017 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 34.60 acres
in a proposed I-L zone for proposed Utility Subdivision by Falcon Creek,
LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road:
Borup: I might mention for the audience before we do start into the Public Hearings, we
have received a letter from an the applicant on Items No. 8 and 9, Utility Subdivision.
They have requested a continuation to the second -- our second meeting in June, which
would be June 20th -- which would be June 20th. I guess we could do that up and make
a motion right now, if the Commissioners like to do that, then that will be settled for the
evening. Okay. Do I hear such a motion?
Zaremba: So moved.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Oh, the second was -- who seconded the
motion?
Centers: I seconded it. You just didn't hear me.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 02-009 Request for annexation and zoning of
1.00 acre from RUT to L-O zones for the proposed Meridian Fire
Department Locust Grove Substation property by the City of Meridian –
3545 N. Locust Grove
Borup: Okay. That's Utility Sub, Items No. 8 and 9 on the agenda has been continued to
the June 20th meeting. Item No. 4, Public Hearing AZ 02-009, request for annexation
and zoning of one acre from the RUT to L-O zones for the proposed Meridian Fire
Department, Locust Grove Substation, located at 3545 North Locust Grove Road. I'd
like to open this Public Hearing and at this time start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to leave most of this presentation to Fire
Chief Kenny Bowers who is here tonight, but I will just orient you with the location. You
can see it outlined in black on the screen before you. It is on Locust Grove Road on the
west side. It's between Ustick and McMillan. It is a site that has been purchased by the
Meridian Fire Department and needs to be annexed in order to proceed and with that
introduction I will turn the time over to Chief Bowers.
Borup: Chief?
Bowers: Don't have to swear in on P&Z?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 3 of 87
Borup: No, we don't have to swear. Give your name and address.
Bowers: All right. Kenneth W. Bowers, 540 East Franklin, Meridian.
Borup: Okay.
Bowers: Chairman Borup and P&Z Members, the Meridian City Fire Department and
the Meridian Rural Fire Protection District has purchased a piece of property at 3545
North Locust Grove Road. We compile all of our numbers of all of our emergency calls
and in this area is our second largest run volume area. So as we went through on the
comp plan we kind of pinpointed an area that possibly we could put a fire station in. We
would like to have it annexed it, rezoned to L-O. We do not have a date at this time that
we will be building on it. It's up to the city and rural through our budget process when
we can do that. When the city and the rural fire district decides when we will build on
that area, we will have neighborhood meetings with all the neighbors in the area, like
we did on Ten Mile, our Fire Station No. 2 out there, brought in all the people, had
cookies and punch, and we sat down with them all and decided what kind of color
would blend in with the area for our building, we sat down with landscaping plans with
them, we also worked with fences. As you know, fences are very highly -- people love
fences in their backyards, so we got to make sure that our fences are correct and what
the people want. We were able to show them a concept of our Fire Station No. 2 also
and if you drive by there it really doesn't stick out too much, I mean it looks like a two
story building, really, house, so -- we are pretty good neighbors out there. The people
love us. We have had two complaints. One was our developer let the trash fly around
for a couple days, we got that taken care of, and the second complaint was that we had
-- a Boise policeman lives in the neighborhood, he sleeps at 8:00 o'clock in morning,
and that's when we were doing our tests on our engines, so we changed that to 9:00 or
10:00 in the morning, so we will accommodate with the neighborhoods whatever we
need to do. I will stand here if you have any other questions for me.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I have one minor question. One, I'm glad you're working ahead and planning
for this and I think it's a good location. I just have -- have you -- and I'm not even sure I
have the right location. This piece of property I think is a school. Is there --
Bowers: Correct. There is a school up in that area.
Zaremba: Is there any problem with having a fire station that close to the school? I'm
thinking 3:00 o'clock when it lets out. Or you just run your sirens and they get out of
your way?
Bower: Kuna fire had the same concern out there. Their fire station is built across from
one of their schools and there was some complaining being before to see if there would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 4 of 87
be a problem or not, I mean there was some talk about it, and I haven't heard anything
more after it opened up.
Zaremba: It seems to have worked out well?
Bowers: It seems to be. Of course, when you get going you're still going pretty slow at
that time --
Zaremba: That's true.
Bowers: -- through that area, so --
Zaremba: Well, my -- actually, it was a concern the other way. If it's a school ending
time and there is dozens of cars blocking the streets that can't get out of the way
because they are parked and the one in front of them is parked, it's actually a concern
for your ability to function.
Bowers: Yes, it is. Also Planning and Zoning Members, I have not went out there at 3:00
o'clock in the afternoon to see what the traffic is like, so I don't know. I really don't know
what that's like up there, but --
Zaremba: I would hope it's not a problem.
Mathes: Isn't that a charter or an alternate school?
Siddoway: Yes.
Mathes: So it's not as full as a high school.
Bowers: No. No, it is not.
Borup: Yeah. The school that's there now is pretty small.
Bowers: It looks like it's pretty small.
Borup: It is.
Zaremba: I have no concerns.
Borup: Okay. The only other question I had -- have you had a chance to read the staff
report? Any questions on any of that?
Bowers: Yes, I have read them, and we agree with everything from P&Z and Highway
District and everything.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, chief. Do we have
anyone from the public that would like to testify on this application? If so come on up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 5 of 87
Blood: Thank you. My name is Tim Blood, I live at 1654 East Summer Ridge Drive,
Meridian, which is this wedge right here, and I have spoken with my neighbors and
everybody's initial reaction, of course, to this idea is positive. Who wouldn't want
emergency services right at their doorstep. The concerns that we have are -- you hit on
one of them as far as equipment test and noise and it sounds like we can work that out,
as long as you're flexible. The other, again, traffic currently at that school -- since I live
there, is nominal, although there are short periods of busy times. One of the big
questions when I talked to all my neighbors about this is an operational parameter. Is it
possible to get a stop light out there in front of the fire station? Are we going to have to
hear sirens out the gate immediately at 3:00 in the morning? I used to live on Curtis
Road three blocks down from St. Al's, so to me that would be like going home, but
some of my neighbors were concerned about that. I don't know what it takes to get a
signal at a fire station, I don't know if that's an act of Congress or if that's --
Borup: Just about.
Blood: Is it really?
Borup: Well, it depends on the traffic that's on the road and maybe we have some
information, but from past experience I don't think ACHD -- that's got near the traffic, but
we can get an answer on that.
Blood: That was my -- that was my thought, that Locust Grove probably doesn't carry
enough traffic for a light. These lights I'm talking about are flashing caution lights and
then -- I mean they are switched by the fire station, they are not a traffic control light,
other than an exit stop light. So I don't that know that ACHD should have a problem with
the -- since it's not really a traffic flow. I don't know. It's just a question and a question all
my neighbors had. Beyond that, I mean we think it's a great idea. Good use of the
property and it sounds like the chief is going to be willing to work with the neighbors as
far as the design parameter and that kind of thing, color -- I don't know that -- nobody
voiced any concerns along those lines, their biggest concern is just what the impact is
going to be from a noise standpoint. So that --
Borup: No one had a concern about fire insurance going down either?
Blood: Well, I didn't want to say that, but that was my first reaction. I will be calling my
insurance agent. But I think I'll wait until I know when you all are going to actually build
it. No. We were excited. Again, how can you not be excited. What a great thing to have
right across your street. But the impact concern -- I mean it is by it's nature a noisy
endeavor at times, so we just would like to know what, if anything, could be done to
mitigate that.
Borup: We'll get the chief back up to answer that. Anyone else? Thank you, sir. Okay. It
looks like that's all. Could you maybe shed some light on those two items?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 6 of 87
Bowers: Chairman Borup, Planning and Zoning Members, exactly that. Mr. Blood had a
very good question there. That was the same concerns at Ten Mile Road with all the
neighbors when come in and met with us in our meetings was the noise and what we
tried to do -- at nighttime they pull out of the station, too, on Ten Mile without any sirens
until they get pointed straight with their -- with Locust Grove -- or with Ten Mile. Excuse
me. They do not run sirens until they get pointed straight. So there shouldn't be any
sirens going straight out. The only problem they might have to do that would be in the
morning, possibly, when the traffic is real heavy. Other than that, they come out without
sirens. Stop light, yes, that is a problem. As you can tell, it took us two years to get the
one in front of Franklin station, so it does take a lot of time and a lot of work to be able
to do that.
Centers: But a stop light doesn't eliminate the need for a siren, though.
Bowers: No, it does not. Correct. Maybe that's where he was confused.
Blood: Well, it can mitigate it somewhat, but given the school in the morning and school
in the afternoon, I don't think anybody has a problem with that. Excuse me.
Bowers: Thank you. Now Ada County Highway District, my City Council and my rural
commissioners, met and decided that they would not put a stop light or flashing light,
excuse me, on Ten Mile until they widened the road or do any repaving or work on it. So
I imagine that would be the same thing on Locust Grove, would be they possibly would
not put a light up for us or help us until they widened Locust Grove and I'm not sure
when that is in the years. I don't have any idea how long it would be.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, Chief Bowers, on the Ten Mile station, you mentioned not using
sirens until they get down the road, which I think is a good directive. Was that put in
writing to your personnel?
Bowers: No, it was not. No.
Centers: Just a verbal directive and --
Bowers: It's up to the captain of the ship, that if he thinks they need to use the siren
coming out because of traffic they do.
Centers: Well, sure. Certainly. But if in the middle of the night there is no traffic, there is
no need for a siren, then --
Bowers: Exactly.
Centers: Right.
Bowers: No, that was put in writing, just a verbal to them. And we will work the same
thing on Locust Grove.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 7 of 87
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Bowers: Anything else?
Borup: Anything else from the Commissioners?
Bowers: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move the Public Hearing on our Agenda Item 4, AZ 02-009, be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff and it just popped up at me on this
application, because I have seen a problem in the past with other applications, whether
they be -- whoever. On the Annexation Rezone Application Checklist, Item 13, notarized
statement that the property was posted. Do you have that? I know that we have run into
problems in the past with other applications not posted, not advertised properly, I don't
want to see the City of Meridian having to come back on this issue.
Siddoway: My understanding when they are submitted they are submitted to the clerk,
so I'm looking at Sharon to see if she knows, but I don't know.
Centers: I think you know what I'm talking, though, don't you, Steve?
Siddoway: Yeah.
Borup: This particular one I can tell you is posted. I drive by there every day.
Centers: It just reminded me, because I knew we had an issue with a previous applicant
a few months back and the issue came up after the fact and I guess a reminder for
whoever does that. I don't know. City Clerk's office?
Smith: Our office does not usually physically go out and post --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 8 of 87
Centers: No. I know that.
Smith: -- but I do not have an affidavit on it.
Centers: Well, there you go.
Borup: But that one -- I can vouch for that one being posted. Like I say, I live down the
street and drive by it twice a day. It's posted on a metal real estate sign.
Centers: Well, I'm just reading from this application. Notarized statement that the
property was posted to be submitted after posting. Please submit a notarized statement
for each Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Even today it's after posting, so if that paperwork could be done I think we
would be caught up.
Centers: I don't want to see you back here, chief, on a technicality that is ridiculous. I
mean it's a needed technicality, but it's ridiculous that it hasn't been obtained.
Zaremba: I imagine it just makes the records show that it did, in fact, happen, even
though we know it happened.
Smith: Commissioners, I can work with Steve on getting that affidavit in the file.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: I think that was added to the application because of some other problems of it
not getting posted and -- you know, or people coming in and saying they did not see the
posting.
Centers: Right. Right.
Zaremba: So I think for that reason there needs to be some record of it in the file, so if
the clerk can work that out --
Borup: So there is evidence that it was posted. The neighborhood kids may have torn it
down, but it was up. All right. Thank you. Any other --
Centers: That's all I had.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Is a motion in order?
Borup: Sure is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 9 of 87
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4
on our agenda, AZ 02-009, request for annexation and zoning of one acre from RUT to
L-O zone for the purposed Meridian Fire Department, Locust Grove Substation
property, by the City of Meridian, at 3545 North Locust Grove, to include all staff
comments.
Mathes: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Thank you, chief.
Item 5: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2002: AZ 02-004 Request for
annexation and zoning of 127.74 acres from RUT to C-G, L-O and R-4
zones for proposed Sutherland Farm by Sutherland Farms, Inc. – east of
South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road:
Item 6: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2002: PP 02-004 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 308 building lots and 30 other lots on 127.64
acres in proposed L-O, C-G and R-4 zones for proposed Sutherland
Farm by Sutherland Farm, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and East
Victory Road:
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from April 4, 2002: CUP 02-005 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for
residential, commercial and office park development for Sutherland Farm
by Sutherland Farm, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and north of East
Victory Road:
Borup: Next we have Items 5, 6, and 7. All three of them are continued Public Hearings
from our April 4th meeting. AZ 02-004, request for annexation and zoning; PP 02-004,
request for Preliminary Plat, and CUP 02-005, Conditional Use Permit for a Planned
Unit Development of Sutherland Farms. We'd like to open these continued hearings and
start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Sutherland Farms is
a continued Public Hearing, it's been before you before, so I will simply hit the
highlights. First of all, I'd like to point out that you should have a letter from David
McKinnon dated today. He's adding two items to the staff report. They are really
technicalities, but he just wanted to make sure that everything was covered per the
ordinance and this, itself, doesn't really affect the outcome, he just wanted to make sure
that this was incorporated into any motion that you make tonight. You should have the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 10 of 87
revised staff report dated May 15th. This is an updated staff report to respond to things
that have been changed, updated since the original staff report was written. All new
items in the report have been underlined and I will go through the highlights with that.
First, I just want to orient you with the illustrations and photos. The site is near the
intersection of Eagle and Victory. I have got some photos of surrounding land uses,
entrance to Thousand Springs, existing barn that's situated on the property. Looking
down Eagle Road towards Silverstone. See the Ridenbaugh, which courses along the
north edge of the proposed project. Properties along Victory Road and this is a copy of
the revised plat that the staff report is based on. We do have landscape plans for the
subdivision. There is actually -- just go through them quickly. They are actually in three
sheets. They do have entry landscaping along the collectors, as well as out along their
street frontage. Going to the staff report, I think maybe the main thing to point out on
page five, item H, this deals with the stub street and the report that we received from
Ada County Highway District. There is a stub street to the east, which I believe is
Hollandale and there is a stub street to the south, which I believe is Knapp and
underlined there on page five you will read that staff does not agree with the Ada
County Highway District Commission's recommendation requiring that the connection to
the existing stub streets, Hollandale to the east and Knapp to the south, with the
placement of temporary bollards in the middle of the street until the northern connection
to Overland Road is complete. We would like to see the connections made, but we don't
see the need for bollards to be placed to prohibit access. It's a public street, we feel
they should be used.
Zaremba: Steve, can I interrupt for a second?
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: Are you saying that those stub streets would connect to existing paved
streets that don't show here?
Siddoway: The one to the east definitely does connect to a paved street. It's difficult to
see on the screen, but there is a subdivision immediately east of this project with a stub
street that connects to the parcel there.
Zaremba: That's Muir Woods, isn't it?
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: I have seen that one and I know that's paved.
Siddoway: The one to the south I honestly don't know. We'll have to rely on some
testimony from the public, I think.
Zaremba: Okay.
Shreeve: I think it's gravel.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 11 of 87
Borup: Okay.
Shreeve: Knapp Lane.
Siddoway: With that I will take you to the back. On page 16 -- and just go briefly over
our recommendation. The first item is already mentioned with the stub streets. We feel
that the stub streets are intended to encourage interconnectivity and not prevent the
connectivity until an undeterminable date, which is what ACHD's report would create.
We don't know when the property to the north will develop, when the connection will be
made to go up. They are required to either construct or bond with ACHD for part of the
bridge crossing over the Ridenbaugh, so that that connection can be made when the
property to the north does develop. Let's see. The second issue would be during the
last hearing I suggested there was an issue regarding more visible open space in the
centrally located park here. There was a raft of lots coming around. The lots along the
south have been relocated. They have been placed in other areas, except for the one. I
believe they lost one lot, the three lots over here still remain, leaving the open frontage
along the street here. So staff feels that that issue is resolved with this revised plat. A
few issues that need to be resolved that came up at the last meeting and we would like
to have some input from the applicant on. One was regarding the placement of fill dirt
on the south side of the Sutherland Farms property. The second is the possibility of
shifting the roadway adjacent to the Sasser's property and to the access to Victory
Road and whether the road could flip and switch to the west side and the cul-de-sacs
then pointing in. -- basically doing a 180 there. The third item that needs to be resolved
is regarding the possible berming and fencing plan adjacent to the Los Altos
Subdivision. I believe the applicant will be prepared to address these issues and upon
resolution of those we would recommend approval of the project with the staff report.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant prepared for
their presentation?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you very much. Daren Fluke
with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant
Sutherland Farms, LLC, in this matter. I think you're well familiar with the project from
the last hearing. I think what I'd like to do is maybe just hit on ACHD's hearing and deal
with those issues there at the end of the staff report that need to be resolved yet. I
thought we made good progress with the Highway District. Many of the neighbors left
that meeting quite happy with the compromise that the Commission struck, so why don't
I first deal with that. At issue -- and you have seen it in your current staff report -- is the
status of this road here, Hollandale, leading into Muir Wood Subdivision and Knapp
Lane leading to the south. Knapp lane is an existing 20 foot road. There is pavement on
that, but it's not very good pavement. There only exists 30 feet right of way there and so
what the ACHD Commission heard was that these neighbors were concerned that there
would be excessive traffic utilizing their subdivision from here, because there was no
connection to the north. The ACHD Commissioners did want to make the connection,
because there is an existing stub street there and so what they did is said make your
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 12 of 87
connection, but put bollards up until the connection is made to the north across the
bridge into Overland Road, which seemed to make everybody happy. I point out that
that would only prohibit vehicular access, it would still allow interconnectivity between
the two developments by pedestrians or bikes, it would just simply mean that cars
couldn't go through there. What our traffic study showed was that we would be putting
about 300 trips a day through there, which is fairly nominal, given the amount of traffic
generated in this development and so we don't think it really affects our circulation or
the efficacy of the road system for our development.
Borup: Excuse me, Daren.
Fluke: Yes.
Borup: Did your traffic study address how many trips would be coming from Muir Wood
through your subdivision, how many would be coming the other way?
Fluke: It did and I don't know what that is off the top of my head. Interestingly, we will
see a lot more traffic from Muir Woods once there is a connection to the north and this
is opened up, because it will be easier to go north coming through our development
with all right turns on all local roads to hit Overland Road, than it is to take a left on
Cloverdale, which is exactly why there isn't as many trips using -- wouldn't be using
Muir Wood from our development. Too difficult to go where the majority of the traffic
wants to go. So that's a round about way of saying they did put a number to that, it was
nominal, because this connection wasn't made and we didn't know when it would be
made.
Borup: And I guess I was wondering about traffic trying to reach the interstate on Eagle
Road, you know, going clear through your whole project.
Fluke: Yeah. Well, there will be a certain amount of cut-through traffic. It's long enough,
you know, it's a half mile across, and those are local roads and they are rather
circuitous.
Borup: Slow things down.
Fluke: When Muir Wood makes its connection to Victory it should alleviate most of the
pressure that we would see from them wanting to reach the interstate, because then
you will have right turns all the way to get to the interstate.
Borup: Thank you.
Fluke: So, you know, this doesn't make a whole lot of difference to us. We don't need it
for the development. It's there, so by law we have to connect to it, unless the ACHD
Commissioners say we don't. They said connect, but put the bollards in, it seems like a
good compromise and the neighbors are happy, so we support that. With regard to
Knapp Lane -- excuse me. The traffic study assumed that that was going to be closed in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 13 of 87
this fashion with bollards allowing only bicycle and pedestrian access and, therefore,
none of the numbers in the traffic study were impacted by not opening up that road to
cars. We don't need it. It's really not appropriate for our development to go through
there. Like I said, it's only a 20 foot road section and it would really impact the
neighbors on that road and so we supported the blocking of that to vehicles and I think
that is also a good compromise. So we just --
Centers: Excuse me. You didn't mention how you felt about the staff recommendation to
open the easterly --
Fluke: Well, again, the connection doesn't make a whole bunch of difference to us.
Centers: Okay.
Fluke: But what I would say is I don't want to get caught in a vice between the City of
Meridian and the Ada County Highway District. Both of those agencies have to sign our
final plat when it comes through and if you won't sign it because there is bollards there
and ACHD won't sign it because there is not bollards there, then we are in a bad way
and so I'd like to have it resolved one way or the other. My preference would be that this
body just pass on a recommendation for the temporary bollards. Again, they are
temporary, they only keep cars from going through there, still -- the people can pass
through still. We get the connectivity, just not for cars. We don't see it being a big deal.
With regard to the three issues at the end of the staff report, I'll deal with this grading
issue first at the southern end of the property. Specifically what the problem was is that
our neighbors to the south here were telling us that there was a large amount of fill
placed here on the southern end of the property and then it had actually raised the
property up above their property and --
Freckleton: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. If we could have the display we could put it on
the overhead, then the audience would be able to see it.
Fluke: I don't know if it will fit, Bruce, but we can certainly give it a try. Get you oriented.
North is to the top. This is the southeast corner of our project right here. These are our
neighbors in Los Altos Subdivision. You have basically three lots that front directly on
our project. What this drawing is is the original survey that we did for the landowner in
1994, a topographical survey, and what it shows here is the high point on the property,
basically a ridge that sits right here. The high point of that ridge is this elevation here,
2,687.2 feet and what we did, methodology wise, to figure out what happened is we
took our '94 survey, we looked at the topo on this, we then compared it to an aerial
survey that was done for the City of Meridian in 2000 for the sewer study that JUB did
for you and then we sent our crew out and shot elevations out along the ditch here and
on our property and what we found was that we knew for sure that there was a certain
amount of fill placed here -- really what's at issue is the amount of fill here. We were
hearing numbers from our neighbors of six to eight feet of fill being placed, which we
felt, you know, was just awfully high. So we knew that there had been some fill placed
here, because the property owners had dug a pond over near Eagle Road and that dirt
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 14 of 87
they did move over to this area. What they did is they basically cut down this ridge, this
large ridge, about a foot to two feet and moved this dirt over into this area and this area
was raised about a foot to two feet. You know, there are spots where it could have been
as high as three feet, but it was highly localized and it wasn't over a great area. This fill
area here that you see is about 150 feet by 300 feet and what they were trying to
accomplish was to be able to irrigate from this ditch right here to the north. Everything
slopes away to the north, so this is two feet lower than that and that's two feet, two feet,
two feet lower. So what you have now is a situation where they cut that down and
basically our neighbors are still at an elevation -- our neighbors' property are still at an
elevation that is higher than any of the highest points on our property. We do have now
an elevation of 2,687 right here at this corner and that's about as high as we are
anywhere across here. So I hope that resolves the fill issue there and that's what
happened. Just by way of some numbers, if we were to have filled that area with just
three feet of dirt, that would have taken 3,000 cubic yards of dirt, which is about 275
dump truck trips or about 75 trips with a scraper. So I mean it's a large amount of fill and
there is just no possibility there was grade six to eight feet. Two feet is more like the
reality.
Zaremba: May I ask a question?
Fluke: Sure.
Zaremba: Is the end result that the fill -- the surface top of the fill area and the surface
top of the cut area next to it are now just about equal?
Fluke: Yeah. This is essentially flat.
Zaremba: Okay.
Fluke: And these are the spot elevations for our neighbors here and so you can see the
lowest neighbor's property -- these are at their houses, 2,688 is the lowest property and
we are at 2,687 and, actually, the high point is clear over here at 2,692. So the land fill
falls off to this -- to the northwest. They are higher than our property. Did you take these
pictures?
Borup: No. Those were supplied by one of the neighbors.
Fluke: Okay.
Borup: But you have photocopies in your packet. Those were just for clarification.
Fluke: I don't think I have seen those, Commissioner.
Borup: Well, I think it's showing what you just mention there, that the property does fall
off and it's showing some distance between the fill and the property at the back of their
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 15 of 87
property, that it definitely does raise up. But you're saying that's -- the slope is from their
house down to the property line?
Fluke: It is, based on all the data that we have, and we did go and do field shots right
after the hearing about a month ago.
Zaremba: I think you said, but would you say again the area that was cut was originally
how much higher than it is now?
Fluke: About a foot to two feet. All they were really trying to do is level out the pasture
so that they could irrigate to the north. They wanted to be able to irrigate out of this
ditch, so that the water would just run north, which is what you do. The way you see this
here is the way it was in '94 and that's what they were trying to correct.
Borup: So the ditch must be at the high point, then? I mean on the top of -- did the
grade of the ditch change? That ditch was always there at that grade?
Fluke: Yeah. This is the elevation at the top of the ditch bank right there.
Borup: Okay. These photos are showing a chain link fence, it looks like.
Shreeve: Is that just simply the ditch embankment?
Centers: I believe the one with the chain link fence might be more appropriate.
Borup: Well, even that one would -- actually, there was a couple of them up, a couple of
them fit on there.
Shreeve: I guess the question is is that embankment, is that a ditch embankment on the
other side of the fence or is that the land?
Borup: There is a ditch at this level.
Shreeve: Right. Right.
Fluke: Yeah. I'm not exactly sure where we are looking here. Let me get with Gary.
Zaremba: That's a good point. The site we are asking, is that the bank of the ditch?
Borup: We also don't know where that is on site.
Shreeve: There is an address on one of those pictures on the back, on the backside.
Centers: On the backside. Yeah.
Shreeve: Who has provided those pictures? Okay. Pressman property then.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 16 of 87
Centers: 2865 Los Altos. Pressman.
Borup: Is that one of the ones you had a grade on that was marked on the previous
map that --
Fluke: I'm afraid I don't know.
Borup: Okay. It sounds like it was on one of them, one of those three would have been
one of this property.
Fluke: Shall I continue on or --
Shreeve: Well, just one more. Is that the land or is it just a ditch?
Fluke: That's the ditch.
Shreeve: And that is the ditch then?
Fluke: Yes.
Shreeve: And then on the other side --
Fluke: The land falls north from the ditch.
Shreeve: And that ditch will be done away with on this project; is that correct?
Fluke: Piped.
Borup: I think the other question was if that's the ditch, so that was already at that
height -- or did they raise the height of the ditch?
Fluke: No, they did not.
Borup: Then we may have some -- which way is that water flowing?
Fluke: It flows to the west -- from east to west. Gary tells me they may have raised the
ditch.
Borup: But not very much or -- the water wouldn't flow uphill.
Fluke: Well, based on the three surveys that we have -- or the two surveys and then the
spot data that we did, it didn't show that it was raised excessively. I mean it's nominal,
less than a foot is what I could tell from the data, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 17 of 87
Shreeve: So in the end when this is all developed, that ditch will be done away with, it
will be leveled, it will be brought down, and the land will flow to the north -- slope to the
north?
Fluke: We, of course, haven't done grading plans --
Shreeve: Right.
Fluke: Yeah. That ditch, once it's piped, will be no need to have that ditch.
Shreeve: So there won't be any two or three feet difference in elevation? Okay.
Fluke: And let me show you what -- Bruce, could we see that plat again? What we -- a
little bit more. You need to go to the west a little bit. This is Knapp Way right here. We
have to match this grade. When we grade this area this pond is going away, so we will
have to match grade with the road here to make that connection and that will -- and
then everything else will grade to the north. So we can't -- I mean we can't cut it down.
We can take the ditch out, obviously, but we can't, you know, just cut this property six
feet down.
Shreeve: Well, no, but it sounds like what you're saying, though, is if you cut the ditch
down, that the property is already there, already below the people's property on the
south, so it's just a matter of getting rid of the ditch is what it sounds like.
Fluke: That's correct.
Borup: Well, I don't think that's true at the property line itself. I think there is a grade
difference, you know, here at the property line from what the photo looks like. I don't
know what you can do about that.
Fluke: There is a -- the photograph that you're looking at is from the property line north
and so the grade break that you see between the intervening ground and the ditch is all
on our property, so once the ditch is graded off it will be down at the level of the
foreground of that photograph.
Borup: So that ditch is up way higher than this property or than this area?
Fluke: It is, yes. Well, I mean it falls off to the south. I mean you saw it from the
photograph.
Borup: Right.
Fluke: But it's -- I mean the ground to the north is essentially at grade with the ditch.
Borup: That's what I assumed. That's what I was wondering.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 18 of 87
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, when we get to the public portion it may behoove us to get
some clarification as to where that photo was taken from. See, what we are trying to
understand is whether that photo was taken from the neighbor's property or was it taken
from on the Sutherland Farms property looking across their own fence, which is what
I'm gathering --
Borup: I think it was taken from the --
Fluke: I believe it was taken from this property.
Borup: Is this the Pressman property here? Okay. So it was taken clear back along
here.
Fluke: And what happens is the ditch goes that way.
Borup: Oh, this is the ditch that's in the photo, not along here?
Fluke: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Well, it does drop off this way, then, with your topo lines.
Fluke: Yeah. The fill was just simply in this area, just from this point back to here so it
would irrigate to the north.
Borup: So there is probably going to -- this filled in also.
Fluke: There would be some fill in there.
Borup: Yeah. Okay. So that the fill is all on your property.
Shreeve: Well, but I think that's the concern is they are filling it and when they build their
homes, their homes are going to be an obstruction.
Borup: Well, but the fill is lower than what is area was to start with. That's been cut.
And you say this is going to have to be filled to tie in with Knapp Lane, whatever grade
that is. But this looks fairly level between those two. Okay. Move on.
Fluke: Shall I move on?
Borup: Yeah. Let's move on.
Fluke: Thank you. Could I see the site plan, please? With regard to berming and
fencing along this property line on Los Altos, certainly we will provide fencing along that
property line. However, we don't believe that a berm is appropriate in this area, given
the -- just the concerns over the grades and use to the north, we don't feel it would be
appropriate to raise it up, not to mention that it's extremely difficult to put a berm of any
size in there entirely on our own property. A four foot berm would take in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 19 of 87
neighborhood of 24 feet of ground and then we have a very difficult time getting at the
backside of the berm for maintenance. And, of course, the maintenance would be the
responsibility of the property owners on whose land that berm sits and we can certainly
envision a situation where it just goes to weeds and makes these folks even more
unhappy than just having a fence here. So we request that we fence that, but not berm
that property line.
Centers: What if the property owners were willing to have half of it on their property?
Fluke: That would certainly help the situation tremendously. So if they had, you know,
the 12 to 15 feet that they wanted to give up for half the berm, then we can talk to them,
you know, about that. One thing I would caution you, you wouldn't want to give it on a
property-by-property basis. All of these folks would have to agree to give up, you know,
the land to put the berm on, so --
Borup: Then in that case you would put the fence on the property line at the top of the
berm?
Fluke: Correct. Yeah. If the berm was centered on the property line we could put a
fence there. What we heard from the neighbors is they didn't want anything higher
there, so -- and then the final issue is the status of this area on the south of the property
bordering the Sasser's property. We did meet with the Sassers. We did do a new layout
on this section, which we forwarded it to the client. What we did is we would leave the
road anchored where it's at right here, because this has the least amount of impact on
properties to our south as far as headlights leaving the project. We didn't feel like we
could move this entrance to the east, which would have been the best way layout,
because the headlights then leaving the development shine right into this person's
house. For the same reason, we didn't want to just take what you see here and flip it
over, because if you move the entrance over to this location, then it impacts this
property even more. This is really the best place for the road, which is why it was placed
like that initially. The property owner, my client, has requested that you approve the
development with the layout as we propose. What we found was that the lots -- that the
layout was more awkward and that the lots were just -- what he determined was that
they were of lesser value. What we are looking at is lots in this area of about 10,800
square feet or larger and our lots came down to an average of about 8,500 square feet
by the new layout. And so he is requesting to keep the layout as you see it here.
Borup: Was this the layout that was before ACHD?
Fluke: Yes, it was.
Centers: The original one that we saw originally?
Fluke: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 20 of 87
Fluke: So I think that addresses all of the issues that we had from the past hearing. If
you had any questions I would certainly be happy to take those now.
Zaremba: The very last discussion I got lost in what happened and what didn't happen,
but the goal, I thought, was along the Sasser's property to have fewer properties
fronting or backing to their property and you're saying that was discussed, but didn't
happen?
Fluke: Yes. The client is requesting that this body not require that, because the lots are
of much lesser value than the larger lots that we have laid out here. What we did was
we took -- we left the entrance here and made this a single loaded road and so as soon
as we could, we swung it over to the property line, leaving an intervening buffer strip
along here with a single loaded road, lots here fronting the Sasser's, driveways and lots,
and then basically we came up and came down into a cul-de-sac from this location,
terminating down here. And, like I said, the lots turned out to average out at only 8,500
square feet, which is not the market the client was trying to go for with the development.
Shreeve: You know -- and I can appreciate him certainly looking out for the market, but
what about the market of the Sassers? You know, what kind of impact, you know,
having the neighboring lots, so many of them, stacked against his property? You know,
again, I can appreciate your client looking for his marketability, but --
Borup: But I think he's saying he wants to market larger homes. That larger lots would
allow larger, more expensive homes in there, rather than --
Shreeve: Then he could potentially remove a lot, distribute that area of one lot and so
maybe he's one lot less. I don't know.
Fluke: You mean one less lot on this here?
Shreeve: Just whatever it takes to get the lot acreage back up again. I'm just posing
that, that, you know, certainly we need to consider the Sasser's value of their land as
well.
Fluke: I don't disagree and, you know, we have endeavored to work with the Sassers to
the greatest extent possible. The only thing I would say is that this is not really their
view in this direction, you know, and certainly our offer to restrict these properties so
that they have only single story homes on them, as well as these, still stands to protect
their view. Their house is well off the property -- off their north property line, which
should help to preserve their view to the north, which is where the good views are. Still,
it's a residential land use against a residential land use and we don't feel it will have
really a detrimental impact on their property.
Borup: Was this discussed? Did the ACHD Commission address this at all?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 21 of 87
Fluke: No. They would not be concerned unless the lot count went up or unless the
location of this road were to change.
Borup: Okay.
Shreeve: Just -- assuming that's, of course, where it remains, you did indicate, as I
recall, nevertheless, at least a berm on that side; is that correct? It seemed like you
talked with the Sassers about it?
Fluke: We have discussed putting a berm on the property line. I think from our last
discussion with the Sassers that they weren't super excited about centering a berm.
That would be a question for them.
Shreeve: Okay.
Centers: And maybe the Sassers are here tonight.
Fluke: They are.
Centers: I think, if I recall, too, Mrs. Sasser wanted a nice entrance there, a classier
entrance to the subdivision than -- what's this buffer right here? What's the --
Fluke: I believe we are at 20 feet.
Centers: I think that was --
Fluke: Twenty-five.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Fluke? Okay. Do we have anyone else to
testify on this application? If so, please come forward.
Maley: My name is Pat Maley and I live at 12449 West Muir Wood Drive. I will be brief.
Our main issue is the traffic issue that resulted in ACHD's recommendation that bollards
be placed on the stub streets on Hollandale and there is several reasons for that.
Number one, we noted with some interest that in ACHD's staff report there are two
streets designated as residential collectors in Sutherland Farms, Easy Jet Drive and
North Knapp Avenue. The designation says that since they are going to have over
1,000 vehicle trips a day, the policy is no front-on housing -- no front-on housing, no
parking, and Muir Ridge Drive is going to have well over 1,000 vehicle trips a day, if the
plan goes forward as it's currently set forth. The difference in traffic at the rush hour
right now, we have got -- according to the counts in the traffic study -- traffic impact
study you have got 36 vehicles per hour in the morning, 76 in the evening. Build out at
2010 takes that to 161 vehicles per hour in the morning and 264 vehicles per hour in
the evening. All of the street -- all of the houses on Muir Ridge front on the street.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 22 of 87
Parking is allowed. There are not five foot sidewalks, there are three foot sidewalks,
and a car is going to go by every 15 --
Borup: Three foot?
Maley: Yes.
Borup: It's not four?
Maley: Yeah. Excuse me. They are four. I take that back. But they are not five. Muir
Ridge Drive falls pretty significantly short of what ACHD says that is policy for vehicles
-- for streets carrying that much vehicle traffic. Furthermore, it's got a curve in the end of
it that's 138 degree, it's got pinch points that I think people refer to as traffic smoothing
aisles, one of which happens to be located immediately adjacent to the primary access
to our common area or park if you prefer, and it's a beautiful opportunity for a kid to
come screaming down there on a bicycle or a scooter and somebody coming down the
street has got no place to swerve if you have got an island there and we just don't feel
that it makes sense to funnel the additional traffic, even though it's only 300 vehicle trips
a day, if it take us to 750 to 1,000, it puts us over ACHD's level for a residential collector
street for which our street is not designed.
Centers: So you want the bollards to be in place?
Maley: Yes. Our preference is that they punch through -- my personal preference is that
they punch through Knapp Drive right away, but I know that's not going to happen.
Centers: When they attain access to Overland do you want the bollards to remain?
Maley: I'm sixes on that. I don't really care.
Centers: I guess I'm being facetious, because you know as well as I do that those
people in Muir Woods are going to exit that way.
Maley: Some people will.
Centers: Yeah.
Maley: It depends on where they are going.
Zaremba: Well, my question would be what is the value of access to Cloverdale -- the
people that are currently leaving your subdivision are doing what, going north on
Cloverdale and turning on Overland to get to Eagle?
Maley: About 90 percent north and ten percent south, according to the traffic impact
study right now.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 23 of 87
Zaremba: But they are accessing the freeway when they go across Overland to Eagle?
Maley: Yeah. Or some of us, if it's busy down there, it's already I guess level of service
F. We go down to the -- go down to the east. Overland is not too bad, really. Once you
get down passed Five Mile it's four lanes and it moves along pretty well. It's better than
the parking lot that we see on 84 part of the time. And our fear, you know, you talk
about -- there was some talk about people from Muir Woods exiting directly to the west,
well, that's three quarters of a mile for us through residential streets and if we are
getting ready to go north on Eagle, what we are going to find there at the same time,
probably in the next ten years, is traffic is backed up all the way to Easy Jet Drive. So
what's the purpose? We feel that it is an appropriate way to deal with the issue that
would, in the long run, be good for both Muir Woods and for the people in Sutherland
Farms and we would respectfully ask that you make the same recommendation
yourselves.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, sir.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Sasser: My name is Gale Sasser. I live at 3516 East Victory Road. Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners, as you can well determine, I'm kind of between a rock and a hard spot
here. We are heavily impacted, without a doubt, and I would like to commend Daren
Fluke and Gary for making a sincere effort in trying to -- we met right after the last
meeting, we took Commissioner Shreeve's suggestion as to moving that road over. I
didn't particularly want to impact my neighbors across the street by moving the road on
the fence line, so I was willing to keep the road where it was and go in and then curve in
and, therefore, reduce the number of properties impacting my property right next to my
house and so they worked on that, took quite sometime to get back to me -- in fact,
didn't get the decision until this Tuesday. The story I was told was that it would actually
reduce the number of lots by two and increase one lot size significantly. I never seen
the plot and so I don't know that for certain, but I was told that the developer was not
interested in doing anything that was going to affect his bottom line. It was a money
issue. And I can understand that that's his deal, but it's definitely going to affect the
value of my property and I don't feel that a sincere effort, not necessarily by JUB, but a
sincere effort has been accomplished by the developer. I don't feel he has a particular
concern with the surrounding properties, Meridian, or anything else. This is an
investment issue. So I guess at this point we have not much that we can do, other than
to rely -- certainly doesn't answer to me or any of the neighbors, we have to rely on
Planning and Zoning and Meridian City Council to step up and hopefully get him to do
the right thing. We have never asked JUB to compromise Meridian's Comprehensive
Plan in any way. Not at all. All we have asked for is merely a -- somewhat of a buffer,
somewhat of a transition so that we don't have this row of -- 15 foot off our property line
of two story houses, 13 of them. But basically that's all I have to say and I appreciate
anything you could do to help us out.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 24 of 87
Centers: I have question. They have agreed to put single level homes here, I
understand.
Sasser: That's the first I have heard that.
Centers: Okay. Well, we will hold them to it. So you would be amenable to single story
houses here?
Sasser: That would be most helpful.
Centers: Where do you get the information that you think your property value is going to
go down? Is that opinion?
Sasser: Probably most people that would buy five acres probably would not want to
have houses that close.
Centers: Well, as land is developed and it's sure being developed in our -- the five acre
parcels are going to increase in value.
Sasser: That could be.
Centers: In my opinion. And you have your opinion. So I guess I don't agree with your
opinion that your value is going to go down, because if you retain that five acre parcel,
as property is developed -- and we have another big subdivision tonight to look at, there
is more coming all the time, but five acre pieces like yours will be valuable and the
same with the Los Altos people and their two to three acre parcels, in my opinion. But --
so if we went with single family -- or if the developer agreed to that -- the single level I
should say -- that would improve the situation?
Sasser: Absolutely.
Centers: Okay.
Sasser: Absolutely.
Shreeve: What about a berm? What's your thought on a berm?
Sasser: The berm would make it extremely tight on my side.
Shreeve: Your home is --
Sasser: Fifty foot off the property line, then we would have an Idaho Power transformer
that would be like four feet to the center off the property line that we have to deal with,
the right of way of power and utilities that come up through.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 25 of 87
Centers: You know they are going to put a fence.
Sasser: I assume.
Centers: Yeah.
Sasser: I have never been told what is going to happen.
Centers: The applicant is making notes, I hope.
Shreeve: So worst case would be if they put a -- it is not for a berm. I guess that's your
preference, just simply put a fence?
Sasser: If I had a berm that's 12 foot over on my side or whatever, it's going to make it
tight on that side, make it difficult for utilities.
Borup: And how far it came would depend on the height of the berm.
Sasser: Yeah. I was told that if it was 24 feet it would -- or four feet it has to be 24 feet
to be --
Borup: Right. To get proper slope. So a smaller berm would not be that much is what
I'm saying. There are choices that way also.
Sasser: Sure. Not being a landscape person, there is a lot of choices and a lot of
alternatives that could make the whole thing look better and be a little better buffer.
Borup: I guess what I'm saying, you know, a two foot berm would be half that. If that's
the distance for a four foot, then a two foot berm would be --
Sasser: I assume.
Shreeve: How far is your home off your property line?
Sasser: Fifty foot on the west side.
Shreeve: Okay.
Sasser: Actually, 50 feet on the east side as well and that's a shop.
Centers: Very good.
Sasser: Thank you very much.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 26 of 87
Bastian: My name is Morris Bastian and I'm in Muir Woods at 2727 South Mayflower
Way. I don't think we'd have to take much more time regarding this if we knew the
disposition of the Council tonight regarding the Muir Woods -- Muir Ridge Road. I would
like to make the motion that the Council accept the recommendation of the developer,
the client, and also Ada County Highway Department, that we block off Muir Woods
until a road is cut up from what is called Knapp Lane up to Overland. I want to just tell
you what happens in our little subdivision and why we are a little concerned about
what's going to happen to that road in that neighborhood. If you were to take your kids
to school you're going to go through Muir Ridge and you're going to go up to Cloverdale
and you're going to turn right to go to the school. If you're going to go to the mall you're
going to go out to Cloverdale and you're going to go down Cloverdale to Franklin and
go to the mall. If you're going to the theater, you're going to go out to Cloverdale and
turn right on Overland and go down to Edwards 21. Let me just add the others. If you're
going to the post office, the grocery store, or if you wanted to go to Wal-Mart or Lowe's,
you're going to go in that same direction. I don't see us taking a pattern flow that some
feel will go all the way through and out to Eagle Road. If you look at LOS on that --
those roads, it is F, and if I read that correctly, that's maxed out. People are looking for
alternate ways to get away from the traffic and to get to their destinations. We really
appreciate what Daren has said tonight, that he's willing to accept the recommendation
of the Ada County Highway Department and to make the modifications. He said it's not
going to affect his development, but certainly would affect our neighborhood if that was
not honored. So I speak for and in behalf of 36 of our people, I have their signatures,
who wish to protect the integrity and the quality of our neighborhood by not making that
a thoroughfare, not making it the back door to the subdivision and I thank you for your
support and I think if you could rule on that I think you would quiet a lot of people
without having to come up and testify.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Bastian? Commissioners, would we like
to discuss that at this point and that may be worthwhile?
Zaremba: I think I would.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: The applicant has stated no problem with the bollards and it seems like it
would be a calming affect on their neighbors, but I'd like to give staff a chance to defend
them a little bit more, not having them there. Is this a deal breaker or what?
Borup: I think Steve is in a position of defending a report that's --
Zaremba: That's somebody else's opinion.
Siddoway: Staff's opinion is that the connection should be made, because it's --
interconnectivity does give the people in Sutherland Farms a way out to Cloverdale, as
well as people in Muir Woods and a way out to Eagle. It's interconnectivity, it's better for
them, we realize it will increase the traffic somewhat in front of those homes, but it's a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 27 of 87
public right of way and it should be connected. I don't really know what to say other than
that.
Zaremba: Have we gotten any response from either our police or our fire department
specifically on the bollards being there? The chief was here earlier, but is not anymore.
Shreeve: Well -- and I was going to ask if those are breakaway emergency bollards that
would be there. I guess that's a question to ask later. Emergency vehicles theoretically
still could access through there if they needed to.
Zaremba: That's answer brings up a question whether they would or not. Isn't Muir
Woods actually in a different jurisdiction? Isn't that Boise?
Centers: Yeah.
Shreeve: That's a good point, too.
Centers: Well -- and that's my point.
Siddoway: But I think it might fall into Meridian's rural fire district. I'm not sure about
that.
Zaremba: Cross-access response or something like that?
Siddoway: I'm seeing yes's and no's in the audience, so I don't know.
Borup: There is someone in the audience that said that is Meridian Fire District. Rural.
Shreeve: Whitney Fire District.
Borup: It's either Whitney or Meridian.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I guess irregardless of which fire district it falls in, we have
mutual aid agreements between the districts, so we still would -- if they needed our
help, we would be responding. Mutual aid. Likewise, they would be responding into our
area if we needed help.
Zaremba: Then my question are the bollards a problem stands.
Centers: Yeah. How do they work? I'm not familiar with --
Borup: Well, I think that can be a requirement. It could be in the motion that they are
break-away bollards.
Centers: Is there really such an animal?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 28 of 87
Shreeve: I believe so.
Zaremba: So the teenager in his Camaro breaks them away and who has to replace
them?
Freckleton: The bollards that I'm familiar with are -- they are chained and locked.
Basically they have to be removed, lifted out. They are not just simply broken off. There
may be such an animal, but I don't think we have ever utilized them in Meridian.
Siddoway: Actually, this came up with -- in relation to the Mountain View High School
property and they were talking about closing off -- I forget the name of the street, but
doing it with bollards and the position of the fire department and the police department
for that was that they did not want to have to get out of their car, use bolt cutters, pull
something out of the ground, they wanted them to be breakaway. There is such an
animal out there. May even let -- Gary Lee, are you familiar with those breakaway
bollards? You're not? Okay.
Borup: I would think that something that would breakaway after so many pounds of
force --
Siddoway: There are breakaway gates, but I'm not sure --
Shreeve: I don't know anything about those, but I have heard of them and I have heard
that, you know, emergency vehicles, fire engines in particular, have the big fenders that
-- very little damage, but if any old car just ran into it, granted, they would break, but I
think it would cause some damage to their car, too. So if a teenager wanted to do that,
they could talk to their dad when they got home.
Zaremba: We'd know who did it.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I guess the way I feel about it, initially when I read the staff
report I thought, you know, that makes sense, I mean we have got a stub street, it
should be connected, connectivity, but then when you look at the real picture, Muir
Woods is not in the City of Meridian and if annexed they would be in the City of Boise
and I guess if they were in the City of Meridian right now, there would be no talk about
it, open those stub streets up to a City of Meridian subdivision. So that's the way I look
at it. If they want them there and that makes them happy and they realize that they may
not get a fire truck through there and that makes them happy, then so be it. That's the
way I feel about it. If that were a City of Meridian subdivision I would feel the opposite.
That's my opinion.
Shreeve: Simply put, I just agree, the people have voiced it, they want them there, let
them have it.
Zaremba: The applicant hasn't disagreed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 29 of 87
Shreeve: Yeah.
Borup: Commissioner Mathes?
Mathes: I agree with bollards.
Borup: Okay. It sounds like the Commission is in full agreement on that. My initial
thought was the same as has been expressed, it makes sense, staff has a lot of logic,
but, you know, ACHD are supposed to be the traffic experts.
Centers: Well, I would take one step further, though, as stated. When the access is
opened to Overland those bollards would be removed.
Borup: So you're saying -- agreeing with ACHD's --
Centers: Exactly.
Borup: -- statement report. Okay. Maybe that answers that question in the way the
Commission would go on that one item, so that might -- if anyone has anymore to say
on that, I think we have answered our feelings. Anyone else? Come forward.
Jaszkawski: My name is Mark Jaszkawski, I live at 2643 Mayflower Way. One thing that
might make this a lot easier for the Commission on this traffic issue, you know, we came
in as homeowners to the ACHD meeting and we wanted the street closed and we didn't
want traffic and we sort of worked it out -- we talked a long time and with the support of
Commission Peavey-Derr and I can't remember the other Commissioner, we kind of
worked through a compromise, but one of the things I think will really mitigate this and
make it a lot easier in your mind is what the developer said is you're looking at a ten
year build date for this and that last -- phase five where this is actually going to connect
is the last part of the development that's done, so we are talking -- you know, it's
probably going to be eight years before they even punch the street in there and so, you
know, the development north and Knapp Street going north, it may even be blocked a
very short time. The agreement was also that we would put signs on the bollards and
nobody would have a long-term expectation that those weren't going to come down. It
would just be -- we all agreed that back door to back door was a real good idea for a
neighborhood to go by both ways, but while -- before that street got punched through,
for us to be a front door for 309 homes is probably not a good idea on the engineering
of the street and that. But I think the timeline will make this a lot easier. It won't be a big
issue. Thanks for you time.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else on any other items?
DeAngelis: Yeah. Joe DeAngelis, 3035 El Rio Drive in Rancho Los Altos, and if I can
represent some of the issues that are facing us. As you're quite well aware that we have
two to four acre homes there in our development. One of the things I see -- you know,
and I travel those roads in and out each and every day. Right now Victory has no plans
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 30 of 87
for any kind of improvements for the next ten years. Have any of you traveled Victory
Road lately between Eagle and Cloverdale? Now I personally find it extremely difficult
anytime during the day to try to make a left-hand turn out of El Rio Drive on Victory at
this time. We have so much traffic going up and down there now, every time we have a
wreck on the freeway Victory Road becomes a parking lot. At night when I'm coming
home I come off Eagle Road off the freeway and many times that traffic is backed up a
half a mile or more. There is no set improvement at this point for Eagle Road for at least
three to five years, as I understand it. This subdivision under ACHD has indicated on
their traffic studies and their projections that this subdivision is going to be produce
12,414 trips per day from the subdivision. That's their number. You know, that's not
something I'm making up. This came from their hearing. Then you have to look at the
fact that Thousand Springs right across from the entrance from the L-O, we have had
numerous serious accidents. You've got a 50 mile an hour road. I have seen -- I have
witnessed and seen, since Thousand Springs' entrance has gone in there, probably
anywhere from 15 to 20 serious accidents at that intersection, people trying to get
across and make left-hand turns into that subdivision. You can imagine now putting
another -- let's say on that entrance another four or five, six thousand vehicle trips in
and out of that entrance in a day's time, what is that going to do as far as safety goes?
What I'd like to see -- I know that they initially want to start the subdivision from Victory
Road. Just as a suggestion, number one, is to have something on the side of the road
that they build into on that side which gives a lane for pull out and turn. I notice where in
subdivisions they widen it out so if you're going -- let's say in this case you're going
westbound, there would be space on the right-hand side so that traffic can get out of the
way, pull over. The same thing on the other way coming over -- coming the other way. If
you have people waiting to make a left-hand turn there, they are going to jam up Victory
Road big time. So you're going to have to put something or some sort of alternative to
making a left-hand turn or at least a left turn lane in there to get that traffic out of the
traffic pattern until they can make a safe turn. Those are real issues right there. One of
the suggestions that we have looked at, you know, and I feel, you know, very sorry for
the Sassers, they have one of the most magnificent homes I have seen built there in a
long time, I personally feel -- would love to see that road go right down the property line,
that would alleviate a lot of his problems. I know this is a dollars and cents issue on the
developer's plate. However, the develop lives is San Mateo, California, he doesn't live
here. He has no stake to what the result is. We have a stake in the result of what the
subdivision produces. You know, I know what he paid for the property, because I knew
the previous owner quite well. He's making plenty of money off this subdivision, let me
tell you. The road -- the other alternative as a suggestion would be that entrance off of
Victory is flipflopping that so the cul-de-sac's towards the Sasser's residence and put
that straight road connected up to that one on the west side. The reason being is you
put less houses against his property line, you know, with these cul-de-sacs and you
eliminate a couple lots, that might be helpful. I know that if you flipflop it will not project
into anybody's home, I don't believe. There might be --
Centers: Maybe you better refer to where you live, however.
DeAngelis: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 31 of 87
Centers: Where do you live on Los Altos?
DeAngelis: I am -- actually, I abut up to -- about right here.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
DeAngelis: But the impact is still the same as far as all the traffic issues.
Centers: I understand that.
DeAngelis: And we had lifestyle issues.
Centers: What I wanted to address while I think of it, where are we contiguous with the
city limits of Meridian right now? It would be on Eagle Road, wouldn't it, Steve? Well, I
can see my opinion right now, they are not going to start on Victory Road, in my opinion,
because I have seen other applicants denied for that. They are going to have to start on
Eagle Road based on other decisions made by the City Council. Wouldn't you agree?
Borup: Not if everything's annexed. Once it's annexed it's in the city.
Centers: Well, we have -- they denied -- they denied Tuscany Lakes for that same
reason last year.
Zaremba: As one of the reasons for denial.
Centers: One of the reasons for denial was their phase of the build out did not start
contiguous with the existing city. So, anyway, thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Centers is right, the -- there has been some precedent
set for those types of denials. This project, the portion of it that is contiguous with
existing city limit, is planned to be built out as the office and commercial portion of it, but
not the residential portion, so I would just -- and they are planning to do the -- they don't
have a current demand projection for the office commercial use and they are planning
to do that later.
DeAngelis: You have to understand, too, on the L-O, to keep in mind -- and I'm sure
you're quite well aware, because you have to be part of the decision making about
Silverstone and El Dorado, you know, you have 80 acres with L-O to be put in at
Silverstone, El Dorado I'm not too sure, but I --
Centers: Eighty-five.
DeAngelis: It's 85 acres. Okay. How much square footage is going in there? Half a
million square feet on each? 400,000 square feet? I don't know. You probably know that
better than I do, because you folks listen to the presentations to it. However, you know,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 32 of 87
so I think as far as L-O ever being viable out of that subdivision is going to be really
questionable long term. It's hard to tell.
Centers: That's their decision.
DeAngelis: I understand that. You know, I'd rather see it develop as residential. You
know, personal opinion I think that that's good, keep the commercial L-O onto the
corner type properties where you have the main part of Overland and Eagle and maybe
leave the residential areas alone back there. I'd like you to at least try to keep that in the
back of your mind a little bit. I think that would make it a lot easier and a lot more
palatable to the people in the surrounding areas. I know it probably would be even to
the people in the Thousand Springs that would have to look across at all the light
pollution and the rest of it that would come from that L-O, which would be right across
the street from them. Maybe to talk a little bit about our subdivision, one of the things -- I
was talking to the lady and gentleman here, you know, we talked about the fill issue
before -- sorry I don't know your names. Papenfuss. They were the ones that -- they
were watching the fill being done and that was a week's worth of big belly dumps for a
week's length of time, hauling and dumping that fill, which one of those big belly dumps
they carry a heck of a lot of dirt and they can move a heck of a lot of dirt in a very short
period of time. So a lot of dirt was put there. That ditch that was raised up, you know, I
go back to the Girdner's time, that ditch was added afterwards, because he wanted to
be able to irrigate some of his land. That was done somewhere I think in the late '80s
and they did raise it up so he could take advantage of some of the water that came
through our ditch out of our subdivision and that's how that raised up area became the
way it was. Another thing, you know, as far as Rancho Los Altos, we'd like to have, you
know, still like to see that pond, which is -- and not be filled and be part of their open
space plan. It does provide a lot of wildlife. It provides, you know, a significant amenity
-- whenever you have got water -- I mean if any of you have tried to buy land which
abuts to water or had water around it, you know, the price doubles immediately, you
know. I did that in McCall, paid dearly for it. So, you know, to me that's just another
selling point, you know, to enhance it. I do believe the last lot that sold in Rancho Los
Altos was sold I think back in the late '80s, sold for well over 100,000 dollars. That was
two acres. So there is -- you know, I figure at this point, you know, if they wanted to
make anything adjacent to us that was a similar transition, they could get very good
dollars for it, very good dollars, because our properties would enhance theirs. One of
the other things about the transition, you know, I do believe that, you know, I like the
idea of the single stories, you know, so that we don't have blocking of the views of the
Boise front. I think all of our people would like to see that happen, so at least they have
some sort of a view left to them. I think that would be considerate to them. I think that's
just about it. You know, the whole transition would be on that and, last, but not least, is
on the North Knapp Lane on the bridge across that thing, is the developer -- are they
going to put money in escrow to cover that? Are you going to require them to put money
in escrow?
Borup: For the bridge?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 33 of 87
DeAngelis: Yes.
Borup: They already testified to that.
DeAngelis: They would? Okay. Because that would be an important issue there in
moving that traffic out. Once again, just more the case of whatever your decision is, we
know that the City Council will probably support it and go along with it and which they
rely on your opinions -- well, they rely on you guys' opinion, come on. You guys are
more of an expert than they are. So I'm hopeful that -- you know, if you will consider
some of our concerns, even though we are county and a little bit disenfranchised as far
as being Meridian citizens, or Boise citizen's, for that matter, we are kind of in limbo,
but, anyway, I want you to think about it, you know, as far as what kind of a legacy to
you want to leave out in this area and I think, you know, what do you want to see down
the road. I do believe that they could have come up with a much better development
than what we see here in front of us and probably much better usage. But I would like
to see the transition between the two as far as -- and the neighbors there would like is
to see that as far as the lot sizes that may be abutting two acres, you know.
Borup: Okay, sir. We need to wrap it up. You're repeating yourself.
DeAngelis: I know. Okay. If you have any questions.
Borup: Any questions? Thank you, sir.
Centers: Appreciate it. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Roundy: Mine will be real short. I just wanted to --
Borup: State your name and address for the record, ma'am.
Roundy: My name is Joyce Roundy, 4178 Los Altos Drive. I just want some
clarification. Mr. Fluke -- may I direct my questions to him or must I go through you?
Borup: You can ask us a question and we will ask him.
Roundy: Okay. I live on Los Altos Drive and it's on the east side of -- on the south --
yeah. Right in there. And I think he mentioned that they were going to agree to keep the
homes at one level; is that correct? Is that -- thank you. And as well the density there is
going to be 1.9 residences per acre; is that correct as well?
Centers: Well, that wouldn't -- no. The lot sizes are larger along here.
Roundy: But not that large.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 34 of 87
Centers: 1.9 was not --
Roundy: No, I didn't mean 1.9 acres, I mean --
Centers: 1.9 homes per acre. That would be an average of an area --
Roundy: About a half acre lot.
Centers: If I recall, these were going to be 12 -- ten to 12 thousand square foot lots?
Roundy: I don't understand square feet, how --
Centers: Size.
Roundy: I know, but in terms of acres.
Shreeve: Well, what it would be is roughly 10,000 would be about a quarter of an acre.
Roundy: Only a quarter of an acre?
Centers: That's a large lot.
Shreeve: And 12,000, of course, roughly gets you close to a third. Less than a third.
Roundy: Okay. Then I guess I would like request they be half acre lots. Ours are at
least three along there -- we own two acres, next to us on the east is -- Pressman's
have three acres on our -- I'm sorry, that was west. And on our east two acres and
beyond that another two to three acres bordering right up against that area which you
indicated. If we could have two situations on those lots, that what I'm requesting, half
acre size or 1.9 residences per acre, and one level. Now I know at one time Mr. Fluke
said that's too much to ask a resident, but may I point out that those are two very
compatible requirements. My observation is that people want to build on one level if
they have enough land. They don't build up until they don't have enough land and if
they want square footage the only way to build is up. So those are my requests and I
think that they are not unreasonable. I want to put my two cents for the Sassers. I, too,
think that they should not have all those homes abutting up against them. I believe that
the entryway should be against them, no matter what the developer has to do and I
know that they have the capability to do that. I know that this man is not going to go into
the poor house if he reduces a few homes along the Sassers. Maybe the Sasser's
home will be worth a great deal when he moves, but what about the quality of his life
while he's there? That's what we are thinking. Yes, we have large lots, too, and we may
get good money when we move, but we are thinking about quality of life now. We are
going to be there a long time we hope. I, too, would like to object to the limited office
and commercial property zoning on Eagle. Again, the traffic and I don't believe there is
any need for it there. And then my last -- this is my last. I -- forgive my ignorance, but I
don't know how these things work. What is our assurance that the things we talk about
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 35 of 87
and are recommended or agreed to in a meeting like this, that they are really going to
happen? I mean that's not a challenge, it's a true question. I don't know what -- how do
we know? We have just been through another major subdivision where we were told
one thing one year, we come back a couple years later, we have to go through it again,
and now we are going through it a third time, it doesn't happen just because we agree
to it. What is --
Borup: The agreement doesn't take place until the very end when everything's -- when
everything has been decided and that's what both parties have to agree to.
Roundy: Both meaning the --
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman --
Zaremba: That question may be a method question, it's by listing the agreement --
Siddoway: I may be able to shed some light from the city's perspective. After this -- the
project conditions are decided at the City Council level --
Roundy: Is that here or -- City Council, not here.
Siddoway: That's the next one. This is the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
Planning and Zoning Commission makes a formal recommendation to the City Council,
it then goes to the City Council, their decision is put into a legal document called
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Those Findings and Conclusions are used
when we go out and do inspections. First of all, we look for those improvements to all
be planned properly and require bonding for those improvements before signature on
the final plat and then the city holds money in order to have some surety that the
required improvements will be done. Upon their completion we go out and inspect them
and we do not release their building permits until the city is satisfied that all their
conditions are met.
Roundy: And how about -- I don't know. This goes in stages, so can the property owner,
Sutherland Farms, make changes in the last stage before he begins it?
Borup: Not significant changes, no.
Roundy: Oh.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I may add to Steve's comments. As Steve said, this board
is a recommending body to the City Council. There are no guarantees that the City
Council is going to accept the recommendation carte blanche. They may make
changes, that's why it is important for you to follow the project through to the City
Council. They are the final say on an application. They set the final conditions.
Roundy: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 36 of 87
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: The advantage to that is that there will be hearings like this before the City
Council as well and anything that we leave out of your recommendations, you can
defend when in their hearings.
Borup: Come on up, sir.
Watson: I'm Robert Watson. I live at 4200 Los Altos Drive, so I'm the neighbor to the
east of the lady that just spoke. I guess the question that I had is how concerned is the
Planning and Zoning about trying to make some transitions between some of these
areas? Certainly you went through this same discussion with Muir Wood and they
decided it was in their interest as well to make some of those lots along the back side of
the Los Altos Subdivision much longer than the standard ones and as a result I think we
got some much larger and nicer homes in there and my guess is if you look at the look
finances involved, there seems to be enough premium in the large lot size in this valley
that I'm not sure they lost anything in the process of doing that. If you look at some of
the other high end subdivisions going in, large lots are selling for at least twice as much
as lots half that size, so I'm not sure that there is really an economic disadvantage to
doing it and all of us, of course, who are neighbors there would like to see a more
consistent transition between some of these areas, so that you don't end up with one
house boarded by four small houses in its backyard, and I think that makes the areas
look a lot more compatible and certainly I don't think it's as much an economic issue as
the developer would have us think it is. They would like to see very very small lot sizes,
I think the comment was 10,000 square feet is a large lot. I don't think if you start
looking at a lot of the -- particularly the mid size, the upper end developments that that's
considered a very large lot. That's a pretty small lot.
Borup: I think Commissioner Centers was saying from the perspective of us sitting here
for the last several years and seeing thousands of lots come before us.
Watson: Yeah.
Centers: That's a quarter acre. That's a large lot. It may not be a large lot to you when
you live on three or four acres, but it's a large lot in a subdivision.
Watson: See, that's my point. There are a lot of subdivisions going in and I think Muir
Wood is a good example where they felt like that transition between those kind of areas
was in their best interest to both sides to try and get those things -- the lot sizes up and,
of course, you get a little nicer homes, so they are more compatible in that regard as
well. So I put in a strong vote for trying to get a better, more consistent transition
between those two areas. Obviously, I have got an interest at stake, because I'm going
to have about four houses in my backyard and -- more like one, two, three, four -- yeah,
at least four, maybe five in my backyard and it would certainly be nice to see that
number cut down. I think they will be nicer homes and get a better transition. So I don't
know what your philosophy on that is, but I think it would be much better to make those
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 37 of 87
lot sizes larger also and I'm not sure of the economic issue that this development has, I
think they are going for a high enough price to justify it. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Unless there is someone else, I think that concludes the public testimony. Did
the applicant have some concluding remarks? We had a couple of questions, I think.
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Daren Fluke again, JUB Engineers. I'd just like to kind
of wrap things up for you and address some of the issues that have been raised by
some of the neighbors. With regard to traffic, this development is in a pretty unique
position. There are road improvements that are programmed for the five year work
program on almost every intersection surrounding the section, the square mile that this
development sits in. Overland and Eagle is scheduled for improvement here in just the
next year or two. The stretch of Overland from Eagle to Cloverdale is scheduled for
improvement, as well as the Cloverdale and Overland intersection. The intersection of
Victory and Cloverdale is scheduled to be improved, widened, and have a traffic signal
added and Eagle Road itself is scheduled, but not funded currently for the five year
plan, but it will be, because ACHD basically makes road improvements after
development comes in. That's what the impact fees that are generated by this
development are used for. So transportation system wise, we are really in a pretty good
position. I would point out that the traffic study did say 12,400 trips generated from this
development. I'd just like you to realize that that's a worst case scenario. That's the
most intensive that we could develop this. Of those 12,000 that they thought might
come from this development, fully 8,000 of those come from these five lots right here,
which is commercial and which will exit by Copperpoint Way to Eagle Road and
eventually to Overland Road to the north as well as this land develops here. So that's
fully half -- or I mean two-thirds of the trips that would be generated from the entire
development coming from that small little area. And, again, that's the worst case
scenario. It's likely it won't be generating nearly that many trips, so --
Borup: The residential portion should be somewhere around 3,000 or so trips?
Fluke: That's right. The residential will generate about 2,100 trips. The office about
2,300. So traffic looks -- the numbers look big, but the system improvements are there
or are programmed to accommodate what we want to do and that is unique in my
experience. Usually ACHD is way behind development as far as getting the roads up to
standard. Regarding the buffer or the transition between the different land uses, or the
different lot sizes, I just want to point out that we are not putting commercial uses next
to residential uses here, we are putting residential next to residential and I understand
that the neighbors would like to have larger lots next to their larger lots, but I think this
Commission knows that the City of Meridian has a significant investment in
infrastructure. We have got sewer and water out here, we have roads. This is an urban
type development in a growing urban area and where you have your infrastructure is
where you want the people to live. When you have sewer and water and urban
standard roads, you don't want to create one or half acre lots, because it doesn't make
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 38 of 87
efficient use of that infrastructure that you spent so much money on building and
maintaining. This is what your comp plan calls for is a mix of land uses with higher
densities even than we have proposed. We net out at about three units per the acre and
the comp plan would really like to see up to six to eight units to the acre in this area, I
think, perhaps even more under the new comp plan. So this is where Meridian is going.
I certainly understand the concerns of the neighbors, because when their subdivision
was platted, you know, two to four acre lots made sense. All you had to do was put
down 24 feet of asphalt and create some lots and you were done. You didn't have an
investment in storm drains, you didn't have street lights, curb, gutter, and sidewalks,
sewer and water lines and all other things that come along with living in the city. So I
mean this is what Meridian has looked for in this area. I think we have put together a
development here that complies well with what the city is looking for and we would just
ask for your approval of what we have drawn up here and I would be happy to take any
questions you might have.
Borup: Commissioners?
Centers: Yeah. I have questions. Where do you plan the single level homes? Use your
pointer.
Fluke: We will put them wherever you want us to put them, but we think it's only
appropriate here along Los Altos and then for the Sassers and their neighbor here. Just
let me point out that these are larger lots, so they are off their lot lines a good distance.
These lots are fully 110 deep by 110 feet side, so they are 12,000 square foot lots at a
minimum. You have got a 20 foot front setback. Everybody builds to the front setback,
because they don't want a big long driveway, so the houses are going to be, you know,
60, 70 feet from the rear property line.
Centers: I think you heard Mr. Sasser's comment and he was a perfect gentleman. In
fact, I think he's more agreeable than most people here tonight and he had other people
speaking for him after he was done. But he said he would certainly appreciate single
level homes here. Would you be agreeable to that?
Fluke: Yeah. Absolutely. We don't --
Centers: As a matter of fact, you would be agreeable to single level homes along this
border all the way around to here.
Fluke: Well, we'd like to specify the lots where -- you know, where it's needed, but more
or less, yes. We have committed to preserve those view corridors to the north. I don't
know that it's necessary for every single lot, but we will do it wherever it's necessary.
And we will provide you the documentation, you know, for where it is necessary based
on home sites. If it turns out -- we did some preliminary looking at the location of the
homes and where our homes were going to be and, you know, for sure it made sense in
this area. We can certainly do that for Sassers and I forgot to mention that, you're right,
he has been very nice to deal with and we appreciate that. We will also put in the
CC&R's that we have a higher setback. Again, these lots are 110 feet deep as well. But
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 39 of 87
we will specify in there that, you know, to keep the structures off of that line, a bigger
distance than what the minimum rear setback is, which I think is 15 feet.
Centers: Along the Sasser property you mean?
Fluke: Yes.
Centers: What's the normal rear setback?
Fluke: Fifteen.
Centers: Fifteen? So you would to go to what?
Fluke: We could go -- 110 feet deep, we could go, what, 40 feet? Twenty-five?
Borup: That's more reasonable, especially if you limit it to single family -- I mean single
level, the homes are going to be spread out more and your --
Centers: Rear setback.
Fluke: I mean at 110 feet wide, these -- you only have five foot side setbacks, these lots
are big enough to accommodate a single story home.
Centers: I didn't speak out of turn when I said everything is going to be fenced around
here, did I?
Fluke: No.
Centers: Completely around the project?
Fluke: Yes. We are require to fence the entire perimeter.
Centers: What type of fencing were we talking?
Fluke: I believe the code specifies six foot cedar fence.
Siddoway: The code itself is not specific, but that's typically what we see.
Centers: Would you be agreeable to let Mr. Sasser and the adjoining homeowners
along Los Altos to be involved in the selection of a fence?
Fluke: Well, I suppose to --
Centers: I know that vinyl fencing is more expensive, but it sure is attractive. You know,
we are trying to get a middle ground here. I tend to agree with you, it's tough to have a
transition from three acre parcels to half acre or one acre, because where do you draw
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 40 of 87
the line and we have R-8 next to R-4 and etc., but it would be nice to have some
agreement or some pleased -- halfway pleased neighbors.
Fluke: I don't disagree and the only thing I would say is that it's difficult if you want a
uniform type fence around the perimeter you have got -- if we have a dozen neighbors,
we have got an dozen opinions on what looks good. I have been at hearings where
people wanted Cyclone fences and I personally don't like vinyl, so --
Centers: And I guess Sasser and the Los Altos homeowners could decide among
themselves on the fence and the majority rules. I mean there is folks that will tell you we
agree on this fence along the Sasser property line and the remainder of the property
abutting Los Altos. Let them as a group pick the style of fence.
Zaremba: The end result being that there is only style of fence.
Centers: Yes. Let them pick one style. Because I agree with you, you can't have a mix
and match.
Fluke: I suppose that my reaction to that is it would be difficult to write a condition that
pleases all parties. I mean would it -- if they wanted a block fence with wrought iron on
the top would we have to do that? I mean that --
Centers: That's a good point and I think that's unreasonable.
Fluke: Yeah. And that's where the difficulties comes.
Centers: I guess I'm thinking that it's, you know, cedar or vinyl.
Mathes: The homes in Muir Wood, what do they have? The ones that abut to your
property?
Fluke: They have individually fenced theirs and I think it primarily is six foot cedar
fencing, if I'm not mistaken. Muir Wood. And they have done it on an individual basis lot
by lot.
Borup: So Muir Wood did not put a perimeter fence in their subdivision? Okay.
Fluke: I thought I had seen different styles of fencing along that border, but I --
Borup: Okay. We didn't get the testimony on, but the statement was that Muir Woods
did put up perimeter fencing by the developer and they had some wrought iron along
the canal. Okay. Did you finish, Jerry? Did that answer your questions?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Anyone else?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 41 of 87
Shreeve: But just -- and this is just simply a repeat of the last comment, but the
Papenfusses, the entrance off of Easy Jet, you indicated that you would provide them
an access to their property?
Fluke: Absolutely.
Shreeve: And, Mr. Chairman, I neglected to ask Mr. Watson or Mrs. Roundy whether or
not they would be agreeable to a berm on their property.
Borup: I don't believe --
Shreeve: If one or the other or both could just simply say if they would be willing to
share a berm 12 feet on your side of the property or if you would like a berm. You need
to come up to the mike. If that's even a possibility or what?
Watson: Well, I just thought about it for five minutes, but, no, I'm not very interested in
seeing a berm back there.
Fluke: Okay
Watson: In fact, I have got a little orchard and some other things and I'd have to move
trees and cut them down or do some other things.
Shreeve: So you would --
Watson: Simply prefer not to have a berm.
Shreeve: Okay.
Centers: Same with Roundy? Yeah.
Shreeve: Okay.
Borup: Anything else, Commissioners? Daren, one question I had back on the traffic
and I'm not sure what was proposed for the entrance off of Victory. Is there going to be
a -- is there a center left turn lane?
Fluke: We will have three lanes on our leg.
Borup: Okay.
Fluke: ACHD did not require a center turn lane on Victory Road and I think it was
because --
Borup: Of the amount of traffic?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 42 of 87
Fluke: Yeah. This is slated to carry the least amount of traffic. The brunt of it comes
here. There is about 100 homes in here that would be built in the first three phases or
so and so your -- you know, it's maybe 1,000 trips until Easy Jet gets built.
Zaremba: That was mentioned by one of the speakers. I looked through ACHD's
comments for any comment about it at all and the only thing I see is that you're required
to dedicate 48 feet of right of way from the center line of Victory Road on your side.
They don't say that that's ever going to be paved. That may be ten years from now
before they do anything with it, but at least you're having to dedicate some area where
there will be lanes available.
Fluke: Yeah. The 96 foot of right of way would be typical for a five lane arterial and this
is designated as a minor arterial.
Borup: They are just making sure the preservation is there.
Zaremba: Yeah. They are requiring you to leave part of that on your side available.
Centers: Just like you buy a plot ahead of time.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? David, did you have anymore?
Zaremba: No. I'm done. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay, Commissioners, at least one of the items we -- I think
we handled earlier.
Centers: Would it be appropriate to close the Public Hearing?
Borup: Unless --
Centers: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do you want to start with the staff report and recommendations? That would be
a good place to start. Unless the Commission would like to start somewhere else.
Shreeve: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make just one comment. There are several
issues, but probably at least in my opinion I'd have to admit probably the single biggest
issue is the Sasser property. I personally believe that -- I guess I don't like all the lots
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 43 of 87
abutting his, bluntly and simply put. No other way to put it. If there are some other
alignments, if the developer loses one or two lots -- certainly, you know, we are here to
help him as much as we can develop his property, but we also need to take into account
the Sasser's property rights and opinions and thoughts and I just think that once the
developer develops it and he's gone, you're right, the Sassers are always going to be
there and so, therefore, I am not happy with the layout mainly -- that's probably the
single biggest issue in my mind is the number of lots abutting his property.
Borup: I have been thinking about that and trying to decide what I would want if I was
living there and I'm not so sure I wouldn't rather have a lot up against my property, other
than a road with all that traffic driving by.
Centers: I agree.
Borup: I don't know if the Sassers have thought about those consequences, but there is
a lot more noise and disturbance and people throwing garbage out their windows and
that kind of that stuff that comes from having a road there.
Shreeve: Well, but certainly we talked about last time, as I recall, that there would be
some kind of a landscape buffer there, too, so certainly as things are thrown out of the
car, you know, somebody has to chuck it pretty good to get it on the property.
Borup: Do you have a comment, Steve?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, during the discussion I took the liberty of taking a look at what
would happen if that area was reversed and flipped around. I'm not convinced it's better
and I'll tell you why. One reason is -- what we had before is -- if you -- there were one,
two, three, four, five, six, seven lots abutting this property along that side. Under this
configuration there are one, two, three, four, five, six. So there is one less. So it does
reduce the number of lots abutting by one. It also creates this as a straight through shot
to Victory, which if I flip back --
Centers: Well, a homeowner would be directly across, too, if I recall, Steve.
Siddoway: Yeah. This is more circuitous, which keeps this from becoming a collector
with front-on housing and -- so just for the sake of discussion, that's what happens
when you try and reverse that. I'd also point out that the lot in this corner here is
unaccessible with the -- you'd have to knuckled the road or something to get some
frontage to that. But that's just simply taking what's there and flipflopping it.
Shreeve: And that's my argument. If they have to lose a lot -- you know, I don't know,
I'm certainly not against anybody making a profit, certainly, but if that's what needs to be
done, that's always a possibility, too.
Borup: But there is only one less lot.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 44 of 87
Shreeve: And, of course, you bleed that into a couple other lots making those a
smidgen bigger and, you know, there, again, it's been said on both sides of the mike
that larger lots do have their market, too. But, nevertheless, that's my --
Centers: So what you're saying, Commissioner Shreeve, is you're actually saying that
you would like the developer to lose these lots period.
Shreeve: Well --
Centers: Rather than Steve's model of flipping it, which was the proposal at our last
meeting what would happen if they flipped it.
Shreeve: Well, or -- well, I guess there is a couple things. Another opinion could be
moving the road to the boundary, making a cul-de-sac to the sides longer and basically
transition those lots -- now, again, they will probably lose a lot or two, I don't know, but
my second thought is that the developer, via the engineer, didn't even show the Sassers
potential layouts, didn't even show them potential options to see if they would like a
road abutting their property, to -- you know, whatever the case may be and I'm sure that
they did the evaluation, I'm sure they did the drafting and looked at it, but the Sassers
did not have the opportunity to at least consider having a road adjacent to their property
or whatever the options may have been.
Centers: Well, then they had to look at the other options if they did move the road, then
this person here across Victory Road is going to get the headlights. You put the road
here, the same problem with another homeowner. So it's --
Shreeve: Well, but you could knuckle in the road -- I guess the thing is -- and according
to what they have said is they did look at it, I just think it's interesting for the Sassers in
particular, but maybe even on our end to have seen maybe what the options potentially
might have been and what the impact might have been. You know, certainly I don't want
to impose an unharsh impact on a developer, but, again, on the same token, I'm against
imposing a hardship back on the Sassers, too.
Zaremba: Well, I personally am sharing in the pain that the Sassers must be feeling
about this as well, even looking at it, and I'm not sure that it helps me necessarily be
more comfortable with it to change it from the 14 lots backing up to them to 13 lots,
unless there were some plan where they only four or five neighbors all the way around
them, I'm not sure we are transitioning enough for them. It's kind of a tearing feeling,
because I think this is a useful project and the direction that Meridian wants to go in that
area, but we are faced with the fact of at this point the Sassers and all the others are
out in the country and in two minutes they won't be.
Shreeve: Right. Well, I agree that having a long property -- you know, certainly they are
not going to go from seven down to one neighbor, they are certainly going to have some
neighbors or a road abutting, but I think -- and according to -- I guess based upon the
testimony of Daren -- hopefully I'm going to be quoting him somewhat correctly, anyway,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 45 of 87
but they looked at alternate possibilities, but they ended up losing a couple of lots. Now
what those scenarios were we don't know, but hypothetically speaking the loss of a
couple lots, you know, to certainly help whatever kind of transition on his along this
property -- you know, 20 years from now -- yeah, it's a big issue now, but 20 years from
now the Sassers will still be living there.
Borup: Didn't you also say the lot sizes got smaller? Which we --
Shreeve: They got smaller to try to keep the same number of lots.
Borup: Right. That's what it was.
Shreeve: They didn't necessarily lose a number of lots.
Borup: I don't know. Which means those are going to be smaller lots and smaller homes
and homes of lesser value abutting their property then.
Shreeve: Well, that's what I'm saying is I think probably when it's all said and done
probably the biggest concern is the Sassers just didn't get a chance to look at whatever
the alternatives were, the options were. But, there again, the lots were reduced to keep
the same number of lots. You know, you maybe lose a lot, you increase everybody's
size proportionally -- all I can say is it's clearly the developer would be impacted, but are
not the Sassers impacted as well the way it is.
Centers: He's going to be impacted anyway you look at it, but I think the developer, you
know, has agreed to 25 foot setbacks, rather than the 15. The Sassers sit 50 feet, that's
75 feet from a single level home and I'm prepared to force single level all the way
around here and here, all the way around here. The applicant said something about we
agree to that more or less. I didn't like those terms. But I think we can very specific on
single level all the way around and with no more or less. I mean it would be specific, we
wouldn't even have to the name lot numbers or block numbers, just name the boundary.
I see where you're coming from, Commissioner Shreeve, I do, but I also think back to
Mr. Sasser, as I said, he was a true gentleman. I think other people were more
concerned for his situation than he is. That's what I gathered. And I think -- that's the
way I viewed it.
Zaremba: I'm not sure we are finished with that thought, but let's give it a rest for a
moment and talk about the phasing in relation to the annexation and zoning. The City
Council has a history of saying the phasing has to start where ever -- where ever the
property line qualifies this for annexation in the first place, the phasing needs to start
from there and let's have a little discussion on that.
Centers: They did on one specific project and that was one of three reasons to deny the
project. I guess I would be prepared to say if this is the way they want to phase it out
and the City Council agrees to it knowing they had --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 46 of 87
Zaremba: Previously not agreed.
Centers: Exactly. Then I guess that's up to the City Council and as we have before, we
would pass the buck to them.
Shreeve: I would concur with that. If they set the precedence, let them be the enforcers
of that.
Centers: Exactly. I'm not going to enforce it for them. There was one -- talking about the
staff report, Chairman Borup, page four, Mr. Freckleton I think talks about available fire
flows and pressures will not be adequate to serve the commercial office, multi-family
area subdivision at the present time. I think we need to -- any motion there would mean
that building permits would be held on the commercial area until the Silverstone project
is complete and that area can be serviced. Page five of the staff report. We talked about
the stub streets. I guess I'm just going forward and give my opinion, I agree with the
audience. I'm sorry, staff, I can't agree with -- with you on that and you heard my
opinion. That's going to make Muir Wood happy and they are our neighbor. You know,
won't be in the city.
Zaremba: We do invite you to apply for annexation, however.
Freckleton: Commissioner Centers?
Centers: Yes.
Freckleton: If you're formulating a motion in your mind, if I could just jump in. On the fire
flow issue, I would rather not make it specific to the Silverstone, I would rather -- I would
rather leave it that until available fire flows are -- well, until fire flows are available to the
site.
Borup: Because you are looking at other well sites that could affect this area.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Does that make sense?
Centers: Yeah.
Borup: So essentially the same way that staff has it written.
Centers: Well -- and the other comment that I wanted to make and -- it would apply to
the next applicant on tonight's agenda. A lot of talk about the traffic, there is always a lot
of talk about the schools, even police and fire department. You cannot build roads
ahead of time. You cannot build schools ahead of time. You cannot buy squad cars and
hire policemen ahead of time. Same way with the fire department. It's always a catch-up
situation. I think the area has done a good job in catching up, but it's a constant catch
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 47 of 87
up and thank God we have that problem. I'll tell you about an area in Alaska where my
daughter lives. Of course, they have a lot of oil money, so they built schools ahead of
time and two sat vacant for four years. The same way -- the same thing could happen
with roads. You know, you build roads and spend money and you don't have the traffic,
you just don't do it ahead of time, so --
Zaremba: Even if they are not used you still have the maintenance budget starting.
Centers: Exactly. Right. Anyway, I'm done.
Borup: Did we have new wording on the statement on the fire flow? Staff alludes to
that, but they did kind of not word that probably what it needs to be. Perhaps a better
wording would have been that the commercial office development would not be able to
be developed until it has fire flow. Is that -- Mr. Freckleton, is that close to what -- the
easiest way to say that?
Centers: And hold the building permits until that time, obviously. Hold building permits
until adequate fire flow.
Borup: That looks like it's probably not going to be a problem from the phasing they are
talking about. I mean the development and the planned well coming on line. I don't
know if there is any other staff comments that need to be addressed for the other things
that -- maybe any other conditional, things that the Commission wanted to add?
Centers: I'd like to hear from Commissioner Mathes.
Mathes: About what?
Borup: What you'd like to add.
Mathes: I'd like to see larger lots, but I don't think that's going to happen.
Zaremba: Well, to go back to that subject, I'm a little bit disappointed that this
Commission suggested that the applicant visit having fewer lots, particularly along the
Sasser's property line and the answer to that was, well, we looked and, no, we are not
going to do it. I still would like to see some of the options. I agree with what has been
stated by some of the others, larger lots do still sell, and in an area where it can be a
transition there must be a way to design them into that area. The difficulty I have is I'm
probably 90 percent in favor of this project and I like many of the -- I like the attitudes
that the applicant has taken in trying to solve 90 percent of the problems that have
come along and I hate to keep getting hitched on this one problem, but if I were the
Sassers I would go home crying and my difficulty is I think I would like to see something
that has fewer properties abutting theirs.
Mathes: Especially if they are putting single family homes on there. The bigger lots are
going to get bigger homes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 48 of 87
Borup: The other aspect of that is the entrance lots coming into the subdivision are not
as desirable on a larger home as something back with less traffic and there is definitely
going to be traffic on that entrance and those are not as salable lots, those aren't the
ones I would be interested in buying and to double the size of those lots is not going to
double the value. Right now there are some very large lots, which is going to probably
max out what you can do there. I don't know. Even though we will be surprised at what
the market will do, but --
Shreeve: I'd just like to echo the last comment, that I think 90 percent is -- I think that
the property owners, for the most part, have been very agreeable. I think the applicant
has been very agreeable. There is that ten percent that I'm just hung up on and, frankly,
unless there is other discussion, I would be willing to make a motion and --
Borup: The ten percent is bothering you?
Shreeve: The ten percent. Unless --
Borup: Are all our recommendations a hundred percent?
Shreeve: Well, I guess --
Borup: We wouldn't be making many if that was the case.
Centers: I guess I thought I was done, but I'm not. As the applicant said, these are
12,000 square feet. That is a huge lot. And as the applicant stated -- and it's just fact, I
mean the Comp Plan would allow about a third more lots in this whole area. It would
allow it. And the Comp Plan -- and the new Comp Plan maybe more than that. I don't
think it's our place to dictate to a developer that you must have larger lots, because they
abut a property owner that happens to live on two or three acres that has been there for
years. I understand that. But -- and the one individual stated that the developer here
and the owner of the land was going to make a ton of money, I don't begrudge them of
that and what he paid for it -- if he bought it for 1,000 and is making ten million, more
power to him. That's like someone that wins the lottery and you begrudge them. More
power to them. I just can't sit here and tell the developer you got to have larger lots,
because they happen to adjoin a subdivision that has been there in the county for years
on two and three acre lots. I'm not -- especially when it meets all of our guidelines and
then some, and we can't hear from Mr. Sasser again, but I think the concessions that
we got from Mr. Sasser have -- it appeared satisfied him, you know, with the fence and
the single level homes and 25 foot setbacks and I don't know if the other people are
putting words into his mouth or we are trying to, but I don't think we are being
unreasonable. I'm done now.
Borup: Maybe.
Centers: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 49 of 87
Borup: I just took up on your statement about the -- what this Commission can or
cannot do based on city ordinance and our Comp Plan and I like the idea of some
transition between other subdivisions, but it's not based -- it's not based on city
ordinance -- we talked about buffering between unlike uses, not like uses. So it's not
really anything as far as zoning ordinance that -- and the development has -- the larger
lots are against those properties and their overall density is way less than what the
Comp Plan or the zoning would allow for. I don't know where you draw the line. You do
or don't?
Shreeve: I do agree. Yeah.
Borup: So some -- you know, some transition is definitely appropriate, but how far do
we -- how far do we bring that? Normally, you know, a ten, 12 thousand foot lot has a
fairly expensive home built on it. I guess the overall project is what's going to determine
how housing prices go.
Centers: Yeah. It's not a Three Rivers -- or Two Rivers.
Borup: Or even One River.
Centers: It's not that type of project.
Mathes: Can you put basements on these homes?
Borup: Pardon?
Mathes: Basements on these homes?
Borup: The engineer is indicating yes. Okay. Are we ready to try to put a motion
together?
Centers: We are, but it depends on who is going to support it, let's be honest about it.
Shreeve: Well, mine would be to deny it and, therefore, my motion would be the
simplest, and so we will -- I'll put that on the floor and if it's put down, then we will go for
a more lengthier motion.
Centers: Well, let's discuss that. Why do you want to deny the project? Because it
doesn't have large lots along one border? Is that your sole --
Shreeve: Yeah. That's mainly it. I guess -- and I don't believe, contrary to your opinion,
that I'm putting words into Mr. Sasser's mouth, by virtue of I think there are options that
were drawn by the engineer that I'm sure were great or maybe not so good options, but
I would like to have had at the very least Mr. Sasser been able to have evaluated those
to assess whether to have roads or property next to his property line would have been
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 50 of 87
good or bad or maybe both would have been bad, but somewhere there needed to be, I
believe, better communication, so at least Mr. Sasser could see that there were other
options that maybe weren't very good, this is the best we can do, great, because I
believe that you're not going to go from seven down to one lot, you're not going to do
that, there is no way, but to go from seven down to five -- and I'm just throwing a hat out
in the ringer, that certainly is better.
Borup: So it sounds like your rationale is not -- is that all options weren't looked at or we
didn't have a chance to look at all designs?
Shreeve: Well --
Borup: Not necessarily based on any –
Shreeve: And especially Mr. Sasser, not necessarily us, you know, necessarily, but
certainly I think Mr. Sasser, you know, should have had the opportunity to evaluate a
different option and, you know, when we talk about fencing, when we talk about single
house story, that's what I say, I think the negotiation and things that have gone on have
been great, certainly at least in my opinion, but I just -- when the development happens
and they are gone, Mr. Sasser is still there, and I just think that we have an obligation to
preserve his rights -- I don't know if it's rights as much as it is luxury -- I don't know what
a good word would be there, but certainly to be fair to his --
Zaremba: Quality of life.
Shreeve: Yeah. Certainly to consider his quality of life and not necessarily just be
narrow minded on the developer's --
Zaremba: If I can make a suggestion and have one more opinion here. I tend towards
Commissioner Shreeve's idea, but maybe not quite as extreme. I would be very
comfortable with continuing this matter for another month to our second meeting next
month, which is our usual continuance. The applicant has been so cooperative in so
many things, but I, like the others, are stuck on this one point. I hate to just flat tell them
no and have them start the whole process over, because they had cooperated.
Centers: They don't have to start the whole process over, they go to City Council and
appeal. It's that simple. Without our recommendation.
Zaremba: Or if we just continue it and they come back in a month having talked more
with the Sassers and showed them some other options.
Shreeve: I guess it would be a matter of what they would want to do. I think in some
cases they'd have to go to the Council.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 51 of 87
Centers: Yeah. And, therefore, without our recommendation. They start over at the
Council level and have nothing from the P&Z to go by. Just that simple. I can't speak for
the applicant, but I got to think that's right where they --
Zaremba: You're saying that continued -- if we continued it that would --
Centers: No. No. If it's denied.
Zaremba: No. I was suggesting that we don't deny it, that we continue it.
Shreeve: And I agree with that, as long as the applicant would agree, but it seems like
in days past when we have denied something, the applicant has decided to take his
chances at the City Council for the appeal and that should be their decision. It's their
decision.
Centers: What is the rationale to continue it? To see the drawings on this street and the
number of lots?
Shreeve: Well, again, at least my opinion, whether I see them or not, you know,
certainly I think it would be curiosity, but, again, for Mr. Sasser to evaluate -- and, again,
as Chairman Borup put, is it better to have lots or is it better to have a street? Again, the
other seven lots, I think they could reduce that down, a couple of them. Again, we are
not going to get down to one to one, and I think that is, obviously, very impractical, but I
think that there is some better transition, rather than seven to one, at least a five to one.
And whether it be the same layout, lots are just enlarged in some form or fashion or a
completely different layout and whether I see that layout, I don't know if I need to, as
much as I believe Mr. Sasser needs to evaluate -- you know, and the developer to come
to some kind of a realization, so Mr. Sasser in his testimony said, hey, this is the best
it's going to get, I'm happy with it, I think that's what I would be looking for.
Borup: Now to back up a little bit, did you ever make a motion or were you just talking
about making a motion?
Shreeve: Just talking about it.
Borup: Okay. We do not have a motion on the floor.
Centers: Just as a thought, too, you know, you have got four options, to deny it,
continue it -- or three options -- or four. Approve it and/or approve it with directions to
applicant that prior to City Council presentation he has met with Mr. Sasser and
discussed the other options and disclosed options to the City Council that could be
utilized or not utilized. So I guess there is four options. And to me I think that fourth
option that I just mentioned might be the remedy, we would take care of Mr. Sasser, we
wouldn't see it again, we wouldn't delay the project, and they would discuss with Mr.
Sasser and show him their other drawings that they didn't disclose and I agree with that
and show those to Council and take it from there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 52 of 87
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, from staff's perspective I believe that the Council does not
want it sent onto them with unresolved issues. I think it needs to be resolved one way or
another before sending it on, either to approve it specific conditions and send it on or
deny it or continue it, do one or the other.
Centers: They don't like it or --
Siddoway: They don't.
Borup: Or they won't accept it?
Centers: Right.
Borup: I think they have to accept it.
Centers: Sometimes we don't care if they don't like it, because our salary is not going
to be cut.
Freckleton: Ours may be if we don't --
Shreeve: Just to -- not to belabor this issue, but, there again, in trying to -- if the
developer is truly out for the number of lots and hypothetically he loses a couple of
them by virtue of some kind of different alignment there by the Sasser's property, we
talked about the density interior certainly can be increased, he can stretch out and pick
up a couple lots there. Granted, now the lots are smaller in size, but the comp plan, the
whole -- you know, there is many ways to skin a cat, but that's --
Borup: Right now we are -- a lot of this discussion is about whether Sassers want to
look at a new design. Mr. Sasser, could you just -- so we don't have to reopen the
Public Hearing, could you go tell staff whether you want to see new designs or whether
it makes any difference to you at this point?
Centers: Thank you, Chairman Borup.
Shreeve: Or maybe we are the best we can get.
Borup: While we are waiting, there has been a few people come in later. Utility
Subdivision, which was the next item, was continued to the June meeting. I don't know
if anyone is here that is still around for that.
Siddoway: Mr. Sasser indicated to me that he would prefer to have it continued and
have the opportunity to review an alternative layout with the developer.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 53 of 87
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we continue items 5, 6, and 7 on our agenda, AZ 02-004, PP 02-004,
CUP 02-005, all relating to Sutherland Farms, until our second meeting in June, which
is June 20th.
Centers: Regards to the Public Hearing, I think the Public Hearing could be closed, with
the exception Mr. Sasser?
Borup: Right now they are closed. It already is closed. We could open it up again.
Zaremba: Did we close it?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Yes. It's been closed.
Zaremba: Sorry.
Centers: Because I don't think we need to go through all of that again.
Borup: We could open it up again for testimony from the Sassers.
Centers: Right. So we will talk about it at that time.
Zaremba: I'll withdraw my motion and state it this way: I move that we table Items 5, 6,
and 7, AZ 02-004, PP 02-004, and CUP 02-005 to our second meeting in June, which,
again, is June 20th.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I think in order to get the testimony from Mr. Sasser and the
applicant it needs to be open, but I do believe the Commission can simply open it for
specific testimony and you can make that known.
Borup: We can open it now before --
Siddoway: I would open it now and leave it open for that specific testimony. We can
look to legal counsel for his opinion, but based on past experience that would be my
recommendation.
Borup: Rather than opening it at that time?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Any initial response from counsel?
Wollen: Not at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 54 of 87
Zaremba: Well, the maker of the motion would be willing to withdraw that motion again
and to offer a motion to rescind the closing of the Public Hearing.
Borup: Well, I think we can open it.
Zaremba: I think the sense of it is we want to give the opportunity to hear -- and I'm
confining my interest, really, to this section down here. I think we have solved
everything else -- that we do want to hear some more discussion on that, including
Sassers and how do we legally get that to our June 20th meeting.
Wollen: I believe that would be acceptable.
Zaremba: Rescind the closing of the hearing.
Wollen: No. No. To reopen at that time.
Borup: So we can table it and reopen it at that time.
Zaremba: And the motion to table would allow us to reopen it then.
Wollen: I believe so.
Zaremba: My motion to table these three item stands.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Centers: Well, with the intent to put them on our June 20th agenda. That's fine.
Zaremba: With notice that our main area of interest is going to be here.
Centers: And with notice to the audience that that would be our main area of interest
and really the only individual that we may take testimony from would be Mr. Sasser.
That's our intent.
Borup: Yes
Centers: All right.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure we are going the right way, my question to
the attorney would be if it is simply tabled tonight with a closed Public Hearing and then
we meet that night and we try to open it, can we reopen it without noticing it? I think it
would have to be noticed again under that scenario, but if we continue it tonight it would
not have to be renoticed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 55 of 87
Shreeve: Think you're right.
Wollen: That would be true.
Centers: And that's the way we have done it before, with restrictions on testimony. So
you want to take the motion on the floor?
Borup: We have not voted yet.
Zaremba: It has not been voted. I rescind my motion.
Shreeve: I rescind the second.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Want to try again? You're doing good, David.
Zaremba: I move that we rescind the motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 4, 5
and 6 of our agenda.
Centers: We didn't vote on it.
Borup: We have got a motion to rescind the motion and second to close.
Zaremba: Now my motion is to rescind that closing and, therefore, have the Public
Hearing remain open. Did I make that motion?
Shreeve: Second
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Now we need another motion -- all we did was open the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Now we have opened the hearing and now it can be continued. I move that
we continue Items 5, 6, and 7 on our agenda, AZ 02-004, PP 02-004, CUP 02-005, all
relating to the Sutherland Farms, that we continue those items to our second hearing in
June, which is June 20th.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? Comment from staff?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 56 of 87
Freckleton: Sorry. You want to be sure in your motion that you're specific that it's to
receive just that information.
Borup: Yeah. I think we said that, we didn't probably put it in a motion.
Zaremba: I would be happy to amend the motion to say that this is discussion of the
most southerly area of this project from Victory Road up through what is currently two
cul-de-sacs to the next road, to see revisions of the entire area and testimony only on
that subject.
Borup: Does the second concur with that revised motion?
Centers: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you, audience. Probably be appropriate to take a short break and then we
will get onto Tuscany Lakes.
(Recess.)
RECONVENED AT 9:55 P.M.
Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from May 2, 2002: 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 11: Continued Public Hearing from May 2, 2002: 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 12: Continued Public Hearing from May 2, 2002: 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: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening, see what we can get
done in the next hour or so. Items 10, 11 and 12 are all three continued Public
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 57 of 87
Hearings. Like to open those at this time, AZ 02-005, PP 02-006, and CUP 02-006.
Those three Public Hearings open. Do we have any additional staff reports?
Siddoway: Yes. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
Borup: We do have an ACHD report, too. Came in last minute.
Siddoway: ACHD's report was just received. I believe it was received today. I have a
couple items to go over. The staff report is still the April 26th staff report from David
McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. I know you are familiar with this, so I will be brief and
hit the highlights. We have the vicinity map, the area -- on an aerial photo outlined in
red. You can see the outline better. Here it does touch Eagle Road, Locust Grove Road,
and Victory Road. The site photos, existing rural character. The area -- it does have
several canals. The lower right photo is where the Ridenbaugh crosses over the Ten
Mile Creek. There are some significant existing trees on site, which we would
encourage to be maintained. There is the plat for the project -- let's see. Apparently at
the last meeting there was some discussion of the dates and why it took so long to get
heard by the Commission. For the record, I just wanted to clear that up. We did go back
and look at the records and it showed that it was submitted and logged in on the 22nd
of February, which made it one of the first applications in for the March 15th deadline,
which would have it in line for the May 2nd hearing, which is when it was heard. So
there was no delay from the city's perspective. It was on the proper time line. There was
a hang up with ACHD and -- but that's a separate issue. I was also asked to clarify for
the record an issue related to the planned road improvements in the area. During the
last hearing -- and I have a copy of the minutes -- Mr. Craig Johnson had stated that
currently Eagle Road from Overland to Victory is scheduled for construction in 2003 and
development of Victory is scheduled for 2005. That is partly true. You will find the
actual facts in the ACHD report on page five where they talk about the five year work
program. They do state that Eagle Road between Victory and Overland is scheduled for
widening from two lanes to five lanes in the year 2003 and the intersection of Eagle and
Victory is scheduled for improvements in 2005, which would include left turn lanes on all
four approaches. There are no planned improvements for Victory Road itself. So just to
be -- just to clear that up. I don't need to go through most of the staff report, because
you heard it before. There were the issues of the stub streets and I had a note here
from Brad about the fact that something would involve moving the Eagle Stub to the
south and I'm not certain what that means, so I wanted to get that cleared up. He has it
by a note that says the staff recommendations removing the proposed stub street South
Lucha Avenue between Block 8 and 9 and replacing it with two stub streets to the north.
That's not near Eagle, I'm not sure what this is referring to, frankly. There were some
outstanding issues, such as the -- in the recommendation, if you go to page 17, right at
the back, public services are one of the main concerns. You have a letter from the
police department with their concerns about being able to serve the area. There are
also concerns, I believe, with the fire department. Those public service issues I think
need to be resolved. And then the phasing, as was brought up during the Sutherland
Farms, question about having phase one on three sides and is that appropriate, is it
not, that's something the Commission will need to decide. The only other thing I know of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 58 of 87
right now to discuss is the pathways. There was discussion, I understand, about getting
cross-sections for the pathways showing how they would function along the Eight Mile.
Let me back up. The pathway system that loops through the project in here, there is
some concern as to how they will function with deep cuts on both sides and my
understanding there was going to be some cross-sections, but not in the -- our packets
of information at this point. So with that I will turn it back to the Commission for --
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Brown: For the record, my name is Kent Brown. My business address is 1800 West
Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. Real briefly -- I guess there is confusion about the reason
I brought up the date and it had more to do with the Highway District than what your
staff has done. It didn't make a lot of sense. I went back and I did further research
finding that the day that I submitted to you I submitted it to the Highway District a full
packet with a disk and everything and normally their turnaround is 15 days and it took
two months. That was my only issue. I didn't really have issues with staff. It was more
with the Highway District and, you know, if you could make that happen, you know, that
would be great but, you know, a letter from P&Z of Meridian saying that they, you know,
would like those things to happen I think it would be appropriate, you know. I guess I
was confused on the cross-section, since that is a recommendation and it was prior to
the next hearing I didn't realize I was supposed to have it for this meeting. It's sitting on
my desk and almost done and I can go over that cross-section with you. It's not as bad
as what we talked about, but I think that it's a very beautiful thing and -- but it's -- I will
be able to have that for you almost immediately. The canal and Eight Mile Creek is
about five feet deep upon average, the side banks are, and so we are looking at it being
similar depth or maybe a foot or two deeper than that in that area and the two cross-
section areas that I looked at, you know, they were 110 feet across on the one and 100
feet on the other and so very easily, you know, we could go down, you know, five, six
feet and then transition back up and still have a pathway in there. One of the things that
we would like to do is drop that down at the back of those lots, so that people can see
the water. I mean having just a deep V, you know, a grand canyon in your backyard with
water running in it doesn't do anybody any good, it's not appealing, so having it
transition down gradually is what we are looking for. Plus it also is safer. The only other
issue that I can see that I need to speak to is the Highway District. The Highway District
approved our project, there was much discussion with Mr. Marquart, Mr. Young, and Mr.
Allen about the connection, that was basically the only discussion that took place on our
site at the Highway District. The staff made it very clear that because of the school site
we had to have a connection and felt that what we were proposing it was the safest. We
offered to the Highway District, if need be, we have a 40 foot landscape buffer to the
east of that connection. Steve, if you could move to that one. Up in that northeast
corner of our site there is 40 feet of landscaping there. Right in that area right there,
there is 40 feet of landscaping that's on that side of the road and the further that we
move the road away from Mr. Young -- I do have some photos that I can show you of
that entrance and the fence and trees that he has along his property, if it need be, to
better explain that. But the Highway District -- Mr. Young wasn't happy with any of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 59 of 87
those, he basically wanted the road moved and so they went along with what their staff
was recommending and approved it in the location that is shown on our plans. I'll stand
for any questions.
Centers: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Brown do you have the highway
department report with you?
Brown: Yes, I do.
Centers: Page seven. The top paragraph. Review that and then I was wondering if that
-- maybe I missed it. Is that addressed in the site specific comments where you will
have to perform that or --
Brown: Maybe is that what Steve talked to me about prior to the meeting, something
about --
Centers: Page seven, the top paragraph.
Brown: About doing some improvements at Locust Grove and Victory Road?
Centers: Yeah. At the intersection of Victory and Locust Grove. It was assumed in the
analysis, I assume yours, that this intersection would be improved with the addition of a
left turn lane. No such improvements are included in the five year work program. The
intersection will not operate at acceptable L-O-S with the current --
Brown: And I didn't see anywhere in the site specific conditions either, so, no, we never
addressed that that was something that we were doing and as to the traffic --
Shreeve: Why would they put that in their comments?
Brown: Sir, I can't answer what they would do, but since it wasn't in the site specifics we
never addressed it, but I can look at my traffic study and see if that was a
recommendation from our traffic engineer.
Centers: What are they saying exactly when they say the intersection will not operate at
an acceptable level of service, L-O-S, is that --
Brown: Uh-huh.
Centers: -- with the current configurations?
Brown: But in their report I thought they were saying that that intersection worked at a C
and the traffic numbers for the p.m. traffic on Victory Road going to that intersection
were tracking at a B. So I never saw -- I guess I'm unaware of what you're making
reference to, because it was never discussed, not in our tech review --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 60 of 87
Centers: You didn't read it in their report?
Brown: I didn't read it there, because --
Centers: No?
Brown: Because I went to the site specific conditions that --
Centers: Okay. That makes sense. I have a right to them, too.
Brown: I go to the conditions I have to comply and it wasn't a condition and it wasn't
discussed.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: It does existing level B at this point.
Freckleton: C.
Borup: No. Existing level B. Locust and Victory.
Freckleton: Okay.
Borup: Page five. And do those -- what is it projected to be?
Zaremba: My comment, if I'm understanding this, is that while this project does have
frontage on Victory Road, some frontage on Locust Grove, it has no contact with that
intersection, no direct contact.
Brown: No direct contact. It would be an off-site improvement.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yeah.
Siddoway: Did you just find that? Page six? Level of service for Victory Road, Locust
Grove Road intersection is projected to operate at an L-O-S C during the a.m. peak
hour and an L-O-S D during the p.m. peak hour at the build out year, with the addition of
site traffic.
Zaremba: But, again, this only appears in our comments, which are basically to
themselves and it is not in the requirements; is that correct? Just wanting everybody to
know that they noticed it.
Borup: Okay. Any further questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 61 of 87
Zaremba: I think my reason when this came before us last time for wanting to continue
it and to see the ACHD report, my desire focused entirely on your exit onto Victory
Road and what ACHD was going to say about that and I have marked the six or seven
places in my copy that they have mentioned it and is your interpretation of it that they
have mostly required you to do what you were already planning to do, possibly with the
addition of a left turn lane in the middle of Victory Road?
Brown: That's correct, sir. And as they went over it, the Highway District Commissioners
with their staff, made extra effort to see if there was any other location that they would
prefer and they kept coming back that that is the location that they wanted it.
Zaremba: And that was a function of where the other street is that comes in from the
north and where that ridge of the hill is and all that sort of stuff.
Brown: That's correct.
Zaremba: This is the best location.
Brown: They spoke, you know, about a cross versus two T's and basically they kept
coming back to the fact that because of the school that they would need -- and felt that
that connection was needed. Mr. Marquart did -- you know, for the record did bring
about his suggestion about making it go away altogether and stubbing to the Morgner
piece next door and staff felt that that was a mistake and that should have the
connection. Then they also -- Mr. Marquart asked us if we could and if we were willing
to pay for another bridge. We have already got three on the site and, you know, we are
not ready do another bridge, a bridge to go to something that the Morgner family has
made clear that they aren't planning on selling.
Zaremba: They certainly made it clear to us that they plan on farming that for a very
long time, so it would be a stub street to nowhere --
Brown: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: -- for a long time, so -- so you clearly have gone through ACHD's comments
and you're pretty well in agreement with --
Brown: We would have been on the consent agenda, to my understanding, if we hadn't
notified the Highway District that Mr. Young, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Marquart were
concerned about this.
Zaremba: I have no further questions.
Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify in this application? Come forward.
Webb: My name is Doug Webb, that's my wife Creta and we live at 1975 East Victory.
That's a picture of my home. This is the back of my property right here and along this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 62 of 87
property line they are proposing four and a half homes and I sat in on the last few
minutes of the other agenda item -- I don't think I need to go through everything again,
it's the exact same issue. We spoke with Mr. Johnson, the developer, about doing
offsets, increasing the size of the lots, single level. He wasn't agreeable to any of that.
He did throw us a bone with a three foot berm and six foot vinyl fence. I don't -- I don't
know what else I could add to that.
Shreeve: Where is your property again?
Zaremba: Let me give you this and if you would keep this up there through the whole
process and indicate where you abut that.
Webb: Okay. This is my place right there.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: And do you know about what the distance is from your home to the back of your
property line there?
Webb: I would hate to venture a guess, but it looks in the picture it's just not that far.
Borup: About 200 feet?
Webb: Oh, it's not near that far. I mean this picture here is pretty misleading. I think the
picture is more -- a little indicative that -- the back of my house directly facing that
property line. And having gone through that discussion, I'm sorry, I can't remember the
gentleman's name -- it's the same issue.
Centers: You go out to Victory Road for your access?
Webb: Yes,sir.
Centers: Okay. I've got you pointed now. How many acres do you have?
Webb: Like 4.7. And we are right back of our acreage. You know, if I could, you
mentioned something earlier that I'd like to take issue with.
Centers: Uh-huh.
Webb: I certainly have no problem with a man making a living and the more he can
make, bravo. You talked about winning the lottery and that's one thing, but this
development is going to take away from our quality of life. It doesn't hurt me if you win
the lottery.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 63 of 87
Centers: I was referring to an earlier statement by an individual that kind of indicated
that he knew what they paid for this land and they stood to make millions. Well, that's
irrelevant. That's irrelevant. That's my point.
Shreeve: If I could speak. I think in the prior discussion we have had certainly there
were other size lots that had three or four lots abutting up to them. That was not the
issue at the end of the conversation, it was the one gentleman with multiple lots
certainly was my opinion. So, in my opinion, you know, yes, you're impacted, I'm not
going to disagree with you at all, but certainly not to the impact that the other gentleman
in the other development was impacted. So that's just simply to make -- that in my point
of view it's not -- they are not identical.
Webb: Well, I understand. I did speak with him outside and he said there was 13 or
something on two different sides. But in looking at the layout of our home, we live out of
our backyard. Now when we look out our backyard -- you know, it's like I was telling you
talking with Mr. Johnson, you know, we asking him can you limit it to single level? No.
Will you do an offset, you know, make them build their place on the front of their
property? No. He offered a three foot berm.
Borup: Mr. Webb, how far would you like the other homes to be away from your home?
Webb: That canal comes right there. You're asking what this distance is between --
Borup: No. No. You said you wanted them offset from the other homes, did I understand
that right?
Webb: Oh, yeah.
Borup: That's what I was looking at, how far away you wanted them to be from your
home.
Webb: All I can possibly get.
Borup: That's not an answer that really works for this Commission.
Webb: Well, you know, he's looking -- I don't know what the length of those lots are.
Borup: Well, do you have a certain amount of feet that you'd like them to be from your
house?
Webb: He mentioned 25 feet and that's --
Borup: From your house?
Webb: No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 64 of 87
Borup: That's what I'm trying to ask you, how far would you like those houses to be from
your house, so we have got --
Webb: A hundred feet.
Borup: A hundred feet? Okay. I think the Commission can require that.
Webb: God love you.
Shreeve: How deep are those lots?
Zaremba: If this drawing is to scale, there is more than 100 feet in your own back yard
that would put them beyond that limit.
Webb: Well, I'll tell you what, from my property corner there is 300 feet. From property
corner to property corner. Three hundred feet would be sweet, but I think that's a little --
Centers: Is that actually your home, that little configuration right above there?
Webb: Well, that's -- I believe it would be right here.
Centers: Yeah. You think that's your home?
Zaremba: What I'm looking at, if this is to scale, the distance from your house even to
this property line is at least as much as that length of the property, which I'm sure is at
least 100 or 110 feet. If it's to scale, I'd say your house is 150 feet from their backyard.
Borup: About 150 feet. It's to scale.
Centers: And if they had a 25 foot setback, or 20 foot -- 15 is the minimum.
Webb: If they limit the homes to single level. Number one, ideally I would like them to
increase the lot size, so I'm not looking at five backyards.
Zaremba: Your concern is that lot, that lot, that lot, and that lot, roughly?
Webb: Correct.
Zaremba: Those four?
Webb: Well, the one on the corner is not going to be that obtrusive, actually.
Borup: Actually, there is three lots.
Centers: I don't know if you sat through the previous hearing. I think it's a reasonable
request for single level homes. I think that's reasonable for a neighbor and to require a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 65 of 87
developer, because I know they are going to have some single level homes in their
subdivision and why couldn't they put a few of them along there. So I agree with you on
that point. And you would still have your access to Victory Road, you don't have a
subdivision conflicting with that.
Webb: No
Centers: Which is good.
Webb: One other thing I might mention. I read the minutes from the last meeting and
Mr. Johnson mentioned that there was three different product home values that he was
proposing, not just the upper end homes, but middle end homes and he stopped at that.
Are we to assume that the other -- the third one is low end homes? I don't know where
he is proposing to put the low end homes.
Centers: Well, the applicant might be able to address that, Mr. Brown, after you. I kind
of doubt low end.
Webb: Well, I would hope that it wouldn't be --
Borup: Well, what's the definition of low end?
Webb: You're talking to the wrong guy, because I'm definitely on the other end of that
spectrum. I'm not asking anything here, but the point I wanted to mention --
Centers: It depends on how fast the economy grows. Next year the low end is going to
be --
Webb: I know. It's all relative, but --
Centers: -- mid range or whatever.
Webb: You know, I heard your discussion about, you know, the size, 8,000 square foot
lots, 12,000 square foot relative to what's there, what's existing. That's high density to
me.
Centers: Well, of course.
Webb: I don't -- I think there is something fundamentally wrong with a developer who
comes in and just for the pure sake of profit he's going to take away from the value of
my home.
Centers: That's debatable.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 66 of 87
Webb: Well, it is. Whether it's -- I'm not a realtor, I don't know, but I know what my
home's worth to me now and I know what it will be worth to me with these homes in my
backyard. To me it will be worth less.
Centers: How long have you lived there?
Webb: Three years.
Centers: Did you suspect that at sometime in the future that land would be developed
when you moved there?
Webb: No.
Centers: You didn't?
Webb: Well, you know, the guy that we bought the house from assured me that that was
years down the road.
Centers: Oh.
Webb: That property was owned by three or four different individuals and there was --
hey, you know, call me naive, I fell in love with the place and so -- I think I've taken up
enough of your time.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
Sherer: Commissioners and Mr. Chairman, my name is Steve Sherer, I'm an attorney
here in Meridian. My office is located at 730 East First Street, approximately a block
away from this building, and I was recently retained to represent the interests of the
Sarah Broden, who owns -- if you could go to the larger scale. She owns the property --
she owns five acres right there. Now there has been some discussion of the egress and
ingress from Victory Road. I would submit to you that this road is going to be much
more critical. If you look at the layout of this development, your Comprehensive Plan
says approximately 20 percent of the people in Meridian work at retail, 50 percent work
in services, 18 percent in manufacturing. There is nothing like that down here. They are
going to come out here, this road, and we are going to -- these people in this part of the
subdivision and this part of the subdivision are probably not going to drive all the way
up here, they are going to want to come out there onto the main road. Mrs. Broden is
here and is well able to talk about getting out and turning left on Eagle Road from her
point -- from her driveway point of entrance, which is about here. You're going to have
all these people, they are not going to want to come around here and go up there, they
are going to try to come out here. There is nothing being planned for any kind of
intersection there. Mrs. Broden already has trouble getting out there. Now she moved
onto her five acres of property in 1985, 17 years ago. She lives there with her 15 year
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 67 of 87
old daughter, her 13 year old son, and her 83 year old mother. They moved to the
country 17 years ago to avoid this type of build up and to have peace and quiet and,
yes, they did expect that this would remain country at least for the grandmother's
lifetime, because there was absolutely no development out there at the time. Now if we
look at the annexation plan, you will notice that this area right here, if you look at the
entire diagram, this area right here is the only part that connects to Meridian. I think this
is one of the issues that the city looked at back in June of 2001 when they said it's not
in their best interest to annex this property at this time. I'm not sure what's changed in
the past 11 months that would make it in their interest now, except that if you look at
how this property is configured, you have got a huge open space here that's not going
to be part of the city. Well, if you're going to be providing sewer and water and other
services to this area and this is going to be left out, that's an inefficient use of city
services. It also creates a type of patchwork development that I think most planners
want to avoid and that the City of Meridian would like to avoid also. That and the fact
that all of these people are going to be trying to come out Eagle Road makes this not a
very viable project at this time either. Now this section is now zoned rural urban
transition and I'm not sure exactly what that means in Meridian. Other places it means a
house on every five acres, some places it means a house on every 40 acres. So what
you're asking to do is for the neighbors that live along here and the neighbors that live
on the other side to multiply their density by at least a factor of 20 and possibly a lot
more. Now the Brodens are particularly effected, because they have this piece of
property. They are going to have traffic running by their house on the south end of their
property early in the morning, late in the evening, all different times of the day. This a
quasi farm that they live on. They are going to have traffic running across the front of
their house early in the morning, late at night, all day long. And we have got a school
back here. According to the statements from the developers, there is no resident east of
this school. Well, Mrs. Broden lives right here east of the school. The Comprehensive
Plan requires some open space. They have provided for about nine percent open space
in their layout and where are the kids going to go to play? They are going to go to this
school. This is the only open space around that I can see. They are going to come play
at this school, they are going to making noise late at night, they are going to be creating
a disturbance, they are going to be disturbing the Broden's farm animals, they are going
to be disturbing the Brodens. They may offer a ten foot berm and maybe a ten foot
berm would cut down some of the noise, put a nice large fence on top of it, but you're
still going to have kids here at night, they are going to have lights for security at the
school, those lights are going to shine in the back windows. This is -- I'm not going to
comment on whether or not the property values go up, because this is a qualify of life
issue, it's not a property value issue. If you go across the street, Eagle Road here, you
have got -- further south you have got some -- one, two acre parcels down here, you
got -- it looks to me like two to five acre parcels up here, up to the corner -- I don't see
any reason why they can't transition this property a little bit better. We have got five
acres parcels here, two five acre parcels here, they should be able to do lower density
around those areas to provide a lead in. Now the Meridian Comprehensive Plan, at
least the draft plan that I have, I haven't been involved in this long enough to really have
a good grasp on the situation, but I'm just telling you what I have seen so far. Meridian
Comprehensive Plan has this square cut out and say this is a site for a proposed park.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 68 of 87
Well, now why do you suppose that they would propose a park there? Well, because if
you look at the map, the map proposes medium density residential neighborhood
throughout most of the rest of this section, except the southern -- the southeastern parts
of it and the section above it is also medium density residential. Well, if you're going to
have all this medium density residential property, you need to have a park and the city
has caught onto this a little bit late, but they have caught on. We need to plan the parks
before we have the development and this site was planned for a park. Well --
Centers: Could I see your map?
Sherer: Certainly.
Centers: Save me digging mine out.
Sherer: And I hope it's the most recent one.
Borup: I think it is. You also realize on the Comp Plan designations that generally they
mean anywhere within that mile?
Centers: Yeah. That's what I want to see, Mr. Chairman. And it says -- it's worded
potential.
Sherer: Potential. Absolutely. Just like this is potentially medium density residential, but
right now it's rural urban transition, so it is not that. I think these concerns are well
placed. The Brodens will be surrounded on three sides by the effects of this subdivision
and it will seriously impact their quality of life. Apparently there were other comments at
an earlier meeting about preserving wildlife on the property. I'm not sure where that
wildlife is going to go, because there is no open area. They have provided for what they
call 38 common lots, as I recall, out of -- 31 common lots out of 355 proposed building
sites, that's about nine percent common lots or open ground or whatever you would call
it, that doesn't seem very much for a piece that is dropped off of Meridian from this
slight angle here -- from this side right here, that's the only piece that adjoins the City of
Meridian, they are coming down here and they are trying to patchwork and leave out a
whole piece of property here, this property here, and if you look at that map, you can
see that Meridian is developing a problem with the extension of their city services. Now
apparently there is well on this site. Right now I believe this is a sod farm, so they pump
water out of this well for their sod farm and most of you understand irrigation a lot better
than I ever will, because I was raised in the city, but from what I understand, the water
comes up, is pumped onto the site to water it and then it percolates back down through
the soil back into the water table so that it can be used again. Well, the developer plans
to use that well not only to water the school grounds, but to provide water to the school.
Well, now all of a sudden you're going to have not only the water percolating back
through the ground, but you're going to have 500 kids flushing the toilets five times a
day each and you're going to have a lot greater water use, I think you're going to dry up
-- you're going to stand a decent chance of drying up the wells for the people that
already exist out there. I don't know that that's been addressed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 69 of 87
Borup: Maybe just clarification on that, that this school -- aren't they going to be tied into
city water?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, yes, the school would be tied into city water. However, there
is the existing well that we would anticipate that they would be using for irrigation of the
school.
Borup: For irrigation, not for potable water.
Sherer: And not for potable water?
Freckleton: Correct.
Sherer: So this would not become a city well, is that what you're saying?
Freckleton: Correct.
Shreeve: Okay.
Freckleton: We are proposing -- we have made recommendation to the Planning and
Zoning Commission and the City Council for a well site within this development, but it's
up on Victory Road adjacent to the Ridenbaugh canal.
Sherer: Well, I know I could propose a totally Draconian solution for the developer, but
one thing I would suggest is the developer wants to develop a goodly share of this
section and has not provided anyplace in his plans for a consideration for a park or
open space for the people and for the wildlife that he intends to maintain. I think it would
not be unreasonable to ask the developer to set aside some of this property for a park
land to be purchased by the city to create a park. I think that would be appropriate down
here. It would help solve some of the Broden's problems, it would lessen the traffic flow
here, it would lessen the traffic flow here. I'm not sure what we can do about the school.
We could probably have hooded lights. We should have a large berm here, ten feet,
with a good six foot fence on top of it, a privacy fence, not a chain link, but a privacy
fence. I would also suggest that they berm this and fence this to provide the maximum
amount of privacy that they can. I have nothing else to say. Thank you. If you have any
questions for me.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Did you know or would you know if the developer has made any attempt to
buy your client's property?
Sherer: I do not believe that they have. My client attended a meeting last June when
she thought this was tabled and was not notified of any further proceedings until she got
notice of the May 2nd hearing.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 70 of 87
Zaremba: If there were a berm along that -- what is clearly going to be some kind of
collector or minor arterial going out to Eagle, if that would end up being on your client's
property, is that acceptable?
Sherer: The developer is creating the problem, we think the developer should solve it
on his own property.
Zaremba: Well, ACHD has approved the road where it is, so that wouldn't move, so any
berm between the road and your client's house would have to be on that side of the
road.
Sherer: I have not seen the ACHD report that apparently was mailed out today.
Zaremba: The other thought that was run through ACHD's mind, I'm sure, although I
can't really speak for them, the road that you're referring to is halfway between Victory
and what's the other one, Amity, and is a place where they probably would choose to
put a signal at some time. So that may even help your client.
Shreeve: At sometime. I want you to imagine --
Zaremba: In the future.
Sherer: -- an 83-year-old woman pulling out of the driveway onto this road and she's
pretty sharp for 83, but she is 83.
Zaremba: I understand that. My wife's 86 year old grandmother is living with us
temporarily, but right now, so I know the frailties and the difficulty --
Shreeve: Well, what's probably the biggest issue, just the traffic impact or the noise or
kind of everything?
Sherer: I think -- I'm trying to equally emphasize them all, because I think they are all
important.
Shreeve: What if, hypothetically, they moved the road further to the south and put some
lots adjacent to your property. Now that doesn't satisfy the traffic issue, but it would
certainly the noise.
Sherer: I'm not sure. I can't tell you what my client would prefer. But I can have her
come up and tell you.
Shreeve: So that's just an option. You know, certainly to satisfy that particular issue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 71 of 87
Sherer: Right. I would just tell the Commissioners I came into this very late, okay, and
I'm probably not up to speed as much as I should be to stand before you, but these are
the issues that I see right now that are a grave concern.
Shreeve: Did you go to the ACHD meeting?
Sherer: I did not. I was not involved at that time.
Shreeve: Okay. As far as traffic and those type of issues are concerned, that's where
those complaints and issues certainly need to be voiced.
Sherer: Right. But nobody has really addressed the additional traffic on South Eagle
Road, which, to my understanding, is not --
Centers: I think the ACHD -- in fact, they have made a number of site specific
requirements of the developer. You know, you just commented regarding the developer
creating the problem and I don't think that's a good term. I think you will agree with that
if you think about it.
Sherer: They are creating the issue, how about that?
Centers: Okay. If you want to say look at who created the problem, it's all the people
that decided to sell and to this developer. Her neighbor. You know. Correct?
Sherer: Not entirely.
Centers: They are taking advantage of selling their land at a price that they find to be
very favorable and --
Sherer: Absolutely. We all complain about Californians coming up here and doing what
they did in California to Idaho, but the reason they can do it is the people sell their land.
That's correct.
Center: Uh-huh.
Sherer: But you as a Commission have the power to control a lot of that and, again, this
is to be eventually medium density residential, but that doesn't mean it has to be it now
and that doesn't mean there is any pressing need at this point to change the zoning or
to have it annexed to the City of Meridian. You know, I think you made the comment that
the road development has to come after the other business and commercial
development and to a certain extent that's true, to a certain extent we have South Eagle
Road for many many years with very little development on it, but it's been there,
because it is a section line road and we have a lot of section line roads that probably
are significantly underutilized, but we have them there, because we know at some point
we are going to need them and, you know I think -- I applaud the developer for having a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 72 of 87
school in the subdivision, because, you know, if you have 1.2 children -- school age
children per residence, I mean they are going to fill a school, essentially.
Centers: Well, I want this developer to indicate the amount of open space within the
development, their percentage, and I think you will want to hear that.
Sherer: Yes, I will. I got the percentage by the number of common lots compared to the
number of building lots and that's -- so mine is a rough estimate of about nine percent.
Shreeve: So I guess to some degree what I have gathered is that you're looking at, I
guess, in blunt terms, to stop the development. I guess a compromise, you know, in
terms of traffic, there is probably not much we can do there for a developer in terms of a
compromise, but there probably are other issues. Are you out and willing for a
compromise or are you just saying, hey --
Sherer: I'm open to discuss it with them. They have never discussed compromise with
my client and my client has never had face-to-face discussions with the developer or
any of his representatives and it seems to me that this section of property is so affected
by this development that the developer should have probably made some efforts to talk
to her before now.
Shreeve: And some of the compromises may be -- I mean were you exaggerating or
were you wanting a ten foot berm on the west property line?
Sherer: Kids don't climb hills anymore.
Shreeve: So a ten foot berm -- a berm or move the road and maybe only have lots
abutting your --
Sherer: I think having lots abutting would be, you know, again, probably with a single
story back up against it and a fence to separate it, a privacy fence, I think that would
begin to solve some of those problems.
Shreeve: Okay. And then, again, traffic, you know, the comment was made about
developers coming in and making a buck. Well, it's not only that, but --
Sherer: But they are not making the roads.
Shreeve: Well, but people are moving, people are coming in, and they have to live
somewhere. Okay. Well --
Zaremba: Let me just make sure we understand. You're not taking the extreme position
that it should not be annexed and happen, you're just looking for some modifications?
Sherer: I am looking for modifications. I do question the annexation of it, because of the
shape of it, I mean this is -- they have three different applications and I don't know --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 73 of 87
one of them is 196, one of them is 190 and the other is 100 and some odd. I added
them all up and there is 525 acres, but I think that they apply to some of the same land.
So it's probably not 500 acres, something less than that, but you got a significant chunk
of property here and this is the only connection to the City of Meridian. It just doesn't
seem to be a very efficient way to develop from the city's point of view as far as
providing services. And I think that's possibly why the city refused to do it last year and
I'm not sure what changes in circumstances there have been in the past year that would
make it more feasible for them, but that's probably beyond what you're going to
consider, because you will make your decision and the city will make theirs.
Zaremba: Well, they do often.
Sherer: They do anyway, so --
Zaremba: The only thing that I would say is that even if the city chose to deny it for the
same reason again, we are probably less than a year or two away from there being
enough other annexed property around it, that if it came up again a year from now, it
would be a go. So I'm not sure stalling it for a year or so really gains anything.
Centers: It wasn't turned down a year ago because of the contiguous situation, it was
turned down because the developer -- one of the reasons, it was contiguous just as it is
now, but the developer didn't want to start the phase that's contiguous, they wanted to
start a lower phase. That was one of the reasons. But that's totally legal within state law.
Sherer: I understand that.
Centers: But the design or the configuration of the annexation, which is 196 acres, is
what you objected to, and I can somewhat see that, but I guess there is certain
homeowners -- or property owners that didn't want to or there is one in particular right
here that says they will remain there forever.
Sherer: right.
Centers: But that's their choice. But there are other odd ball configurations that we have
annexed.
Sherer: Sure.
Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you, sir.
Sherer: Thank you for your attention.
Borup: Any other testimony on this application? Final comments, Mr. Brown?
Centers: Open space.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 74 of 87
Brown: Did you find that, Steve, for me. I didn't -- in my -- I know it was in my narrative
when I submitted it, but I don't have a copy of that with me. We exceeded the required
ten percent that you required --
Centers: I think you were above ten.
Brown: -- for the conditional use portion of our application and then you required a five
percent for your subdivision portion, which is the 40 acre portion. So we have that open
space when you consider the ponds that were created --
Zaremba: You had the pond area and you don't have the school; right?
Brown: We didn't count the school. We are not allowed to.
Centers: You're not counting the canal either, are you?
Brown: No, we are not counting the canal. No, sir. It's open space and the -- Steve and
his staff are on top of it to make sure that whatever that they are allowing us to count
that they verify that. Strictly based on the drainage pond -- we are not allowed to count
it, but if it has a dual usage, and we are going to put a basketball court and the one
storm drainage pond and so forth is usable open space. We are not allowed to use your
buffers -- I mean so that we have a lot more open space than what you're allowed to
count. I don't know if you want me to stay with the last gentleman, to speak to some of
his issues or --
Zaremba: Any order you want.
Brown: Maybe since it's fresh in our minds, specifically that collector is a residential
collector. We are proposing buffering along the northern side of that, that street. It has
no front-on housing and I'm sorry that I miscommunicated that in the previous hearing
that when she -- I can't remember the lady's name, that thought -- that talked about --
Broden. Mrs. Broden. I was talking about that there is no housing fronting on that
collector street, not that she -- her property is not on front of the school and what I was
making reference to is that schools like a residential collector that has no front-on
housing, so that those people that live right in front of the school are not having all
those cars drive by their house, they are on a collector, get them out on the arterial like
Eagle Road is.
Zaremba: My recollection is I heard it the way you just said it.
Centers: Do you have a fence here?
Brown: The school district always fences their property.
Centers: But they are not going to build that right away.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 75 of 87
Brown: No. And one of the conditions for us is we are required to fence all of our
boundaries when we develop. As we stated before on our property we are proposing to
put vinyl fence and wrought iron fence. Wrought iron where we will be burning.
Centers: I remember that.
Brown: RUT zoning, I don't know if I need to speak to that, but I can if you wish. Let's
speak to Mr. Webb. It's his discussion.
Centers: Could we go to Mr. Webb's house on the other -- there we go.
Borup: Are you sure that scale is accurate?
Brown: Yes. The way that we do that, obviously, Mr. Webb would probably shoot my
surveyors if he found them going around and locating the house and so we do it from
aerial photos and we feel that that's, you know, plus or minus, you know, five feet or ten
feet, as accurate as we can looking at the roof top that shows up on aerial photos and
that's how those are done.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, when I had the map laid out here I scaled it off. It's about 145
feet from his property line -- north property boundary line to the closest corner of the
house.
Centers: I said that.
Freckleton: That's shown on the map.
Centers: What's the setback there, 15?
Brown: Fifteen in the rear? You have a rear yard abutting up to another rear yard. That
house on the corner, the side property line is 122, 115. The one that's directly to the
south of them is, obviously, the common area lot and then Lot 34 is 12,400 square feet.
Centers: You certainly wouldn't object to single level homes there for those three lots,
32, 33, 34?
Brown: That's fine.
Centers: 32, 33, 34.
Zaremba: That's Block 1?
Centers: Yeah.
Brown: That is Block 1.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 76 of 87
Centers: Block 1.
Brown: I think that's it, unless there is specific questions.
Borup: Anything else, Commission, that needs to be covered?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, there was a question that came up at the last hearing -- I
think I opened a can of worms by saying it, but the question in my mind was regarding
the annexation and the contiguity across the Eight Mile right of way. Our city attorney
did check into that and responded to that question. State statutes are a little vague
when it comes to things like that, but it is determined that it is acceptable and
approvable to annex across that lateral.
Borup: And they basically consider that the same as a roadway, I mean essentially as
far as it is treated?
Wollen: Mr. Chairman, I would caution the board that per Code Section 50-222-2 --
section two, excuse me, it does specifically mention railroad right of way and the ability
to annex that way when the proposed annexation is going to have city property -- or city
limits within both sides of that railway -- railway right of way. Excuse me. It says nothing
about a water lines, such as a ditch or a canal, but it is the determination of Bill Nichols
and myself that this would be okay to annex without illegal annexation.
Borup: It probably railroads, because they are, what, 200 to 500 or 1,000 feet,
sometimes. I think --
Wollen: Well, yeah. You have railroads and then down to a tiny strip through the railway.
Borup: I think the right of way is 200 feet, isn't it?
Brown: I would make mention that the City of Boise would have been stopped in their
growth if they wouldn't have been able to annex across the Boise River, which is a little
bit bigger than what we are doing, but I personally have written for the City of Boise
descriptions across the Boise River to annexation Harris Ranch and others and wouldn't
do it any different than going across the freeway to annex, just like the City of Meridian
did when they annexed St. Luke's out in the same area.
Wollen: That is true. When it comes down to it, even a roadway could pose the same
problem, so --
Freckleton: This isn't -- the state statute is a little bit on the vague side. It has two
specific references in it, but neither of those reference ditches, rivers --
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, would we like a little discussion here first?
Centers: Think we ought to close the Public Hearing? I'd move to do so.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 77 of 87
Borup: If we think we don't need any other testimony. Or -- yes. I mean --
Zaremba: Nobody's jumping up and down.
Borup: Yeah. If there is nothing we need, other than questions for staff.
Centers: Yeah. Questions for staff.
Borup: That would be fine.
Centers: So moved.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Staff, on page 17 of the original staff report, bottom paragraph. And, Mr.
Freckleton, how do you feel about water and sewer?
Freckleton: Give me a second to catch up.
Centers: We are satisfied with the phasing schedule.
Freckleton: That's correct.
Centers: We had some earlier concerns.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the comments contained -- in our
staff report there was comment regarding a need for a well site. As you know, we are
working on the Silverstone project, there is a new domestic well being put in that
project. My main concern when we look at the model is the school site. Residential I'm
not so concerned about. They have a lower fire flow. So that's really where the rest of
my comment was coming from was the school site -- I have got some serious concerns
today with fire flow. However, when the wells are developed, Silverstone well and we
are going to start working on the well site here with planning as soon as we can get our
hands on it, those concerns go away. So it's kind of a timing thing. I don't know if that
helps you.
Borup: Maybe along that line, Steve, do we have any indication at all from the school
district when they would anticipate building this school?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 78 of 87
Siddoway: I'm getting the signal that it's five years, but I haven't -- I know it's not needed
immediately. They would have to pass bond issues and seems like that is down the
road. Certainly not in the next couple of years and indications are about five years.
Borup: Well, would it be on line before then?
Freckleton: Absolutely.
Borup: Yeah. And the sewer is not -- the sewer was mentioned in the staff report, but I
think that was Commissioner Centers' question, too. I mean the developers are bringing
that in, so --
Freckleton: Correct. They are going to be extending the Ten Mile trunk line from its
current point of terminus, which is in Meridian Greens Subdivision, they are bringing
sewer into this project quite a distance. There were capacity concerns in our -- a year
ago when we looked at this project taking the sewer to the Nine Mile and that's why it's
necessary for them to bring in the Ten Mile trunk, which puts this in its proper drainage.
So we have done extensive modeling, computer modeling of the sewer, we've worked
with -- we've worked with Briggs Engineering on the routing and the depths and their
concepts for the sewer and we are satisfied.
Centers: Well -- and I'm looking at the Council's -- actually, they had three reasons for
denying it last year. I think we have solved -- and maybe help me, Steve, the
development of the road infrastructure within the proposed subdivision is inadequate.
That's what they said last time. How do we feel this time?
Siddoway: I don't know directly where that came from. I asked the same question
myself and I believe that one or more of the Council members did not like the routes
that some of the streets were taking, thought they were too circuitous. I don't specifically
have any direct issues with that from a Planning and Zoning perspective.
Centers: You don't personally, Council might. And then the proposed sub would
extending police and fire service farther south beyond Victory Road is what they also
said and, of course, we are looking at another subdivision that's just -- throw a rock to it,
that we looked at earlier this evening, and I guess you have no comment on that, right,
Steve?
Siddoway: Yeah. For police and fire you should have a new response from Captain Bill
Musser of the police department that was written since this April 26 report. He does
have grave concerns about that.
Centers: Well, that was in our last packet.
Siddoway: Yes. So I would just reference you to that. I think that would pretty much
summarize the police department's position on it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 79 of 87
Borup: And I looked at that when we had the comment last month and I -- I don't -- and
this may not be true, because my experience in driving through a subdivision I think a
fire truck or a police car could get to the middle of this subdivision faster than it gets to
the middle of the one across street, Thousand Springs, with the way those streets are
laid out.
Shreeve: I still get lost in there.
Borup: Well, I mean even though as the crow flies it may be further out as far as what a
vehicle can get to, I don't think time is a factor, at least from the Locust -- or the -- or
maybe more so on Eagle Road.
Centers: Well -- and as we have seen with -- it was just in the paper recently regarding
the fire department's rating that's better for their fire response time, if you read that, and
they are continuing to try and improve that and they'll improve when they get the Locust
Grove station in that was approved earlier.
Borup: There already is a station site on Eagle Road.
Centers: Yeah. I guess it goes back to my earlier comment about -- you know, you buy
police cars and you hire policeman as you need them and can warrant them and pay for
them with a tax base that we get into the city and maybe today he couldn't get there in a
time that he didn't want, but when that tax base come on board maybe he will have a
substation at Silverstone, which is not entirely out of the question. Something like that.
So that's the way I view it. I think the applicant, you know, on the single level homes for
Mr. Webb and -- that shouldn't be a problem. I understand totally an individual living
there for 17 years and then having a subdivision go around them, but I understand
where Mrs. Broden is coming from via her attorney, but there is always that but.
Borup: Do we feel that the questions on public services have been answered, then? I
mean the concerns on public service availability? We mentioned fire, police --
Shreeve: Have we talked about -- I guess the phasing or we are going to leave that up
to City Council, weren't we?
Centers: No. They have to -- well, they intend to phase what's contiguous with the city.
Shreeve: Oh. Oh. Yeah.
Centers: They are going to phase from right there down.
Shreeve: Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman --
Centers: That's phase one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 80 of 87
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there is actually three phase ones. Phase one starts on each
frontage.
Centers: Yeah. I remember that.
Siddoway: I believe phase 1-A, if you will, is at Locust Grove, because that's the first
point the sewer comes in. The sewer then travels around -- but phase one will also
include the part that is contiguous. There is a third phase one that's over on Eagle Road
over here.
Shreeve: And that will be done simultaneously?
Borup: The third phase is actually a separate developer, remember.
Centers: Or is the one contiguous just phase 1-C?
Borup: Maybe just -- parks and other things mentioned, I'm just -- at the last -- I believe
the last -- or one of the last City Council meetings the parks department gave a report
about -- and I'm not sure the location, but indicated somewhere in this area they are
looking at some park ground already. I can't remember if that was a 20 -- I think a 20
acre site or something. What I read didn't indicate exactly where, except south of the
Victory, west of the Eagle.
Centers: Well, you know, people talk about parks and police and fire, but yet the last
election, what is it -- was it to increase the mill levy and they didn't vote for it and that
money was dedicated one-third each for police, fire, and parks. It's nice to have the
parks and everyone wants them, but they don't want to pay for them, so --
Borup: A mill levy would have been back what it was a few years ago.
Centers: Exactly.
Borup: It would not have increased from what it was in the past.
Centers: Anyway, I think we had a three hour hearing on this the last time?
Borup: Yes. At least.
Centers: I'm satisfied. Mr. Chairman, I get indications that they are ready for a motion. I
got to find my highlight marks so I don't miss anything here. I would like to make a
motion that we recommend for approval to the City Council Public Hearing No. 9, AZ
02-005, request for annexation and zoning of 196.20 acres --
Zaremba: No. 10, actually.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 81 of 87
Centers: Oh, I had my old one and all my notes on my old one. I'm sorry about that.
Item No. 10, continued Public Hearing from May 2nd, AZ 02-005, request for
annexation and zoning of 196.20 acres from RT to R-4 zones for proposed Tuscany
Lakes Sub by Gem Park II Partnership, west of South Eagle Road and south of East
Victory Road, including all staff comments and I think that's it on the annexation.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: I would like to make a motion to recommend approval to the City Council for
the continued Public Hearing from May 2nd, Item PP 02-006, request for a Preliminary
Plat approval of 455 single family lots, 38 common lots and one other lot on 190.47
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Tuscany Lakes Sub by Gem II Partnership,
west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road, to include the fact that the
developer would be required to build single family homes on Block 1, Lots 32, 33, and
34.
Siddoway: Single story, not single family.
Centers: Excuse me. Single level. Single story. And any help is welcome. I don't
remember anything else.
Shreeve: And all staff comments.
Siddoway: Commissioner Centers, could you repeat those lots again, so I can check my
notes?
Centers: Block 1, Lots 32, 33, 34, including all staff comments. End of motion.
Shreeve: Just for clarification, is there only one block? Didn't we have a block for each -
-
Zaremba: There is more than Block 1?
Siddoway: No.
Shreeve: Okay. So there is not -- there is different lots for Tuscany Lakes or Hills or
East? Okay.
Zaremba: There is in the Tuscany Lakes portion, I think. That needs to be clarified.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 82 of 87
Centers: I think that's it.
Shreeve: I second that.
Zaremba: I do need to ask one question of the staff, who may need to get an indication
from the applicant. At the intersection of Victory Road where Tuscany Road or Tuscany
Lane is going to join there, the applicant mentioned to staff and ACHD and some other
people about doing the 40 foot landscape buffer or something. Did that require
removing any houses? Is the 455 single family lots number still correct?
Siddoway: I believe so. I believe that landscape buffer that was at the beginning of the
presentation it is already shown --
Borup: That's on the plat we had last time. Forty feet was on the original.
Zaremba: All right. So that didn't change.
Centers: I would like to continue the motion and make an addition. Page nine regarding
stub streets, I think we were in agreement last time as a Commission that the applicant
should not provide an additional stub street to the north. Page nine.
Siddoway: I'm just going off of what I talked with Dave, so you can correct me if I'm
wrong, but his -- he indicated to me that there would be the two stubs to the north, but
that the stub to the east here would be shifting south. That's what I believe was agreed
to.
Centers: Now page nine stub streets was underlined right in the middle of the page.
Wasn't it determined that the property to the north, it would be ridiculous to require that,
because it would never be developed per the owner?
Siddoway: What was just indicated to me was that the location for the, quote, unquote,
ridiculous one is the extension of Florence Drive in this location.
Centers: I don't think Mr. Webb would like to see that either.
Webb: Oh, no. I want to go on record that we don't want a road there either.
Siddoway: So we would still say there would be the two stubs to the north here and the
sub that needs to be shifting south a ways and the stub at the extension of Florence
would not be a stub.
Centers: So that would be part of the motion that we eliminate the extension of Florence
for a stub. In addition, Mr. Johnson -- and, you know, I had my old agenda here and
made my notes -- committed to the individual across the street from your Victory
entrance, his name -- Young. Mr. Johnson, when those shrubs or vegetation, shrubbery
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 83 of 87
whatever is removed, Mr. Johnson agreed to replace those with shrubs -- and I would
say of like size.
Zaremba: And that was if ACHD failed to do so.
Centers: Right. Right.
Borup: How are you going to get 30 year old shrubs with like size?
Centers: Are they Arborvitaes?
Borup: Arborvitaes.
Centers: Yeah. That would be tough, but --
Borup: That's why I suggested maybe to plant them now and then five years or --
Centers: Well, they have got to satisfy Mr. Young there.
Borup: Well, that would be up to Mr. Young.
Centers: Craig Johnson had committed to doing that, so I think we want it in the motion
that he will satisfy Mr. Young to the best of his ability.
Shreeve: Would there ever be a potential that that would be -- that the development
would be built out before they did anything on Victory Road, meaning would that revert
back to the homeowners association, potentially, that would be -- I guess that --
Centers: I guess we could say if it happened prior to the subdivision being totally sold
out.
Shreeve: Yeah.
Centers: You know, we can put a limit on it. So that would be part of it. And that would
be end of motion on the plat.
Wollen: It's my understanding in the original motion on Item 11 that it was seconded, so
I --
Centers: No. I don't think it was seconded.
Wollen: It had been seconded, so I --
Shreeve: I second that amendment.
Wollen: Okay. I was just treating it as -- okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 84 of 87
Borup: Okay. That's the motion?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: You had something to add?
Freckleton: If I could just jump in on the lot count, I don't know how pertinent this is, but
they had -- we had asked for a well site. This is going to reduce their lot count by at
least one lot.
Centers: Was that in your staff comments?
Freckleton: Yes. But in your motion you specifically indicated the number of lots,
building lots.
Borup: Rather than indicate the number of lots, say as per revised plat with the well site
or do you want a number mentioned or what's the best way to --
Centers: Well, that 455 to include one lot for a well, that would --
Borup: Or probably 454 I think is what he's saying.
Freckleton: 454 building lots.
Centers: Of the 455, one of which will be a well lot. Okay?
Freckleton: I just didn't want there to be a --
Wollen: So there is an amendment to the motion --
Centers: Of the 455, one of which is a well lot which would be dedicated to the city.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Siddoway: Was there any discussion in that motion about the phasing and --
Borup: Just as proposed.
Siddoway: As proposed? I think the applicant was looking for some direction that that
proposal was acceptable and the staff report is saying there needs to be some -- if they
had a revised phasing plan or it needs to address the contiguity issue if there is three
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 85 of 87
phase ones, but it sounds like the Commission is satisfied with the phasing plan as
submitted.
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: Correct?
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: Okay.
Centers: The three that you indicated.
Siddoway: Right.
Centers: Continuing on. I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval to
the City Council for Item 12, the continued Public Hearing from May 2nd, 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 Sub by
Gem Park II Partnership, west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road,
including all staff comments.
Shreeve: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you. That includes this Public Hearing. Thank everybody for being here.
Commissioners, do you have any -- I have one quick thing,
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I also have one quick thing.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead.
Zaremba: You go first.
Borup: You go ahead.
Zaremba: Shortly before this meeting I was contacted by City Councilwoman Tammy de
Weerd, who would have called you, but she said she wasn't getting ahold of you and
needed to get the message to us. We, as a Commission, are invited to the City Council
meeting of Tuesday, July 9th, which will be with the City Council, Planning and Zoning,
and the Parks Department. They will provide us with a barbecue and a tour of the
parks. So the Planning and Zoning Commissioners are invited Tuesday, July 9th.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 86 of 87
Centers: Where at?
Zaremba: To the City Council meeting. We start here. I didn't get the time. That's the
first note. The second one is that we are also invited on Wednesday, July 17, to a
barbecue that is given by the City Council in the Chamber of Commerce in appreciation
of volunteers, which we are.
Centers: Right next door.
Zaremba: Didn't say where to show up, but --
Centers: The parking lot.
Zaremba: Probably. Anyhow, if you will mark your calendars for Tuesday, July 9th, and
Wednesday, July 17th, we have got a couple of barbecues.
Borup: We do have a -- I'll ask the Commissioners, we do have a position that needs to
be filled. It's supposed to be done by a P& Z Commissioner and that is on the fence
variance committee. That committee meets as needed to look at any fence variance
requested. Do we have a Commissioner that maybe will able to take a look at that?
Centers: You're wanting off, I take it?
Borup: I got to either -- I've got to reduce a few things, either some of those things, or
being on this Commission, so I --
Centers: What time of day do they meet?
Borup: It would be on Wednesday.
Centers: If they do.
Borup: If they do.
Centers: It doesn't matter to me, but whoever. Doesn't matter.
Shreeve: I can't.
Borup: Leslie can't?
Mathes: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: Within the past few months I have either volunteered or been volunteered for
four or five other boards and commissions. I --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 87 of 87
Borup: What I have been trying to do for the last two years is get them to rewrite the
fence ordinance and let that be handled -- the majority to be handled on a staff level so
far -- well, no one's written it. I don't know. Maybe that's where we need to but our
efforts on that.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, in our staff meeting Tuesday morning I learned that there are
-- it sounds like there are efforts underway to reduce the fencing committee to a
committee of one and that would be a person in the Planning and Zoning Department
that would have -- it would be the Planning and Zoning administrator or their designee.
So I don't know if they are in the process of drafting ordinance to that effect or what, but
that's what was talked about in the staff meeting.
Borup: That would be fantastic. I mean what's been discussed there is 95 percent of the
time it's always been within the guidelines that could be handled on a staff level. I think
we've only had two in the last year that really needed the committee to address.
Freckleton: Right. So I think there are efforts underway.
Borup: A representative from Planning and Zoning, a representative from City Council,
representative from the attorney -- from the engineers and the public works department
and the police department. In the past it's been chief of police, the city engineer --
Centers: Yeah, I can do it, Keith, if it's not that often, a couple times a year you say?
Borup: No. No. It's only been a couple times a year where I felt it has been necessary.
It's been every week in the springtime with people wanting to build fences. But so far
they haven't really been necessary meetings in my book. Maybe -- it sounds like there
is some things underway that it will probably take care of itself, so it might be good to
just hold on to see what happens. I tell them that they need some pressure or they are
not going to have anybody attending the meetings anyway.
Freckleton: So I'll tell them that they have your full support.
Borup: More than that. Do we have anyone else that wants any other final thing? If not,
open for a motion. And I want to get out of here at 11:30. My goal when we started was
11:30. If someone hurries and makes a motion we will make it.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn.
Mathes: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn at 11:30 on the dot.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 P.M.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Meeting
May 16, 2002
Page 88 of 87
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
____________________________ _____|_____|_____
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
________________________________
SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK