2003 08-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting August 21, 2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, August 21, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, and David Zaremba.
Members Absent: Michael Rohm and Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Jill Holinka, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Will Berg, Sharon
Smith, Anna Powell, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___O___ Leslie Mathes _______ Michael Rohm
___X___ Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled second meeting for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for August
21st
. Roll call of Commissioners.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: One item, maybe, Commissioners, on the adoption of the agenda -- let me ask,
first, is the applicant here for Item Number 10 Seegmiller? Okay. They were wondering
if they could be moved up in the agenda, the first -- or up to -- to replace Number 6 was
the request right? Okay. They have consented that they would be okay with that, if we
move them up prior to Item Number 6.
Zaremba: I have no problem. Do we need a motion for that or just an agreement?
Borup: Probably just an agreement, if that's all right. We will do that.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 03-
017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 45 building lots and
14 other lots on 12.74 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for proposed
Mayfair Commons Subdivision by Wildwood Development, LLC
– 1125 East Pine Street:
Borup: Okay one item on the Consent Agenda.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 2 of 114
Centers: Second.
Zaremba: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 4. Recommendation: VAC 03-003 Request for a Vacation of a sewer
easement on Lot 2 Block 1 of Pack It Up Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers – north of East Overland Road approximately one-half mile
west of South Eagle Road:
Powell: Chairman Borup, before you beginning your first Public Hearing, I wanted to
introduce our new staff member to you. Craig Hood is here and he will be bringing
cases to you soon. He is madly working on his first application as we speak. I just
wanted to let you know who he was and see his bright shining face.
Borup: Okay. Welcome. Thank you. Okay. First -- actually, the first two items are --
require just recommendations from this body. The first item VAC 03-003, request for
vacation of a sewer easement, Lot 2, Block 1, Pack It Up Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers. I'd like to start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. This
item is requesting a vacation of an existing sewer easement in Pack It Up Subdivision.
It's on the north side of Overland Road. As you may recall, this was approved originally
for a storage -- mini storage project. A day care currently is on Lot 4 down here in the
southeast corner of the subdivision. The easement is shown here, the north-south
easement coming off of the Nine Mile Drain, was originally intended to come through
the drive aisle of the storage unit complex and head south to serve other frontage lots
on Overland Road there. The applicant's requesting -- Pinnacle Engineers is
requesting that that easement be vacated, so that they have the opportunity to
construct over it. Is there anything else from Public Works? Public Works has noted
that they see no reason to keep it there, so staff is in support of the vacation.
Borup: All right. Commissioners, I think we need a motion for recommendation.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Commissioner Centers.
Centers: Would concur and make a recommendation that we approve Item Number 4
on the agenda, VAC 03-003.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 3 of 114
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 5. Recommendation: VAC 03-004 Request for Vacation of a dedicated
fifteen-foot right-of-way on West 4th
Street for Meridian Head Start by
Friends of Children and Families, Inc. -- 333 West Broadway Avenue:
Borup: Item Number 5, recommendation VAC 03-004, a request for vacation of
dedicated 15-foot right of way, West 4th
Street, for Meridian Head Start, by Friends of
Children and Family, Incorporated, at 333 West Broadway. We will start with the staff
report on that item also.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is also a
vacation request. This one is of right of way. The location -- you will recall the Head
Start project that came through here recently for a Conditional Use Permit, that project
is the subject property and adjacent to it on its west boundary is an existing right of way.
That right of way was dedicated in a 1903 plat and it was a 30-foot right of way at that
time. In 1961, the city vacated the west half of that right of way and quitclaimed it to the
property owner to the west. The remaining 15 feet is all that's left and they are
requesting that that be vacated. It does dead end at the railroad tracks, there is no
possibility for it to be extended as a street in the future, and staff has checked with the
Ada County Highway District, they have submitted their consent for this application, it's
necessary for them to go through and get city approval first prior to going through
ACHD's formal process. They are requesting vacation of that remaining 15 feet of right
of way tonight and I would stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I only have one typical off-the-wall question. I know ACHD didn't exist in
1903, but did the city pay anything for that right of way?
Siddoway: I would doubt it. I think it probably was just dedicated on the plat.
Zaremba: Okay.
Siddoway: The way the streets are today.
Borup: All right. Sounds good to me.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? The only other question I had, Steve, was I guess the
applicant was going to be here to address the utilities that you had been concerned
about.
Siddoway: Yes. The applicant is in the audience. I did have two special
considerations. The first was simply just to alert you to the process that this is not a
Public Hearing, but it is a process by which the Commission makes a recommendation
to the Council. I also had one in there about utilities and ask that the applicant verify
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 4 of 114
that there were no utilities in that right of way. I believe that Bruce has verified that as
far as the city is concerned there are no city utilities in there.
Borup: Do we -- yes. Want to come forward, then, ma'am?
McKibben: Commissioners, I'm Sherry McKibben. I'm an architect. I live at 515 West
Hays, Boise, Idaho. There are no city utilities in that right of way. There are no utilities
at all.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I guess my only other question would be does there need to be any kind of a
Hold Harmless Agreement in case this property -- who knows, 1915 somebody was
dumping toxic waste on it and it comes under new ownership and they seek some
redress of grievance or something. I have no idea whether such a thing might have
happened, but do we need to be protected?
Siddoway: It's technically right of way, so it's -- you know, I don't know that the city
needs to worry about that. It's ACHD's property and ACHD will be the one deeding it to
the property owner, not the city.
Zaremba: Okay.
Siddoway: The city just has to find that it's also in the city's interest to let the public right
of way go away.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I just thought of something. We didn't close the Public Hearing
on Item Number 4. We approved and recommended --
Borup: I didn't open a Public Hearing.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: And the same on this. This is just --
Centers: Well, then, I would concur that we make recommendation to the City Council
for Number 5, VAC 03-004.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 5 of 114
Item 10. Continued Public Hearing from July 3, 2003: CUP 03-024 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new dental clinic in an L-O
zone for Seegmiller Dental by Dr. Dave Seegmiller – south of East Gala
Street and east of South Millennium Way:
Borup: The next item is a Continued Public Hearing from July 3rd
, CUP 03-024, a
request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new dental clinic in an L-O zone for
Seegmiller Dental. This is south of East Gala and east of South Millennium Way.
Again, this is a Continued Public Hearing, I think it was continued to look into traffic
patterns and et cetera. I'd like to go ahead and continue with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, yes, the staff, I think,
put most of what we need to state on the public record at the previous meeting. I won't
really add much. To clarify, if you didn't get a chance to read through the minutes from
that July Meeting, I believe the motion was made by Commissioner Zaremba to
continue based on the fact that City Council at that point had not acted on the re-
subdivision of this lot that is in bold on the screen. That came through as Gaudry
Seegmiller Subdivision. This was split into three lots. At that point the Commission had
made a recommendation for a cross-access to be provided north and south between
this lot and the flag lot, but the Council at the July meeting had not heard this item and
so you were not aware if that access would be required or not. The Council did act on
the Gaudry Seegmiller Plat, the re-subdivision. They required temporary bollards be
constructed generally about this location that would be eliminated upon permanent
connection to the east, this larger lot of Resolution Subdivision that remains owned by
Mr. Voigt, the developer of the entire Resolution Subdivision. I'll go to the Site Plan for
this particular CUP and, again, here -- this does show the proposed configuration of
buildings on all three lots. This Conditional Use is just dealing with this eastern most
lot. This box shown here on the south is the trash enclosure, which would be generally
in the alignment of where those temporary bollards would be placed, based on the
Council's condition that they -- to allow emergency access through East Gala, should
Millennium Way be congested. This would allow emergency to come down East Gala
into the project and access this flag lot, Lot Number 3, if necessary. I think that, really,
was the main outstanding issue as to why this body chose not to finalize it. That was
the decision of Council. It would require some arrangement or realignment of that trash
enclosure to get that plat condition to really function correctly. Otherwise, I don't think
there was, really, any new information submitted. You -- well, I take that back. There
was a letter submitted by Captain Musser of the Police Department that was submitted
to the record that was actually written for the subdivision application, but was -- since it
kind of pertains to the CUP, we included that as well. I don't think we received any
other new comments from any other agencies since that time, so I will just leave it at
that.
Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission? Does the applicant have anything
they'd like to add?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 6 of 114
Knopp: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Larry Knopp 355
South 3rd
Street, Boise. I'm the architect representing Dr. Seegmiller. We have redrawn
the plat or the Site Plan and we have relocated the trash and connected a sidewalk
through into the flag lot area. As the Council recommended, bollards will be installed
and a chain will be put across it, it will be strictly for emergency vehicle access. At the
time that the lot is developed to the east, the five acres, connectivity will happen
through an east west and we will permanently close off the temporary that we are
putting in at this point in time. I'll submit to the Council the new draft of the site, just
indicating the changes that were required by City Council and I think we should be on
the same page with everything at this point in time.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Centers: No. I'd just like to formally apologize for the long delay, because it appears
that the letter that I read from Captain Musser, who is now the Chief, agreed with your
synopsis at the last hearing over a month and a half ago that pedestrian traffic only,
because of the high school, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know if you read the letter.
Knopp: Yes, I did.
Centers: Yes. So --
Knopp: I went and talked to him and -- to make sure that we --
Centers: Good.
Knopp: I appreciate it. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. We did not have anyone sign up for testimony. Is there
anyone here that came to testify on this? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 10 be closed.
Centers: I second.
Borup: Motion and second to close Item 10. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to make a motion that we approve and recommend approval to
the City Council on Item 10, which has been moved up on our agenda. It is a CUP from
July 3rd
, CUP 03-024, request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new dental
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 7 of 114
clinic in an L-O zone for Seegmiller Dental by Dave Seegmiller, south of East Gala
Street and east of South Millennium Way. Including all staff comments from a memo
dated June 30th
and the original hearing date was July 3rd
, postponed until August 21st
.
End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: CPA 03-003
Request for amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow
new residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for
proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West
Ustick Road:
Item 7. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: RZ 03-009 Request
for a Rezone of 6.39 acres from C-N to R-8 zones for proposed
Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick
Road:
Item 8. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: PP 03-019 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 40 building lots and 7 other lots on 5.93
acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by
Wardle and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road:
Item 9. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: CUP 03-034
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a 41-
lot subdivision to include a reduction in minimum size lots, size of homes,
minimum square footage on main floor of multi-level homes, and setbacks
in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle
and Associates – 3680 West Ustick Road:
Borup: Now, this next project we really have four items pertaining to the same project.
It is listed as a Continued Public Hearing. We did not have a presentation or any
testimony on this. This was after -- this was at the end of our last meeting and after the
time when we start new Public Hearings. Because I think staff of recommendations and
to facilitate this, we would like to continue with Item Number 6 as a single item and,
then, after that we would get into the seven, eight, and nine, which is -- seven, eight,
and nine hearing is on the project itself with the Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use
and rezoning. I would like to open Continued Public Hearing CUP 03-003, this is a
request for an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan to allow new
residential uses within the mixed use WWTP zoning designation for the proposed
Stapleton Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. This project is at 3680 West Ustick
Road. We'd like to start with the staff report. Again, this is just on Item Number 6.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 8 of 114
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Then, just on Item Number 6, the request for the Comp Plan
Amendment.
Borup: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: I have shown on the presentation, just to help orient you, you're no
doubt familiar with the area as part of the Comprehensive Plan process a year ago, but
the area we are talking about is generally here at the northwest corner of Ten Mile and
Ustick Roads. The property that is for the next three items on the agenda is shown
here with the -- with the Nine Mile adjacent to it on the east side. Their request is --
does not, actually, relate to this future land use map, it's strictly a proposed text change.
Right now in this area that's shown as kind of this off-brown color, the Comp Plan says
there will be no new housing permitted. There is also an additional five or six policies
that I included in my staff report that also pertain to development in that area, but the
specific policy that they are proposing to change is to allow new residential uses in this
area with a Conditional Use Permit. Just to clarify, I think you received the original
application, but, then, there was a supplement that was submitted after that by
Jonathan Wardle with the Wardle Group. He outlined in there a number of other
justifications that they made where they feel that the change should be made to the
Comp Plan, so I wanted to clarify that you received that. We have addressed a couple
of prior related actions that are -- have occurred out here in this area on page two of the
staff report. Mainly, that the Council did adopt the Comprehensive Plan and land use
map on August 6, 2002. They also, on August 6, 2002, denied a request for annexation
to a light industrial zone on the 30 plus acre parcel that's located here right at the corner
of Ten Mile and Ustick Road. That was proposed as the Utility Subdivision and I did list
the four reasons for their denial of that industrial zone request in the staff report,
including the concerns of the neighboring property owners. The fact that the proposed
development does not constitute a light industrial use, that the development would pose
concerns and noise, odor, liter, and potential impact and that they did not consider that
annexation to be in the best interest of the city. Then, the third item I listed that relates
to this is the property that is the subject of this application was annexed in December
2002. The Britton parcel, to a C-N zone, and that C-N zone does -- we felt was
something that staff and the applicant came to that would match up with the anticipated
uses in this Mixed Use Wastewater Treatment Plant Area. That was the reason for the
C-N.
Centers: Well -- and, Brad, excuse me. I remember that evening. She would have
accepted any zone we gave her.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Yes.
Centers: She just wanted to be annexed into the city.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 9 of 114
Zaremba: Well, in fact, she was cooperating with us, because she had hooked up to
sewer and she's required to Annex. As I recall, their original request was a residential
zone, we changed it with staff -- staff suggestion, and we recommended that to City
Council, that it be changed to C-N.
Hawkins-Clark: C-N. Right. Yes. Thanks for that clarification. On Page 3 of the staff
report, started to address some of the specifics on this application to amend the
Comprehensive Plan policy. I guess the main item to point out there is the fact that the
compatibility of residential is basically something that the Public Works Department and
the operators of the plant out there have expressed on the record in the past several
times that they are generally opposed to adding population of residential uses in this
area of the city. In and around the plant and, certainly, this ultimately does come down
to a Commission and City Council decision about what is compatibility. Do you feel that
there is or could be, through the Conditional Use process of a residential project, some
kind of buffer or other mitigating factors added in there and/or will there be that much of
an impact on the market that the lots would just simply not sell. These are things that
require somewhat of a crystal ball and the compatibility is -- basically will be coming
down to your judgment based on what is submitted into the public record. Staff feels
generally that this is -- you know, this has only been in place for about a year now in
terms of a designation. We would like to see the Comprehensive Plan have more of
chance to work with the designations that were adopted. A year is not a long time for
the marketplace to respond to changes in the city's plan, so that's one thing that we
would like to see continued on. Even if residential were allowed adjacent to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant, probably the lower densities would be preferred as are out
there now, which are the rural type uses and densities. We are, as we put in our
recommendation, just feel that the application just really doesn't warrant the change at
this time. I did include some acreage that gives you a sense for how much property is
out there. There are 420.43 acres in that Wastewater Treatment Plant area. Of that
420 acres, about 250 is available for nonresidential uses, if you assume that the school
district is going to pursue this 40 acre piece that's shown here, which is, actually, a part
of the frontage on Black Cat Road. This is all existing single parcel, I believe but the
breakdowns are shown there. Mr. Wardle did, in his application talk about the amount
of nonresidential uses that could potentially be constructed out here should this go all
nonresidential. With a floor area ratio of around .25, which is pretty well founded in
terms of how much acreage would be dedicated for actual square footage of the
building and how -- in relationship to the area of the whole -- of the land. You know, we
recognize that 100 percent nonresidential at a .25 would probably overwhelm the North
Meridian Area and that's why in our recommendation we are basically saying we would
like the opportunity to spend more time with the property owners. Possibly with other
planners, other developers, and kind of look at this whole section in a more intensive
way, probably as part of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the North Meridian
Area, as you recall, was withdrawn, so that we can pursue that. We think that this could
be kind of folded into that effort. I don't think I'll point out anything else, other than that
we have recommended that the Comp Plan Amendment not be approved right now.
We think there is more work to be done and that the plan should have more than one
year to -- allowing the commercial and the light industrial and the general market to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 10 of 114
adjust to the new developments and the patterns that we have shown in the Comp
Plan.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I'd like to ask how long has the treatment plant been there? That long?
Hawkins-Clark: Bruce Freckleton is saying he thinks it's the late '70s.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Other questions from the Commission? You're saying you'd like not to do
anything in this area until a more comprehensive plan has been developed. Is that
generally what you're saying?
Hawkins-Clark: Well, I think -- no. I think there are entitlements that certainly go with
the current Comprehensive Plan for this area and --
Borup: We just don't know what they are.
Hawkins-Clark: -- I think they are -- well, they are the office, the light industrial, some
small retail, other uses that are currently allowed out there we think would -- obviously,
we are not going to recommend anything other than approval if the plan and the use
complies with the policies that are currently stated. We are just simply saying with this
application to allow the new residential is --
Borup: I have got a couple of questions on the definition, then. A Planned Unit
Development, general planned residential, what type of -- what type of residential
housing would fit under that category?
Hawkins-Clark: Are you referring, Chairman, to the schedule of use control that --
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: -- shows the plan? There is no housing type or product type that is --
Borup: Other than just residential.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Well, I note that this is presently a C-N zone and a general planned residential
project can go in a C-N zone as a conditional -- C-N zone as a Conditional Use, without
even needing a zone change. I mean it's a permitted use with a Conditional Use.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 11 of 114
Hawkins-Clark: We would certainly have to find that the use is consistent with the
Comp Plan --
Borup: Also.
Hawkins-Clark: -- regardless of -- you know, at the time of any development
application. But -- and I would probably need a minute to do that, but I could check -- I
believe that that was, actually, stricken as a part of an ordinance amendment about a
year and a half ago. We had -- the schedule of use was modified.
Borup: Do we have that new modification yet? Have you guys got it?
Zaremba: I do not have -- you're talking about Chapter 8? I don't have a Chapter 8 any
newer than two years ago.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes. I had a question, Mr. Chairman, but I see that he's looking --
Zaremba: One of the additional uses that have been floated for that area -- while you're
still looking -- is a park. Wouldn't be anything wrong with resurrecting that for a few of
these acres, too.
Hawkins-Clark: I believe it is under Ordinance 03-1006, but it looks like it was just the
general planned residential that was stricken. It still allowed the planned residential
development, so -- no, I'm sorry, it doesn't. Yes. The planned residential development
is allowed as a Conditional Use Permit in the residential -- all four residential zones, but
the Planned Unit Development general planned residential was stricken from the C-N
zone, so that was --
Borup: It was stricken?
Hawkins-Clark: It was stricken as a part of that ordinance amendment.
Borup: I do not have -- I mean I'm still looking at my old one that had that as a
Conditional Use.
Centers: The way I understand it, from what I read, if we approve the text amendment
or recommend approval, it applies to all of the brown area.
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct.
Centers: And it can't specific for this specific property, it has to apply to the whole area?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. As the application was submitted that's certainly the case and we
would -- we would want to see, when it comes to a Comp Plan policy, address a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 12 of 114
broader area than just one parcel. That's not the tool for our Comp Plan to just deal
with the --
Centers: Right. Okay.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Wardle: Commissioners, for the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940
East Mill Station Drive, Boise 83716. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this
evening. If I could just clarify one point that was discussed on the Britton property, there
wasn't an option to do residential, because the Comp Plan precluded it. That's why it
went to the commercial zone. It probably could have gone to limited office, maybe even
light industrial, but she needed to be in the city, she needed sewer, so that's where it
ended up. There wasn't an option for residential, although she requested that. I'd like
to give a little bit of background, because it's important to this whole discussion of what
is the mixed use Wastewater Treatment Plant area, what does the city want it to
become. In 1993 the city designated this area generally as rural residential agricultural.
There was a park site designated on generally the corner, which we refer to as Utility
Subdivision, which many of you are familiar with. More recently, you have had a lot of
discussions on that very application. I'm not going to go into the details of it, but there
were some issues raised within that application that are applicable to this entire area.
There were ten Public Hearings on that application. There were, actually, eleven, but
the first one was deferred. There were ten Public Hearings, including what you had, as
well as City Council. The issue of a regional park site was discussed. The Parks
Department decided not to go with this location, the public record stated because they
were told that the odor may be too strong for their patrons, so they chose to go two
miles down the road to a location at Ustick and -- is it Ustick or is it McMillan and
Meridian? Ustick. That's where the regional park site went. There was a residential
subdivision proposed by Collins Engineering for an R-4 designation, but it was not
accepted, because of the proximity to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. There was also
a business park employment center concept floated in front of the city and this is based
on the public record. The city said, no, we'd prefer that it not go there, because of the
eminent odor that may come from the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Here were three
applications or three potential projects for this area, they were all told that, no, it wasn't
appropriate at this location. A light industrial project was proposed. That was Utility
Subdivision proposed in 2001, carried on through 2002. Ultimately, that project was
denied, because it was deemed to be heavier industrial and would not have been
compatible with the existing neighborhood, which was residential. In 2002, the city
adopted the mixed used Wastewater Treatment Plant and as Brad stated, it
encompasses about 420 acres. That's a big area 420 acres with a mixed-use
designation, and I'd like to just get into what some of the uses could be if granted a
Conditional Use Permit and that's the catch, if granted a Conditional Use Permit. Light
professional offices, and flex space uses, including light warehousing. No new
residential period. Limited small-scale retail and mini storage so, those uses were
specifically laid out in the Comp Plan as being appropriate for this mixed-use
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The staff did detail some more specifics of what it really
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 13 of 114
breaks down to. There is approximately 292 acres that could potentially be developed
in this area so, let's use that as our baseline number, 292. They make the statement in
there that 40 acres is potentially designated as a school district property. What school
district property is this? Is this an elementary school? Is this a middle school? Is this
potentially a high school? I think that needs to be understood as well, because as I
read this mixed-use Wastewater Treatment Plant designation, it doesn't say anything
about schools, but it's very specific in the items of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
that they want to minimize human exposure to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. If this
is an elementary school, that's potentially 600 students, Middle school, a thousand, and
High school, 2,000. Something needs to be addressed on that as well. This is a bigger
issue than just residential. I gave you a memo and that memo was included in the
packet, but it's been updated to address the numbers that have been provided in the
most recent staff report, so the numbers are updated, I'm just going to read some of
those issues. A variety of application studies and issues are important to consider as
the future commercial retail industrial viability of this mixed-used Wastewater Treatment
Plant. First, industrial uses the city received a request and held Public Hearings for
industrial and storage applications known as Utility Subdivision. That project was
denied and deemed not compatible with the neighborhood. The city made it clear that
heavy industrial uses are not appropriate at this location. Retail uses. The city did a
study in late 2001 performed by an outside consultant by the name of Ed Starkey and
tried to decipher how much retail is potentially going to be in the North Meridian Area
and I think over the city as well, but, specifically, it was in concert with this discussion.
That January 11, 2002, report stated each square mile will support about 43,000 square
feet. If you put that in acreage size, it's about one acre. If you take to a floor area ratio
of .25, that's about four acres worth of retail in every square section. That would -- if we
back out those four acres as retail possibility in the section, that would leave 246 acres
of -- what do we do with it? Location on linkages the mixed-use Wastewater Treatment
area is poorly situated for type and intensity of uses proposed by the existing
Comprehensive Plan. Retail office, light industrial, and flex spaces desire good access,
visibility, and linkages to a larger transportation network. The site is two miles from
Highway 20-26, eight miles from the interest interstate point. Some of the 250 acres
may be developed as commercial and/or office uses. That's very possible. However,
much of it will never be viable given the already approved projects in the North Meridian
area, which have much better locations and linkages to those transportation corridors.
Even if the transportation linkages were better, the mixed-use Wastewater Treatment
Plant appears to disallow office -- large office and manufacturing parks given the limited
land use option of only light professional offices and flex space. We don't want to get
into heavy industrial. I am assuming that the light profession offices -- there may be
some discussion of what exactly that means, but I'm not sure it would represent a park
similar to what we have out at El Dorado or Silverstone out on Overland Road. Those
are major facilities and I'm not sure that this location is geared to a major facility like
that. ACHD did a study with the North Meridian Plan to determine how much industrial
space -- or, pardon me, how much commercial and retail space they envisioned
happening out here. Strangely enough, the study was completely silent on industrial. I
asked them why. They said ACHD didn't request any industrial uses out there, nor did
the City of Meridian bring it up. It may have been an oversight, but let me give you the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 14 of 114
numbers of how much retail and office they are proposing. If you combine the two, its
4,673,000 square feet if you put that into acreage size with a floor area ratio of .25,
that's about 429 acres worth of office and retail space. The 246 acres that we are
talking about here, if you use just a simple floor area ratio of .25, so a quarter of every
square foot would be dedicated to a use and the rest would be either landscaping or
office. You would get about 2,678,000 square feet of space out here if it was retail or
office. Now, the issue with flex space and manufacturing space, warehouse space is
different, talking with representatives who deal with these flex facilities. Their floor area
ratio is based on circulation and parking requirements, as well as docks, is anywhere
from .35 to .5. We are talking even more square footage of possible warehouse space
in this location. It would be a range from 3,750,000 square feet up to 5,387,000 square
feet. If you put all the retail that's projected in the North Meridian Area and you
compare it to this area, it would represent about 57 percent of all that retail and
commercial space going here. That's highly unlikely that's ever going to happen, based
on existing approvals. Residential neighborhoods, you look at this area, there is
adjoining residential to the south, all developed. There is adjoining residential to the
east, developed and in the process of being developed. You see across McMillan Road
it's shown as -- I think it's medium density residential. You come down Black Cat Road
it shows it as both medium and low density residential. Around here, they are
proposing that uses will occur. The question is what's the magic line? At what point
does the break happen of where is it appropriate to have residential and where is it not
appropriate to have residential? If I can digress just for one second? This proposed
Comprehensive Plan was dated December 2001. It was a plan that you saw, that you
looked at. If we look at it today, the Wastewater Treatment Plant is all orange brown.
This one -- we are talking about this area right up here. It shows that it's gray. You will
notice that everything along Ustick is shown as residential. Now, something happened
between the time that this plan was proposed and this plan was adopted and I'm sure
that there is an explanation for it, but someone felt that residential was appropriate, at
least at some of these locations along here. I just wanted to bring that into the record,
that at one point it was proposed as residential along Ustick Road. The real issue here
is the Wastewater Treatment Plant. You know, there are comments in the staff report
from both Planning and Zoning and Public Works concerned about the impact of odor
on humans. You go back to the public record of most recently Utility Subdivision, there
was a lot of testimony given of people saying from time to time they do smell it, but it's
not all the time and they just have learned to live with it. There was also record that
some of these -- the Commissioners on here, as well as City Council, have toured the
treatment plant, have been out there, and haven't smelled anything. The real issue
here is how real is this smell. I'm not going to discount it. I know what it smells like. It
happens from time to time. I have in-laws that live out there and I have smelled it on
one occasion, but I have spent a lot of time out there as well. I wanted to know what
the city's perception of the smell was not just we have concerns. I called Code
Enforcement. Code Enforcement, they weren't aware of any, but they said call the
Police Department, they might be. I called the Police Department police, the Police
Department says, you know, you're talking to the wrong people, that's not something we
deal with, call Code Enforcement. I called Code Enforcement back and they forwarded
my phone call to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. I should have started there first.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 15 of 114
Probably would have -- connect the dots would have been fewer. I found out from the
Wastewater Treatment Plant -- I got a little educational on what type of plant this is. It's
an activated sludge plant we tertiary sand treatment. Did I say that right? Okay. In
short, that means it generates sludge and from three or four times a year that sludge is
picked up, it's -- sometimes it's -- I don't know if it's sold or given to farmers. It's
basically used as a solid bio solvent that they can put as fertilizer and use it on -- and
the Wastewater Treatment Plant said if I even wanted to use it in my yard, I could. It's
that type of material, and they said that's the time when the odors are most prevalent
and I asked the question how many complaints have you received? How many calls
have you received? He said over the last five years they have received three phone
calls about the smell. One of them was from a new resident that was unaware that the
Wastewater Treatment Plant was there, but she lived a mile -- about three-quarters of a
mile to the southeast, which is the prevailing direction of the wind, so she caught a sniff.
From their perspective, they have had three calls over the last five years. I would also
assume that they prefer that nothing be there, but he did state to me that if residential
occurs, people need to know up front what they are buying and where they are buying
next to. It needs to be clearly stated and we are prepared to do that, inform the people
that we work with what's out there.
Borup: Mr. Wardle, I was very interested in that. That was one of the questions I had
down, was how many complaints there had been, and you must have anticipated that. I
don't know.
Wardle: Can I make a couple more comments?
Borup: Yes. I mean I have heard others say that some of the people have thought that
it was a sewer plant and it was a dairy farm down the road.
Zaremba: There was a big cattle operation right next to it.
Borup: Is there -- was that even differentiated between?
Wardle: No.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead.
Wardle: Okay. I would assume that if the Wastewater Treatment Plant receives a
phone call, that it's probably something they anticipate. Whether they could
differentiate between what's happening at the dairy or themselves, I don't know. During
the Utility Subdivision project, some testimony was given by the public that at times you
could smell the Wastewater Treatment Plant. For the most part, there was no smell at
all. Even members of the Commission had stated on a tour they didn't experience any
smell. We are going into this project wide open. We know where we are. We know the
location. We understand the concerns of the city. We also need to be very clear of if
residential is not allowed here, what will you allow? The park site decided not to go
here because of that concern. The proposed residential subdivision was not allowed to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 16 of 114
go here. Business employment center was told we'd prefer you not be there and the
industrial subdivision was denied. If those uses are not allowed and are going to be
requested to not be here at this location, what will be? I guess it's our request this
evening that residential be strongly considered as an appropriate use, especially given
the adjoining residential uses around. I think that we can work with future buyers as the
project goes forward on educating them and we are prepared to do so on both plat and
CC&R’s, so that it's clearly stated in both locations.
Centers: So, that's how you're going to do it? That was my main question that they
don't do it.
Wardle: It doesn't do it?
Centers: They don't read it. They don't read the CC&R’s. They don't read the plat. I
would love to see it residential if the future homeowners had the opportunity -- if there
was a sign all the way around it, there is a Wastewater Plant so many feet from this
location, but that's not going to happen. You come up with an imaginative idea to keep
the public informed that there is a Wastewater Treatment Plant and, you know, I would
definitely be interested in that, because I have thought and thought about it since I saw
this application. Because five years from now a homeowner resells to another party
down the road and they are not going to know that the Wastewater Treatment Plant is
so many feet away. I would love to see it residential if the public could be informed --
not all of the area residential, maybe the area you're talking about, but I don't know how
you can keep them informed. They don't read the CC&R’s and they won't read the plat.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, if I might. Commissioner Centers, something we have done in
another project where we had issues of concern, which was Harris Ranch, we had an
addendum that every buyer that came in signed the addendum and it stated very
specifically things that they needed to be aware of. They signed that -- we stated what
those things were. One of them was -- we had a depredation easement, which was for
the wildlife. We are near the wildlife management area, they were going to be in the
area, and so we needed to make them aware of that. I think it's something we can do in
this case as well and we have prepared language to --
Centers: Is that an addendum to the sales agreement?
Wardle: Yes.
Centers: When you sold the property to the builder for the lot or the builder sold the
completed home to the buyer?
Wardle: It was when the builder sold the home to the end buyer.
Borup: So, that addendum would accompany the deed? Can you even do that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 17 of 114
Powell: Anna Powell. It does get transferred to the second owner with the CC&R’s, I
believe, but -- because I'm not the first owner of my house and yet I got a copy of it. I'll
also comment that there are violations against that all over the place. I mean one says
you can't have wrought iron fences with spikes on the top and they are everywhere, so -
-
Borup: Well -- but I think the point was there, they are made aware of it with a separate
thing that they have to sign. It's not something that's in a 40-page document
Centers: Well -- and I'm concerned about the homeowner down the road. That guy
that gets that and, then, he sells it, he's not required to --
Borup: Well, if it's an addendum to the deed, wouldn't that have to --
Centers: He's talking the sales agreement, Mr. Chairman, when they sell the property
to the --
Borup: Well, the first buyer. Well, that was my question. Can that be an addendum to
the deed? If that's the case, that would be transferred every time the property is --
Centers: That would be --
Borup: I don't know the legal aspects of that.
Centers: Because the way I read the concerns from Mr. Watson is kind of like the
concerns of people that have livestock and, hey, we are here first, we are
grandfathered. That's Mr. Watson's concern, we were here first, we are grandfathered,
we don't want to hear the complaints, and I don't blame him.
Borup: I don't either.
Centers: So, I think that's his major concern, the four points he made.
Wardle: If I might just make one more point. It's been my understanding and
substantiated by the Wastewater Treatment Plant, but there is funding coming in this
year and it's their expectation that no smell or very little smell will come from the
treatment plant. Now, maybe Public Works can address that, but it's my understanding
that there is funding in place and staff said within the next 12 months the smell should
go away completely.
Borup: Comment on that, Bruce?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. What if? I mean what if it
doesn't are you going to want mitigation. You know, what we are trying to do is protect
the city, protect potential buyers -- we don't want to get the phone calls, we don't want
the complaints, we want the same protections as like the Right to Farm Act provides.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 18 of 114
You know, I have been here for 10 years, 11 years, and ever since I have been here,
that plant has been under construction, constant construction. It's not just noise -- or I
mean it's not just smell, it's noise and lights and we have huge drying fans out there that
run 24-7 and it creates a lot of noise. We do our best -- you know, we do our best to try
and keep the smell down, the noise down, but you got to consider the operation.
Zaremba: May I ask a question about capacity of the plant? Meridian at this point has
not -- we haven't filled in all the spaces that even have already been approved for
housing developments and -- I guess my question is what capacity is the plant running
at now and is this plant ever going to be enlarged or is there supposed to be a second
plant at build out?
Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, I wish I could answer the question of capacity at
this point in time. I don't have that information with me right now. Like I said, the plant
is under constant upgrade, expanding the capacity, and we have a long range plan that
every year we are keeping up, trying to keep up with the growth.
Zaremba: It can continue to expand without using up more of the acreage around it or
will it sometime need to be a larger facility?
Borup: I think the question is does the city already own enough acres to --
Freckleton: Yes, we do.
Borup: -- accommodate Meridian at build out.
Zaremba: Eventual full capacity.
Freckleton: Yes. At build out, we have enough acreage.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: And that was what I had understood from past comments.
Zaremba: Okay.
Wardle: Just one final comment and I will sit down and listen to rest of the public
testimony. You said no to a park. No industrial. No commercial. No residential. If
uses aren't -- and I think the other issue here is you have also placed a Conditional Use
Permit on top of this. Someone might come in and say that's retail across from me,
that's not compatible with my residential neighborhood and whether you find a finding
for that or not, that could go to court and be delayed for many, many years. I think the
issue of the Wastewater Treatment Plant -- and I agreed with staff -- needs to be
addressed. I hope that this is the forum that it can be addressed. I know that both this
Commission and the City Council are interested in finding some sort of compromise for
something that can occur here, other than just having a -- as it was told by one Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 19 of 114
member, a 500 pound orange guerilla that we don't know what to do with. I appreciate
your time. Stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I will say that your research has been very thorough and I'm very impressed
by the information that you provided to us.
Wardle: Thank you.
Borup: Any discussion from the Commissioners before we proceed with testimony?
Zaremba: I'd like to hear what anybody else has to say.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this? Come forward, please.
Layton: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, my name is Rhonda Layton.
My address is 3610 West Ustick Road. I border the proposed property on the east side
of the property. I have a one-acre piece that I purchased last year in October and
knowing of the Comprehensive Plan at that time, I purchased this piece. I have two
horses that live on that acreage with me and I have been grandfathered in. I am in the
city I am hooked up to the water and the sewer. I'm in the city limits, but I do have that
grandfather clause on that. My property is 110 feet wide and it goes back the length to
equal an acre. I don't know how deep it is. There would be nine two-story houses 15
feet from my property line in this proposed deal. I know we are not addressing the
details of the plan at this point yet, but I would like to say that I am opposed to basically
all of it. I don't want to see the Comprehensive Plan changed drastically for one specific
use, one specific six acre piece. If that's an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
and needs to be taken care of addressed, maybe a residential two-acre, horse people
that are used to kind of the smell kind of thing, you know. In my opinion, the
Wastewater Sewage Plant smells different than the dairy does or did smells different
than my horses do. I'm more bothered by, like Bruce said, about the noise and the
lights. The noise, the humming, is more so, because it's 24 hours a day. Of course,
you don't hear it in the day with the traffic and stuff, but I certainly hear it at night. Then,
the lights shine at night, too. At night I would say I would be more bothered with the
noise and the lights than I am with, you know, the smell. It comes and goes. I have
lived there for nine months and I would say a good 40 percent of the time it smells at
some point you know, during the day. If Conditional Use needed to be made in
something, I could see a less density project to maybe keep in -- to coincide with the
rest of the residential area, rest of the -- I don't know.
Borup: So, you're saying a less dense residential use?
Layton: I would think that if the commercial -- or if a Conditional Use Permit would be
approved on this area, then, at the most part a very less -- or a low density.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 20 of 114
Borup: But you're saying residential?
Layton: Right. I'm just saying if that --
Borup: The suggested change is to allow residential, rather than the industrial
commercial.
Layton: Right and I'm saying that if you were to allow the residential, and not allow 40
homes on six acres, but maybe five homes on six acres.
Centers: They can do that now in the county.
Layton: In the county, but this is city -- this piece is the city. It's annexed.
Centers: Let me ask you did you know about the Wastewater Treatment Plant when
you purchased your property?
Layton: I did.
Centers: How did you become aware of that?
Layton: I bought from the owner and he disclosed that information to me.
Centers: In writing or just a nice guy?
Layton: I'm not sure it's in writing.
Centers: So, then, what you're saying is it didn't bother you.
Layton: In order to buy it?
Centers: Right.
Layton: I bought it as horse property. I knew my horses would be there also.
Centers: But you live there.
Layton: I do live there.
Centers: You know, irregardless of the horses, you live there.
Layton: Yes.
Centers: And you knew about the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Layton: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 21 of 114
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: You are the property right to the east you said?
Layton: Yes.
Borup: Did you buy that from Mr. Crane?
Layton: Yes, I did. He lives next door to me on the east side.
Centers: Okay. You're right about in there?
Layton: No.
Centers: Right here?
Borup: Right here.
Layton: I'm right -- that long one right here and, then, Crane is next to me, more
towards the east. We both border the Nine Mile Creek.
Borup: And you built a new home on your property?
Layton: He did. I did not. I have the original old home.
Centers: Oh. Okay.
Borup: And he's got the newer home.
Layton: Yes. I would like to ask have you received the letter that he sent to the
planning and zoning?
Borup: Yes, we have.
Layton: And -- okay. Is that going to be read into it or you just have that in your file?
Zaremba: I was going to mention it for the record that we received it. That usually is --
puts it on record.
Layton: Okay.
Zaremba: Since we are on that subject, we have received a letter from Charles Crane,
dated August 21st
.
Layton: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 22 of 114
Borup: Thank you.
Layton: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else?
J. Centers: Commissioners, my name is Jake Centers. My address is 2011 Locust
Grove in Meridian, and, for the record, there is no relation to Commissioner Centers
that I know about.
Centers: Thank you. I don't know of any either.
J. Centers: Okay. Good. Okay. Really, it boils down to one of two things. Either the
property surrounding the Wastewater Treatment Plant has an odor or it doesn't and if it
doesn't have an odor, then, no foul, no harm. You know, approve residential. If it does
have an odor, then, kind of what they are saying, the approved uses would be for
businesses. If any of you own a business or imagine if you did, would you want to
locate your business in an area that omitted a foul odor, where you relied on clients
coming to your business, your place of business, and having to endure that smell. I
own a business and I surely wouldn't want to locate my office in a place that's stunk,
where I was trying to make impressions on clientele that was coming in -- you know. I
mean you usually build your office and have pleasant smells, mood music, and that kind
of thing in there to create a pleasurable experience when they come to see you. You
know, I don't think that that's something that a business owner would want to do. At
least with a house you know that that smell is there and we tolerate a lot of things with
our personal residences that we wouldn't necessarily choose to do when we were going
out trying to conduct business. I think there is a little bit of a difference with that. There
was a comment made by Mrs. Layton about the nine homes being right adjacent to her
property. Her house actually sits on the front part of that property and there might only
be three actual homes that would, I guess, interfere with her day-to-day activities with
her house. She's concerned about two story -- or nine two story residences abutting
her property, but there can also be, if this were light industrial, a two story
manufacturing facility that operated -- you know. I'm not exactly sure what the hours of
operation is limited to in light industrial, but, you know, it could be a 24 hour operation
that goes on next door. You know, I don't think this is as bad as it could be if some of
the other uses were allowed. There was also some comment about wanting lower
density uses on this property and, you know, the reason I identified this property and
have presented the plat that we have, is because we have done research on the
market, housing market in Meridian. They are -- I'm sure you guys have seen them,
there is thousands of lots of standard size ranging anywhere from 60 feet to 80 feet to
100 feet wide and not -- so, I have identified a market that I feel is not being addressed
in Meridian and want to be able to provide those smaller lots. Therefore, provide more
affordable housing for future buyers in Meridian. We recently did a project on -- further
south on Ten Mile -- actually, south of Cherry Lane called Berkeley Square. The project
has been underway for about really eight months, they are sold out, and they are nice.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 23 of 114
They are the same size lots as this, it's turned out to be a really great community, it's
been able to offer finished product for sale under 120,000 dollars. That's about the only
project that I know of that detached single-family ownership that's available in the City
of Meridian right now, and you know, mainly because of land costs. Anyway, that was
about all I have. Are there any questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay.
J. Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Commissioners? To me, the most telling argument
is what do we do with it. I mean so far everything that has been proposed has not been
approved.
Zaremba: Well, yes and no.
Borup: If the city didn't want a development there, maybe they should have just said no
development.
Zaremba: The Utility Subdivision that has been mentioned I thought was a good
project, except for the two tenants that they already knew were going to be there. They
were not in the spirit of light industrial. The project itself, if they would have had
different tenants, I would have been fine with, the layout of it and that proposal. I'm very
impressed by the --
Borup: But what type of tenants would be there? I mean the city has turned down
office complexes.
Zaremba: Well, I picture light industrial as --
Borup: Which is what? Did we ever get a definition on the record? We still don't even
have a definition of light industrial. It's just straight industrial.
Zaremba: Well --
Borup: And we have only got one industrial designation.
Zaremba: We have light industrial defined and we have on the schedule of use control
only industrial, which use -- most of which are heavy industrial. Just to express an
opinion, again, I am very impressed with what Mr. Wardle has put together. I agree with
the staff comment, that we have not given a lot of time for the no new residential to be
in effect and to see what can be there. I'm not sure it's our job to decide what should be
there, but to protect those who shouldn't be there. I'm inclined to let the no new
residential be the rule for a lot more than one year.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 24 of 114
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a direct question for Mrs. Powell. What's your opinion
when you redo the North Meridian plan area? You're going to have to address this.
What are you coming in with it at?
Powell: Well, actually, the North Meridian Area Plan still left it as Wastewater Treatment
Plant, so we could discuss it as part of this conversation, I think, is what Brad was
saying, but that's their -- as I understand it, they had not proposed a change to this
area.
Centers: They?
Powell: They being the applicants that had submitted the North Meridian Area Plan.
Centers: And you were redrafting that.
Powell: Correct.
Centers: You and your staff. What are you going to come back with for the waste -- for
this area?
Powell: Well, our charge was to fold their ideas in with the existing Comprehensive
Plan and since they didn't express new ideas for this area, we hadn't exactly planned
on changing it. Now, if you would like us --
Centers: Well, I think that's unfair. I think that's very unfair to lay it back on Wardle, that
they didn't recommend a change for this. They were volunteering their time, they didn't
address it, you know, so what -- what do you want to do? Do you want to leave it that
way? I mean you were just passing the buck to them that they didn't recommend
anything. You're going to leave it that way?
Powell: Well, as part of that charge to fold that into there, no, we hadn't considered it.
If you would like us to consider different uses while we are doing that, we would be
happy to. I wasn't trying to pass the buck, sir, I just --
Centers: Well, because you hadn't -- they hadn't recommended anything, so --
Powell: Right. If that's something the planning commission would like to us to do, we
can certainly look at that further.
Centers: We are just individuals up here. I think it's what the community wants and,
you know, the development community and the people that own that property, are they
going to be able to sell it. Are they going to be able to find enough buyers for light
industrial? I doubt it. I totally agree with that. There is no doubt about it. On the other
hand, we do have a Comprehensive Plan and if we change the text for these six acres,
it applies to the whole area. That's why I'm trying to pin you down on your
recommendation when you come back for your change to the North Meridian Plan
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 25 of 114
Area. I mean these people shouldn't have to sit there and not be able to sell their
property. I have always advocated that. It's very unfair to the property owners. A
couple of the property owners that have always appeared at this commission and
protested whatever development, you're always going to have those people, whether
it's residential or industrial, heavy or light. I think the owners of those parcels of land
should have the opportunity to sell them and, presently, I don't think they are going to
have that opportunity.
Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, we can certainly include that with our
efforts to revisit that North Meridian Area Plan, be happy to do that, and I think the
Wardle’s have provided with this application a lot of good information that we can
consider for that.
Centers: Yes. We heard testimony from one lady, she knew about the treatment plant
and she still purchased property there. I think if proper notification is given, it's probably
a better use than totally industrial. If the people want to live there and they give -- I
think the chairman's idea of a permanent notification on each and every warranty deed
that is handed to a buyer and -- I think that could be done. Thank you.
Zaremba: Well, one of the recommendations that the North Meridian area study did
make was to connect Black Cat Road to Highway 16. When that river crossing is made,
Black Cat Road may at some point become a major transportation corridor, which would
address one of the issues that was raised today about this being some distance from
transportation corridors.
Centers: But staff disagreed with that. They wanted to leave it as Ten Mile.
Borup: Well -- and, then, Ten Mile is even closer to this area. If Highway 16 connects
to Ten Mile, then, that --
Centers: No. Was it Ten Mile or --
Borup: Ten Mile would be the interchange.
Zaremba: And Ten Mile is what's being discussion for the interchange, so in the
discussion of how is Highway 16 going to get to the interchange, both Black Cat and
Ten Mile have been proposed as options and that brings a major transportation corridor
right to this property. Not the identical property tonight, but to the mixed use wastewater
treatment area and I realize that's not a tomorrow solution, but I still feel that we need to
let the current Comprehensive Plan work for awhile. The difficulty is if, as
Commissioner Centers points out, if we make this change, that we, in all fairness, need
to make it for the entire area, which, essentially, means that there -- it un-uniques this
area. If you have a mixed-use Wastewater Treatment Plant area that has no different
rules than anywhere else --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 26 of 114
Borup: Well, but it does, because everything else would still apply. The only thing that
the text amendment was changing is that in addition to everything else, that residential
could be considered. We are just adding one more use to the allowed uses. Well, I
mean -- not allowed uses, but --
Zaremba: That's a 180-degree change from the current --
Borup: Well, it is. It is. Because right now --
Zaremba: It's a turn around.
Borup: Well, it says that residential is strictly forbidden. Anything coming up would be
on a project-by-project consideration. It's not a blanket thing that the whole thing is
going to turn residential.
Centers: That's a question I had. If we allow the text amendment, that residential use
would just be one additional use that would be allowed, correct? The allowed uses
would also include residential, correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Centers: For all of that area, and every application would be a CUP?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: I certainly agree the proposed -- I mean the Comp Plan has the best use for
that area, but I also think sometimes it's not bad to be practical and you're not going to
have five million square feet of space around that area. It's just not going to happen.
There has to be more than just office buildings or whatever light industrial is supposed
to be. Some industrial use that doesn't have people associated with it.
Powell: Chairman Borup, just to follow up on the Commissioner Centers' previous
statement that you -- this would allow residential in all of those -- in all of that area,
except, of course, the property owned by the Wastewater Treatment Plant, which at an
average of five units to the acre, would leave you with 1,870 residents in that area. If
we take the commercial to the extreme and the residential to the extreme, you're
looking at an awful lot of residents around there. I mean they only get three complaints
now, because you can see how many houses are probably out there, there is 12 to 15,
maybe, but you're going to get a lot more complaints with almost 2,000 people living out
there. That's units. That's 1,870 units, so you get --
Borup: Well, that's at a 100 percent residential you're saying.
Powell: Right. That's what that text amendment would be allowing. I mean they
presented the extreme on the commercial area and this would be the extreme on the
residential area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 27 of 114
Borup: Yes. They are both extremes.
Powell: Yes.
Borup: Well, I know we have from previous -- I mean we know what -- we know what
the residential neighborhood to the south wants, they -- we have heard that testimony
just -- it was just about unanimous, they all wanted some type of residential buffer.
Centers: Oh, yes, and to the east. The subdivision to the east and to the south.
Borup: Well, the east didn't seem to care an awful lot, but the one to the south wanted
some type of residential buffer. I'm thinking of -- the idea of some type of buffer along
Ustick Road maybe is not a bad idea.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, just one point of clarification. At the time that Utility Sub was
going through, Hartford on the corner to the east, I don't believe it had any houses in it.
It was a bare, empty subdivision, so --
Borup: Right. The Individual I was thinking of was living there, but not a new home, it
was an existing home.
Freckleton: That's correct but the subdivision was empty.
Borup: Did you have another comment, Mr. Centers?
J. Centers: I did. Jake Centers, for the record, again. You know, I mean if the odor is
there, like I said again, if -- say I build an office building and I have -- I lease it to a
business owner who moves in on a day that there is no odor and all of a sudden one
day there is that odor. I mean why is he not -- you know, I mean we are just sitting here
talking about only the residential people that would move in here would be the ones that
would complain. I mean as a business owner, if, you know, that odor was there, you're
going to call and -- make that call just as if you actually lived there. I mean, you know, if
-- like I said, if there is an odor and we move people in here, which, unless you
condemn the whole area, people are either going to work there or they are going to live
there, then, you know, those calls are going to come in regardless if that odor exists. I
have been out there, you know, a dozen times and, actually, the only sewer odor I
smelled was from the manhole out in Ustick in the front when that pressurized system
was coming through and that's what smelled bad. Anyway, there is a house there now,
we have guys renting in there, they have lived there a month. I specifically asked them
yesterday, never told them the plant was there or nothing. They said they smelled it
once and that was it, so -- and, you know, like we talked about, I mean if everybody --
you know, we have had testimony from Ms. Layton that it does smell and I'm sure Mr.
Crane commented on the same in his letter. I mean if it's so bad, why are they still
living there. You know, why did Mr. Cramer subdivide his property and build his dream
home there, you know. It's --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 28 of 114
Centers: Well, Jake, all these people smell the same thing that --
J. Centers: And that's the other thing, I mean --
Centers: Yes. All of these people in the southeast area --
J. Centers: Yes. Is a couple hundred feet going to make a difference when -- you
know, I mean I don't think so. Anyway --
Borup: Okay. Other discussion from the Commissioners?
Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have got to admit I read everything before I got here
and I have learned to keep an open mind until you hear testimony and I honestly can
say that I did have when I got here and I hadn't made up my mind. I would like to have
staff buy into the way I'm feeling and that that's to allow residential use. I guess I had
misunderstood or was thinking of it improperly, that when the chairman indicated that
we are just adding an additional use alongside industrial and whatever. I'm concerned,
like Mr. Watson is, that people aren't notified and I -- maybe the attorney can tell me,
are we going to be able to put that on a deed or require that of the property owner to put
that on a warranty deed that's passed down?
Holinka: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, I don't know if that's something you
can put on a deed. I mean you can probably attach that as an addendum, possibly, that
could be attached to a deed, but, in any event, that would be something that the
homeowners would have to --
Centers: So, in other words, if we required it, there really would be no guarantee?
Borup: Wouldn't that be similar to -- I mean I know some of -- on their deeds they have
an addendum notifying them that they are in an area of impact, the city's area of impact.
Some of them -- that's not uniform, but some subdivisions have had that, so individuals
have been notified and had to sign recognizing that. Would this be any different?
Centers: Well, if the city was so concerned, too, when the new homeowner moved in
there and they got their first water bill, they could enclose a notice to them at that time.
Borup: It's too late, then.
Centers: That's true. But --
Borup: It sounds like you have got one of the main concerns I do, I mean as long as
people go into something with their eyes open --
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 29 of 114
Borup: -- that's their choice. I mean that's --
Centers: Totally.
Borup: -- the free market and I think maybe there needs to be some notification,
because it sounds like a lot of people moved in here and weren't even aware the plant
was there. I mean it is screened pretty well with trees and such.
Centers: Well, as you said earlier, I think, you know, it's obvious by the testimony we
had at previous hearings for the Utility Sub, that most residents in that area would
prefer residential.
Borup: Mr. Forrey, have you got a -- pertaining to the thing we were just discussing, it
sounds like?
Centers: I was wondering if you would get up and --
Forrey: Add something? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record Wayne Forrey,
urban planning consultant, and think about this Boise City in any development in
proximity to the Boise airport, the developer is required to sign an aviation easement.
That puts the property buyer -- and it gets into all of the real estate records, that you're
in proximity to the airport and there is a risk of an aircraft falling out of the sky and
damaging your property and that, of course, affects your insurance rates on
homeowners insurance. I also am involved in several projects in the Salt Lake area --
Borup: Clarify now -- so that -- you say the developer is required to do that. Is that
each homeowner?
Forrey: Yes.
Borup: And each time the property changes hands is the same thing?
Forrey: Yes. It is, actually, a legal attachment to all the real estate papers that there is
an aviation easement, just like there would be an Idaho Power easement or a gas
easement or a road easement, that -- but it's in the air. Now, in Salt Lake they have
sanitation easements, so if you're in proximity to a Waste Treatment Plant in the Salt
Lake area. There is a similar easement that if you are within 600 feet or 700 feet of the
city of Sandy or the city of Provo or the city of Salt Lake or Ogden, and that's mandated
through their state local land use planning act, just like we have area of impact. It's a
state -- and it's very routine in Utah and just like it is here in Boise with the airport.
There are mechanisms to formally place people on notice that they are in an area that's
unique or special, whether it's airplanes, industrial facilities, or a gas pipeline.
Centers: And we could put whatever name we want on it.
Forrey: In the Utah area it's a sanitation easement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 30 of 114
Centers: Sanitation easement.
Forrey: And in Boise, it's an aviation easement in the airport area. I mean there are
some tools you could research and -- your staff I'm sure could research that and see
how other cities do it.
Borup: I would say the applicant needs to research it and present an option, rather than
having staff research it. Yes. I was going to ask if you had any final comments, Mr.
Wardle.
Wardle: Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman for the record, Jon Wardle. In terms of
researching it, I would be happy to. Actually, I have done a project out in the Boise
airport area and have an aviation easement on a project, so I'm aware of those, they do
run with the property, so as we have sold lots that runs with it. I'm in the Utah area, so I
will also look up the issue on the sewer easement or the sanitation easements. Just
one final thought. I have done a lot of research on this project, just to look at the
viability and, correct, one day Ten Mile or Black Cat and/or both are going to be
upgraded, either to three or five lane facilities, one likely will go down to the freeway,
one likely will go up to Chinden, Highway 20-26. If you look at the map, compare that to
the rest of the center of activity in terms of industrial and commercial uses. It is pretty
removed. I have spoken with representatives of Colliers, I have spoken to
representatives of Thornton Oliver Keller, who are large brokers in terms of office, retail,
and industrial uses and this is not an area that would ever come up on their radars as
viable for industrial parks, just because of its proximity to almost nothing. There is no
railroad that comes out here. Obviously, heavy industrial is not a possibility, we know
that, but that would limit some light manufacturing uses as well, and the nearness to
those public or those transportation facilities is a problem just wanted to state that for
the record, that I'm not taking this lightly. I understand the concerns of staff, but we
need to talk about market realities. If we let this plan go unchanged, I doubt you will
have -- at some point you may a project that comes back in on Utility Subdivision, but I
doubt you would have anything more than that in the future ever. I'm curious to know
the city is going to address a school district use in the mixed use Wastewater Treatment
Plant area as well. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I know that this is not to be
taken lightly, it's a big change, but I think that the information is in front of you to make
some sort of a decision and give us the direction. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, that's my big hang up is notification and I appreciate Mr.
Forrey's information and I would be -- obviously, I lean toward residential use being
allowed, but, then, the notification is my hang up. I would like to continue these
hearings to the next available hearing and let Mr. Wardle do his homework. He said he
had aviation easements and I think he should have done his homework on this
sanitation easement and give us something that can be passed on life long to the
homeowner of the property and I would be highly in favor of it if that can be included.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 31 of 114
Borup: That's an issue I feel strongly on. I mean as long as people know what they are
getting into, that should be their choice.
Centers: Right.
Borup: I know if I was receiving a phone call what my answer would be if any of those
people called. It would be probably very short.
Centers: Yep. It was in the -- it was on the title in the record and you should have read
it.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: And I would I think chime in with that. Under the present circumstances of
not knowing somebody could be notified, I would like to stick with the Comprehensive
Plan as it is. I very much like the idea of the sanitation easement or whatever --
whatever you call it. If the applicant can come up with a way that we can do that, I
would change positions. If I knew there was a guaranteed way to notify those
homeowners -- you know what you're buying, then, I could open up the whole area to
anybody that was willing to buy there.
Borup: And I still would not anticipate this whole area goes residential. I really think it
needs to have some other uses, but with that many acres, it's not going to happen.
Zaremba: Even the industrial and office uses should have that same sanitation
easement idea.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: I mean anybody that buys in that area should be given this piece of
information and we need to assure that we know that they are getting it. I kind of would
side with Commissioner Centers, if we continue this and hopefully the applicant can
come back with a mechanism --
Borup: Well, one other thing we need to discussion, then, because we have kind of
mixed -- we have kind of mixed the two applications here. Supposedly, we are
discussing the Comp Plan text amendment.
Zaremba: Well, unless that happens, the other one is --
Borup: But the statement on the sanitation easement -- I'm not sure if it would
accompany -- it would not accompany the next plan amendment, that's something that
would have to be inserted in each project as the application came forward.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 32 of 114
Centers: Yes. Well -- and I think the applicant understands that if we don't see
something like that, that satisfies us, they won't get the text. You know, they need to
include it where it needs to be included and we continue all four Public Hearings to our
second meeting in September. I think if you do it right and you get that right with that
easement and it's passed on and it's in the title policy and every home buyer will see
that forever, I think you're going to get -- I can't speak for the Council, but I think you're
going to get something favorable there, in my opinion. That's my opinion. If we don't
do it right, then, I think you're beating up a dead horse, so --
Zaremba: Do we -- or do you know who determined, for instance, the outline of the
aviation easement in Boise I mean how did that come about?
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I would assume that it was Boise City
attorney's office that came up with that, probably in concert with the airport department.
When we did our project we contacted the airport, they had a boilerplate, we gave them
certain information, you know, who the developer was, the plat, and the lots, that type of
thing, and that was just a recorded instrument at the same time. The way it worked was
when the plat was recorded, that instrument was recorded prior to the plat and it
showed up as a note on the plat, but it also rolled with all the lots, they were also
identified with that. You raise an interesting point, the sanitation easement being
applicable to all uses. Perhaps if we go down this route, maybe the text of the Comp
Plan at this location needs to state something that all uses will be subject to a sanitation
easement in the mixed use Wastewater Treatment Plant. Because I think Mr. Centers --
Mr. Jake Centers made an interesting point of businesses who have individuals that
rent are as likely to complain as a homeowner, so --
Centers: Sure. Totally, agree.
Zaremba: If you would want to modify your application to suggest that text, it would go
a long way for me.
Wardle: Would modification of the application -- modification of the application be
necessary or do I just submit something to you -- I mean we have got an idea here, do
we just submit this, you know, prior to the next hearing as, you know, this is where we
come. These things are kind of -- they expand.
Zaremba: We are exploring new territory together. I don't know. Does anybody have
an answer to that?
Borup: Yes. I don't know why that -- the wording can't be changed by this Commission,
essentially. I mean we'd like something specific.
Zaremba: We need to find out whether a sanitation easement can be done legally.
Centers: You know, I'd like to see an example, you know, of how it's going to be done,
Mr. Chairman, and I'd really like to do it right and, then, we can sell this to the City
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 33 of 114
Council. An example -- and maybe get an example from Utah or talk to Mr. Forrey and
let's get it nailed down. I'm not trying to delay you, I'm trying to get it approved and
done.
Wardle: Could I ask what the hearing date is going to be?
Centers: Well, the second meeting in September -- I know -- correct me if I'm wrong,
Mr. Chairman, the 4th
-- the first meeting is booked, based on what I have seen.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: But the second meeting in September is the 18th
. You know, I guess we want
some guarantees, you know, and you show us how it's going to be done and it will be
passed along with the title and -- I have seen the aviation easements in preliminary title
reports and final title properties. That's where they show up, so --
Wardle: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to recommend that we
continue Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 and continue them to our second meeting in September,
which would be September 18th
and that's a motion.
Zaremba: I will second it.
Borup: Excuse me. I just -- did you -- was your motion to continue all four?
Centers: Correct.
Zaremba: Did we have all four open?
Borup: Well, we didn't, but they were continued -- do I need to reopen -- do I need to
open a continued hearing?
Centers: Not in my opinion. They are open.
Borup: That's what I was thinking. That's what I wanted to verify. They are already
open. They are not open?
Zaremba: My question would be do we want to include in the motion a specific request
of what we want to have accomplished before that meeting.
Centers: He better understand it by now.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: He's shaking his head.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 34 of 114
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: So what's the consensus?
Borup: It looks like we don't have one, so let's -- just to cover ourselves, let's go ahead
and open Items 7, 8, and 9. I'm not going to go into any more detail than that. We will
consider those items open.
Centers: Okay. Then, I would move that we continue Items 6, 7, 8, and 9 to our
September 18th
meeting.
Zaremba: And I will second that motion.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, are we -- would you like a short break at this time or
would you like to proceed ahead?
Centers: Yes. I would, please.
Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 11. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: CUP 03-030
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru coffee kiosk in an L-
O zone for Coffee Kiosk by Donn Reiswig – east of South Eagle Road
and south of East Franklin Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with Item
Number 11. This is a Continued Public Hearing from August 7th
, CUP 03-030, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru coffee kiosk in an L-O zone for Coffee
Kiosk. This is east of Eagle Road and south of Franklin. Like to open this hearing at
this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request
for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a temporary coffee kiosk on a portion of the land
that's owned by Touchmark Living Centers for the Meadow Lake Village project. The
Conditional Use Permit is required, because of the drive-thru and also because the
Planned Development that's been approved on the lot, as a whole requires a
Conditional Use Permit for any uses that is proposed. The applicant intends to use this
kiosk for a maximum of two years or less if, another user is found for the site. They are
proposing no freestanding signs. The kiosk is entirely self-contained and will not be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 35 of 114
hooked up to water or sewer and no trash enclosure is proposed to be provided and the
applicant will empty the trash daily at the dumpsters located at the construction office.
This is an aerial photo of the site. The RC Willey complex is to the northwest. Montvue
Subdivision is directly to the west and the Touchmark Living Center Meadow Lake
Village project wraps around it to the east and south. You should have received a new
Site Plan today from the applicant and as I go through my staff report and the issues
that were needing to be addressed, based on the original Site Plan, which was this one,
we can go through and verify that they meet those conditions. This is a picture of the
coffee kiosk. It is a small unit about 20 feet long and this is a site photo taken from the
RC Willey side of Franklin looking directly at the site. Right in this location is the
existing construction access drive that is used by the construction traffic into the site.
There is an existing structure and the existing trees shown on the plan is this pine tree
right here. The coffee kiosk would be located just right in the -- in the hill. I don't know
whether it's the toe or the top, but it's just right in the location 35 feet back from the right
of way. You should have a -- the staff report with a transmittal date of July 31st
and
today's hearing date. To go to the special considerations, there were five items that I
needed to point out for discussion. The first is the issue of the temporary use and, as I
mentioned, he is requesting a two-year temporary use. Most temporary uses we deal
with are granted for a 12-month time frame. We would recommend that the 12-month
temporary use be granted, with a possible 12-month extension. That will give this body
an opportunity to revisit it after 12 months if there are any issues, be it stacking or traffic
interference or noise or whatever might happen with this and we have added that as the
first condition of approval. Point Number 2 is the sign. The applicant has stated that no
freestanding signs are proposed. We would like to hold them to that and state that only
on-building signage would be allowed in compliance with the L-O zone, which is the
existing zoning district for the site. The third issue is the access and stacking. The
ACHD report required that the original Site Plan be modified. First of all, they had
proposed a right-in, right-out access. The right-out access was denied and they were
told that they needed to use the access in alignment with Godians Avenue as the -- as
a full right-left turn access, but it should be their only access for this project. That was
the first major modification and, second, they required that a full 150 feet of stacking
depth would be required from the edge of pavement along Franklin Road, measured
into the window. If we go to the Site Plan that was received today, they have removed
the second access and the traffic circulation from Franklin Road in is two ways. Then,
he intends to sign it to have the cars come in this direction and exit from here and the
depth from existing edge of pavement -- and I believe also from future right of way in
and around measured to the window this way exceeds the 150-foot requirement. Now,
there is construction traffic that does use this and one concern we had as staff is how
much construction traffic is on here and are there potential conflicts if it backs up out of
this area into the -- into the construction road and we have asked the applicant to
address that tonight. Item number four is the parking and paving. There are no specific
parking requirements for a temporary use. We have asked that at least two be
provided, because there will, obviously, be at least one and potentially two employees
that may need to use this and the applicant has provided those stalls. On this plan,
they are dimensioned as nine by 18. I would just like to state that that 18 should be
extended a foot to 19, but it looks like there would be no problem to do that. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 36 of 114
standard parking stall size is nine by 19 in our ordinance. Item Number 5 is the buffer
between land uses and given a commercial drive-thru use adjacent Montvue
Subdivision, the buffer between land uses should be required in the strip between the
driveway and the subdivision boundary. He has responded to that with a row of trees
as shown on that plan. The only other one I need to point out is moving down to
condition of approval Number 5, talking about the landscape street buffer. The
applicant is providing the 35-foot setback, but no new trees are shown in it and we are
showing the original Site Plan, so we would need to add some trees back into the 35-
foot landscape setback in that area. That is already in there as a condition of approval,
so with that, I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Steve, did you see the health department requirement? I
can't find the letter, but I had notes on it.
Siddoway: I don't remember it, but I should have it.
Centers: I don't know what happened to the letter. It was such that I made a note and -
- in the ACHD report, I see they are requiring the applicant to put the sidewalk in on
Franklin Road. That was just one thing that -- they are having to go to quite a bit for a
temporary facility, aren't they?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: I wish -- maybe the applicant could address the health department letter that I
can't find. Thank you.
Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward?
Reiswig: Don Reiswig. 3360 North Montvue Drive, Meridian. Okay. In regards to
answering on your letter, I do not have the answer for that and I didn't --
Centers: Central District Health.
Reiswig: Yes. For the health --
Centers: Can you tell me what it says?
Reiswig: I don't recall.
Centers: Here it is. I found it. It says: We will require plans be submitted for a plan
review for any beverage establishment. Have you submitted the plans?
Reiswig: I have not submitted the plan to them, no, sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 37 of 114
Centers: So, we don't know what they are going to say. I had a question, too, on
restroom facilities.
Reiswig: The mobile -- it has an indoor toilet, which is supported by a holding tank
underneath, which would be pumped out.
Centers: Like a travel trailer.
Reiswig: Right.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: I understand you plan to carry trash to the construction dumpster.
Reiswig: Yes, sir.
Zaremba: But what about liquid? If you're making coffee, you're going to have to have
a supply of water. How do you get that?
Reiswig: Right. You bring that in, because to get -- for a coffee hut or kiosk to be
successful, you have to have consistent coffee and to have consistent coffee, you have
to have consistent water and so you want a good source, a good supply of water that's
not tainted by chlorine or other things like that, so --
Zaremba: So, everyday you will be bringing in quantities of water.
Reiswig: Right. This is -- yes. It is -- it's an extra effort, but because of the use that
Touchmark eventually sees in this corner, that's why it's for a temporary use. Yes,
granted, it is requiring significant cash outlay and it is -- it is a gamble, but all
businesses are a gamble.
Zaremba: I think it's a clever idea and I hope it's successful. But -- okay. Let me ask,
then, any waste -- okay. If you are going to make coffee there is going to be waste.
Reiswig: Right.
Zaremba: Does that go into the same holding tank that your bathroom does or --
Reiswig: Right. All the liquid waste goes into the holding tank.
Zaremba: Does somebody come out or do you take the trailer someplace and --
Reiswig: No. No. They come there. Presently, like on the other construction trailer
that's on the site, a company comes every week and pumps it out.
Centers: You probably have a 40-gallon holding tank.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 38 of 114
Reiswig: No. It's -- I think it's 150 or 200 gallon. It's a big one that sits underneath.
Borup: Isn't this the same procedure as all the other little kiosks in the parking lots
around town? I mean they are all doing the same thing. They have got no central
water or sewer in any of those, either.
Zaremba: I guess I assumed they were hooked up to something.
Borup: No. They are all the same thing.
Reiswig: You will find most of them, depending on how permanent they are. A lot of
them are very temporary.
Zaremba: You don't plan to do any grill work, breakfast or sandwiches or --
Reiswig: No.
Zaremba: Or Breakfast burritos or --
Reiswig: No.
Zaremba: Okay.
Reiswig: No.
Centers: We stole your thunder, though. I mean do you have a presentation or do you
agree with all the staff comments or --
Reiswig: No. I agree with the staff comments about the sidewalk out on Franklin Road.
It's -- I find that particular requirement unique in that when we did the entry at the
Franklin Touchmark intersection they told us not to put the sidewalk in and on this they
said you either put the sidewalk in or post a cash bond.
Centers: Well, that was ACHD, not the staff here.
Reiswig: No. That was ACHD's requirement, not the staff. No. I found that interesting,
but this was -- it's an opportunity if -- if the Conditional Use Permit is granted, for me to
get prepared for retirement. I didn't get these white hairs for nothing.
Centers: And the staff comments mention -- or requirements said no signage. You
don't plan to put any signs on the north end of that building?
Reiswig: No signs -- freestanding signs off of --
Centers: How about signs on the building itself readable from Franklin?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 39 of 114
Reiswig: It depends upon how things go. You know, this is not --
Borup: That would be allowed on the -- signage on the building.
Reiswig: The signage on -- if you go back, I think, to the slide that shows the actual
thing, I think it said coffee -- coffee hut or coffee cup or something on the roof when it
was turned the other way, but when it was -- when ACHD didn't allow and we did the
right-in and the right-out -- okay. It's not on this drawing. I have drawn this thing
numerous times and so it didn't get on this particular one. When they said -- when the -
- when ACHD did not want a right-in, right-out on Franklin, then, that makes -- you have
only got eight foot there and so the putting of a sign there is not the most opportune
place. I figured we are going to have to catch the eye with landscaping, because we
are competing -- I have to have something that matches closely to the quality of the
landscaping just down the street, since I also work for Touchmark, they are requiring
probably a higher level of commitment from me than if you will do the same thing.
Borup: Okay. Anything else you'd like to --
Reiswig: I'm not -- it's just -- it's an idea that I decided I wanted to try. I have a friend
that has three of these and he's been beating on me for seven years to try it. I thought
that I had an ideal location to try, because there is nothing on Franklin Road to catch
that morning traffic in and also to catch the traffic coming into the construction zone and
at the present construction traffic using that road is about 30 cars a day. We might get
two or three trucks, depending upon the load work and as the commercial office
buildings start in there, then, there will be more construction traffic particular to that site.
When the city required us to put this construction road -- well, originally, St. Luke's had
this construction road and, then, when we purchased the property from St. Luke's, then,
we took over the construction road. One of the requirements was to continue it on out
into the project, but since that time, with the new EPA regulations that have gone into
place and the dust abatement and water contamination, for Touchmark, it has turned
out to be a better use of our resources to use the asphalt road. Not have to worry about
tracking of the dust and mud -- possible mud out onto any paved roads. The use of the
construction road is going to now primarily to the commercial aspects of Touchmark and
not into the residential on the east side of that development.
Centers: I think the staff wanted you to address the amount of stacking that you had.
Reiswig: Okay. Right. What ACHD said was they required 150 feet of stackable off of
the edge of pavement and so coming from the edge of the pavement to where you turn
into the driveway it's about 154 feet. Coming in --
Centers: It's 150 from here to here?
Reiswig: No. From -- yes. From the edge of pavement down to where you turn in.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 40 of 114
Centers: Okay.
Reiswig: And --
Centers: How many cars can you stack in here?
Reiswig: Okay. This --
Centers: You have to use the microphone.
Reiswig: Three or four.
Centers: Here is one right here.
Zaremba: You can carry that one.
Reiswig: You can stack -- okay. If a car is 19 feet long and there is 28 -- once you turn
in there you can stack four cars easily.
Centers: Now, are you going to have two lanes, it appears, or just one?
Reiswig: Well, there will be two -- there will be two lanes there, so if they want to go on
both sides -- either side they can.
Centers: So, you could put eight cars in there?
Reiswig: Correct.
Centers: Okay.
Reiswig: Correct. I was thinking just on one side.
Zaremba: Speaking of 19 feet cars, do you have any problem making the two parking
stalls?
Reiswig: No. Actually, I originally had it 20 feet and when I turned this around, I
thought, well, I’d cut it down to 18. No, the 19-foot is not -- 19 foot is not an issue. And
-- I think there was one other, but I don't remember what it was. I didn't write it down.
Siddoway: Number 5, the landscaping along --
Reiswig: Okay. The landscaping. Yes. Originally -- on the original application I didn't
redo the Landscape Plan. If you notice, it says that -- up there that -- it says the
existing -- using the existing plan that was originally proposed, Landscape Plan, and
that original Landscape Plan that was -- it called for --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 41 of 114
Siddoway: The Landscape Plan you're referring to?
Reiswig: Yes. Yes. Yes. Along Franklin Road we would use that same Landscape
Plan and, then, coming down on the west side along the Montvue property line, adding
the trees and the grass that goes all the way back -- if you can flip to the other slide for
me. Coming -- you can see where that -- as you come down the construction road to
the south and you will see where the great big trees -- existing trees are. Then, you can
see where the first smaller tree is, right in there that's an access road that's used
occasionally by that homeowner and there is a gate there and so I didn't put anything in
there. It's not quite to the berm and where the big trees -- the two big trees are here at
the bottom on the south end, there is a berm there that goes south all the way to St.
Luke's and so I left a little open area there, so that that homeowner can access the back
of his property through there.
Centers: Well, I guess what they are expecting, though, is they are expecting some --
correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, some landscape along Franklin Road, trees, et cetera.
Siddoway: That's correct. Our minimum would be one tree per 35 lineal feet.
Reiswig: See, that's addressed on this original plan. This is the original land -- this is
the original Landscape Plan.
Centers: Okay. Even though you have flipped it. Yes.
Reiswig: Right. It's just that I'm not as proficient at auto CAD as I probably ought to be.
Centers: Very good.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application?
Seeing none, Commissioners?
Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, before deliberating, I need to make one recommendation.
On my first condition of approval, I have recommended a process by which they would
be granted 12 months, with a 12-month extension. To get that extension they would
need to submit a letter, come before this board, it would not be a Public Hearing we
may want to add just another sentence to that that would say if any complaints are
received, that would automatically trigger a Public Hearing on the extension.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 42 of 114
Centers: On the extension only?
Siddoway: On the extension only.
Centers: Otherwise, a Public Hearing wouldn't be necessary and staff could approve
the extension?
Siddoway: The Commission would the way it's written right now. We can make it staff if
you --
Centers: Yes. That's the way I feel about it. Why not the staff?
Zaremba: That thought occurred to me also.
Siddoway: We can modify number one --
Zaremba: How does it get on the record, then? If it has to be on the record.
Siddoway: Well, it wouldn't have to be in that case.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: But, as you say, if there were complaints, then, it would trigger a Public
Hearing.
Siddoway: If we receive a complaint, we would schedule it for a Public Hearing.
Centers: Yes. Let's do it that way.
Zaremba: I'm comfortable with that.
Borup: Okay. That makes sense to me, too. This is a -- especially -- I mean it's a
temporary business. I don't really have a lot of concern.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I will jump in. I would like to recommend approval of Item 11
on our agenda it's the Continued Public Hearing from August 7th
on CUP 03-030,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru coffee kiosk --
Siddoway: Kiosk.
Centers: Whatever. In an L-O zone for coffee kiosk by Don Reiswig, east of South
Eagle Road and south of East Franklin Road, including all staff comments from their
memo dated August 7th
and referring to Page 5, under the conditions of approval, item
number one would be amended to allow the Planning and Zoning staff to approve the
12 month extension. However, should there be complaints prior to the end of the first
12 months, a Public Hearing would be required and the Planning and Zoning
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 43 of 114
Commission would, then, recommend approval or denial. Number three. At least two
parking spaces, nine by 19, shall be provided for employee parking. Including all other
staff comments. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 12. Continued Public Hearing from August 7, 2003: CUP 03-037
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to move into older home used as
office space, pave portion of adjacent lot, use as dealership for used
automobiles in a C-G zone for O.P.M. Enterprises by O.P.M. Enterprises,
Inc. – 1065 East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Next item, Number 12, is a Continued Hearing CUP 03-037, request for a
Conditional Use Permit to move into an older home used as office space, pave portion
of adjacent lot, use as dealership for automobiles in a C-G zone O.P.M. Enterprises.
We'd like to open this continued hearing and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is a Conditional
Use for a used car lot. The applicant is proposing to use an existing older home on the
subject property for office space for the used car lot and also for a mortgage business.
The applicant is also proposing to use an existing shop for storage and for auto repair.
The subject property is located at 1065 East Fairview. Some of the surrounding land
uses are to the north. There is a commercial property zoned C-G. To the south, there
is rural residential property. To the east, there is a rural residential property. To the
west there is a property zoned C-2, which is a commercial property. I'll go through
some of the major issues with this project. Staff is recommending approval of the
project. Here is an aerial of the subject property. Let's see. The applicant is asking for
alternative compliance on the eastern edge. Let me put up the Site Plan. Which -- let's
see the orientation here. We have -- Fairview is to the north. The applicant is asking
for alternative compliance on the eastern edge of the property from the landscaping
standards. The applicant has an existing structure, which would make it impossible to
meet the landscaping standards, so staff is recommending approval of this alternative
compliance on the eastern edge of the property. The applicant will be required to make
several fairly significant changes to the Site Plan before the Site Plan can move onto
City Council. ACHD in their staff report has stated that the applicant cannot have two
access points off of Fairview. This is going to result in the applicant having to connect
the two parking lots -- you can see on the Site Plan -- because they will no longer be
able to access each parking lot from a single access point. The drive aisle in the
eastern parking lot must be modified to meet parking standards. They are going to
have to add another 14 feet to the drive aisle, because it doesn't meet today's -- it does
not meet the code's dimensional standards. I also want to note that currently sewer is
not available to the subject property and the applicant will be required to hook up to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 44 of 114
sewer when it's available. Water is available and the applicant must connect the water
prior to any use of the property. Additionally, I want to add a couple of conditions to the
staff report. Let's see. Actually, condition 13 I want to modify. Okay. Condition 13 I
want modify to read -- and we are looking at the fourth sentence. It should read: The
applicant shall connect to water prior to any use of the property. It currently reads shall
connect to all essential city services. I want to replace that with the word water.
Condition 14 will remain the same. Condition 15, which we want to add, is that any
existing domestic wells shall be removed from domestic service. We want to add, as a
Condition 16 only one curb cut will be allowed per the recommendation of the Ada
County Highway District. Let's see, the last thing I want to address here -- the applicant
-- there is a ditch on the property, which the applicant will be required to tile. Condition
17 should read applicant or property owner will be required to tile ditch per Meridian
City code standards. Attached to that concern over the irrigation ditch we have a
neighbor who is here this evening. They let us know of a situation where currently their
irrigation water drains across the property -- drains across their property onto this
subject property and if this drain is obstructed, their property will flood. Actually, through
this Condition 17 we are requiring them to tile the ditch. That should be covered. They
will be required to meet all state codes for irrigation waterways. The applicant is here
and we wanted to make sure that that was addressed directly. Are there any other
questions of staff?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I just had one question. Item 13 where we say the designer
shall furnish the Public Works Department a new Site Plan, who was the architect? Do
we have a designer?
Kirkpatrick: The designer is the applicant, so we can change that wording to the
applicant shall furnish.
Centers: Something suitable to the Public Works Department, that they will be happy
with, I guess. Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Let's see. I wasn't clear whether you said they needed to submit an
alternate compliance for the landscaping or whether they have submitted it.
Kirkpatrick: Let's see. Actually, the applicant has not submitted an official request for
alternative compliance. I have a verbal request. Prior to City Council, they will be
required to submit a formal request or memo addressing that they are requesting
alternative compliance for landscaping.
Zaremba: Have they described the alternate compliance to you?
Kirkpatrick: They have verbally. I don't have a revised Site Plan reflecting their
proposed landscape changes.
Zaremba: Does it sound like they are going the right direction?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 45 of 114
Kirkpatrick: We will require that before it goes on to Council.
Centers: Do you have that in your conditions? Site specific? I couldn't see it real
quick, but --
Zaremba: I see it under standards on page two, but not --
Centers: Okay. That would be good enough.
Zaremba: So, do we need an item 18 under site specific?
Kirkpatrick: Let's go ahead and add item 19, that a revised Site Plan must be submitted
prior to City Council hearing or by revised Site Plan and Landscaping Plan meeting
Meridian City Code standards.
Zaremba: Or alternate compliance.
Kirkpatrick: Or alternate compliance. Correct.
Zaremba: Okay. I had one other question -- actually, two other questions. On what
looks like a handwritten note from the applicant they are indicating that they are going
to run a lot of other businesses from this property also. Crestwood Construction.
Precision Heating and Cooling J.R. Painting. Their point is to bring all of these
businesses to one location.
Kirkpatrick: The applicant -- I know which letter you're speaking of. The applicant has
officially proposed just to have the mortgage business and the used car lot in this
building. If he wants to modify that, he needs to make that statement tonight.
Zaremba: Okay so, the application doesn't include those other --
Kirkpatrick: The application is for the mortgage company and for the used car lot.
Zaremba: Okay. Because this would be a lot of construction trucks.
Kirkpatrick: They do not have -- no, they are not asking permission for any construction
businesses on site.
Zaremba: We will ask the applicant about that.
Kirkpatrick: And they are here this evening.
Zaremba: Then, on the Site Plan that they do give, they indicate two future building
pads. Have you addressed what those likely to be or -- can we build two buildings on
one piece of property?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 46 of 114
Kirkpatrick: The applicant will be required to come back for another Conditional Use
Permit for those buildings.
Zaremba: Okay. We are -- that's a concept and the applicant's aware we are not
approving those at this point.
Kirkpatrick: Right. I think they just wanted us to have a visual of what potentially could
be there, but they are applying just for the used car lot and associated parking and to
use the existing home and shop for the mortgage business and the used car lot. Those
are the only uses here tonight.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Kirkpatrick: Oh. Actually, I also want to point out, Chairman, Members of the
Commission, without sewer they will not be able to do any sort of expansion on this site.
Centers: Well, you know, the original application -- CUP application just states the
dealership for used automobiles in the applicant's handwritten -- handwriting and it
mentions nothing else.
Kirkpatrick: We have the applicant here, so we will want to have him address that.
That could have come up through the application meeting or --
Borup: Well, it says office space is how I read that on the application. Office space
and, then, a dealership. I don't know if that means --
Kirkpatrick: Are you looking at -- are you looking at the legal notice for this CUP or are
you looking at the actual -- the applicant's --
Borup: Application.
Kirkpatrick: -- application?
Centers: That application itself.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to
make their presentation?
Walker: For the record. Justin Walker, 311 South Malachite Avenue, Meridian, Idaho.
83642. Commissioners, what I -- I think I have got a little chicken before the egg here.
Our original application and the purpose of this hearing was just for the car dealership
and for the office space to use the current building that is there. The existing building
sites is probably my overzealous nature in just trying to provide what our goal is for this
particular site, including all of the parking and drive -- the extra drive that is shown
above. We are purchasing the property from Marshall Ogden and it's understood that
from previous hearings that we are to -- and as indicated by staff that we need to hook
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 47 of 114
up to city water, which we have applied for a permit from the Public Works Department.
We provided them a new Site Plan for what they needed and have received approval
on that and, then, do some more landscaping in front and this -- this existing area here
is enough paved parking currently to provide and meeting the requirements for the
Department of Transportation in having a car dealership there. So -- and that will also
address another issue. The individuals here tonight that are concerned about drainage
issues. I am understanding that their drainage comes from this area and goes across
the property in this fashion to a drainage that runs underneath Fairview and that will not
be affected at this time and will be addressed in a future meeting when we come back
to get approval for our building site.
Zaremba: The parking area that you indicated -- and I'm referring to Ada County
Highway District's comments on their page three. The applicant is proposing to utilize
an existing 25-foot driveway that intersects Fairview Avenue approximately 10 feet east
of the west property line, which would be the one that you just indicated.
Walker: Right.
Zaremba: This driveway does not meet district policy and should not be approved with
this application. They are suggesting that you only use something in the middle.
Walker: Okay.
Zaremba: Do you have access to this parking area from whatever entrance you have in
the middle?
Walker: We can. I have got another drawing where we have -- now I'm remembering
that we were going to do away with this entrance here, put some more landscaping in
this area and connect -- they also were requiring some radiuses for turnouts. We were
going to come in here and connect across here, about parallel with this line, so that
when we continue to develop this area we don't have to tear out and redo a bunch of --
a bunch of asphalt at that time.
Zaremba: I think you answered my other question already. You don't plan to have the
painting contractor and the two or three other --
Walker: No.
Zaremba: -- construction type businesses --
Walker: That was probably a letter that was stating kind of what we were planning on
doing with the existing buildings, but for this purpose, no, it will just be the car
dealership and the mortgage company.
Zaremba: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 48 of 114
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Did you submit a Landscape Plan or do we have a Landscape
Plan?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, the Site Plan is what we have for the Landscape Plan. The
applicant will be required to submit an official Landscape Plan designed by a landscape
professional prior to City Council.
Centers: Okay. This may be a technicality and you were very open about it. You don't
own the property. Do you have permission from Mr. Ogden to submit the application?
Walker: I do.
Centers: Usually I see that in my packet.
Walker: It was submitted.
Centers: Okay. Good.
Walker: It was submitted and we do have his permission.
Centers: Good.
Walker: We are currently negotiating a contract with him.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, while we have the applicant up
here I wanted to clarify whether he was still planning to have the parking lot to the east,
on the eastern section of the site. Because, actually, in order to meet parking
requirements for the number of employees he's proposing and also for the car lot, he
will have to expand his parking. Actually, the lot just to the western section of the site
will not have enough parking spaces to fulfill his parking requirements.
Walker: Right. If we -- if we are required to put this drive in, then, we will put these
parking spaces in as well and develop this area up front.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that both parking lots will put be in. That's still
their proposal, is that correct?
Walker: Well, these over here exist.
Kirkpatrick: Correct. That's existing parking for what was the podiatry building.
Walker: Right.
Centers: So, it would have been beneficial to submit a revised plan showing all the new
parking after the ACHD requirements? That would have been a good thing, wouldn't it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 49 of 114
Walker: I think the only thing ACHD was requesting was a connection between this
drive and this parking. This connection here was the only thing that they were
requesting and that we do away with this second entrance.
Centers: So, you're okay with the revised plan for the parking prior to City Council also,
in addition to the revised Landscape Plan or alternate Landscape Plan prior to City
Council?
Kirkpatrick: Correct. As long as we agree this evening what will be reflected on the
revised plan. You feel comfortable referring this to Council without seeing the
application again.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? Anything else you wanted to add,
Mr. Walker?
Walker: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Ma'am, you had a comment?
Morgan: My name is Verna Dean Morgan and we live at 1187 East Fairview, which is
on the south side of this parking lot. Yes. Now, we need a privacy fence across the
back there, because it looks into my bedroom window and I don't --
Centers: Where are you at, ma'am?
Morgan: Right there on the south side. Yes.
Centers: Right in there?
Morgan: Yes. We need to have that privacy fence. Also, that drain should be put in
before the parking lot and, you know, check, and see whether it goes under the
driveway and the parking lot. That's got to go in first. You can't put it over the top of the
concrete. Let's see, what else? Oh and the lot is covered with weeds as high as your
head, and a lot of rag weed, and guess who has asthma? That really should be
cleaned up, because it is a fire hazard to us, too.
Centers: So, presently the lot is pretty much vacant and full of weeds?
Morgan: Well, just where the house is, that's the only thing that is -- has been used for
years. The rest of it has always been pasture, they caught our wastewater, and they
irrigated that pasture, well, up to the last couple of years. The water still drains across
there, but then, they had horses on there, they had llamas on there, they kept all the
weeds down, and the drainage was clear, then. Well, now, of course, it's all overgrown,
it’s got to be cleaned out, and it really should be tiled now. That’s most of it.
Zaremba: If it's tiled it will continue to drain the way you need it to drain do you think?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 50 of 114
Morgan: Yes. It's irrigation. You know, they have it through the subdivision behind us
there and that's where we get our water and so it's just a matter of, what, 208 feet of tile
that they would have to put in there.
Centers: Why the need for a privacy fence at this time?
Morgan: My bedroom window is there.
Centers: Well, what -- it's still there, but what are you looking at now?
Morgan: A wire fence and horses.
Centers: Horses that are beyond -- okay.
Morgan: Yes. We have two horses that are pastured there and, then, the wire fence,
and, then, their property. It's a common fence.
Centers: I think -- correct me if I'm wrong and maybe the applicant would want to come
back up and address it, but most of their business activities would be out closer to
Fairview, so it would be quite a distance from your bedroom window.
Borup: Let's look at -- ma'am, this is your house right here? Is that correct?
Morgan: Yes.
Borup: And this is the existing building up here?
Morgan: Yes. Now, all the rest of that is pastureland there and, then, there is a wire
fence in between us there. From the experience living next to Lithia over on the other
side, a car lot -- you know, we were told that they would only put on three or four cars,
you know, on the application.
Borup: Lithia?
Morgan: Isn't that right so it goes beyond that?
Centers: Oh, this one. Yes. Not Lithia.
Morgan: Yes. Oh, no. Then, by living next to Lithia there and the -- they didn't -- they
were required to put in the fence and they were to be maintaining that fence. That was
the agreement at the time. Minute that the wind comes up they put it on just as cheap
as they could, and they didn't use screws on those. Nails. You know, just little sharp
nails. We had five horses out at 2:30 in the morning on Fairview. We want a privacy
fence there. It would be 207 feet is all, and for them to maintain it, and, also, that was a
seven foot high fence that was put on the side of Lithia there, instead of a six.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 51 of 114
Centers: What kind of fence did they use? Lithia. Did they use chain link with
screening?
Morgan: Lithia?
Centers: Yes.
Morgan: No. They have just a cedar fence there.
Centers: Cedar? Okay.
Morgan: Now, see, where you pointed there from our house behind is the field drain
and that field drain is, oh, at least two feet or better high above the ground, because it's
a high water table there. The Health Department made us put in a very large one and
it's just my husband and myself. You're looking at a lot of problems.
Borup: Okay. Anything else, ma'am?
Morgan: I can't think of anything right now.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Any final
comments, Mr. Walker?
Walker: At current we'd probably rather not put a fence up. Number one. There has
been a business there for a number of years, Boise Orthopedic -- orthopedic clinic or --
podiatry. Boise Podiatry. This has been the Boise Podiatry building there for a number
of years and we are not going to be doing anymore business than what they had, other
than right up front here we are going to have a few cars parked. Our main course of
business will be in this building itself, which should not be any different than what's
been there for -- I don't know how many years, in relation to the last witness. That's all I
have.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: How recent is this aerial photo? Are we identifying the right buildings?
There are no additional residences there?
Borup: That's still accurate, I believe.
Kirkpatrick: I believe this is the correct -- actually, I don't know the -- I don't have the
date on this aerial photo. I don't know if -- oh, March of 2003.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 52 of 114
Borup: I believe this little building here was the cell phone place for a while and a little
ceramic shop in there now.
Centers: What's this one, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: This is residential here, isn't it?
Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I actually wanted to make
sure that we had clarified exactly which uses the applicant was applying for, if it was the
car lot, and, in addition, the mortgage business, or if it was just the used car lot.
Borup: Right. It was our understanding the mortgage business and a car lot.
Zaremba: Yes.
Kirkpatrick: Those are the only two businesses. Okay.
Borup: Yes, at this time.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Morgan raised her hand.
Borup: Another comment?
Morgan: This property is only 207 feet square, so by the time you figure how far back
each building is set, the house that they are going to use, it's not that far from our -- you
know, from our building here. I would like to have that fence put in. Also --
Borup: You're saying with a new building -- you're saying when the new buildings go
in?
Morgan: No. I mean now.
Borup: Okay. Nothing's changing from what it is now. You understood that?
Morgan: Nothing's changed?
Borup: No. They are using the same building that's already there.
Morgan: Well, yes, but, then, won't they have people come to their lot?
Borup: Right. Just the same as the podiatry business has done.
Morgan: Well, the podiatry was very little traffic that came in there and they have been
in there three and a half years.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 53 of 114
Centers: Do you have a fence, Mrs. Morgan, right here, between your other neighbor to
the north?
Morgan: Yes, we do. We have --
Centers: Privacy fence?
Morgan: -- a shop there at that property. We have a shop and a fence, a privacy fence.
We also have our landscaping very high, so that no one can see back in there.
Centers: And you own all of this property?
Morgan: Yes, we do.
Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out the
applicant will be required to put in a 25 foot landscape buffer along the southern edge of
the property. They are not asking for alternative compliance on that section, just on the
eastern edge. There will be a 25-foot landscape buffer to the south.
Morgan: Can we go ahead and put on a fence of our own?
Borup: Well, of course.
Centers: Question for staff. That 25-foot landscape buffer on the -- on the south, in my
mind is really not necessary, because you're not -- you know, you're trying to separate
uses. You know, residential to -- but could we make a requirement for the fence in lieu
of the landscaping?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, you can request alternative compliance. If you wanted to have
that be alternative compliance, you can recommend that.
Centers: We don't know the landscaping, but I think the landscaping may cost as much
as the fence and it's not doing anyone any good way south there. I think everyone is
nodding their head. That would -- that would be my bright idea.
Borup: Would you like a response from the applicant?
Centers: Yes. That would be fine.
Borup: Mr. Walker, did you have any comment on that?
Centers: Do you want to comment, Mr. Applicant?
Borup: Did you understand what staff was saying, that as the ordinance stands now,
there still would need to be -- unless requested, alternative compliance and it would be
a landscaping buffer on the south side per city ordinance.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 54 of 114
Walker: For our use now?
Borup: Is that correct, Wendy?
Walker: We were expecting that -- something like that when we eventually do the
building, but it's up to use now.
Kirkpatrick: No. Actually -- I mean to have this Conditional Use approved you will be
required to come into compliance with current landscaping standards, meaning a 25
foot landscaping buffer to the south and there would also be a tree every 35 feet, so
think about the price of those trees versus the price of a fence.
Borup: Plus the maintenance.
Kirkpatrick: Plus the maintenance.
Centers: Yes. Yes.
Borup: So, I think Mr. Centers was saying that maybe -- it may be better for you, the
cost of a fence, rather than the landscaping and maintenance, and maybe keep the
neighbor happy, too.
Walker: Okay.
Borup: But, that would need to be -- does he need to apply for the alternative
compliance prior to City Council, then, or is that -- would that be the proper procedure?
Powell: I'll have Brad chime in if he needs to. There is an application for an official
request for alternative compliance. To my knowledge we haven't been consistently
requiring those, have we? No. So, we can include it as part of your recommendation
going forward, that you recommend the fence in lieu of the required landscaping and I
would support, especially given that both properties are shown as commercial on the
Comprehensive Plan. You might want to talk -- just to have on record the neighbor's
response to having the fence instead of --
Borup: Well, she requested the fence.
Powell: You just might want to ask her specifically if she would prefer the fence in lieu
of the landscaping. It would be nice just to have it on the record.
Borup: Okay. Well, then, Mr. Walker, I guess we would be interested in your desire.
Which would you rather -- which would you rather do, the landscaping, or the fence?
Walker: It makes more sense for the fence at this time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 55 of 114
Borup: Okay.
Walker: As long as -- will that stand through -- for the existing buildings or are we going
to have to readjust that once we come in for buildings and, then, are required to put, in
addition to the fence, a 25 foot landscape buffer once we come back in for -- you know,
to get approval for our buildings back there.
Zaremba: Isn't that what the formal application for alternative compliance would solve?
If he does that now, then, he wouldn't be subject to a new set of rules when he comes
back.
Powell: Well, what would more -- it kind of -- I'm stuttering. I'm sorry. You can't really
give permission for something that's not happening yet. When he comes in for that new
use, then, just like everybody, he plays by a new set of rules. I'm not sure that the
conditions would warrant having the same buffer. They may require no buffer if the
property behind them, if it's five years from now, and they decided to sell and there is a
commercial use back there -- I'm not trying to suggest anything, but just if that were to
occur, then, there would be no required buffer. Conversely, if a housing development
goes back there and you have ten residences, then, the buffer may be appropriate.
Borup: That makes sense.
Centers: Depending on what happens to that vacant land and if Mrs. Morgan ever sells
it.
Walker: Okay.
Centers: One comment, though, that we had added Condition 18, site and Landscape
Plan for alternative compliance submitted prior to City Council, so you still have to do
that, about the other landscaping and we can add a fence to the south in lieu of a 25-
foot buffer. You have it on record at this meeting today.
Walker: Okay.
Centers: You come back three years from now and you would have a case, let me put
it that way, but as staff mentioned, there can be no guarantees in the future.
Walker: Right. I understand that. Okay, and that -- in fact, that would probably be in
lieu of the -- the fence.
Borup: Okay. Maybe to get that on the record, Mrs. Morgan, you stated earlier that you
would prefer a fence -- you'd like to see a fence there. Is that still your --
Morgan: What about the tiling of the --
Centers: That's going to be a requirement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 56 of 114
Borup: That's a different issue. We were just talking about the fence right now.
Morgan: Yes, I guess, the fence is what we want.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: And a six-foot cedar fence to closely match the Lithia fence as -- whatever.
Morgan: Yes.
Centers: Right. Good.
Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, the fact that you want to allow
the applicant to put up the fence, rather than the landscaping buffer, you can reword
site specific requirement number four to reflect that change and you will want to include
that in your motion.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: I guess my only question is whether we have enough issues that need to be
redrawn and re-agreed to that we want to see that those are done before passing it
onto City Council or are you comfortable with staff eyeballing it ten days ahead?
Borup: That's what I'm thinking. I mean staff would review that and I'm assuming if the
plans didn't come in in time, it would be pulled from the agenda. That would be the
normal procedure.
Kirkpatrick: Correct. It would be tabled.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: If they are okay, I'm okay.
Kirkpatrick: I think if we are very clear about what changes need to be made before it
goes onto Council we are in good shape.
Borup: And if Mr. Walker has got any questions on that, staff would be able to go over
that again with you. Okay.
Centers: Then I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 57 of 114
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I recommend -- I mean I move that we forward to the City
Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, CUP 03-037, request for a
Conditional Use Permit to move into older home used as office space, pave portion of
adjacent lot, use as dealership for used automobiles in a C-G zone for O.P.M.
Enterprises by O.P.M. Enterprises, Inc., 1065 East Fairview Avenue. To include all staff
comments of their memo for the original hearing date of August 7, 2003, received by
the City Clerk July 31, 2003, with the following changes site specific requirements,
beginning on Page 4 --
Kirkpatrick: Oh. Actually, Chairman and Members of the Commission, can I interject on
another site-specific requirement that we did not modify? I'm sorry. We discussed this.
At site-specific requirement Number 1 they will need to modify the parking plan,
because they don't meet current standards.
Centers: Prior to City Council.
Kirkpatrick: Prior to City Council. We could go ahead and at the very end of that
sentence it can read: Shall be installed and striped in accordance with the revised
parking -- the revised Site Plan, meeting the standards of the Meridian city code,
something to that effect. We need to address that it's not currently meeting standards.
Sorry.
Borup: Okay. Ready for a motion?
Zaremba: Then, we will modify site-specific Number 1. This is on Page 4 that they
need to modify their parking plan -- this is in addition to the sentence that's there.
Modify the parking park to comply with Meridian city code and the driveway entrances
to comply with ACHD's request to a single driveway in the center of the property.
Modify Paragraph 4 on Page 4, a 25-foot landscape buffer must be installed on the
northern edge of the subject property and depicted on the revised Site Plan. A six-foot
cedar fence shall be installed along the southern edge of the property and also depicted
on the revised Site Plan. On Page 5, Paragraph 13, the second sentence, the word
designer is changed to applicant.
Centers: Change the --
Zaremba: That's the fourth sentence.
Centers: Excuse me.
Zaremba: Second sentence. Designer is changed to applicant. That sentence should
read: The applicant shall furnish the Public Works Department a new Site Plan showing
existing proposed utility mains and service connections that satisfy the Public Works
Department. The next sentence sanitary sewer stays the same. What is now the fourth
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 58 of 114
sentence: The applicant shall connect to water services prior to any use on the
property. We will add a Paragraph 15, which says any well on the property must be
abandoned. Sixteen, if I remember correctly, was that the driveway shall be the center
aisle. Was that what the center aisle was about? Clarify on that.
Kirkpatrick: And, actually, I think that we addressed that in site-specific requirement
Number 1.
Zaremba: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: When you said it would be in compliance with ACHD's recommendation.
Zaremba: All right.
Kirkpatrick: So, we can leave out number 16.
Zaremba: So, we have a new 16 that says the applicant will tile the ditch that provides
drainage to the adjoining property. A 17 that says revise Site Plan with all the required
revisions to the Site Plan and also a Landscape Plan and an application for alternative
compliance to that landscape shall be submitted ten days prior to the City Council
hearing. End of motion.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? All right. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 13. Public Hearing: AZ 03-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sageland Planned
Development by Quasar Development, LLC – northeast corner of South
Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
Item 14. Public Hearing: PP 03-020 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 39
building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development,
LLC – northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory
Road:
Item 15. Public Hearing: CUP 03-036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for
proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development –
northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road:
Borup: The next project is Items 13, 14, and 15, Public Hearing AZ 03-015, request for
annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sageland
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 59 of 114
Planned Development by Quasar Development. Public Hearing PP 03-020, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 39 building lots and nine other lots on 10.64 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for the same developer. CUP 03-036, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for
proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development. I'd like to open all
three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for a
Preliminary Plat with 39 building lots, a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned
Development, and a Rezone and annexation from -- currently this property is in the
county with a zoning designation of RUT. They are proposing a zoning designation of
R-8. This 9.8-acre site is located at the northeast intersection of South Locust Grove
and West Victory Road and the property is surrounded on all sides by property that is
zoned for single-family residential and rural residential development. The applicant's
applying for a Planned Development and requesting reduced setbacks, reduced lot
size, and reduced frontages. The two amenities that the applications is proposing for
the Planned Development include a little over one acre of common area, including -- put
the Site Plan up. Include a little over one acre of common area and a half-acre park
and 20 foot wide pathway along the Eight Mile Lateral. Some of the specific things I
want to address this evening, the -- we are asking for the applicant -- or requiring the
applicant to revise what they applied for a private street. The private street doesn't
meet Meridian city code standards. The street is 250 feet in length and our code
requires a private street of that length to be 42 feet in width and the applicant has
proposed a 29-foot road. It will be requiring them to submit a revised Site Plan and they
are going to address that this evening. The applicant has also proposed shared
driveways. You can see along those lots to the north these are some of the lots where
they are requiring -- or they are requesting reduced lot sizes and frontage requirements
and the applicant is proposing shared driveways as a way to serve those lots. Staff is
recommending approval. We thought it was a creative way to serve this site. Another
thing I wanted to bring up, I know you recently saw the Tuscany Village application.
The developers of Tuscany Village are proposing to reroute the sewer through their
subject property and Tuscany Village, again, is located at the southwest corner of
Victory and Locust Grove. Let me put up the Site Plan. Again, that's located at the
southwest corner of Victory and Locust Grove in this -- yes. Correct. They are
proposing to reroute it basically diagonally through that subject property, rather than
following the Meridian Public Works master plan route along Victory and Locust Grove.
I just wanted you to have this background information. If that is approved -- if it is
approved by Council, sewer will not be readily accessible to this development. I just
wanted to note that. Are there any other questions of staff? Staff is recommending
approval of this subdivision and its related applications.
Zaremba: Had a question on the shared driveways. I also think that's a creative idea,
but shouldn't we be asking for cross-access agreements for any lots that are joined by a
shared driveway?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, we should require that as a condition.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 60 of 114
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: And if the Council does approve that sewer line relocation, what does this
project do for sewer? What is the alternative?
Kirkpatrick: I'm going to let Bruce Freckleton of Public Works talk about that.
Borup: They would just install it themselves, like any other project.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that's correct. The sewer in
the master plan takes sewer down Victory Road and, then, down Locust Grove, taking it
right to the corner of this project. If Tuscany's application is approved going through
here, this applicant would have to build sewer down to the connection point. Well,
actually, it would be right there. They are going to have to -- Tuscany would be building
the sewer along their frontage and if I -- their mapping shows that their property line is
the center line of Ten Mile Creek, so Tuscany Developers would be putting up half the
money for that crossing as well.
Borup: Did that conclude --
Kirkpatrick: That's concludes my presentation.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like
to make their presentation?
Kirkpatrick: Oh. Actually, I need to load PowerPoint. Hold on a second.
Forrey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Wayne
Forrey with Pathway Planners Consulting and let me introduce quickly just a few folks.
With me tonight is Amanda Alvaro, who is the owner of Quasar Development, the
developer here. Also, our engineer is Brent Claiborn and I think Mr. and Mrs.
Richardson are here -- well, Mr. Richardson is here, the owners of the property, and
Quasar Development is in the process of purchasing this property. Sageland is rather a
unique site. It's small. It's on a corner it's surrounded by roads and a canal. We
wanted to save the existing farmhouse that's on the property, because it's a nice older
home, and we also wanted to safe the existing trees. We have got some very nice
mature trees. We did have a neighborhood meeting on this project at the end of July
and we discussed the concept. Also the sewer situation in the neighborhood and the
reason we applied for a Planned Development application is we wanted some design
flexibility given the constraints of the road, the canal, the trees and the home that we
wanted to safe. Your ordinance does give applicants that flexibility with the open space
tradeoff and so we were able to get a ten percent open space and a nice park in the
development and a nice community pathway, so we think we are on the right track.
Hopefully we are. There are 39 total home sites, but one-third of those home sites, 13
of them, exceed 6,500 square feet in size. Not every lot is, you know, down to a small
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 61 of 114
size. We just -- we were creative that way. We are going to extend the sewer -- where
we pick the project up, we will extend it to the east underneath the Eight Mile Lateral, so
that it serves property onto the east of this site and also to the property owners to the
south. Thank you, Wendy, for getting that up. I have got a few easel pictures I'd like to
show you and a handout and, then, I will walk through this presentation real quickly.
Now, let me give you this handout first. Would you like me to just display these on the
chairs facing the Commission? Okay. Let me walk through some of the development
features that are listed on this page that I just gave you. One of the nice things about
this project is we have got a separate 20 foot wide common lot right here that contains
this community pathway. At the neighborhood meeting Mrs. Richardson, she lives --
well, their home is right here, if you can see that, on the south side of that alignment,
south side of Victory, she asked that we put a sign right here that says something to the
effect this pathway does not extend south of Victory Road at this time. They liked the
idea of a pathway, but they are concerned that once that's there, then, the people
naturally would cross the street and walk down the undeveloped part and that's right
through their property. They butt right up next to the canal on the south side of Victory.
We are going to have a hard surface micropath right through here, so that we can have
connectivity to the rest of the development. We are having separated sidewalk and
landscape strip on Sagemoor Drive to give that -- and that's for all these street trees
right here, just give it a nice landscape feel in the community. We have got a large half-
acre size private park in this area for residents. We hope to pick up sewer right here.
We will pick up water and extend it along Locust Grove and, then, water and sewer
would go east along Victory Road and underneath the Eight Mile Lateral right here and
that's all with the sewer master plan of the city to keep that sewer going east and serve
people to the south. Quasar Development -- let's see. Right here you see a photo of
wrought iron fencing and also vinyl fencing right here. They want to put up a nice
durable fence in the project. Another thing we are trying to achieve, right here in this
area we want to have a subsurface drainage facility. Not a surface pond, but, actually,
subsurface, so that it's safer, it's more esthetic, and it's just better for the neighborhood.
It takes a little more money and a little more engineering detail to do that, but I think
even if you ask your staff with the experience you have had in this community with
some open ponds and pits, they can just collect trash sometimes, and so we are trying
to put all of that underground. The other thing we wanted to do -- these lot lines are not
perpendicular to Sagemoor Drive, they are angular, and that way we get a stair step to
approach as you come down the street and that's another way to kind of break up the
feel and give it more variety, just kind of beautify the streetscape along Sagemoor Drive.
We will have shared driveways and we will have side entry garages as well. These
corner lots through here will all have a garage -- or a home -- this would be shared, but
this could be a garage entry here and the home would face to the east. This home
would face west, but the garage would access to the north. There will be a side entry
garage design. It may be a little hard at this scale, but you can see some of those
designs in the photographs here. Quasar and Amanda went around Boise and every
one of the homes that they have photographed here will fit on this lots and they have
got the floor plans and these are the style of homes that they intend to build here in
Sageland. The other thing, working with ACHD, we plan to put an area here for a future
transit stop. That's -- you know, the pathway comes out to Locust Grove and so
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 62 of 114
someday, when Meridian gets bus service and expands that bus service, we might see
a few transit stop. ACHD liked that idea, thought it was a practical future location. The
existing farmhouse is right here and so in the design of the subdivision trying to get
access and make that a lot was a challenge, but we were able to do it with this layout
and, then, there is lots of nice trees in this development that we are going to safe. We
lose one tree. It's located right here. We just couldn't save that tree, because of the
alignment of the road and the private drive. Okay. If you would go to the next slide,
Wendy? Here is a little lookup -- or a closer look at the canal right here and the
easement that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has is 40 feet from the centerline there
to this area. Now, we put the path on a separate lot outside of that 40 feet, so you don't
have the conflict with Nampa-Meridian, they have still got their 40 foot on our side of the
canal to go in and maintain the canal. This is totally outside the canal area and, then,
we have got the 10-foot asphalt path here and the five-foot asphalt path here and that
provides for good neighborhood connectivity.
Centers: And, Mr. Forrey, that's going to be fenced, correct along the canal?
Forrey: Yes. It's fenced. Okay. Now, as Wendy Kirkpatrick mentioned, the private
drive in your Planned Development ordinance, it says you can have certain flexibility.
We had hoped that that flexibility would also include private drives. Wendy Kirkpatrick
researched that and she said that's up to City Council and it may take a Variance, but
we agreed with the way the staff report is written. It says we either -- we have two
choices, we either have to reduce the length of this street to 200 feet to keep it at that
24 foot width or we have to widen it to 42 feet. Now, if you'll go to the next page in the
handout and here is a drawing of the private lane, Sagemoor Lane, and you see the
green area that I have colored. That is a 28 foot green area. The way -- the current
length of this road, the way ACHD measures it, is 228 feet. Now, I'm not saying Wendy
miscalculated when she said it was 250 feet, but ACHD measures the road from this
point right here -- and this is where they asked for the traffic bollards to be placed and,
then, the Meridian Fire Department said rather than bollards we'd like a swing gate and
we agree with that. From this point right here north, that road length is 228 feet. What
we are proposing to be in compliance with your ordinance and not have to apply for a
Variance, is to move that swing gate up 28 feet and put the swing gate here and that's
what I have depicted on this drawing. That's one option. Now, if you will turn to the
next page, another option would be to widen the private street to 42 feet, but we end up
with three negatives. We end up with a very small corner lot and it's just difficult on that
size to put a home with your 20-foot side yard setbacks on a corner. We end up with
lots that are only 83 feet deep, that's kind of shallow, and we have removed two large
trees to do that. Our preference, as a developer, would be to not widen it to 42 feet,
but, rather, go back to that first drawing I showed you and take that slide gate that the
Fire Department wants and move it north 28 feet. Then, we have a 200-foot long road,
rather than a 228-foot road, and, then, that would meet the city requirements. Okay.
The next slide. These are some of the homes styles that Amanda and her partners are
envisioning in Sageland and they have evaluated each one of these homes, all of those
will fit. Here is a shared driveway concept, you can seek the garages in the back, so
we have that opportunity here to put some detached separated garages in the back with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 63 of 114
a common lot line right there with a cross-access easement as you mentioned. Here is
an example I think we have all seen them, of the separated sidewalk with a nice
landscape. It's very attractive. You know, here is the side entry garage where the
garage is facing one direction and the front of the home is facing yet another direction
and those are very attractive and that gives good variety. Okay. Next. Let me just
summarize. We do accept the staff report as written. Is there -- everything in there is
correct. We accept it. We would like to reduce the length of the road to 200 feet to
meet the city requirements and we'd like to do that by shifting that gate 28 feet north.
We do feel that we comply with your Planned Development standards. We support the
adopted sewer master plan and we intend to follow it and take the line east right under
the canal as the plan shows. We have provided neighborhood buffers by putting that
park right at the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory and that helps the
neighborhood. Then, you have got the pathway connection to -- you know, to connect
the pathway in the future and, hopefully, some day there may be some transit -- just
make a nice usable corner development on that 10-acre site. I'm happy to answer any
questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: On the sticky subject of the sewer --
Forrey: Okay.
Zaremba: -- the developers of Tuscany were going to have a neighborhood meeting.
Has that happened yet? I think they -- they were trying to convince us that they could
explain to you that you would save money by them running it through --
Forrey: Yes and in the staff report --
Zaremba: Has that happened yet?
Forrey: The meeting has not happened. However --
Zaremba: I saw the letter from them.
Forrey: Yes. I have got it in here as well and our engineer, Brent Claiborn --
Zaremba: It tells how they will save money. It didn't explain how you would save money.
Forrey: So, the engineers are going to be getting together and hammer through that,
but I'm sure the meeting will happen soon because of the deadline I think that they have
of September 9th
, I believe, from City Council. We have not had the meeting yet, but we
will definitely attend.
Zaremba: Do you have any anticipation of whether or not you will be convinced by
them or disagree with them?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 64 of 114
Forrey: Well, we are open-minded. I don't know.
Zaremba: Does it make sense that if you -- I think what they were saying is the
expense that would be reimbursed by a latecomer fee that you would have to pay back
anyhow. If they run the 27 inch line, two canal borings, which is how they figure on
saving money is not having to do that, but, instead, only a ten inch line needs one canal
boring, I think that's where they are figuring you will get the savings. Is there any logic
to that or --
Forrey: You know. I'd really have to defer to Brent Claiborn and also to Bruce
Freckleton. Those guys know sewer, costs, construction schedules, all of those things
much better than I do, Commissioner. I -- I mean we haven't closed any doors. We
don't see the savings, but we are sure open to talk to Matt about it and I'm glad he
wrote the letter. We'll just need to dig into it.
Zaremba: Okay.
Forrey: But in terms of our responsibility, we are going to follow the sewer master plan
and we are going to take the sewer to the east and under the canal at the pipe size that
Bruce Freckleton wants.
Borup: So, is that 27-inch that you will be --
Forrey: It's less than 27.
Zaremba: I think it was eight inches, wasn't it? Beyond your property, I think its eight
inches.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's not 27, it's -- and I don't
believe it's an eight inch. I think we are talking a ten or a 12-inch going east. There is
additional modeling that needs to be done to determine the size of that line.
Zaremba: I had one other question on fences and Wendy can look into this question
and I don't know which of you should be answering it, actually. You provide a drawing
of what I guess will be the vinyl fence.
Forrey: Yes. Here is a photo of it as well right here.
Zaremba: Okay. Very attractive with a -- but is this in an area where we need four feet
of it to be non-sight obscuring? I mean if -- I'm sorry. Usually up to four feet can be non
-- could be sight obscuring and above that non.
Kirkpatrick: Correct. Along the pathway it can be -- if it's sight obscuring it can be up to
four feet in height, if it's non-sight obscuring, then, it can be at full height, I believe.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 65 of 114
Zaremba: Okay. The vinyl fence, the way I read your drawing, 57 and 5/8ths inches
are site obscuring, which is higher than four feet.
Forrey: If that's your requirement, we will build it to the four feet.
Centers: But I think you're talking the city pathways. These are private pathways;
correct? That's the way it's been present to me. Either way.
Forrey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, this pathway here will be open to public.
That's a community pathway, 10-foot wide asphalt. The city will maintain the asphalt
and the homeowners association will maintain the five landscape strips on both sides of
that asphalt.
Centers: Good.
Forrey: So, that's a public --
Centers: I guess I was assuming your fence along the canal was going to be the
wrought iron, but it's not.
Forrey: It would be on this side here. That would be the wrought iron fencing.
Centers: And then, the vinyl?
Forrey: Vinyl was going to be here, here, here, and here and here and Wendy
Kirkpatrick in her staff report has asked that this be wrought iron here.
Centers: Yes. Well, that's in compliance, the way I see it.
Zaremba: The places where he's indicated the Vinyl don't need to be that four-foot
requirement.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the four-foot site obscuring part of
our code only applies to micropaths, but because this is a Planned Development, if you
want to require something further, you can.
Zaremba: No. No. I'm just -- I'm not trying to add anything, I'm just making sure which
place is the right fences and it sounds like the right fence is in the right place, so --
Forrey: Okay.
Zaremba: I never made that comment. I would add I really like your idea of thinking
ahead to transit stops and I think --
Forrey: Someday.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 66 of 114
Zaremba: -- that's my major issue and I'm really pleased to see that in the paperwork
and have you mention it. I think that's great, one other question, though, that I didn't
see mentioned by ACHD. Have you had any thought to cut-through traffic? If the
intersection of Victory and Locust Grove consistently backs up, are you likely to have
people finding an opportunity to cut through this neighborhood?
Forrey: It never came up in any discussions with ACHD.
Zaremba: It, hopefully, won't happen, but --
Forrey: Quite frankly, you're the second person to comment on that. Matt Schultz at
the neighborhood meeting brought that up. He attended our neighborhood meeting and
talked about sewer issues and he said do you think you will get any cut-through traffic
and -- I guess it's possible, but these -- this is a collector and a minor arterial traffic
control, so I would --
Zaremba: Hopefully not too much.
Forrey: -- think you wouldn't get people that would take that risk of hitting children and,
you know, driveway conflicts, just stay out on the collector and arterial. I would hope. It
didn't come up with ACHD at all.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Anything else?
Forrey: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Was Mr. Claiborn -- did he have some other things he was going to share?
Claiborn: I'm just available to answer questions if you have any.
Borup: Okay. I wouldn't mind expounding on -- Commissioner Zaremba had mentioned
a couple of things on sewer that raised a couple questions in my mind that Mr. Forrey
couldn't answer, so -- I think maybe we would.
Claiborn: I'll do my best.
Zaremba: I know, apparently, the meeting with the Tuscany people hasn't happened
yet, but I'm just wondering how close they are on the logic, if you have any opinion
about that, that you, in the long run, will safe money if they don't extend the main lines.
Claiborn: Well, I think our client would be open to saving money if they clearly
demonstrated how they could do that, but I don't know that we are in a position to say
we have had that clearly demonstrated to us, how it would benefit them directly.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 67 of 114
Zaremba: Okay.
Claiborn: I don't think we are opposed to that in any way and we sure want to work with
them however we can.
Borup: To this point do you have any idea what your latecomer fee is going to be?
Claiborn: We do not. That's a big question mark in my mind at this point.
Borup: So, that would be the argument, that whether the ten or 12-inch line that you
would be in would be less than what you would be paying in extra latecomer fees.
Claiborn: Correct.
Borup: I'm assuming if it saves you money, you would be interested.
Claiborn: Certainly.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Yes. That was really my question on that subject.
Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you, sir.
Claiborn: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application?
Schultz: Good evening. My name is Matt Schultz with Tuscany Development and our
office is at 660 East Franklin in Meridian. Appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.
I didn't really come to reopen the whole sewer issue. I wasn't here for the last hearing,
we were out of state, but I understand my engineer was here, attorney, a bunch of
residents had some questions. That you guys did pass our application for Tuscany
Village along to the Council with a recommendation for approval, which we appreciate
and we are going to make that a case, that you mentioned. I sent out mailers to all the
property owners in the area today, they will probably get theirs tomorrow or the next
day. We are having a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, September 3rd, at 7:00
p.m. at the Meridian Fire Department at 540 East Franklin Road. We reserved the
conference room there to make our case. I did attend the neighborhood meeting for
this application. We got a notice for the Sherbrooke Hollows Homeowners Association,
that's -- my boss built that a few years back and so we got the notice from Sherbrooke
that this was being held. I contacted Wayne, I knew him from some previous business,
and asked if I could come and just see what he had to say and, then, you know, make
the sewer pitch there. I have already given the sewer pitch to Wayne, Amanda, the
engineer, as well as the Richardson’s, they were there at the neighborhood meeting.
They are the owner across the street, as well as the seller of this property to Quasar. In
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 68 of 114
the back and forth in the staff comments you answered a lot of my questions that I was
going to come before you and ask. One being are they going to be required to extend it
the full frontage of Victory Road to their eastern boundary, which was said yes, which I
knew to be the case, I just want to confirm that for the record, such that upstream
developers -- neighbors do get served. My point being that our big development to the
south, which is kind of forcing this realignment issue, in combination with Tuscany
Village, which you just approved two weeks ago and will go to Council in two weeks, in
combination with this development, will pretty much cover everybody out there pretty
close with sewer extensions, if not to their front door, within a stone's throw. We just
want to make sure everybody pays -- every developer pays their fair share, whether the
city passes that cost on to anybody else. I don't know how that works. I know that we
asked for oversize reimbursement from the city and whether they pass that along to
upstream developers or property owners, that's -- I don't know. I have never been in
that position. I have always been in the front lines. I have always had to go a long
ways off site to serve into our developments, just, for some reason, that's the property
we develop. I did bring some interesting numbers -- before I do that, I'd like to go over
a few things that I heard. Wayne, Mr. Forrey, mentioned that they were going to extend
water the full frontage in Locust Grove to the intersection. He's not going to have to do
that. We are doing it this fall. We are bringing it in for our Tuscany Lakes development.
This is down south of Victory. We are bringing that in probably in about a month. It will
already be there when they go to build in the spring. I wouldn't assume they are going
to be able to get going until -- they might do some utilities in the winter and pave in the
spring, as will our Tuscany Village project. In fact, we will be going at the same time, if
all goes well, we will be building concurrently, and we can coordinate on that. We are
going to have to pull sewer out of our -- out of our development up into victory and
extend it to the Ten Mile Drain, as Bruce mentioned, and, then, they would come and
get it. That's -- that's our take on the process development. I worked up some
numbers that interesting showing what that would cost them not even paying half of that
crossing, you know. I just assumed that we'd have to pay the full crossing, because we
would be in first, but it may work out that we were able to work together on that. Then, I
worked up numbers that -- what it's going to cost us to bring sewer in for our Tuscany
properties to the south, which is a substantial amount more and if you spread it out over
all the lots, it still works out that the cost to them is, actually, less per lot than our cost.
I'm just seeing as a normal cost of development that they have to -- it's like 570 feet of
sewer, some pavement, and a couple manholes that -- they are making a big deal out of
it. I don't see it as that big of a deal. We are going through the motions of working
through the politics on this, we are holding the neighborhood meetings, we are, really,
trying to -- you know, in the end we feel that we are going to save us, of course -- I
wouldn't be up here late a night making this proposal if it wouldn't save us money. In
turn, we are building a 27-inch trunk line that is designed to serve, at half full, about
9,000 lots. I mean we are talking about an immensely size sewer drain that doesn't
even begin to -- you know, our little developer -- I call mine little, compared to what that
sewer line will serve and this acre is that we are having a neighborhood meeting about
is even smaller than that. With that said, I just want to hand out some numbers for
everybody's information. I will give them to Quasar as well, just kind of showing our
take on the cost of bringing off-sites in and how I think with us bringing water in, they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 69 of 114
can bring a little bit of sewer in, we are bringing power all the way around them this fall -
- I think they have got a sweet piece of property. I mean I'm actually jealous that they
have a pretty easy time with the off-sites, compared to what we usually have to do, but
with that, I'll just hand these out and answer any questions or just go home. Thank you.
Centers: You understand we are not mediators, don't you?
Schultz: I'm glad you said that. I don't want you to be.
Centers: Right. I just wanted you to know that.
Schultz: I agree. Thank you for your time.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Bruce, I have got a question on
this 27 inch trunk line is to go to -- does that end in Locust Grove -- or where -- how far
is that supposed to go? Is that anticipating servicing property east of Eagle in the future
also or --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that is correct, it is the trunk
line that will provide service to the southeast corner of our entire urban service planning
area.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: So, the further east it goes it drops down in size, of course. That line picks
up that service area to the southeast.
Borup: Is there any estimate on the number of units that would still be left to service
after this area?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we could come up with those numbers. I didn't come
prepared --
Borup: But was that done in the original --
Freckleton: That's part of the master plan and --
Borup: -- master plan.
Freckleton: -- the modeling they have done for the master planning, yes. When we do
the master planning and the modeling, that's how you size those lines. You set the
service area, you develop out a density that you think it's going to develop at and
design accordingly.
Borup: Okay. I'm assuming that a -- I guess let me know if I'm correct -- that a master
plan is maybe somewhat similar to a Comprehensive Plan, it's the best guess and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 70 of 114
things can change as more specifics come along as far as engineering of specific
developments, et cetera?
Freckleton: Well, certainly. As a master plan or comprehensive plan, a lot of people
use that as a tool for land purchases and development, you know, potential on the land
and so -- as a planning tool. Typically, the big trunk lines will follow the low point to the
land, the drains. There is not a whole lot of wiggle room, but certainly there is some.
You know, we will show a trunk line that will follow a drain, but if there is development
that does in, it makes sense for us to try and locate it inside of a public right of way, so
that we have better access to it and that sort of thing.
Borup: So, obviously, you can't design those public right of ways on undeveloped
ground.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Okay. I'm just thinking of some of the comments Mr. Schultz made. I mean
there seems to be a lot of concern about varying from the master plan. In my mind, if
all the properties still get serviced, I don't know why it makes any difference whether the
trunk line takes a little different route, if everyone can be serviced and, as you say,
future -- I mean landowners that perhaps purchased with that plan in mind, if their costs
aren't increased. It sounds like that's really the question.
Centers: But, Mr. Chairman, on the other hand, when they submitted their application
for that development at that corner, they knew the master plan for the sewer and it's
direction and, then, after the fact they come in and want to reroute it. You know, I think -
- that's my comment. While we are on that -- well, do we have anyone else?
Borup: Yes. I was -- I was planning on going there next, too. Anyone else here to
testify on this application? If so, come forward.
Zaremba: I would comment for the record that we have a letter from Todd E. Youren
and he is expressing displeasure with the project, feeling that it should be under 30 lots.
I'm sorry, under 30 houses.
Borup: I think Mr. Claiborn had a comment. Come forward. Yes.
Claiborn: Again, regarding the issue of the sewer, I just want to make sure that you
understand that there are two important criteria that we look at from our project and that
is cost, as I mentioned. Two is timing and availability of that sewer, because that's what
our plan is predicated on, because we based our plan on that sewer being available at
the intersection of Victory and Locust Grove at the time we are going to need it, so --
thank you.
Borup: So, you're basing your project on the Tuscany Lakes project going forward.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 71 of 114
Claiborn: We based it on the sewer master plan --
Borup: Well, but --
Claiborn: Yes.
Borup: But the sewer master plan had no time frame.
Claiborn: Correct. When we talked to Public Works, they explained that at probably the
time we would be ready to connect that sewer line would be in as it was extended --
Borup: As long as Tuscany put it in.
Claiborn: Correct. That's correct.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, just maybe a point of clarification. At the time we had our
first meetings with Mr. Claiborn and Ms. Alvaro, the plan was approved for the Tuscany
Lakes Subdivision taking the sewer down Victory Road and down Locust Grove to
serve the development. That is the current approval. We have construction plans in
our office that are approved and ready to be built with that alignment and that was what
was in place at the time we had the meetings with the applicant and now it's a different
deal, so --
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Claiborn: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close the Public Hearing. Move that we do.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Centers: I really didn't have any questions from Mr. Forrey or the developer, I just
wanted to compliment them on their creativeness, imagination -- I drive by that parcel
quite often and I have always wondered when that would be developed and it's very
imaginative. Not that it -- the typical little cookie cutter sub. Down the street on Locust
Grove, we approved a sub sometime back, they cut a road in, and that’s it, lots on each
side. There is one house in there. They haven't sold a thing. I think you know the sub I
mean, Mr. Forrey. It was a Hubble Homes sub. Anyway, sometimes it takes some
imagination and I think it's great. I'm in favor of the 20 foot moving of the gate if staff
doesn't have a problem with that. I'd like to move forward. Thanks, again, for all the
pictures, Mr. Forrey. You do an excellent job in your presentations. You had an
excellent project to present, though.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 72 of 114
Zaremba: And the materials that we had ahead of time were very helpful also.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: Thank you. I agree with Commissioner Centers. There are some innovative
ideas, we are always asking for creativity, and we see some here, which is good. Mr.
Chairman --
Borup: Are we clear on -- on some of the staff --
Zaremba: I have some notes from the plat.
Borup: Comments --
Zaremba: But I don't have any notes for annexation or CUP.
Borup: All right. Yes. I didn't either.
Zaremba: In that case, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval
of Item 13 on our agenda AZ 03-015, request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres
from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sageland Planned Development by Quasar
Development, LLC. Northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory
Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date August 21, 2003,
received by the City Clerk August 18, 2003.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 14 on our agenda PP 03-020, request for Preliminary Plat approval of
39 building lots and nine other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed
Sageland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC. Northeast corner of
South Locust Grove and East Victory Road, to include all staff comments of their memo
for the hearing date August 21, 2003, received by the City Clerk August 18, 2003, with
the following changes. On Page 9, Paragraph 5, it says revise the proposed private
street to meet the private street standards of Meridian's Planned Development
ordinance. I would add two sentences to that. The applicant has agreed to shorten the
private street to 200 feet or less. Applicant has also agreed to install a swing gate
satisfactory to the Meridian Fire Department at that 200-foot --
Centers: Well, I would say he hasn't agreed to shorten it. He's agreed to shorten it by
moving the swing gate. Wouldn't that be correct? I mean -- I thought it was very
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 73 of 114
imaginative the way he did that but he's shortening the street, he's moving the swing
gate so that it meets the code. The street is staying the same length.
Zaremba: Well, the way I interpreted the drawing, 200 feet of it would be paved and the
rest of it would be --
Borup: Grass creet.
Zaremba: -- grass creet.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: He's adding 28 feet of grass creet and subtracting 28 feet of asphalt.
Centers: Very good, very good.
Borup: So, you're saying the asphalt length would be shortened.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: Yes. It still connects to Victory, but not as roadway, really.
Centers: The intent is there. Yes. Good.
Zaremba: So, is my statement okay?
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: All right. Then, let's see, Page 9, Item 5, is as I said. On Page 10, Item 10,
add a third bullet that says add a note to the plat that requires cross-access agreement
for each set of shared driveways.
Borup: Commissioner, while you're on that Number 10, I'm questioning -- and maybe
some clarification. The second bullet, adding a note that says no sight-obscuring fence
shall be taller than four feet in height. Do we need some clarification there saying no
sight-obscuring fence along the pathway or something to that effect? Wasn't that the
intention of that?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, yes, that was the intention. You could say -- you could clarify
along micropaths or along micropaths and the regional pathway.
Borup: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: Depending on how you want to go on that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 74 of 114
Zaremba: So, under Page 10, Paragraph 10, the second bullet is changed to read add
a note to the face of the plat stating that no sight obscuring fence shall be taller than
four feet in height if that fence is along a micropath or an open area. Was that what you
said?
Borup: Well, she said micropath -- the proposed pathway --
Kirkpatrick: There are, actually, two different types of pathways, there are the
micropaths and the regional pathway running along that canal.
Zaremba: And we are including the regional pathway --
Kirkpatrick: We need to make the distinction whether we are including the regional
pathway or not.
Zaremba: The regional pathway, the micropaths, and the open area.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. I believe that --
Borup: And by open area you mean the --
Zaremba: In the lower left corner.
Borup: Lot 42?
Zaremba: Southwest corner.
Borup: Yes. Okay.
Zaremba: Fine.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Centers: Second.
Borup: And second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 15 on our agenda, CUP 03-036, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for
proposed Sageland Development -- Sageland Planned Development by Quasar
Development. Northeast corner of South Locust Grove and East Victory Road, to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 75 of 114
include all staff comments of their memo for hearing date of August 21, 2003, received
by the City Clerk August 18, 2003.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Item 16. Public Hearing: ZOA 03-002 Request for Amendments to Sign
Ordinance:
Borup: Okay. Okay. Next item, Number 16, is a Public Hearing ZOA 03-002. This is a
request for amendments to the sign ordinance and I'd like to open this hearing at this
time and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I guess I'll just
tell you what l thought might be the appropriate presentation from staff and, then, I
guess you can either concur or say if you'd like otherwise. You have had the ordinance
and the specific amendments with the strike thrus and the additions, et cetera, for
several weeks now and there are probably about ten sort of specific highlights of it that I
thought would probably be worth pointing out to you. You know, there are a number of
just grammatical, simple changes that are just going to, you know, help improve
readability and things like that. I can either hit those ten highlights -- there is just a
couple of slides, too, that might help to bring some clarity or if, you know, you're
comfortable with what you have read and you'd prefer just to shoot questions at staff, I
can go with that route as well.
Borup: What would the Commission prefer? I read through it and, actually, I only have
two questions, but --
Centers: I have one and that's it.
Zaremba: I have notes that generate a couple questions. I think that's just as easy to
do it that way.
Borup: Okay. Why don't we proceed with that and, then, maybe if there is some that
maybe we didn't ask on, then, you could hit those. Does that sound good?
Hawkins-Clark: Sure. I'll just -- the first slide here just shows you that the committee
was comprised of two sign company representatives, Debbie Anderson of Idaho Electric
Signs, and Roger Llewellyn of Golden West Advertising. There was a real estate
company representative on the committee, Stacy Wyrick of John L. Scott. Citizen
representative was Malcolm MacCoy. P&Z Commission representative David Zaremba,
and, then, I was the staff facilitator. We had our first committee in November of 2002.
Four committee meetings were held in total, and, then, basically, the purpose of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 76 of 114
committee was two fold. The first reason to review a tracking list that staff had
maintained over about an 18 month period from when we adopted our 2001 ordinance.
We knew since that ordinance went one page to 43 pages, that there would probably be
over the -- as we implemented it, a number of issues that would come up that would
question. We took -- we just basically started a tracking list in February of 2001 of the
sign company representative suggestions, complaints, problems with implementation,
other -- we had three Variance applications submitted in the course of 18 months, all of
which were denied. We -- you know, we sort of just followed those things, kind of folded
those into a memo and, then, that sort of served as our talking point for our first
meeting, and then, the second purpose of the committee, as shown there, is for them to
recommend any new changes, suggestions of how the ordinance could be improved. I
just wanted to give that you little background as to why the committee was formed and
who was on it. With that, I guess if you want to send your questions and I know that we
do have Debbie Anderson, as well as another property owner with -- who has been
working on the subway project, which is built now. Actually, it's been open for, I don't
know, six weeks or something on -- just off Eagle Road, who has been participating,
Blaine Jacobsen, in this process, both with the sign committee and, then, with staff and
I think we did not receive, to my knowledge, unless the clerk has anything else, any
written comments since this ordinance was noticed.
Borup: One from Cornell Larsen, do you --
Hawkins-Clark: Besides Cornell. Yes. I'm sorry. Right. Cornell's. I did come prepared
to address a couple of Cornell's comments, too, whenever you are ready for that.
Centers: That was my only question, Brad, was his comments on the freeway sign.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think the -- see if I can grab that real quickly. Yes. On, certainly,
his first suggestion that there is -- that we had a table similar to Table H that is just
clarity of size and location and height for all the districts is a good idea. We have no
problem with that. His second item deals with -- instead increasing the size by 25
percent, increase it by 50 percent and I actually do have -- a grid here that can show
you what the impact of that would be. Can you read that? This kind of shows you the
L-O zone, the current size for a single and a center sign and, then, on the right-hand
side the proposed size allowance for a single and a center. For the limited office
district, it would go from 50 to 75 square feet for a single and a center would go from 80
to 120. You know, a pretty modest impact, really, in the L-O. Then, the C-N and C-C
districts it would jump from 70 to 105 square feet for a single building sign and, then,
150 to 225 square feet. Then, the C-G, 80 to 120, 200 to 300, in the industrial zones
would be same as the C-N and C-C. That's -- that's the impact of a 50 percent increase
in the sign background area.
Borup: But that 50 percent increase would just be in the freeway zone. The freeway
overlay; is that correct? I mean isn't that his proposal?
Centers: That's what he's saying, yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 77 of 114
Borup: Yes. Just in the freeway overlay, not everywhere.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Correct. Right.
Zaremba: And much of the discussion was making the interchange overlay pretty much
the same rules as the I-84 corridor overlay. In the I-84 one, Paragraph 3, maximum
background area, gives a calculation based on the square footage of freeway frontage,
but gives a maximum of 150 square feet for a single building or 300 square feet for
center signs, and I don't see this 50 percent proposed size to be terribly out of line with
that. I would support the 50 percent.
Centers: Yes. I agree with Larsen on the freeway area.
Borup: Yes. I didn't maybe specify that. They are increasing the freeway to the
interchange and I can't remember how far from the freeway to the interchange.
Zaremba: Well, there always has existed -- or for a long time there has existed the I-84
overlay, 300 feet either side of the right of way.
Borup: And we talked about adding the interchange to that.
Zaremba: Yes. What this is doing is adding the interchange and trying to make the
rules as similar as possible, although I can understand the problem here is some of
those -- you know, within X number of feet of the center of the interchange you may
have businesses that have no freeway frontage, so how do you calculate their sign.
Borup: Yes. I think that came up with some of the projects on Eagle Road.
Zaremba: Yes. So, I'm comfortable with Cornell's suggestion of making a 50 percent
increase over what they would otherwise be allowed, because the ending total isn't
terribly out of line with the stated maximums on the existing I-84 overlay.
Centers: Or C-G.
Borup: And Meridian only has two and, hopefully, a third coming some day.
Zaremba: Yes. Well -- and the discussion centered around trying to capture business
for Meridian businesses that would pass us by on the freeway and the way to do that is
to have signage that attracts them off the freeway to see what Meridian has.
Centers: He makes a good point.
Zaremba: I don't think he did it in the same order, but since we are looking at page 34,
second paragraph, Cornell is asking if we can make that a 40 feet height, instead of 30
feet height. I wouldn't have a problem with that either.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 78 of 114
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We have also received verbal comment -- staff has, from Mr.
Jacobsen and Ms. Anderson about the same issue, raising it to 40. Those two -- the
two comments that we have gotten on this ordinance, both have requested raising it to
40, instead of 30.
Zaremba: Well, once again, the previously existing I-84 overlay gives 40 feet.
Borup: That would just be consistent with that.
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: And how about the 500 feet spacing. Same thing. That's the current -- is that
the current freeway relation, the 500 feet?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it is, Chairman.
Borup: Okay. That makes sense along the freeway.
Zaremba: Yes. I agree that that's a little more difficult on the interchange.
Borup: Very much so.
Zaremba: So, what do we do about that?
Borup: His recommendation is one per business.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. That recommendation would -- certainly, from an administrative
standpoint to administer the ordinance, would be the simplest. That is consistent with
other zones and -- that are outside of the overlay.
Zaremba: Yes, one per business or one per center?
Hawkins-Clark: One per business. If they do a center, they are allowed an increased
size sign. For example, the Silverstone project, on the southeast corner of Eagle and
Overland, they have an adopted sign program that says how many large center signs
they can have to identify the whole development and, then, each building within that
project can also have a monument sign on their own lot and --
Zaremba: But office kind of businesses aren't going to put up a 40 foot freeway sign,
they would -- it's the fast food restaurants and gas stations and -- most which they
probably are not going to have in their development. Maybe a few fast food.
Hawkins-Clark: I think his -- Mr. Larsen's number four there is -- I mean it's a good point
and I don't -- I think that was probably more of an oversight on the committee. We
didn't really talk about that in the committee as far as -- you know, the spacing of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 79 of 114
500-foot is -- really is geared to other overlay. You know, we are now proposing two
overlays one is just the 300-foot on either side of the I-84 the whole distance. Then,
this overlay you're talking about just these circles that I have on the screen that would
just be the interchange overlay. I think within that -- within the interchange overlay, the -
- you know, the per lot -- there are a couple of areas where it could potentially become a
cluster of signs -- you know, we don't know what's going to happen at the future Ten
Mile interchange, of course. It's largely undeveloped now, but at the Meridian Road
interchange, depending on how the Idaho Transportation Department's the parcel --
they own this large and vacant piece that has the sand gravel -- the sand pile on it, that
could certainly subdivide into smaller lots. Nahas' Central Valley Corporate Park, most
of that you're not really going to see, that's done. The southeast intersection, Gold's
Gym, Meridian Ford, probably not much of an impact. Southwest corner, JB's, the
water park, et cetera, there may be a couple of new, you know, south of that. I think,
really, the issue on that intersection as far as signage would be how ITD's parcel
redevelops, and then, going to the Eagle site, you know, yes, you would have the Idaho
Elk's Rehab going to this large piece that the maze is on, you know, what kind of
signage, you know. The other thing to remember with this is when annexations come
through and a lot of times they have the Planned Development's signage, could
possibly be dwelt with at that -- you know, at that point if we were concerned about the
number of lots. Having a blanketing of 40 foot signs that you just see as you're driving
down I-84, which was the goal of having the 500 foot spacing, it could -- on these larger
vacant parcels, it could be dealt with, you know, at the time of annexation and Planned
Development stage, so --
Borup: I mean that sounds like you're saying every one of his suggestions is --
Hawkins-Clark: Valid?
Borup: Yes, and would make sense to be incorporated.
Hawkins-Clark: If I could point out, I understand there is a revised letter from Mr.
Larsen that Ms. Anderson was prepared to give you tonight that deals with a couple of
changes.
Zaremba: The one I was looking at is dated August 19th
.
Hawkins-Clark: It appears that the date is the same, but there is a couple of -- I think
the changes in Paragraph 2.
Borup: Okay. Do you want to have her go ahead, Commissioners? I think we are far
enough on this we can do that. Ms. Anderson, do you want to go ahead and comment
on that at this time.
Anderson: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Debbie Anderson. I am with Idaho
Electric Signs at 6528 Supply Way in Boise 83716, and would like to take a moment to
commend staff of the enormous amount of hours and commitment they have applied to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 80 of 114
this sign ordinance revision. I mean that's not an easy thing to do and they have done it
very well and I think that working out just the minor discrepancies and typos, basically,
is -- is really all that's needed at this point. However, there were a couple of issues that
we thought might create some problems and wanted to address those now tonight. I
have been working with Mr. Blaine Jacobsen, who does the Subway that's located on
Magic View Drive and it is a prime example of some of the issues that will come about, I
think, with the old ordinance, as well as the way the new ordinance is written. We are
suggesting that perhaps, as Mr. Larsen has stated in the letter -- apparently, Mr. Larsen
was out of the office and whoever faxed the letter over grabbed the wrong one. There
was a revision to it. It's mostly in item number two where it addresses the 25 percent
increase. I would like to suggest that the I-84 overlay area is consistent for the entire
800 feet and the reason I would say that would be that the whole intent -- and I'm not
speaking for the whole committee. It was my understanding that the intent of
expanding this overlay area was to allow those businesses to attract more business
from the freeway entrances and exits. I think to change that to reduce the height of the
sign down to 30 feet and to reduce the amount of square footage really isn't
accomplishing what we hoped to accomplish in expanding that area and I have an
example --
Borup: I'm confused on your statement about expanding the area to 800 feet.
Anderson: Well, originally, the I-84 overlay area was 300 feet, so with the new
ordinance we are more or less expanding that area.
Borup: I thought that --
Zaremba: Only around the interchanges?
Anderson: Right. I'm sorry, around the interchange. That's correct.
Borup: Okay.
Anderson: To allow for the signage to attract the business and that I-84 interchange
area. I do have some pictures I will give you. These are superimposed Subway signs.
This sign is actually at 40 feet. The McDonald's and Chevron sign that you see in front
of you actually at 77 feet and six inches.
Borup: You say this is presently at 40 feet? I mean these are showing 40 feet?
Anderson: We have superimposed the Subway sign at a 40-foot height.
Borup: Okay.
Anderson: The Chevron and McDonald's sign is at 77 feet in height. Obviously, we tried
to do this as much to scale as possible, but it's -- there is some room here for error,
because we are superimposing it on the pictures. That kind of gives you an idea, for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 81 of 114
instance, on the top right hand picture. If we reduce that Subway sign down to 30 feet,
it disappears completely from sight. It's really not accomplishing anything to reduce
those down to 30 feet and you will find that a lot of the landscaping, a lot of buildings
are sitting at 30-foot heights on the interchange areas and I don't think that 30 feet
would accomplish what we had hoped to accomplish by adding that.
Zaremba: I think we already agreed to change that to 40, though.
Anderson: I'm just giving you more meat for the table.
Zaremba: Okay.
Anderson: And as far as the Number 2 that Mr. Larsen addressed in increasing the
square footage by 50 percent, I believe it's written that we can increase it by 25 percent.
To increase the height of a sign to 40 feet and still -- for instance, in an L-O zone, the
maximum square footage you would be allowed would be 50 square feet and that's
based on your property, your building frontage. If you're increasing that by 25 percent,
you're only increasing another 12 feet, which brings you to 62 square feet and at 40 feet
in the air it disappears like a postage stamp. All things are relative. The higher in the
air you go the more square footage you need to get any visibility at all. I would suggest
that you make the entire 800 feet in the interchange areas consistent.
Borup: Well, as Mr. Zaremba said, the last discussion we had we felt that every one of
his four recommendations all had merit and I think we are leaning towards that would
be our recommendation.
Anderson: To be consistent, but not to limit to the 50 percent increase?
Borup: No. Limit it to 50.
Anderson: That's still only allowing a 75 square foot sign, which is a seven by ten and
40 foot in the air --
Borup: So, you're saying you don't want any limit at all?
Anderson: No, sir. I'm saying keep it consistent with the entire area.
Borup: With the freeway area.
Anderson: Yes, sir. I believe that's 150 square feet is what the allowance is within that
area.
Borup: Okay. Anything else?
Anderson: There was one area where I thought it might present some problems. It
isn't, actually, anything that is a problem with the Subway issues, but in the new
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 82 of 114
suggestions for the ordinance, all of the wall signs in each zone, it does read that those
must be on the wall facing the street. Not all companies have their entrances on the
wall facing the street there are a lot of companies that require signage, either facing a
parking lot of a side street or something of that nature. I would just perhaps delete that
that be required to be facing the street. I just think you will end up with an awful lot of
Variances.
Borup: Do you remember what section that was?
Anderson: It is in the table -- I'll find it for you. It's under all zones in the table. An
example would be -- perhaps on page -- Page 39. Wall signs are required to be on the
wall, oriented to the street frontage.
Borup: It's just basically a technicality, which if enforced, would require an awful lot of
Variances.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I just ask for a clarification on that?
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: Is the suggestion that the -- that the wall sign still be allowed on front
and sides, not just to -- so that you would still share the square footage of the allowed
square footage on all four walls of a building?
Anderson: Correct. I think the wording on the wall oriented to the street is where you're
going to find that a lot of signage is going to be requested on parking lot entrances and
that sort of thing, so it might create a problem.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That is an error, because the text in further towards the beginning
of the ordinance -- yes, says that you can do that. It's just a table error.
Anderson: Right. Exactly.
Zaremba: Well, remember in the discussion I think the only thing we wanted to exclude
were the signs facing residents.
Anderson: Residential. Right. Correct.
Zaremba: But if it's facing the parking lot, it could be on the side of a building.
Anderson: Right. Correct.
Borup: So, how would that be correct, just eliminate oriented to street frontage?
Hawkins-Clark: If I could just suggest that we just at that -- in that cell of the table and
just say refer to the section of the text.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 83 of 114
Zaremba: This is Table E we are looking at?
Borup: Yes.
Hawkins-Clark: That's one option. Just like we have done with the wall signs number
allowed, rather than trying to fit all the detail in the table, just refer people back to the
text.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Works for me.
Anderson: Do you have any more questions for me? Thank you very much.
Centers: Brad, I just had a quick question on what the lady gave us. Would that
Chevron and McDonald's sign be in compliance with the new guidelines that are
presented tonight?
Hawkins-Clark: No, sir, it would not.
Centers: I didn't think so. It could end up like the bucket, if they ever go out of
business.
Borup: Well, if you may remember, this Commission did not approve the taller sign. l
don't know if you were on then.
Zaremba: I was not.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: That's what I was wondering, how they get a 70 foot sign.
Borup: City Council overruled us.
Centers: I'm familiar with that.
Zaremba: Well -- and here's the question. Those signs are effective from the freeway.
Borup: Well, I -- yes.
Zaremba: Should they actually be the right example?
Borup: Well, I -- actually, I was in the minority. I was in favor of a tall freeway sign, but I
was opposed to the tall sign on Eagle Road.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 84 of 114
Centers: What I find a lot more effective are the state signs provided on the freeway,
your next exit we got McDonald's, we got Chevron, we got Subway -- I read those and I
know I have got some business there that I can get off and patronize.
Borup: Because you have a little more warning.
Centers: Yes. I don't think you need the tall sign.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: Throw a balloon up in the air.
Zaremba: All you need to do when you get off the freeway is find it, so the shorter sign
should do it.
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: That's a good point.
Borup: Brad, I did have a -- just a couple of questions. One is maybe not real
pertinent, but maybe just reasoning on the roof signs on Page 18, just the reasoning
why roof signs are prohibited. Is there a safety concern or --
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, the base for our code was taken from Boise City’s,
Eagle’s, and Nampa's, kind of a combination originally. They all listed that as a
prohibitive sign, as did -- I have just drawn a blank on the California city.
Borup: That's fine.
Hawkins-Clark: We used a California City Ordinance. You know, I didn't talk to the
building official about it. I mean clearly you see roof signs in many places that, you
know, are in Meridian -- you know, several places. Yes, and I think structurally and wind
load, they can be designed, you know, to work, but I think largely esthetic.
Zaremba: They are fairly attractive.
Borup: I don't know if they show up that much, I'm just -- and I don't know if Boise has
that many, other than I remember the old Pioneer building downtown Boise had a roof
sign.
Centers: The old hotels.
Borup: Sometimes they are kind of quaint. On Page 19, you added a section on real
estate signs. The last one says new subdivision markings are not permitted. That's
saying like the temporary signs that usually go up on a new subdivision are not
permitted?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 85 of 114
Hawkins-Clark: If they are off premise.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Yes. There have been quite a few.
Borup: I guess most of them have been on premise.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think if it's -- certainly, they would be allowed if -- you know, they
have got a multiphase development and putting a -- you know, coming soon subdivision
sign in a future phase area, this -- the intent of this was to help to reduce the signs
that --
Borup: Down the street or something.
Hawkins-Clark: -- scattered across town pointing you to various --
Zaremba: A sign six blocks away pointing off this direction.
Borup: Okay. Commissioner Zaremba, did you have some other questions?
Zaremba: Oh, I had a couple of them. Start with the littlest one first. On Page 8, the
new pole cover needs a colon. Big deal.
Hawkins-Clark: Great catch. Amazing.
Zaremba: The story of my life. On page 14 -- it's really semantics. D. Number D at
the top, just for ease of understanding, I would make those two sentences a little bit
more parallel. Leave the first sentence alone, but I'd change the second one to read
fees for temporary sign permits shall be paid to the Planning and Zoning Department.
Your mind kind of follows that in order. Fees for temporary sign permits shall be paid to
the Planning and Zoning Department.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. I have noted that.
Zaremba: On H, we had some discussion -- and I don't remember exactly how it turned
out, but on the inspection markets, I agree with what you have said there on permanent
signs. I would add a parallel comment about temporary signs and I forget what -- when
the -- in the Planning and Zoning Department you issue a sticker that has the date on it
or something like that. Our discussion was a lot of times those are hidden in a drawer
someplace and nobody can find it, so the sign stays up for months and months and
months, because nobody can find the sticker and we talked about affixing the sticker to
the sign, so that the inspector can find it. I would think this would be the appropriate
place to add that if you want me to get -- state some wording, I would. All temporary
signs regulated by this ordinance shall have the date sticker issued by the Planning and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 86 of 114
Zoning Department attached to the face or the sticker may be attached to the back if
readily visible and accessible for inspection.
Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Yes. That was the discussion the committee had and --
Zaremba: So that people can't just leave their signs up and the inspector has to spend
a lot of time going in and having somebody find the sticker. It kind of puts it up front.
My next comment is Page 16, Paragraph I, and Paragraph two under that. This one
actually came out differently than I envisioned it. I think what we were trying to avoid
was scrolling text, so I have a suggested wording that's actually quite a bit longer than
this one. This is automatic signs and paragraph two. In C-G -- let me just -- don't write
it down yet, just let me say it and, then, you say whether you agree with what I'm saying
and if you do, then, we will get it down. Okay. In the C-G and I-L zoning districts,
animation is allowed for a maximum of 30 percent of the sign background area. All
animation shall be programmed to remain steady and unchanged for a minimum of five
seconds, including text, graphic, color, and brightness. All changes to the text --
changes into the next image must be accomplished in one second or less, including
scroll, swipe, morph, et cetera. Flashing and/or strobe -- strobing are prohibited. Sign
structures may not move. Using Wendy's as the bad example and the Pub up, Main
Street and I think it's Pioneer Federal or something is my good example of a sign.
Whatever it says, it's there for five seconds and, then, changes and it stays for five
seconds. The Wendy's and the Pub one, which constantly scroll, I think are a safety
issue for traffic and that's kind of why it was my issue to say they should remain
unchanged, nothing changes for five seconds. Then, you can give them a change --
give them a second to move to the next statement that has to stay unchanged and I
kind of felt that the committee was in agreement with that. I guess the question is how
do we word that.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I -- you know, I think we are -- staff -- Mrs. Powell was kind of
nodding in agreement that that was good wording and she's also nodding off another
direction.
Zaremba: I'm not sure what the nodding is -- is that agreement or not.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Maybe Mrs. Anderson could speak to that, too, because, you
know, working with a sign designer, I --- my recollection is that there is some issues with
-- the committee did have some disagreement on that.
Zaremba: Well, the trade was to allow this to be a maximum 30 percent of the sign
instead of 20 percent of the sign. There was a negotiated trade in getting what I
wanted, which was the five second steady and less than a second to change.
Anderson: Commissioner, may I address that?
Zaremba: Certainly. Am I not remembering it correctly?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 87 of 114
Anderson: We were in the process of negotiating. However, I don't believe that we
addressed, necessarily, the issue of no scrolling. We did talk about limiting the amount
of flashing and changing of messages. However, if you -- if the wording is such that the
message must remain static for five seconds, how does that affect your perception of a
scrolling message. For instance, we often -- here is a good example and I think they --
of course, we installed that sign, but they use it very nicely, that is Idaho Independent
Bank downtown. Our agreement when we first installed that sign was that we bank
down the brightness. It isn't being used at its maximum brightness. They don't flash
the sign. However, it does scroll periodically and if your message is more than 13 to 16
characters, which, typically, they are, you have to either scroll down or side to side in
order to get your message across. To remain static for five seconds deletes that option
so, how do we negotiate on that?
Zaremba: Yes.
Centers: Meridian Ford doesn't comply at all.
Anderson: Excuse me?
Centers: Meridian Ford wouldn't comply at all to that.
Anderson: They do flash. Yes.
Centers: Right.
Anderson: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, I think what -- I think what is a safety issue is the continuous scrolling.
A long message that just -- is a nonstop scroll. An issue where it had one image and,
then, scrolled to a second image and that was the whole message, probably would not
bother me as much. It's -- but it's the one that just does nothing but scroll --
Anderson: And I understand what you're saying. There are several in town and in the
valley that are quite obnoxious that way. There have been extensive studies done by
various highway departments that these message centers are not a traffic hazard. In
fact, that's why we are getting more and more into the Amber Alert and that kind of
thing. However, they don't necessarily flash consistently. You usually can get a
message out to someone in five to seven second of normal sentence linked and,
typically, the viewing distance on any message center is longer than seven seconds. I
don't view that as a problem. I think it's mostly in esthetics, rather than a hazard. It is
obnoxious to see them flashing, obviously. You -- I think you -- in order to use that tool
effectively, you must be able to scroll, and they aren't inexpensive. Most message
centers, at a minimum, are 12 to 15,000 dollars, at a minimum, so it is some food for
thought.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 88 of 114
Zaremba: Well -- and I know they want to take full effect of them. I just -- I question
whether -- I guess my issue is I question whether the standing, independent signage
out in front of a business, is the right place to put the daily special or the up-to-the-
minute update. It doesn't seem to me that's the right place to be putting that and,
therefore, they should not need to be --
Anderson: Understand your concern, but it is becoming a more and more popular way
of advertising and a more effective way of advertising. Some companies spend
upwards of 20 to 30,000 dollars a year in radio or newspaper ads and what feedback
we are getting and in the studies that have been conducted all over the United States,
message centers are a much, much more effective method of advertising.
Zaremba: Well -- and I agree that on-site advertising is -- I remember when I was
running a business that, you know, to attract customers, one of the things is they -- they
have to have seen your sign or your building seven times before they even recognize
that they ever saw it.
Anderson: That's correct.
Zaremba: And, you know, the more noticeable your sign is, the better advertising you're
doing, but we have to balance that against the needs of the citizens not to have ugly
signs lined up all the way down the street.
Anderson: Correct. Right. I would suggest, perhaps -- and this is strictly a suggestion
coming from a sign person -- that perhaps the wording would limit the length that -- so
there would be no flashing. I mean it's not necessary to flash the way the Wendy's
does, I mean it's just obnoxiously flashing. You can get the same message across with
flashing like that or scrolling, because the scrolling can be done where the message is -
- goes slowly across the screen or slowly down the screen, so that it's a very subtle
message and it isn't as obnoxious as some can be and still be effective. The flashing --
I think the wording with the flashing would be the most effective way to prohibit that kind
of advertising. Then, again, you know, it has to be enforced as well, it’s easy,
sometimes, to pass some of the ordinances, and it takes someone to enforce it as well.
I mean you can put anything up, you know, once you have a permit, so --
Zaremba: Well -- and, actually, that was going to be a question I had for staff. The
provision isn't really that -- if they already have the animated sign, what they program
into it isn't that much of a capital investment, so my question would be if we -- whatever
we end up the wording of this rule, can we make it retroactive?
Anderson: That's a legal question. As far as a financial question, it costs them nothing
to change messages.
Zaremba: Yes. What I'm wondering is even if we made this requirement, would
Wendy's be able to say, well, that doesn't apply to me, I already had my sign before you
changed the rule.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 89 of 114
Anderson: Actually, I believe -- and, of course, staff can correct me on this, but I believe
the way the ordinance read -- or reads at this present time, it does say no flashing and
there is no doubt in anyone's mind, even the sign people, that that sign is flashing. I
believe that one is not a legal sign. That's my own opinion, but --
Zaremba: Not being used legally, anyhow.
Anderson: Not being used legally. Correct.
Zaremba: The installation is --
Anderson: That's not grandfathered, because the way the ordinance read when it was
permitted said no flashing.
Zaremba: That's true.
Anderson: Can I answer any other questions for you?
Zaremba: No.
Anderson: Thank you.
Zaremba: I would be happy to have other opinions on that subject. I think we all know
what the goal is, but what's the best way to word it.
Powell: It looks like everybody else is madly scrolling. I thought your wording, actually,
accomplished your goal. I'm not sure it accomplished Ms. Anderson's goal, but I think it
did -- it was soundly written to accomplish your goal. Does that make sense?
Zaremba: It does. Well -- and I agree that from my intent I think I got the words right,
but I'm not so stuck on my intent that I wouldn't be willing to be flexible. Although, if
you're talking about a seven -- if the example is a message that needs to be read in
seven seconds, if you had a five second dwell and a one second change, people would
still see the whole message. If it got up there in two portions, they'd still see it. Or not.
Berg: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes, Mr. Berg.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just make a suggestion that the schools are
getting very heavy into these scrolling signs and printing up messages. Some of those
are very important, when dates of registration are, for instance. I know the high school,
Mountain View, is looking at putting up a new sign that is on the front of their building,
so taking -- you know, intent -- not everything is just for selling of business, but some of
it is for information for the general public, too, to use. Somehow, a compromise of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 90 of 114
being able to read the non-scrolling sign into a sentence or a thought, sometimes
maybe experts may have to demonstrate and see what can or can't be seen or
understood.
Borup: How would you like to proceed?
Zaremba: What?
Borup: How would you like to proceed?
Zaremba: Well, I'm just collecting opinions at the moment. I don't necessarily want to
be the one running this, although I do -- I have a strong opinion and I have already
expressed it. If there is another way to skin the cat, and solve the school issues and
the longer message issue --
Centers: Well, I would say that you have conveyed your thoughts and, then, leave it to
the staff to kick it around and come up with a final version. I mean take it from there.
Hawkins-Clark: If we could just clarify, is there consensus, then, at least among the
three that are here tonight on the Commission to limit the -- any animated sign to a
stationary image at the five second interval, as compared to a scrolling -- not flashing,
but a consistently moving scroll.
Zaremba: My goal is not to have continuous movement, continuous change of any sort.
I just arbitrarily picked five seconds, because the Pioneer Federal one changes every
five seconds and it doesn't bother me. It shows time and date and temperature and -- I
mean time and temperature, but --
Centers: Is that all they show? Is that all they show?
Zaremba: Temperature and -- Fahrenheit, temperature and centigrade and time, I think,
are the only things they show, which is not a whole lot of information, but, then, again,
it's not a very big sign, so --
Borup: I guess none of them really bother me that much. I don't really pay any
attention to the Wendy's sign, unless it said free hamburgers on it or something, maybe
--
Zaremba: Well, you know, it may not be as big an issue as I'm making out of it. I just --
I would hate to see a whole street full of those signs and I have seen examples in Van
Nuys, California, and other places where it's just crazy to drive down the street and
even find a traffic signal out of all the signs that are multi-colored and flashing and who
knows what.
Centers: Well, I think the expense will limit the number of those signs. Not every
business can afford those and I think the lady will bear me out on that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 91 of 114
Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, could I ask Ms. Anderson to --
a point of clarification? If the stationary component were decreased to four seconds, so
you would have within your seven second window you would have an opportunity to
have two messages, one for four, one for three seconds, would that address your
concerns?
Anderson: Well, I almost think that would be more distracting, because you would have
-- let's say 13 to 16 characters across and they are stationary. Then, for four seconds
and, then, the message changes again, where I think that you're more distracted trying
to wait for that message to change, so you can read it, rather than to just watch it go
through quickly.
Powell: Okay. o get to my question, would it get to your need to show that within that
seven-second period? It doesn't have the continuous scrolling that you desire, but it still
gets the message out there for four seconds and, then, three seconds.
Anderson: No.
Powell: Okay. Fair enough.
Borup: I have got a question while you're up here, then, and I don't know if I -- how
important all this is, but how long would a continuous scrolling message be or did you
already address that?
Anderson: I guess I'm confused by your question. You're talking about the length of the
-- like a statement?
Borup: Right. Yes. How many seconds.
Anderson: Typically, five to seven seconds, but it has to go across the screen.
Borup: Right. Okay.
Anderson: Right. Most average message centers are about 13 characters across,
depending on the font that you use. A one liner is usually, typically, about 13 characters
across. Like the Meridian Ford, obviously, is quite large.
Borup: Well -- and the reason I ask, I mean you have mentioned a safety feature, but if
it can only have a five to seven second message, that's not -- you know, watching and
looking at the scrolling is not much different than the steady one. I mean a short
message I don't -- I don't know that it's a safety concern. If you're reading a 20 second
message and want to get to the end of it, then, yes.
Zaremba: Well -- and I can see the sense of the short message, how to word that
without allowing an ongoing scroll of --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 92 of 114
Borup: Maybe a continuous -- maybe allow the scrolling with a limit on how long the
message is. Does that accomplish --
Anderson: It would. I'm just afraid that it might overburden the code enforcement
officer trying to take care of all this.
Borup: Well, a majority of that kind of stuff, I think, as what's been in the past, is it's
usually from it being brought to their attention or a complaint by somebody.
Anderson: Correct.
Borup: A code enforcement officer isn't going around timing all the signs.
Anderson: I would hope not, but -- correct.
Borup: He probably keeps busy just handling the phone. If something's really obvious -
-
Anderson: Well, this is such a major expense to most business owners, I would hate to
see that limit put on it, because I think it would greatly -- it would greatly --
Borup: Which limit to put on it?
Anderson: Just keeping messages static for five seconds.
Borup: No. I mean how about the limitation of how long the message would be.
Anderson: I don't see a problem with that.
Borup: Okay. That was my question. That would accomplish the same thing.
Anderson: As long as they have the ability to scroll.
Centers: Let me ask, Brad, Boise, Nampa, whatever, California City is this kind of some
verbiage you gathered from them? Is this Boise's?
Hawkins-Clark: No, it's not.
Anderson: They don't limit the time frame or the messages. The only thing they limit
are the size.
Centers: Is this more restrictive than Boise's?
Anderson: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 93 of 114
Centers: Is it right now? This verbiage?
Anderson: Yes.
Borup: This verbiage was added to what --
Centers: Yes. I understand that. The underlying part.
Borup: I think the original one was off of Boise's right? Then, this is changing from
that?
Anderson: Right. They do not limit the length or time frame of the messages. Only the
size of the center.
Borup: To me, a smooth flowing scrolling sign is not a distraction to me. You know,
because it's not -- you know, if it's rolling or scrolling smoothly and not jerky and that
kind of stuff, it's easy to read and, you know, it's only a five to ten -- or five to seven
second --
Centers: But this present verbiage won't affect your salability of signs in the Meridian
area?
Anderson: Oh, absolutely it will.
Centers: It will.
Anderson: To a certain extent.
Centers: The verbiage that --
Anderson: So, yes, I have an interest.
Centers: The verbiage that's presently here?
Anderson: Correct. Because if businesses are not allowed to scroll, all they can do is
keep a static message, it greatly reduces their ability to advertise.
Centers: If we strike out: This shall not preclude scrolling text, then, you don't have a
problem?
Anderson: That's correct.
Centers: The five-second delay between different images is not a big deal?
Anderson: That's not the issue.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 94 of 114
Centers: Well, I don't like to prevent sign companies from doing business and I guess
that's the way I feel about it.
Zaremba: Well -- and I agree and I don't even want the sign purchasers to be
prevented from doing business. I know the importance of advertising and I support it,
but I also know how ugly the city can become if you have too many changing signs.
Anderson: Well, I believe it was Commissioner Centers that said that the cost is
prohibitive to a lot of companies. You're looking at, again, the 12 to 15,000 our cost in
our company and, then, by the time you add the sign itself, along with the message
center, you're looking at a minimum of 20 to 25,000 even for the smallest message
center in a sign itself. Most companies cannot afford that so, I don't think you're going
to see an over abundance of them.
Powell: Chairman Borup, I had another question. Just -- I mean one thing we haven't
talked about, maybe just a way to think about it, is I mean the whole purpose of a sign
is actually to be distracting, especially the flashing signs. I mean their whole intent in
life is to get your attention and direct you to the store. They are all distracting, it's just --
but they also serve a function and it's just a question of balancing the safety concerns,
the esthetic concerns, and the business concerns. I think you guys are headed that
way, I just kind of wanted to bring up that there -- you know, there is the esthetic side of
things and what you want those areas to look like that it -- and they are districting, I
mean that's why they work.
Anderson: That is correct and I do believe that there is a happy medium. I mean I live
in Meridian. I don't want to see this city blanketed with a lot of flashing signs. I'm the
first one to complain in the meetings when we had those about obnoxious signs, but I
do think there is a middle ground that you can allow the businesses to advertise without
creating an eyesore.
Borup: And so doesn't Item Number 2 -- any problem the way that's worded? Doesn't
that allow you to do what --
Anderson: With the 50 percent or -- I'm sorry.
Borup: Thirty percent.
Anderson: Thirty percent --
Borup: Thirty percent in five seconds delay between images, and it says it shall not
preclude scrolling text. Isn't that saying that allows scrolling text?
Anderson: Yes. I think that's -- that would be acceptable. I think --
Borup: That's the way it's written right now.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 95 of 114
Centers: So, the way it's written right now you're fine with it. You didn't say that earlier.
Anderson: And I apologize. If it says it does not preclude scrolling, that is correct.
Centers: This shall not preclude scrolling text.
Anderson: I'm sorry. I did not realize that was included at this time.
Centers: Fine. No problem.
Borup: So, did we spend the last 45 minutes to keep it the same?
Centers: Well, that's the way I'm moving.
Borup: Do you still have a concern, Commissioner Zaremba?
Zaremba: It was my intent to preclude scrolling text, to prohibit it, but --
Anderson: That was what I understood.
Zaremba: -- I'm being open minded and trying to find a compromise in here
somewhere. I just -- to me it's the continuous scrolling text that is too distracting to a
driver, but I can certainly see the point of short messages needing to scroll and --
Anderson: Any further questions for me?
Centers: Thanks.
Anderson: Thank you.
Zaremba: Sit in the front and I hate to hold up this whole issue on this one paragraph.
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: The whole rest of this thing was --
Borup: Well, I have seen some scrolling texts that do it real smooth and others that do
it real jerky.
Zaremba: But how do you codify that?
Borup: I don't know.
Zaremba: I agree. I have seen scrolling signs that are fine with me, but --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 96 of 114
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I do think it's a very important discussion and I don't
think that -- you know, there is enough reasons. If you would like us to do some
research, for example, take some actual video, for example, so that this Commission
can have demonstrated as, you know, part of the record, a visual image of what both
look like, I think that's probably something we could work out. I mean I think that the
first time this came through, you know, the electronic reader boards are always a critical
piece of the sign ordinance discussions and there is five goals to this sign ordinance,
one of them is to -- you know, to help enhance marketability and competitiveness in
Meridian and the other one is to insure public safety. You sort of have hit on two of
those five goals, I mean it, -- so it's not necessarily that one has to outweigh the other.
Certainly, I think public health and safety boils down to -- as a bottom line for, you know,
consideration on a code like this, but anyway, I just offer that, that if you prefer,
especially given the late hour, that we come back with something else, or we can move
-- yes, we can move on the other amendments.
Borup: Yes. I don't think we want to spend all night on this, but we may not be able to
handle it tonight. Did you have some --
Zaremba: I have no other --
Borup: Oh, that was your last one?
Zaremba: Yes. That was my last one. We have discussed all the others and agreed
on them and, like I say, I hate to hold up the process just for this one thing, which
means I'm open to some wording.
Centers: Well, I'm in favor of leaving it as is and going from there.
Borup: This example of the Wendy's keeps coming up. What type of --
Centers: That's Code Enforcement.
Borup: Do they have a flashing -- I drive by there every day, but --
Zaremba: While it's scrolling it's doing all this other stuff, changing colors, intensities,
and --
Borup: And so they are a bad example, like the Texaco sign?
Zaremba: Yes.
Borup: Put that in the ordinance. No signs like Wendy's.
Zaremba: Okay. The only -- the reason I started reworking this is when I read the -- all
animation shall be programmed to a minimum five second delay between different
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 97 of 114
images, my first thought was it has to be blank for five seconds and, then, you can put
up another image.
Borup: No.
Zaremba: Which wasn't what I intended, so I started --
Borup: I read it saying one image would be on five seconds and, then, the image can
change.
Centers: Right.
Borup: That probably is worded incorrectly. It says between images.
Zaremba: Yes, and that's kind of why I started reworking it in the first place.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. How about all animation shall be programmed to a minimum five
second display of --
Borup: Of image.
Hawkins-Clark: -- of image. That works.
Zaremba: And still leaving in the: Shall not preclude scrolling text. Still leave that in
there.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I think --
Zaremba: If it's a scrolling text, that's fine. If it's other kinds of images, it has got to be
steady for five seconds.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, and I think we would need to probably define scrolling, which we
don't do right now. We would need to do that, and that -- the intent of the word -- and
Debbie can clarify, but it's a consistent speed, you know. There is something that would
have to be in the definition and maybe the sign industry has, you know, a better
definition than we can borrow from, but it would -- that's the point, and that would help
to get away from the flashing.
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba, was that -- was that sign part of the reason for your
wanting to clarify this?
Zaremba: Yes. The Wendy's sign primarily and the Pub sign up the street.
Borup: Okay, and my question is are those two signs in compliance with the current
ordinance or do we need better definitions to know whether they are in compliance?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 98 of 114
Hawkins-Clark: No. I think the flashing is currently a violation.
Borup: Okay. They are not in compliance anyway. All we have to do is enforce -- I
mean right -- you know writing stricter regulations, if they are not enforced, isn't going to
help us either.
Zaremba: I do think it would be useful in this Paragraph 2 to restate that flashing and
strobing are prohibited, even if it's stated elsewhere.
Borup: David, does that take care of it, then?
Zaremba: Okay. What did we end up with? Paragraph 2. In a C-G and I-L zoning
districts animation is allowed for a maximum of 30 percent of the sign background area.
All animation shall be programmed to a minimum of five-second display. Period.
Borup: Display of image.
Zaremba: Display of image. Period. This shall not preclude scrolling text, flashing
and/or strobing are prohibited. Sign structures may not move.
Hawkins-Clark: That's what I have.
Zaremba: Does that work?
Centers: Very good.
Zaremba: I can live with that. Mr. Mayor, I move the Public Hearing on Item 16 be
closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item
16 on our agenda --
Powell: Chairman Borup, there was another person signed up to testify.
Zaremba: I'm sorry. He's the only other person here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 99 of 114
Centers: The Public Hearing is closed.
Borup: Come forward. You want us to change something, I take it?
Centers: You better reopen the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we reopen the Public Hearing on Item 16.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Jacobsen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Good evening. This is a little
bit late for me, especially when we have to be baking bread before too many hours, but
I understand it's old hat for you, and I will make this quick. First of all, I'd like to tell the -
-
Zaremba: Would you state your name sir?
Jacobsen: Oh. I'm sorry. I'm Blaine Jacobsen. My wife and I own and operate the
Subway sandwich franchise at 3030 East Magic View Drive. First of all, I'd like to say
thanks to the members of the sign committee and the staff for this proposed revision
and, particularly, for breaking it away from the bigger package of ordinance revisions
and bringing it here for review. I'd also like to say thanks to the members of this
commission. You have been very helpful to us throughout the whole process, as has
the City Council been very helpful to us. In fact, it was based on the input last fall of the
City Council that gave us the confidence to move forward and build this store. They
indicated that they would -- we were one of the applications that was turned down on a
Variance. They wanted to give us the signage, but they didn't want to change the base
zoning and so they gave the directive to start moving on this committee and figure out a
way to give us the property signage, and so we built the building. It's kind of like Cortez
when he landed at the new world. He burned his ships and only had one course
forward to go. We have great confidence in this location. It's not quite that bad. Based
on our discussions with staff we knew that the current ordinance would allow a 25-foot
sign and we knew that a 40-foot sign was being proposed here. It was our hope that as
we started the store, that the committee would kind of move along on the same path
and we would finish about the same time and, then, we had to make the decision on
whether to open. We have been open now for about four weeks -- or a little bit more
than a month, a little bit more than that. Actually, it's going to be an interesting case
study to us when we finally erect a pole sign to compare the volume after the sign
versus before the sign. You know, we can make our guesses. There have been some
things that we have learned, though, in the course of this that have a bearing on this
ordinance and I wanted to give you a quick report on this store. This store is currently
running at 75 to 80 percent of the average store in the market. Most of our business,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 100 of 114
interestingly enough, is from the immediate neighborhood. It's those people that have
driven passed the store seven or eight times that know that we are there. It's the
people that work down there at Hubble Homes and whatnot, the people that work over
at the St. Luke's Medical Center. It's a great lunchtime option for them. As they come
into the store, we ask them where they used to go for lunch. Most of them have gotten
on Eagle Road in the past and gone to the family center and so we think we are
reducing traffic by about 1,000 cars a week just from those employees that are coming
in there for lunch. What is interesting, though, is that we have very little evening or
weekend business at this location. The drivers basically don't know that we are there
and that part of Eagle Road is so congested that it could be seven or eight years before
they see the signage seven or eight times in order to get them in there. We have also
discovered that there is more morning business than there is evening business and so
we plan to add breakfast at that location. We plan to close earlier in the evening and
that should make the neighborhood -- they didn't have a problem with our 10:00 closing,
but we are looking at more an 8:00 or 9:00 closing now. There are some things that we
have learned that need to be worked into our signage. There are three markets that we
are trying to reach out to. On this sheet that Debbie gave you, the picture up in the top
left is the view as a driver is going north -- northbound on Eagle Road. The one in the
upper right is a driver going southbound on Eagle Road. A third market is those people
that have visited the St. Luke's Medical Center and they have a couple thousand people
a day in and out of that center. We are getting the employees from the medical center,
but we are not getting the guests for the patients that go in and out of there. That
bottom right I think is the one that shows you the view just outside of their lobby as they
walk out and head toward their car in the parking lot. What a 40 foot sign would do for
Subway, and then, the other part of that -- you kind of have to envision when a driver
gets off the freeway, at the top of the ramp, and they merge onto Eagle Road, they have
their menu made out in front of them. Their menu, basically, are those signs that they
can see. Subway wants to be part of that menu and as we have laid this out on a digital
basis, we don't think that a 75-foot sign will give us the awareness, because they make
the decision very quickly. It's a very congested area, they are concentrating on driving,
very quickly they will scan the horizon and that becomes their menu that they pick from
and we want to be part of that menu. It was the City Council's intent when they initiated
this to not penalize us for being part of the L-O zoning, but to give us the signage that
would help us attract business in. It was when Cornell remembered that that he sent
back and changed that point Number 2. It's unfortunate that that -- that his first memo
came over, because it kind of -- kind of set the stage for the discussion here, but we
would encourage you to consider one whole zone and to put the specification of 150
square feet on all of the signage within that zone. I guess in conclusion I'd just
encourage you to pass this ordinance with the amendments that we have talked about
and, hopefully, it will move on to the City Council agenda on a very rapid time table.
Again, thanks for your support in the past on the other requests that we have brought
before you. Thank you.
Borup: I think that did remind me of something I thought we had meant to do is Mr.
Larsen's memo. Have we incorporated those into your motion?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 101 of 114
Zaremba: I think in the changes that we have made in the text we got almost all the --
Borup: We got the 40 feet.
Zaremba: We got the 40 feet. We got the 50 percent larger sign, but that may not
mean that somebody could have 150 square feet.
Borup: That may be the only thing for discussion. I think -- and the staff has already
talked about adding the table, is that correct?
Zaremba: Although, even the current overlays on the I-84 overlay doesn't guarantee
them 150 feet -- 150 square feet. That's the maximum square feet. What page were
we on?
Borup: Thirty-four.
Zaremba: Yes. The signage is calculated by their freeway frontage which we have
already said doesn't apply here, but, still, it's a maximum of 150 square feet for single
and 300 for a center.
Borup: Where was that other chart that we were looking at earlier?
Zaremba: I think it was just displayed up on the board.
Borup: Oh. It was.
Zaremba: Where you were showing what the 50 percent proposed would be? Is that
what you're looking for?
Borup: Yes. That's where it was. That's why I can't find it.
Zaremba: Yes. Brad hit it after display. The issue of the 75-foot square foot sign 40
feet in the air isn't very effective.
Borup: But that's for an office. We are talking -- oh. That is the zone, because it was a
Conditional Use. Yes, and in this case that would apply to the Subway sign, because
they are in an L-O zone.
Zaremba: Yes. Since the Public Hearing is still open, what -- in the samples that you
have shown us, what is the square footage of the sign that you're using -- that you have
morphed into the picture?
Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I believe that that's a little bit bigger than 150, but we can
make 150 work so, it would be a little bit smaller --
Zaremba: But not 75.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 102 of 114
Jacobsen: No. It would be smaller than what you see on the digital mockup there.
Centers: The square footage of the Chevron sign is probably 75 square feet. It's just
higher. Would that be correct, or fairly accurate?
Jacobsen: The higher it gets the smaller it looks.
Centers: Well, yes, I would agree with that, but where you are wanting, your square
footage is in the horizontal portion, because of the word separate.
Jacobsen: Yes, because Subway has six letters in it.
Centers: So, you get into some signs that don't have as many letters or they just have
a logo or a symbol, 75 feet, square feet, would be pretty large, which is seven by ten,
approximately.
Jacobsen: Well part of the -- the actual letters are not as big. Part of the --
Centers: But what you're saying you want -- excuse me. You want 10 by 15,
approximately? That's 150 square feet. That will take time.
Jacobsen: Well, one of -- Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have learned is that
we also need a bar for a drive-thru. A drive-thru is quite important there and that will
occupy about 30 square feet of that. Then, the balance of the cabinet -- there was an
effort made by the designer to follow the architecture of the building and so there is an
extra cabinet that breaks into architectural detail. If we were to downsize the cabinet
and lose some of that architecture, then, what you're saying is true, but the actual
letters are only four feet letters, they are not --
Centers: Yes. Getting back to your comments earlier about a person's peripheral vision
and their first sight and what they see when they get off the freeway, I think what they
see is a lot of signs and I think what you're wanting to be is the biggest that they see
first. Is that what the --
Jacobsen: No. We want to be on par with the McDonald's and Texaco signs that are
on Eagle Road. They have -- they have their freeway signs that are 77 feet and, then,
they have their shorter sign that once you're off the freeway captures the attention of
the driver on Eagle Road and we would like to be on par with those.
Centers: I think when they come off the -- or get onto Eagle Road, they are going to
see a lot of different signs and they are going to have time to make up their mind,
whether it's -- you know, but I guess that's just personal opinion. I don't know, but 10 by
15, 150 square feet? That's a big sign.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 103 of 114
Zaremba: Well, the way the current rules are, it would be half the size that you're
looking for.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, if I could just clarify on the -- that the way that the
ordinance is worded now, any architectural appurtenances that are not a part of the
actual background area are excluded from the calculation.
Borup: So, in this case here, on the Subway sign, the white area above and below
would not count, just the green area?
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. It would be any portion of that sign on which you put
copy.
Borup: Then, how about the drive-thru, does that count towards the --
Hawkins-Clark: It would.
Borup: That does count.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, but, you know, the way that we calculate background area, if it's
mainly just to provide some interest architecturally, if it's adding some height, you can
go 15 percent above the height with -- as long as there is no copy on it, it's just giving
you interest. That’s excluded and for what it's worth, I mean staff, I think, does support
the concept of having in an interchange overlay a consistent size. I mean I think that's
really what we are hearing here is to get to a consistent size, if you fall within this
interchange area. Since there are some L-O and some C-G and some I-L, let's just
wipe out those zone differences in this overlay, have everybody in the overlay be the
same, it's just a matter of determining what that sign is.
Borup: That makes sense, because at least this area --
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: -- has a different zone.
Hawkins-Clark: Right, and I think -- that's a great suggestion.
Borup: So, the question is to decide whether 120 or 150.
Jacobsen: Mr. Chairman, just one question. Just the arch -- would the arch be counted
as part of those square feet? That's -- some architectural detail that we added to fit the
style of the building, or is the sign just squared off around the letters and included in the
calculation?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 104 of 114
Hawkins-Clark: Well, we don't have a detailed, but it appears that you have got a green
area that has the address -- any portion -- the address is required, so we don't count
that against you, because that's just for our emergency services.
Jacobsen: So, we could square it off. When I say 150, that's included everything that
we were talking about there.
Borup: It looks to me like 120 feet would essentially give you the same sign.
Hawkins-Clark: Proportionality is a very good point about -- at a 40-foot height, you get
too small, and it really doesn't look correct. I mean I think that's a good point that Blaine
and Debbie are making.
Centers: Do you have square footage for the interchange overlay? I can't find it.
Zaremba: Well, what we said was 50 percent larger than they would be allowed --
Borup: But I think we have got four different sizes there.
Centers: Right and Brad makes a good point, forget the zones, if you're in the overlay
of the interchange, let's just have a maximum square footage and you don't have that
right now.
Hawkins-Clark: We don't. Number three would change.
Centers: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: Under C --
Centers: Or you would add to three. If you're talking freeway frontage, so you could
add if within the interchange area of 800 feet -- whatever.
Zaremba: One hundred twenty for a single building and 300 for --
Centers: Yes. Fine. Fine.
Borup: Everything in that overlay and by the definition they use, I think that's a readable
sign.
Zaremba: We are talking -- I think we are settling on 120 square feet for a single
business and 300 square feet for a center and again, there are other provisions that say
that doesn't go with the architectural --
Borup: It looks like by the definition that it would, essentially, be the sign you have got
in the picture here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 105 of 114
Jacobsen: We will mark that up and try to make that work
Borup: And it wouldn't be substantially different, I wouldn't think.
Jacobsen: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Now -- so, does that need to be --
Centers: Well, Brad's making his --
Zaremba: Brad's making that note.
Borup: Okay. Was that going to be part of your motion?
Centers: Well, now I'd like to move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of Item 16 on our agenda, ZOA 03-002, request for
amendments to the sign ordinance as proposed by staff with the notes that Brad has
been making.
Borup: Perfect.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: You have got a lot of faith in the notes he's been taking, then.
Centers: Because we trust Brad.
Zaremba: He's been repeating them back or nodding his head or --
Centers: Brad's the man.
Item 17. Discussion of Scheduling and Procedures of Applications / Projects:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 106 of 114
Borup: Okay. One final item, a short discussion, and this is mainly for -- just on
scheduling and agenda format. I think, Mr. Berg, did you have comments on this?
Powell: Mr. Chairman, I will start the presentation.
Borup: Okay. Please do.
Powell: Will and I just wanted to bring forward to you just kind of an update on what's
happening, in case you have been curious, and just open it up to you for your thoughts
on a couple matters. One you might have noticed on the -- at least on the first hearings
of the month, there probably doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason for the way
things are organized to you all. What I have tried to do is organize it by planner so that
I can get one planner in and out of here and that I don't have all of them staying here
until midnight. That's how those have been organized and there is -- like today, you
know, it just -- sometimes it seems like one little one that really should go forward
should be moved ahead on the agenda -- and we have problems -- I mean I can never
decide whether or not it's the right thing to do. It causes more concerns for the city
clerk when things are moved on the agenda. We just kind of wanted to have a brief
discussion how you felt about those things and, then, the final one was the -- oh, one --
a couple more, actually. On the -- in thinking for awhile, some Planning and Zoning
Commissions have the applicant present first and I wouldn't be opposed to giving that a
try, if that's something you want to do. That puts them in the position of explaining their
whole project. Staff can act more as a public testimony, pointing out concerns they may
have, rather than presenting the whole thing. It seems like now you get a long
presentation and, then, you get another long presentation. We wanted to open that up
for a bit of discussion, and then finally, we have heard some grumbling about perhaps
wanting to divide things up on the agenda -- first and second agenda, rather than
putting everything on the first agenda. Didn't know where everyone was and we don't
really have everyone today, but at least we could hear from the die hards. There are
three issues there for you. Agendas --
Zaremba: I have comment on two of them.
Borup: Go ahead. Why don't you start David?
Zaremba: Even though I know it requires almost all of your staff to come to every one
of our meetings, I have appreciated having the person who acted on the project be the
one that presents it. I -- it makes sense to organize the agenda, so that somebody gets
to go home earlier, rather than, you know, one planner presents project one and, then,
project six and, then, project nine, to reorganize it that way makes sense. It has been
helpful and I know everybody's done a good job, but you must have spent a lot of staff
time before you changed it transferring knowledge, so that the one person who was
coming to our meeting presented everybody's projects, to the best of their ability. You
have some skilled people who were doing a fine job at it. I -- it is a little more
comfortable to have the expert on that one being the one presenting it. Organizing the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 107 of 114
agenda to allow somebody to finish and go home and, then, somebody else to finish
and go home makes sense to me.
Borup: Could I ask maybe why on that -- how are the projects assigned? Is it as they
come in or --
Powell: There is a little bit who took the first phone call --
Borup: That's what I was wondering.
Powell: Who took the pre-app and then, who volunteers for it when it actually comes in
the door. There is a complete randomness there.
Borup: So, they have not been put on the agenda based on when the application -- as
far as the date when the application comes in?
Powell: No, they are not and you might have noticed that the numbering isn't the same
either. We do keep track of the first six or seven projects to come in the door, but, then,
after that we arrange it by planner. We don't put them in the number of --
Borup: I don't know in my mind if that's a problem, as long as they are all in by the
deadline. I mean, you know, whether it's the beginning or end probably shouldn't
matter. My one concern is in consideration for the public to have someone sit through
the whole night that's got no neighbors and it's a little neighborhood project and -- it
seems real appropriate to have them at the beginning of the agenda.
Zaremba: If we could identify the easy ones.
Borup: And I -- I mean I think -- and maybe those easy ones is something where they
could be assigned to someone else, rather than have the person that worked on it.
That might be a solution. I don't know. I mean I don't know -- I guess I'm not telling you
what the solution would be, but just in consideration to them, I think it makes sense to
get some of those on and out of the way.
Powell: You're thinking maybe ones that have been discussed previously or --
Borup: Well, no, I'm thinking like -- I mean like tonight -- well, I don't know if we had any
good examples tonight, but --
Centers: The coffee shop.
Borup: Yes. I mean we spent twice as much time on that as I thought we would be.
Centers: Right. Generally -- but staff -- Brad will bear me out -- staff pretty much knows
the ones that are going to be, you know, a lot of conflict on and the ones that are going
to be longer. They know. You know, let them decide where they put them, you know,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 108 of 114
and I agree with Chairman Borup that we should try and get the slam-dunks done first.
Sometimes we are going to be wrong, but that's the way it is, you know? As far as the
various planners presenting their own, I'm indifferent on that. I experienced it, you
know, the other way and I'm really indifferent on that, because I can read and they can
read and if the one that wrote the report did a good job, you know, I can read it, just as
well as Brad can read Steve's but that's a decision at your end.
Powell: Yes. Actually, I have very strong feelings about that one, so that's not likely to
change, actually.
Centers: It doesn't matter to me.
Powell: Yes.
Centers: It doesn't impress me one-way or the other. As far as starting the meetings
with the public, I totally disagree with that. Totally disagree and I have been to the
seminars and I have heard the attorneys, as Keith has, he's been there with me. I think
-- well, anyway, but I would like to see --
Powell: No. Tell me. Please continue. What --
Centers: I'll get all of mine in at one time. I would like to see a balance of the
applications for each meeting. I know why we continue the meeting, because we were
having so many continuations, but I would like the staff to just, you know, separate
them.
Borup: So, you're saying you'd like to put a few more -- well, like we have -- we have
that next month.
Centers: Yes. We have done it behind your back, Keith.
Borup: Oh. For September we have a subdivision for the second meeting already on --
Centers: Yes. It makes no sense to go until midnight one week and, then, to 7:00 --
7:11 the next week. When you were gone, that’s what we --
Borup: I know. I missed that one.
Centers: And, you know, that just doesn't make any sense when the staff could split
them up and then if we have to continue one --
Borup: I might comment on that. I think that makes sense, too, other than I don't think
we want to -- I mean my personal preference would not be to split them 50-50, that, you
know, 75-25 or something, so that we still have time -- if we are going to continue
something and if they are split 50-50, then, the second meeting turns out to be a --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 109 of 114
Centers: I think most of the time we don't continue that much. We are continuing
because you didn't get it done.
Zaremba: If we split them 50-50 and don't put the limitation that a continued one has to
be at the second meeting --
Borup: Continue it to the very next meeting.
Centers: Yes, but most of the continuances are because you didn't get to them.
Borup: Well, like last time we had two recommendations -- one or two
recommendations from staff that it be continued, because all the information wasn't in.
Centers: Right. Right. Yes. I agree, it happens, but I'd rather have two, you know,
fairly long meetings, than one real long and, then, one real short, personally.
Powell: And along that line, my hope is to get staff in a position where they are trying to
work out more of these little bugs before we get to you. Maybe it's not showing up yet,
we are trying to get them so that you can act on them in one night, rather than having to
have -- come back to you.
Borup: Well, it has, but that really started a year ago where things got worked out
before they came here. We used to have two and three hearings on the same project.
That was pretty standard on big ones and it was -- that just doesn't happen anymore.
That's been a good job on that. My -- did you finish, Commissioner Centers?
Centers: Yes. I'm done. I covered all the --
Borup: Just a question -- well, I think that makes sense on splitting them up. I still
wouldn't mind seeing the second meeting maybe a little bit shorter than the first, but it's
going to depend on how many agenda items there are between the two.
Zaremba: It would be nice to have them more balanced, but I just -- my feeling is --
Borup: Maybe 60-40.
Zaremba: -- if we were going to split them 50-50, then, we need to say it can be
continued to any meeting.
Borup: Right. I agree with that.
Zaremba: Not just the next meeting.
Borup: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 110 of 114
Zaremba: Or, like you say, we could have a 60-40 split and still have the continuances
be on the second meeting.
Borup: I would be fine with either way there. As far as whether we have an applicant or
the staff present first, I think it depends. You know, if you have Becky Bowcutt or
someone like that doing the presentation -- you know, them going first could work real
well. Maybe we haven't had any for awhile, but I've had some where, you know, the
applicant -- when the applicant stands up, why just say are you in agreement with the
staff comments and report and they say yes and they are done and sit down and we are
--
Centers: Well, that's about half the time on the CUP's.
Borup: So, once the staff does the report, there is really not much for the applicant to
say, and we can move along faster I think.
Powell: Commissioner Centers. Is that where you were going before and -- okay? You
so rarely express opinions, I wasn't sure if --
Centers: Well, it's especially true if Brad is the presenter for the staff, because he does
such a great job. We recommend approval, end of report.
Zaremba: Well, the alternate opinion is not necessarily, how it affects us. Probably the
same seminar given by the attorneys several of us attended last November. The point
they made that stuck with me is the public perception that -- the people that maybe only
come to the one hearing that affects them. When the staff makes their presentation
first, they see us as being the advocate for this construction, not -- yes, and the
applicant gets up and says, yes, that was right and the public perception -- if the
applicant has to state their case first. Then, staff gives their opinion of it, which we
already have in writing, for the most part, but if the public perception that the applicant
is making the application, not our staff making the application. I -- you know, I can go
either way, but I saw some logic to that from the public perception point, that we do
appear to be advocating, just by the fact that we are the first one to make the
presentation, we do appear to be advocating the project.
Centers: Well -- and, conversely, though, when the staff presents it, a lot of times you
will have people that won't testify, because they got some clarifications of things that
they were -- they didn't know about and, then, the applicant comes up and I'm going to
put the fence in and, oh, well, that's what I wanted, I'm going home. You know, I just --
I'm very strong about the staff and, then, the applicant, you know, and, then, the public.
Borup: I was just thinking what Commissioner Zaremba said and that was starting to
make sense. After I started thinking back on past examples and most of the ones
where we have had, a lot of public opposition the staff has usually had some problems,
too. They have explained where they felt the project needed changing and I don't think
the public has felt like, you know, that the staff is putting those projects and the others
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 111 of 114
where it may seem that way, there is no public opposition, because it's a good and
clean project.
Zaremba: Well -- and I can see either side of it. An advantage to the public, as well as
to us, of having the staff make the presentation first -- and this is something that's just
been happening in the last probably two years is the use of the display and that. I
mean we -- there is a clear content of where this is located, what the plan is, and, of
course, the applicant wouldn't have as easy access to all the electronics that the staff is
using to define the project, so I don't feel strongly either way, although I can see both
sides.
Powell: Well, if we went that route, we would get the word out to the developers, but
you know, they'd prepare a PowerPoint presentation.
Zaremba: Okay.
Powell: I mean we will do that anyway. I think it's a much -- in this space it's really the
only effective way to let everybody see what's been displayed, so --
Borup: That's been real effective.
Zaremba: Well, I remember just coming as an audience member to some of these
meetings two, three, and four years ago, were mystified, because you don't have all the
paperwork the Commissioners have. That was before we had all the stuff and even the
staff presentation wasn't clear to the audience, because you couldn't visualize anything,
so there has been a lot of good progress.
Borup: One thing that I don't know that we have done a good job of keeping up with
and that's the explanations on the procedure on our -- do we even have any out there
tonight?
Powell: Yes, there are.
Borup: That tells them the procedure and who will speak first and all that?
Powell: Have you ever -- Rinda Just for Boise city has this, I don't know, probably four
minute pat speech that she does at the beginning of everybody Public Hearing that -- I
could probably get a copy of it, if you're interested.
Borup: Yes. You know, I wrote one up once and, then, I -- it went by the wayside
somewhere along the line. I used to do that once in awhile. Okay. Yes. See, I mean I
think that does fill them in somewhat on what the procedure is. Is that the one I typed
up? Yes, it is. I took that from Boise, changed the names, and reworded it a little bit.
No. Wait a minute. This is -- no, this isn't the same one. Someone's redone this.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 112 of 114
Powell: Well, in light of us all getting home, what I'm hearing is on the agendas we will
work to put some of the slam-dunks first. On the public first, there is a lot of
disagreement. Unless it's -- you know, I suppose it's really up to you. If you want to
have a further discussion on this with the full Planning and Zoning Commission that
would be fine. City Council has point blank they don't want it, but the staff presentations
there are --
Borup: The City Council wants which way?
Powell: They want me to present first.
Borup: But my presentations are a third of the time that your presentations are. I mean
because you have worked out all the issues, I get to say, basically, all the issues are
worked out, or here is the one outstanding issue. Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval on -- rarely do I say much more than that, and then, on the
agendas, I will look at a 60-40 kind of split or some sort of split, but start moving those
that meet the cut-off on the two agendas.
Borup: Yes. I think that makes sense. I mean I think we are all in agreement to
balance out the two meetings closer, whether it's 50-50 or 60-40, that's probably going
to be as close as -- I mean they are not going to be real exact, anyway.
Powell: And, in all honesty, that will help with the first question of the agenda, because
if we have got shorter agendas, or fewer items -- I have got few people staying until
midnight to have their items continued to the next day anyway, so that will help.
Borup: Actually, I think the last time was the first time we have really continued
something for a long time.
Zaremba: We continued six things. Yes.
Borup: I mean because we ran out of time.
Zaremba: Yes. Yes. Four of them. That's true.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Berg.
Berg: Since I have met my 10-year tenure -- 10-year tenure -- sense Bruce and I are
probably the longest ones that have sat here, just to emphasize a few things. These
meetings are for the public to get input for you guys to make decisions and it's very
important that you don't waste their time. I mean we waste ours, but don't waste their
time. I think splitting the meetings somewhat equal will help Anna split her staff, even,
that you may not have a problem with your staff, maybe only going to one of those
meetings and buckle up that way, too. We used to do lots of different things from the
time and we had one meeting a month on the second Tuesday of the month than what
we do not, so we have made a lot of progress. Just to make sure we focus on that we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 113 of 114
need their input to make good decisions, maybe not their decisions, but to make our
good decisions. Whatever we can do to somehow mediate between cutting, back our
costs for staff time and getting their comments so thanks.
Borup: That does make sense. Would that -- by splitting them up, would you be able to
do the same with staff on occasion?
Powell: It depends on how they were assigned. If we started looking at the agenda
when we were assigning them, we may be able to --
Borup: Instead of having three staff people, maybe just two could --
Powell: Or if they are all here for a shorter amount of time or, you know, only one
person staying a longer amount of time. It will work out.
Borup: Okay. That might --
Centers: Well -- and I can read between the lines there, Will, and I totally agree, you
know, not to waste the public's time, our time, the staff's time with a lot of irrelevant
conversation. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we adjourn.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 12:47.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:47 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
August 21, 2003
Page 114 of 114
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK