2003 06-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 19, 2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, June 19, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Leslie
Mathes, and Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nick Wollen, Sharon Smith, 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 regularly
scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for June 19th
and
start with Commissioners in attendance.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of April 29, 2003 City Council and Planning and
Zoning Joint Workshop:
B. Approve minutes of June 5, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 03-
012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 building lots and 8
other lots on 11.3 acres in proposed R-8 and R-15 zones for
proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by The
Cutting Edge, LC – 4379 North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: The first item is the Consent Agenda. Is there -- anyone have anything they'd
like to remove from the Consent Agenda?
Zaremba: I have a question on C. Perhaps it should be removed, so we can discuss it.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Should I make the discussion first and, then, we will decide if it's removed?
Borup: No. Let's go ahead and remove it and, then, we will go on and do that next.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 2 of 34
Zaremba: In that case, I move we approve the minutes of April 29, 2003, and the
minutes of June 5, 2003.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: In discussion with the Legal Counsel, Item C is on there and should be.
Borup: No, I'm not removing it from the total agenda, just for the Consent Agenda.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: That's -- so, then, it will just go to the regular agenda as a Regular Agenda item.
Sorry if I didn't explain that.
Centers: Was your motion to approve A and B?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: I would second that.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Then, let's -- yes. Items --
Zaremba: I don't know that it was necessary to go all through that, but --
Borup: Well, Item C would be PP 03-012, the Findings of Facts for Denial on Blooming
Meadows. Go ahead.
Zaremba: And my question of that is if we denied the annexation, then, we don't really
need to have an opinion on the Preliminary Plat, right? We have really -- we had no
issue on a piece of property that is in the county.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Siddoway can explain it all.
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: I'll let Nick take it.
Wollen: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, according to Meridian
City Code -- and what I'm referring to is Section 12-3-3 -- yes, that would be it. 12-3-3
talks about the Commission action on any either approval or denial of a Preliminary
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 3 of 34
Plat. Now, as we all know, these are brought up a lot with CUP applications, as well as
applications for annexation and zoning. The City Code does have a provision in it,
which was something that I personally was not aware of and I don't believe that
anybody was really aware of it until Anna Powell brought it up. It does mandate the
Council, if it's their desire to, to deny the Preliminary Plat, which I believe was the voting
decision of the Commission in the last meeting, to just deny it straight out, it does not go
to -- that it, itself, does not go on to City Council that way. I believe -- I was not here in
the last meeting, but I believe that the Commission voted to recommend denial on all
three and the way the procedure goes, according to the code, now, the application --
the application for annexation and zoning and the CUP go on for -- with the
recommendations to the City Council. The Preliminary Plat application is just denied by
the Council -- by the Commission itself. Now, at the same time, there is another
provision in -- it's 12-3-3 K, which allows the applicant to appeal such denial by the
Commission. It's a round about way to do it, but this is the way -- we are following the
code if we do it this way.
Centers: It ends up the same way.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: With a little additional cost to the applicant.
Zaremba: Wouldn't it be appropriate, though, to reference among the reasons for
denial --
Borup: They are in the Findings.
Zaremba: -- it's not annexed.
Wollen: Well, and -- I see what you're saying, Commissioner Zaremba. I think that it
would not be -- unless it was one of the reasons that were brought up by the maker of
the motion. That would not be a reason for the denial outright and -- well, I guess since
the -- there was recommended denial on the annexation -- and I'd have to go back to
the minutes of the last meeting, but that may have been one of the reasons. I'm not
certain about that. You bring up a good point. At the same time, the way that the code
reads, the annexation decision is still up in the air, so that's -- if anybody has further
questions, I -- I understand it's kind of a confusing area here.
Borup: Well, I think I -- I mean City Council could still annex it and, then, the only way
they could even look at the plat is with the applicant asking for a --
Wollen: And, basically, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it would be an
overturning of the Commission's decision if the Commission chooses to adopt the
findings and conclusions tonight. Also, with that, I must bring up that in my review of
this and the Conclusion of Law Number 1 mention is accidentally made of an Accessory
Use Permit, instead of a Preliminary Plat, and I apologize for that error.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 4 of 34
Borup: We need to make that correction in our motion, then.
Centers: Which number?
Wollen: It's Conclusion of Law Number 1.
Borup: On Page 3.
Wollen: Yes. Thank you.
Zaremba: And if we are going to make modifications to it, I would comment on -- on the
same page, Item 11 above that, applicant will need to get the owner's cooperation to
annex and it's not clear who is the owner. We are talking about the owner of the out
parcel.
Wollen: Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I would also just point out for the record that I have spoken
with the applicant. They are aware of the process as it is going through. It was
something new for us as staff that was discovered, so upon the discovery that the plat
denies here -- or the plat dies here when it's denied. We have spoken with the
applicant, they are aware of the findings for denial at the P&Z level, we have also
instructed them to -- the same code as was mentioned allows for an appeal, so they
need to file that appeal to have the plat considered by Council at the same time as the
annexation and the CUP. That same ordinance that talks about the appeal and the
appeals process in a separate section talks about the -- the appeal is not a hearing that
we need to consider the appeal. If they find new information or think that it needs to be
reconsidered, then, their process, rather than just overruling the Commission, is to
remand it back to the Commission. Also to let you know, the property owner of
Blooming Meadows and the property owner to the south, have had a meeting in our
office and they are now working together to try and resolve some of those issues raised
by the Commission and are working to do that. They may have -- well, I don't know
what will happen at the Council level, but it could be remanded back to this body from
them, if they feel that they are able to address the issues that were given as reasons for
denial.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's kind of the process that I personally was hoping would
happen, that this wasn't the end of it, that they would get together with this other
property owner and resolve the issues that we brought up. I guess this is the legal
process that we have to go through, but my intention wasn't to kill it, but the intention
was to get some things resolved, in which case the annexation and the CUP would also
be acceptable to me. But -- okay. The question is do we approve these with these
verbal changes or does -- does Nick need to take it back and bring back a clean copy?
Wollen: Well -- and, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that in this
case that the Commission could vote to accept the conclusions -- the Findings and
Conclusions based on the amendments that have been created tonight and, then, a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 5 of 34
signature copy would be presented at some future time. I don't believe that the
Commission would be forced to wait until the next hearing to accept the Findings and
Conclusions, if they choose to.
Borup: I think that's what we have done before back when we used to do Findings. If it
were a minor change, we would go ahead and just amend it. If it something -- a major
rewrite, which I can't -- I don't think that happened hardly ever.
Zaremba: I'm prepared to make such a motion.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law for Denial of PP 03-012, to include the following amendments. On
Page 3, Paragraph 11 should read. The applicant will need to get the owners of the out
parcel's cooperation to annex and will also submit proof that the lot split is legal. Same
page, Conclusions of Law Number 1, the end of the paragraph should read Preliminary
Plat, instead of Accessory Use Permit, and -- pause for a question. On Page 4, should
we add a Number 7 that says one of the reasons is that it's not annexed at this point?
Wollen: And my only question, Commissioner Zaremba, was if you recall if that was
one of the reasons that the maker of the motion had for denial of this Preliminary Plat.
Zaremba: Having read the minutes of that meeting today, it was not stated in that
manner. So, let's leave Number 7 off and conclude with Number 6. Is that what you're
saying?
Wollen: I believe that would be the best.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, I'm finished with the motion.
Borup: We have a motion.
Centers: Second.
Borup: And second. Roll call vote.
Roll call: Zaremba, aye; Mathes, aye; Centers, aye; Rohm, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2003: PP 03-007 Request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 7 other lots on 11.65
acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K.
Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West
Ustick Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 6 of 34
Borup: The next item is a Continued Public Hearing from June 5th
, PP 03-007, request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on 11.65 acres in
an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development. Like to open this
continued hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Clearbrook
Subdivision was on the last agenda, but was continued, so the applicant would have
time to respond to some of the concerns raised in the staff report. You should have
some revised plans that were submitted by the applicant since the last meeting. I have
a revised plat stamped June 12th
by the Clerk's Office and a revised Landscape Plan
stamped June 16th
. Actually, the applicant has brought with him tonight some newer
Landscape Plans that should have today's date on them as well. This project,
Clearbrook Subdivision, is located on Meridian Road between Ustick Road and Cherry
Lane on the west side. It is an already annexed piece, so we are only doing the
Preliminary Plat tonight. There is no accompanying annexation or rezone. It's already
zoned R-4 it's surrounded on the north by the existing Lansbury Lane Subdivision and
on the south by Waterbury Park Subdivision. The property behind it to the -- to the west
is currently in the county. There is, actually, a small sliver of land that is right on the
property's west boundary that is not part of the project and one of the modifications the
applicant made was to pull back the plat line to that edge. Here is an existing site
photo. You can see the subdivisions and the surrounding pasture land to the west.
This is a copy of the revised Preliminary Plat. Before I go through the staff report, let
me just see -- this is the revised Landscape Plan that was originally submitted. Tonight
you should have received this one, it should be stamped June 19th
, and, basically,
removes the street trees running east and west, because they were not required by the
ordinance. Okay. Okay, on the plat. You should have a staff report that was a
transmittal date of June 2nd
and today's hearing date -- or the June 5th
hearing date. I'm
sorry. The main things I want to go with are in these special considerations on page
three. The one on block length is just for the Commission's information. The block
length is over 1,000 feet. They are required to submit a variance, they have already
done so, and this will go onto City Council with the accompanying variance, which does
have staff support. Number 2, the entrance, we have recommended that the entrance
to the subdivision include an island. In the revised plat that the applicant submitted they
have accommodated that island. They show the island in the right of way. The curb
line was not modified to match that and is a modification to the Preliminary Plat that
would still -- should be shown. However, they are fully intending to comply with that
request. Number 3, the pathway, there is a pathway along the south side of the
property that's required by the Comprehensive Plan along the South Slough. The
applicant is in favor of accommodating that requirement and they do show on their
plans a 10-foot wide asphalt pathway. Item Number 4 is the Irrigation District
easement, which is not shown on the plat. We would like to have it called out. Between
the original plat and this one, the lots along the south side have shrunk by a few feet,
because it was discovered that the -- those lots did encroach in the original submittal
into that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easement for the South Slough. That has,
apparently, been corrected, but the easement itself is still not noted and we would like to
have the easement line noted on the plat. Okay. Number 5 is the micropaths. The
applicant does show -- probably you can see on the Landscape Plan -- in their open
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 7 of 34
space drainage lots, they do have micropaths that connect through from the sidewalk in
the subdivision to the pathway at the rear. We are simply asking that those micropaths
shift five feet away from the side property line, so they are not butted right up against
the fence, but have at least five feet of landscaping between the path and the fence.
That modification still needs to be made. Number 6 is the open space and drainage
pond issue. Due to requirements from the Department of Environmental Quality, they --
they have high groundwater out here and the DEQ is requiring a certain separation
between the groundwater and the bottom of their storm water swales. Because they
cannot meet the required separation distance, they are being required by DEQ to line
that swale to become what we call a wet pond. It's going to be surfaced so that the
water is not allowed to percolate down through the soil and has to -- it just remains on
the surface and evaporates over time. We don't like that solution and it's been -- we
have several examples in the city that have been a nuisance. Our ordinance related to
open space prohibits such open water areas from being included in the required open
space areas. I have asked the applicant to show that they have sufficient open space
to meet the five percent requirement without counting those wet pond areas. Number 7
is the sidewalks, while, not depicted on the original plan, they have been shown on the
new Preliminary Plat and we were just noting that sidewalks are required. As a final
issue, there is a separate memo that requested the tabling of -- from Bruce and myself.
We had discovered after this was written one additional issue, which was, as I
mentioned a minute ago, the inclusion of the sliver of property along their west
boundary into the plat. We received a phone call from the owner of that property and
they asked to make sure it was removed. The revised plat as submitted by the
applicant does remove that area from their plat and they are in the process of revising
their legal descriptions and things accordingly to depict that. With that, I will stand for
any questions. I don't know if you have anything right now, Bruce. Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. Mr. Siddoway, you also wanted to include Item 2 on
Page 3 regarding the entrance in any -- the split entry.
Siddoway: Yes. They are showing that they will accommodate the split entry. They
have -- it's difficult to see on this scale. Let me see the Landscape Plan. You can see
on the Landscape Plan that they -- well, actually, it's on the one they submitted tonight,
actually. Okay. Here is the new one from tonight that you can see that there is an
island, that there is an area where the right of way bumps out. They simply need to
modify their road alignment and curb to be in conformance with ACHD requirements for
split entries, but they are -- they are showing the right of way to do that, they just need
to tweak their curbs a little bit.
Zaremba: Would you index through all of the pictures that you have of this property?
There was one of them that I saw that I thought looked different than the others that I
want to ask about. No. No. No. Yes.
Siddoway: Okay.
Zaremba: Okay. I was looking at the wrong subdivision. I was looking at Lansbury.
Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 8 of 34
Siddoway: Yes. It's the blank one.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, that brings up my -- the rest of my questions. In ACHD's
report, on Page 5 of that, under see special notification to the applicant and the City of
Meridian, Item 2, they are suggesting that this -- the streets that's -- and, let's see, you
can go forward to one of the Landscape Plans or something, so it does show this
subdivision. That street is such a long reasonably straightaway, that the traffic from this
subdivision and probably the traffic from the landlocked subdivision behind it that will
have to use this street to get up some speed, they were asking for chokers, bulb outs,
or islands within the right of way, in addition to the one that you asked at the entrance.
The subdivision right above it has a second island farther back and my -- that is an
absolutely straight road. This one has a little bit of meander. Are we satisfying traffic
calming by having the meander or should we have another island as the other
subdivision does?
Siddoway: Certainly another island provides additional traffic calming. I don't know that
the meander itself is enough. It will create some visual interest, but probably not a
traffic calming affect. I'd let the applicant address that.
Borup: Is anyone aware of any speeding problems on -- in Lansbury?
Siddoway: I'm not.
Zaremba: I'm not personally. I can see ACHD's logic, particularly when there is another
subdivision farther away using the street. Pass-through traffic is --
Siddoway: The meander was shown on the original plat that ACHD was considering
when they wrote that, too.
Zaremba: So, they did see the meander and they still asked to have something in the
way of chokers, bulb outs, or islands?
Siddoway: That's correct.
Zaremba: Let's see. Then, I guess my other questions were kind of bookkeeping
things. On your remarks, Page 4, conditions of approval Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 2,
it appears to be that they have now made that lot part of what was Lot 1.
Siddoway: Yes. They made that area part of Lot 1, but the plat note itself is still
missing, so they have not added the note. I have talked to the applicant, they are in
agreement to add it, but it has not been added yet.
Zaremba: It needs a note, but the note is for Lot 1 in Block 1, I believe.
Siddoway: Yes. Block 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 9 of 34
Zaremba: Am I correct that Lot 1 is now a long L shaped lot?
Siddoway: That is how I show it, yes.
Zaremba: Okay. Then, that also would make a change to Paragraph 9 on Page 5 to
name all common lots in the subdivision to be owned and maintained by the
homeowners association, including Lots 1, 6, 13 and 21 -- no. Cross out and 22 in
Block 1.
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: And I would also cross out Lot 9, Block 2, because that appears to have
disappeared.
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: And Lot 1, Block 3 should remain. Then, it appears on the new plat that
Paragraph 10 has been satisfied.
Siddoway: You will need to add Lot 1, Block 4, which is the island in the middle of the
road now.
Zaremba: Okay. In case any other island gets added, we'd need to add that, too, but --
Okay. They did change -- on Item 10, they did change the square footage from 12 to
14, and it looked like to me on that one. Those are my only staff questions. Just
making sure I was correct on those observations. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Would the applicant like to
make a presentation?
Cook: My name is Richard Cook -- once again, my name is Rich Cook. I'm with Briggs
Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. Most of you I am not familiar with.
Borup: You need to come see us more often.
Cook: Yes. Due to some changes in our staff, I have been thrown into the fray for
handling applications over here in Meridian, as well as other areas of the county that we
work in. I'm sure you're used to seeing Steve Arnold come before you with many
different plats, what have you. I do the same thing, just less of it. We have conferred
with staff and gone over their comments and what have you and we don't have any
problems whatsoever with complying with the conditions that they have set forth. The
little glitch with the entranceway and the sidewalks, that was a technical snafu, so we
will be sure that we wrap the sidewalks around and follow the right of way to give the
entrance the wider -- wider area that we require. On our open space, we have,
counting our greenbelt, which will be landscaped, and our micropaths along the
drainage ponds we have 1.15 acres of open space, which exceeds nearly double the
required amount of five percent. We feel that the subdivision itself is very compatible
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 10 of 34
with existing developments to the north and south of us and the issue on the Ada
County Highway District islands that they would like to see or another island in that
street. My experience has been that those kinds of islands in mid block like you see in
Lansbury Lane there become more of a traffic hazard than a safety valve, so to speak,
with people trying to get around the island and other people trying to back out of their
driveways. It really does create some problems and also people end up backing into
the curbs and whatnot of the island itself. It really gets to be a real big pain in the neck.
Centers: Going the wrong way on it?
Cook: Or going the wrong way on it. That happens frequently. We really are at odds, I
guess, with ACHD. They didn't -- they didn't nail us down and make us do it, they are
just recommending it, and we are opposed to it. We feel that the meander of the street
in the mid block -- well, not quite mid block, but intersection of -- what street is that?
Siddoway: 3rd
Street.
Zaremba: I think it's 3rd
.
Cook: Is that Northwest 3rd
?
Siddoway: 3rd
.
Cook: Okay. The intersection down there with Northwest 3rd
I think will really serve us
well and it will help control our traffic and the speed on that street. Like with any
subdivision, the speeds on your streets, who drives the streets? The people who live
there. Okay? I know when I -- you know, in my neighborhood more than once I have
gone out and flagged somebody down and had a few words with them, you know, this is
a residential street, we have got kids out there, slow it down. You know, I mean it
becomes a self-regulating thing and if it gets to be a real big issue, then, you can
always rely on the Police Department to give you some assistance in that area. I think
that about wraps it up. The Variance, I think, is, again, pretty self-explanatory. We have
the support of staff on that and that came about on the south side of the street, because
the Waterbury Subdivision was not required to stub to the north. With that, I'll stand for
any questions you may have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I think that covers most of my -- I guess my only concern -- I tend to agree
that the meander is going to help, and with the island at the entrance I think that helps.
My only concern on the speed of the traffic isn't necessarily the people that live in this
subdivision, but what's going to happen -- your pass-through traffic are the ones that
are likely to get up to some kind of speed and I wonder -- I know it couldn't be done
now, where you have the turn arounds, it needs to remain a turn around, but at the time
where that stub -- stub end of that turn around actually goes someplace, could there be
an island put in the turn around?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 11 of 34
Cook: I think that is a very feasible solution in the future when it is extended, because
we have already -- already have allowed for a turn around and we have the room there
to go ahead and put some kind of an island, whether it be round or oblong or whatever,
down in that turn around area. I think that's something that can be done when the road
is extended.
Zaremba: Yes. I'm not sure I would do it while it's still being used as a turn around,
because that kind of defeats the purpose.
Cook: Right. The Fire Department wouldn't like that.
Zaremba: Yes. Once it's a pass through, probably on the end of your development
when you're almost done with it, then, you'd have to come back in and do that little
island.
Borup: Would you look at – here? In redesigning that, would you be looking at moving
it to the north a little bit, if you were planning for the future on that? I like Commissioner
Zaremba's idea. I agree, I think just the subdivision alone, the traffic is probably not
going to be a problem, but -- because I don't believe it is in Lansbury, but Lansbury
doesn't have any drive-thru traffic like this one will have, potentially.
Cook: That's correct. I think to make that happen at this point or to insure that it will
happen in the future, we would have to modify the front lot line of those two end lots on
the north there.
Borup: I am assuming you have got to incorporate -- when the turn around goes away
that that lot will be reconfigured as a building lot, the one to the south. Oh, I'm sorry.
That's a pond anyway.
Cook: Right. Right. That lot will never become a building lot.
Borup: But, then, you're not going to be needing that turn around anymore.
Cook: Right. The turn around -- the need for it will, obviously, go away. That particular
area, I guess, could be at that time reclaimed and become part of a landscaped area.
Zaremba: More open space.
Cook: More open space. Correct. Like I say, the two lots to the north across from the
turn around, we can make allowance on the plat to provide for a future island in that
street.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 12 of 34
Centers: I noted on the plat this shows a drain pond here. Is this a development in the
county?
Cook: That particular area is still vacant. It's not developed. I don't know what the
purpose of that drain pond is, but it's not part of our development.
Centers: Your open space comment, was that exclusive of the drain ponds or
inclusive?
Cook: That is exclusive of the drain ponds. We have the 15-foot wide pathways, the
micropaths that go along the side of the drainage areas, are 15 feet wide by
approximately 101 long and those are landscaped.
Centers: So, you have ten percent open space exclusive of?
Cook: The drainage ponds, yes.
Centers: And the staff would agree with that?
Siddoway: Yes. The reason -- where it all comes from is they have the long linear strip
along the south side. By landscaping that, we would let them count it. If they were just
leaving it unimproved, we wouldn't want it counted, but if the applicant is willing to
landscape it and have the homeowners association maintain it, we will let it be counted
toward their open space and that piece along is almost an acre.
Centers: Good. Do we have that in our site-specific comments from you or should it be
added, Steve?
Siddoway: I believe it's in there. It's Item Number 7 on Page 5. It says all areas being
counted towards the five percent open space requirement shall be free of wet ponds,
etc. Is that what you're asking?
Centers: Yes. We are covered. Okay. Good. That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you.
Borup: Okay. Those are the two things I had, too, that both of you brought up. Other
than I'm -- and this is probably something for the engineers to work out on the design. I
could maybe envision a circle island down there, incorporate the present turn around,
and not have to do any redesigning when the street goes through, not have any
expense in the future. Still keep your 50-foot radius -- or is that -- does the radius need
to increase when you put an island in, then? Do you know?
Cook: Commissioner Borup, no. Once the need for the turn around goes away, the
need for the radius also disappears and if you're talking like putting a circular island in
there, similar to what you'd find on the traffic circle, that's something that is doable.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 13 of 34
Borup: I mean could that be done right now and, then, you wouldn't even have to do
any redesigning later?
Cook: Oh, no. No, it cannot, because the Fire Department would -- would really frown
on that. We could not meet the radius -- turning radius requirements and street width
that would be needed by the Fire Department to put that in there now.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: For now they would want a clear space in that turn around.
Cook: Correct.
Zaremba: There couldn't be an island right now.
Cook: No.
Zaremba: Is that what you're saying?
Cook: Correct.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, the way I feel about it -- and that's the reason I asked about the
adjoining land, I can't see the point in requiring anything on this plat for this developer,
but I think we need to require it of who develops this.
Borup: Because they are the ones that are going to be causing the problem.
Centers: Right. I can't see putting that on the back of this applicant, but if we all are
here when this guy comes, then, that would be a different story. That's my feeling on it.
Zaremba: I can agree with that logic. I'm not sure I would remember it when it comes
up.
Borup: You will remember it.
Zaremba: I'll remember it.
Cook: No. If it's -- you know, if it's an issue today, it will certainly be an issue whenever
this --
Borup: And ACHD would hopefully still have the same comment.
Cook: Right.
Centers: They are good.
Cook: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 14 of 34
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Any other Commissioners have --
Zaremba: I have no more.
Borup: Okay, anyone else to testify on this application?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, the only comment, then, that we have probably all received a
letter from a Mr. Christopher B. -- probably Broer -- I'm not sure. It's Broer or something
like -- who doesn't give any address, so we don't know how near he lives to this
proposed subdivision, but he expresses his displeasure, essentially, with all the growth
that's going on.
Centers: I read it.
Borup: I thought he was also quite disgusted with this prime farm ground being gobbled
up. I wonder if he's looked at that private farm ground.
Zaremba: Just thought that should be noted.
Borup: Okay, any final comments from staff? I assume we are okay on sewer?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have got a few things. The
discussion of the turn around on the end, I just wanted to -- there was some discussion
here tonight that you might want them to come back in and build that afterwards.
Borup: I think we have re-thought that.
Freckleton: Okay. It might be 10 years before that property out to the west develops
and this developer could be in Tahiti, so -- the only other thing that comes to mind is,
you know, if you did want to have a requirement on this development for some sort of
traffic calming for the future, there might be an avenue of doing a road trust with ACHD,
having this developer put up money for the road trust for that improvement in the future.
I think the drawback to that is -- I think ACHD can only hold funds for so long and if they
are not spent they have to return them, so I think that's -- that's an issue there. The
only other item I wanted to point out -- and this is really the only big item that I have a
problem with is with this development and that is the design of these wet ponds and I
just wanted you to be aware of what these are and what they look like, and the kind of
problems that we have had. I'd like to show you some photos of some of them that we
have taken throughout the city that we've had problems with lately and -- this one here
is in Devlin Place Subdivision. You can see the bottom, the standing water. This,
actually, looks really good in this picture, compared to what it looks like today. I wish I
would have gotten a current picture.
Borup: Now, is that weeds or was that planted to --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 15 of 34
Freckleton: It was hydro seeded. Well, the hydro seed doesn't grow, because it's under
water, so now we have cattails and all kinds of nasties growing in there. The developer
on this one is currently working with ACHD to come up with a remedy to the situation.
They still haven't landed on one yet. This particular pond is lined and the bottom of it is
lined with the Bentonite seal. They come in and they spread the material on the ground
and they till it with a tiller and rake it out and it puts the clay into the soil and Bentonite is
a material that when it gets wet that's when it expands and it seals. Let's look at the
next picture. This picture is in the same subdivision. This particular pond is not lined
and the bottom of it is not lined. They were able to meet the three-foot separation. You
can see how nice these things can look.
Centers: So, excuse me, Bruce, what are you saying? Maybe they are better not lined.
The lining them tells me that, you know, you're creating a swimming pool.
Freckleton: The lining is what causes the standing water problem. That causes the
weed growth and the mosquitoes and the algae and everything else. That's -- no
question about that.
Centers: So, who is requiring the lining?
Freckleton: The lining is being required by ACHD, because of rules with the Division of
Environmental Quality.
Zaremba: And that has to do with where the water table is --
Freckleton: Correct.
Zaremba: -- is that correct? If it is within three feet of the surface, then, they have --
Freckleton: That's correct.
Zaremba: -- so it doesn't contaminate the water table.
Freckleton: That's correct. Now, part of the problem the design community has right
now is you got two state agencies that are on the same track headed towards each
other. You have Central District Health Department that's fighting the mosquito
problems and West Nile virus and everything else and, then, you have DEQ requiring
the creation of these, so --
Zaremba: What regulations are there on changing the grade of this area? What --
using -- well, even this picture as an example. If they went around the perimeter of this
holding pond and bermed the perimeter of it two feet higher, then, they would be
allowed to have the base of it two feet higher and maybe be out of the lining, so --
Borup: But the water has got to gravity drain.
Freckleton: Yes. The problem is the --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 16 of 34
Zaremba: Apparently, it's okay if it filters through three feet of dirt, it's okay to get into
the --
Freckleton: It is. The water that gets into these ponds comes off the streets and gravity
flows into the catch basins and goes into a sand and grease and has to flow through
those and, then, back out again, so it's coming out at an elevation that's lower than
streets. That elevation --
Zaremba: Okay so, just raising the pond doesn't solve the --
Freckleton: No. No, because that elevation is pretty much fixed by the location -- or the
elevation of the street grade. The engineers really have a lot -- a tough one here. I
don't know -- I wish I had a good solution. I would be very rich.
Zaremba: Okay.
Freckleton: This is that same pond in Blackstone, Coral Creek Subdivision. This pond
was not constructed properly. The way this one works is the water flows in, there is a
couple of pipes on this end of the pond, the water flows into the pond, is supposed to
travel through the grass and, then, is supposed to go out through a pipe here that goes
over into Ten Mile Creek. The problem is that during construction this pond was not
built properly, the bottom of the pond was too low, it does not slop to the drain and this
is the result. They have gone in and rehabbed this pond, re-graded the bottom of it,
and we are still kind of -- the jury is still out on that one. This is in that same
subdivision. You can see how the bottom of it is standing water here. I don't know if you
can tell, but right here is the outlet, well above this water elevation here, of where that
water is suppose to get out of this pond, so --
Centers: But, Bruce, to the best of anyone's knowledge, other than maybe mosquitoes
and that type of thing, it's not a major health hazard. My concern is that -- or I would
like to see the buyers aware of this beforehand, if we approved it, with a note on the
plat that the drainage ponds have been developed to comply with certain standards,
meaning the lining, et cetera, and spell it out on the plat, and that said lining could
cause standing water. Thank you. Buyer beware.
Freckleton: I think it's an excellent idea to make the buying public knowledgeable of
these things. I don't think that the final plat is the proper document to do that.
Centers: Where do you do it?
Freckleton: The CC&R's would be a good place. Putting a note in the Codes,
Covenants, and Restrictions --
Centers: Well, you could do both, then.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 17 of 34
Freckleton: Every buyer -- a Final Plat is a document that is -- it's a survey document,
it's not really a document that's supposed convey that kind of information.
Centers: Well -- and, you're right, the buyers usually don't see that until they sign at
closing and, then, it's a small -- small item that they can barely read.
Freckleton: Right. Right.
Centers: Right.
Freckleton: I wish I had a good solution to these --
Borup: That's what I was just going to ask. You have brought up some good points.
Are there any recommendations to solving it, other than getting rid of DEQ?
Freckleton: I wish had a good recommendation. You know, there was some discussion
-- I had a pre-construction meeting on a subdivision a couple weeks ago and they had a
situation similar to this that they were talking about in a subdivision in Boise. They
made some modifications to the sand and grease trap, which, basically, the outfall from
the sand and grease trap was at a higher elevation than they normally are. By
discharging into the pond at a high elevation, they were able to raise the bottom of the
pond to a higher elevation and, you know, maybe with some modifications to, you know,
some of the tools we have available to us, like these sand and grease traps, maybe the
separation could be attained. I don't know. I think it merits, you know, looking into to
try and avoid these situations.
Borup: I think it makes sense for the developer, if there is another alternative it's
certainly going to increase the value of the property, too.
Freckleton: Right. Right. You know -- and when you shallow up the bottom of the
pond, it's going to chew up more real estate, because you have to change the geometry
to -- to contain the same volume of storm water. You're going to have to spread them
out if you're going to make them shallower, so it eats up more real estate. Getting back
to -- just to what Jerry said, you know, about the health hazard, beyond the mosquitoes,
you know, the only other thing is we have had some where we have had, you know, the
green algae growth and you get a lot of stagnant water smell off of them and you could
have children playing in that and --
Mathes: How come you can't make them ponds and put circulating pumps in them?
Borup: There is not a consistent supply of water, is there? Unless you had a consistent
supply of water. Is there anything being done with the drainage -- or the drainage pits
anymore? Is that --
Freckleton: Oh, yes. Yes. We will see them go in -- you will -- the only areas that they
work, though, is when you have, you know, ground water at 12-foot of depth to where
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 18 of 34
you can get the three foot of separation and have a seepage pit that's five or six feet
tall, so --
Borup: I was wondering if anyone's looked into if you can combine the drainage with
the pond and being able to raise -- still have the Bentonite in there, have the large drain
rock, and, then, cover that with top soil to have the green space.
Freckleton: No. It would create a gallery for the water to go to, but it's just higher. A
drain field.
Borup: And it would be under the grass.
Freckleton: There was a -- there was a drainage bed -- or drainage pond that Ada
County Highway District constructed right there, just north of the Waterbury Park
Subdivision. That pond -- well, there is a story to that one. That pond -- there was a lot
of complaints flying in, because it had water in it and it was nasty and so ACHD came in
and their solution was they dumped in several truck loads of large river cobble. I mean
it made it look a little bit better, but that water is still going to be there. Then, that one
also is enclosed in the chain link, a six-foot high chain link fence to try and keep kids
out, and garbage.
Borup: Okay. I don't know what that accomplished, but it was interesting.
Freckleton: Well, I don't know either. My main purpose in that dissertation was just to
try and show you what the potential is for these ponds.
Borup: Mr. Cook, do you know whether you have looked into any of the alternatives on
trying to --
Cook: Commissioner Borup, like Mr. Freckleton pointed out, if we had a solution, he
and I would be very rich. The suggestion of putting in large boulders and what have
you and, then, covering that with soil or sod or whatever, again, as Bruce pointed out,
the water still goes in there and the problem that that would create is you would have
the water going in and absolutely or virtually no evaporation whatsoever, so you'd really
end up with a major stagnant water situation between your surface and the bottom of
your pond. I'm --
Borup: Are these ponds draining, then, into the ditch?
Cook: No, they are not.
Borup: So, they are not designed like some of the other examples he showed?
Cook: No. No. We have -- we have nowhere to --
Borup: They wouldn't allow that to go into the --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 19 of 34
Cook: South Slough?
Borup: Yes.
Cook: No, they won't. The only --
Borup: Why is that, when they have allowed it in other areas?
Cook: Irrigation. Irrigation water.
Borup: The South Slough is strictly irrigation?
Freckleton: It's drainage.
Cook: It's all drainage they don't use of it for irrigation?
Borup: That's what I thought. I thought it was drainage. That's why I asked.
Cook: Well, let me make a note to myself and I will look into that a little bit.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, that is one question I did have that I failed to ask.
Throughout the documentation that has been provided they have been referred to as
retention ponds. By definition, a retention pond is a temporary holding facility until it
can discharge to a surface ditch. I wanted clarification on that, too, it doesn't call them
detention ponds, and it calls them retention ponds.
Centers: Mr. Cook, couldn't you have a -- you know, at the low point of that retention
pond have a collecting area and have a pump and pump it into the outlet area when it
became severe, as it is -- as it is in that one picture at Devlin Place? Couldn't you do
that?
Cook: Commissioner Centers, yes, if we have a place that we can pump into.
Centers: Yes. Well, you have to have an outlet for that pond. You don't? See page.
Cook: At this point we don't, it's not -- it's not even seepage, it’s evaporation.
Centers: Evaporation.
Cook: Evaporation pond. The only thing I can say that's really majorly different from --
between our ponds and the ones that Bruce was showing, is that ours are nicely
landscaped. We do have the wetland grasses for the bottom of the pond and, then, we
have trees and shrubs that will be around the ponds themselves, so they won't be quite
as ugly, but that still doesn't solve the water -- the standing water problem. I'll certainly
look into the possibility of us being able to discharge into the South Slough and what
the feasibility would be of --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 20 of 34
Centers: Right behind you?
Cook: -- some kind of a pump. Correct.
Borup: Well, would you even need a pump? I mean the others are designed to gravity
flow into the other, as long as you get the grade right.
Cook: Exactly. That's something that we will have to look into to see if the grade would
allow a natural draining and I'm not, you know, at all certain if you can entirely eliminate
all of your standing water all the time. You're going to have some standing water there
occasionally.
Centers: Well, I think it would just help your marketing effort.
Borup: But you're also saying you're doing some wetland grasses.
Cook: Correct.
Borup: And they will grow, rather than --
Cook: Rather than die out and become an ugly mess.
Borup: Not sure why some of the others haven't tried that.
Cook: I don't know. We have adopted -- in fact, the City of Meridian has adopted the
ordinance from Boise for landscaping and for -- what is it, Steve, wetlands or --
Siddoway: Our list of approved plant material? Is that what you're referring to?
Cook: You made a reference to it.
Siddoway: The landscape ordinance itself prohibits the --
Cook: Correct.
Siddoway: -- the wet ponds from being included in required open space.
Cook: Correct. Correct. I'm referring to the types of vegetation and what have you.
Siddoway: Yes. We have an improved tree list that comes from the City of Boise that
we have adopted as our own. That regulates the trees that are allowed. It does not get
as specific as the grasses and things, but, you know, certainly the addition of true
wetland grasses, which they are designing in, is much preferred over what others have
tried to do, which is just put hydro seed, blue grass there, and it doesn't work.
Zaremba: I'm not sure if Mr. Cook meant his question to be this way, but it occurs to me
what if we planted water soaking trees in there? If you put in -- I don't know if orange
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 21 of 34
trees grow here or not, but -- well, cottonwoods and poplar kind of trees soak up a lot of
water and would evaporate them into the air. I mean there are other ways to move
water out of a -- I mean when you want poplars, you got to put a lot of water on them,
so maybe we could use them in reverse.
Siddoway: That would work if the water was able to get to the roots, but if it's
Bentonited, it will never get to them and -- to be evapotransporated.
Zaremba: Good point.
Siddoway: Yes.
Cook: I'd like to import some Cypress trees or something from Florida that would work
great.
Borup: Well, it sounds like you're going to look into trying to -- discharging into the
South Slough, which will solve a lot of problems that --
Cook: Yes. Yes. That's one area that -- where I -- you know, I was under the
impression that the South Slough was for irrigation, rather than drainage, but I'll look
into that for certain.
Centers: Would you object to -- are you going to allow children to play there if they
want?
Cook: There is going to be a micropath adjacent to that. Anyplace that is not protected
by a ten-foot fence with barbed wire and guards is susceptible to kids.
Centers: So, would you object to a sign at that location: Storm drain pond. Play at
your own risk?
Cook. Not at all.
Centers: Okay. That's the way I would like to address it, because I have the same
situation in my subdivision and -- standing water and they tried to remedy it with a
volleyball court and hauled in a lot of sand and we haven't had a problem lately, but I'd
like to see the buyers, before you sell any lots, know that it's a storm drain pond, play at
your own risk, and, then, I don't have a problem. Buyer beware, if you can't read the
sign, then -- what do you think, Chairman?
Borup: Well, if it's going to be a true detention pond, then, yes.
Centers: Well, that's the way it reads on the map, too.
Borup: Well, they are talking retention.
Centers: Storm drain pond.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 22 of 34
Borup: Yes. The difference between detention and retention is --
Centers: Well, we have -- yes. We have to require that lining, so it's going to be
retention.
Borup: Not if they can drain it into the South Slough.
Centers: Okay. I guess if he can't satisfy us than he can drain it into the South Slough
prior to the City Council Meeting --
Borup: Then that would --
Centers: Right. Either/or. Either/or.
Borup: Most of subdivisions have the retention pond and they are nice -- can be nice
play areas if -- if they drain.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: But I don't know -- are any of the Bentonite ones draining properly? Maybe?
Not that you can think of?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, they are evaporating nicely.
Borup: But do any of the Bentonite ones have a drain connected to them? Well, the
one did, they just -- it was higher than what the pond was, so it didn't work.
Freckleton: They've all had issues that I'm -- as far as I know. They have gone in, like I
said, and rehabbed the one there at Coral Creek and Blackstone, so I need to go out
and take some pictures of that and see. I think the -- I think the key secret is to make
sure that your grading is done properly at the bottom of those and, you know, it's
probably going to have to be done by hand and checked with a level and made sure.
One of the other sticking points there is that in some of these designs they actually are
designed -- even the ones that do have an outfall to a ditch, they are designed so that
the outfall orifice sits higher than the bottom of the pond.
Centers: Right.
Freckleton: They are designed to --
Borup: To have a little bit of water, then.
Freckleton: -- hold backwater. Yes. That's like the difference between the hundred-
year storm and the 25-year event, it's --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 23 of 34
Borup: Well, that's what I was just thinking of. I think your sign is going to be a good
idea, especially if -- when you have a major storm there is going to be water in there
and, then, that would apply at those times, too. A couple times a year, however many
times we have it.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cook.
Centers: Yes. I think it's a good -- basically, an in-fill project, sandwiched in there. I
think if done properly it needs to be -- it's nice that it can be developed.
Borup: That site could use some cleaning up.
Centers: Yes. I'm not familiar -- it sounds like you are.
Borup: I drive by it every day.
Centers: I'm in favor of the project. I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of Item 4 on our agenda, PP 03-007, request for Preliminary Plat approval of
36 building lots and seven other lots -- I'm sorry. Are those numbers still correct,
according to the new plat?
Siddoway: I believe it has changed.
Borup: The building lots stay the same, haven't they?
Zaremba: I think the other lots may --
Cook: The building lots should stay the same.
Siddoway: Still 36 building lots.
Borup: So, it would be eight other lots, then?
Zaremba: Well, you added an island and you took out one behind -- Lot 9 in Block 2
disappeared.
Siddoway: I count six.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 24 of 34
Zaremba: So, does the count stay the same?
Cook: Six common lots and the green belt.
Zaremba: Okay. Let's continue as if I had not stopped, then. Request for Preliminary
Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for
Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC. West of North Meridian
Road and south of West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their letter for
hearing date of January 5th
, received by the City Clerk June 2, 2003, with the following
changes. On Page 4, under conditions of approval Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 2, the
first sentence remains. The second sentence is -- this applies to Lot 1, Block 1. On
Page 5, Paragraph 9, beginning after the comma it reads includes Lots 1, 6, 13, and 21.
Delete the following word and the Number 22, comma, Block 1. Then, delete Block 9 --
I'm sorry. Delete Block -- Lot 9, Block 2. Leave in Lot 1, Block 3, and add Lot 1, Block
4. Paragraph 10 on Page 5 can be deleted as having been satisfied. On Page 6,
Paragraph 21, is renumbered to Paragraph 22, and we add a new Paragraph 21 that
says retention ponds shall either drain to the South Slough or have signage stating:
Danger, no play area, or words to that effect.
Centers: Well, we didn't want to say no play area.
Zaremba: Play at your own risk?
Centers: Right. Right. Drainage pond. Play at your own risk.
Zaremba: Stating danger. Play at your own risk, or words to that effect. End of motion.
Centers: Well, you have this Paragraph Number 22 there. Right here.
Zaremba: I never saw that.
Centers: It's -- it was a separate street.
Borup: That was that second --
Centers: And this was eliminated. Then, you add the entrance from page --
Zaremba: All right. There is an issue of numbering. We are on Page 6. Paragraph 20
stays as it is. The new Paragraph 21 is about the retention pond signage or drainage.
We now have a new Paragraph 22 from -- let me just read it. This development shall be
subject to sanitary sewer latecomer fees to reimburse those responsible for bringing
sanitary sewer service to this area. Latecomer fees shall be due and payable prior to
City of Meridian endorsement on the Final Plat map. The current fee is $283.15 per
dwelling unit. This fee is adjusted annually on October 1st at the rate of 4.0 percent per
annum. Then, that means that the final paragraph becomes Number 23. Applicant
shall submit ten copies. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 25 of 34
Centers: Did we want to add reference to the entrance, Mr. Siddoway, to meet ACHD
requirements in the curvatures, et cetera?
Siddoway: They'll have to do it anyway, but I think it would be fine to mention.
Centers: All right.
Zaremba: So included.
Centers: There we go.
Siddoway: On the lot numbering -- and I hope this doesn't screw things up -- if the
pathway lot says as part of Lot 1, then, there are only six open space lots, but in talking
to the applicant, it seems to make sense to him to split it off from the street buffer as a
separate common lot and give it a number. It currently has no separate number on the
plat.
Zaremba: It would become 22, then.
Siddoway: It would likely become Number 22.
Zaremba: Instead of 1-A and 1-B. I'd just incorporate the change without re-reading
everything that I already changed.
Siddoway: Yes. I think we can handle it.
Zaremba: Okay. I would incorporate the -- the count on the lots actually remains seven
by splitting Lot 1, Block 1, into the front piece that will remain Lot 1, and a wide south
piece that will become Lot 22, Block 1. Whatever resulting changes that makes in the
other notes. Now, I think that's the end of the motion.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 03-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
approval for dance studio use in an I-L zone at 269 East 5th
Avenue for
Sandy’s Dancework’s by Sandy’s Dancework’s, LLC – 269 East 5th
Avenue:
Borup: Our next item, Public Hearing CUP 03-027, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for approval for a dance studio in an I-L zone at 269 East 5th Avenue for
Sandy's Dancework’s by Sandy's Dancework’s, LLC. Excuse me. We will continue on.
I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 26 of 34
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have
received a staff report on this, received June 12th
by the Clerk's Office, written by Sonya
and Brad Hawkins-Clark. The applicant wishes to do a dance studio in the Meridian
Business Park on East 5th
. Just to orient you a little bit, Franklin Road runs down to the
south. The blue color here is the Meridian Fire Station. 5th
Street comes in. The
subject property is outlined in black and is in an existing industrial park, an older aerial
photo. I also have the site photo, which is right here that -- this is the existing building.
The building does already exist. It is a multi-tenant structure. There are three tenants
currently in the building. There are nine vacant -- no. There are nine total three are
filled six are currently vacant. The applicant desires to take on three of those in the
front portion of the building closest to 5th
Street. The improvements are in for
landscaping and parking. The issue for the Conditional Use Permit is really the use.
The dance studio is considered a private school and by the ordinance is a Conditional
Use in the I-L zone. I think the only real issue, if you skip all the way back to the back
of the recommendation, they have noted that staff has concerns about the compatibility
of this use in an industrial zone and separate from the use, the only real issue is
whether they have enough off-street parking. They detail the parking in finding A on
Page 2. They do note that the site currently has 31 parking spaces and if they were to
reserve at least three spaces for each of the vacant tenant spaces to make sure that
they had parking, there would be a balance of 13 parking spaces available for this
dance studio. I think we'd like the applicant to address whether they anticipate that that
would be ample parking for their use. They do estimate that they will have about 10 to
12 students per class, so it may work. We need the applicant to address the -- their
parking needs in relation to the supply that's currently there on the site and, with that, I
will stand for any questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes. Do we have any idea of roughly the hours that the other businesses in
this building keep? This applicant has indicated the majority of their business is
conducted after 4:30 and I would think there could be some shared use of parking.
Siddoway: I do not have personal knowledge. Typically, you see those industrial office
warehouse uses having more standard, you know, 8:00 to 5:00 hours of operation. It is
possible some of them run later than that, certainly, but we may ask the applicant if they
know who else is in there and what kind of hours they have.
Centers: I have another question, Mr. Chairman. There is 31 parking places right
here?
Siddoway: Yes. Let me go to the Site Plan.
Centers: Is that based on a square footage of this entire building?
Siddoway: Yes. I believe they have more than would be required for straight industrial
uses, but they do currently provide 31 spaces on the site. Here is the Site Plan. 5th
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 27 of 34
Street where the photo was taken from is over here on the left side. The photo was
taken from about this point looking in at the building. The building has an L-shape
parking in the front, as well as some parallel parking along the side and these are, you
know, loading areas that can access by truck in the rear separate from the front parking
Centers: So, all of these and these, maybe this one, and this one, total 31?
Siddoway: That's correct.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Anything else, Steve?
Siddoway: That's all I have.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Waters: I'm Sandy Waters, I'm the owner of Sandy's Dancework’s, and right now, my
business is in the Cherry Plaza Mall. My business is presently in the Cherry Plaza Mall
and the way I conduct my business, I do have morning classes and I limit my class size,
so I close my classes -- when I get ten students in the class in the morning I close it,
because I have all three and four year olds in the morning. I do know that I won't need -
- I do have -- I will have adequate parking in this new building. In the evening we start
our classes approximately 4:30 in the afternoon and our minimum on our class size is
between 12 and 14 students and they are -- normally they are older children, which
sometimes will be dropped off and, then, picked up. I do have my students' parents
sign a contract stating that the children will be dropped off and picked up on time and
that's for safety reasons. I believe I do have -- this new space will have adequate
parking.
Borup: Okay. Do you have knowledge of the other businesses in the building? What --
I think it was one of the Commissioner's questions. Okay. You have someone here that
can answer that.
Waters: Yes.
Borup: Okay, any questions from any of the other Commissioners?
Zaremba: I would ask -- you, actually, addressed it a little bit in having your customers
sign a contract about the drop off and pick up, but do you have any supervision of the
children if they are dropped off early or they are waiting to -- what happens to children
who are out of class, but not picked up yet?
Waters: We do have -- we are very concerned about the children's safety and so if the
child is not picked up on time, we will make them wait inside. We won't let them outside
of the room, because, you know, there is -- there is all kinds of safety issues with that
and, normally, especially in the morning time, the three and four year old classes, the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 28 of 34
parents stay there the whole entire time, because they are concerned about their own
child. We are very cautious and that's why we have our parents sign a contract,
because we don't -- first of all, we don't want any legal issues and we do want them to
be clear of the rules and regulations that we put forth in their contract.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Sandy said someone had some information on the other businesses?
Albrecht: My name is Bob Albrecht I'm one of the owners of the building, and just a
correction on the information by staff. I don't know that it's pertinent. There are
currently four tenants in the building. We have an electrical contractor -- see, I'm not
used to these buildings. I don't have one of these fancy pointers, so we could do that.
We currently have an electrical contractor in the building that takes this area here. I
have a plumbing business. We have a shop in this area here. We have an insulation
contractor that goes roughly in this area. We have a warehouse distribution area about
in here. Sandy will take up the remaining two spaces. I see where the confusion is,
because the building was originally submitted as a nine tenant building and as we fit up
for our tenants, our initial tenants, we ended up with less.
Borup: So, that fills the -- she would fill the building, then?
Albrecht: Yes.
Borup: So, it sounds like all the businesses are daytime businesses and there wouldn't
be any --
Albrecht: They are. Could I get you, Mr. Siddoway, to flip back to the picture of the
parking lot? This picture was taken during the day and that's typically how the parking
lot looks during the day. Our largest employer -- our largest employer is Marv's
Insulation and they have approximately eight employees. Centers Electric has
anywhere from six to eight people, depending on the time of the year. I, generally, have
two people that come to the shop. That leaves us open for parking. We have had at
times parking from the people to the north that sometimes have inventory overstock in
their parking lot, but we have plenty of room for that. Let's see. I tried to make some
notes.
Borup: So, it looks like after 5:00 or 5:30 or so --
Albrecht: Yes. Our hours of operation where we are -- the three of us are construction
oriented, typically are in and out of there between 7:00 to 7:30 in the morning and roll in
when we are done. On a good day that's 4:30 and, you know, my guys came in at 6:00
tonight and the insulators got in at 3:30 and just -- it just varies.
Borup: So, I mean -- what I was getting at, it sounds like in the evening after that time
that they have got the whole parking lot to themselves.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 29 of 34
Albrecht: Yes. I was -- I had occasion, the way the day ended up, to sit on the tailgate
of my truck and have lunch at about 3:30. Another thing, we all access down the
backside of the building. Marv's guys park out front and, then, walk around, but all of
Eric's people, my people, and the remainder of Marv's typically access down the back.
That's where our overhead doors are we are pulling the shop trucks in and different
things like that. Let's see. I think that's all I have.
Borup: Any other questions?
Zaremba: Well, that last -- that was an answer to the question I was going to ask. I
assume there were the big bay doors and most of your tenants are using the backside
of the building --
Albrecht: That's correct. I don't have a front door.
Zaremba: -- for coming and going.
Albrecht: I wasn't willing to pay that much rent, so --
Zaremba: Let me ask --
Albrecht: They gave me a bad place.
Zaremba: -- a couple of technical questions. Usually -- you're listed as owner of -- one
of the owners of record on this property. Usually, we need have the owner's permission
for an application like this. I assume since you're here testifying they have your
permission.
Albrecht: I thought we signed one of those.
Zaremba: You probably did. I don't see it in the packet. I just wanted to clarify. Your
word --
Albrecht: Yes. It's okay with us.
Zaremba: Your word is good enough for me.
Albrecht: For the record.
Zaremba: Then, one other question. Let's see. Roger Brown and Katherine Brown.
They appear not to be on your property, but probably next door. 205 East 5th
Avenue.
Albrecht: I'm prepared to address that.
Zaremba: They have sent us a letter just generally in opposition to it and they state a
similar problem the staff was bringing up for us to be concerned about and that is there
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 30 of 34
is a lot of trucks that come and go and is this a safe place for children to be. Do you
know them?
Albrecht: Pardon?
Zaremba: Do you know the Brown’s?
Albrecht: I have found a technical device here. I know them, yes. I'm familiar with
them, if I could address staff's concerns, as well as Mr. and Mrs. Brown? There are a
couple of issues in Mr. Brown's letter that I would take issue with. The first being that
the business park was sold and presented to the buyers as a light manufacturing and,
therefore, he draws the conclusion that any other use to should be prohibited. The
acceptable uses for the zoning that the property is located in is not defined by the City
of Meridian to exclude the use we are applying for. Further, it seems as though the
dance studio has been an acceptable use in similarly zoned properties within a mile to
the east and a mile to the northeast of us. It tells me that it has been a little bit of a -- it
has not been a problem, but an acceptable -- an acceptable use. The second issue in
Mr. Brown's letter was the parking on the street. The parking of the vehicles on East
5th Avenue is predominately done by the businesses on the corner of Bower and East
5th
, which would be the property that would be right here next to us. Quite often their
parking lot is utilized for inventory storage and so they park on the street. I have been
on East 5th
for seven years with my business and I have never had a problem with it.
Yes, when they are -- parking on the street is not prohibited in that area. It does tighten
up the street -- up the street a little bit. I don't see that as a bad thing. I have a
tendency when the street's got cars on it to drive a little slower, in case somebody
comes out in front of it -- in front of me. We have no problem with -- with parking, as I
have already discussed, particularly at the times of operation that -- that Sandy's
Dancework’s as presented. With regards to traffic, if traffic is the determining factor for
a dance studio, it would appear that possibly the only acceptable location for such a
business would be a residential subdivision or out in the country away from populated
areas. East 5th
is eclipsed by the traffic in retail centers or even on Meridian Main
Street, for that matter, many of the other business areas of the community. It's the
nature of the Treasure Valley. We have a lot of traffic and we have a lot of people. As I
mentioned earlier, I have been on that street for seven years. I don't notice the traffic
being as bad when I drive down East 5th
as it is when I go most anywhere else. I've
never had a -- never -- very seldom have I had to wait to make a left-hand turn onto
East 5th or into the parking lot of this property or the property where I was located
before. It's just not there. Yes, we have Handy Trucking. Yes, we have my company.
We have the other companies in there. One thing about the layout of this subdivision --
could I see that real quick is the access -- We have access off of Main Street via Bower
on East 5th
into this area. We have access for everything over in this part of the
subdivision by way of Baltic and King Street off of Franklin, and, then, the northern end
of the -- excuse me -- the southern end and the entrance around there off of Franklin. I
find -- I don't sit and study traffic, it really doesn't excite me, but I find when I pass
people that I know that are in there, they are always coming from the same direction
and it flows pretty good. I think it was a well laid out subdivision. I think that safety and
the issues there, I think the facts pretty well speak for themselves. With that, I would
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 31 of 34
ask that in considering the application that you would consider those facts with regards
to safety, accessibility, and the impact to our neighbors. The impact on our neighbors
would be negligible based on Sandy's presented hours of operation. As far as
accessibility, we have plenty of unused off-street parking adjacent to the property at all
hours of the day. Third, with regards to safety, the amount of traffic on East 5th
, as I
have alluded to earlier in my presentation, compared to the retail and business
locations throughout the city, is extremely light when that comparison is made. Further,
the private and limited access of the parking lot provides, in my mind, superior security,
and safety to the students of Sandy's Dancework’s, in contrast -- in contrast to more
publicly accessible areas. That's all I have. Thank you.
Borup: Anything else from any Commissioners? Thank you. Do we have anyone else
to testify on this? You may as well. You're the last one.
McKinniss: My name is Mike McKinniss I'm with J.L. Boyd Company. We are the
leasing agent for Mr. Albrecht. I just, very quickly, wanted to bring into the record that
there is precedent for this, with the Conditional Use Permit granted to Meridian
Academy of Gymnastics in August to 2000 at 1530 East Commercial Avenue, Meridian,
Idaho. That's it.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I look at this and I looked at this before I got here tonight, as
compared to the church that wanted to go into the industrial zone. I look at it very
similar to that. If a church wants to be in an industrial zone, the way I looked at it that
night, they should be allowed to, if their congregation wants to go there. I feel the same
way about this. If they want to least their space to a dance studio and you don't have
any people here objecting to it, I think that's fine. This Mr. Brown that wrote the letter,
he would have referred to the fact that I'm going to be out of town the night of your
hearing, can't be there, then, I would consider his letter, but I would say all that and,
then, say this, that I know that leases are drawn up and a number of parking spaces are
allowed per square footage per tenant and I don't think -- I think it's a management
issue and if the management of that building wants to lease the space to a tenant that
will be taking up a good share of the parking, that should be their decision. They might
lose tenants in the future because of that, but that's their problem. That's the way I look
at it.
Rohm: So, it's a non-issue. The parking is a non-issue.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 32 of 34
Centers: It's a management decision, as far as I'm concerned. There is plenty of
parking there, but there may not be in the future and, then, the management has to
address that with the other tenants that are there.
Zaremba: I didn't ask this question specifically, but I would make the assumption that
the applicant is experiencing a growing business and is making this move from her
present location to move into a larger space and I certainly am in favor of encouraging
businesses to grow. The applicant wants to be there and the owner of the building
operates his own business out of that building and certainly knows whether it's going to
function well. I'm satisfied.
Borup: I felt the same as Commissioner Centers. I had no problem with the zoning.
My only concern was the parking. Knowing that this fills up the space did make a
difference, in that there aren't going to be future -- other than tenants changing, there
won't be future spaces filled. Then, the hours of operation makes a big difference, too,
with most of it in the evening hours.
Centers: Yes. I think the owner has got 12 to 14 parking spaces out front there and --
which would fill the parking lot. Then, as I said, he's going to have to address that with
his remaining tenants.
Borup: If the daytime business picks up.
Centers: Right. Having said that, I would make a motion that we approve Item CUP --
Item 5 on the agenda, CUP 03-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for approval
for dance studio use in an I-L zone at 269 East 5th
Avenue for Sandy's Dancework’s by
Sandy's Dancework’s, LLC, at 269 East 5th
Avenue. Including all staff comments from
their memo dated June -- excuse me. Hearing date dated June 19th
and we received it
June 12th
.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor?
Mathes: Abstain.
Borup: Three ayes and one abstain.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED
Borup: That concludes. Thank you.
Item 6. Public Hearing: Lot Split Ordinance:
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 33 of 34
Zaremba: On Item 6 we have received a request to have that item withdrawn. If that
requires a motion to accept, I so move.
Borup: Any comments from the staff? Just not time?
Siddoway: Just not time yet. They are still going to be working on some more revisions
to that ordinance, discussing it with Council members and deciding which direction it
needs to go in before we are ready for this body to act on it.
Borup: Okay. Well, then, it's not going to be a continuance, we will just --
Zaremba: I move that we accept the withdrawal of this item.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: I think last month you mentioned working on more than one building in
commercial zones. Was that, essentially, what that was -- how is that coming?
Siddoway: Anna Powell is going through the ordinance and doing that and several
other clean-up items that can be simply made with just an easy text change, other than
an entire rewrite of an ordinance. I know she was working on that last week.
Borup: So, that would be fairly soon, then?
Siddoway: Yes. I do not know the specific status of it, but I would anticipate it being
ready pretty soon. Yes.
Borup: Because that is something we sure see a lot of.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: And maybe it would be unnecessary in the future.
Siddoway: That's the way it's headed, yes.
Borup: I guess that's it, anything else, then, Commissioners?
Centers: I would move that we adjourn our meeting.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn, all in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
June 19, 2003
Page 34 of 34
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: We adjourn at 8:40.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
ATTESTED:
SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK