2003 02-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 6, 2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, February 6, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Leslie Mathes, and
Members Absent: Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Jill Holinka, Wendy Kirkpatrick,
Jessica Johnson, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___ Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regular scheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. I appreciate your
indulgence while we had -- we had a few items to get taken care of before we started.
We'd like to start with roll call attendance of the Commissioners.
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 16, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: The first item is a Tabled Public Hearing -- well --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we table approval of the minutes of January 16th
until our next
meeting, which would be February 20th
.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Tabled Public Hearing from January 16, 2003: PP 02-029 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 3.66 acres
in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers,
Inc. – West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and
Southwest 7th
Avenue:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 2 of 106
Item 5. Tabled Public Hearing from January 16, 2003: CUP 02-045 Request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 19
single-family attached units in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – West Alden Drive, southwest
corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th
Avenue:
Item 6. Public Hearing: RZ 03-002 Request for a Rezone of 3.66 acres from L-
O to R-15 zones for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. for Wolfe Commercial Enterprises, LLC. – West Alden
Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and SW 7th
Avenue:
Borup: Okay Items 4 and 5 have been tabled from the previous meeting. We've had
public and all the other testimony on those two items. Did we close the Public Hearing?
The hearing is still open. I guess we'd like to re-open those two, PP 02-029 and CUP
02-045 and we'd like to open Public Hearing RZ 03-002. This is a request for a rezone
of 3.6 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision. That's on the
same project as those previous two hearings. At this time we'd like to start with the staff
report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This application,
as you mentioned, was before you at your last meeting. Both the Preliminary Plat and
the Conditional Use Permit were heard at that time. The meeting was, then, tabled or
continued to this one in order for the rezone application to catch up with it. Upon
reviewing those two applications, the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use, it was
determined by staff that a rezone application would have to accompany them in order
for them to be permitted uses. That rezone application has been received and that's
what is before you tonight. In as much as you have already discussed the plat and the
Conditional Use Permit at length, I'll focus mainly on the rezone itself, but in summary of
the others, the Preliminary Plat, it's made up of 19 new residential lots. Those lots are
currently zoned Limit Office in the configuration that you can see outlined in black in the
center of the screen. The proposal would be to rezone these from Limited Office to R-
15, instead of the lots as shown on the existing zoning map, it would have the
configuration as shown on this plat, with additional smaller lots for the use as
townhomes and single-family attached dwelling units.
Borup: Steve, you just might want to note that the color plat you had included one extra
lot.
Siddoway: Ah, yes.
Borup: But the engineered one looked --
Siddoway: This lot up front on Franklin Road is already developed and would not be re-
subdivided. This is an aerial photo. It was actually taken a couple years ago before
that front lot was developed. As you can see, it's not being re-subdivided in the actual
plat. Thank you. This was the site --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 3 of 106
Zaremba: Just for clarification -- I'm sorry, Steve. That parcel is not being rezoned
correctly. The one that's already built on with the commercial spaces is not being
rezoned.
Siddoway: Correct. That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Siddoway: This is the Site Plan showing the layout of the single-family attached homes
and townhomes. These are the elevations of those proposed structures. You should
have a staff report dated January 7th
from Bruce Freckleton and David McKinnon,
addressing all three applications in the same staff report. The staff does recommend
approval of these applications with the conditions noted in that report. I will stand for
any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Shall we act -- shall we not act on the
rezone first? Is that the --
Siddoway: That would probably be correct.
Borup: Okay. Any -- was there any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Is
the applicant --
Zaremba: I would ask a question of Bruce, I guess.
Siddoway: I'll find him.
Zaremba: But it can wait.
Borup: Does the applicant have anything to add?
Boyle: Good evening, Planning Commission. Again, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle
Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive in Boise, appreciated meeting with you a little
earlier this time than the last time. As you recall, it went into the early morning hours, I
think, as I recall. I just wanted to point out just a couple of items real briefly. I know that
we have already been through all the testimony and you're fully aware of what's
proposed here, so I don't want to take up a lot of time. I have just a quick handout, if I
could present it to the Commission.
Borup: First of all, did you have anything additional on the rezone? Then --
Boyle: I did not have any additional comments on the rezone. I'm in agreement with
the staff and their recommendation to approve the rezone.
Borup: All right.
Boyle: The sheets that I passed out to you specifically address site-specific items and
other items related to the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit. Basically, all
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 4 of 106
I did was summarize comments that the Commission made -- you guys, if you recall,
went through the staff report on the Preliminary Plat and the Conditional Use Permit.
You didn't make a formal motion, but these were some of the items as you kind of went
through the site-specific requirements that you wanted to add or delete from those and
I'll just briefly run through these. I have got the page numbers listed here within the
staff report. If you turn to Page 5, you requested that the second sentence be deleted.
The only reason I'm bringing these up is because it was not reflected in the latest report
that you have from the staff. On Page 5, the second sentence under Item B, indicating
existing commercial sanitary services, water services, will need to be abandoned in
accordance with city standards, et cetera. As you recall, that one was deleted and,
basically, the discussion behind that was that we would work with the Public Works
Department in determining what was appropriate for those service provisions. Item
Number 2, again, on Page 1 down on site-specific, the request was to remove the
phrase commercial subdivision under Site-Specific Item Number 1 from the end of the
first sentence. Then, delete the entire following sentence and keep the last sentence
that says that we will coordinate the sizing, routing, et cetera, of utilities with the Public
Works Department. Then, Number 3 is on Page 6 as well, Site-Specific Number 2,
there you also discussed adding to the end of that paragraph that any cuts would be
specifically approved by ACHD into the street. Finally, under the Conditional Use
Permit, there were just some additions to the site-specific regarding this specific request
in the street frontage. Again, we are proposing what would be eight feet street
frontages for the flag lots, as I will call them that are along the common driveway. A 40-
foot street frontage required on all other lots within the subdivision. The setbacks for
the dwelling -- dwellings themselves, and that would be not driveway locations, but,
actually, livable areas. Finally, that the Building Department would cooperate on the
potential of pulling some permits. I just wanted to bring those up. That was at least
what I had in my notes from the discussion the Commissioners had last time. With
those items, we are certainly in agreement with the modifications that I have submitted
to and the staff conditions as presented otherwise. Since we had a lot of discussion, I'll
stand for any questions. If you want me to go back into details on the project, I can.
Borup: Any questions of the Commission? Did his notes jive with what you
remembered?
Zaremba: It's, actually, your first item I was going to ask Bruce about and I will ask you
both, since you're both here and probably discuss it between you. Hasn't -- in the
intervening two weeks has anything been worked out on changing the sewer system
from commercial to -- sewer and water from commercial to residential?
Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, no, we haven't had
dialogue on that.
Zaremba: Okay but as far as you're concerned, you're willing to work together with
Public Works and cooperate and --
Boyle: We are comfortable working with Public Works, as long as Bruce takes it easy
on us.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 5 of 106
Zaremba: And Bruce is comfortable with not being more specific in our requirements?
Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba, the discussion, as I remember it from the last time
when we talked about the services, was the services that are out there, the commercial
services that are out there. Some of them are -- can be converted easily enough, some
of them just don't fall in the right place.
Zaremba: The issue was they don't land on the lots.
Freckleton: Right. Right and so in those cases, you know, these services are going to
have to be extended. We are not going to -- we are not going to approve parallel mains
and, you know, running lines parallel to the sidewalk behind the sidewalk outside of the
road just to accommodate not having to cut the road. We just can't do that so, in those
cases where the services don't make sense where they are at, new services are going
to have to be installed. Perhaps Clint could enlighten us on maybe some dialogue that
he's had with ACHD as far as their permission to cut the road.
Boyle: As far as the service provisions, we are confident that we will be able to work
out the service provisions, whether we need to cut the street or not. ACHD, as far as
cutting the road, again, the discussions we have had with ACHD, they typically do not
like to see cuts within a road that's less than five years old. However, they will allow
them. You have some wider patch back sections that you have to do with those roads,
so you have got to actually cut a wider section than you typically would if you were just
running a typical service out and tying into the middle of the street, but we are confident
that we can work that out with your staff as far as the service provisions and the cuts in
the road.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba -- Clint, have you talked to the Highway District?
Boyle: I haven't talked since last meeting. That was discussion we had previously.
Freckleton: Okay.
Boyle: Talking to John Carpenter and some of the engineers in our office that had
discussions with ACHD.
Freckleton: Okay in the past or specifically on this project and this issue?
Boyle: Not specific to this particular project, as far as the cuts in the road, but on other
similar projects, they have allowed those cuts.
Freckleton: Okay. Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Bruce and Steve, you have received a copy of Clint's memo,
obviously? I think it would be appropriate that you review it. You want to give them a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 6 of 106
copy? He covered the notes that I had made, but I would be a lot more comfortable if
staff would sign off on it with us.
Borup: Anything else, Clint?
Boyle: That's all.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone here to testify on the rezone on this application? All
right. Thank you. Let's wait for the comment from Steve.
Centers: I didn't have any notes on the setbacks and that type of thing, Steve.
Everything else was discussed at the last meeting. I had a note that we were okay with
the setbacks and that was the only note I had made and, then, he put them in detail
there.
Borup: Which one are you wondering about, Steve?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I was just wanting to make sure that these frontages,
setbacks, are, actually, the -- depict what's -- reflect what's depicted on the plan. Bruce
is just working out some wording related to the utilities and sewer provisions.
Zaremba: While the staff is thinking, I could ask another question of Mr. Boyle. I think
we have discussed, in addition to this, a design feature on your left elevation looking a
little bit blank, that would you do something --
Boyle: As far as adding some sort of architectural or pop out --
Zaremba: -- whatever to make it --
Boyle: No problem at all.
Zaremba: Just wanted to reconfirm that that was the agreement.
Boyle: Right. Yes. We are totally in agreement on that, so -- and the elevation -- like
we discussed before, they want a little flexibility on the units that had three attached,
because there is a good chance they will go with two attached and one separate unit.
They don't have any -- they want this to be a first class development for seasoned
citizens and certainly don't have any problem with adding the architectural features for
windows and things like elevations and --
Zaremba: Great. Thank you.
Boyle: Yes.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission?
Borup: Mr. Freckleton.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 7 of 106
Freckleton: Looking at the proposed modifications from Clint, I have got some
suggestions on that. Page 5, Preliminary Plat findings, and requirements, Item B, I
would like to leave the second sentence as written.
Centers: Starting with -- Bruce, starting with existing?
Freckleton: Clint's proposal was to delete the second sentence starting with existing, all
the way through. My recommendation would be to leave it as is, but add to the end of
it: As deemed appropriate by Public Works Department. We feel that that's going to
give us the opportunity to go through and look at the ones that do warrant modification
and conversion to residential services and those that don't, they will have to abandoned
and install new residential services.
Centers: So leave the whole paragraph?
Freckleton: Leave the whole sentence, but add to the end of it, as deemed appropriate
by Public Works Department.
Centers: Right.
Zaremba: How about --
Freckleton: And on Page 5, site-specific --
Zaremba: Bruce, before you go on.
Freckleton: Yes.
Zaremba: How about leaving the paragraph the way it is, but adding to the last
sentence: Or modifications as deemed appropriate by the Public Works?
Freckleton: Do you like that better? It's fine with me.
Zaremba: It makes it a longer sentence, but the existing sentence, then, goes on to
say, or modifications as deemed appropriate by Public Works Department.
Freckleton: Okay same page, Site-Specific Item Number 1. I would recommend just
leaving that one as written, except the second sentence -- at the end of the second
sentence adding in the same type wording, or modified as deemed appropriate by
Public Works Department. It would read city standards and install new residential
services to each a lot or modified as deemed appropriate.
Centers: Are you crossing out the last sentence?
Freckleton: No. Leave it in.
Centers: So you're leaving in the whole paragraph?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 8 of 106
Freckleton: Leave in the whole paragraph, just insert after the word lot, or modifications
as deemed appropriate by Public Works Department. I'm perfectly fine with Clint's
suggested modification for Item Number 3 on his list, Page 6, Site-Specific Item Number
2.
Zaremba: On the one you were just doing before that, the Site-Specific Item Number 1,
deleting commercial subdivision is still appropriate, that parenthetical phrase, isn't it?
Freckleton: I don't know if it's appropriate. It's fine to leave it if you want to. All I was
trying to say there is that when Scottsdale Subdivision was originally developed, it was
a commercial subdivision. I'm fine with the deletion, if you'd like to do that.
Centers: Just leave it in. It doesn't matter.
Zaremba: Yes. Okay.
Freckleton: I'll let Steve address the Conditional Use comments.
Siddoway: Well, this is a Planned Development, so if the Commission deems it
appropriate, it is okay to modify the zoning standards to meet the specific elements of
the project, like the eight-foot street frontages for the flag lots, 40 feet of frontage on the
other lots, which that does match. Ten-foot street side setbacks are a reduction and,
then, Item Number -- but probably okay, if -- unless there was issues raised with that
last week -- or two weeks ago when I wasn't here. Item three. I'll probably just state
that the Building Department may cooperate to allow seven Building Permits prior to the
plat recording. There are seven legal lots out there today, if you count up what's there
today. The reason for the word may be because we need to determine how many of
those existing sewer stubs are modifiable and we don't know for sure that there are
seven. In as much as there is sewer ability through the modification of the existing
stubs, then, they could be provided. That's all I have.
Borup: Any other questions? Comments?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearings on Items 4, 5, and 6 of our
agenda be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close all three public hearings. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Okay. Go for a motion on Item 7, then, AUP 02-012 -- Wait. I'm sorry, Item 6,
RZ 03-002, on the rezone.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 9 of 106
Zaremba: I move we recommend approval to the City Council of Item 6 on our agenda,
RZ 03-002, request for rezone of 3.66 acres from L-O to R-15 zones for Scottsdale
Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., for Wolfe Commercial Enterprises, LLC,
West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th
Avenue.
Clarifying that this refers to the exact area for which we also have a Preliminary Plat
before us, not including the northernmost lot, which was given to us on a display, but it's
not part of the plat, to include all staff comments of the staff's memo of January 7, 2003.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
Centers: I have a question.
Borup: Any discussion?
Centers: Well, was there any staff comments regarding the zoning in the memo of
January 7th
? I don't think there was.
Borup: No. It was in the memo from --
Centers: Right so, you need to refer to the --
Borup: Oh, which date?
Zaremba: Well, it recommended that it be rezoned.
Centers: And we had nothing on zoning.
Zaremba: Okay and, then, there are no staff comments.
Siddoway: The findings for the rezone, Mr. Chairman, are in there.
Centers: Are they?
Borup: Yes, I thought there was.
Siddoway: If you look on page --
Zaremba: The recommendation that it should be rezoned was in there.
Siddoway: Page 2 starts with the standards for the zoning amendment --
Centers: And I skipped right by it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 10 of 106
Siddoway: -- A through L, then, it goes on to the Preliminary Plat findings. There are
no specific conditions of approval, however, tied to the rezone, so you're correct about
that, but the findings are here that are required by ordinance.
Centers: Very good.
Zaremba: Then, I will leave my motion as previously stated.
Borup: And we did have a second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Item Number 4.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of Item 4 on our
agenda, PP 02-029, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots, and two
other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc., West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and
Southwest 7th
Avenue. To include all staff comments of their memo of January 7th
, with
the following exceptions, on Page 6, which is a continuation of Site-Specific Comment
Number 1, at the end of the sentence. Install new residential services to each lot, add:
Or provide modifications in coordination as -- or excuse me or provide modifications as
approved by the Planning -- by the Public Works Department and, I'm sorry, delete that
one. I missed one from before that.
Centers: Well, you can go back.
Zaremba: Yes. That one was true, but I'm going to go backwards. On Page 5, Item B,
on under Preliminary Plat findings and requirements, at the end of the last sentence
add a similar thing, or modified as approved by Meridian Public Works Department.
Then, on Page 6, Site-Specific Comment Number 2.
Centers: You just did that.
Zaremba: Number 2 is any cuts shall be worked out in the agreement with ACHD.
Borup: You already -- didn't you already cover this stuff on item one on --
Zaremba: I did -- I did them out of order, but I did say all three items.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: That would be the end of the motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 11 of 106
Borup: Okay we have a motion.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Item Number 5.
Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, CUP 02-045, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 19 single-family attached
units in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. West
Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th
Avenue, to
include all staff comments of their memo of January 17, 2003, with the following
changes. On Page 8 -- well, as modified by the Pinnacle Engineers' memo to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 6, 2003, signed by Clint Boyle,
with the exception that in Item 3 the word should will be changed to may.
Centers: I think we really wanted at their discretion, the Building department may allow.
I think that's the wording we want.
Zaremba: I would accept that change so Item 3 reads at the discretion of the Building
Department may allow seven Building Permits prior to the plat recording.
Centers: I think that's good. They are not forced into it. Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 7. Public Hearing: AUP 02-012 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a
Family Day Care for five or fewer children out of home in an R-4 zone for
Carrie Herteux by Carrie Herteux – 2948 West Gemstone Drive:
Borup: Item Number 7 is a Public Hearing on an Accessory Use Permit, AUP 02-012,
permit for a family day care center for five or fewer children by Carrie Herteux at 2948
West Gemstone Drive. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request
for an Accessory Use Permit for an in-home day care. It is for the smallest permit, if
you will, that we have. It's for five or fewer children. It is located at the intersection of
Gemstone -- and I'm missing the other street. It's on Gemstone Drive in Sunburst
Subdivision at 2948 West Gemstone. You should have a staff report dated January 30th
from Sonya Allen. In the summary of that, it does state that Planning and Zoning staff
has received one objection to the proposed day care. We did today receive a second
one, which you should have received a copy of in your boxes, from Clint and Debbie
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 12 of 106
Wheeler. The first one was from Loretta Young -- I believe it's Sidner or Sidner. The
reason it's before you tonight -- these are usually approved at staff level, unless there is
an objection. Because of the objection, it does come to a Public Hearing with the
Commission for a decision. The decision needs to be made whether or not the
proposed day care will adversely affect the surrounding proprieties. If the Commission
finds that it does not adversely affect the surrounding properties, we would recommend
that the Commission approve the Accessory Use Permit, after considering the
testimony here tonight. With that, I will stand for any questions. I do have some site
photos taken today. This is the existing home. There are some sketches of the floor
plan and layout but I guess I will stand for any questions with that. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Is the applicant here and would like
to make a statement?
Herteux: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Derrick Herteux I'm the
husband of the applicant. Would it be possible -- we have not seen the second letter --
if I could review that real quickly? Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Members of the Commission, in today's time, the need for affordable and quality day
care is stronger than ever before. Speaking as a parent of four children, a large portion
of my income at one time did go to day care costs. I have been lucky and have been
able to find good, affordable, quality home day care. Day care centers today are very
expensive. We are providing in our home a strong, affordable day care center. My
wife has received extensive training and has previously operated home day care
centers in the City of Pleasant Grove, Utah, prior to our moving up here. She has taken
numerous classes and -- through the state day care services down there. Impact. Most
of the children we will be taking are part-time children. According to the packet you
have received from the Ada County Highway Department, they are saying that on
average it generates two trips per day per child. We will actually be generating less
than that, as we are taking primarily part-time children, and some of the children will be
from the actual area. The impact traffic wise is very, very minor. Also if you could go
back to the picture of the plat itself? West Gemstone Drive is a major artery and
already does handle a lot of traffic. The impact would be very, very minor. The location
is an ideal center for a day care, as we are near many schools, we are near emergency
services, and we are near Meridian City Parks, providing good places for the kids to go.
Of course, we also do provide a fully fenced backyard. Most of the impact of when the
kids are going to be here is during the day when the majority of our neighbors and
people will be gone and will be at work, so any sort of noise impact is also mitigated.
Pickups happen either early in the morning or in the afternoon, again, when most
people are either gone or sleeping, so their impact, again, is minor. We'd like to thank
you again for your time in reviewing this. If you have any additional questions, I would
be more than happy to answer them for you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a question for lady that's going to be in charge of
the day care. Are you going to be having morning and afternoon type shifts, some
children in the morning, some in the afternoon?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 13 of 106
C. Herteux: Yes. Right now I have --
Borup: Carrie, go ahead and state your name for the record.
C. Herteux: Carrie Herteux, the applicant. I have right now five children that I watch
part time. One is moving more to full-time status, more like 8:00 in the morning until
6:00. The others -- I have two that come from 8:00 to 1:00 three days a week. I have
one two days a week that lives across the driveway from us, so she just walks over.
There is no traffic impact. He's just there two days a week and, then, another
kindergartner, who catches the bus in our neighborhood, goes with the other kids in
neighborhood to one of the local schools. They are different shifts and I don't have --
never have all five of them at once so, some come in the morning, some come in the
afternoon. They are different days.
Zaremba: That added up to six.
Centers: Excuse me. To make -- to keep it simple, let's call each child a customer.
C. Herteux: Call them what?
Centers: Each separate child a customer. Okay? How many customers do you have
morning and afternoon?
C. Herteux: Five.
Centers: Total five?
C. Herteux: Total five.
Centers: Five different children period?
C. Herteux: Yes.
Centers: That's what I wanted to clarify.
C. Herteux: Okay.
Centers: Because other applicants in the past have abused it.
C. Herteux: Right. I have three that are strictly morning, from 8:00 until noon and 8:00
until 1:00 and then, two that are all day, but limited days.
Centers: And you understand that's the max?
C. Herteux: Right.
Centers: You can't have five customers in the morning and five in the afternoon.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 14 of 106
C. Herteux: Right.
Centers: That's a total of 10.
C. Herteux: Right.
Centers: And the maximum is five. I just wanted to make sure. I'm sorry I had to make
you back into that.
C. Herteux: Oh, no. That's okay I'm just -- I have some that qualify for state care that
I'd like to get on there, on that program, I think it would be of benefit to everybody to
have the licensure, rather than continue doing it unlicensed, which I'm not -- from what I
understand, not required to be licensed for five or less.
Centers: With the state you mean?
C. Herteux: With the state or I was told last time from somebody from Planning and
Zoning for Meridian City either.
Centers: No you need an Accessory Use Permit. That's why you're here tonight. The
only reason you're here tonight is because there was a complaint.
C. Herteux: Okay. Right. Last night I guess we misunderstood --
Centers: As far as the state, I'm not familiar with that.
C. Herteux: Yes.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Just to clarify, the Accessory Use Permit is five children, plus their own
children?
Siddoway: It is.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Come forward,
please.
Moline: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Kari Moline and I'm the mother of
two of the children that Carrie Herteux currently watches. As a parent, I do reside in
Meridian -- I do reside in Meridian City in the Bedford Place Subdivision, which is less
than five minutes from the Sunburst Subdivision where she resides. It concerns me, as
a parent, the cost of day care, that -- I have three children, two of which are in day care,
and the quality of care that has definitely been given to my children, the love that you
can't -- beyond a parent, that you just can't get in an industrial day care where the staff
is often licensed, but in and out into different businesses. I am a friend to Carrie, have
worked with her in the past and our children get along more than -- just like brothers
and sisters would. I definitely would like to see her Conditional Use Permit be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 15 of 106
approved, because it definitely would impact my life as a parent, as a friend, and I don't
see it as being a negative impact to her neighborhood. I do provide two of the children
part time. That is one trip each way, three days a week. As she said, the other children
are there varying hours. I often see those children moments only as their parents are
picking them up or as I'm dropping mine off, so it is not a full-scale, obnoxious, day
care. These are small children and she does have children of her own, they do get
along, they are not noisy, they are very well behaved, and this is a family neighborhood.
There are so many children in this neighborhood, they have two schools that service
this neighborhood alone and I think that it would be a great improvement to have an in-
home day care in that neighborhood to assist with some of the issues that we all, as
parents, face with trying to find good care close to their home. That's all I have to say.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Okay. Commissioners? Oh. Come forward.
A. Herteux: Commissioners, my name is Armin Herteux, I'm the actual property owner
and, as the property owner, I'm equally concerned about property value, long-term
impact of the day care within the neighborhood impacting my property. I can assure
you that as the property owner, I am very -- I am very concerned about that and you
have my promise that that will not happen, that they will continue to maintain that
property in a manner where it will not impact the area and the property value.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Was there anyone else? Okay. Commissioners?
Zaremba: I would only comment as previously mentioned, one letter we got was from
Loretta Young Sizner, perhaps, and the other was from Clint and Debbie Wheeler. The
objections both seem to center around the thought that this is a commercial activity and
will lead to many other commercial activities in the neighborhood, which is not
compelling to me, necessarily. Neither one of them says that they are aware that there
are already children coming and going or are they disturbed by them. They don't seem
to have noticed that and I don't agree that this automatically means we are going to
start approving other commercial ventures. The objections of these two or three
parties, actually, are noted, but I'm not swayed by them.
Borup: I think the other comment was on traffic and with two children coming from one
family and one or two others within the subdivision, I don't see a big traffic impact.
Centers: Yes. I would concur. You know, I noted the letters, but, then, the people --
maybe they couldn't be here tonight, I don't know, but as long as the applicant
understands it's a cumulative of five over and above her own children and doesn't fudge
that to six different customers, then, I don't have a problem with it.
Borup: I think we ought to move forward.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 7 be closed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 16 of 106
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Zaremba: Let's see. Let me just ask one question of staff. Should there be a fire
inspection? I noticed a list of questions from the fire chief, which are not answered, but
should they at some point --
Siddoway: Yes, I believe that the -- even on Accessory Use Permits there is a -- I know
there is an inspection done by our office for the fenced yard, locked gates, you know,
poisons out of reach of children, that sort of thing. I believe there is also a simple
inspection done by the Fire Department for this type of use.
Zaremba: And that's kind of an automatic thing, we don't need to mention it?
Siddoway: It is automatic. You may mention it also if you desire, just to make sure.
Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on
our agenda, AUP 02-012, request for an accessory --
Borup: Yes. I'm sorry. This one would not go to City Council. We approve it.
Zaremba: In that case, withdraw that, and, Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we
approve AUP 02-012, request for an Accessory Use Permit for a family day care for five
cumulative, or fewer children out of the home in an R-4 zone for Carrie Herteux by
Carrie Herteux 2948 West Gemstone Drive. To include all staff comments of the staff
memo of January 30, 2003.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 02-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
39.92 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Watersong Estates
by Howell-Murdoch Development Corporation – northwest corner of North
Linder Road and West Ustick Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 17 of 106
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 02-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
125 building lots and 15 other lots on 39.92 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for the proposed Watersong Estates by Howell-Murdoch Development
Corporation – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Ustick
Road:
Borup: Okay Item Numbers 8 and 9 are our next project. I'd like to open Public
Hearing AZ 02-029, request for annexation and zoning of 39.92 acres from RUT to R-8
zones for the proposed Watersong Estates by Howell-Murdoch Development
Corporation. Also PP 02-030, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 125 lots and 15
other lots on the same project. Open both these Public Hearings at this time and start
with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject
property as shown on the screen is on North Linder Road, just north of Ustick about a
quarter mile. It is directly across the street from the property that was recently annexed
for the middle school, Linder Road Middle School, and also abuts on its west boundary
future phases of Bridgetower Subdivision. The subdivision that you see kind of kitty-
corner to it to the northeast is -- my mind just went blank, but I will come back to that.
You should have a staff report from Bruce Freckleton and myself, dated January 29th
.
This is requesting approval of 125 building lots on just under 40 acres. The proposed
zone is R-8. That zone is the same zone that was approved for the Baldwin Park to the
north. That's the one I'm forgetting. The two zones east and west of it are R-4. That
zone is in line with the Comprehensive Plan, which shows medium density residential
and the densities proposed also fall under that density. The next slide I think is an
attempt at humor from the secretary, who just took a PowerPoint class. Moving on.
The main items I wish to point out are in the additional considerations starting on Page
6. First of all, let me point out -- so that we can try to avoid confusion, we have got
three different versions of this plat that you probably have. The first one that was sent
around with the initial packets, the one on the screen now, it had two accesses out onto
Linder Road. As they went through meetings with the Ada County Highway District,
they were required to shift the location of this road, which was Watersong Drive on this
plat, south to align with the entrance to the middle school across the street. Upon
moving that, the offset distance was no longer far enough for them to approve this one,
so the plat was modified and received in January with this plat. This plat does have a
single access out onto Linder Road. It shows the two cul-d-sacs in this location where it
had been connected. The staff report that I wrote was based on this plat. The
applicant has come forward today with a third plat that he feels addresses the issues in
the staff report. I'm going to go though the issues in the staff report. I have not yet had
time to review this one and we can ask him to go through these issues and show
whether or not those -- they have been addressed with the plat that was brought before
us today. The first is block length and there are three blocks in this plat that, actually,
are smaller than our minimum block size, which is kind of a nice problem, in my opinion,
compared to the -- what we usually see. We -- those minimum block lengths would
have to receive a variance, but staff would support that. We feel that it enhances the
interconnectivity with those smaller blocks. There are also two blocks, namely -- let's
see Block 1 and Block 7, which run through here that exceeds the maximum block
length. The staff report asks that High Altitude Way be connected south to this cul-d-
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 18 of 106
sac to break up this block length and states that if that connection were made, staff
would support the Variance on the remaining block lengths that exceeded the
maximum. I believe that change was made, as you can see, in the plat that was
brought forth tonight. Number 2, on Page 7, is the roundabout. The initial plat had the
roundabout in this location. In the revised one, it shifted closer to Linder Road. We ask
that it be shifted back to the location that was more in line where it was originally shown
and they have done that as well, as you can see. Item 3 is the right of way. There are
20 -- a need for 23 additional feet of right of way along Linder Road for future road
widening. However, as you may have noted in the staff report from both me and ACHD,
ACHD is not currently able to purchase that right of way. As a condition of annexation,
we would request that they be required to plat that future right of way as a separate
common lot. I believe that the new plat does accommodate that as well. Item 4 is the
Landscape Plan. We requested that we get a plan for this revised plat. There was one
brought in this afternoon. It looks like this. I have not reviewed it. It does not have the
sidewalks, the gravel shoulder, and things that were requested. Some of those details
can be worked out with the detailed Landscape Plan required with Final Plat, but we do
need to make sure that the Landscape Plan is in compliance with all city ordinances.
The stub drain is a drain that currently courses across the property from its southeast
corner up towards the northwest corner. It does drain into the White Drain up here. It is
also currently piped. It would have to be relocated to accommodate the subdivision.
I'm not sure if it's shown on this newest plat, but the intent is to run it up adjacent to the
common lot, adjacent to the right of way to the White Drain. The location of that drain,
as shown on the plat that I reviewed, appeared to be within the future right of way. We
made a statement that we need to verify the location of that drain is outside the future
right of way, so that we are building it in one location today and having to move it again
in five years. No easement is also shown on the plat and we need to verify the width of
easement that would be required and to whom that easement would go. I believe it was
labeled for the Settler's Irrigation District, but I don't believe it actually -- it belongs to
them. There is a Mr. Les Vogel that has been in contact with our office and he's in the
audience tonight and may be able to address that. Number 6 is emergency access.
When the plat was revised to only have one access pointing out onto Linder Road, it
now meets a second point for emergency access. We need to verify that the
emergency access has been accommodated on the new plat. Number 7 is phasing.
This plat that I have reviewed, shows it as a two-phase subdivision. There was
indication from the applicant that they desire to do it as a single phase. I believe that
phase line has been removed. The Coleman Lateral is shown to be on a narrower
common lot surrounding the southwest corner of the subdivision. There is no mention
of the ownership and maintenance of that lot. We believe it should be owned and
maintained by the homeowners association, with a note to that effect on the plat. We
also requested that landscaping be shown, even if it's just grass on the Landscape
Plan. That is not yet shown -- still showing a blank. Number 9 on Page 8 is the titling of
ditches. This seems like a fairly simple one. They are requesting the White Drain to
remain open. Counsel would be the one to act on that and it has been granted up and
down the White drain. Item 10 is the calculations table, which appear to be incorrect on
the revised plat. We ask that the common area calculation be corrected, as well as the
average lot size and anything else that needed to be done. I have not yet had a chance
to look at those for the new one that came in today. In addition, on Page 9, I would just
point out Items 11 and 12 on Preliminary Plat notes that need to be added or modified,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 19 of 106
as well as lot dimensions that were missing from the original Preliminary Plat. Those
are the issues that needed to be resolved before staff could recommend that this be
sent on to Council. All of those show up in the recommendation on Page 11. That
recommendation was to continue the hearing until these items are addressed. With
that, I will stand for any questions and we can hear from the applicant on those 10
items. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: The comments were very thorough. I remembered somewhere going
through this that there was an earlier comment that the White Drain, the project to the
west of this, maybe Bridgetower. I forget they are providing a walkway in that area and
this does not continue that. Is that desirable to continue that walkway?
Siddoway: It is desirable. They do show on the Landscape Plan a path slash gravel
access road. It is over a City of Meridian sewer main easement and they do show
connecting to that with one micropath in this location, as well as stubbing down to the
existing roadway here.
Zaremba: Okay. I didn't have the new landscape -- I have the new plat, but not the
new Landscape Plan.
Borup: What was the status of that pathway in Bridgetower? Was it also gravel in
Bridgetower?
Siddoway: I am not sure. I don't believe it was, but it is private, it's not owned by the
city, and I, honestly, don't know. I'd have to go back and check the findings on that
one.
Zaremba: Haven't we in the past asked that they be a firmer substance, pavement or
something, so that rollerskates and bicycles can be used?
Siddoway: On all city owned pathways we have consistently asked for 10-foot asphalt,
yes.
Borup: Okay. Is there anything else from the Commission? Would the applicant like to
make their presentation? Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Fluke: I would very much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission,
Darin Fluke, JUB Engineers 250 South Beachwood in Boise. I won't belabor this with a
long discussion. I think Steve hit most of the high points. I'll just talk about some of the
things that might have been left off. Steve, could we see the Landscape Plan real
quickly? One thing that did get left off inadvertently in the rush to make these changes
for the hearing was the sidewalk here along Linder Road. That will be placed two feet
inside the new right of way, which is this 23 - foot strip. We show that as being grass
right now and we will, of course, put the sidewalk in there. That's what ACHD is
requiring. That does -- this road is slated to be developed as a five lane minor arterial
and with a 96-foot right of way and that will accommodate a detached five - foot
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 20 of 106
sidewalk so we can easily add that in. With regard to the path along the White Drain,
the only place we parallel the White Drain with any kind of path is right here. Then, the
drain leaves our property at that point, just as my laser pointer has also left the property
and so, you know, we don't have a pathway along the White Drain, really. That's the
city's access road for the White Trunk line that runs in that 40-foot strip along the top
property line there, the north property line. You know, it's our understanding that the
city likes the 12-foot gravel path on there. I don't know that they want that paved.
Bruce, maybe you could speak to that.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that pathway is --
isn't it 14 feet existing right now?
Fluke: I thought it was 12, but it might be 14.
Freckleton: Yes I -- we are in the process of trying to close that project out right now on
the installation of the trunk line and the road has been installed -- I'm just kind of going
from memory, but I think it is 14 feet.
Borup: That's on the whole --
Freckleton: Trunk line the full length of the trunk.
Borup: Any comment on -- and this appears that the actual White Drain just intersects
at their eastern end.
Freckleton: It clips right across the corner there, yes.
Fluke: Were there to be a pathway that connected it, it would connect in right there and
extend to Linder Road on the east. With regard to the White Trunk drain, which does
cut across the property there, as a field drain now, it is in a pipe, we have spoken with
the Settler's Irrigation District on that. They did indicate that they would like that to go in
their easement -- in an easement granted to the Settler's Irrigation District. On the plat
we did move that -- we take out drainage water right there -- I keep losing this pointer
here. We take that drain water about right here and what we have proposed to do is
put that in a pipe that comes up here and just dumps into the White Drain. That would
only need to be in a 10-foot easement and we can accommodate that with the land that
we have there. We have already worked that out with the Settler's Irrigation District.
We did make the roadway connection that staff wanted. That did cost us a lot to do that
and it also means that we have got another block that doesn't meet the minimum block
length of the code, but we will deal with that at the City Council, I suppose. Other than
that, I think we are happy with the layout. I think we addressed all of the staff's
concerns and we'd just ask that you pass this on with a recommendation of approval.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, it would have been really helpful if you could refer to Page 11
of the staff report, if you could just go down each bullet item.
Fluke: Sure.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 21 of 106
Centers: And you just talked about that last, the -- I can see that's been connected --
and just address each item.
Fluke: Okay so, the connection -- we see that that connects. The separate lot for the
future right of way -- maybe we ought to go back to the plat, Steve.
Centers: I saw that on the plat.
Fluke: Okay so, there is a lot there now where there wasn't before. It's 23 feet in width.
That gets ACHD their ultimate right of way of 96 feet. The revised Landscape Plan, it
does not include the detached sidewalk, but we can add that in.
Centers: You will.
Fluke: We have got the landscaping and all the common lots. The stub drain location,
again, that's the drain that comes in about right here. We are going to put that in a pipe
and an easement to Settler's and run it up to the White Drain. The emergency access
will be out the existing gravel road here, it will come in here, and they can come down
here or continue on. That will only be necessary until we are able to make these two
connections, which were approved as part of the Bridgetower Preliminary Plat.
Centers: And you're showing that on the plat?
Fluke: Yes. Yes. We have labeled that and I believe that's that note right there.
Centers: Good.
Fluke: We did remove the phasing line. The Coleman Lateral landscaping, that is this
lot right here. We have added a note, which is this bottom note that says that the lot will
be owned by the homeowners association, but that the lot will be maintained by
Settler's, which is what they prefer. As far as any landscaping there, they do not wish to
have it landscaped, they want to have gravel on that for access.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: That's actually two lots now.
Fluke: It is two lots, because there is that stub street right there, so there is a little piece
right there. The calculations table has been updated. You will notice that it has 125 lots
on there, rather than the 126. Then, we worked out the percentages of the open space
on there. We have added the lot dimensions. We had some missing in a couple of
areas and we have put those down. I'm not sure what the revised plat note was
referring to, the last bullet item.
Centers: Steve can address that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 22 of 106
Siddoway: One was to add a note about minimum residential house size and one was
to modify the blanket storm drainage easement across the whole subdivision to
reference the specific lots and blocks where those storm drains would be.
Fluke: Yes. I missed that. I apologize those notes aren't on there, but that's certainly
easy enough of to do.
Centers: And that was -- very good.
Fluke: Thank you.
Zaremba: Yes. Thank you for doing it that way. The new plat dated February 6, 2003,
is it -- I think you just corrected us. It's no longer 125 building lots and 15 other. Can
you tell me what those correct numbers are?
Fluke: No it is 125.
Zaremba: Okay.
Fluke: The previous plat was 126 lots, so we lost one to make that road connection.
Zaremba: So 125 is correct?
Fluke: Correct.
Zaremba: Fifteen other lots or are there more now?
Fluke: No. That's correct. Whatever it says on this plat is correct. On the February 6th,
plat.
Zaremba: I'm just going by what we are --
Fluke: Yes 13 common open spaces.
Zaremba: Is that counting the two that will eventually be right of way?
Fluke: Those are treated separately in that table, you will see at the bottom, and, yes, it
does include those two lots the bottom of that table.
Zaremba: I'm just clarifying so you're confirming to me that the current latest request
for Preliminary Plat approval is 125 building lots and 15 other lots?
Fluke: Thirteen other lots.
Zaremba: Thirteen other lots. Okay.
Centers: Including the one that's dedicated -- future dedication to the highway
department.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 23 of 106
Fluke: That's correct.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Anything else from any of the Commissioners? Commissioner Zaremba brought
up that pathway. I wouldn't mind seeing maybe some additional discussion on that. A
lot of the comments we have, often times, is a subdivision putting in a pathway and say
it doesn't lead anywhere. We always make the statement when the next one comes
along it will be continued. I realize we have just a small section here, but don't we have
that same issue to deal with?
Zaremba: Well, it does connect to Bridgetower on the west end, doesn't it?
Borup: Not this subdivision, but -- because there is property in between the two.
Zaremba: Oh.
Borup: But we do have a pathway in Bridgetower and some adjoining property between
them.
Centers: The one is Bridgetower is private now. I think staff just mentioned that. Isn't
it?
Siddoway: The Bridgetower pathway is a private pathway.
Centers: Correct.
Borup: With public access or is it?
Centers: It's not maintained by the city.
Siddoway: It's not maintained by the city. That's as much as I know.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: What surface is it? Is it paved or gravel?
Borup: I believe that was proposed -- it was before us -- to be a hard surface paved or
concrete.
Zaremba: I don't remember discussing it, so I would assume it was paved. Otherwise,
we would have talked about it.
Siddoway: I was not in attendance the night it was. Maybe Jessica would be able to --
could we get their Bridgetower file fairly easily and look that up?
Zaremba: Would it be a difficulty to pave it if --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 24 of 106
Fluke: No.
Centers: Is it this portion that we just talked about?
Fluke: Certainly. I would just make the caveat there that, you know, we need to get
Public Works to buy off on that, because it's their easement. They have got their sewer
line in there, so we don't want to get in that vice. If they were amenable to that, then,
we certainly would be.
Borup: And maybe because -- the thing we got different here is such a small section,
either paving it or bonding for it or escrowing the money or -- I don't know what the
other options would be. That may be easier.
Fluke: Well, I mean I think probably it doesn't matter to the client. We will put asphalt
on there when they are building the roads, if that's what you want. That's probably the
easiest time to do it. It's a small section and it's not a problem to do that, just so long as
Public Works says we can.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Public Works would be happy
to have asphalt there. It's a much better driving surface for us if we have to have
access. My only concern is just width and vehicle weight carrying capacity of the
surface. Those are just details that we can work out with the applicant during the plan
review process.
Borup: It looks like we are probably talking 3 or 400 feet? Is that somewhere in that --
somewhere in that range. It would connect to the -- it would connect to the sidewalk
that you would be putting in along Linder? I think that would be the intention. That it
would connect to the sidewalk. You just -- we are saying along the drain until it leaves
your property.
Fluke: Yes.
Borup: Yes. Okay. Are there any comments from the Commissioners on that? Does
that seem appropriate and consistent with what we have done before?
Centers: Yes and the applicant doesn't have a problem with it.
Fluke: That's fine. Thanks.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Come forward if you do.
DeGeorgio: Good evening, my name is Desiree DeGeorgio. My husband and I, Tom,
we own the property that's cut out -- yes. I have concerns and questions regarding our
flood irrigation water that runs currently now from -- can I -- it's the water now -- how do
you work this?
Zaremba: It's just a little button that --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 25 of 106
DeGeorgio: The water now we get runs -- that we irrigate the acre from, runs up
through here. The front comes this way. Then, we get the back irrigation for the
pasture comes around back behind and in a cement ditch now, currently, that runs right
here. Our concern is getting the water rights that we paid for -- if and when and how
that's going to change.
Borup: Where does your water access from right now? Where is your access point to
your property?
DeGeorgio: It comes down along Linder this way.
Borup: So, it flows to the south?
DeGeorgio: Yes, sir. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
DeGeorgio: Yes. How much water we will get and how that's going to change, where
it's going to come from and also the price of the water.
Borup: Okay. Some of that I think we will get some comments from the applicant. By
law you need -- you would still have your historical water. The price you pay is
determined from the Irrigation District.
DeGeorgio: From Settler's?
Borup: Yes and I don't know that that would change any. It's -- but that's determined by
them.
DeGeorgio: One question would be is if they have a flat price per house for their flood
irrigation with our land size, will we still be bound into what we currently pay or will it
change to what --
Borup: I think it's based on how much water you are delivered and I think maybe
someone else can answer that better than me.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Mrs. DeGeorgio, your property has a certain allocation right now and that
would not change. You're not within the boundaries of the subdivision, so modifications
that they make are not going to affect you. The chairman is correct, State Code does
require that the applicant provide you with your historical flow at its historical delivery
points and it also affords you the protection that your drainage water has to be carried
off at its historical flows, too -- or historical locations. Modifications that they make, they
still need to accommodate you --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 26 of 106
DeGeorgio: For when the water is turned on in the spring through the summer?
Borup: Right.
DeGeorgio: And we will have access to that regardless of construction on the
subdivision?
Freckleton: They will need to work -- they will need to coordinate that whole -- the
development at the subdivision through the Settler's Irrigation District and the time line
laid out by Settler's. Settler's is going to be reviewing their plans during the approval
process and they will be approving them.
DeGeorgio: We receive water from the pump that you talked about earlier and you
discussed the price per house. Will that change? That's already paid for through the
water rights that we pay for every year.
Borup: Are you talking about connecting to their pressurized irrigation? Is that what
you're saying you want to do?
DeGeorgio: Well, no, I -- that was the option.
Borup: Oh.
DeGeorgio: Not an option, but a possible fix to the situation.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: Well, yes, I mean those were just some ideas that were thrown around. I
have seen it before where they will try and accommodate an out parcel with their
pressurized irrigation system. I'm not saying that that is the proposal in this
development, but in a pressurized irrigation system, the Irrigation District allocates the
water to the station based on the area of the land. The price that the individual
homeowner pays goes to pay for the Irrigation District's maintenance. You get basically
two separate bills from the Irrigation District when you're in a pressurized irrigation
system like that. One bill you get is for your normal water assessment. You get that bill
from them. In that bill it includes -- I'm speaking wrong. You get one bill from the
Irrigation District.
DeGeorgio: Yes, I do now.
Freckleton: It would include -- if you're in a pressurized irrigation system, it includes all
of the maintenance costs for that system and that would include power costs, you know,
time for the guy to go and check the --
Borup: So, he's saying you would be charged --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 27 of 106
DeGeorgio: If that's the case, then, our bill is going to change, if what he says -- if they
charge us for --
Freckleton: Yes.
Borup: That would probably be the case.
Freckleton: Yes, it would.
Borup: That would be something you would need to decide and maybe work out with
developer to see if they would be able to accommodate you and hook you up to that
system.
DeGeorgio: Okay.
Borup: Yes that would be up to them and up to you. Otherwise, if you do not choose to
do that, you would have your normal historic delivery of water as you have now.
DeGeorgio: But under construction with that subdivision, that's to going change.
Borup: No. It will still come in at the same point that you're receiving it now.
Zaremba: I think the only difference is they are going to put it in a pipe, instead of being
in an open ditch, but by the time it gets to you --
DeGeorgio: Oh, it's not an open ditch now, other than the back part. The front part is
underground.
Borup: Okay. Then that stays the same.
Zaremba: Then that would be that same. Are you the end of that line or does it
continue on and serve other people?
DeGeorgio: It actually dumps into where the -- right there on that corner and goes this
way in that canal.
Freckleton: In the Coleman Lateral.
Borup: Okay.
DeGeorgio: Yes. Well, my concern is how drastic of a change it's going to be and how
it's going to affect the water that we get and when to water, because we are on a pump
right now and we can't -- there is no way we could pump water enough out of pump to
irrigate the whole acre. That's my concern.
Borup: Okay. Well, again, you will still have the same water delivery.
DeGeorgio: In the same way?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 28 of 106
Borup: Yes. At the same point at whatever you're paying for at this point.
DeGeorgio: Okay.
Borup: And if you wanted to connect to their pressurized irrigation, then, that would be
something you need to work out with the developer.
DeGeorgio: Okay so, what you're saying, then, is that we will get the water the same
way we are getting it now at the same cost.
Borup: Yes.
DeGeorgio: That's what I wanted to know.
Borup: Okay. Now, there could be -- I mean sometimes there could be some
interruption, like if they were moving a pipe or something, but they would -- they should
be coordinating that with you and let you know if there was going to be anything.
DeGeorgio: Sure. Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes.
Rohm: I'd like to hear from the applicant on this issue. I'd like to hear him speak
specifically to what her request was, if you would.
Borup: Before we do that, let's see if there is -- is there anyone else? Come on up.
Then maybe we can answer all the questions at one time.
Rohm: Oh. Okay.
Vogel: My name is Les Vogel and I'm concerned about that white stub they referred to
and who is going to maintain that. I understood that he said that Settler's was going to
take that over and maintain it is that right?
Borup: You're talking about the White Drain on the north of the property?
Vogel: Right. That's my concern and if they landscape over that thing and put trees in
and the roots get down to it --
Borup: I don't think they will allow that. Okay. We will have them address that so,
you're concerned about the White stub.
Vogel: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 29 of 106
Borup: Is that what you said?
Vogel: That goes all the way along Linder there. Okay. There won't be no trees or
anything else --
Borup: Oh, you're talking just the drain -- the drainpipe.
Vogel: Yes. Yes.
Borup: Okay. We will have them address that.
Vogel: Okay. That's my only concern, who maintains that.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I might be able to answer that question.
Borup: Okay. Please.
Freckleton: With regards to this going to Settler's, I don't know. At this point in time I
believe it is just a users -- a user maintained ditch. Now, if Settler's is going to take over
the maintenance of that, I suppose that's fine. On the face of the plat the City of
Meridian will require a note that states that the owner of each lot across which passes
an irrigation or drainage ditch is responsible for the maintenance thereof, unless the
maintenance responsible has been assumed by an irrigation or Drainage District. That
kind of leaves it open. If Settler's wants to take over the maintenance responsibility,
then, they will have it. Otherwise, the maintenance responsibility will lie with the owner
of the lot that that ditch passes through, be it drainage or irrigation, and that lot is going
to be owned by the homeowners association for the subdivision. The maintenance
responsibility would fall to them, unless Settler's takes the responsibility.
Borup: Does that make sense, Mr. Vogel?
Vogel: It makes sense. As long as I don't --
Borup: It would either be the subdivision or ACHD -- or I mean or Settler's.
Vogel: So, I don't have to go to 125 houses --
Borup: No. It's all on one lot -- or, in this case, two lots that the homeowners
association owns.
Vogel: Yes. Okay. They will maintain it. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Borup: Darin, did you want to comment on those two items?
Fluke: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Darin Fluke with JUB. I'd just confirm that we will, of
course, deliver the DeGeorgio's water right where they get it now in the quantities that
they receive now. There will be no interruption in that for them, so we will have to work
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 30 of 106
around that, as we do with every plat. As far as the ownership and maintenance of that
White Stub Drain, Settler's has indicated to us when we were designing the subdivision
that they would maintain that. It sits in a 10-foot easement there along the frontage.
We will keep any trees 10 feet off the center line of that pipe, which is their standard
license agreement language for landscaping near their easement, so -- and Bruce is
right, if Settler's at the last bit when we are Final Platting just doesn't want to take it,
then, the homeowners association would be responsible to maintain it. Either way, it's a
better situation than the way the pipe runs right now. It's just a little field drain that I
think was installed by a farmer and so we will put it in a right size pipe and run it a
shorter route up to the existing White drain.
Zaremba: I think the second question on the out parcel was drainage also. I assume
that won't be interrupted either.
Fluke: That's correct. We are obligated to take it where it leaves right now, so we will
accommodate that in a drainage pipe.
Borup: Is there anticipated to be any construction during the irrigation season?
Fluke: The client's indicating no.
Borup: So, there shouldn't even be a momentary -- I mean even a temporary
interruption of water.
Fluke: Typically, the districts won't allow that and, you know, it would be very temporary
if we were to interrupt it. We are obligated to get them that water in the quantity that
they get it now at the times that they get it now.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the Commission?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, you had a lady out there.
Borup: Okay. Come on up, then. We need to get you on the microphone.
Scott: I'm Margaret Scott with Stubblefield Development and we own the 15 acres to
the south of this parcel. It doesn't go all the way to the southwest corner it's over a little
ways. My only question is when I went and talked to Steve at the city, the road that will
come down our property was 385 feet from their west property line. Has that changed?
Siddoway: I don't think so.
Scott: Because I didn't see this version of the plat.
Borup: Are you trying to design your property to tie into that?
Scott: Well, we are farming it and we have been farming it for years, but we just want to
make sure that it's in someplace that will work, if we ever --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 31 of 106
Centers: This stub right here?
Zaremba: It looks like it's 384, if I add up the back property line that's along there.
Scott: That's fine. That's fine. I just didn't want it to be noticeably different. Okay.
That's my question.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Commission, we have no one
else to testify.
Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Both items?
Centers: Yes. Yes. Both items.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would note for the record, before we take a vote on any item,
that previously when we took attendance -- Commission Rohm has joined us since then
and is available to vote.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Rohm has been here throughout the Public Hearings on
Items 8 and 9. Okay. We do have a motion to close the Public Hearing on those two
items.
Rohm: I'll second that motion.
Borup: Motion and a second. Well, I think we need to do them one at a time, don't we?
Zaremba: We are closing the hearings.
Centers: Yes. I would like to close both Public Hearings, AZ 02-029 and PP 02-030.
Borup: Okay. We had a second on that.
Rohm: And I will second that.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for staff. Steve, turning to Page 6
where you start with additional considerations at the bottom, I would leave all of Item 1
in. I would line out Number 2 on Page 7. You jump in if you disagree with me. Line out
Page 3 -- I mean Item 3 on Page 7. Leave in four leave in five. Line out Number 6, line
out Number 7, line out Number 8 and leave in 9. Line out Number 10 and leave in all
other site-specific comments. Add Number 14 on Page 9. Pave the short pathway at
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 32 of 106
the north boundary line at the White Drain. Would you agree that they have met all of
those that --
Siddoway: Yes, I would. I would just point out that you would probably want to note
that those now become -- the ones that you're leaving in, make those -- they are
conditions of approval and not just additional considerations.
Centers: Right. Right. Oh, yes. You bet.
Siddoway: Number 8 that I'm not comfortable with striking is just that there needs to be
a note on the plat about who is responsible for maintenance of the --
Centers: They had that, didn't they? A note on the plat correct.
Zaremba: It is there.
Centers: Then it is met.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Centers: Right. I would merge those into site-specific comments.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: For the Preliminary Plat.
Siddoway: One more thing.
Zaremba: So, then, the question becomes are the remaining notes sufficient that we
need to see it again?
Centers: Why?
Zaremba: That's what I'm wondering. If there is only a couple of things left that they
have agreed to label on the plat.
Centers: Yes and he addressed the Landscape Plan and he addressed the Settler's,
but they just haven't got them done.
Zaremba: So, those are minor enough we don't need to see it again.
Centers: We would put them into site-specific comments and they would have to have
that done before it went to Council. Correct.
Siddoway: I would agree. I think that we can send this on. It appears that they are in
substantial compliance. There are a few things, like the notes on the plat that can be
added.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 33 of 106
Zaremba: And they are minor enough.
Siddoway: And we can review those before the -- if we can get those final modifications
made and copies to us 10 days before the City Council Hearing. We can -- we can do
that. The one thing that Bruce and I were talking about over here was relating to
Comment Number 14 that was being added about the pathway. Just a --
Centers: Whatever it is you want. Go ahead.
Siddoway: I'm, actually, going to turn that to Bruce.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my only concern with that one
is I'd just like for it to be worded such that it references it as a duel use pathway. It's
going to be our sewer access road, but it will also double as a pathway. Vehicle weight
carry capacity and width need to be approved by the Public Works Department.
Centers: I got it.
Borup: And that's also the emergency access.
Freckleton: Correct and if that's going to be used as an emergency access, it probably
should be signed as the temporary emergency access.
Borup: That's for the Fire Department so they will know? Who is supposed to read the
sign? Okay.
Freckleton: Typically, that's something that the Fire Department has required in the
past.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Okay. Anybody have anything else?
Zaremba: No.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would make a motion that we recommend approval for Item 8
on the agenda, AZ 02-029, request for annexation and zoning of 39.92 acres from RUT
to R-8 zones for the proposed Watersong Estates by Howell-Murdoch Development,
Corp., northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Ustick Road, including all staff
comments.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 34 of 106
Centers: Moving on I would recommend approval on Item 9, PP 02-030, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 125 building lots and 13 other lots on 39.92 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Watersong Estates by Howell-Murdoch
Development Corp. Northwest corner of North Linder Road and West Ustick Road,
meaning the plat dated February 6, 2003, including all staff comments and as
amended. Under additional considerations on Page 6, Item 1 that would be merged to
the site-specific comments. Page 7, Item 4, would be merged to site-specific
comments. Item 5 merge to site-specific comments. Item Number 9 merge to site-
specific comments. Then, all other comments related to the Preliminary Plat dated
February 6, 2003 included. Additionally, on Page 9, Item 14 would be added pave the
short pathway at the north boundary at the White Drain, which would be a dual use
slash Public Works access. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 02-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Unit Development to include adding a new 4 classroom
seminary to back of existing site in an R-8 zone for Mountain View
Senior Seminary by Lystrup/Jensen Architects – south of East Overland
Road and east of South Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Item Number 10 Public Hearing CUP 02-047, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development to include adding a new four classroom
seminary to the back of an existing site already zoned for Mountain View Senior
Seminary. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Hi I'm Wendy Kirkpatrick, new planner here with the City of Meridian.
Borup: Okay. Welcome.
Kirkpatrick: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and
operation of a four classroom seminary located at --
Borup: Can everyone hear okay? Maybe just a little bit --
Kirkpatrick: Then I can't read my report. The subject property is located at the
Overland and Locust Grove LDS church. It's adjacent to the Mountain View High
School that is being constructed now. The applicant is Lystrup/Jensen Architects. The
property owner is the LDS church. The seminary building will consist of -- will be 5,476
square feet in size and it will contain four classrooms. The existing parking lot will be
increased by 65 spaces. This is being permitted as a Planned Development. That's
why it's here this evening. Oh and, actually, the only reason this is here at the hearing
this evening is because a single lot is going to be -- when the seminary is constructed
will have two buildings and that requires them to come to hearing as a Planned
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 35 of 106
Development. There has been no opposition to this project. The submitted
Landscaping Plan will be revised and we are asking for the following revisions. We are
asking for two landscaping islands to be added to the eastern row of parking spaces in
the proposed parking lot expansion. We have some additional landscaping that we
want to have added to it so that it comes into compliance with the Landscaping Plans
that we have in our ordinance today. We are also asking that handicapped parking
spaces be added near the front entrance of the seminary building and, actually, the
applicant has submitted a revised plat and shows where these two handicapped spaces
will be. We are also -- we also ask for the applicant to depict, which they have in this
revised plat, where their connection will be to Mountain View Senior High School. The
applicant is still, I believe, solidifying the easement that will allow that access between
the seminary and the high school across that drain. Are there any questions of staff?
Centers: Yes is there going to be an easement that the school district is going to grant
or --
Kirkpatrick: Yes.
Centers: Because you mentioned an easement.
Kirkpatrick: Our application speaks to that. I believe it's in process.
Centers: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: It is proposed, but it's not -- the contract has not been drawn up.
Borup: Any other questions?
Zaremba: Yes. On other churches that have brought something before us that was
going to change their existing conditions, we have also asked them to rezone to L-O.
Should we be doing that here?
Siddoway: Churches are allowed in an R-8 zone with a Conditional Use Permit. This
one is currently zoned R-8 and they did receive a Conditional Use Permit in the county,
which the city agreed to acknowledge when it was annexed. The reason why the city
staff requested that they annex as R-8 at that point is because the Comprehensive Plan
showed it as single-family residential. They -- unlike the others which we have seen,
which have been a rezoning from R-4 to L-O, because they are a nonconforming use,
this one is not considered a nonconforming use, because the ordinance does allow for
a church in the R-8 zone with a Conditional Use Permit.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their
presentation? I guess in this case anything additional you'd like to add?
Jensen: Hal Jensen, Lystrup/Jensen Architects, Pocatello. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, thank you for your time and consideration. I have a couple of items. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 36 of 106
don't know personally if there was actually an agreement made for an easement.
However, there have been monies exchanged toward construction of the sidewalk and
on the 2nd
of May of 2002 there was an agreement and monies exchanged for the tiling
of the Hunter Lateral, as well as the construction of the sidewalk on the school district
property. I still need to do some investigation to find out if the easement is actually
required based upon the previous conversations between the owner and the school
district or if the monies satisfy the parties involved.
Borup: So, there is a written agreement with the school district, though?
Jensen: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Jensen: We don't have any problems bringing any of these requests into compliance.
There is one -- two -- there are two items that based upon staff report that came from
the Fire Department that I would like to at least have as open discussion, because I am
-- I question the verbiage. From Joseph Silva, Deputy Chief, fire prevention. Item
Number 1 the project shall have a fire flow as required by the Uniform Fire Code for four
4-plex buildings. This is estimated to be a fire flow of 1,750. That’s relative to the Fire
Code, in my experience, I question whether or not we are building four 4-plexes here.
That one I would like to have open as discussion.
Borup: I'm assuming that was a typo, probably carrying over from a previous letter he
had in his computer. Does that sound reasonable, Mr. Siddoway?
Siddoway: Yes.
Jensen: I just want to make a note of that and, then, I also question the 20-foot wide
fire lane completely around the project. In light of the fact that the building in and of
itself is not much larger than a residence, in the Fire Code it states that you shall have
X number of feet from a hydrant to be able to drag a hose either from a truck or from a
hydrant to access all sides. We can reply with that and I want to have that as a topic of
discussion with Mr. Silva as well. Other than that, we are in compliance. We don't
have any problems with any of the requests relative to landscape, et cetera.
Borup: Okay. Are there any questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: This probably relates to the sidewalk connecting to the school. There is a
letter from Nampa-Meridian that would indicate that they don't want you to do that
without getting approval from them. Are you working on that?
Jensen: When you say Nampa-Meridian --
Zaremba: Irrigation District.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 37 of 106
Jensen: Correct and they have been in the discussions previously relative to the tiling,
et cetera, and they were aware of the crossing of a future sidewalk, et cetera, and they
are in the discussions.
Zaremba: Okay.
Jensen: I would have to go back and find out who originally was in the discussion. Bill
Henson is not a name that's familiar to me based upon conversations of a year, as well
as two years ago when the church was first being constructed. We came in for those
conversations about what we were going to eventually do with the Hunter Lateral, so --
Zaremba: He's saying that they need to see approved plans and a signed License
Agreement. You're willing to work toward that?
Jensen: Oh, easy. Yes. Those discussions have been started and where they are at to
this point I don't know.
Borup: And the License Agreement would be a normal procedure.
Jensen: Yes and these conversations, once again, started with a different jurisdiction,
being the county, so we will follow that through. As luck would have it, Wendy worked
with us, I believe, on the church and she has an intimate knowledge of some of the
other items that went on in that regard.
Centers: And you would be fine with complying with the City of Meridian's Fire
Department requirements. I think that 20-foot wide fire lane -- I have seen that around -
- I mean on numerous projects and I can see what you're saying, you're not going to be
able to get around the building there.
Jensen: Correct.
Centers: And I think --
Jensen: It's one where we needed to just know that we have the opportunity to have
discussion with them, like this isn't so etched in stone that we can't come to a common
agreement there.
Centers: Right.
Borup: And, Steve, do you have a comment on -- do you think that was intended for
this application or --
Siddoway: I don't. What I would suggest is that maybe the Commission could just put
in their recommendation that the Fire Marshal or the Fire Chief address those two
issues when this goes to Council, because they can solidify it one way or the other,
then.
Centers: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 38 of 106
Borup: That's what I was wondering, if this was a carryover from another -- from
another application or something.
Jensen: One item that I will bring up, where we note the approaches from the existing
parking to the new parking lot on the ingress and egress, we, perhaps, may be slightly
narrow and may have a problem with the turning radii. We may need to pull back a
couple of more spaces and increase the width of the opening, so that as a truck comes
in and needed to pull -- and we just -- right now in the preliminary stages of the site
development. If that is something the district -- or the Fire Department requests, so be
it, we can take care of those items.
Zaremba: I think their standard request is 25-foot inside radius and 28-foot outside
radius or something like that.
Jensen: Correct.
Zaremba: You're saying if your solution is you need to remove a space and widen that
driveway --
Jensen: That's correct.
Zaremba: -- to do that?
Jensen: On either end. Not a problem.
Zaremba: Yes.
Centers: I have one last question. Since this pathway is going to come from the
Meridian School District property, you're not going to limit its use to any specific student,
are you?
Jensen: No.
Centers: So anyone will be able to go through there and go over to Locust Grove?
Jensen: That is correct.
Centers: Good. Glad to hear that.
Jensen: An item to consider real quickly -- and there is one of the adjacent property
owners that approached me prior to the meeting. We will be extending the fences along
the south of the -- the south line of the property where it crosses the Hunter Lateral.
We initially tonight started the conversation of providing them a gate, so they have
access to their -- to their point of beginning on their access for irrigation and so we
would need to have a gate that was accessible on the church side, because that's
where the box will be located, and give -- let those property owners amongst
themselves purchase a lock and distribute keys, so that they have access to it. That
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 39 of 106
way we don't have the students crossing back and forth, but those neighbors that need
to have access have it. That's not a problem. The only item that we will work to
discourage will be the church parking lot as a high school student parking lot and
access back and forth through that and that will just be an ongoing issue, that once
students figure things out, they use them, so we will have to work closely on that
particular item.
Centers: Every project that the LDS puts in is a class act, in my opinion. I think it's
evident that you have continued that, so --
Jensen: Okay. Anything else? If not, thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Come
forward, please.
Schmidt: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. My name is Richard
Schmidt. I live at 1770 Charlais Drive, which is on the wall now. Could I use your laser,
please? Directing your attention to the southern boundary of the entire church
application, I have to agree with Commissioner Centers, I was in that lot and that's lots
one, two and three and the church has been a wonderful neighbor ever since they
moved in and I will be the first to say if they weren't. The Hunter Lateral is now
underground and it follows that line out to Overland Road and goes somewhere. In
order to get water into this subdivision, the Hunter Lateral enters there, there is a point
of diversion there. It goes along that line through this gentleman's property on lot three
and it goes under a cyclone fence, which has been there for 20 years, onto the LDS
property and their point of diversion for their purposes is there. Right at that corner
where the dot is now, there is a point of diversion that serves lots three, two, and one
and it flows westerly and, then, continues off this man's property through a common
area and waters mature pine trees there. The church intends to extend the fence line
all along to that corner. Right now there is a gate there and that's the historic entry to
the point of diversion for at least 20 years, perhaps more like 24. If they don't put a
gate there, these property owners are locked out of their point of diversion and so I'm
simply saying that they have agreed to install a simple gate there, so we can access our
point of diversion and get the water down through those lots and into the common area.
The only other thing I would like to say, I realize this is a different question than the
original installation of the church itself on the other end, but it's the same organization.
Our water flows westerly all through the common area and exhausts into a ditch there,
runs under the road and into a drain ditch that looks like that. When the church installed
this fence line, they piled dirt back up and our water could no longer exhaust onto that
ditch and go under the road. It needs to be redone a little bit from where they left the
dirt. Right now, our water comes down, after it waters the trees, they raised the soil
level, it floods the street, and they need to clean that up a little. That's -- that may not
be for this issue, but the folks are here. I'm here to speak in favor -- highly in favor of
the granting of this application and if they will give us that gate, we can continue our
decades long water and be very happy.
Centers: Is this shovel work or backhoe work?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 40 of 106
Schmidt: Oh, shovel work.
Centers: How did you get through last season? That church has been there for two
years.
Schmidt: Because what happens is the fellow in lot one, he didn't want to go out and
shovel it out himself and we never talked about it, so he lets the water in long enough to
water the trees and, then, he just turns it off, but the drainage easement does go all the
way down into that waste canal and goes under the road and there might be a time in
the future where that might be of some use. For instance, if he turns on his water and,
then, forgets about it, it floods, it won't drain so you know, you would want to have that
option to have the historic --
Centers: What Irrigation District is that?
Schmidt: I believe we are talking Nampa-Meridian.
Centers: Well, I think that the ditch rider should be aware of that.
Schmidt: He should be aware of that. Okay.
Centers: And these property owners should take care of it.
Schmidt: No objection to that. I'm here to speak for the gate. If they will do that, we
will be real happy. I don't know if you need to put it in as a condition of the --
Borup: We can do that. We can add that in as a condition.
Schmidt: I would ask that you add that in and the gate goes in and we will do the lock
and the whole thing --
Borup: Mr. Schmidt, you'd like a three-foot walk-through gate that would be lockable?
Schmidt: Three foot.
Borup: Something that size?
Schmidt: That's fine.
Centers: Well -- and the applicant had mentioned they were going to do that, Mr.
Schmidt.
Schmidt: Right. I just ask that it be made a --
Borup: Make sure it's going to --
Zaremba: Put in writing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 41 of 106
Schmidt: Okay. Thank you very much.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Okay. Any final comments, Mr. Jensen? Would you
be open to maybe talking to the church to look into that drainage area? That might be a
project for some young men to do sometime or something.
Zaremba: The applicant responded yes.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 10 be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we need any discussion or are we ready for a motion? I think it's pretty
straight forward. Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 10 on our agenda, CUP 02-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for a Planned Unit Development to include adding a new four classroom seminary to
the back of an existing site in an R-8 zone for Mountain View Senior Seminary by
Lystrup/Jensen Architects. South of East Overland Road and east of South Locust
Grove Road, the CUP application to be using the applicant's latest drawing, which was
received by the City Clerk on the 5th
of February. To include all staff comments of the
staff memo of February 6, 2002, and with the additional requirement that at the
southeast corner of this project a gate be required that will allow neighboring
homeowners to access their water delivery point.
Centers: Do you want to address the Fire Department letter?
Zaremba: And that applicant will work with the Fire Department to assure that there is
satisfaction on the Fire Department that they have access where they need it.
Borup: And that this is not four 4-plexes.
Zaremba: Right.
Centers: Yes I think the applicant just wanted an open discussion available regarding
those Comments Number 1 and 7 to be open for discussion with the Fire Chief.
Borup: Okay thank you any other -- okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?
Centers: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 42 of 106
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Commissioners, would we like to go ahead with the next hearing or
would you like a break at this time? Any comment on that? Would you like a short
break right now?
Zaremba: Sure.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Okay. We will have a short break at this time.
(Recess)
Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 02-031 Request for annexation and zoning of 39.05
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Castlebrook Subdivision No.
2 by Crestline Development, LLC – 4000 West Pine Avenue, east of North
Black Cat Road and south of West Cherry Lane:
Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 02-032 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
148 building lots and 9 other lots on 39.05 acres in a proposed R-8 zone
for proposed Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2 by Crestline Development,
LLC – 4000 West Pine Avenue, east of North Black Cat Road and south
of West Cherry Lane:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our Public Hearings this evening. Start with Item
Numbers 11 and 12, Public Hearing AZ 02-031, request for annexation and zoning of
39.05 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Castlebrook Subdivision No. 2 by
Crestline Development. It's on 4000 West Pine Avenue. Public Hearing PP 02-032,
request for Preliminary Plat approval of 148 building lots and nine other lots on the
same project. This is a project we do not have the staff comments on. I understand
that you have preliminary draft comments, so we are not sure how much we are going
to be able to -- I guess, Mr. Siddoway, we will leave it to you to -- whatever extent you
can do on the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can give you a brief overview. Castlebrook
Subdivision is just over 39 acres. They are requesting annexation to go from RUT to R-
8 zoning in the city. You recently saw Castlebrook No. 1 Subdivision adjacent to it. This
would be a continuation of that previous development. You can see the aerial photo.
It's currently undeveloped agricultural land. This is a rendering of the proposed plat that
has been submitted to our office and should be in your packets. It does include 148
building lots and nine other lots. This is their Landscape Plan, the larger open space
feature in the center, and Ten Mile Creek coursing along the north property. The only
staff - report you received at this time is dated February 6th
, which, basically, requests
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 43 of 106
that it be tabled. If there are members of the public here who are here to testify, we
may want to open the Public Hearing and continue it, as opposed to table it. I also
believe the applicant would like to get in some input from the Commission, if they have
reviewed the application and have any specific comments themselves. The major
issues on this are Public Works issues, so I'm going to turn some time over to Bruce to
talk about those.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we do have some fairly large
hurdles to get over with respect to this project. The City of Meridian has approved a
contract with JUB Engineers -- we approved that contract on January 28th
. Their
responsibility is to conduct a study and do design for the Black Cat Sewer Trunk. That's
the sewer trunk that's going to be able to take this whole area in. The project is just
getting kicked off. There is a lot of -- there is a lot of fact finding that needs to be done,
a lot of preliminary design that needs to be done. There are a lot of elevations that are
unknown at this point in time. Here is -- the current proposal, I believe, from this
applicant is to try and utilize the existing lift station that's part of the -- was part of the
English Gardens Subdivision, now Coral Creek, Blackstone. That lift station pumps to a
line that gravity flows north to what is another lift station in Ashford Greens Subdivision.
The City of Meridian in our planning, we are planning for another regional lift station that
will be south of Cherry Lane -- somewhere south of Cherry Lane in this area. Land has
not been targeted we don't know where that's going to be or the size of it, that sort of
thing. A more appropriate location for this subdivision to sewer would be to that
regional lift station.
Borup: Bruce, is that that regional station that would pump into the new Black Cat or
into the existing?
Freckleton: It would pump to a new line in Black Cat.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: The new Black Cat Trunk Line.
Freckleton: Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: We did some preliminary water modeling on the area and we have
determined that this development will require a second water main feed. That feed is
going to have to come in from the east, it's going to have to be a 12 inch line extended
all the way in from Ten Mile Road down to Pine Street, extended all the way out to Ten
Mile Road. Easements would need to be secured. At the same time that easements
need to be -- are secured for the water main, we would also need to have easements
secured for the sewer trunk line extension as well. That pretty much covers the big
issues. We have got a lot of unknowns right now that Public Works and the applicant
need to work through and that is the reason that we have requested the continuance.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 44 of 106
Zaremba: Refresh my memory, if you would. When we recommended approval of
Castlebrook Subdivision One, they were providing some kind of a temporary sewer
arrangement, I think, and the sense was that was temporary and they were as much as
that arrangement could handle. In other words, this couldn't be added to that.
Freckleton: The solution for Castlebrook One was to sewer to the existing lift station in
the Blackstone, Coral Creek Subdivision.
Zaremba: And was that a temporary solution until this other major lift station is built?
That was my recollection. It was not a permanent solution.
Freckleton: It is temporary. The lift station that is in the Coral Creek, Blackstone area is
a temporary lift station.
Zaremba: Oh. Okay.
Freckleton: It is not a permanent station so, the regional station is what JUB is going to
be working on, and that will be a permanent station.
Zaremba: And an additional subdivision Number 2 would overwhelm that capacity, I
take it?
Freckleton: That's what we need to -- we need to work on those details. Are there any
other questions?
Borup: Okay. Are there any other staff comments? Does the applicant have anything
they'd like to add?
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar,
representing Crestline Development. My address is 114 East Idaho, Suite 230. I thank
you for hearing this application tonight. I know you don't have a staff report and that
puts you at a little bit of a disadvantage. We will try to go over some of these issues
that we do have. Also the neighbors are here and we have been having discussions
with them, so I appreciate the opportunity to be heard also. We have been trying to
work with them. This project is a continuance of -- and I'm going to refer to this vicinity
map -- a continuance of Castlebrook No. 1. Castlebrook No. 1 was approved the fall of
last year. It is off of Black Cat Road. This will be a continuance of Castlebrook No. 1 or
subdivision number one, done in phases. It will be done in accordance with the fire
department in order to provide secondary access at all times. El Gato or Pine,
whatever you may want to call it, which is in this location, will be extended along with
the subdivision. That road will be built out as per ACHD's requirements of half plus 12
feet of additional road for a two way travel lane along the entire southern boundary
when it is entirely built out. This Castlebrook No. 1 was provided sewer through an
existing temporary lift station in Coral Creek. That did have capacity for Castlebrook
No. 1. We feel that it also has capacity for Castlebrook No. 2, something that we are
able to or will work out with the City Engineering Department to assure that they do
have capacity for that. I understand that is an issue and, obviously, something we need
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 45 of 106
to address or we don't have a project, whether you give us approval or not. If we don't
have sewer, we can't build it and we understand that.
Borup: Have there been any calculations done at this time?
Amar: There have been -- Gene Smith is our engineer. He has done calculations. It's
my understanding he has gotten those back to Brad, although I don't know that for sure,
and they need to review those calculations. In conversations with Brad and Bruce, they
are extremely busy and anticipate meeting with them hopefully next week to discuss
that.
Centers: How many lots in the Castlebrook One?
Amar: There are 120 lots in Castlebrook No. 1.
Centers: So you're going to double it.
Amar: There are 104 -- there are 150 lots in Castlebrook No. 2.
Centers: Okay. More than double.
Amar: Yes. Castlebrook two does have a hundred -- initially there was 148 lots -- could
I get you to put up the Landscape Plan? With this subdivision we are requesting a
couple of variances with respect to block length. When we initially proposed this
subdivision, these two blocks are below the 500-foot minimum due to the design of the
subdivision. We are requesting a variance of that. These blocks are above the 1,000
square foot minimum. We discussed it with staff and I think they were willing to support
those variances. One other change that we did make at the request of staff was to
connect this cul-d-sac that you see here and this cul-d-sac, creating a through street.
Let me show the vicinity map. Oh, this map. Yeah. As you can see here. In doing so,
there was an addition of two lots. Staff suggested that we add those two lots and make
reference to that here, if that is something that you wish to approve, that you note also
that there were two additional lots added to the project. The variances that we are
requesting have to do with -- there was a question by one of the neighbors is we
requesting setback Variances. We are not requesting building variances, as much as
lot -- or block length variances. Those block lengths are supported by staff. The
entrance -- the main entrance into the subdivision, we have one entrance that goes
directly into the park, it's a two acre park space, that entrance -- at one time we
explored the option of moving and having two separate entrances. After discussions
with staff, it was determined that one entrance would be a better point for entering, it
provides better access directly to the back of the subdivision without houses fronting
along and entering an entrance road and they support that also. With respect to the
subdivision itself, we have on the -- I'm going to refer to this vicinity map that Susan
Wildwood is holding. I like to make her hold it. I can't boss her around too often.
Directly to the north of our project is a park, Tulley Park, owned and operated by
Western Ada Park -- I don't know exactly what they call themselves. Recreation district.
Thank you. As part of that and as part of the city's trail plan, there is a pathway down
the north side of that Ten Mile Creek. We propose -- Susan, could you flip it over?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 46 of 106
Actually, I want to look at this one. We propose to put also a pathway -- a private
pathway for the subdivision to be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association on the south side of Ten Mile Creek also. That would connect Castlebrook
No. 1 to this and we are also proposing a footbridge across -- it's actually a culvert --
across the Ten Mile Creek. We have been in conversations with Bill Henson at Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District. He is generally in agreement and he wants to see plans as
far as landscaping and our plans for the pathway. Right now, we propose a five-foot
wide paved pathway and he is generally in agreement with that. It will require a License
Agreement, which we are more than happy to do. One thing that that will give this
subdivision -- the easement, if you will, essentially, an owned lot by the Irrigation
District, will not need to be maintained by that Irrigation District, it won't be a blight, as
many of the pathways are. I brought pictures of the existing pathway on the north side
of the canal. The north side of the canal, if we look here, as you can see, this is at the
point where Coral Creek, Castlebrook No. 1, Castlebrook No. 2, and Parkside Creek
meet. As you can see, it's a narrow spot, but there is no landscaping on either side of
that. The weeds grow up -- I understand that's a pathway that is being developed as it
goes, so maybe in the future that will be developed and it will be landscaped. What we
want to do is provide a pathway immediately that looks nice and will be pleasing, as well
as easily maintained for better visual effect for some of the neighbors. Along this
pathway, also and along all the common areas we are proposing to put a four-foot high
vinyl fence, four-foot maximum height in order to not create a visual barrier, so that is a
safety corridor and can be seen by the neighbors. We are also proposing to put a four-
foot high vinyl fence on -- around this park. It will be a sandstone vinyl. Along the Pine
or El Gato we propose -- obviously, the landscaping will be done in accordance with the
City of Meridian's Landscape Plan. It will be a six-foot high sandstone vinyl fence. We
do all this -- the less maintenance that the homeowners association has to do and stain
that fence every year, the easier and the better look it gets in the long run and in the
short term.
Zaremba: The fence around the common area, the park area that you have, is that
sight obscuring or non-sight obscuring?
Amar: It's four-foot height – four-foot high maximum height sight obscuring. You can
still see over the top of it, but it allows people that have dogs in the backward without
them barking at you every time you go by, hopefully. It will provide a better effect.
Zaremba: Is that okay?
Siddoway: The -- are you asking about the four-foot vinyl?
Zaremba: I know the four-foot is appropriate, but sight obscuring or non-sight
obscuring?
Siddoway: Four-foot is the maximum for sight obscuring so four-foot is fine for sight
obscuring, yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Thank you both.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 47 of 106
Amar: The CC&Rs we have a packet -- did you give them a packet? In your packet we
have in here a -- requested as conditions of approval the highlights of the CC&Rs that
we will be -- that we will be using in this subdivision. All of our houses are required to
have landscaping. That landscaping would be front yard sod, underground sprinkler
system, and front yard fencing, as to block the view into the backyard. It will also have
a number of trees and shrubs that are required. Around those trees and shrubs we will
also have a tree ring, so that maintains that quality look throughout the time. There will
also be a front yard light that will be installed on each house. This is not in any way
meant to replace the streetlights, the streetlights will also be used, and it just gives a
little more character to the subdivision. You can see some of those yard lights in -- this
is a picture of -- I don't know if you can see it -- but there is a yard light here. Those will
be on a photocell, so at night, they do turn on and we hire a management company to
maintain those CC&Rs and enforce those CC&Rs. He drives through at night and --
there is one in my own subdivision and my lights have been burnt out and he calls me
the next morning and says your light's burnt out, replace it. Then, they send these
nasty letters if you don't. We do provide also a management company -- or hire a
management company to enforce those CC&Rs. There still is a homeowners
association, but that gets away from the neighbors having to tell on their neighbors, so
to speak. All the roofing material will be a 25-year black architectural composition
shingle, the upgraded shingle. The roof pitch will be a minimum of 6/12 pitch. The
minimum house size is as in the R-8 zone, where the majority of the subdivision will a
minimum of 1,300 -- I think it's 1,301 square feet. I'm not sure why it's one, but we will
make sure that extra on gets in. 1,301 square feet. Those lots that border the Ten Mile
Creek, we have increased those sizes as to provide the ability to put a larger house.
Also if people did want to put three-car garages, it's very easy to do that. Those
minimum lot sizes -- or house sizes, rather, will be 1,600 square feet, as to provide a
better buffer for those neighbors that back up to that. The neighbors -- the nearest
neighbor to this from Parkside Creek will be approximately 300 feet away, when you
take into account the easement and the existing pathway from the Fuller Park. There is
a significant visual barrier or visual buffer, I should say, between one neighbor and the
other and it creates a nice look. I have taken pictures out at the site itself and the
parkway or the pathway. These pictures were taken from Fuller Park. There is a pond
in Fuller Park, looking back at those houses. This is actually standing from on top of
the canal bank, as close to the canal that -- or the drain as I could get looking back at
those houses. You can see there is quite a distance back to those houses before you
even get to the far edge or the north edge of that canal and there is another
approximately 75 feet before you get to the nearest backyard of the house. There is a
significant buffer zone there. This is actually the site now, as it exists for reference, if
you had any questions. I will go over quickly the requested -- and I know you don't
have a staff -- the requested conditions, site-specific conditions of approval, try to
address those and give you an idea of what we are agreeing to. We have no problems
with the staff report. We understand there are issues with sewer. We understand there
are issues with water. We are confident that we can work these out with the engineering
department. As I said, if we don't, we don't have a project, so -- the other things are we
will be providing an under ground pressurized irrigation system. We have already
spoken with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. We may actually be utilizing an existing
system that they have, upgrading that system. They want to maximize the number of
houses per system, so they have to maintain one system, rather than others -- rather
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 48 of 106
than many. We will have a Fencing Plan on that plat that is in accordance with the City
of Meridian's policies. I will skip through these. A lot of them are fairly standard. Again,
as I say, we are requesting the Variances for block length requirements only. We will be
revising the Preliminary Plat with any changes that are necessary although I think what
we have in front of us tonight has been revised. We have to pick the FEMA line. We
can do that and that FEMA line does not -- if it affects any of the lots, we can still obtain
-- there is not a floodway -- there may be a flood plane in some of the lots. I believe it is
down in this area. It was just on the back of them. Those would be required to have
flood insurance by any lender so that canal is fairly deep. If it's flooding there, I think
everybody is in trouble, not just the people that are living along that Ten Mile Creek. I
think that is all that I have. We did have a neighborhood meeting on January 29th
and I
know that's something that's required by the City of Meridian, but we did want to try to
resolve some of the concerns. Some of the changes that we have before us tonight
came out of that neighborhood meeting. They had requested larger houses be put on
that, requested other things also, but we did make some of these changes. We are
assuring them as long as we can get approval with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District,
that that bank will be maintained by the homeowners association, so it's visually
pleasing. We increased the housing sizes in the portion of the project, also to make it
more visually pleasing, and the addition of vinyl fence, rather than some other style of
fencing. With that I would stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Okay. I want to say we appreciate you
having the neighborhood meeting. We find it makes a big difference on questions that
people have and even though it isn't required, the new ordinance is going to highly
recommend it. In same cases if we felt it was necessary and it wasn't held, we would
probably be continuing the hearing without even holding it.
Amar: We had the neighborhood meeting in this case and noticed all those neighbors
within a 300-foot radius and we had six people that showed up so I think it did help. We
were able to answer some questions. Some of those same people are here tonight so -
-
Borup: Appreciate you doing that.
Rohm: I just had one question. On this common area, the block four --
Amar: Yes. Okay.
Rohm: That area. Where will you have like parking, so that people can actually use
that area? It seems like the adjacent lots to it, will be very user friendly to them, but the
balance of the subdivision, it doesn't seem like there is access to it that well.
Amar: We have tried to provide -- the common area we -- first of all, we centered it in
the subdivision, but we have also tried to provide a number of accesses into it also.
There is a pathway here and a pathway here, so people can actually walk to that
common area. It's been done in other subdivisions throughout the City of Meridian, I
have seen people use them I have actually used many of them myself. We feel that
this is located in such a way -- yes, we do have houses backing up to it, but it's located
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 49 of 106
in such a position that people will be able to access it easily and more walking than
driving that's located less than a quarter of a mile from any house in that subdivision.
That's what we try to do with our common areas is locate them in a position where
people don't have to walk more than a quarter of a mile to it to enjoy it.
Zaremba: Do you envision any amenities in there or is it just all grass?
Amar: I'm sorry. Yes. It will be grass. What we find is -- and especially with this size.
This size of common area will open up to a variety of uses. When I grew up everybody
liked to play baseball and now it seems like everybody lies to play soccer. In any event,
they can go both of those on this. We also have provided in another subdivision and
we anticipate in this subdivision a recreation area for children to slide and swing and
play tag or whatever they may play. I enjoy playing it. My kid is old enough to play tag
and he always wins. He can run faster than I can.
Centers: Is that also your subdivision drain area?
Amar: It will be utilized also as drainage.
Centers: And it's a lower elevation?
Amar: Yes.
Centers: Have you done -- have you done your water table testing?
Amar: We have and at this location the water table is approximately six feet. Below
that, the depression on that will be approximately a foot deep, so we still will be five feet
above that water table and --
Centers: Is that why you put that park there, because it's a central location for the
drain?
Amar: Well, luckily, on this one it was a central location for the drain, but we -- like on
Castlebrook No. 1 -- Castlebrook No. 1 is not in the low area. The park for Castlebrook
No. 1 is in this location, not at the lower area. We try to put those parks in the center of
the subdivision. In this case we can use it for drainage.
Centers: I guess I have to be honest with you. I'm reluctant to comment in any way
until I see the staff report.
Amar: That's fine. One desire for bringing it before you tonight is we understand there
are engineering issues and we think we can resolve those. We understand we are
going to be continued until a later meeting. We also hope we could get some comment
from Planning and Zoning, so if there is questions, we can address those prior to the
next meeting also.
Borup: So you'd like to know the concern that this Commission may have?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 50 of 106
Amar: Yes, sir.
Borup: And I would think if we have some serious concerns, we should be able to
express those, even without staff comments.
Amar: I'm going to speak to staff and they can nod yes or no. I think generally staff
supports this project and the layout. It definitely meets the Comprehensive Plan.
Centers: Oh, I'm aware of that. One is approved just to the west of it you know, so --
Amar: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, the overall concept seems to be a good one just the trouble is always
in the details.
Amar: Yes.
Zaremba: That's what we depend on staff for.
Amar: I understand.
Borup: I think one of the questions --
Zaremba: But for a sense of it, the overall concept ---
Borup: One of the questions we may have is how much time do you think you need to
work out some of those details, specifically the sewer and the water?
Amar: A lot of that depends on when we meet with Brad or Bruce. We feel like we
have a lot of the answers now. We would need to confirm those, give that information
to engineering department, so they can confirm our numbers, but we feel like within two
weeks we could probably do that.
Borup: Meet with them within two weeks?
Amar: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I had one question about the main road, assuming that it's going to connect
with Pine on the east end -- no, not your subdivision road, but the major east-west road.
Amar: Yes.
Zaremba: Wouldn't it make more sense to name that Pine?
Amar: You'd think. I don't know what we will call it. When we did Castlebrook No. 1
across the street El Gato is the public road and so we have been told we are going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 51 of 106
call it El Gato. At some point there is going to be a transition from Pine to El Gato. If
you want me to call it David Zaremba Street, I will be happy to call it that.
Zaremba: I'd rather not.
Amar: But yes, we will call it what COMPASS and the City of Meridian would ask us to
call it. At this time we have been directed to name it El Gato.
Borup: By the Street Name Committee or -- they are going to have to decide that,
eventually, aren't they?
Amar: And fire. I know we spoke initially with the Fire Department and they weren't too
-- they said name it El Gato for now. When we get to Final Plat stage, we will determine
the final name.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We would like to have any other -- did you have
some more staff -- or more applicant comments that's pertinent? Okay.
Nichols: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you. Shawn Nichols, Land
Consultants, 52 North 2nd
Street in Eagle. I will be brief. I just wanted to talk about the
Comprehensive Plan real fast. Again, you're going to get that in your staff report some
day, the staff's analysis, but just to briefly -- to briefly summarize, we do meet the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. As you know, that was approved, finally, in 2002 and there
is a -- the area where we are located is right here, which is medium density residential
future land use designation. The zoning we are asking for is R-8, which is also medium
density, which allows for three to eight dwelling units per acre. We are more on the
lower side of that with 3.8 dwelling units per acre, with the addition of those two lots
from that redesign that Kevin spoke of. We do meet the policy and goals of the plan,
specifically, the land use, housing, recreation open space, goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan as it is currently written. We are compatible with the surrounding
residential uses, specifically, the Castlebrook No. 1, which is approved. That's all I
have.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We would like to have public testimony, realizing this
is going to be continued, but we'd like to give anyone opportunity to testify here that
may not have the time to do that. Oh, did you still have comments, Susan? Okay.
Sorry.
Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Susan Wildwood, I'm
an attorney, and I’m here on behalf of the applicant. Actually, I put together the packets
that you have before you and I -- actually, the – very, very briefly, you were provided a
lot count comparison and that is the coloration that exists on this map. One of the
reasons that we do this is so that you have an opportunity to see the lot distribution
across the project. Sometimes it's hard look up here and see exactly where the lots
are. This gives you a graphic idea of the lot distribution. It isn't all in one chunk. That
key exists on that lot count. The photographs that you have in there, this is Wilkins
Ranch, a similar entryway that we would be proposing, utilizing this house, this house,
and house are all in excess of 1,600 feet -- or, actually, in Oakhurst and Autumn Faire,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 52 of 106
those are minimum floor requirements and we -- those particularly subdivisions are
actually 1,400 square feet. That gives you an idea even with the 1,400 square foot
minimums you will find houses on lot sizes similar to what we actually have in here. I
just wanted to go over that and see if you had any questions, I would be happy to stand
for any questions, but I didn't have anything else other than that. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Borup: Questions?
Centers: I appreciate the color code. I remember that from the past.
Wildwood: Thank you, sir,
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay, sir.
Glines: My name is Mark Glines and I'm a resident of Parkside Creek. Do I have
access to a -- we have a couple of concerns. First off, I live right about here and they
have addressed one of the concerns about maintaining this side of the creek there. As
Western Ada Recreation District is doing some improvements over here, we have a
problem whether we are going to be able to get the creek maintained. Nampa-Meridian
does not maintain it for sight, it maintains it just for water flow, and with the
improvements that have been done by Western Ada at Fuller Park, and it has left the
site situation a mess. The development that was done here by Corey Barton and this
one here has left this entire creek area here a horrible eye sore. This was supposed to
have been at least put under the maintenance of the City Parks Department and
nothing has been done about it. I'm concerned that if -- once this is all closed up here,
that this ditch part here will not be able to be maintained properly, because there is half
on this side that's too close to the ridge of the ditch, literally three feet from the top of it,
and done without full compliance with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. Then, there is no
access through here. In fact, we have a rather stiff corner here to be able to get any
kind of access through. I'm concerned, one, about that, that we will be able to maintain
the site across here. A second concern I have is that -- you know, even this area here
is our drainage dump. We have standing water in there almost all year long and that's
not very deeply down in there. This area here, when the property owner was farming it
for hay, if he flooded it too much, was a horrible mosquito nest environment, because it
didn't drain well, and even though they say they have done the test and I -- you know,
you do the test once and not find necessarily what the long-term reality is. I'm
concerned that when they put the park in here, if that is where they are going to be
draining to, that it may become more of a mosquito issue like we are having up here.
The third concern I have is the fact that over here -- this is R-4, this is R-3, this is R-8,
and this is the eye sore of the neighborhood. We would like to see this R-4, so that we
can lower the density have a little bit higher level of homes there, without the kind of
jam it in. Park all your motor homes and park all your trailers type of an issue that has
made this the eye -- made the -- this is not wanting to go on -- made the Coral Creek
and the Blackstone the problem that it is. Those are the issues I'm concerned about.
This whole area looking south is just a little bit below the Parkside Creek area, so it is
pretty much a look over sight line and so the view of it is something that is important
when you're seeing roofs and looking at the backyards, they become more obvious.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 53 of 106
One thing we were asking is if they could put a height restriction on their perimeter
homes, especially the ones that back up to Ten Mile, so that the tallest homes were at
least one lot into the development, so that we don't have the tall homes right at the
perimeter, something that -- let me go over to the map and I will show you. Right here
we have two homes that have a really nice view from the front, but from the backside,
they are 30-foot high walls. You know, it would be nice to see some of the -- if we are
going to be having to deal with some of those things, see some architectural
improvements to the homes that break up that stark look. We have a property right
here that was built with a room above the garage, so it's got 30 feet of roof. If you look
at it from the side view, we have got 70 percent roof, bare roof, and it really does not fit
with any kind of visual presentation that's acceptable. We are concerned that the
homes in here -- the cheapest home in here is worth about 180,000 dollars and that
was a depressed property sold at foreclosure. I'm concerned that if this is allowed to be
R-8, if some of the other issues aren't mitigated by making sure that the play area is
going to have good drainage, making sure that we have access keeping the ditch
maintained and cleaned, that it's going to have a negative impact on our property
values. We have, you know, one of the nicer neighborhoods in Meridian here at
Parkside Creek, this could very easily continue this style of high quality neighborhood,
and so that's what our concerns are. It would be nice some day to see some better
cooperation between the Fuller Park Operators and the city, because they seem to add
to the lack of betterment to our neighborhood. This issue of being able to deal with the
maintenance here is important to us.
Borup: Mr. Glines, could you point out where your house is located?
Glines: Right there. I'm semi-retired, so I'm out on this property all the time and I'm out
with my dogs. I'm -- you know, we have had quite an increase in foot traffic along here
since the path was paved through. With that, there is more of a concern that it's in a
maintainable state. Just when they finished -- when Fuller Park was finished putting the
path in, the weekend before Thanksgiving, traffic on this path has probably gone up four
fold and yet there is nothing being done to maintain the esthetics around it.
Borup: Okay. Any questions?
Zaremba: In your subdivision along this south property line, are there any height
restrictions on those homes?
Glines: There are no height restrictions, but the way the homes have been built, there
are none of them that have that stark height here. They are in an architectural style
where there is a build up and that's a drastically different look than a two-story flat wall
that's, you know, a lot wide on these lots over here.
Borup: The back of the homes have a build up?
Glines: Well, you might have a patio that's lower and, then, if it's a second story, it's not
right at the back of the building, and that breaks the look up. It gives a much more
esthetic appearance and so that's what we are asking that -- in this area we have at
least some sort of a -- don't build us a 35 high, 40-foot wide flat wall, but, instead, put
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 54 of 106
some breaks in it, maybe -- and you can see the house in here. Yes. Yes. There are
the ones further over towards --
Borup: But this is in your subdivision?
Glines: Yes.
Borup: This one showing a full height wall with no windows or anything in it.
Glines: Well, that's the -- that's the only one on the entire -- on the entire area that does
that.
Borup: Okay.
Glines: Okay. As you can see here, see, we have a pond there that isn't even
maintained. Yet, we have what could be an extremely beautiful and useful park, the
Fuller Park people choose to make the pond inaccessible for anybody to fish or
whatever else, because they just don't want people using that part of the park and
what's the pond for? With the additional children we are going to have here, which I
have nothing against children -- in fact, I used to go out here and play with the kids in
the ditch, because we used to get crawdads together and things. The kids would have
great science lessons out there. It would be great if we could somehow get some of
these improvements done, so that the kids can have realistic things to do, besides just
the swing sets and open space. If we could sort of bring the things together and my
concern is that if we don't bring them together now while there is access to all directions
on the properties there, Fuller Park and the creek and such, that it will never happen.
Okay?
Borup: I think that ought to be really good. You do realize that this developer is going
to be restricted to the properties they own and what they can do.
Glines: So, the issue I have at that point is that what was thought to be access to clean
the creek from their side is going to be blocked by the setback that they have to put the
path there. What the district needs -- the water district wants 18 feet, well, they are
going to have to rely upon where the paved area is on the other side to maintain the
ditch and one of the concerns I have is that the ditch get as much maintenance done
prior to the development. Afterwards it can maybe be maintained without the heavy
shovels, so that we don't get stuck in this thing of nobody wants to come in and tear up
the asphalt until finally they have to and now they have got to destroy the --
Borup: We will get some clarification on that, because I think Nampa-Meridian is pretty
strict on their maintenance requirements and they are going to --
Glines: That's the problem that --
Borup: They are going to need to comply with what they want.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 55 of 106
Glines: Both Fuller and the two develops up here basically didn't maintain their
agreements with Nampa-Meridian and my concern is that -- you know, that this be done
prior to development, that's it's got -- there is enough improvement in it, so we don't
have to worry about who we are going to get to do it, because Nampa-Meridian doesn't
have the funds to do anything of an esthetic value.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Bravo: Good evening. My name is Steve Bravo and I reside at 3715 West Pine, which
is adjacent to the proposed development there. I didn't have a problem down here until
just a few minutes ago when I was talking to some of these folks and they mentioned
water mains coming in from Ten Mile over to that subdivision. My concern and my
neighbors' concern are what kind of services are they going to punch through on the
road? It is a private lane. It's only a 20-foot wide road at that point from Ten Mile to the
point where that subdivision will end and so we are concerned about what kind of
services they want to put through there or try to put through there. It is considered a
private lane at this point. We understand it's been deeded to the county, but not
accepted by the county for over 40 years, so we don't know -- I'm a little curious about
that at this point. The other concern we have is since they will be paving and running
Pine down the backside of the subdivision. We would like some insurances that where
it ends at the subdivision there will be a permanent or semi-permanent blockage, so
that people will not be forcing their way through there then, using our private lane as
access to the subdivision for short trips to the store or whatever. You have Albertson's
right up at the corner, that would -- it would be very tempting, because of the -- it would
cut off quite a bit of driving distance for -- you know, to get to a store up there.
Borup: So El Gato does connect to Pine?
Bravo: Pardon me?
Borup: I mean it does connect --
Bravo: To Black Cat.
Borup: To Black Cat. Well, where does it go to the west -- or to the east?
Bravo: Well, it would come -- wherever it stops at the east, which is at the back of my
neighbor's property there, right off of Ten Mile Drain.
Borup: I was confused on which sections that you were concerned about them using.
Okay. That's what I'm saying. To the east --
Bravo: Yes.
Borup: -- of the development.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 56 of 106
Bravo: And I have seen that work, even subdivisions right in town where there is some
blocked areas where people have torn down the wooden barricades and they are
driving through there over the dirt and the mud and --
Borup: So that does connect to Ten Mile at this point, then?
Bravo: Yes. That's our access to our property back there.
Borup: And you get to it from Ten Mile?
Bravo: Yes that's our entrance but once that's developed, the two roads will be
connected.
Borup: And they are not at this point?
Bravo: No. It goes out in the field there. It ends at my property -- my neighbor's
property where this solid line is here on the east side. There is an access, a single lane
access road going to that property, but they have just -- that they are trying to develop
right now and it's -- so right now this -- this property right here, the road extends passed
here and it winds up around here. There is a -- there was a mobile home complex back
here and there is some little stuff back there now, but the road -- there is a single lane
road going all the way through off of Ten Mile. That's how all of us back here get
access. We are worried about what kind of services they want to extend down the
private lane. There is an issue of who actually owns that road. It's never been settled
that I know of. They will not issue anymore permits or anything back here, because of
the size of the road, and what we are worried about is if this becomes a paved road and
it dead ends right here. There is not anything to -- some kind of permanent fix of some
sort, we are going to have people punching through there and using that small 22-foot
wide lane as a --
Borup: Okay. We will get an answer on that.
Bravo: So that's our chief concerns and all we have as property owners in that area.
Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else?
Fackelman: I'm John Fackelman, 1291 North Sawcreek Way. I live right here. I own
these five acres that lay here. Of course, I'm concerned about the sewage. Now, what
I understand is there is a 12-inch temporary line running up here and I don't know how
these people can sewer, these people can sewer, these people can sewer, these
people can sewer and this new development can sewer in a 12-inch line. I just don't
know how you calculate that much stuff going through a 12-inch line. That is a 12-inch
line?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Fackelman, that -- it is
currently a 12-inch line in Black Cat. We are -- JUB Engineers is currently working on
plans for the design for a new trunk line that will be in Black Cat Road that will be -- I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 57 of 106
believe it is a 36-inch line. Yes 36-inch line. That will be the trunk that will be extended
down through to service the service area from Black Cat.
Fackelman: Well, that makes sense, but how you could approve this today with the
situation the way it is, sounds unrealistic until --
Borup: How many homes should be able to access a 12-inch line? I'm asking you.
Fackelman: A 12-inch line is like this.
Borup: No. How many homes can that accommodate?
Fackelman: I don't know.
Borup: Well -- and I think that was the point of -- we, as a Commission, don't know
either. That's why -- we, as a Commission don't know, that's something that is
determined by the engineers. That was why staff was saying this needs to be
continued, because that needs to be determined.
Fackelman: Yes.
Borup: So, I think they have the same concerns you do.
Fackelman: Yes and I have a concern that this land, when it gets developed, is going to
dump right into that sewer line there and the way it is now, I don't think that would be
possible to go over to Black Cat. It looks like we are waiting on the funds and all -- to
put that new sewer line in. The way it sits today, I don't think you could do that. Thank
you.
Borup: Yes and that was the staff's concern is determine what it really will handle. Do
we have anyone else?
Jewett: My name is Jim Jewett. My address is 3654 South Rustler in Meridian. I have
been asked to come here tonight by a close friend that lives directly east of this
property. She called me on this about a week ago right before they had the
neighborhood meeting and asked me some questions, because, for some of you that
don't know, I am a developer as well. I said I would look into it to see that -- to answer
some of her questions and I do compliment the developer for having a neighborhood
meeting. I think it's a good thing and I told her to go to it and asked her questions and -
-
Borup: And did she do that?
Jewett: Excuse me?
Borup: Did she do that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 58 of 106
Jewett: Yes, she did do that. She had some questions, she asked and she couldn't be
here tonight, she's out of town. She asked me to come and just -- just to get some
answers. I don't think she wants to oppose any development she just wants to get
some answers. It seems like there is a lot of answers that need to be answered yet and
for me to make an analysis for her, I'd have to see the same thing you guys see. What I
-- a question that did come up in talking to her -- and I just wanted to bring it up to the
Commission, is that when the first phase went in, she wasn't notified, obviously,
because she was over 300 feet. That set a trend and, like I said to her, when
something goes in an R-8 on the first one, why shouldn't it go on the second one. It just
points out kind of a fundamental problem that you need to look at an entire area when
deciding a land use, how it should go, not just for one particular piece. When you look
at this piece, what I'm going to -- what I would ask you to look at is look at the fact there
is another piece -- large piece to the south of this that will probably go what this one
does and what's it appropriate use? It's closer to a railroad track. It most likely should
go higher density. Maybe this piece is more suited for an R-4 development that would
be more of a buffer between the Parkside Creek and the railroad track, you know, so we
can get some more mixed use diversity in here, because I think this Comp Plan calls for
diversity. The plan that I saw looked a little cookie cutter. I do like the fact it wasn't a
cul-d-sac. I do like that. I don't like cul-d-sacs. I think that's a trend we need to move
away from. The other thing I like to bring up is an issue -- and if you could, Steve, the
layout -- when I went down to meet with staff on it, that's not the way I saw staff and
now they are telling us it's 150 lots, so I'm questioning if there is a bad notice here.
Borup: Were you here earlier when they talked about that? The original had two cul-d-
sacs coming together and they have joined the two.
Jewett: But did the notice go out at 148 lots or 150?
Borup: I'm not sure. Are you concerned about two lots?
Jewett: Well, I'm just concerned that if somebody does want to question, the
subdivision is two lots and an issue that could put this -- is it an issue of a notice. And I
don't know of any other jurisdiction in the county that would allow an increase in density
to go without a new notice.
Kirkpatrick: Commissioners, I can answer that, if you have a question.
Borup: Please do, Wendy.
Kirkpatrick: We notice at 148 and we considered it -- the addition of the additional two
lots to be something that came up here at the hearing. It's another option for them -- a
way for them to reconfigure the subdivision. It's not official yet, that's why it's okay to go
with the notice at 148 lots.
Borup: There was a previous one with the two cul-d-sacs that you like.
Jewett: Right. That's the one that I saw. I think the other layout is probably best, but I
haven't been able to analyze it, because there is no staff report. I just want to bring up
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 59 of 106
the issues of -- this is -- this subdivision is at the bare minimum for open space for the
five percent. It has a lot of 65-foot wide lots and I think that the Commission needs to
look at how the rest of this area might develop out when deciding the appropriate
zoning for this property. I would like to reserve the right to testify again once I see a
staff report and am able to look at it and -- the issue of the sewer should actually be left
to the engineers. I think that -- I think everyone has a right to develop. I want to make
that clear. I think that they should go forward and I tried to explain to my friends that
sometimes the higher the density is, the more valuable their property might become.
You know, they don't really want to move, but that's inevitable and -- but I just want to
see quality development come towards them and reasonable, so that they are not
infringed on too greatly. Other than that, I'd stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else like to testify? Okay final comments,
Kevin?
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. With regards to some of the
questions that come up tonight, I will try to address them in order as I wrote them down.
If I missed some, remind me what I missed and I will address those.
Borup: Okay.
Amar: Mr. Glines' comments with respect to the creek maintenance and the water
modeling -- could we go to the color map, please? On the creek maintenance -- and I
did speak with Bill Henson with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and -- yes, Bill
Henson. He -- his first comment was are we going to have enough room on the top of
the bank to maintain our creek and that was something he wanted to be assured of and
that was one of the reasons for the License Agreement. As you can see here -- and I
don't know that this will be the final location of the path -- that pathway is actually set off
at the top of the bank. They need a minimum of 15 feet, prefer 18 feet, from the top of
bank in order to do their maintenance. That 18 feet is something that we will plant in
grass, but it is also something that they can drive their track hoe down or their tractor
down or whatever they need to drive down there in order to maintain their creek.
Borup: So the maintenance would come from the south side?
Amar: It can come from the south side.
Borup: I mean that's their intention.
Amar: They want to be able to maintain it and Mr. Glines is correct, on the north side of
the creek they did build that pathway right at the edge of the bank. In fact, I have got
pictures showing that. In this one -- and I tried to take it -- you can see the other bank
there is actually road tracks up there if you look close enough. They will be able to
maintain it on the south side of the creek. They will also be able to access the south
side of the creek through the Castlebrook No. 1 Subdivision, as there is a common area
right in that corner. Access would be important not only for us and the existing
neighbors, but definitely important for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and that's
something we will maintain, largely because they will require it our License Agreement
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 60 of 106
and be built accordingly. As such, I'm sure the City of Meridian during construction will
also be interested that we are building in accordance with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District. With respect to the water modeling and what is out there, when we did dig
those test holes, it was at the height of irrigation season. However, we also installed
piezometer, so they can monitor those -- the water table throughout the year. By the
time this develops we will have about a year's worth of monitoring and so we will know if
the ground water fluctuates or if it was just a one day occurrence at the level it was at.
The firm we hired, Materials Testing, does go out once a month, takes measurements,
and determines what the water level is, so we get an annual water level. With respect
to the home sizes, it was requested at the neighborhood meeting to restrict these lots to
a single story home. After looking at what is in the area and what we see on larger lots,
our lots are big enough to put a single story home and still meet our minimum size. This
is project -- I think Mr. Glines' house is this one -- not that one? Anyway, there are a
number of homes along there that are two-story. Also, there are a number of homes
that are single story. That will give it the architectural relief that I think he has achieved
or we are trying to achieve. With regards to Mr. Crowler -- Fackelman. Sorry. The
services down Pine, if any of those will be water services -- I understand we will need to
talk to those neighbors, that's something we will be doing. We do not propose sending
any vehicle down there. When we did have our neighborhood meeting, Mr. and Mrs.
Boslin, I believe their names are, who actually Mr. Jewett represents this evening, that
was a concern of theirs. May we go to the vicinity map that you have? The roadway
right now basically stops here. There is a bridge that -- the first time I crossed it I got
out of my truck and made sure I could actually get back across that before I crossed it.
We don't want people going across that bridge. It's not rated for vehicles to be used
continuously. It's rated for that house.
Borup: So are you going to have a barricade, then, at the edge of your subdivision?
Amar: We are definitely going to have a type three barricade. We would also like to put
in some Jersey barricades, some cement barricade, in order to do a complete block of
that road. We don't propose putting any vehicle traffic down it. All our emergency
access -- we are providing two ways in and two ways out off of North Black Cat Road,
so we don't need it as a secondary emergency access either. The only caveat with that,
we would have to pass that by the Fire Department, although, with this bridge here, I'm
fairly confident a fire truck is not going to cross that bridge. We will barricade that.
Again, we do not want people traveling down that road, that is a liability for us on those
neighbors, and we will try to force all those people back out by putting type three Jersey
barricades -- for that matter, if you want a pile here to -- we will do whatever it takes to
keep people off of that road. With respect to Mr. Fackelman and the sewer, that is
something we are looking at and I think Mr. Borup addressed that issue. That's
something we will determine. Mr. Jewett, his comment on looking at the entire area for
development, I believe that's what the Comprehensive Plan does. That was the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. I think it took three years to adopt. We are looking at the
entire area for development and consistency with that Comprehensive Plan and feel
that the project that we are bringing before you will be of benefit to the neighborhood. I
think those were the issues that I saw.
Borup: That's the same notes I have. Does anyone else have any other questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 61 of 106
Centers: Yes I had a question, Mr. Chairman but are you going to improve the road
down to here?
Amar: Yes, sir. The entire --
Centers: Then, you're going to have a barricade here?
Amar: Correct.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: Are you providing the whole road or half plus 12?
Amar: Half plus 12.
Zaremba: Yes and are you still barricading it?
Amar: And still barricading it.
Borup: Is ACHD going to want a turn around down there or anything?
Amar: I don't know. I know that there is no access off of the point up at that end of the
road. If they do want a turn around, that's something we will have to put in.
Borup: It's not a normal --
Amar: That wasn't a requirement that they made in there --
Borup: That's not normally where they would require a turn around. That's why I was
wondering.
Amar: That was not a requirement when we -- this project has been in front of ACHD
and was approved and it was not required at that time.
Borup: I guess if they want it, they will let you know.
Amar: Yes. They are pretty good at that.
Borup: Okay. Is there anything else, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Well, the solution to that -- there is no reason for anybody to go down there.
Would there be --
Borup: Put the barricade up --
Zaremba: -- real barricades there and put another kind of temporary barricade up here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 62 of 106
Amar: If that's acceptable to ACHD and the city, that's acceptable to us. We want
people to travel to there. Pass that point they have no need of continuing down. The
entire length will be improved half plus 12, as we will landscape the entire length. In the
future when that road does extend, it will be ready to be extended. There will be no
cost that would need to be out laid by ACHD or the City of Meridian.
Borup: Anything else, Commissioners? Probably one item for discussion and that
would be a date to continue to.
Centers: The second meeting in March or --
Amar: Can I bring up one other thing?
Borup: Yes.
Amar: There was one other item of the 148 or 150 lots. I believe staff addressed that,
but that is something we want to put on record. That was a change requested by staff,
putting that road through and doing that we picked up two additional lots. If we could
get comment when we do get around to making a decision after our next hearing, if we
could have comment and make a decision on that also.
Borup: I'm surprised it wasn't designed that way anyway. You get two extra lots.
Amar: Different cities, different places. Some people like cul-d-sacs and some people
don't so you try to throw that dart and hopefully hit what people will like. In this case, it
wasn't that. We have redesigned it based on the staff comments.
Zaremba: Well, I think for future reference, I would be comfortable with this
configuration. I think it's a good one and I think -- my major question is how long does it
take you to get all the engineering answers that --
Borup: Previously they said a couple of weeks, which would mean we would have to go
into March, then.
Centers: Well, I know March -- our first meeting in March is booked.
Borup: Right. Yes and the second meeting is when we try to set aside for continued
hearings. We do have regular hearings scheduled for our second meeting, because the
first one was filled up. It is not completely jammed, so that probably would be an
appropriate time.
Zaremba: March 20th
would be that date March 20th
.
Amar: If there are no other questions --
Centers: Mr. Chairman, you have a hand raised out here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 63 of 106
Borup: Okay. I assume you're not planning to come back next meeting to ask any
other questions, you mean? Okay. Could you state your name again?
Glines: Mark Glines. You pointed out that this area here is going to have the turfed
area and the path and that that's licensed -- that will be license arranged with the
Irrigation District. I'm concerned that when the Irrigation District does access that, they
use a track vehicle that is really rough on the environment. Not only do they do that,
but when they pull the sludge out of here they pack it up on top of the berm there and
so have they discussed ways to mitigate the damage and haul away the sludge that's
going to get hauled out of there? That's something that -- whether it be homeowners
association is going to put together a building fund to take care of having to restore the
landscaping here, whether they are going to provide a way to actually, maybe from the
opposite side, have a truck that could get loaded with the sludge and get hauled out --
you know, that's worth considering. You know, that's going to be down the road five
years after -- if the maintain it right away, then, if they can push it out a little further
before they have come through and do the sludge removal --
Borup: It will eventually have to be done.
Glines: But that needs to be addressed long term.
Borup: Okay. Yes.
Wildwood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might address that, since
I'm the person who is responsible for drafting those agreements and working with
Meridian.
Borup: Again, that's Susan Wildwood speaking.
Wildwood: Yes. Sorry. Thank you, sir for the record, Susan Wildwood. The License
Agreements that are done with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, as well Pioneer and
any other Irrigation Districts that work with the developers include the requirements for
removal of what are called canal soils. It's not sludge. It is called canal spoils.
Typically, it's sand, but it is the material that they use if they have to dredge out the
canal area. That's always a part of the agreement, so that that's written in as far as
maintenance, requirements for maintenance, and the fact that it's not the -- it would be
the homeowners association's requirement to remove that material because this path
would be maintained under that License Agreement. The way Nampa-Meridian and the
other Irrigation Districts work is if they have to come through and do a spoils removal,
they contact the homeowners association, and they work in coordination with them to
do the spoils removal from the ditch. It depends on which side they really need to
access it from. They would take whichever side is going to be the most convenient for
their equipment and where ever they need to do the clean outs. The spoils are, then
removed and they can either be removed into a truck, they can be actually spread in
some cases. If it's thin enough, in the past that they have actually spread it out over
some of the areas and, then, if it needs to be reseeded or if it can go out thin enough,
the grass is going to come back up through. It's a variety of things, but that's typically
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 64 of 106
worked out as part of that License Agreement with Nampa-Meridian, as well as the
other districts.
Borup: Okay so, then, they do require something done, it's not just piled up and left?
Wildwood: That's correct.
Borup: I think that was his concern. All right. Thank you. Is there any other
discussion? Are we ready to continue this?
Centers: Well, the only comment I would like to make -- and, then, I would propose that
we continue it -- is that regarding the R-4, I can't say that I disagree. I have heard a
number of builders say the same thing that this city is getting full of R-8 we just
approved one earlier tonight. Two weeks ago. However, it's not up to this body, in my
opinion, to make that decision, because it does meet the Comprehensive Plan and it is
up to the City Council if they want to draw the line. I can't say that I disagree with that.
I have talked to a number of builders that feel the same way and a number of residents
of the City of Meridian that feel the same way, that we have a glut of cookie cutter R-8.
That's just telling it like it is. Anyway, I would move that we continue --
Borup: I'd like to comment on that, too, because I agree, I mean my preference is an R-
4 and in the past, the R-4's have all been more cookie cutter, 8,000-foot lots, and 80 by
100. Also, in the past R-8 have all been the minimum, 65 by 100. The one thing I do
like about the new trend is the new R-8 we are getting a variety of lot sizes. They are
not all at the minimum, we are getting the larger lots mixed in, and I see that as a
positive thing. I don't know which I'd rather see, cookie cutter R-4 or a variety R-8, I
don't know, but I do see that as positive of a variety of lot sizes, rather than all at the
minimum.
Centers: Well, as I said, I don't think we can draw the line. It's not up to us. If it meets
the Comp Plan and --
Borup: Right.
Centers: You know it's out of our hands, in my opinion.
Zaremba: Well, just to chime in with an opinion, I agree, I like R-4's, but I think R-8's
are also appropriate. This development particular, the homes -- the homes that appear
to be along here probably wouldn't qualify as R-4's.
Borup: The lot sizes are there, most of them.
Zaremba: They would be larger and so those are the ones that are facing the R-4 zone
over here.
Borup: And, actually, the minimum square footage you're talking is larger than the
normal R-4.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 65 of 106
Zaremba: Yes. The flip side of that is the higher densities do two things. They chew
up less farmland, so that you have a higher density on a property closer to the center of
town, rather than continuing to sprawl. They make eventual mass transportation more
attractive, so I kind of side for the higher densities.
Borup: If this was all minimum lot size, R-8, I would really not be too excited about it.
Zaremba: Oh, I like the variety.
Borup: Okay. Commissioner Centers, you were about ready to make a motion, I
believe.
Centers: Yes. I would move that we continue the Public Hearing Number 11 and 12 on
our agenda, specifically AZ 02-031 and PP 02-032, to our second scheduled meeting in
March, which would be March 20th
.
Zaremba: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Thank you, everyone, for being here. This meeting -- or this hearing has
been continued to March 20th
.
Item 13. Public Hearing: AZ 02-030 Request for annexation and zoning of 38.65
acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by
Crestline Development, LLC – 2683 West Chinden Boulevard:
Item 14. Public Hearing: PP 02-031 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 72
building lots and 8 other lots on 38.65 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Crestline Development, LLC – 2683
West Chinden Boulevard:
Borup: Okay. The next Public Hearings are Numbers 13 and 14, AZ 02-030, request for
annexation and zoning of 38.65 acres from RUT to R-4 in a proposed Silverleaf
Subdivision by Crestline Development and Public Hearing PP 02-031, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 72 building lots and 8 other lots on the same 38.65 acres in
a proposed R-4 zone. We would like to open both these Public Hearings at this time
and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposed Silverleaf Subdivision is up on
Chinden Boulevard, up at the northern edge of our area of impact. It is adjacent to the
northern portion of the recently approved Lochsa Falls Subdivision. It does encompass
38.65 acres. They are requesting an R-4 zone. This is a -- it shows the current
proposed layout of that subdivision. The large green area shown in this layout is the
proposed school site to be purchased by the Meridian School District. This is the
proposed Landscape Plan for the landscape areas that are within the subdivision and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 66 of 106
the street buffer out on Chinden Boulevard. You should have a staff report dated
January 27th
from David McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. In general, I can tell you that
the major issues with this have been related to access, water, and sewer. I'm going to
have Bruce talk about some of these here in a minute. I'm going to start at the back of
this staff report with the recommendation. The first one, the paragraph starts with the
recommendation for denial, because of the water, sewer, and road issues. I have got
information tonight from the applicant that they may be able to address the timing of
those things in a manner that would not cause it to be denied. The reason for the
denial -- recommendation for denial is because of -- the timing seems so far out for
those services to be able to reach this location, so we need to talk about that with the
applicant. The second portion of that does say that the Commission does recommend
approval -- they recommend adopting one of the findings that were suggested by ITD,
which would require substantial redesign. Just today, dated February 6th
, there was a
letter to Kevin Amar from Dan Kuntz at the Idaho Transportation Department. Did the
Commissioners receive a copy of this? As I read this, it seems to suggest that it would
not require that major redesign, that their -- it seems to be saying that the 70 feet of
right of way as proposed in the draft plat is acceptable to them, without the frontage or
backage road as their previous letter had required. I can go though that a little bit as I
go through the staff report. The thing I'd like to point out in here -- I start on page two,
Item A, of the staff report. Down at the third paragraph it talks about the school district
site and this was an issue that came up during the Lochsa Falls Subdivision, that there
was not a school site provided in that subdivision and that one would likely be needed
on the adjacent property. This is that adjacent property and they are working with the
school district on a school site. On Page 4 at the top, it talks about the finding that's
required to say that it's provided adequate services. In that -- in that finding staff states
that it cannot currently be served adequately by public road access, water, or sewer.
Those seem to be the main issues that need to be worked out. Under the additional
considerations on Page 5 it talks about the timing of the development, as well as the
sanitary sewer lift station. I'm going to pause here and as Bruce, do you want to talk
about the lift station right here?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the permanent sewer service
area for this development -- I wish I had a better map. Have you got one that shows
more of the -- the Black Cat Service area that I spoke of earlier with the previous
application, in our facilities plan there will be a -- we call it the North Black Cat area,
which is -- which is the northern portion that serves this area and the rest of our urban
service planning boundary up in this area. The plan that is being developed by JUB is
for the southern Black Cat service area. We have no plan on the radar screen for this
area at this time for the northern area. The applicant is proposing installing a lift station
and pumping back into a future phase of the Lochsa Falls project. That's what they are
proposing for sewer service. Water service, they are proposing getting water service
through a future phase of Lochsa Falls Subdivision as well. The timing of the phasing
of Lochsa Falls is, you know, totally dependent upon the developer of Lochsa Falls and
the public street access, although it -- Ms. Wildwood did have a proposal tonight, still
kind of mulling that around a little bit. The accesses for the subdivision are into Lochsa
Falls Subdivision, those future phases so, that maybe answers the questions you have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 67 of 106
Siddoway: I will just expound a little bit on the timing of development issue as related to
some of the other things. The access into this subdivision, as Bruce was just saying,
comes off of the collector road that's going to be built in a future phase of Lochsa Falls.
It's not currently built and so there is nothing for them to take access from currently so
that's going to be one issue. Then, the water and sewer that Bruce was just talking
about, the -- also this being extended from a future phase of Lochsa, which isn't
currently there, is the difficulty that we face. Moving on in the staff report. At the bottom
of Page 5, we do recommend that a Development Agreement will be required to
address specific items as noted in that condition. Moving on for Page 6, there are some
additional considerations specifically related to the plat. The first is the requirement for
five percent open space. This plat does not meet the requirement for five percent open
space, if you exclude the school site. Excluding the school site and looking just at the
residential subdivision on its own, there is only two percent open space in the storm
drainage lots that are provided and the micropath that connects to the school. The
proposed solution from the developer would be to make up that remaining land area as
a donation to the school. That would amount to 1.2 acres of land would meet their five
percent open space requirement, in addition to what they have currently shown, and
they would donate that to the school district. To count that, as open space does not
currently meet the requirements of the Meridian Code and the staff report suggests that
they would need to obtain a variance from City Council in order for it to be calculated in
that fashion. One of the main considerations is the fact that the school site is not one
that's been -- that's currently on the radar screen for construction and I think Wendell is
here. He may be able to talk to the timing a little better, but it may remain undeveloped
for some time.
Zaremba: Steve?
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: While you're on that subject -- excuse me. Even if it were considered as
open space, it will eventually have buildings built on it, which means it couldn't be
considered 100 percent open space, could it?
Siddoway: Correct. The entire site for the school property is in the neighborhood of 10
acres, so it's much -- they would just be donating, you know, the lower one acre of that
10. The school site would incorporate open space. How public that open space is or
how available it is to the residents of the subdivision is a question.
Centers: Well, I don't have any problem with that, because I think it would be available,
you know, personally, I think, and there would be a lot of lawn area out there, I'm sure,
for ball playing, et cetera. I had a question here. Maybe you don't know or -- I think you
do. The owner developer of this is the same as the owner developer of Lochsa?
Siddoway: No. It's the same as Castlebrook.
Centers: You know a person would just kind of assume that they might be, but they are
not.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 68 of 106
Siddoway: No, it's not.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: Different players entirely. Item Number 2 on Page 7 is block length. When
the staff report was written there were two blocks that exceeded the maximum block
length. They had submitted a revised plat. I'm uncertain if this is the revised plat or not.
Is it? Okay so that would leave Block 3 still needing the Variance to the block length
and that would have to be approved by Council. Item 3 is the Simpson Lateral. There
were no easements for that lateral shown on the plat and they would need to be
depicted on the plat. Item 4 deals with Highway 20-26. This is where it gets into the
letter from ITD, as I was referencing on their letter dated December 30th
, they were
requesting either 120 feet for a future frontage road or 70 feet if the developer were to
provide an internal frontage or what they call a backage road. That is what the
developers of Lochsa did where they have lots fronting along Chinden with a road that
went along the rear of those lots. This proposal technically does neither of those, but,
like I pointed out per the letter received today, it appears to be that the proposed layout
is fine with ITD. I will have the applicant address that to find out what conversations
they have had with ITD. Item Number 5 on Page 8 is the street buffer landscaping.
The street buffer lot as proposed along Chinden is currently shown at 30 feet. It needs
to be revised per ordinance to be a minimum of 35 feet, plus it needs to continue and
extend across the frontage of the school site. Item Number 6 is storm water integration.
We have heard this issue before. It's simply stating that we need to find out on the
record if they know of any depth-to-groundwater issues that would cause the proposed
storm water facility open space areas to require a hard surface to prevent groundwater
penetration. If so, we would recommend that they not be counted toward the open
space calculation. Item seven is the sanitary sewer lift station, which Bruce just
addressed. Item 8 is a tot lot. There is a tot lot shown on the Preliminary Plat, but no
other details are given. We would like some details provided on the record regarding
the design and construction and whether or not play equipment is intended to be part of
that. Item 9 on Page 9 is the phasing. There is no phasing shown. We need to find out
if the applicant intends to do it as one phase or if they intend to phase it, we need to
have that depicted on the plat. Item 10 is the school site. I have already pointed this
issue out. It is not scheduled for construction at this time. I think that fairly well
summarizes the issues. We can -- I'll stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions for Steve? Okay. Is the applicant ready for their presentation? You
have a nice list of item there.
Amar: Again, for the record, representing Silverleaf Subdivision, my name is Kevin
Amar, address 114 East Idaho, Suite 230, in Meridian. This project -- I will go over it
real quickly, because Bruce -- or Steve did a great job. This project is on the 20-26
corridor. Susan, could you put up the other one? Access to this project, due to 20-26
and ITD requirements, is restricted to the half - mile mark, which is off of this property
and on the Lochsa subdivision. We would be requiring access through Lochsa
subdivision for a permanent nature. Ms. Wildwood has had discussions with ITD and I
think we do have some solutions and she will address those, because she's had those
discussions. Lochsa subdivision, as I'm sure you're aware, was recently approved with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 69 of 106
a park in it. When we brought this project forward -- in fact, the first time we ever met
with staff, the first comments that were out of their mouths were you got to have a
school site. At that time, we immediately ran to Wendell Bigham, who we confer with
anyway, and he also confirmed that it has to have a school site. Since that time we
have been working on -- I'll use this one. We have been working with Wendell. There
is a 10-acre school site on the property. There are 73 residential lots. There is one
existing house on this property here so there will be 72 new residential lots. This area –
it is the school district's desire to have one elementary school site per square mile. This
is one of the large -- last large parcels that can accommodate a school site in this
square mile. Wendell's desire -- the school district's desire to have property for a future
date of construction, it's our desire as developers to develop a subdivision. It's also the
city's desire to have growth or planned growth for the school district and we feel that
this subdivision actually promotes and enhances the plans of all parties involved. The
school district will get their site, the selfish developer will get their subdivision, and the
city will also have the progressive planning that they are looking for. The sewer -- we
are working with the sewer -- with the Engineering Department. This would require a lift
station for this project. However, for a school to be on any other property out here
would require a lift station. This lift station is -- as we are proposing it, would be a
private lift station to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association and a
cooperative effort with the school district. We have done this in other locations, we
actually hire a third party to maintain those, as typically homeowners associations aren't
qualified to maintain a sewer lift station. In most instances, we use Rotor-Rooter and it
has a contract. That contract would need to be reviewed and approved also by the City
of Meridian, so they feel comfortable. In some cases, the City of Meridian may want to
have the contract them selves. In any event, that is something that the homeowners
association would pay for and each resident in that subdivision until the time the lift
station is abandoned, would have a monthly service fee to pay for that lift station. The
exact location of the lift station, we will put it where the Engineering Department would
like. We put it in this location, because at the time we did there was only one stub
street to the -- to the west. Since then we went to ACHD and they asked us to put an
additional stub street in, if they would like us to move that sewer lift station to this point
or any other point for that matter, we will do that. Again, as I said, access -- Ms.
Wildwood will be addressing that, as will Mr. Bigham. What I can say is we are working
in a cooperative effort with the school and also the developers, we feel we can resolve
the issue of access. We do understand we have to have a permanent access, a portion
of the Lochsa Subdivision has to be developed, and we feel we can address that. The
same goes for the water and sewer. We have had conversations with Marty Goldsmith,
Farwest Development, we have not reached conclusions, but we feel like we can do
that. We will be asking to be continued this evening in order to address those issues
prior to a recommendation of approval or denial. The open space requirement, we are
providing in this subdivision -- there is, actually, a tot lot and as we did in Castlebrook,
we will be providing a recreation area for those children who will immediately move into
this subdivision to play. Eventually, there is going to be a school site out here with a
number of acres for children to play pretty much whatever they want to, whatever they
do at schools. In the interim, until that is developed, we do want to provide an area for
kids to go out and recreate, they can play whatever they play on those tot lots, but it will
provide an area for them to recreate. The additional open space, we felt that it would
be a better use of that land to dedicate or donate that portion to the school, rather than
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 70 of 106
have them buy another portion and develop it, an additional open space. Eventually,
when this school is developed, all the kids are going to go there and play anyway. It's a
bigger area and they have much cooler playground equipment than most subdivisions
have. We are providing a pathway to the school site in order for these residents to get
there and we provided in the entrances to the -- we have been working with the
architect to the school district. Primarily there will be two entrances at this location
accessing the school, which will sit in this area and, then, an additional exit for buses on
this area. For that reason we have put -- we didn't want any front-on housing that
bordered the school property where buses and cars will be traveling. This will be a
landscaped area. Fence, again, with vinyl fencing. On this -- in this case it probably will
be six feet in height. The pathways, of course, will be four-foot maximum height, solid
wall fence, as per Meridian City Ordinance. The buffer area on the Highway 20-26 will
go the entire distance of the project. It will be 35 feet and, again, it will have the vinyl
fencing. Again, part of the staff report, it requested that there be a sidewalk also put
along that area. We are in agreement with the staff report and we will be doing that.
The groundwater issue, we have done a test well and I can't tell you the depth of the
groundwater, because we didn't find any. We dug down 14 feet and there was no
groundwater. Again, we do have monitoring wells in this property and they have been
monitoring that throughout use year. The only time they found groundwater in there is
when they were doing surface watering and there was groundwater all over, surface
water. Those will be reports that will be turned in at the time of development to the
Engineering Department, as well as to DEQ. We understand that there is an issue with
groundwater in Meridian and we want to make sure all those open spaces that we have
are usable and functional open spaces. With respect to the block length, due to the
nature of the subdivision and where the access point is at this location that ITD will
allow, we are requesting a Variance here. We can't sub any of those and the school
doesn't want any roads stubbing into their property. This is the only lot -- or block,
rather, that we are requesting a Variance we have broken it up with a pathway to the
school district. This is, actually, a common lot for these four lots to access back in this
area. These neighbors are here -- I forgot their names, but their house -- and I took
some pictures of the area to show the location of their house. It is very close to the
property line. We did, again, have a neighborhood meeting on this property. This road
is, actually, the western property line of this development. At the neighborhood
meeting, they requested that we fence that property with a six-foot vinyl fence. That's
something we will be doing also. We will fence their entire boundary with that six-foot
vinyl fence. The Simpson -- or Simpson Lateral, that's something of size that it will be
tiled per the City of Meridian requirements. That will be in an easement appropriate to
both the City of Meridian and to the Settler's Irrigation District. Any other open -- there
is a drain at this location. That drain would be fenced in accordance, again, with City of
Meridian policy. We have CC&Rs on this project very similar to the other project with
the exception of this is a 1,400 square foot minimum on this property. There are a
variety of lot sizes. Susan has colored up the map and we show those lot sizes and the
mix of those lot sizes. We did want to point out that we are only proposing an R-8
subdivision within this -- within the city. I know that was a concern of this body. This
property is actually -- if you include the school, I think it's 1.8 units per acre. If you take
the school out, we are still at 2 point -- I think it's 2.6 units per acre. The lots that we
have in here are a significant size and aren't maximizing that smallest that we can get.
We feel that a variety is a good idea and that's what we are trying to provide.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 71 of 106
Centers: This is a walking path?
Amar: No. Actually, that's going to be a common lot -- access lot for these four
properties. A flag lot, if you will.
Zaremba: A driveway?
Amar: A driveway.
Centers: Yes I was wondering how these two lots are going get to there.
Amar: They will drive down that driveway.
Centers: Okay so that's a driveway, that's not --
Amar: Yes and that's -- although it's not -- that was not included in the open space
calculations.
Centers: Yes I wouldn't think so.
Amar: Just wanted to point that out. When we are done, we have about three percent
open space in this subdivision. We need an additional two percent. We have our
figures backwards. As I said, we felt it was a better use of the land to actually donate
that property to the school district, rather than making them buy it. I think that benefits
everyone. Ms. Wildwood will address the ITD concerns. As far as phasing, at this time
we anticipate doing this in one construction phase. There are 72 lots, as I stated, and
that would -- what we'd like to do is do this in one phase. With that, I believe I would
stand for any questions. Actually, I think Ms. Wildwood provided you a packet and that
had a lot of the same types of information with the last packet that was in it.
Borup: Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Amar? I have got a couple, then. You
said you felt you could address the access, but not at this point?
Amar: Yes. We had discussions with Mr. Goldsmith and his representatives and we
feel that we can come to an agreement there. There is some additional negotiations
that need to happen, but there is also another option that Ms. Wildwood will address on
a temporary basis that ITD will allow -- or said they would allow, they haven't gotten us
a letter yet and that's something -- we want to present you with a letter before we give
any assurances, obviously.
Borup: Okay. That would be the access question?
Amar: Correct.
Borup: So, then, the other would be the services.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 72 of 106
Amar: The services. Again, those would be back from Farwest Development, Marty
Goldsmith, and his representatives. We have had discussions this them. Mr. Bigham
has been a part of those discussions. We feel that we can answer those questions, but
we need more time to negotiate those answers, and so we would ask to be continued
for approximately a month. We feel like we can have those concerns answered. We
feel this subdivision will benefit everybody involved, including Mr. Goldsmith, due to the
fact that this does have a school site on it and that is a selling feature of any
subdivision, whether it be this one or any others. People that move into subdivisions
want to know that their kids are going to go to school close to where they live.
Borup: I was just curious on why ITD changed their mind on their requirements or will
someone else address that?
Amar: I will let Susan address that.
Borup: Okay. Well, I think I agree with the comments Commissioner Centers made on
the open area and the school site access, makes sense along -- I mean the other -- the
other aspect to me is the size of these lots, have a big factor on the necessity of open
space. Did you give -- did you propose to sell that property to the school at a fair and
reasonable price for that --
Amar: They won't buy it without a fair and reasonable price.
Borup: Well, I don't know. I have seen them pay a lot more than I think they should
have.
Amar: We haven't -- we haven't actually got the contract with the school district, but
what we told Mr. Bigham is it will be a fair and reasonable price and he's told us it will
also be a fair and reasonable price, so I --
Zaremba: I thought I heard you say you were donating it.
Amar: We are donating a portion of it, 1.2 acres of --
Zaremba: Out of the 10?
Amar: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Wildwood,
do you have --
Wildwood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, my
name is Susan Wildwood, I'm an attorney with offices in Boise and I'm here on behalf of
the applicant. Primarily, I'm here to address two things, the lot sizes, which are kind of
self-explanatory. Again, the key is in there. You will notice we have rather a nice mix
throughout the subdivision of the various lot sizes, so there is rather -- probably more of
a mix than you may have seen in other projects that have come before you, so I'm not
going to go any farther into that. They have sizes that, obviously, that are going to be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 73 of 106
commensurate with that. The issue that I believe that is most of interest to the
Commission is with regard to access. As part of your packet, the last is a letter a
confirmation letter that I wrote to ITD based on the meeting that I had with Matt Ward on
-- let's see, I guess it was Wednesday morning, actually. To go back to ITD's original
letter, when they say they want to have 70 -- 120 feet if you're going to have a frontage
road and 70 feet if you're going to have a backage road, most people think that that
means the backage road has to be immediately adjacent to 20-26 or not -- a limited
access highway. In fact, this road here constitutes a backage road. A backage road is
simply something that is behind the residence, instead of closest to 20-26 and would
offer traffic that goes out to another collector road that, then, accesses 20-26. Because
of that, the required road right of way from the centerline of 20-26 is actually 70 feet,
which we have accommodated on our revised plat. That's what the 70 feet line is. It's
very confusing, unless you meet with them, and we spent about two hours on another
project learning what frontage and package roads were and did it have to be here and
how close do they have to be. In fact, this road, when connected, becomes a backage
road and, hence, the 70 feet, 120 feet, so that the next time that issue comes up, we
can assure you that we spent two hours learning what backage roads actually were.
What the discussion with IDT was, with regard to the temporary access onto 20-26, the
existing residence in this location has an existing access off of 20-26 that goes down to
that residence so, this is an existing legal access. Our discussions with ITD were to
take that access and move it over to directly north of this cul-d-sac. It would be a
temporary access that they would approve and it would be a Temporary Access Permit
and as soon as it's -- there is a connection into Lochsa, that would have to be
abandoned, removed. My discussion -- very brief discussion with Bruce is that he
would -- the city would require, realistically enough, the same curb, gutter, sidewalk,
improvements, as if it was going to be a permanent road, so that until that road was
abandoned, this building lot would actually be the temporary road access onto 20-26.
We would have -- and I have asked for a confirming letter, but, obviously, it's got to go
through the chain of command and come back. Then -- so that they can look at the
plans, have those same kinds of discussions, and make sure that there aren't any other
issues. The only reason we can do that, is because there is an existing access onto
20-26. In essence, the individuals who are in this residence would access onto this
roadway and would not require their existing driveway. What we would have, we hope,
is that confirming letter before we come back to meet with you again.
Zaremba: Does that align with Spur Wing Way, which is somewhere near there?
Wildwood: I'm hearing Shawn say no. We have got that other map. Vicinity map so it
would? Okay so it would.
Zaremba: It's got to be fairly close to it.
Wildwood: Yes really, really close.
Zaremba: You wouldn't want it to be like 20 feet offset from it.
Wildwood: No. No. That would be -- again, it's a matter of sitting and -- sitting down
with ITD and getting the plans out. They are going to look at it, they would have to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 74 of 106
make that decision whether it came in off of this lot or where ever ITD would say here is
where we want to see your access. Most likely, they are going to want to see it line up
directly.
Centers: Well, I see your letter is just dated today.
Wildwood: Yes.
Centers: Lochsa Falls sewer and water is not over to here?
Wildwood: Not yet.
Centers: You want to talk about Lochsa Falls? I mean because --
Wildwood: The sewer and water --
Centers: -- before you can even put in a lift station --
Wildwood: Correct. Correct.
Centers: -- you have got to have it available.
Wildwood: Absolutely and what Kevin was saying is that that's the discussion and
negotiations that are going on with Marty Goldsmith and that that's what Wendell is
assisting us with.
Centers: And, then, there was no -- you didn't address water. It's all predicated on
when Lochsa Falls builds out that phase, which is market driven.
Wildwood: We can have Kevin address that.
Amar: In our discussions with -- Kevin Amar. In our discussions with Farwest
Development, Marty Goldsmith, and his representatives, their first -- this is Ten Mile.
Their first phase, they will bring sewer approximately to this location over to Linder.
What we had requested was to get an easement to their right of way, their eventual
roads, and bring sewer and water from that point up to our proposed subdivision. We
would have sewer and water, but we still need to negotiate those details with them.
Centers: So, you're saying you're not relying on the development you're relying on the
developer to give you an easement to bring the sewer and water up to your southerly
location?
Amar: Correct. Our proposal to the developer is we will build it in a location he
establishes.
Centers: This is probably, you know, irrelevant to ask, but why did you even bring the
application at this time, when you didn't have negotiated with the developer? You didn't
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 75 of 106
have negotiated with the Idaho Department of Transportation for that temporary access,
why did you make application just to get on the docket?
Amar: At the time we made application we thought we -- we have had meetings with
ITD and we have had meetings with the developer and we thought --
Centers: But you had no decisions.
Amar: Correct but we thought we would have those decisions prior to this meeting and
we apologize for that.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Did you finish, Susan? Did you have some more?
Wildwood: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from Mr. Bigham as to when that school
might be built, because that open space would not be considered by this person until it's
built. I want to -- and I know you will be honest with me, Mr. Bigham. When do you
think that school will be built?
Borup: And I'm assuming -- well, go ahead.
Centers: Because it's weeds until then.
Bigham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Wendell Bigham,
representing Joint School District No. 2, 911 Meridian Street, here in Meridian. A little
preamble to your -- the answer to your question. As you're well aware, the school
district, of recent, has been trying to acquire the elementary -- at least the elementary
school sites as, if you will, platted lot and blocks within a subdivision, to make maximize
the land use planning and the access issues that we have. To that end, our desire was
to have a school in this area. This school will, all kidding aside, primarily serve those
houses in Lochsa Falls, since that is, by far, the largest development in this square mile.
We are in support of this, in its current location and configuration provides us the right
safe access and stuff that we need.
Borup: Excuse me. I was going to ask that, but Lochsa and this subdivision essentially
fill that school?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman --
Borup: At build out.
Bigham: Essentially, yes. At three houses per acre, a square mile fills an elementary
school, plus or minus 100 kids. It takes all of the development within the square mile,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 76 of 106
roughly, to accomplish this, unless we go up into that more than three houses per acre.
We are desirous, in terms of our land use planning activities and site acquisition, to pin
down the sights either by option or by ownership or any combination in between. I'm
just reluctant to see this potential school site go by the wayside. Having said all of that
now, when do we build on that site? I cannot give you a firm date, but it is at least out --
it's not in the 2004, 2006, possibly in the 2008, '9, '10 bond issues. I would say it is out
there on the five to seven year horizon. You need to understand again, what will drive
the construction of this school is the success of Lochsa Falls Subdivision and whatever
might be happening slightly west of this. It is out there for a protracted number of years.
Centers: I appreciate your honesty. Do you know how many -- and you might know
this. How many homes have been built in Lochsa? I know it provides for 500 plus.
Borup: None yet.
Centers: What?
Borup: There hasn't been any yet.
Centers: Zero?
Borup: At this point, yes.
Centers: Right they haven't even broke ground or -- whatever. It's not very many, then.
Right?
Borup: I don't think that there is --
Centers: And it's a 500-lot subdivision, plus or minus? I appreciate your honesty, Mr.
Bigham. It could be as far out as 2010, depending on the market and how fast Lochsa
fills out.
Bigham: Or further.
Centers: Yeah.
Borup: But if Lochsa develops in five -- fully develops in five years that would put it at
2007. Where are those students going to be going? You would be busing them
elsewhere, then?
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, to try to give you a -- to paint with a very broad
brush here, this is a constant, ongoing discussion we have. If we had to make our best
shot that where the schools would go and some of the next upcoming bond issues, I
would guess first and foremost the elementary school will go into Bridgetower, since it's
well into its multiple phases of its development. The second guess would probably be --
excuse me -- in the -- one of the phases that you're about to see coming from Murdoch
-- or coming out on Cedar Springs. Possibly a third site in this area would be on the
Havasu Subdivision through Farwest Development. Again, we tend -- we are making
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 77 of 106
kind of an assumption here that the growth is, if you will, stemming from the
Bridgetower area and is probably more likely to move in an eastern and a southern
direction, than to start heading north and west, simply because of the Black Cat sewer
extension. This thing is out four, five, six elementary schools so, the answer to your
question is these students will probably be bused into that -- into the Bridgetower
Subdivision or Cedar Springs or some combination of boundary shifts and that it would
take quite a number of houses in this area to trigger the construction of this school.
Borup: Those other schools, even though they would probably be filled by the
subdivisions around them, they are not going to fill immediately, so they are going to
have capacity.
Centers: And if -- let's say, for example, this were approved tonight and approved by
the Council in 30 days, you don't have the money to pay for this, I don't believe. I think
this is probably public record. I mean what do you do, you option it and you -- then you
wait to build it out, you pay off the land when you need to build it out.
Bigham: No Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, we allocate a certain amount of
dollars every year on plant facilities dollars, we will call it a millions dollars for a small
number. In the last bond issue, the 2000 -- September 2002 bond issue, we got
permission to set aside six million dollars for land acquisition. In that six million dollars
was -- I don't have my list with me, but probably at least seven elementary schools that
were more or less defined by a geographic square mile. At this juncture we have not
spent any of that six million dollars, but we are in pending negotiations. All of our
purchases are contingent upon preliminary, if not always Final Plat approval, and
agreements that guarantee us sewer and water. If we buy it before the sewer and
water gets there, the developer either bonds or gives us a letter of credit to protect the
taxpayers in the event of their default. We have the funds to buy it. We tie up the land.
It's usually is a protracted process, but unless all of the pieces of property, excuse me,
that we are negotiating on come on all at once, I think it's a pretty fair statement to say
that we have the money in the bank, so --
Centers: But you wouldn't develop this until needed? You would let it sit there?
Bigham: Yes, sir.
Centers: Okay. Thank you so, the nice lawn, soccer fields and ball fields would not be
there.
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commission Centers, not at the school district's expense, no.
Centers: Good answer.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Bigham. Is that -- and I think that's real smart
planning to be able to have the money to buy them? That's something of more recent
development, isn't it, or has that been an ongoing policy?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 78 of 106
Bigham: Mr. Chairman, that has pretty much been my single responsibility for the last
two years. We think we are getting a good handle on the growth, the -- certainly, the
new Meridian Comprehensive Plan has helped us, the considerations for the north
Meridian planning area has helped us get our hands around it the taxpayer support of
six million dollars. The real big number is to meet our goals we need 35 million dollars
over a period of years.
Borup: And that's what I meant by more recent, the last couple of years. I think that's
real good planning. I'm really glad to see we can look ahead like that. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Did you have anything? Okay anyone else to testify on this application? We
have no one else here for this. Any other questions for staff or the applicant from any of
the Commissioners at this point? I don't -- Kevin, how much time are you thinking you
need to workout some of those questions? I have got some -- I mean I think you have
got a lot to take care of. As Steve was giving his report, he said some of the concerns
were road access, sewer, and water, and my thought was other than that, everything
looks fine.
Amar: You're right. The road access, we feel like we do have that issue worked out
either the temporary solution that Susan had mentioned -- we don't have a letter for
you, unfortunately, but we have had verbal commitment by ITD saying we can relocate
the existing access for a temporary access. We do feel like we do have the road
access issue worked out. The sewer access issue would be a matter of cooperative
effort with the developer of Farwest.
Borup: And the water would come down the same right of way?
Amar: Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Amar: I can't imagine it would take longer than a month. If it does, then, we won't be
here in that time and we'd just ask to be continued.
Borup: Well, one of the -- well -- and I don't know that we have room on our -- on that
20th
agenda. Our policy is we try to be -- that we don't hold Public Hearings after
midnight. No. We are okay for the next hearing. We will be able to get to that. I was
just looking ahead on a future date or -- I guess that hasn't been discussed. We need
to discuss that among the Commissioners if that's an option to continue it or someone's
got an alternative motion. I think you answered the question I had. You're talking more
than a month.
Amar: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 79 of 106
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: We were trading ideas about that temporary access and the concern that
we have is to access a public street through an easement, which is what that sounds
like it would amount to, there would be an easement drawn across lots -- it's not an
easement?
Borup: It would be a regular dedicated public highway that would be abandoned in the
future?
Amar: Yes. We would propose dedicating that right of way to be abandoned upon
access through Lochsa Subdivision.
Siddoway: Okay that would be what we were talking about, because we were saying it
probably should be dedicated as a public right of way and, then, vacated in the future
when it's no longer needed. We should probably get ACHD's input on that as well.
Borup: In addition to ITD?
Siddoway: Yes.
Amar: We can do that.
Borup: Thank you discussion among the Commissioners? What's their --
Commissioner --
Centers: Well, I can tell you on the -- you know, I guess I would not be objectionable to
continuing. I would not be objectionable to denying it, but I can tell you if I see it again,
that open space is not going to be approved unless it's improved. If they are going to
give 1.2 acres to the school district, then, they need to plant lawn on it and have the
homeowners taken care of it until that school goes in there in eight, nine years. Mr.
Bigham said tonight 2010, max. It's eight -- seven years so, there is no way I'm going
to give them consideration for open space when it sits there in weeds. You know, I think
they have got to plan that, show a Landscaping Plan, underground sprinkling with
pressurized irrigation, and which will tie into the school district's plan when they build,
so there won't be any disruption and it would be valuable money spent. If they want to
come back with something like that, that's fine with me.
Borup: I think that's the kind of input that is important to give to them at this point, as far
as where -- but it looks to me like either maybe adjoining the tot lot or adjoining the
access path, something like that.
Centers: Ms. Wildwood just wrote her letter today, so, you know, I guess I'd go with the
majority here, but I'd go either way, deny it, or continue it.
Borup: Commissioner Rohm, were you going to say something?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 80 of 106
Rohm: Well, I was just going to say that a continuance doesn't deny them the
opportunity to address the issues that are before this Commission at this point in time.
If, in fact, they can work with the access onto the roadway and other issues, I don't see
any reason why we don't hear it maybe -- not in March, but --
Borup: The second meeting in April would be the next available.
Rohm: Right the second meeting in April.
Centers: Well -- and my point earlier, that's when we should have first heard it, rather
than spend an hour and a half on it tonight. That's what's upsetting to me.
Rohm: And that may be --
Borup: Okay. Commissioner Zaremba, any comments or --
Zaremba: No comment.
Borup: Commissioner Mathes?
Mathes: That's fine with me.
Borup: Okay and I think I feel the same way as Commissioner Centers, with the
information we have tonight, a denial is probably appropriate, but, like I said, it would
probably make sense to give them the opportunity to overcome those things, if they can
be provided for. That's really the crux of staff's concerns and objections, is those
services aren't available. If it can be provided, I don't know why we would look at it any
difficultly than any other project.
Centers: Well, let's ask a question to Bruce. If they get the easement, how is Public
Works going to view that? I mean are we wasting our time here? They talked to Marty
Goldsmith, they get an easement up to the southerly portion of their development, you
know, they are talking about their fancy dancy lift station, how is Public Works going to
view it?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'll point out that in our staff
report I did try to -- tried to point out on Page 4, the annexation and zoning analysis,
Item G.
Centers: Which one?
Freckleton: G.
Centers: G that's on Page 3, isn't it?
Freckleton: Page 4.
Centers: Oh. Okay. Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 81 of 106
Freckleton: Beginning about the middle of the paragraph where I say permanent
sanitary sewer service to this development is to be provided by the undeveloped north
Black Cat service area. The applicant proposes temporary pumping of the sewage
generated within the development to a discharge point in a future in Lochsa Falls. No.
Wait a minute. I'm screwed up. I'm sorry.
Borup: Well, that was a true statement.
Freckleton: Yes Page 5. Additional considerations, Item Number 2 under sanitary
sewer lift station. Last sentence. Staff does not support the temporary lift station
concept at this time, without plans being in place and a timeline being set for a
permanent service to the area via the north Black Cat trunk. As I mentioned before, we
have hired a consultant to develop plans and do the study for the South Black Cat trunk
service area. At this point in time, it's not even on our radar screen to provide service to
that north area.
Centers: So, if you had a time line for the north -- for the north trunk, you would support
it, but since you don't have a time line --
Freckleton: Typically, in the past when the Public Works Department has supported a
temporary lift station situation, it's been when we have a time line. We know service is
going to be here within a certain time frame and it truly is temporary. We know -- we
know where the light is at the end of the tunnel. This is just a big unknown right now for
us.
Borup: How would you be providing sewer access to the park site?
Freckleton: To the park site? Sorry, I'm not --
Borup: Lochsa's park, which is -- which is south -- southwest of here or has that even
been looked at?
Freckleton: That is served off of the south -- yes, out of the North Slough Trunk. All of
the Lochsa Falls project is served by facilities that are being extended by Lochsa Falls.
Borup: Okay. That's on the North Slough.
Freckleton: Right. This corner --
Borup: So this corner is in a different drainage --
Freckleton: This corner is a different sewer drainage and it has to go to that northwest
end of our service boundary -- urban service planning boundary.
Borup: And that's already engineered and shown?
Freckleton: That's part of our facilities in our Facility Plan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 82 of 106
Centers: I would point out that if we deny this application, the applicant has every right
and my blessing to go to the City Council and appeal our decision. Saying that, I will
make that motion to -- Item Number 13 --
Borup: I don't know that it would be ready in time to be on the agenda.
Centers: What's that?
Borup: I don't know that they would have their presentation ready for the time --
Centers: Well, let me ask this when a motion is approved or denied by the Planning
Commission --
Borup: They still go to City Council.
Centers: -- can an applicant go to the City Council at a meeting of their choice, like two
months down the road? Can they request that or do they have to take the next
available slot?
Freckleton: I'm not sure.
Borup: Does Legal Counsel have any comment on that?
Holinka: I would have to look it up, but I'm sure there is probably a time limit.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's 45 days.
Borup: That's what I was thinking.
Freckleton: We'd have to verify that, but --
Borup: I like it when we put the attorney to work.
Zaremba: The purpose of such a time limit would be so that applicants don't get strong
out forever if the applicant wanted to waive that or ask for a continuance or something.
Freckleton: Ask for a continuance prior to it hitting Council. I mean it can get
scheduled for a meeting and, then, they can ask for a continuance.
Centers: Yes. Which we had and we always honor them. We had a request for
continuance -- we haven't closed the Public Hearing, have we?
Borup: No.
Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Well --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 83 of 106
Zaremba: Unless we are going to continue it.
Borup: Yes that's what I was going to say. Okay that's your motion?
Centers: Yes. I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Borup: Do we have a second?
Mathes: I will second that.
Rohm: Can you open the Public Hearing back up at a later date?
Borup: Yes, we can. Depending on what motion is made.
Zaremba: I think the thrust of closing the Public Hearing was to follow it with a motion
of denial.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Or approval.
Borup: Okay we have got a motion and second. Any discussion?
Zaremba: I can see continuing it, but I'm not real strong on that.
Rohm: Personally, I like the layout of the subdivision.
Centers: Oh, I do, too.
Rohm: But there are issues that need to be addressed that are outside of the layout
itself. My personal preference is to offer up a continuance and let them take the time to
work out those issues. If they can't, then, if it will be denied via their own inability to
respond. That seems logical to me.
Centers: Well, I would point out that -- Mr. Freckleton's comment that even with the lift
station they don't want the lift station, they want it tied to a proposed North Black Trunk
that's not even on the drawing board.
Rohm: Well, then, that's one of those issues that they haven't got worked out yet and
by us offering up a continuance, doesn't preclude them from working that issue with
Bruce's office.
Centers: I don't think he's going to change his mind on that. You can ask him.
Rohm: I'm not suggesting that he is, I'm just saying that it's their responsibility to
provide solutions, not ours.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 84 of 106
Mathes: It depends on how long you want to continue it.
Centers: Until they come back before the board with a solution that meets Mr.
Freckleton's expectations.
Borup: Yes ss we discussed earlier, probably the earliest date would be April 17th
.
Centers: What about the City Council question? They could go to the City Council if
we deny it and, then, they could request a continuance if they didn't have their act
together? Right.
Freckleton: That's correct. Ordinance 12-3-7F speaks to this. Council action. Within
45 days following receipt of the application, the Council shall consider the requirements
of the Preliminary Plat and comments from concerned persons and agencies to arrive
at a decision on a Final Plat. The Council shall approve, approve conditionally,
disapprove, or table the Final Plat. If the Final Plat is tabled, it may be considered by
the Council within 45 days of the date of initial consideration.
Centers: See, that's my point. They can go to the Council.
Zaremba: Well, except that the Council has so many other things to deal with as well
that I know from talking to Council Members, they prefer for us to resolve as much as
we can resolve and not hand them unresolved things.
Centers: I agree. I have heard the same comments and that's why I'm hanging my hat
on Mr. Freckleton's last comment, that they don't want the lift station tied into that sewer
trunk. They want it tied into the North Black Trunk that is not even on the radar screen,
the way Mr. Freckleton said. That was the -- I mean it's obvious that was what made up
my mind and I was on the fence before. I told you that.
Zaremba: I call the question.
Borup: Okay all in favor?
Centers: We are closing the Public Hearing.
Borup: On Jerry's motion to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: On both items.
Borup: Right for both items?
Centers: Yes correct.
Borup: Okay all in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 85 of 106
Centers: I will just move forward as planned. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to recommend
denial of Item Number 13, AZ 02-030, request for annexation and zoning of 38.65 acres
from RUT to R-4 for proposed Silverleaf Sub by Crestline Development, LLC.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Anyone wish to speak to the motion?
Rohm: I just think that that cuts them off where they have no place to go, other than to
the Council and request exceptions, even with the Commission's denial. By continuing
it, it at least gives them an opportunity to get lined back up and come up with some sort
of solution that would meet Bruce's expectations. If they can't do it, then, it dies it's own
death and rather than us putting a nail in it ourselves. I'm not in favor of that myself.
Borup: Okay any other comments?
Centers: Well, I'll just address that comment, meets Bruce's expectations. There are
no expectations, other than the North Black trunk line and it's not on the radar screen.
He's not going to change his mind.
Rohm: And I'm not suggesting that he does. I'm just saying that it's their responsibility
to meet his expectations, not us to put him -- put them in a --
Centers: Well, I'm saying they can't meet them.
Rohm: That's up to them to work that deal, not us. That's my opinion.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: You're saying they may have a persuasive argument and Bruce may change his
mind.
Rohm: And they can work that and if it doesn't come to fruition, then, we haven't denied
them the opportunity to pursue and that's my position.
Borup: I think what hasn't been discussed is future projects to the west of this, if there
is anything in the planning stage there or not. We don't know at least at this point.
Okay all in favor? Opposed? Okay. That was three to one.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Centers: Mr. Chairman, continuing on. I'd like to recommend denial of PP 02-031,
request for Preliminary Plat approval of 72 building lots and eight other lots on 38.65
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Silverleaf Subdivision by Crestline
Development, LLC.
Zaremba: I would ask Counsel if we are not annexing and zoning this, whether we can
even deal with it. I would say it's a non-issue.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 86 of 106
Borup: Well, essentially, it is, but I think we need to move on the -- we need to make a
motion on that particular Public Hearing, don't we?
Centers: I agree with you in a sense.
Borup: It is a moot point.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: But I think we need to still address it.
Zaremba: Okay I'll second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAY
Item 15. Public Hearing: RZ 02-009 Request for a Rezone of 0.17 acres from R-
8 to O-T zones for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and Associates – 518
East Broadway Avenue:
Item 16. Public Hearing: CUP 02-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
multi-family dwelling unit in a proposed O-T zone for Bentley Apartments
by Tamura and Associates – 518 East Broadway Avenue:
Borup: Okay that does conclude those two items. Okay. We'd like to continue our
meeting this evening with Item Numbers 15 and 16, Public Hearing RZ 02-009, request
for a rezone of .17 acres from R-8 to O-T zones for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and
Associates, at 518 East Broadway. Accompanying that, CUP 02-048, request for a
Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family dwelling unit for a proposed O-T zone. I'll
open both of these Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a proposed
Rezone, as well as a Conditional Use Permit. The Rezone would take the property
from its existing R-8 zone to the Old Town zone. The Comprehensive Plan does
designate this area as Old Town, so it would be eligible for the Old Town zone per the
Comprehensive Plan. It is located at 518 East Broadway, about halfway between East
5th
and East 6th
Street. The proposal is to construct a 4-plex on the property. That 4-
plex would be 3,884 square feet and two stories tall. They are proposing four covered
stalls and two uncovered compact stalls, within the additional, two uncovered stalls in a
tandem arrangement. You should have a staff report dated January 16th
. I have a
couple of photos. This is an aerial photo of the property. This is where Broadway
comes up and dead ends to the east currently. You can see the existing residential
character of the area. There are some existing multi-family dwellings.
Borup: That's what I was going to ask. The building to the left, is that what that is?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 87 of 106
Siddoway: I believe it's another 4-plex. Oh and the other side, too so, there is -- I think
they are actually on both sides, surrounded by --
Centers: Kind of makes sense, doesn't it?
Zaremba: Yes.
Siddoway: The issues I would like to point out -- the first one is on Page 3, Item E. We
do find that the proposed development is harmonious with the existing neighborhood,
but we also find that additional architectural features could and perhaps should be
added to the southern elevation to give the proposed building a more attractive street
appearance, rather than just looking at it as a -- the side of a building. We are trying to
dress up the street appeal, if you will, of these structures in the Old Town District and
that has been done by this Council at the last 4-plex that came through in this area.
These are some existing site photos. I believe that this is the existing house on the
subject property, which you can see in both photos. Here you see the exiting 4-plex to
the west, as well as the existing ones to the east.
Centers: Excuse me, Steve. How is the design appeal compared to those two? Is it
comparable to what's submitted?
Zaremba: Probably better.
Siddoway: I also believe that the applicant is prepared to --
Centers: Give us pictures.
Siddoway: -- pose some specifics to address that.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: Here is the proposed elevation. This would be the front and rear elevation,
so this would be the side facing the street. On Page 4, Item A, on the finding whether
the site is large enough, we find it is large enough only if the Commission approves the
proposed tandem parking. The reduced street buffers -- or not street buffers, reduced
buffers between land uses -- or not even between land uses, it's just the side -- it's just
the perimeter landscape requirement that's adjacent to vehicle use areas is how that
should be written. I will go over that in more detail in just a second. If you will turn to
Page 6, the special considerations detail the four items that probably need the most
discussion. The first is the Tandem Parking Arrangement. If you look at the Site Plan,
you can see that they are proposing one, two, three, four covered parking spaces and,
then, an additional two tandem uncovered here and two tandems uncovered here. We
have approved tandem parking for 4-plexes in Old Town in the past. The main
difference with this one is that typically each unit is given one covered and one
uncovered space. In this case, if that were to happen, then, someone is going to be
blocked in by a neighbor in the tandem situation so, that needs some addressing as to
how the parking will work. Number 2 is the landscape buffer. The ordinance would
require five-foot landscape buffers adjacent to the vehicular use areas on the east and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 88 of 106
the west. They are proposing three feet. Staff does support the proposed reduction,
given the limited space and the higher density nature of the area. Item 3 is the
sidewalk. The sidewalk as shown -- before I go to the sidewalk, let me point out one
other thing. I believe that Broadway is out here and just so you understand, the parking
is not off of Broadway, the parking is off the alley at the rear of the project. The
sidewalk that's proposed is three and a half feet wide and it dead-ends at this proposed
compact stall. We would recommend widening the sidewalk and extending the
sidewalk around, so that there is access to these parking stalls via the sidewalk without
having to walk through landscape area. Item 4 is the mitigation of existing trees. There
is a large existing tree that apparently will have to be taken down. I requested that the
applicant get in contact with the arborist at the Parks Department, Elroy Huff, to make a
determination if the tree truly is diseased and dying and could be removed without
mitigation. If that finding is not made, then, we will need to determine in what manner
the site could be maximized out for mitigation. I don't think there is any way they will
get a full caliper inch for caliper inch mitigation out of it, but if it is truly old, diseased,
and dying, the mitigation will not be required. I think those are the main issues that
need to be resolved. Upon resolution of those, we would recommend approval with the
conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Rohm: Just on the parking. You said that it's a problem, but you didn't offer up what
your potential resolution to that is. Are you waiting for the applicant to come forward
with a response to that?
Siddoway: Yes.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Go ahead.
Zaremba: A question of staff. As a general rule, now that there is a Meridian
Development Corporation should things in Old Town be passed by them?
Siddoway: Yes, they should. I don't know if this one was. We are -- we did talk about
that at a recent staff meeting and are trying to flag projects that are in Old Town to
solicit comments from MDC. I don't believe in this case that that was done.
Zaremba: This, probably, I guess would be a comment for the Clerk on the routing
sheet that all of us have seen, they probably need to be added to this --
Johnson: On our new transmittal sheet that I just gave -- I don't know if that's on that
one or not. We just added them on.
Zaremba: Okay so they would get Old Town type projects?
Johnson: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 89 of 106
Borup: Okay so the new ones do have that.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: And, Steve, what is the --
Borup: This was a transmittal originally back in December.
Centers: -- minimum parking required for the 4-plexes? Eight?
Siddoway: Typically, it would be eight, two per dwelling unit.
Centers: Did you say typically?
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Isn't that also in the ordinance?
Centers: Is it code or ordinance or typically?
Siddoway: Let me look it up while we find out.
Centers: Because I guess it's an issue if six is the requirement, they have met it.
Borup: I thought it was two.
Centers: I did. I was thinking it was six and one and a half. Did you, Keith?
Borup: No. I thought it was two. Two other projects the staff have desired 2.3, but they
haven't always required that.
Zaremba: That's true, with an exception for one bedrooms or something like that.
Borup: That may be.
Siddoway: In a conversation with the applicant, during the break, I know they would like
to propose that as a potential solution, would be to reduce the requirement to one and a
half per -- one and a half parking spaces per unit.
Zaremba: Well, I could suggest an alternate, and that would be if there is enough
space to make that a real parking space, as opposed to a compact -- I'm sure they
chose that, because it makes this area very narrow, but -- in which case these two
spaces could be assigned to one apartment where they would park side by side. The
same with these two, and, then, these two stacking would belong to an apartment and
these two stacking would belong to an apartment. Well, I would say you cover these
middle two and, then, you cover the first two there, so you have -- this is uncovered, this
is uncovered, this is uncovered, this is uncovered. Everybody gets one covered space
and one open space but some of them are side by side, instead of tandem. Only the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 90 of 106
difficulty there in the engineering is if you make this a full size and you want this to be a
five-foot walkway that's going to be able to go all the way around there and get to here,
this doesn't look like that would accommodate both of those solutions.
Borup: Well, I don't think they -- staff didn't say it had to be a five-foot they just wanted
it to connect.
Siddoway: The report does say --
Borup: Oh, they do want five-foot. Yes, you're right. Five-foot I'm sorry. That was on
the next page. Well, I don't know if an internal sidewalk needs to be that.
Siddoway: Our standard requirement -- certainly out on all streets we would require five
feet. We approve four-foot detached sidewalks, you know, fairly regularly in
subdivisions. You know, that may be a point of give and take, so that we are not paving
the entire site, but --
Mathes: Are they not allowed to have parking on Broadway out front?
Siddoway: It can't be counted as part of the off-street parking requirement. There will
be parking on Broadway. On-street parking is allowed.
Siddoway: Okay any other questions?
Centers: Well, you were looking for the minimum required parking.
Siddoway: I haven't found it yet. Let's hear from the applicant and I will keep --
Borup: Okay Mr. Reese, have you got a presentation?
Holinka: Actually, Commissioner -- Chairman and Commissioner Centers, it's two --
with multi-family dwelling units of three units or more it's two per unit.
Borup: Okay that's what I thought. Thank you.
Reese: My name is Matthew Reese with Tamura and Associates, Architects. I'd like to
just go through some of these and answer some questions or offer some solutions. I do
believe it is two per unit for Meridian. I'll just kind of go in order here through this report
and Item Number E talks about staff finds additional architectural features could be
added to the southern elevation and I would agree with that. I think we would look at
minimizing some of the windows on the east side and trying to enlarge the windows and
putting more detail on the ends of the building and on the west side.
Borup: Would the landscaping be pretty close to what is represented here on that front
and rear elevation? At least on the front elevation?
Reese: Yes. I think we -- I think we would probably put more of our landscaping
focused more on the front of the building and not quite so much --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 91 of 106
Borup: I'm not sure if the Commission had a big concern -- I mean real concern on the
architectural features. It does have a lot more Variance than your neighbors, it appears.
Reese: Yes and keep in mind this is our schematic design. We still will go through our
design development and working drawings and we will work with planning staff on that.
Moving along. The issue with the tandem parking -- and I'm not sure if this is really the
appropriate place or the time to request this. We would also -- we would be open to just
having a requirement of 1.5 stalls required per unit, since this is in Old Town District, it's
a little higher density, a little closer to the city center. I suspect, you know, that would
not be the recommendation, just based on what that would do as far as setting
precedent, but I'm just going to throw that out there as a consideration. As far as the
arrangement of the tandem stalls and the use of the compact stall, one of our main
issues is we are trying to minimize the amount of paving, because the move paving you
start to add, the more you have to account for water retention and seepage beds. We
felt that the inner two stalls on the tandem parking can be compact stalls, because you
don't have a stall adjacent to it. You still have the full width to open a door the regular --
the way a regular parking stall is designed, you usually open your door and it
encroaches on a little bit to the next stall.
Borup: So what is that stall width? Is that eight feet? There is no dimension on it. Oh,
there it is. 7.6. Okay. That answered my question. I see it there.
Reese: Usually, like a nine-foot stall, you take -- you're borrowing a foot and a half of
the stall right next to you.
Borup: Right.
Reese: You know. Since these just isolated stalls, we thought the compact stall would
work fine there. We do have a little room to move the building around a little bit. I
agree with the staff that we do need to bring the sidewalk on around to the front of the
parking to provide better pedestrian access to the units. I would request, though, that
we would prefer to go to a smaller sidewalk on the interior sidewalks, as long as it
meets accessibility requirements. Normally, when we do larger apartment projects as a
standard we do a five-foot sidewalk, but given the scale of this project, just being a one-
unit facility, we think -- it's our opinion that a three-foot six wide sidewalk is adequate
and, you know, again, you know, we have the burden of meeting all the accessibility
requirements.
Borup: Does that meet the requirements?
Reese: Yes.
Borup: Three six is what the accessibility requires.
Reese: Yes and -- but, again, nothing is -- you know, we are open to working with the
planning staff and it's just our opinion that five feet seemed a little excessive on what's
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 92 of 106
needed. It comes back to that issue of the more you pave, the less landscaping you
have, and the more water retention issues we have.
Centers: Does the three and a half fall under the ADA?
Reese: You know ADA clearance, yes, and --
Centers: The disabilities act for wheelchairs.
Reese: Yes.
Centers: Is adequate?
Reese: Yes and, then, we also have fair housing, which, actually, becomes a bigger
monster in a lot of these.
Centers: Yes and three and a half is fine, then?
Reese: Yes.
Rohm: Can you slide that whole dwelling east, so that you could enlarge the parking
spaces --
Reese: Enlarge the parking --
Rohm: Well, so that you don't have the stack effects that you could actually back out
and get around the adjacent vehicle.
Reese: I'm not sure what --
Borup: The east is to the top of the map.
Rohm: Oh, that's east? Excuse me I -- this is east in my mind.
Borup: No that's south and they are right at the setback, I believe.
Rohm: Okay can you slide the whole --
Reese: We can't go --
Borup: They are right at the setback.
Reese: We are right at our 20-foot setback. We can move the building up and down.
Borup: East.
Reese: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 93 of 106
Centers: And your neighbors have smaller buildings and what's their parking? Did you
take a look?
Reese: Their buildings appear to be large, just because they are more just like big
boxes and they have fewer parking stalls.
Centers: Yes I saw them. They don't have -- okay.
Reese: And, then, the reality is, is what -- you have Broadway, which the pavement
stops about 10 feet away from the sidewalk and so what you have is a lot of people.
Actually kind of doing perpendicular type parking along in front of there. That will
probably change as that gets developed on the east. That road will probably get fully
improved and be restricted to parallel parking. I think it's also an issue that, you know,
reality is that certain tenants will prefer just to park up front and --
Centers: I agree with that.
Reese: You know. Even if we provided 10 full, easy access parking spots in the back,
you know, I imagine that's just the reality of it. I know we can't count those as parking.
Centers: How about if you put a sign right at the right front of that first stall, the tandem
stall, park here at your own risk, you may get blocked in?
Reese: Well -- and that's certainly something --
Centers: I mean I'm serious.
Reese: That is a program set with the management.
Centers: Yes.
Reese: We are also open to, you know, shifting the location of what is covered parking
and it also doesn't necessarily mean that each unit gets one covered stall. That's
usually typical, but the owner certainly has the right to charge extra if you want a
covered stall or maybe even the lower units are not as desirable, so in order to get them
rented they get the covered stalls, so --
Borup: And that's what I was going to ask. Is there a proposal for the parking at this
point or not necessarily, it sounds like.
Reese: Nothing really.
Rohm: First come first serve?
Borup: I'm sure they are going to have to work something out.
Reese: Yes. I mean we got this report on Monday and just haven't had --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 94 of 106
Borup: Well, that's more of an issue, probably, for the owner to decide.
Centers: Yes marketing.
Reese: But we would be providing the eight -- there are physically eight stalls on the
site, so --
Zaremba: Maybe I'm not seeing it, but I'm not finding a trash enclosure.
Reese: And that was brought up. What -- and I talked to Steve about, you know, what
would be required. Keep in mind, this is a residential alley and there isn't another
property owner on there that has a trash enclosure, so we would be the first one on the
block. We have a fence along the back and he says all you have to do is provide a side
on either side and to have the front open, so -- and that's certainly doable for us. No,
as shown right here we don't have a trash enclosure.
Zaremba: Within the landscaped area.
Borup: Well, it shows a trash can location area.
Reese: Yes but we don't have an enclosure.
Siddoway: Yes. I can point it out for you if you'd like. The trash cans are shown to
accommodate four cans right here. There is a fence behind them. We would just
simply ask that some wing walls be extended along the sides, so that it's screened on
three sides and that would meet the ordinance.
Zaremba: I thought those were trees. I stand corrected.
Reese: Okay. The issues with the landscape buffers in the back, again, you know,
following the letter of the ordinance would be required to have five feet. Again, we are
in an alley area, we are providing three feet on each side, and I hope that is, you know,
acceptable. Again, I think it will be the nicest improved lot on the whole block, because,
you know, it's just your typical residential alley right now. Just a couple other minor
things. On our plan, we call out for a new six-foot vinyl fence. The reality is that the
fences on either side are in very good condition and really do not need to be replaced.
They do meet the current requirements of the ordinance and so I'd like to just correct
that and make that on the record that there is an existing six foot high fence on the east
and west side.
Rohm: Did you say that the alleyway was to be paved?
Reese: That is an ACHD requirement on us. That was -- the issue we have is ACHD --
now, we didn't get very far with it, but we will be required to pay to have that alley
paved, whereas the 4-plexes on either side, obviously, didn't have to pay for it. Now if
anybody comes after us, you know, they are going to get a brand new paved alley, but
that's just -- you know.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 95 of 106
Zaremba: They want you to pay for the whole block length of the alley?
Reese: We -- they had an initial requirement that we pave from our property to the
nearest street. Then, we made a proposal to them that, you know, would it fair if we just
-- you know, we pay for our portion of the alley or our percentage. Then, we wanted to
propose a couple things, you know, maybe they could reduce our impact fees and,
then, that money goes towards the paving of the alley, but they would not go for that.
The compromise was if we buy the asphalt, they would pave it, so --
Borup: Do you know how long the other two apartments have been there?
Reese: Eight years and 15 years.
Borup: You're going to have to repeat everything she says, unless she comes up.
Reese: We are also the only one on this block that had to go through the Rezone.
That's how we --
Borup: Well, yes, that has been some recent changes there.
Reese: Right.
Borup: I'm not sure how recent. I know the last several years ACHD has been wanting
alleys paved, but I'm not sure when they -- I don't know whether that went into effect.
Siddoway: About three years ago, I believe.
Borup: Okay. Has it been that recent?
Centers: Well, that saves you quite a bit, though, if you're not going to do the labor.
Reese: Yes. I mean it's probably -- it's definitely a better deal than what they initially
required.
Borup: But not as good as the neighbors got.
Reese: Well, we still have to issue that, you know -- I have had several projects that
run into this. It's ACHD policy that it usually gets stuck to one property owner that ends
up having to pave the whole alley, you know, because they take a house and turn it into
an office or something and they -- you know, they get stuck with it. You know,
everybody else gets a nice new paved alley, so --
Zaremba: Can you put an attendant at the end of it and charge a toll?
Reese: I want to make sure I covered everything here. As far as the issues of
removing the tree, the tree is not something that's in the way of the development, it was
just a feeling that -- with the property owner that the tree was at the end of its life cycle
and it shows signs of -- branches have been, you know, decaying and falling off. I think
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 96 of 106
the owner is going to work with the Parks Department and do what needs to be done
there. Probably would -- you know, if it were a nice healthy three, we would certainly
say that -- to save it, but I think that's why we are showing it to be removed, is I think
our opinion is that it's at the end of its life. It's probably near 100 years old, 80 years
old. Again, I would just make the request -- I don't know if it's doable or not, but if we
could get a parking reduction to one and a half units per -- one and a half stalls per unit
and have the six required stalls.
Borup: Are you saying you would be doing away with where it's labeled compact stall?
Is that what you're proposing?
Reese: Well, if there was heartache that the tandem parking is not satisfactory, is that -
-
Borup: I'd rather see the compact -- or there be stacked parking and --
Centers: And put a sign up.
Rohm: Keep eight stalls and have two of them --
Borup: In looking at that, at least the -- even though it's labeled a compact stall, there is
more room to open the doors there than in the full size ones.
Centers: Probably more room than in --
Borup: Right than in the other.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there is also enough depth, depending on how it was striped.
Right now the depth shown for that compact stall is 16 feet, but there is still an
additional six feet between the full size stall and the alley, so they probably could borrow
three feet from that and make it a full 19 feet deep and --
Borup: You have to have 40 feet there total.
Reese: Yes. Again, what we are -- the intention there was just to try to minimize the
amount of pavement.
Borup: Well, it's going to have to be paved clear to the alley anyway, isn't it?
Reese: Yes. Again, if we can make the compact -- if we can utilize these in compact
stalls and also utilize using the -- having the front of the car overhang the curb --
Borup: Right. I think what Steve is saying just the way it's drawn would enable two full
size cars to be parked there.
Reese: Yes.
Borup: As it's designed now. Isn't that what you're saying?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 97 of 106
Siddoway: Yes. It could be striped with two 19-foot deep stalls and not have to require
anymore paving. The width is a reduction from our standard requirement of nine-foot
wide minimum. Like you say, if it's not up against an adjacent car, there is room for the
doors to open and things. I don't have any particular heartburn with it, I just was
pointing out that it could be striped as two 19-foot stalls, as opposed to a 16 and a 19.
Borup: Well -- and they are probably not going to pay any attention to the striping on
the tandem part anyway.
Zaremba: Do we know how wide the alley is anybody?
Reese: It is 16 feet by wide.
Zaremba: Sixteen?
Reese: Yes.
Zaremba: Well, I think your extra three feet behind the standard car length is going to
help people turn in and out of a pretty narrow alley. I'd hate to back them up all the way
to the alley.
Borup: No and I don't think you would want to reduce what the design is. Isn't that
what you're saying? As it's currently designed should be adequate. I don't know that --
and maybe -- I mean I think if you have finished what you --
Reese: Yes.
Borup: -- the concerns to me and the Commissioners -- the questions the applicant
probably wants us to address may or may not be different from staff, would be the size
of the sidewalks and the parking and perhaps the landscape buffer, but, you know, the
reduction in the buffer. I think probably those three things. Any Commissioners have
any concern with the project as designed?
Zaremba: No.
Centers: No.
Reese: You thank.
Borup: Yes. Thank you.
Mathes: I make a motion to close Public Hearing RZ 02-009 and Public Hearing CUP
02-048.
Centers: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 98 of 106
Borup: If you like. We are about ready to approve your project, but -- would you rather
we didn't? We got a motion.
Centers: And a second.
Borup: Yes. Did we vote on it?
Zaremba: We didn't vote.
Borup: Oh. I'm sorry. It's late.
Zaremba: So she still could speak if she wants to.
Borup: You could still speak if you'd like.
Zaremba: We haven't official closed it yet.
Borup: You can still come up if you like but at this point, none of the Commissioners
have any problem with your design as you submitted it.
Centers: I think -- yes. Okay.
Zaremba: With resolving the sidewalk going to --
Borup: Right. That would be the only thing different in the design. It's connected to the
site --
Centers: Well, he had proposed to connect it.
Borup: Okay do you want us to proceed ahead?
Centers: He wants three and a half feet and I don't have a problem with that. You can
get a wheelchair down it.
Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Yes. I would say I don't have any problem with the tandem parking and the
landscape buffer to three feet. The staff didn't either, really and sidewalks, I don't think
the staff has a heartburn on three and a half feet and he agreed to extend them and --
Borup: I think part of the concern here is it doesn't meet 100 percent, but it's a good
project for an in-fill and an improvement over the neighbors.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I would point out in the motion, however, that the sidewalk
needs to be extended around, as well as the note about the new vinyl fence not being
required, because of the existing fence --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 99 of 106
Centers: That was the other thing. Yes. He wants to use the existing fences on both
sides.
Borup: You say the parking just needs to be extended -- I mean the sidewalk extended
to the parking right?
Siddoway: Yes access to all the parking stalls.
Centers: To all parking areas, then.
Borup: Oh, it was your intention to have it brought along the sidewalk front along the
parking stalls?
Siddoway: Yes. Our intent would be to have the sidewalk wrap around, front along
here, and connect over to the end. That way, there would be access to all the parking
stalls without traipsing through the bushes, if you will.
Borup: Was that your understanding? Is that the way you had planned to do it
anyway? Okay.
Mathes: I make a motion to forward this to City Council for approval of Public Hearing
RZ 02-009, request for a Rezone of .17 acres from R-8 to O-T zones for Bentley
Apartments by Tamura and Associates, including all staff comments of January 16th
. Is
that all on that?
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay.
Mathes: Okay and I am making a motion to send the approval of Public Hearing CUP
02-048 to the City Council, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family
dwelling unit in a proposed O-T zone for Bentley Apartments by Tamura and
Associates. Including all staff comments, dated January 16th
, including on Page 6,
Number 3, the sidewalks, we want to extend them to go in front of the parking and on
Page 7, the fencing, they want to use the existing fencing, instead of putting up new
vinyl fencing.
Centers: And, Commissioner Mathes, do we want to mention we are okay with the
three-foot landscape buffer?
Mathes: We are okay with the landscape buffer.
Centers: Three-foot.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 100 of 106
Mathes: Three-foot landscape buffer and with the three and a half foot sidewalk.
Centers: Right and I was just reading on the tandem, I don't think the staff is -- yes.
We are okay with the tandem.
Mathes: Yes I think tandem is fine.
Borup: They just made it as a comment, I think.
Centers: Yes. Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 17. Clean-up Items.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have three clean-up items -- or just items for the
Commission that aren't on the agenda. It will only take a second. We could do them
pretty quickly, if that's okay.
Borup: Okay we didn't know about this.
Siddoway: The first is I have your shirts. I'll pass them out to you in just a second
before we leave.
Centers: All right.
Zaremba: I vote yes.
Borup: Yes. We could have changed those during the break. Wouldn't that look sharp,
come back in with -- that would have been really neat.
Zaremba: Walk back in, in a chorus line.
Siddoway: The second item is there was some discussion with staff -- we'd like to find
out if the Commission is interested in holding a half hour Pre-Commission Meeting at
6:30, much like Pre-Council. We actually think we might save time during these
hearings for you by doing that, if we have the opportunity to go over questions on staff
reports. If we receive new plans in the interim and we would like to go over those
before the hearing starts. If there are any items that staff knows that there are no
objections from the applicant and we may be able to start using a Consent Agenda for
items for which there is no opposition, those would be things that we could discuss in a
Pre-Council -- or a Pre-Commission Meeting. I don't know that you have to decide
tonight, but --
Centers: No, I would vote for it, if it's going to shorten the meetings. I think it would.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 101 of 106
Borup: And I like that, too. The only concern I have is if we start -- if we handle too
much stuff at that meeting and don't bring it out at the Public Hearing, if we are short-
changing the public by skipping over things that maybe should have been mentioned.
Siddoway: Well, I think you still -- you can still -- for Consent Agenda items you can still
ask if there is anyone to -- here to speak in opposition to those items and they won't go
on the consent agenda.
Borup: Right. No, I agree on the Consent Agenda. I think it's the other stuff you said
cover before -- that need to be brought out in the Public Hearing, but --
Zaremba: Probably the one thing I would go opposite on, if somebody has submitted
materials, whether it's an update or a correction or something, too late for the staff to
have assimilated it. Really, for me to have had it the day before on Wednesday, I would
just as soon automatically continue it. There needs to be a cutoff at some point to say -
-
Siddoway: I would, too.
Zaremba: -- you know, we ask for everything to be here 10 days before. If it's
something that's just a revision, I could see giving it a little bit of slack.
Borup: And that's what we have been seeing lately and when they are addressing staff
comments and that's going to be at the last minute. They are not going to have it.
Zaremba: Well, I'd even be in favor saying the cutoff is 14 days before and staff has to
have their comments two days before or we don't hear it.
Borup: How can they turn something in 14 days before if they just get it two days
before?
Zaremba: No I mean the --
Borup: The submittal? The stuff we saw tonight was submitted last December.
Zaremba: That's true. Well, yes, the original was, but three updates were submitted
within the last four or five days.
Siddoway: Right. I think the point is, like Watersong, the revised plat that I was going
through it just came in today. None of us had really spent any time --
Borup: That was a pretty minor change.
Siddoway: On that example --
Zaremba: But staff needs time to decide if it's a minor change.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 102 of 106
Siddoway: Yes. I think that we have to bear some of that responsibility, because we
didn't get the -- our goal is to get those staff reports out at least a week in advance and
it just didn't get sent out on Monday or Tuesday of this week. They literally had -- they
tried to turn one around in response to staff comments and if we could get our
comments out earlier it would help, but -- it would give them enough time to respond.
Zaremba: Well, I guess my point is there is a process. They -- the applicant provides
you with certain materials. You send that out to a lot of other departments for comment,
then, you have to wait for those comments to come back before you can even start on
making a report. Then, you study the comments, you study the --
Borup: I don't know if they need Nampa-Meridian's comments before they do their
report or the sanitary services.
Zaremba: Well, certainly we need Bruce's comments and we need the Fire
Department's comments and --
Borup: The Fire Department, depending on the project.
Zaremba: Sometimes ACHD's comments.
Borup: ACHD almost always --
Siddoway: I think it's a point well taken and there needs to be a --
Zaremba: You end up every time having one day to make the report, so if we made the
deadline 14 days ahead, instead of ten days ahead.
Siddoway: Yes do you wish to make a decision on the Pre-Commission Meeting tonight
or do you want to think about it for two weeks and decide at your next meeting or --
Rohm: I'm not opposed to coming in a half hour earlier.
Centers: I agree with Keith, discussing items, that maybe we should discuss with the
public could be a problem. I like -- if there is no objections on an application, that, you
know, could be on the consent --
Borup: Yes I'd like to see more items on the Consent Agenda.
Siddoway: And, to make a point, it will be a public meeting it will be noticed. It won't be
us sitting in a back room, it has to be done in the public forum, and it would be noticed
as a Pre-Commission Meeting available for the public to attend at 6:30. We'd have to
be very specific about when that would start and -- it would be a hearing right.
Borup: It's going to be similar to what City Council is already doing.
Siddoway: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 103 of 106
Borup: Is that what they do, they ask if there is anyone that's got anything to say on
any of those Consent Agenda items and, then, they pull it if there is or --
Siddoway: They haven't yet been doing Consent Agenda, have they?
Borup: Oh, yes.
Siddoway: I mean for the --
Borup: Well, not for the Public Hearings for their hearings.
Siddoway: That's what I mean.
Borup: The kind of stuff they have.
Siddoway: The findings and things.
Borup: Okay are we already meeting -- is it next week?
Siddoway: No it's in two weeks.
Borup: That's what I mean to say, your next meeting this month we are meeting early.
Centers: We are?
Siddoway: Yes.
Centers: Well, I knew we were going to do the North Meridian Plan, but were we
coming early?
Borup: 5:30.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: For a workshop.
Zaremba: I remember the subject, but I don't remember which meeting it was going to
be.
Borup: Well, that's why I wanted to clarify. That was the only thing I wanted to clarify
tonight is -- I think everyone here decided on that.
Zaremba: Yes, from when we heard it, which was two weeks ago, I think we put it off
one month.
Borup: Was it only two weeks or --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 104 of 106
Siddoway: That was my Item Number 3, with an additional point that as of today we
have a complete application now for that North Meridian Area Plan and we need to
schedule an actual hearing for it. It will probably need a hearing date of its own on a
Special Meeting and we were just going to throw out March 27th
as an idea and see if
that worked for you for the actual hearing. The workshop on it is still scheduled for two
weeks from today as a Pre-Commission Workshop, but we do need to set a Special
Meeting for the actual hearing.
Centers: Which would incorporate it into the Comp Plan?
Siddoway: Yes. It would be heard as a Comp Plan Amendment.
Centers: Right fine with me.
Borup: We don't have -- we don't have any five-week months -- or I mean -- yes, five-
week months for awhile, so -- we are going to have to -- I mean the only way to do a
Special Meeting is going to be three meetings in a row.
Centers: Make more money.
Borup: That's right.
Centers: Three meetings.
Borup: That's like time and a half. Tentatively schedule that for the 27th
-- or not
tentatively. Do it.
Centers: Keep reminding us.
Borup: Well, that was the other thing I was going to say, I think we would want -- we
could use a reminder call -- or a reminder next week. I have got it in my planner right
now, so I --
Zaremba: So our next meeting is early and we have added an extra meeting on the
27th
of March at a normal time.
Borup: Yes what time on that one?
Zaremba: How early do we have to start the meeting to be provided dinner?
Borup: Do we want to do an earlier one?
Centers: On the 27th
?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: It's not going to be long, is it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 105 of 106
Borup: It shouldn't. Last time we had no public, this time I would expect we may have
some stake holders at it, real estate, or realtors and BCA, maybe, or --
Zaremba: Well, I don't think they were expecting any discussion at that time they just
wanted to schedule it.
Borup: The 27th
there should be discussion.
Zaremba: Yes but you were saying nobody came, except for --
Borup: Oh.
Zaremba: -- Wardle.
Borup: But it was a public -- it was noticed, wasn't it the last one that Wardle did?
Siddoway: Oh, as a Pre-Council Meeting.
Borup: No. No. When he -- I'm sorry. I guess it wasn't.
Zaremba: It was just discussion.
Borup: Yes. Never mind.
Zaremba: Okay so what did we say on the --
Borup: 27th
we don't have a time.
Zaremba: On 20th
. February 20th
at 5:30?
Borup: Yes. That's already set at 5:30. The 27th
we don't have a time set. Do we have
a --
Siddoway: 7:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M.?
Borup: Well, I think the question is would the Commissioners like to go earlier or --
you're saying 7:00 and it's a short meeting anyway, it won't be that late. We should be
out by 9:00 either way.
Zaremba: All right so lets make that into a motion.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I move that on February 27th
-- or March 27th
-- I'm sorry. On March 27th
,
beginning at 7:00 P.M., we hold a Special Meeting to consider the North Meridian Area
Plan and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and no other items.
Centers: Well, it's a Public Hearing, too.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 6, 2003
Page 106 of 106
Borup: Right. But it would just be for that one. Okay. That's your motion?
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: We need one more motion.
Mathes: I make a motion to adjourn.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:42 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK