2003 03-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 6, 2003.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Jerry Centers, Commissioner
David Zaremba, Commissioner Leslie Mathes, and Commissioner Michael Rohm.
Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Jill Holinka, Jessica Johnson, and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
___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. Start with roll call of
Commissioners.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of February 6, 2003, Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting.
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AUP
02-12 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: The first item on the agenda is Item No. 3, our Consent Agenda. Any questions
or comments on that?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have some comments on the --
Borup: Item No. B -- or A?
Zaremba: A. Minutes of February 6, 2003. On the cover sheet, the second page of the
cover sheet, item nine, Public Hearing PP 02-030, request for preliminary plat approval
of 125 building lots and we changed that to 13 other lots. It was not 15, it was 13 other
lots. That was the measure that we recommended approval on. On page one of the
actual minutes, near the bottom, I made a motion, Commissioner Mathes seconded it,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 2 of 94
and I am here given credit for taking the vote, but you, Mr. Chairman, took the vote. On
page three, the very top sentence where I am speaking, I would like to add some
punctuation for clarification. I say just: Just for clarification, I'm sorry, Steve, that parcel
is not being rezoned. Period. Correct? Question mark. Not corrected, but, the word
correct with a question mark and a period after rezoned. Those are my only changes.
Borup: Okay. Any other comments? Do we have a motion and -- motion would be on
all the items.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the Consent Agenda with the minutes of
February 6 as modified.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 03-001 Request for annexation and zoning of
10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Central Valley Baptist Church
by Central Valley Baptist Church – east of North Ten Mile Road and
south of West Pine Avenue:
Borup: Item number -- the first Public Hearing is Public Hearing AZ 03-001, a request
for annexation and zoning of 10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zones for Central Valley
Baptist Church by Central Valley Baptist Church. This is east of North Ten Mile and
south of West Pine Avenue. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the
staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject
property that is proposed for annexation is at the northeast corner of the railroad and
North Ten Mile Road. You can see the existing character of the ground in the air photo.
A large lot, rural residential, county parcels, and this is the subject property here. They
did submit a proposed site plan with the annexation request, so that the Commission
and Council could get a feel for their intent in annexing this property. It is for a church
campus for Central Valley Baptist Church. You should have a staff report dated
February 13th from Sonya and Bruce. It is just over ten acres in size. The requested
zone is Limited Office, which a church would be a permitted use in, and there are some
notes under G on page three about adequate public services, saying that we find that
they may be served adequately by all essentially public services and they will either
have to construct a temporary lift station to get sewer service or participate with
developers of adjacent lands to get service to their lots, but that it can work under one
of those scenarios. I believe that's all I need to go over right now. Staff does
recommend approval of the annexation and zoning request. The recommendation at
the end incorrectly states an R-8 zone. It is L-O that they are requesting. And with that
correction I will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 3 of 94
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I have one. My reading the list of surrounding properties, they are all Ada
County. Do we have any contiguousness with Meridian city limits anyplace? The
southeast parcel?
Siddoway: The southeast parcel and the railroad tracks up to this point are annexed,
so though it's surrounded, really, on three sides -- well, on four sides, all the way around
by county land, it's point of contiguity is along the railroad tracks at the property's
southeast corner.
Zaremba: We have accepted smaller corners than that before. That's my only
question.
Borup: Any other Commissioners? Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like
to make?
Houst: I'm Doug Houst with Olson and Associates Architects. We have Pastor Clint
Henry in the audience and we also have the chair of the building committee Tommy
Moser in the audience. We would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Borup: Apparently, you have no --
Houst: We have no --
Borup: But no questions on any of the staff comments and you're in agreement with
everything?
Houst: We are in agreement.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from any Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Just one. You have read page five and the requirements --
the site-specific requirements of the staff comments?
Houst: I'm sure I have. I would like to get to that page.
Borup: Commissioner Centers, are you referring to the sewer service?
Centers: Well, all the conditions required by the staff. I just wanted to make sure the
applicant agrees.
Houst: Yes.
Centers: You're in agreement with everything?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 4 of 94
Houst: We are.
Centers: Very good. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Centers: I don't find much need for discussion. I think it's very -- is everyone
agreeable? All right. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval on Item 4, AZ 03-
001, request for annexation and zoning of 10.006 acres from RUT to L-O zone for
Central Valley Baptist Church by Central Valley Baptist Church, east of North Ten Mile
Road and south of West Pine Avenue, including all staff comments from memo dated
February 13th
. And, as stated, it's L-O zone.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Public Hearing: RZ 03-001 Request for a Rezone of 6.95 acres from L-
O to L-O and C-G Zones for Mallane Commercial Complex by The Land
Group, Inc. – north of East Fairview Avenue and west of North Eagle
Road:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing RZ 03-001, request for a rezone of 6.95 acres
from L-O to L-O and C-G zones for Mallane Commercial Complex by the Land Group.
This is north of Fairview, west of Eagle Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and
start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I spoke with Russ
Hepworth, the applicant's representative today, and he said that he had submitted to the
clerk's office a request to be continued tonight, because the property was not posted on
the correct date. I also found one other minor issue, which they can get resolved and a
new legal description to us by Monday, and that is that the description submitted states
that the property to be rezoned does not include the lot that is adjacent to the existing
homes and that the lot would remain limited office, so that the uses would stay less
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 5 of 94
intense and be better neighbors there. In spite of that description in the narrative, the
legal description submitted was for the entire parcel. So they are going to amend that.
There may be people here to testify on it, so we may still need to take testimony, if no
one can come to the meeting at which it will be continued to, but I would recommend
that it simply be continued to the March 20th meeting two weeks from tonight and we
should be able to have the correct legal description approved and the posting taken
care of at that time. With that I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I do have one. On the staff comments, page two, item D, delta, there is a
sentence in the middle. It says the city has recently completed construction of a new
police station within this subdivision. Is that true?
Siddoway: No, it's not.
Zaremba: I didn't think that was where it was.
Siddoway: Yeah.
Zaremba: So we can delete that sentence?
Borup: Delete that sentence. Yes, sir.
Zaremba: Okay. And the first sentence is still valid.
Siddoway: Yeah. It is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan does show this parcel as commercial and so the rezone would be
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan under the new comp plan future land use
map.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: If I recall, March 20th is -- my little box at home is full.
Borup: It's full. I mean it's -- well, we have a couple of large projects.
Centers: Right.
Borup: It depends on how they do.
Centers: I guess, you know, if the applicant is desirous to continue it, it should be at a
meeting in which we can handle it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 6 of 94
Borup: Shall we go ahead and see how -- what public testimony there may be first and,
then, decide?
Centers: Yeah.
Borup: But, yeah, I agree, I don't know that we -- do we have anyone here that would
like to testify? Please come forward.
Knighton: Cheryl Knighton, 2580 East Clarene Court, the second cul-de-sac up on the
purple. This was not very well publicized, as Steve has pointed out. No one was
notified and all there was, was a little 11-by-17 notice that the hearing was tonight. But I
have talked to some of the neighbors and we do object to this being changed to
commercial and, especially, in light of the fact that we still do not have a light at Hickory
and Fairview. With the added traffic from the car wash, from Louie's, the church will be
-- Capital Christian Center has proposed to put a school in their facility and we just feel
that at this time changing that to commercial from light office will impact the traffic even
greater than it already has been impacted. We are the exit for three subdivisions, Dove
Meadows, Packard Estates, and Chateau Meadows, and this would just cause even
more traffic concerns for that area and if there is a school being proposed at the church,
I feel that's a safety issue for them. Thank you.
Centers: Ma'am?
Knighton: Yes.
Centers: One question, please. Would you say that you live within 300 feet of the
project?
Knighton: No, I don't. I'm on the second cul-de-sac.
Centers: Okay. That's the code, that we have to notify homeowners -- or property
owners within 300 feet.
Knighton: Okay. Those two little purple lots on the first street going to the left --
Centers: Yes. Okay.
Knighton: -- I talked to the lady that lives in the second house over and she was not
notified and I realize now that after the comment's made that they will put a buffer there
between the back of that house and the lot, but she was not notified.
Centers: What's her name?
Knighton: I don't know.
Centers: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 7 of 94
Borup: One of those that testified previously. Yeah. That zoning was not going to
change on that lot, for those -- for those. That was staying as it is.
Knighton: But the other -- the rest of it towards Fairview will change; right?
Borup: That's what they are proposing.
Knighton: Okay. Well, we still feel that that's a negative impact on the neighborhood,
both for safety and additional traffic.
Borup: I might just mention 33 notices were sent out.
Knighton: Okay. Well, she did not receive one.
Borup: What's her name?
Knighton: I don't know. I'm sorry.
Borup: Well, then, we can't verify that without her name. We have got names of 33
individuals that it was sent to.
Knighton: Okay. And this will be continued when?
Centers: We don't know yet.
Zaremba: We haven't decided yet, but we will.
Knighton: Okay.
Zaremba: You might be interested to note that whoever develops this and however
they develop it, there are separate hearings at ACHD and one of the subjects was the
signal that you asked about. Whoever develops this will be required to give a 3,200
deposit -- 3,200 dollar deposit into a trust fund for putting a signal there. So they intend
to have this happen and this developer will pay a portion of it, whatever they develop.
Borup: Anyone else like to come forward?
Zaremba: I take it the applicant is not here.
Borup: Is that correct? The applicant -- oh, I'm sorry. Would you still like to make a
presentation, even though you have asked to be continued?
Hepworth: I don't care to make a presentation. I think staff has covered it as well as
can be. But I just wanted to state that the reason that we did request a continuance,
because we were negligent in posting that property the seven days prior to this council
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 8 of 94
meeting and so we felt to be fair to the surrounding owners, or whoever wanted to be
here, that we should continue it. As far as comments for the stop light, this developer
has met with ACHD and tried several times to expedite that stop light, that he is more
than willing to contribute to the installation of that and has tried to push that. However,
ACHD has commented that it's not on their five-year plan, so, basically, there is nothing
that they could do. I mean he's more than willing to work with the surrounding
neighbors to do whatever that needs to be taken care of to that intersection to provide
that -- a safe place. He realizes that it is a dangerous intersection and he is willing to
do what it takes to make it a safe location.
Borup: And what do you mean by willing to do what it takes?
Hepworth: Well, he's willing to --
Borup: Short of installing it himself?
Hepworth: Yeah. Short of installing it himself. He's gone to two or three Ada County
Highway District meetings, has met with them numerous times trying to see what he
can do to get this stop light installed, and he's always ended up with a block there, that
it's not on our plan as of yet, in the five year plan, and so he's paid into this fund once, I
believe. With new conditions on the property he's probably going to have to contribute
again and I think he's done his fair share to try to get that light installed. He realizes
that it needs to be there.
Borup: Okay. The parcel is retaining the platted lots as they now are; is that correct?
Hepworth: Correct. As approved on February 4th
. The final plat was approved by City
Council.
Borup: Okay. And, then, you will have a new legal description next time?
Hepworth: I can have a legal description by tomorrow, but -- and I have my surveyor
preparing that now.
Borup: Okay. Would that also -- would that also include a plat showing which lots were
staying as presently zoned and which ones were --
Hepworth: Oh, it certainly could. Yeah. I could --
Borup: I would like that. I don't think our packets have that now.
Hepworth: Yeah. I could provide a copy of the final plat with that.
Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the other Commissioners? All right.
Zaremba: I do have one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 9 of 94
Hepworth: Okay.
Zaremba: In ACHD's comments on their page four, item H, they ask you to provide a
recorded cross-access agreement, so that surrounding properties can use your
driveway to access Fairview. Are you agreeable with that or in the process of making
that happen?
Hepworth: Yes. That will be a condition, I believe, attached in the CC&R's, with the
final plat application. There are cross-access agreements between those two lots and
through the subdivision and also it will be required as part the final plat that we have a
cross-parking within the development also. So we are completely in agreement with
that.
Zaremba: No problem with that?
Hepworth: No.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Hepworth: Thank you.
Borup: Was there anyone else that would like that come forward? Okay.
Commissioners, for your information, on the 20th we have two subdivisions. One about
40 acres and the other one a fairly large multi-use subdivision. Besides those two, just
a couple of small items and both of them in Old Town. A child care and a rezone. So
mainly it's the two subdivisions.
Zaremba: I will abstain from expressing an opinion, because I will be absent that date.
Centers: Well, I guess I don't have a problem if you don't, Mr. Chairman, continuing it to
the 20th.
Borup: I think we have a full agenda. Don't know that it's going to take a lot of time,
though, on this item.
Centers: So, what are you saying, do you --
Borup: No. I think that would probably be --
Centers: Well, I would so move that we continue item five on our agenda to our hearing
on March 20th.
Mathes: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 10 of 94
Zaremba: Before we vote, I thought of a question I would ask the developer, if I may.
Would you be amenable to having a small neighborhood meeting? It sounds like there
may be some objections in the neighborhood that you could workout before you come
back for the Public Hearing.
Hepworth: Yeah. I'm certain that the owner of parcel would have no objection to that.
Zaremba: And get this lady's name and number.
Hepworth: Okay. Yeah. He's -- he's more than willing to try to workout any complaints
or disagreements with the neighbors, hence, his leaving that lot that's buffering or next
to the homeowners as L-O. He does -- you know, he feels that's right --
Borup: Well -- but I believe that was one of our requirements last year.
Hepworth: Not to leave that lot L-O.
Borup: It was discussed.
Hepworth: It was -- we were just denied the whole rezone to a commercial site and,
then, we -- after talking with staff, they recommended, you know, perhaps leaving this
one lot to L-O as a buffer to that, you know, and he has no problems with that and I
think he would be willing to work with any neighbors.
Zaremba: I just wanted to suggest that before we move on to the next item.
Hepworth: Okay.
Zaremba: I call the question.
Borup: All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6: Public Hearing: AZ 02-034 Request for annexation and zoning of 5.0
Acres from RUT to R-3 zones fro proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent
And Nancy Bleak – 4920 West Cherry Lane:
Item 7: Public Hearing: PFP 02-005 Request for Preliminary/Final Plat
Approval of 1 building lot and 1 other lot on 5 acres in a proposed R-3
Zone for proposed Bleak Subdivision by Kent and Nancy Blaek – 4920
West Cherry Lane:
Borup: The next project, Items 6 and 7, Public Hearing AZ 02-034, request for
annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to R-3 zones for the propose Bleak
Subdivision by Ken and Nancy Bleak. Is that -- that's not the address, is it? 4920 West
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 11 of 94
Cherry Lane? And Public Hearing PFP 02-005, request for preliminary/final plat
approval of one building lot and one other lot on five acres in a proposed R-3 zone.
Same applicant. Open both these public hearings at this time and start with the staff
report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Mr. Bleak is
proposing annexing the current two parcels that he owns into the city and creating a
two-lot subdivision. The location is at the intersection of Cherry Lane and Black Cat in
the configuration you see outlined. If you look at the aerial photo, you can see that the
existing house takes access off of Cherry Lane, thus, the address 4920 West Cherry
Lane. The proposed preliminary plat would create two lots in a new configuration, one
running from Cherry Lane back to the north and the remainder of the parcel being 1.2
acres going out to Black Cat. A very simple plat, thus, the ability to be submitted as a
preliminary/final plat combination. This is the final plat. And you should have a staff
report, dated March 6th -- March 6th
. No. Received March 4th
. I think it was just printed
out late. But from Wendy Kirkpatrick and Bruce Freckleton. It is two building lots on 4.8
acres. The requested zone is R-3. This is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,
which designates the land as low density residential or less than three dwelling units
per acre, so it matches that. The parcel is currently unsewerable and would require a
septic system. Just so you know that this arrangement is acceptable at Public Works.
However, when the sanitary sewer service becomes available, the owners of each lot
will be required to abandon those septic systems and connect to Meridian sewer
system. On page six there is one additional consideration, that is, that the plat has a
note restricting the minimum house size to 2,600 square feet. It's recommend that the
note be deleted or modified to the R-3 zone per code. It already has a minimum house
size of 1,500 square feet. That is reflected already in site specific comment number
four as revised plat notes and, then, the first change mentioned that, so that's already
covered in the site-specific comments. The only other one that I'd like to point out is
number seven on page seven, which says to revise the plat map to reflect the existing
right of way, I believe what's shown on the plat is 43 feet of existing right of way -- or a
future right of way. Excuse me. Let me back up. Part of number seven says you need
to show a portion of the transportation corridor, additional right of way that will be -- to
be dedicated with the plat in the future. ACHD is not purchasing the right of way today.
We would like to have it preserved. It's a minor tweak that needs to be made. It's
actually 48 feet from the center line that needs to be shown, instead of the 43. That will
just have the effect of shifting the 25-foot landscape buffer in slightly on both Black Cat
and Cherry Lane. So we would just like to have that modification made, but with that
one tweak it's in compliance and we would recommend approval with the conditions
noted in the staff report.
Borup: Okay. Questions?
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 12 of 94
Centers: Yeah. Mr. Siddoway, why -- if he wants to leave it at 2,600 feet minimum, do
we care? I think I know why he wants to do it. When he sells off the other lot he doesn't
want a small house in there. That's my opinion.
Siddoway: He still can with his CC&R's, but I think if the city -- we should have the plat
state the ordinance minimum house size. If he wants to go beyond that with the
CC&R's, he may.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: And I had the same question. So you're saying you just want the plat notes to --
Siddoway: Reflect ordinance.
Borup: Yeah.
Siddoway: Yeah.
Borup: Any other questions, Commissioners? Does the applicant have anything? If
you'd like to come forward, sir?
Bleak: My name is Kent Bleak and I'm the owner of the proposed subdivision. I have
just a couple of comments. We would have no problem with the 1,500 square feet
designation. That's fine with us.
Borup: Are you planning to have covenants?
Bleak: There would be some covenants, but --
Borup: Okay.
Bleak: -- really limiting that. That was a number that we just thought was a good
number and it wasn't anything that was cut and fast and a hard rule.
Borup: Okay. Well, your covenants can state any size you want, so --
Bleak: Okay.
Borup: -- you would have control over that.
Bleak: Very good. And, then, the other comment I wanted to make is that we have in
the past had some domestic animals on the property and we'd like to continue to do so
in the future.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 13 of 94
Zaremba: Is that permissible in an R-3?
Borup: Comment on that?
Siddoway: Yeah. The code addresses that and I asked Mr. Bleak to go on the record
tonight with the fact that he has existing horses. Livestock is technically prohibited in
the residential zones within the city, unless they are there at the time that it's annexed,
in which case they can be continued, but if the use is abandoned for a year or more,
then, the right to have animals on the property goes away. And you cannot increase
the number of animals from what's there.
Zaremba: Would you tell us, sir, what animals you do have?
Bleak: Horses. Well, there are no horses on it currently, but as of November we have
had some on there. They are off the land right now, but there would be -- we have had
as many as five horses on the property. Usually, it would probably be more like four.
Borup: So that would be your intention, to keep horses on the property?
Bleak: Right.
Zaremba: Limited to five horses?
Mathes: Is that on both pieces of property or just the one he's going to be on?
Zaremba: Between the two.
Bleak: One thing we had considered is either selling that one -- the little L -- top of the L
shape off, or also keeping it ourselves and if we can't -- or well, if we wanted to, you
know, be able to preserve that ability to have animals on that as well, and build a house
on that, instead of -- not have any other house.
Zaremba: Would we, then, want to say a maximum of five horses in the subdivision?
Siddoway: I think that would be fine.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Bleak, anything else you would like to add?
Bleak: No. That's all I have.
Borup: Thank you. Same as anything else. The same as anybody else with horses.
Zaremba: We now have a compliance officer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 14 of 94
Borup: And, you know, a lot of them are enforced by complaints from neighbors, if it's a
nuisance type thing or if it's real blatant, then, I guess the city would be --
Rhom: I'm curious about one thing. If you limited it to five horses and, then, there are
no horses placed on the property for over a year, does that, then, preclude their right to
bring them in at a later date?
Borup: That's the way it's written now.
Rohm: Okay. I just wanted that to be so stated, so in case they don't have any horses,
then, at some point in time that right would be relinquished.
Borup: So he better get horses there for at least one day a year.
Rohm: Bingo.
Centers: Well -- and what if he wants a couple steers? You know, a cow?
Zaremba: We are going to specify horses.
Centers: Which he's probably had in the past, maybe before him. I don't know.
Borup: He said before him there were cows on the property was the applicant's
statement. So it sounds like he's okay with the horse. Anything else, Commissioners?
Did I ask -- was there any additional testimony? I'm sorry. Come forward, sir.
Law: My name is Brent Law. I own the piece of property that basically the little L is
going right around. That's 4888 West Cherry Lane. My concern with what's going on
here is -- I understand where the home is going would not be affecting my property as
far as my animals. Right now the home is not lived in. There was a fire in it
approximately a year ago. It's being -- it's almost to the point where it's being finished.
Our intentions will be to move back out there, which would be probably in the next -- we
are hoping two, three months, but --
Zaremba: You're talking about your own home?
Law: Yes.
Borup: Your own home had the fire?
Law: Yes. Uh-huh. The home there at 4888. We will be having -- I do have horses. I
own them. I will be moving them back out there. The renters that were in there had
horses. I don't know if it specifies, the code, as far as we are talking animals, do these
animals have to be owned or is it okay to use the property, let somebody else basically
lease or even just use the property as far as the animal situation being on the property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 15 of 94
Borup: You're talking about on his property, not on yours?
Law: Right. Uh-huh.
Borup: Maybe we can get some clarification. My understanding is just animals period.
Doesn't matter who owns them. Is that correct? That was the way I interpreted that.
Zaremba: I think we have been through this before and boarding animals is acceptable,
as long as it doesn't go over five. However, if this lapses at anytime, then, the only
thing he can have is family pets.
Law: Okay. The other -- you know, the other thing I'm concerned with -- I'm kind of --
my property is kind of getting boxed in here. At this point my intentions are not to be
annexed, my intentions not to be developing or anything of that nature at this point, but,
who knows, everything changes. In a matter of six, eight months it could be a whole
different situation out there. But my concern is right now, currently, the services are not
available, so as far as developing, I -- my personal opinion, I feel like maybe we are a
little too early in getting the jump on this. At first my concern was safety. Of course,
when I saw the zoning and the ability of going three homes per acre, if that acre of
property -- or basically acre and a half behind me, if that sells, if it goes -- if they put
three homes in there --
Borup: They can't right now, because it's one lot.
Law: Right. But I mean in the future if it does get --
Borup: Well, they'd have to come back and have another Public Hearing and be
replatted and resubdivided and a new subdivision created.
Law: Okay. Well, the concern right now, the home just to the north of even his -- of
Kent's property, they currently have horses there also, so it's still kind of a -- you know,
there is still some of us out there that enjoy pets and animals and, I don't know, it really
shouldn't be a safety issue, but the real concern I have is the services aren't available
yet.
Borup: Water is available. Sewer is not.
Law: All services aren't available yet. The idea of covenants -- and I don't know -- I
don't get into trying to develop property or anything like that, but my concern is on -- if
we start putting covenants on that property, how is that going to affect my property? Is it
going to be anything that in time could run over into mine?
Borup: No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 16 of 94
Law: Okay. Well, that kind of pretty much answers mine. Are there any intentions --
are there plans at all as far as development out that way as far as the city is
concerned?
Borup: The city doesn't do any developing.
Law: It's just pretty much whoever comes in and asks for whatever --
Borup: Yeah. That's all done by private individuals, so --
Law: Then, it's up to them to get you to -- or try to convince you to approve it?
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: Well, the Comprehensive Plan does give guidance as to what is approvable
in an area, so there are some -- there are decisions that have been made about what
the city would like see happen there. The city doesn't take an active part in making
anything happen.
Law: Okay.
Borup: Other than sewer lines, but mostly it's after the fact.
Law: Okay. That pretty much answers -- I was --
Borup: Do you understand that they are, essentially, just splitting off that one parcel,
which would allow one home to be built if they so choose?
Law: Right.
Borup: One additional.
Law: The situation is where the home is -- that property used to be all owned by one
property owner. Currently, if I had the records -- and I don't, because this home was
built probably 50 years ago, where my home is, the actual septic system for my home
does go across into that other piece of property.
Borup: The property to the north?
Law: No. To the --
Borup: West?
Law: Yeah. Right there. That's where my septic system goes.
Centers: Currently?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 17 of 94
Law: Uh-huh. As best I can tell. I have -- in fact, there is an irrigation ditch runs down
there now. My septic pipe -- and we have found it in that ditch, in the irrigation ditch.
It's gotten dug deep enough to where my pipe is actually exposed a little bit and Kent is
currently filling that back in and putting pipe in there and everything to make it a lot
nicer, but the concern is -- and, honestly, I don't know exactly where that septic goes.
Centers: Excuse me. This annexation and a plat of two lots do not affect that situation.
You have that situation whether we act tonight or not.
Law: Well --
Centers: But the property line is still right there.
Law: Right. But --
Centers: And if your septic system -- it has nothing to do with that.
Law: But if it's approved and they go in and start digging another septic hole or when
they come in to put in the water or the sewer line --
Centers: The city is not going to -- they will have to comply with Central District Health
regarding the septic tank, but not the City of Meridian.
Borup: They can do that with or without this annexation.
Law: I'm saying this wrong. It's not my septic. That's actually the drain field.
Centers: I figured that's what you meant. That's going to be there whether we act
tonight or not. You have that situation to resolve with your neighbor.
Law: Okay.
Centers: And whether we act tonight or not, you have the property line there and if
you're encroaching on neighbor with your drain field, that's something you have to work
out.
Borup: If there is a new home built, it would be on this parcel up here to the north.
Law: Well, I thought the home was being built on the other piece --
Borup: No.
Law: -- over towards Cherry Lane.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 18 of 94
Borup: No. Not the way it's platted now. This whole parcel here is staying one lot and,
then, this -- and, then, this is the other lot right here. So all he's doing is --
Law: I misunderstood.
Borup: Right there. See, he's just splitting off this lot right here from his property.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, the red lines that were shown on the previous map were the
existing property lines as they exist today.
Borup: Oh.
Freckleton: Mr. Bleak's property is two separate parcels.
Borup: Oh, it's two parcels now. Well, he's not doing much more than a lot line
adjustment.
Centers: Exactly.
Freckleton: Essentially.
Borup: Other than it's a replat, but -- he has two parcels now, he's still keeping two
parcels, it's just this one got bigger and that one got smaller.
Law: Okay. Maybe I mis -- I thought the building was actually going on over towards
the Cherry Lane side.
Borup: No. No. That's staying the existing house that's there now.
Law: Okay.
Borup: And at this point he stated he doesn't know if he will sell it or use it as pasture,
but he has the option.
Law: Right.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I could just maybe address the drain field issue just a little
bit.
Borup: Please.
Freckleton: Do you currently have an easement on your neighbor's property for your
drain field?
Law: I couldn't tell you. Honestly, I don't know.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 19 of 94
Freckleton: Your concern that you have regarding that thing getting dug up in the
future, it might be a good idea to look into getting one, if you don't have one. That
would protect you for that future situation.
Law: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Did that clarify --
Law: Yeah. I was under the impression the home was being built in the other area.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Law: Okay.
Zaremba: Question for staff, I guess, and maybe the applicant. The property to the
north and I think maybe to the west does have animals on it. The property across Black
Cat is often farmed. Would it be appropriate to add a Right To Farm Act note on the
plat?
Siddoway: It's already -- it is note number two on the plat already.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Where is the city right now? Right
here?
Siddoway: Everything with a color on it is city.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: So this would be the contiguous area there.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. We have no more testimony, Commissioners.
Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 20 of 94
Zaremba: Well, the applicant has agreed that the plat can state the ordinance house
size. I think the only note we need to add is the five horses.
Borup: And maybe the highway right of way.
Zaremba: Is that already in the notes?
Siddoway: That's already in there. Maybe just to reiterate for the applicant, we would
like to receive a revised plat that incorporates those ten days before the Council
hearing, but I think that's -- that's already in there as well.
Zaremba: The applicant understood that. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City
Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, AZ 02-034, request for
annexation and zoning of 5.0 acres from RUT to R-3 zones for proposed Bleak
Subdivision by Kent and Nancy Bleak, 4920 West Cherry Lane, to include all staff
comments, and would it be on the zoning on the plat that we have the note about the
horses? Zoning, probably.
Siddoway: Probably zoning. I would do it here.
Zaremba: Along with a note that -- in line with other provisions of the ordinance, if he
continuously keeps animals, he may have up to five horses. That's the motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on
our agenda, PFP 02-005, request for preliminary/final plat approval of one building lot
and one other lot on five acres in a proposed R-3 zone for proposed Bleak Subdivision
by Kent and Nancy Bleak, 4920 West Cherry, to include all staff comments.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 03-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15
Building lots, 1 existing house lot, and 2 other lots on 9.996 acres in an
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 21 of 94
R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision MKH Development, Inc. – east of
North Locust Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road:
Borup: Next item is Public Hearing PP 03-001, request for preliminary plat approval of
15 building lots and one existing house lot and two other lots on approximately 10 acres
in an R-4 zone for Setter Cove Subdivision by MKH Development. This is east of
Locust Grove and north of Ustick Road. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start
with the staff report at this time.
Siddoway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed
Setter Cove Subdivision was earlier at one point known as Yukon Subdivision, Hollister
property. It is just on the southeast corner of the Charter High School site that's
currently got the Charter High School along Locust Grove and recently approved an
elementary school up in the northeast corner of the property. It's also surrounded on
the south by Summerfield Subdivision and the proposed Parkstone Subdivision, which
was before the Commission last month, is on this subdivision's east boundary. You can
see the existing Charter High School in the aerial photo, as well as the existing house
that exists out there on the property. The proposed plat is for a larger lot subdivision.
Not quite as large as the one we just considered, but, still, they are in the neighborhood
of a half-acre, plus or minus. They do have 15 single family building lots, one larger lot
for the existing home, and two lots for landscape buffers along the public road that's
being constructed as part of the Education Campus Subdivision. You should have a
staff report from David McKinnon and Bruce Freckleton. I have just a couple things to
point out. One, on page two, conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, note that is in
compliance. I would just like to note on the record that, technically, the Comprehensive
Plan is -- shows this as medium density. This is low density. However, there is the
provision on the map that says that the density is allowed to go up a step or down a
step without a Comp Plan change. So, that is how it is able to go in at a lower density
than what the actual Comp Plan land use map shows. I think the major issue to be
discussed tonight is the additional consideration at the bottom of that page regarding
the pedestrian pathway. The staff report recommends adding in a pedestrian pathway
between Lots 4 and 5 to line up with the pedestrian pathway connection that was
required by this Commission of the Parkstone Subdivision. That would need to be -- to
be added. I know that the applicant does not wish to do so and will probably bring that
up tonight. The only other ones that I need to bring up -- item two on page three, there
is a discrepancy in the stated acreage. The application states 9.996 acres. The
preliminary plat states 10.384 acres. We'd like to resolve that discrepancy tonight. Item
number seven. We do require that a variance request be submitted for the block
length. There is an incomplete sentence at the end of that statement, which I'd probably
just strike. I'm not sure where he was going with that. There are really no places for
this to connect, but still a variance will be required for the block length issue. And, then,
the last one would be item 12, where we ask the applicant to explain the purpose of the
existing irrigation and access easements that are shown on the subdivision's south and
west boundaries. It's not clear if these easements are encroachable and may have to
be excluded from the lots and put into a common lot if they are not encroachable. And I
believe the applicant's been aware of that and he came prepared tonight to address
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 22 of 94
that. Upon resolution of those issues, we would recommend approval with the
conditions in the staff report and I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Mathes: Yeah. I have question. Part of the property goes that way. What are they
doing with that?
Siddoway: There has actually been a land swap. My understanding -- and the
applicant may be better to address this than me, but my understanding is the long sliver
that went out to Locust Grove has been given to the school district in exchange for
some land at the north side of this boundary, which you can see -- that boundary, I
believe, is right here and, then, the landscape lot that goes off at an angle is additional
land that was swapped to them from the school district. The configuration still shows
like this in the assessor's data base that we use, which is why it's still showing up like
that, but we will have the applicant address the lot and the land swap there.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Siddoway, you last spoke about the irrigation and access
easement, et cetera, and, then, the Settler's Irrigation District mentions item four,
development must supply irrigation access to all lots within Setter Cove and you might
want to be thinking about it, should that be a note on the plat itself for future buyers?
Which I found a little interesting with -- I guess every irrigation district is different.
Siddoway: We will read through that and let's come back to that after we hear about
the easements from the applicant.
Centers: Yeah. Right.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Pat Tealey. My office
address is 2501 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, Idaho. I'll take the -- try to take the points
of discussion in order. If you can go back to the original, Steve? Go back to the original
layout. That was the layout that was 9.96 acres and because the applicant is pretty
sharp, we ended up with 10.2 acres in the land swap, so we got a little more land than
what we gave away, basically. And that land is, in fact, along the north edge of the
subdivision in those landscape lots adjacent to the road that's being built as part of
Education Campus and that's where our access will be taken. The applicant has made
arrangements for a pressurized irrigation system. Previously, we had a well and an
easement down in the southeast corner of the subdivision. It's sort of hard to see on
that map. Down in the southwest -- right there. And we have -- in conjunction with the
school district, we have moved that well up to -- right next to the access road in that
common area and that's where we will pressurize the irrigation system from, so that we
don't have to have the access down in the east line of the subdivision. That was a
trade-off there. I'll come back to the micropath, because that's probably where most of
the discussion is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 23 of 94
Zaremba: Let me clarify that, if I may. I'm sorry to interrupt you. But you're saying that
what is -- what is shown as an easement along here can actually be abandoned, it
doesn't make any difference if that's within people's lots and fenced across it and --
Tealey: No. That's an easement for Summerfield Subdivision. That's where they get
some of their irrigation. That won't be abandoned and it's piped right now. It's not an
exclusive easement, so we can encroach upon it. But the owner just gave them the use
of -- of that easement to transport their water. Actually, the developer of Summerfield
Subdivision wasn't able to get access for pressurized irrigation originally and the owner
MKH Development gave them that easement to get -- transport his irrigation water. So
it is encroachable. It's not an exclusive easement. And as stated before, I guess to
clarify, the well, again, that was down at the southeast corner of the subdivision, has
been moved up to the northeast corner of the subdivision and it will be shared with the
school district.
Centers: Settler's will be maintaining your pressurized irrigation?
Tealey: That's correct.
Centers: Okay. So they will need access to every lot?
Tealey: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Tealey: Where ever their -- for maintenance of the line, if they are broke or whatever.
And, basically, go in an easement at the back of the lots. The real point in question is
the micropath. We don't see any benefit to our subdivision for that micropath. We have
got lots that range in size from 16,700 to 30,000 square feet, but with the lot on the -- on
the existing home being 73,000 square feet. We feel that the open area on these lots,
after the house is built, is enough for these people and if they do want to get to a park in
Parkstone, which I understand -- I don't have a plat that's dimensioned, all I have got is
the traffic study that we got from the staff. The one public lot is close to a quarter mile
away. The benefit to Parkstone isn't there. If they were to come through -- between our
two lots and walk up the street to get to the campus school and the open area that will
be there for the school, it isn't any longer or shorter than walking up their own road and
going down the sidewalks that are provided along the roads. Does that make sense?
Borup: Yeah. That -- that does. I think that was -- that comment was made last month.
The reasoning for that from the staff was it would be of benefit to this subdivision to
allow them access --
Tealey: The developer and owner of the subdivision do not see it as a benefit and he's
willing to market his lots without that, quote, unquote, amenity. That benefit is solely for
Parkstone, the way I see it. And, again, the walking length is no different whether you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 24 of 94
go through this micropath -- which would, then, force people along a sideline of a house
and it's just not desirable. The other point is that -- I don't know if staff's got it or not, but
I don't think the alignment with the lot lines in Parkstone is going to line up with our lots
in Setter Cove Subdivision, which would force us to change lot sizes and lot dimensions
-- I don't know if you have got that or not, Bruce.
Borup: I was wondering the same thing.
Tealey: And looking -- I got the testimony from the application for Parkstone and it
appears that there was some discussion on it by McKinnon and Borup and, basically,
they said, you know, we don't care, you know, it was not important to them to get it and I
think some of the same points were brought up at that time by the Commissioners of
why we don't want this subdivision and I think what they are doing was -- it doesn't
bother us, let's not make this a point of discussion, let's get our subdivision approved.
You know, it may not have been a sticking point, but I can see that as a -- as a
concession they would make, because, again, we don't even know if the lot lines line up
and we really don't want to change the lot lines that we have on this subdivision.
Centers: How about if they did line up?
Tealey: We still don't want it.
Centers: You know they are going to have a six-acre neighborhood park there.
Tealey: Yes. Over in the Campus. That's correct.
Centers: No. No.
Tealey: Over in Parkstone.
Centers: In Parkstone.
Tealey: Yes. We just don't feel -- and from a marketing concept -- and the owner of
MKH Development is here and maybe if he wants to throw in a few words, but we don't
see that as a benefit to us. These 17 -- basically 17,000 to half-acre lots and the mix
with Parkstone is -- what are those, Bruce? Eight thousand?
Siddoway: Yeah. There is a mix of lot sizes. About 8,000 square feet, probably,
average.
Borup: At the north end.
Tealey: Yeah. So, you know, even if they did line up we wouldn't be agreeable to a
path. So, I guess that's the point of discussion. And if we do have the discussion and
decide that a micropath isn't needed on number eight, third bullet there, as a
requirement for the plat, note for fencing of the micropath, so we'd like -- if you decide to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 25 of 94
grant our request that, that also be deleted for the staff recommendations. If there are
any questions I would be glad to answer them.
Zaremba: I think a question for staff while you're still here on the subject of the
micropath. The thought was -- this is an extremely long block length. Is a micropath
usable as a fire access, to give a second access to this property?
Siddoway: Well, they can be. They have had requirements placed on them in other
subdivisions to be constructed such that they will support a fire truck and et cetera, et
cetera. I don't think that that condition was put on the -- on the Parkstone side of this
pathway, though.
Tealey: That would also require a minimum of 20 feet for that micropath for that access.
Siddoway: Yes.
Tealey: And in all truth -- and we had discussions with staff. This discussion of a block
length is just a little hard to understand. We did apply for the variance. We don't
understand it. Basically --
Zaremba: You are applying for the variance in the block length?
Tealey: Yes. Yes. Because our application wouldn't go forward without it. What
happens when you measure the block length with a subdivision that doesn't have an
outlet, you measure the total frontage of all the lots.
Zaremba: The whole exterior square.
Tealey: Right. And it just doesn't make sense. I mean those -- from cul-de-sac to
street is about 750 feet. So I think using the block length as a requirement for the
micropath just doesn't really make the sense that you might think it does on paper.
Borup: And I have the same problem with the block length. There are only 16 lots
here. Even though you measure around the perimeter it is over a thousand feet, but
those are really short streets. Anything else, Mr. Tealey?
Tealey: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Come forward, sir.
Epps: Commissioners, my name is J. R. Epps, I'm an adjacent landowner just south of
Block 6 on the plat here. What I'm looking for -- maybe staff can help me -- is
clarification on the overhead power lines. The map I have shows them to be going
along the south boundary of that and I don't know if that's correct or not.
Borup: You mean you think there are going to be new power lines put in?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 26 of 94
Epps: Yeah. I was just going off the map I had that shows the legend and the --
Borup: Sir, we need to get any testimony on the -- you want to repeat that for us?
Epps: Basically, the overhead -- from what you said, the overhead power line is going
to the well on the northwest side -- or southeast side. So it would not affect that
Summerfield Subdivision. Given that, I bought my property looking out over that field,
hope that Mr. Hollister wouldn't develop as quickly as he did, but what -- with what they
are proposing, two things. With the discussion tonight, I agree with the developer that
the micropath wouldn't be an added benefit as far as I'm concerned, living right behind
them. And the second thing is I -- from what they are proposing, I think it's a good thing
for me as an adjacent property owner and I like what they are doing with the larger lot
sizes and I think it's going to help my property values and the surrounding property
values and my recommendation to the Commissioners, as someone testifying here, is
that it gets approved.
Borup: Thank you, sir. Who would like to come next? Anyone? Okay.
Commissioners, maybe a little discussion on the pathway would be appropriate, before
we close the hearing, in case we want to perhaps talk with the applicant.
Zaremba: Well, I think I participated in the previous discussion on the other subdivision
and my feeling about the portion of the pathway that was put on the other subdivision
was that it really didn't do them that much benefit. Anybody trying to leave that
subdivision walking to the schools would follow the roadways. My thinking in requiring it
of the other subdivision was it was going to benefit this subdivision --
Borup: I agree.
Zaremba: -- as a secondary access as a way to access the parks. I can easily be
swayed by the applicant's comments that these lots are so big enough that the
occupants won't need to be seeking a park. I could happily go either way.
Centers: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I -- I wouldn't want to force it on them if they don't want
it. I think the big point is it’s going to match up with the lot line and, you know, they
have extremely large lots there for the area and if they don't want people from that other
subdivision walking through, I guess I can't blame them. They are going to market their
lots without the micropath and that's their choice, in my opinion.
Zaremba: And, then, retroactively let the other subdivision know they don't need to do
it, if we don't do it here.
Borup: I was going to ask that. The other subdivision wouldn't be required to put that
pathway in, then.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 27 of 94
Siddoway: It will be required unless Council changes it. It's a condition already in a
formal written recommendation from this body that it go forward, so --
Borup: Can you notify the other applicant to let them know -- well, I guess we need to
make a decision here first, but --
Centers: Mr. Chairman, there is -- it could be noted when it goes to Council that -- what
we did on this subdivision and that could be noted to the Council and to -- so they could
remove it if they wanted to.
Siddoway: Yes. The recommendation has already gone to Council without that, but it
could be done verbally at the hearing.
Centers: Yeah. If it hasn't gone to hearing.
Borup: Mr. Tealey?
Tealey: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have already had discussions
with the applicant -- applicant's representative and they don't have a problem not having
it.
Borup: The other subdivision?
Tealey: The Parkstone Subdivision. That's correct.
Borup: Right. We --
Centers: Well, we know that.
Zaremba: What I'm saying, though, is if we delete it as a requirement here, somehow
we want to get the word to the other applicant to bring it up when he has his Council
hearing.
Tealey: I will guarantee you we will be in touch with them tomorrow.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I would accept that as a path of communication. Mr. Chairman, I move the
Public Hearing be closed.
Centers: Second it.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 28 of 94
Zaremba: Did we resolve to staff's satisfaction the question on page four, item 12?
Borup: Yes. I believe so. They said that it was an easement -- well, I guess I should
ask staff as to their satisfaction. The applicant testified that it was, but do we need
some more information there, Steve?
Zaremba: Maybe I closed the Public Hearing too soon.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm a little bit vague on the
easement. It's an easement, from what I understand, for access to the -- to the well that
is being moved? There is a head gate down there.
Centers: Summerfield.
Borup: I don't know about the head gate, but there is an existing piped ditch.
Centers: The way I heard the applicant was that there easements for Summerfield Sub
and their pressurized irrigation system. I see this. Meaning a nod of the head. I guess
the applicant has stated for the record that they are encroachable, which answers your
question mark on the staff comments.
Freckleton: It's a private easement for Summerfield's access. Mr. Chairman, would it
be appropriate to have the applicant come over to the table and we can talk about this a
little bit?
Borup: Yes. Maybe both of you -- it sounds like you had some information, too, sir.
Zaremba: I moved to close the Public Hearing prematurely.
Borup: Oh, but they can work that out. Any other discussion we may have, if we are --
a proposed motion? Are we leaning towards deleting the requirement for the
micropath?
Centers: I am.
Borup: So, then, that would also -- so that would -- item number six would be deleted
and eight, third bullet point.
Centers: Well, I was going to ask them if they had decided -- Mr. Siddoway, if they had
decided on a note on the plat that Settler's Irrigation would have access to all the lots. I
think it has to be on there, because they're going to be running the pressurized irrigation
for the homeowners association. Don't you think?
Siddoway: You're talking about just in an easement; right? Across the --
Centers: Just an access agreement. I guess it would be an easement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 29 of 94
Siddoway: I'll let Bruce address it, because this is the same easement that he's been
talking about.
Centers: Okay.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's clear now. Basically, what
this easement is for that goes across the southern boundary of the Hollister property
and up this side is for pressurized irrigation pipe for Summerfield Subdivision. It's no
different than the pressurized pipe that runs down the middle of this block. It's properly
a three or four inch pipe with taps coming off of it to serve these lots. At the time
Summerfield was built, evidently, this was an oversight, they didn't get it put in and so
they approached Mr. Hollister to get an easement to put it on his side of the property
line. So, we don't have a problem with it. It's no different than a pressurized irrigation
line running down the middle of a block. The lots in this subdivision, Hollister
Subdivision, will have an easement across the back of the lots anyway to cover public
utilities, drainage, and irrigation. So I have no issue with it.
Zaremba: But -- so what you're saying is they don't need to be separated from the
buildable lot and put into a separate common area?
Freckleton: Correct. Correct.
Zaremba: They are fine the way they are?
Freckleton: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. So we delete item 12 entirely or do we need to rephrase it? I think we
can just delete it; right?
Freckleton: Staff would be fine with just deleting that comment.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Centers: Well, getting back to -- getting back to the supply irrigation access to all lots
for Settler's Irrigation, you want a note on the plat or what do you want?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the way I interpret that
comment is that each lot in the subdivision shall be supplied irrigation water from
Settler's Irrigation District and the applicant is going to be doing that via a new
pressurized irrigation system through Settler's Irrigation District. So I think -- I think it's
covered.
Centers: Did you read their letter?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 30 of 94
Freckleton: I did. Are you interpreting it differently?
Centers: Well, maybe, maybe not. It reads -- have you found it? Number four? Okay.
Because it says access. Doesn't say must supply irrigation. It says irrigation access.
Freckleton: Commissioner Centers, Members of the Commission, each lot will have
easements on their lots. Typically, you will have a ten-foot easement across the back of
your lot and a five-foot easement up the side and ten foot across the front for public
utilities, drainage, and irrigation. This is pretty standard stuff here.
Centers: Okay.
Freckleton: I don't read into it anything more than just standard access to irrigation and
provision of irrigation water to each lot. We are still learning on Settler's.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have someone ready to proceed?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8
on our agenda, PP 03-001, request for preliminary plat approval of 15 building lots, one
existing house lot, and two other lots on -- the correct acreage is 10.284 acres in an R-4
zone for Setter Cove Subdivision by MKH Development, Inc., east of North Locust
Grove Road and north of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments, with the
following changes: On page three, site specific comments preliminary plat item two, the
discrepancy has been resolved. It is 10.284 acres. Paragraph six may be deleted. In
paragraph seven, the partial sentence that the variance is denied by the City Council
may be deleted. In paragraph eight, the third bullet, add a note to the face of the plat
requiring fencing, et cetera, is deleted. We are now at page four where that bullet
appeared. On page four, paragraph 12 may be deleted. That's the motion.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 03-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
An additional public school classroom building in an I-L zone for Meridian
Academy by LKV Architects – 2311 East Lanark Street.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 31 of 94
Borup: Item No. 9 is Public Hearing CUP 03-002, request for a Conditional Use Permit
for an additional public school classroom building in an I-L zone for Meridian Academy
by LKV Architects. This is at 2311 East Lanark Street. I'd like to open this Public
Hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This staff report
has a couple of errors in it that I need to correct for you as I go through. But this is an
application by the school district. It's a Conditional Use Permit for a 15,448 square foot
classroom building. It is -- there are seven existing modular classrooms that will be
removed. Turn to that now. The site location is on Franklin Road at the end of Lanark
Street. Even though it does have Franklin Road frontage, it is, actually, accessed off of
Lanark. Existing zoning is Light Industrial. Here is a site photo. You can see the
existing building here and the surrounding seven modular classrooms. Those are the
modulars that will be removed and this is the location that the new building will be built.
See, if there is – okay. North is to the left now, just to get you a little more confused. So
Lanark enters the site over here. Franklin Road is off the screen to the right. This is
the existing building and the modulars wrapped around the property this way. This is
the location of the new building to be constructed and that new building is not a new
use, it is the same use that was in the modulars, they are just getting the actual building
built at this time. The subject property was approved in 1992 as a private school for the
Meridian Academy. It's also been used as a high school, later as an intermediate
middle school. I believe it is now a charter school. I will let the applicant describe the
use. That main thing that it is needing is to have some resolution -- I believe it -- is the
parking. There are references in here to 112 spaces and 120 spaces. I need you to
strike those numbers and I'll tell you what's actually there. Under site specific
requirement number one -- if you just skip to where it counts on page four. It says the
proposed use requires 120 spaces, but only 120 spaces are provided.
Borup: So that's accurate, then.
Siddoway: No.
Borup: Oh.
Siddoway: The original plan actually had 101 spaces and showed 12 classrooms. Now
the parking requirement for a school like this is ten spaces per classroom, which would
-- based on 12 classrooms, would have been the 120 spaces. One of the classrooms is
not a classroom, it's, actually, a library, so we, actually, have eleven classrooms. So, for
the eleven classrooms, which, I guess, is the accurate description, ten spaces per
classroom will be 110 spaces required. They did a revised plan, which I don't know if
the -- I believe the Commission received copies. I believe they were stamped March
3rd by the clerk's office and ours are stamped March 5th by our own office. But they
went in and put in compact parking stalls to try and comply with the parking requirement
without a variance. Those parking stalls are only seven and a half feet wide. In talking
with -- and about 38 percent of the overall parking would be in that seven, seven and a
half foot wide parking. We, actually, prefer to have the full size parking stalls and grant
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 32 of 94
a variance. We would rather have the full size stalls and support a variance, than to
have most -- you know, a large share of the parking all be seven foot stalls and very
crowded and unusable for large vehicles. We understand there is not an existing
parking problem on the site and given that the use is not changing, we don't expect that
to create a hardship. So, the recommendation would be to follow through with the
variance as stated in the staff report and to do full size parking spaces. I have talked
with the applicant's representative. They are in agreement to do that. The second thing
is the landscaping. There is a little bit of confusing language in here where it states that
the east side needs to be brought into compliance, so these should be placed along the
west side. The western should be struck and east should be inserted there. And I
believe the applicant has with him a plan that accomplishes that. I believe that the --
that those tweaks to the parking spaces can be made prior to Council. We do need to
get the variance to allow that to go through, but the variance could go through with it to
Council. The other -- the other site specific requirement -- I don't know that there is any
in contention, so I will stop there and stand for any questions. We do recommend
approval of the project with those modifications.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Yes. I got lost in the parking lot numbers. If they go to full size vehicle
spaces, how many spaces would they have?
Siddoway: I don't have a straight answer. They had 101, but they have added some
parking in another area that wasn't originally shown, so they are probably going to pick
up an additional five, nine -- I don't know for sure. Let's see if the applicant knows and,
if not, we can --
Zaremba: But what we are aiming for is 110?
Siddoway: One hundred ten is the required number without a variance.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Marshall: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm Scott Marshall, LKV
Architects, and we don't have any issues with the staff report and I've reviewed all of the
comments and we are in agreement with all the requirements. If I can clarify the
parking for you. Can you go back to the aerial -- would you go back to the aerial view?
You can see how the property also encompasses the Meridian -- the Meridian
maintenance shop and – yeah. That's the Meridian maintenance shop and there is also
parking there. Initially, on the count that the Planning and Zoning did, is they included
that strip of parking to the right-hand side of the building -- just a little bit farther over --
in their initial count. I have excluded that. Without those counted as parking, there is
88 spots. If you do count those as parking, there is 101. I have revised it and
compacted some spots along the -- where the baseball field is, I picked up some spots
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 33 of 94
there, and also added some spots right as you turn in there – yeah. Right there. Added
some spots there and over on the other side, to hit our 111. Now, this is kind of a
unique situation as far as the parking goes. There is the bus barn that's also directly
kitty corner to that. Those employees use the parking as -- and for -- you can see the
bus barn over there. Those employees use the parking in the Meridian Academy
parking lot. The bus barn is being relocated next year, so they will pick up about 12
spots there. The way that the students get to the school is this is a -- it's an academy
building, it's where all of the students that need special considerations as far as
teaching goes, so each student that goes there has a home high school -- they pull from
Centennial and from Meridian High and the way they do it is they go to that school,
then, a bus goes and picks them up and brings them here. So the number of students
driving is very minimal. I had a conference with the principal and she only -- there are
20 spots open, usually. There are only 60 -- there are only 40 students that drive and
there are 20 staff. So we are below what the requirement is for a high school, but we
have a unique situation. And completion of this building will not add to the enrollment,
the enrollment is capped. So is there any -- was I clear or confusing?
Zaremba: Yeah. Would you be willing, then, to -- the spaces that you compacted, to
put them back to full size?
Marshall: Sure.
Zaremba: And just apply for the variance for the short number?
Marshall: Sure.
Zaremba: That sounds to me like it would be granted pretty easily.
Marshall: Yeah. That's fine.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Mr. Mayor, may I ask -- how many full size lots are you going to end up with?
Would it be that 88 number, then?
Marshall: Correct. Well, can you go back to the -- I have added some compact spots
and those would be retained. There is four there. There is three right across. And,
then, over to the right-hand side at the base of the hill there is another four and we
would retain those as compact. So we would add -- it would be like 95.
Siddoway: I would, actually, recommend that they go full size, so -- I believe you had
four additional ones here; is that right?
Marshall: Correct.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 34 of 94
Siddoway: So if you go full size you would probably get three there and if you have
three here, if you go full size you would probably have two. So three and two is five.
You could still probably get the four here even at full size, couldn't you?
Marshall: Yeah.
Siddoway: So that would be nine -- nine additional on top of the 88. Is that right?
Marshall: Correct.
Borup: That's 97.
Centers: Ninety-seven.
Rohm: Yeah. The point being staff's recommendation that you retain full size spaces,
as opposed to the compact would be preferred.
Marshall: Yeah. And that would be preferable for the school district also.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
Zaremba: I do. It's kind of a side issue. Can you go back to the aerial view? I vaguely
remember that there is a pretty significant grade change in this. Are there any plans for
using that part of the property?
Marshall: If you go to the -- back to the landscaping, you can see the contours on the
right-hand side and it's pretty steep and the school district doesn't have any plans for
that currently.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this
application? Seeing none, Commissioners?
Centers: I think we could move to close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: I have a feeling we have discussed most things. Does staff have any further
opinions we haven't covered?
Siddoway: No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 35 of 94
Zaremba: In that case I will make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03-
002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an additional public school classroom
building in an I-L zone for Meridian Academy by LKV Architects, 2311 East Lanark
Street, to include all staff comments, with the following changes: On page four, site
specific requirements, paragraph one, the proposed use requires -- change that to 110
parking spaces. That only 97 spaces are provided. Strike the rest of the sentence. We
recommend that the applicant ask for a variance for the difference when presenting this
to the City Council. Paragraph two. Landscaping. The second sentence: Trees should
be placed every 33 feet -- 35 feet -- excuse me -- 35 feet along the eastern perimeter,
not western. And that's it.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 03-003 Request for annexation and zoning of 14.31
Acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by
Dan Wood – south of East Ustick Road and west of NorthLocust Grove
Road:
Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 03-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 50
Building lots and 6 other lots on 14.31 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by Dan Wood – south of East Ustick
Road and west of North Locust Grove Road:
Borup: Next project, Public Hearing AZ 03-003, request for annexation and zoning of
14.31 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Timberfalls Subdivision by Dan Wood.
This is south of East Ustick Road and west of North Locust Grove Road. And
accompanying that is Public Hearing PP 03-002, request for preliminary plat approval of
50 building lots and six other lots on 14.31 acres. Same applicant and project. Like to
open both of these public hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject
property is on the south side of Ustick Road about halfway between Meridian Road and
Locust Grove, surrounded by existing subdivisions on three sides, the Bedford Place,
Granite Creek. The aerial photos, as you can see here, you see all the existing lots and
homes built around it and this has been a -- just farmland. They are requesting
annexation and zoning to R-8. I do believe all of the surrounding residential
subdivisions are also the R-8 zone. The plat on the 14 acres includes 50 building lots
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 36 of 94
and six other lots. The lots vary in size from 6,500 square feet, which is the minimum
for the zone, to 15,000 square feet. There is a large centrally located open space in the
center that would be a -- provide the open space requirement for the lot for the
subdivision. They are requesting a reduction through the alternative compliance
provisions of the landscape ordinance to allow the landscape buffer along Ustick Road
to be reduced from the 25 feet required by ordinance to 20 feet, which I believe
matches the landscape buffers that are provided by the adjacent subdivisions. They
have spoken with Brad Hawkins-Clark, the interim planning director, and he has agreed
with them on that reduction. The staff report from David, Sonya, and Bruce you should
have and if you go to page six you will see the additional considerations that need
resolution. On the first one, simply a block length issue. Block one, which is here, is
less than our minimum block length, which is 300 feet, and requires a variance. Block 2
is, then, longer than the 1,000 foot maximum, so we have one -- one too small, one too
large for the ordinance. But we would just ask that they would submit a variance
application for the block length. I might interject here that we have so many of these
variance and -- variances on block length around the perimeter, that we are taking a
look at revising that ordinance, but until that happens we need to stay consistent with
these variances. But that is something that we are looking at. Both those block length
issues can be combined into a single application. Item two is the landscape plan.
Apparently, there were some revisions to the central block that tweaked the shape and
the landscape plan doesn't yet reflect that. Apparently, it's not too major and it simply
states that we like the revised landscape plan submitted with the final plat application,
which would be required anyway. It also mentioned in there the support for the
reduction of the landscape buffer along Ustick Road. Those are fairly easy to
overcome. The next two are the more difficult ones. The Onweiller Lateral courses
along the south portion of this property and has a 35-foot wide easement for
maintenance along it. That lateral is already piped, as I understand it, but there is a
maintenance road that runs along it as well. Currently, as shown on the plat, the lots go
all the way to the edge of the property line and do not stop short of that easement or the
maintenance road. We don't believe that the easement should be considered part of
the lots, since -- especially the portion that the maintenance road is on. We understand
that the applicant is in negotiations with Nampa-Meridian to obtain a license agreement
to allow 20 feet plus or minus. I understand that it varies a little bit, to encroach into the
easement, but only far enough that it doesn't interfere with the maintenance road. If the
applicant is able to obtain that license agreement, then, the plat needs to be modified to
place those lot lines at their proper location and place the maintenance road in a
common lot behind them. If they are not able to get the license agreement, then, there
would be 35 foot wide common lot behind them. But I've had indication from the
applicant that they feel pretty confident they will at least be able to encroach part way.
Thus, the plat -- they need to get that license agreement and, then, revise the plat
accordingly, and we would recommend that the modification to the plat happen before
this goes to Council. Item number four is similar. There is a waterway adjacent to the
west side of the property that shows a 15 foot wide easement and we also have a
question about the -- whether that is able to be encroached on or not. Currently, they
encroach with the lot lines right up to the property line and, again, we need to have the
applicant address the encroachability of that -- of that easement and if it's not
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 37 of 94
encroachable, we will need that one in a common lot as well. Item five deals with
access into the central open space and micropaths. The ordinance as written deals
with requirements for micropaths if they are provided. Staff would -- currently there are
these connections in, but they are all grass and I believe there are also some
stormwater swales that skirt around the outside edge of that open space lot. We would
like to see some micropaths built to provide access into there on a hard surface,
although I can't say definitively that the ordinance would require them. So that's kind of
an additional consideration, should there be or should there not be actual micropaths. If
there are, then, it comes with requirements for fencing height, which we would
recommend be placed as a condition on -- around the open space anyway, so that you
can have the visibility from the adjacent lots into the open space and is less likely to
become a problem area for them. If you do decide to require micropaths, it would need
to be included as a requirement of the annexation. Item six is the fencing adjacent to
the open space lot and I already described that. So, those are the significant issues.
We do feel that in general the subdivision is a good one. It's harmonious with the
surrounding neighborhoods, it's in similar character, and -- but we just need to get these
modifications made and corrected before approving it and, with that, I will stand for any
questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Steve, on the recommendation on
the pathway, you're just recommending access into the park just from -- the pathway
would just be the length of the lots?
Siddoway: Yes. I believe we specified in the report the -- it's site specific comment
number nine on page nine, construct hard surface pathways a minimum of one lot in
depth leading into the open space common lot in the following locations and, then,
specify the lots and blocks.
Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to make a presentation?
Nickel: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission, my name is Shawn Nickel, I'm with
Land Consultants, Incorporated, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. As staff stated, we are
asking for an annexation request with zoning from R-1 to R-8. Our proposed density is
3.42 dwelling units per acre. One point of clarification. I hope you have my revised plat
in front you. I even wrote revised in red on the front there.
Borup: Yes.
Nickel: Good. The reason for the revision is when we were working both ACHD and
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on establishing easements and right of way, we were
required to revise our application and that's what that revision that you have in front of
you is. We, actually, are down by one lot. We are down to 49 buildable lots, instead of
50, and five common lots. Those lots range in size from 6,500 to --
Centers: Five common?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 38 of 94
Nickel: Five. I believe five.
Centers: You have six.
Nickel: Yeah. Five.
Centers: So you lost two.
Nickel: Two total lots. Right. One buildable. So that did drop us down just slightly,
6,500 to 15,000 square foot lot sizes within the development. Our total open space is
1.43 acres, which is ten percent of the total site of that. The park is 1.06 acres, which is
7.5 percent. So, we do have -- a good chunk of that is usable open space. This does
meet the intent of your Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2002 for the medium
density, three to eight dwelling units per acre, which we would consider an in-fill,
because as you saw on that original map, that original map up there is surrounded on
three sides. Because it was surrounded, we did have three existing stub streets that we
had to put into our design. That's the main reason for the block length issues and I do
have those variances that will be submitted tomorrow to staff and those will be
forwarded to the City Council, hopefully with your recommendation for approval of those
if you so choose. And we are in favor of the staff's modification of that zoning ordinance
requirement. It seems like every time we are up here we are asking for variances for
block length. Real quickly, we are in favor of all of the conditions that staff is
recommending. We do have some clarification we'd like to talk to you and staff about
this evening. First of all, from dealing with staff over the last couple of weeks, I was
under the impression that we were going to be recommended for approval tonight. I
was -- just found out this evening that staff's recommending us to take care of some of
those issues. The main one was the Onweiller Lateral and the lateral for the ditch that's
on the western boundary. As I stated earlier, that was the one reason for the revision to
the subdivision plat. We are currently working with the irrigation district, Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District on the encroachment issue on that south lateral. When we
met with them and they established that 35 foot easement on there, it was obvious that
there is quite a large chunk to be taken out of those south -- the south lots up against
the southern boundary. What the agreement is, is a verbal agreement with the irrigation
district -- was to allow us to encroach into a portion of those -- of that 35 foot easement,
but to allow them up to 15 feet for their maintenance road, which exists on the site.
Now, the maintenance road and the piped ditch is actually just a bit off of our property,
but the easement does encroach into our property not quite the 35 feet. So our verbal
agreement with the irrigation district was to get a license agreement to encroach up to
the maintenance road and, then, to have our fencing be along that 15 foot boundary
and, then, either -- and, then, staff had the condition to either have the homeowners
association -- well, they will own it, but maintain that open space, that common area, or
have the irrigation district do that. So that's part of the agreement that we will have with
the irrigation district.
Centers: Yes. So, Mr. Nickel, you don't have a problem with number seven on page
nine, because they state unless the application provides --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 39 of 94
Nickel: Right. Exactly.
Centers: Number seven?
Nickel: The only problem I have is staff wanting us to get that resolved before you all
make a recommendation to the City Council. We are confident --
Centers: No. We can make the recommend with that condition.
Nickel: And what's what we are hoping.
Centers: Correct.
Nickel: But other than that, we are in favor of that. If, for some reason, negotiations
were to break down and we would have to comply with that 35 feet, as you can see, we
are going to have to do some major revisions to our plat and probably be back in front
of you.
Centers: Right.
Nickel: We are confident that's going to be resolved.
Zaremba: If I may clarify for myself, regardless of whether it's 15 feet or 25 feet or 35
feet, you will make this into a separate lot that's a common area maintained by either
homeowners or an irrigation district?
Nickel: Right. One more point of clarification is that staff does state that -- in number
three, under additional considerations on page seven: The back of the lot shall be set at
the encroachment line with a remaining 15 foot wide portion. Now because that ditch is
off our property there is going to be some portions of that common lot that aren't going
to be exactly 15 feet wide, they might be less. So I just want that to be clear that that's
approximately 15 feet to accommodate that maintenance road. So, that was the issue
on that. The same goes for that western -- that western property line with the ditch on
that. We also have a verbal agreement from the irrigation district. We are going to be
required to tile that pipe and it's just a matter of what type of encroachment they will
allow us. That will also be part of the license agreement with the irrigation district.
Zaremba: And, again, you will make that a common area?
Nickel: Again, if we don't, we will meet that --
Zaremba: However wide it --
Nickel: Staff's requirement.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 40 of 94
Borup: Shawn, that ditch crosses Ustick and supplies properties to the north of Ustick?
Nickel: Uh-huh.
Borup: Is that what that is?
Nickel: Regarding the pathways, if -- if staff can -- could you put back on the landscape
plan, Steve? And staff is actually making a recommendation -- we met with your staff
last week regarding the issue of pathways and we agree that we would provide a paved
pathway into that -- into that subdivision at those three -- those three locations, two from
the east and, then, one from the south. We aren't in favor of doing it as a micropath per
se, but we are going to pave the length of -- can I use your pointer? So the pavement
would be the length of this lot right here, this lot right here, and that lot right there, and,
then, the rest of it will be the natural grass and it will provide people access and it will
be an actual defined pathway into that park.
Centers: How about that one?
Nickel: Oh, I'm sorry, I --
Zaremba: There are four of them.
Nickel: There. There. There, and there.
Borup: You are intending to do one on the north?
Nickel: I thought that was our plan. Yes. A portion of this lot right here might be used
for retention, drainage retention. As you look on the plat you will see those funky lines
that kind of go into it. That's where we were intending to bring the water for drainage --
storm drainage down. This property actually flows in this direction right here. So, as
your staff is recommending in that condition, we will provide a pathway in those
locations I described. We are also in agreement to provide -- that we will have -- within
our CC&R's the requirements for fencing along the open space and that is that four foot
solid with the option of the two foot lattice on top of that, so if someone has a lot and
has a big dog, they need that additional, at least you will have the height to restrict the
dog, but also will be able to see into the park and it adds extra protection for kids that
might be in there. So we are in agreement with that as well. The only other issue I
have -- and this is more of a question for Bruce. It's a question for Bruce and it's in
regards to pressure irrigation and, actually, secondary irrigation. I briefly talked to him
about that. It's my understanding, from talking to Bruce, that we are going to required
by code to provide a secondary irrigation source; is that correct?
Freckleton: That's correct. You have to have a backup, be able to supply water for the
pre-season and post season.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 41 of 94
Nickel: From what I understand from talking to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is in
this area -- if you put the colored map that had the three other subdivisions -- I guess in
this portion of the irrigation district, these other subdivisions are only hooked up to the
primary irrigation and do not have a secondary irrigation source and from what the
developer was told by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is you can't isolate this system
-- in other words, if we use the city -- the city system for our secondary access, that it's
hard to isolate this subdivision from the other subdivisions that don't have that
secondary source. So, I guess my question --
Borup: So you're tying into the existing pressurized irrigation line from the other three
subdivisions?
Nickel: Right. And so I almost got the impression from Nampa Irrigation District that
they don't want us to use their system if we are going to be hooking into a secondary
system with the city. Have you heard of that? I'm actually asking this as a question to
Bruce, more than anything else. I just don't want to get locked into a situation here.
Freckleton: Members of the Commission, Mr. Nickel, you know, I totally understand
where you're coming from. I understand where the irrigation district is coming from.
Unfortunately, at the time those subdivisions went in they didn't have a requirement for
that secondary source. The biggest headache that we have is when there is not a
backup source, people will dual connect. When you have dual connections, more often
than not they are done illegally. Every dual connection that we have out there is a
potential source for contamination to our water system and it's a health hazard. That is
the main driving force for the city requiring the single point connection, is it gives us one
single point to monitor for back flow. When we have a single source -- or, excuse me, a
secondary source in a subdivision, we don't allow any other connection to the system at
the homes. So I don't have a good answer for you right now. We are going to have to
look into that a little bit. I mean I can think of ways that you can isolate it.
Nickel: I just wanted to bring that up as a -- as a discussion item. I think that,
Commissioners, that we can work that out with your staff prior to City Council. More
than anything, I just want to get on the record that I don't want to be trapped in the
specific system. It sounds like we can work with your staff and I would be willing to do
that.
Borup: I have got a question pertaining to that, Mr. Nickel. Have you talked with the
irrigation district on -- on the volume they would require for a secondary connection
point?
Nickel: My developer would have and I'm not sure --
Borup: I guess where I was going to, the systems are all maintained by Nampa-
Meridian. Is there anything preventing a secondary tie in that would -- that would
service all four subdivisions? They are the ones doing the building anyway. Can't that
extra cost be --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 42 of 94
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might weigh in on that. It certainly is possible. I would
guess that it would require more than one connection.
Borup: That's what I was wondering.
Freckleton: I mean you may end up with one in Granite Creek and one over in Bedford
and, then, maybe another one in Timber Falls, but --
Borup: I don't think it's tied into the Granite -- Bedford.
Nickel: I don't think it is. I think it's just the one to the south.
Freckleton: The point is it can be retrofitted. I mean I don't see any problem with that.
It's possible. We can work it out.
Nickel: And I apologize for putting staff on the spot. I wanted to just get it out there and
I think it probably can --
Borup: Depending on how many points it would require, that would -- that would also
prevent some potential problems in those other areas, too.
Freckleton: One question I have, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Shawn, are you going to
have your own -- are you going to have a pump station in this development or are you
going to be just tying into existing stubs from the other developers?
Nickel: I thought we were tying into existing stubs is what we were -- yeah.
Freckleton: So a pump station is not within the boundaries of Timber Falls. Okay.
Nickel: Correct:
Borup: Which makes the secondary source a little more -- would have to be in at that
point also, then.
Freckleton: Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. It could be in Timber Falls and, you know,
we could valve it off where it connects it up with the other subdivisions, thereby
supplying city water to the system for the shoulder season. I certainly think that
probably the best -- the best case scenario here would be for Nampa-Meridian to work
with us and developer and do some retrofitting for these subdivisions --
Borup: To bring them all to the current requirement.
Freckleton: Correct. I think it's to everybody's benefit for that to occur.
Borup: Proceed, Mr. Nickel.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 43 of 94
Nickel: Oh. And, then, one last issue, Commissioners, and that's condition number
four, which is on page nine, and that talks about --
Centers: Page nine?
Nickel: Page nine of my staff report. I don't know what yours -- it's in regard to
perimeter fencing of the subdivision. And the second sentence says permanent
perimeter fencing shall be required around the subdivision, unless the city agrees in
writing that such a fence is not required. The majority of the area around our
subdivision already has existing fencing. We are going to provide fencing on the south
through our -- through the irrigation district and, then, along our berm on the north along
Ustick Road. I just wanted to put that on the record for staff to recognize that -- the
majority of that is already in place.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Well, do you have the staff report?
Nickel: I have the -- I don't know that I --
Centers: Because --
Nickel: Dated March 6?
Borup: Our number four is on page eight. It's just --
Centers: March 6. Yeah. Because I want to refer to page nine, item seven. That's
what I have, anyway.
Freckleton: Shawn, are you working off of a draft? Was it one that Dave e-mailed over
to you?
Nickel: Yeah. You know, I might be, Bruce. Let me grab my other --
Borup: Do you have -- Shawn, you have item number seven, though, don't you?
Nickel: On what page were yours, Commissioner Centers?
Centers: Well, page nine, item seven. The next to the last sentence in item seven
where it says 15 wide portion. I think you referred to you'd like to see that
approximately 15 feet. Would you like -- would it be applicable to have that read 14 to
16 feet?
Nickel: No. No. There are some places where it could be --
Centers: Well, then, how can you say approximately 15 feet?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 44 of 94
Nickel: If you can think of a better wording that will keep us from having to make it 15
feet or something less, that's what I was getting at.
Centers: Yeah. And I agree with you.
Nickel: Okay.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might just suggest scratch
15 foot wide and so it would just read with the remaining portion.
Nickel: That would be great.
Centers: Very good.
Nickel: Thanks.
Centers: And, then, in addition, number nine on the same page. So you're in
agreement that there would be four foot fencing along all the pathways that you intend
to install?
Nickel: That is correct. The way that reads, lot six includes all of those -- all of the
pathways that I pointed out earlier.
Centers: Yeah.
Nickel: So that would be for that whole lot and it would be the four-foot with option of
the two-foot lattice on top of that.
Centers: Right. They, actually, didn't refer to the fencing along the pathways and that's
why I added that there. So you're in agreement with four foot fencing along all the
pathways.
Nickel: Right.
Centers: Of course, the perimeter, you had mentioned that.
Nickel: Yeah. And the way I looked at that, all of those are encompassed in lot six and
so, yes, that's fine.
Centers: Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, item number ten right below that is
the one that talks about the fencing adjacent to the open space.
Centers: We were just talking about the open space lots, though, Steve.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 45 of 94
Borup: But those pathways are --
Centers: Are all a part of – okay. Good. Good.
Borup: Any other questions.
Mathes: I have a question.
Borup: Go ahead.
Mathes: How wide are you going to make the path?
Nickel: Staff made a recommendation on that.
Siddoway: If I can jump in, I would say it just should conform to the micropath
ordinance. It would be five feet wide as a minimum, with five feet on each side. You
already have 15 feet in --
Nickel: I believe they are all at least 20 feet wide.
Borup: So five feet would work fine.
Siddoway: It appears that the one coming in from the south is only 14. The rest are 19,
20, and 20.
Centers: And what's the ordinance, Steve?
Siddoway: Fifteen would be the minimum by ordinance. Five feet for the pathway and
five feet on each side. So it would be one foot difference.
Nickel: And we would not have a problem making that 15 feet wide on that south --
Centers: You have got room.
Zaremba: Let's see. For my question we will probably need the plat plan. That would
do. Would you count for me the other lots? You're saying five other lots.
Nickel: Did I count wrong, Commissioner? If I did I apologize.
Zaremba: Just point them out to me, because I --
Nickel: There are six. I missed one. The knuckle -- the knuckle island in there, so -- do
you want me to go to the screen and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 46 of 94
Zaremba: No. You have answered the direction my question is going. If we add as a
separate common area lot the southern easement and the western easement, now
you're going to have eight other lots; right?
Centers: Well, you'd have to come back.
Borup: Actually, I only see five.
Nickel: Yes. You would have eight.
Zaremba: Not only the discussion of how wide they are going to be, they are going to
be into separate easements into separate lots. The question questions they are
struggling with are how wide they are. So there will actually be eight once you do that.
Borup: I only see five up there now.
Nickel: As staff mentioned, that was our original landscape plan. The little knuckle
there at the top actually has a landscape island on it.
Borup: Oh, you added another one in there.
Nickel: The plat you have in front of you that says revised is the current plan.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Nickel? I have got one back on the -- at the
beginning you were discussing approval from Nampa-Meridian on the encroachment.
Did you have a time frame when he's guaranteed that?
Nickel: Commissioners, if I would have known that staff was going to make that -- if I
would have known that they were going to make that recommendation tonight, I would
have tried my darnedest to have something in writing from them this evening. I
definitely will get something prior to City Council. Did you have a condition in here that
says we have to have that prior to City Council?
Borup: And you're completely -- you're completely confident you can have it prior to
that?
Nickel: Yes, I am.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: Ten days prior. Is that one of those things that needs to be ten days prior?
Siddoway: I stand on my comment that I think it needs to come back here. Council
came down very hard on staff and a couple of applicants this week on Tuesday for
projects that were incomplete and things coming in right before the meeting and they
really do not want that. So that's my recommendation. One thing that we can't say
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 47 of 94
tonight is if the -- the encroachment is not allowed on the west side, it's likely to make
some of those lots smaller than the minimum. If 15 feet is taken off, we know it will take
it below the minimum lot size, but will that whole 15 be unencroachable? I don't know.
And without some of those questions resolved -- I think we need to know where that line
falls.
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, we --
Borup: Well -- and that's why I brought that up, because that's my concern. If this
project goes to City Council and it's not taken care of, not complete, that reflects on this
Commission.
Nickel: I do understand. I guess that we are confident, because if we don't get that
agreement, not only can we go to City Council, I think we are going to have to come
back here, because we are going to have to redesign the subdivision. Verbally we were
told that the ditch on the west, because there is not going to be a maintenance road on
that side, requires it will be piped, that we can encroach all the way to the property line
on that one, so I'm confident that we are able to do that. As far as the southerly one, if
we have to -- if we can't get that agreement after we have been told that we could and
we have to provide 35 feet of a common area, I think we are going to have to do a
major redesign of the whole subdivision and we will be back in front of you, so --
Borup: But back in front of us after it's already had a hearing at City Council, unless
you ask to have it pulled from the agenda, I guess.
Nickel: I do understand staff's concerns. I think we can get -- if you are uncomfortable
with it -- and I heard you talk about the last -- the items a couple times before, that
you're all booked up on the 20th, if that's the only issue we have on this, I would like to
at least be tabled for two weeks, rather than losing a month, and that will really put the
pressure on me to get Nampa-Meridian to commit to that. So, if you do feel like you do
need to table us, I would request to, please, be tabled for two weeks, rather than a
month, since that could be the only issue we have to resolve.
Borup: We will discuss that. I didn't --
Nickel: Just keep that under consideration when you discuss you decision.
Borup: Well, I know how I would feel if it was sent back to us from City Council,
especially after the discussion we have just gone through.
Zaremba: They have been pretty clear about wanting to have things resolved before
they see them.
Nickel: And, again, Commissioners, had I known tonight that we were going to do that,
I would have brought it. If you look at the actual discussion of the staff report on those
items -- I guess it is your page eight also. It does state -- actually, page nine. It states
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 48 of 94
in that first -- in that second paragraph, evidence of support from the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District for the encroachment will be required prior to the preliminary plat
approval by the City Council. So I thought I had some additional time prior to City
Council to get that agreement. So I would have tried to have it today. Anyway, I will
leave that for you to discuss.
Centers: That's the way I read it, too, Mr. Nickel, to be honest with you.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Not at this time.
Nickel: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Mr.
Wood?
Wood: My name is Dan Wood. I'm purchasing this property. I'm the one that talked
with the irrigation district. I got them a copy of the plat map. That's when the revisions
came about and I talked with Bill, who, in turn, has talked with John Anderson, and they
are the ones that have come back and said, hey, Dan, we will go ahead and -- you will
need to enter into a license agreement, you know, but I can't enter into a license
agreement until I actually own the property. But what they have said is they want their
35 feet, but they will let us encroach within 15 feet of the pipe. So where the pipe is, in
some cases, part is on Finch Creek, they want 15 feet, so they have room to, you know,
go continue to mow the weeds and things like that. So what I'm going off of is what
they had told me. They usually have been pretty good for what they say they usually
stick to, so --
Borup: Is this plat accurate as far as the location, as far as you know?
Wood: Yes.
Borup: The way I read this, all of it is in Finch Creek.
Wood: That's right.
Borup: You said part of it.
Wood: Well, the reason why I say that, Keith, is it zigzags so much there is spots where
-- that's why Shawn was trying to deal with the 15 feet. You can see some places
where we don't even need the 15 feet and other places where, because of the way the
bend is, we are going to need more or real close to the whole 15 feet. And all Bill said
is that they need 15 feet to maintain it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 49 of 94
Borup: It looked like where it widens out is it would have had a box in the middle of the
roadway, so it would have to be moved in that location it looks like.
Wood: So it seems like we were honing in on that easement, so I figured at least I
should let you know I have talked with them and that's what Bill has told me.
Borup: So they are saying at this point they won't -- they won't enter into a final
agreement, but will they do a --
Wood: We can get a letter from them.
Borup: Saying that they will once you are in ownership. Is that what the letter would
say?
Wood: What the letter will say is what Bill has -- what I have just said is the fact that,
yes, there is a 35 foot encroachment there, but they will allow me to encroach within 15
feet, so that they have enough room.
Borup: Okay.
Wood: So I can put my fences --
Borup: So, you're saying the letter would say they would allow that, they just won't
enter into an agreement, of course, until you own the property?
Wood: Correct.
Borup: Yeah. Any other questions? Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Come
forward, sir.
Alden: I'm Tim Alden. I live at 3095 North Boulder Creek, which is in Granite Creek just
to the east, and I understand the comments that deal with the provisions for providing
fencing around the perimeter of the new development has been completed. I just -- for
point of clarification, the fencing that's there is chain link fencing and does not screen
from view and, of course, it would be my preference that fencing screen us from view,
not only after the thing is -- after the development is completed, but while it's going on,
so that out my backyard I'm not looking at the dust and noise and that sort of thing. Is
that something appropriate for this group or is there another forum for asking that
question?
Borup: No. This would be the proper -- so the chain link fence that's there, that was put
in by Granite Creek?
Alden: Yes.
Borup: Is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 50 of 94
Alden: Yes.
Borup: And that was the type of fence they chose to put in as their perimeter fence?
Alden: What that did was it kept the livestock almost all the time out of our lots. On the
other side of Granite Creek where it borders other properties, it was a cedar fence that
would screen from view, but it's just along that pasture land that it was chain link. That's
my only question.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? What was your preference for the fence
along your property line? What type of fence would you --
Alden: I would like something that would screen the view, so that when I'm -- so it
provides some privacy after the subdivision is complete and other people are living --
you have a backyard abutted right up to mine.
Rohm: The lattice that can slide down a chain link fence, is that adequate, in your
estimation?
Alden: That would provide a screen. Of course, I'd rather have a nice cedar fence, but
I realize that --
Rohm: Well, I'm just thinking of having two fences butted up against each other seems
a little bit redundant, you know, so --
Alden: Yes. Yes, it does. But I don't know if there is a requirement -- and I didn't want
to go to the expense of putting one up myself prior to knowing what the developer's
plans were for that.
Borup: Is it your understanding that that existing fence is -- well, it would be, it would be
entirely in your property.
Alden: That's my understanding, yes.
Borup: Okay.
Alden: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. I had a question, Mr. Siddoway. I was going to ask this earlier on
the -- that's on the area of perimeter fencing. Does that -- how is that understood
between two existing subdivisions in this case? I mean I don't see where it's that
different from back lot lines on the same subdivision.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the ordinance is not specific. We would simply -- a typical
scenario is simply to require perimeter fencing to keep the trash from blowing during
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 51 of 94
construction from one property to another. We don't specifically require cedar, although
that is the fence type that is usually used by developers. We have seen chain link
before. It does seem a little odd to require a cedar fence to back up to an existing chain
link fence. My opinion is that the existing chain link fence would meet the requirement
for the perimeter fencing and if neighbors want to be screened from view from it, they
could slat it. But we have -- we generally require permanent perimeter fencing in areas
where it does not currently exist and that's typically cedar, but not always.
Borup: But most of the time that's against unplatted properties.
Siddoway: Yeah. It's -- it's even more important in our view if it's against agricultural to
keep things from blowing over to the farms.
Borup: Okay. Well, I think Mr. Nickel's statement I remember him saying is that most of
the perimeter was fenced, so -- I don't know if we ever got a clarification on what that
means.
Siddoway: I think it was east and west side -- that they would be providing it on the
south.
Borup: Maybe we need -- at the end we could clarify that. Anyone else like to come up
and testify? Come on up, sir.
Mosier: My name is Gary Mosier. I live at 965 East Ustick. And -- it's the one acre at
the top right at the property. Yes. There has been no mention of the fencing around
that property -- bordering my property, which is barbed wire fence right now. You
mention they put fencing at the south, fencing at the north, but nothing was mentioned
about that little corner.
Borup: Okay. So there is no fencing there presently?
Mosier: Not unless you consider barbed wire --
Borup: Right. Okay. Anything else?
Mosier: Well, I don't know if this is the appropriate time, so I'll just ask. I believe that
there is just -- my property, maybe one other piece of property, that after this is zoned
city, is -- remains county, remains county property. My question is. Is there any
expectation or requirement for me to hook up to sewer and septic when this goes in?
Borup: Not unless you choose to be annexed yourself.
Mosier: And when I sell -- if or when I sell the property, is there a requirement there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 52 of 94
Borup: Meridian has traditionally not annexed property without application by the
owner. There is a provision under -- less than five acres it may happen, it's just never
happened yet. Is that correct?
Siddoway: That's correct. The city's never forced annexed property. There is a
provision to allow that for enclaves. I would say there is no plan in the foreseeable
future that your property would be forced to annex and be required to hook, although it
is feasible that that could happen under state code.
Borup: Most of the time people request that, like when their sewer system fails or
something like that, then, we see them back here asking for annexation.
Mosier: Now, if I requested annexation, because of sewer and septic, would it be
advantageous to do it at the time that they are putting in the subdivision, rather than
after? I mean I don't know where you hook up to sewer or hook up to water. In my
situation is it wise for me to know ahead of time what's involved in that if I chose to? I'm
not leaning that direction, but I'd like to know.
Borup: That's something you may be able to discuss with the developer on having
sewer line access to your property. That's something you maybe could work out with
him, while they are putting this in to have a stub to your property or something. That's
been done before.
Mosier: Something to discuss with the developer.
Borup: Right.
Mosier: But not with the city?
Borup: Yeah. The city would -- would not require that. Is there any foreseeable reason
the city would require that, Bruce?
Mosier: I'm not talking about requiring anything, I'm talking about tying into the --
Borup: Yeah. Well, that be -- the developer will be putting all the sewer lines in, so that
would be something to be discussed with him.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I would invite you to come in
and talk to us and we can show you where sewer water is in the area and we can --
Mosier: Well, that's why I asked if this was the appropriate time or --
Borup: It's a good time to bring it up, but to get real detailed, you need to go into the
public works department.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 53 of 94
Zaremba: I would say while people are digging around you this is the right time. We
would welcome you into the city if you so chose.
Mosier: Okay.
Borup: Thank you.
Mosier: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward at this
time? Mr. Nickel, do you have any final comments?
Nickel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel for the record. And
that was the reason I had brought up the perimeter fencing, was because I was -- we
are aware that there is existing fencing around there and it's kind of -- it seems
redundant to build a fence up against another fence. However, the developer has
stated that if the gentleman that talked first is wishing to have a cedar fence to block
out, then, he would be willing to -- my developer would be willing to split the cost with
him on that portion if he'd like. Typically, we put in the CC&R's the type of fencing that's
allowed, so you have a concurrent fence all around, but typically the builders build the
actual fence and in this case since there is already a perimeter on that --
Borup: Which of the two gentlemen were you referring to?
Nickel: I was referring to the first one gentleman. Now, with regard to the second
gentleman, I'm a little confused, because I thought that a portion of his property was
chain link -- had chain link in there and I don't know if that's the case or not. We will
work with him on that and if, indeed, it is not, it's just barbed wire, yes, we will be
required to -- by code to have that perimeter fence put up and we will do that on that
portion, so --
Borup: I could propose maybe another alternative on the chain link fence. Would you
be willing to put the slats in for any of the property owners that would like that? I think
that would cost you less than putting a fence up.
Nickel: If they were to come forward --
Borup: Well, that's what I was saying. Well, no, I don't know -- well, that would be up to
the Commissioners. But I'm saying I don't know if they necessarily need to come
forward, but they have to be notified that that's an option somehow. But it would
definitely cost you less than putting up a solid perimeter fence, but we realize we can't --
I don't know if we can require that, because it's not on your property.
Nickel: Yeah. I would be a little uncomfortable with having a requirement for an
off-site --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 54 of 94
Borup: Right. But we could require another fence put up.
Nickel: You could, I guess, but my feeling on that is it's kind of redundant.
Borup: Right. And I agree. I think -- and that's been mentioned, but I think a good
alternative would be --
Nickel: You're kind of putting us in between a rock and a hard place here.
Borup: Right. But I think a good alternative would be to offer the slats. Maybe some of
the neighbors might not want it, but those that did, if that -- if you think that would be
acceptable.
Nickel: I don't really want to commit to that right now.
Borup: Just thought it might save you some money.
Zaremba: Well, make it a two part offer. Offer the slats or go in halves with the cedar
fence, which is what you originally said.
Centers: Exactly.
Zaremba: Offer them both offers, you know.
Nickel: Given that, I think the slats would be a better alternative. And, then, regarding
the -- to get off the subject -- regarding the sewer, we will talk to the neighbor and see if
he's -- you know, if he's interested in getting a sewer tap or bringing -- or having us
bring a sewer tap over for him and, then, I think staff suggested that they talk to him as
well.
Centers: Tell him he can't hook up unless he's in the city.
Nickel: That's true, I guess. I have learned that the hard way. That's all I have.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Nickel while he's here? Okay. Did you have
another question, sir?
Mosier: I don't want to drag this out.
Borup: Okay. We need to get you on a microphone.
Mosier: There is a small section where I have a chain link fence four feet high that is
not on the property line, it's back about ten feet. There is an irrigation ditch that goes
between that small section of chain link fence and the pasture. Now, exactly where the
boundary -- property line falls, I'm not a hundred percent sure. We have the barbed
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 55 of 94
wire fence, the irrigation ditch, another strip of property, and, then, a chain link fence
that runs up against my barn. So it's not like the dividing -- it's not a dividing fence.
Borup: Right. Yeah.
Zaremba: The point is that fence is not your property line.
Mosier: Well, my -- the chain link fence is -- yeah, it's not on the property line.
Borup: No. I think they stated they would be putting a fence along your property line if
there is none there now, other than the --
Mosier: He mentioned that he thought part of it was chain link, but it's not a property
line fence.
Borup: Okay.
Mosier: I just wanted to clarify that, because if we get into this thing and --
Borup: No. We were talking about property line fencing. Have you got other comment
on that, Shawn, or --
Nickel: Commissioner -- and that's why I said I don't want to argue with the gentleman,
because I just don't know, but we will take care of it.
Borup: But it's understood we are talking about property lines here. Commissioners,
unless there is anyone else -- I thought we had finished that before when I had Mr.
Nickel come up.
Centers: I have got to say that I -- the 20th -- I think we need to see them again on the
20th. Commissioner Zaremba wouldn't be here. But we've covered a lot of it tonight. I
think on the 20th it would be quick, so I would be in favor of the 20th
. Why put them off.
Every day is a buck.
Borup: That would -- and that would clarify the -- either the encroachment --
Centers: Correct.
Borup: And if it's more than that, if it's -- I guess they would need to decide whether it
would take a whole redesign or not.
Centers: Well, then, we would have a letter in our file that they have postponed.
Borup: That would probably -- that would be the only -- that be the only issue that we
would be addressing at that time, wouldn't it?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 56 of 94
Centers: Right. Yeah.
Zaremba: The fencing issues could be decided by then and --
Siddoway: You know, Mr. Chairman, the only concern -- we will need to get the revised
-- the revisions back ten days prior to that hearing, which is Monday.
Zaremba: Next Monday.
Siddoway: And I don't know if that gives enough time to the applicant, but --
Borup: Probably not, since they don't know if they have to do a revision.
Nickel: Commissioner, Shawn Nickel again. We are hopeful -- we are confident we are
not going to have to do that. If we do have to revise it, I'm assuming we are going to
have to be postponed again.
Siddoway: You're at least going to have to revise it to show the property lines along the
encroachment.
Zaremba: The two more common areas -- two additional common areas will need to be
shown.
Nickel: Right. And I don't -- I personally don't see that as a considerable change,
because I know that if we have to do that -- other than the 35 foot, if we have to do that,
we are going to have to redesign the whole subdivision, but just the 15 foot --
Borup: So you're saying you can have that by Monday?
Nickel: I don't know that I can have it by Monday. It's going to depend on getting a hold
of the irrigation, but I'm going to try to have it.
Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, you know, we have the special meeting on the 26th and
we agreed to hear a couple other items then.
Siddoway: That's less than one additional week. It's six days after that one.
Borup: Normally -- that's not a normal -- what would be your preference?
Nickel: My question is. Is it necessary to get that change in ten days prior if it's --
Borup: It depends on whether you want us to send it to City Council or not.
Nickel: Good point. We will try. We can try to get and, if not, I guess we'll have to be
tabled.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 57 of 94
Borup: Okay. Well, if you have a verbal -- I mean if you think you have got a verbal
agreement with the irrigation district, you have got tomorrow and Monday to draw that
on there, which is not a time consuming thing to draw that on there.
Nickel: Right. I'd like to try to --
Zaremba: And the irrigation district, I think, in the past has given concept letters or
something like that when they --
Borup: Well, they still -- you don't need the letter from the irrigation district ten days
prior to, do you? You just want the plat showing how it would be, assuming they are
going to approve it. Would that work? Or is that stretching it?
Siddoway: I think it's stretching it.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Wood mentioned that he could get a letter subject to his ownership and I
think he intends to do that.
Nickel: And that's basically what it said in your staff report, it was evidence, that not
necessarily the agreement itself.
Borup: Well, then, also, if they are not adjusting any lot lines or anything, other than
that showing that encroachment, there is not a lot for staff to review in this situation,
then, is there?
Siddoway: If they are not what?
Borup: If they are not making any other lot adjustments or -- other than this common lot
for the --
Siddoway: No. We'd just have to recheck the lot sizes and -- it wouldn't very hard, no.
Borup: The smallest lot is 8,400 feet right now.
Siddoway: Along the south.
Borup: Right. Right. That would be affected is what I meant.
Siddoway: The question also exists for the ones on the west.
Borup: Yes.
Siddoway: And those are down to 75.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 58 of 94
Borup: Yeah. Those that could have a problem if they require more than what was
verbally said.
Nickel: And, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to bring this up, but -- I didn't want to confuse
things, but when I was sitting back talking to the developer, he stated that our engineer
told us that was actually a user ditch and might not have to have a common lot at all, it
might just -- there might not even be an easement there.
Borup: Didn't Nampa-Meridian state that on there or did they?
Nickel: I didn't see it on there.
Borup: Okay. That was just on the staff report, then.
Nickel: So there is a good chance that there might not even be -- or they can put that
on there, but stated it would be a user ditch, so it might not even require an easement
there. So, if that's the case -- I do understand if we do have to put a common lot there,
it's going to eat away at those 6,500 square foot lots.
Borup: But you're saying if it's a user ditch, it can just be within an easement?
Nickel: Right. I don't want to bring that back up again to confuse you. We will get that
from the irrigation district.
Borup: So, at this point what's your preference, the 20th or 26th?
Nickel: We'd like the 20th and I think we could get something to staff.
Borup: Even though --
Nickel: I will be busy tomorrow.
Borup: Okay. Because if it doesn't make it to them, we may not be in a mood to put it
on the 26th
. Are you willing to take that chance?
Nickel: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: I would like to move that we continue Items No. 10 and 11 to our March 20th
meeting.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 59 of 94
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to continue to March 20th
. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. We have got one final thing. Commissioners, are you ready to go ahead
or do we need a break? About a five minute break? Okay. We will take a short break
at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 03-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.37
Acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. – 360 East Montvue Drive:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene the meeting. Any of you that are still discussing
are welcome to do that out in the foyer. Okay. Public Hearing -- next item is Public
Hearing AZ 03-004, a request for annexation and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O
zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers at 360 East Montvue Drive.
We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed
annexation is for the 1.37 acre lot in the southeast corner of Montvue Subdivision,
which does abut the St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center property, as well as the
Touchmark property to the east. They would like to annex the next 1.36 acres to
construct a medical office building. They are requesting L-O zoning, which does match
the surrounding zoning, and also is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Here
is a copy -- an aerial photo that is a couple years old. You can see that -- the first
couple of phases of St. Luke's built. The most recent phase is not pictured here. This
is the St. Luke's Drive. This is Montvue Drive and the subject lot. You can see the
existing homes in Montvue Subdivision. I believe these are submitted as elevations of
the type of building they intend to construct. Those photos are too small to see, so I'm
going to skip them. And this is the proposed site plan. The site plan per se, is not up
tonight for approval, but they have submitted it, as we do request with all our
annexations or rezones, to show what the applicant intends to do with the property.
The private road connection that's shown does run from St. Luke's private drive to south
Montvue. That one piece of this is probably going to shape up to be the most
significant issue of the application tonight. It has a long and proud history of debate
over whether it should be public or private, some of which I will get into tonight and
some of which I will save. The primary access to the medical office is intended to be off
of St. Luke's Drive. It would not make much sense for this project to have its only
access off of the existing access that Montvue has, which is clear up here near the
intersection with Franklin Road, which is just barely off the map, and Eagle.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 60 of 94
Borup: I think that's an old plat. There is a frontage road now on those lots along -- is
that correct? Those lots along Eagle have been eliminated and a frontage road is in
there? It's still access off of Eagle.
Siddoway: Okay. Yeah. It's still shown this way on the current Ada County assessor's
data base.
Zaremba: It twists down and enters someplace around here, right?
Siddoway: Okay. So, the access still is off of Montvue. So, it may come off further
from the intersection. I believe it's noted in here 300 and some feet -- 320 feet south of
Franklin, about this point. I think it -- does it line up with this one across the street?
Yeah. So, the access comes in, wraps north, and, then, back in. Obviously, it wouldn't
make much sense for a doctor's office to go in at the far interior of the subdivision with
that as its only access, thus the point being that they intend for their primary access to
be from the St. Luke's side off of St. Luke's private drive. The applicant is involved in
negotiations between the Montvue Homeowners Association and St. Luke's to allow for
the new private road connection. Montvue is a public street, but St. Luke's Drive is a
private road, so they have got to get permission from St. Luke's to connect to that
street. The Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as commercial, as there
was much discussion about during the Comp Plan hearings. The things that I would
point out -- page three, item D, the second paragraph reiterates the one point of ingress
and egress, 320 feet south of Franklin off of Eagle Road. That is Montvue Subdivision's
only current access point. This proposed annexation would provide a secondary
connection to Eagle Road via St. Luke's Drive. The traffic light currently exists at the
intersection of St. Luke's Drive and Eagle Road. The ACHD report is referenced there.
Pages three through six of their report details quite a bit of the private drive history. I
actually have a staff report that goes even farther back in history from that, if those
issues need to be discussed. I did research on this issue back when the St. Luke's
CUP was coming through a few years ago. Item F on page four talks about a proposed
private street connecting to the public street and noting that it will create additional
vehicle trips into and out of the subdivision across the new private street. In the future it
is intended that the -- there will be another connection -- let me go back to that -- to
Touchmark. You can see the platted road line in here. It's currently not connected
through Montvue to the road in Montvue Subdivision. However, this road is being
constructed by Touchmark and stubbing to the property. Once that connection is made,
it would allow for some cut-through traffic to go through to the light at Eagle Road. But
it's also important to point out that that increase in traffic would not necessarily be a
result of the proposed use, but just a function of the road layout itself. Under additional
considerations on page six, the first one is the private road. The road driveway
connecting the subdivision -- between the subdivision and the hospital is proposed as a
private road and staff does not object to that. It's also proposed to have a sidewalk on
one side, as opposed to two sides, and staff is fine with that as well. We would require
that a cross-access agreement be recorded to allow vehicular traffic from the Montvue
Subdivision to use that connection to get out to the light. And the last item there under
conditional considerations is that access agreement. Currently, there is no agreement
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 61 of 94
between St. Luke's and Montvue to allow that access. There are ongoing negotiations,
but as of February 25th and March 6th, there is currently not a signed agreement.
Because it doesn't make sense to have this project without that access, we see that as
a critical part and if you look at the recommendation on page seven it states that the
staff does not feel comfortable with recommending approval if this access cannot be
agreed upon. Without an agreement in place, the only access is the one off of Eagle
Road. So the recommendation is to continue this Public Hearing until such an
agreement has been signed by both parties, either St. Luke's and the Montvue
Subdivision, or between St. Luke's and the applicant. That is our recommendation and
I will stand for any questions.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? What you're saying, Steve, is that this applicant -- and, of
course, they will probably address it -- doesn't have a cross-access agreement with St.
Luke's either?
Siddoway: Not with St. Luke's, no.
Centers: Which they would have to have --
Siddoway: And they are in negotiations for that.
Centers: What?
Siddoway: They are in negotiations for that, but it has not been finalized.
Centers: Right. Because the good access, of course, is St. Luke's Drive to the private
drive and no one would be cutting through Montvue if they had that right. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Zaremba: But the upshot is that you would be connecting a public road, Montvue, with
a public road Eagle, by using two private roads under separate ownership, is that --
Siddoway: Yeah. I'm not sure that's an up side, but that's what would happen, yes.
Zaremba: Does ACHD even allow that, though?
Siddoway: Yeah. The ACHD staff report recommends that the connection be made a
private road.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: Well -- and to continue on, they don't necessarily push for the connection to
Montvue; correct? I think I read that.
Siddoway: I don't --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 62 of 94
Centers: Or the private drive to be connected to Montvue Drive. I think that's the name
of it.
Siddoway: It is.
Centers: I mean they haven't pushed for that.
Zaremba: But it should not be a through street, it should only access this one property.
Centers: Yeah. And they have -- of course, the applicant will address this, too, I hope,
that they are in favor of the private drive.
Siddoway: Yeah. I think the residents of Montvue want to have access. Their main
concern over the private drive, as I understand it -- not to presume to speak for them,
but they want to make sure they have access and that's their main issue.
Borup: But once this project goes in they would have access. My question would be,
can St. Luke's restrict the use of that road in any way once it's built?
Siddoway: That's what remains to be seen. That's why we recommend continuation
until we can see that agreement.
Borup: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Boyle: Planning Commission Members, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552
West Executive Drive in Boise. Tonight I'd like to, I guess, preface my remarks with the
indication that we have reviewed the staff report with respect to the annexation and
zoning request which is in front of you tonight for a Limited Office zone. Again, we are -
- tonight we are in front of you to propose annexation and zoning only. In going through
the staff report and looking at their findings, that this Commission reviews for the
approval of an annexation request, those are listed as items A through L in your staff
report, we believe that the project does comply with all of the required findings. I do
want to clarify a couple of points here and, again, as Steve touched on, probably the
issue that the neighbors here tonight are most interested in, and that's with regard to
the development -- the future development of this piece property and, ultimately, yeah,
what happens with traffic considerations around Montvue Subdivision. What I want to
point out here is that there was a site plan submitted to the staff and this was through --
working with the staff they indicated that we would be -- that we would be required to
submit that site plan in conjunction with the annexation and zoning request, thereby we
constructed a site plan that gives a conceptual idea of how this development may be
laid out. Now, with that said, there have been various discussions with ACHD, various
discussions with the city staff, some discussions with neighbors as well within Montvue
and the point that I want to clarify here is that with the development of this property in
the future, that these developers are certainly not committed to installing a private
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 63 of 94
roadway, they are interested in working with the Montvue residents and want to have a
project constructed here that will be beneficial to the Montvue residence that will also
work for St. Luke's and all the parties involved. Now, with that said, there are quite a
few neighbors here tonight and we have got the opportunity to talk about the project
briefly with them here tonight and on several other occasions and I certainly understand
their concerns. They have been working for an access to St. Luke's drive -- my
understanding is for quite some years and the negotiations are very close, is my
understanding, in coming to terms with St. Luke's and with all of the residents in
Montvue to provide an access roadway out to St. Luke's Drive that would allow some
relief from the residents of that subdivision to be able to get out onto Eagle Road. Now,
with that said, I did want to clarify that the applicant -- here, again, what we are looking
at tonight is strictly the annexation and zoning of the property. The site plan will go
through a separate process for approvals. Again, we do intend to work with the
neighbors and we will actually -- my understanding is that the purchasers of this
particular property are looking to close on the property here very soon and they will also
be a party with the neighbors in the discussions with St. Luke's for the roadway. I just
bring that up, because I know the neighbors are concerned with a private drive
extending through this project. I can understand that concern due to the extensive time
that they have had to go through in their negotiations with St. Luke's to gain access to
St. Luke's Drive. So, again, we are certainly in agreement with the neighbors in
desiring an access to St. Luke's. Public road access would be certainly something that
the developers here would support. Our discussions with ACHD have been that ACHD
would not necessarily support a public road connection from Montvue and the
discussion, as one of the Commissioners indicated, was that, then, there would be a
link from a public road, being Eagle Road, onto the roads within Touchmark, which are
public roads. They would be linked by a private road. Now, as an interesting side note
to that, though, the Touchmark development currently has a public road system that
enters off of Franklin Road. That private road system ends in a cul-de-sac and off of
that cul-de-sac there is actually a private roadway that ties into St. Luke's Drive. So, if
I'm on Franklin Road, I can gain access to Eagle Road coming through Touchmark and
extending. So public road, linked by a private road, out to another public road. So,
ACHD has certainly allowed that access in the past. And in this instance, again,
ACHD's comments were strictly geared towards the annexation and zoning of the
property, which is, again, why we are here tonight. This annexation and zoning request
is in compliance with the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan, it's how the city
envisions this area to transition into a commercial and/or office area and I believe that
the Montvue residence -- and they can correct me if I'm wrong -- also envision this area
to transition into a commercial area eventually. And so we are coming in compliance
with those goals of the city to transition this. Now, the discussion tonight -- again, staff
is -- my understanding Meridian staff is supportive of the annexation and rezoning. We
don't believe that the city should necessarily become involved in the private agreement
between the Montvue residents and St. Luke's Hospital. What happens -- what is the
detriment to the city if this property is annexed and rezoned and access agreements
cannot be formalized for whatever reason, again, you would have a piece of property
that was within city limits, had a Limited Office zoning on it -- from a marketing
standpoint, it does have street frontage on Montvue. The question was, you know,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 64 of 94
traffic may eventually have to come through Montvue. Realistically speaking, that
project probably wouldn't go forward until the Touchmark connection entered Montvue,
which would be here. I mean there are various options for connection to allow this
property to develop in a way that wouldn't be adverse to the neighborhood. Again,
other options would be in the future, as this neighborhood transitions into commercial,
then, you know, obviously, the considerations for traffic and trips through the
neighborhood would become more beneficial to developing that piece. But, again,
tonight, as far as the traffic considerations, ACHD has reviewed the annexation and
zoning request, they have approved the annexation and rezoning of the property, we,
again, are in front of you to also request your recommendation of approval on the
annexation and zoning. The site plan -- the area is proposed to be developed as a
medical office. We have provided a site plan at the staff's request that demonstrated
the layout of the facility. The roadway, again, is an issue that will be resolved among
the parties involved, which would be the Montvue residents and St. Luke's Drive, but,
again, it is a private agreement that is not necessarily a finding that we believe that the
city should be involved in reviewing an annexation and rezoning request only. With
that said, I believe that that is somewhat the main issue tonight. I'll stand for any
questions. We also have Joanne Butler here that would like to address the private road
as well, as soon as I wrap up my comments. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Mr. Boyle, on -- would your -- is it your
understanding, then, if this property is annexed and zoned, that it would be able to get a
building permit without any other public hearings?
Boyle: The request tonight, again, is for the annexation and zoning. As far as the
interim process, again, we are -- we would be under the understanding that the process
that we would have to go through from our discussions with staff would be the zoning
certificate process. So, again, that's --
Borup: That would not be a Public Hearing.
Boyle: Correct. Correct. So, again, what we are requesting tonight is something that
the city envisioned, they envisioned this area to transition into commercial, and we
believe that the findings outlined in your requirements for the facts of approval for an
annexation are appropriate. And let me just preface that as well, as far as the hearing
on this. The development agreement is mentioned in the staff report. We are not
adverse to entering into a development agreement, we just do not feel that it's
appropriate to have the private agreement related to the access issue that's being
worked out among the Montvue residents and St. Luke's -- we don't believe that that is
an appropriate item to place in that development agreement. In other words, if this
Commission saw fit that the development agreement should contain language related to
the development of the property, restrictions that it be limited to medical office, the size
that we have proposed, et cetera, we are not adverse to those type of conditions, we
just feel that the private road, again, is not a request that we are necessarily --
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 65 of 94
Boyle: -- supporting at this time.
Borup: I think we understand that, but you're saying if -- if an agreement is not worked
out on a private road and this property would want to be developed as a Limited Office,
the access would be through Montvue Drive; is that correct?
Boyle: Potentially. And Joanne's indicating that she'd like to address that.
Borup: I think that would be good --
Boyle: For clarification.
Borup: Any other questions?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. I tend to agree with you, Mr. Boyle, and thanks for -- you
know, seeing the forest for the trees. We are just talking about annexation and zoning.
However -- and -- so you don't agree with number three, item number three, you don't
agree with all that verbiage. I don't necessarily agree. But would you -- would you
agree to development agreement also stating that access shall not be available through
Montvue Subdivision? And, then, you can work on your agreements with St. Luke's,
just like everybody else?
Boyle: Joanne would like to address that as well, so I will --
Centers: Because, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as you didn't
enter through Montvue Subdivision, even though I know that -- I recognize a number of
faces out there -- they wanted that stamped as commercial on the Comprehensive
Plan. They didn't want L-O. We gave them commercial at their request and said, okay,
you want it, so be it. We wanted to go with L-O on the Comp Plan. But I don't think it's
fair to have a business access through a residential neighborhood. They are still using
it for residential use. Anyway, let's --
Borup: Okay. Unless there is any other questions for Mr. Boyle, Joanne Butler will
discuss the road -- private road issue, but is there anything else? Okay. Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
Butler: Commissioners, Joanne Butler, 251 East Front Street representing the
applicant. And, Commissioner Borup, don't let fail to answer the question that you
raised. I did want to address the road issues, because some of these are legal issues
on access and just to make some clarifications -- and forgive us for being a little
redundant. We have not -- we wanted to convey our message also not only to the
Commissioners who are making the decision for recommendation tonight, but also to
our neighbors, because there has been -- this issue has been bandied about a lot and
we want to be very clear about it. What we really want to do here is separate the public
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 66 of 94
from the private issues. This is a request for annexation and rezone. We are asking
you to make a recommendation to the City Council for that annexation and rezone. As
staff has pointed out, we meet each and every one of the conditions of Meridian's code
for both annexation and rezone. It is a very straight forward request in that regard. We
front onto a public road. That's Montvue. The number of trips per day that would come
onto Montvue are -- in no way bridge the capacity of the road. It is, again, a public
road. We do know it does go through a -- what is presently used in part as a
subdivision, a residential subdivision, by folks that have pressured successfully this city
and the county to adopt a comprehensive plan that indicates that this will transition to
commercial and office and so what we are asking for is in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the wishes of this neighborhood group that you
have been working with for many years, as I understand it. Commissioner Centers is
correct, we agreed with the staff report, except for number three and number four. We
do not agree -- and we have had conversations with the city attorney to this extent.
With regard to a development agreement, we are willing to abide by your development
agreement that says that we will make a written commitment concerning the use of the
subject property and we will tell the city very directly, we will use this as an office
building. We only showed the road on this plat -- on this piece of paper, because staff
asked us to. This was pie in the sky. This was not this is where we have to have the
road. We are not asking for that. We understand that the neighbors in Montvue and St.
Luke's have been working together diligently to provide access, possibly -- only
possibly, as we understand it, to this group. That may not even happen. And I think the
neighbors can address that for you as well. If this road -- if there is not a private road
here and that doesn't happen -- if St. Luke's and the neighbors -- and we will step into
the neighbor's shoes, because we are about to close on this property and we signed
closing documents today on our side and the other side is signing next week, then, we
will be stepping into the shoes of the neighbors and we will be asking, along with them,
to -- that there is a connection. But we don't presume that that's going to happen. But
we do front onto a public street. And so, again, we take access onto Montvue, we
comply with the conditions of ACHD and this city, and we are asking for you to grant
that. You're going to hear from many tonight of the neighbors, maybe all of them, that if
anything goes through here between Montvue and St. Luke's, they would like to see it
as a public road. From our perspective, public-private -- we don't even know that the
connection is going to be anywhere near this piece of property. It's going to be
somewhere in the area. We have told the neighbors, through their attorney, that we will
work with them in whatever way that comes about in the future. But, again, that's
private between us, them, and St. Luke's. As we talked about with the city attorney
today, it's not appropriate for the city to do anything other than make the public
decisions that it's being requested to make. It may be that St. Luke's and the neighbors
never reach agreement out there. We do know -- and I think the neighbors will tell you
tonight that they are likely to be signing an agreement with weekend. I'll ask you, how
many years have you been working in connection with Montvue and this area? So, we
are asking the city just to make the public decisions and leave those private decisions
to others. So, I think -- oh, Commissioner Borup, to answer your question. Your
question was. If we annex and zone and give you this -- develop this office with a
building permit without a Public Hearing, that would be correct. We could. But we could
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 67 of 94
never do the private road without a Public Hearing. So, if we went in there and
developed an office building and took our frontage onto Montvue, which is a possibility,
that's what would happen, but --
Borup: That's the concern.
Butler: Well, but -- on Montvue, right. But if there were a public road -- a private road,
we would have to come back before this Commission. If this Commission is saying that
people can't take access onto a public road, if they comply with the Comprehensive
Plan and they comply with all the zoning ordinance, I would very much question that
and I don't think that's what the Commission is meaning to say. I appreciate that this is
an area of transition, but it's an area of transition that the neighbors have asked for and
the city has sanctioned. It starts somewhere.
Borup: But would the applicant be comfortable if this was annexed as a conditional
use? I was just throwing that out there.
Butler: I would have to ask Commission Borup to help me a little bit to understand what
is meant by that. I would --
Borup: That it could not be developed without having a Public Hearing for a Conditional
Use Permit, even though it has the zoning.
Butler: That would be tantamount be giving away the right to build -- possibly to build
an office building, because by doing it -- well, let's think this through. A conditional use
under the zoning ordinance is a use that is allowed, but, for some reason, the
Commission has -- would deem an office use to somehow impact the area. Well, you
have already decided that this should be office. In fact, I think it sounds like we are
carrying out what the Commission would rather have seen, which was L-O versus
commercial. So, I'm not sure I'm following why a conditional use. I can see your idea of
wanting --
Borup: Because of the site design.
Butler: But is it the use or the private road?
Borup: It's the private road, in my mind.
Butler: And so that's why I'm saying -- and I think that's --
Borup: But they go together. I don't know how you would separate them.
Butler: We are not doing the private road. And if we did do a -- if we ever proposed a
private road, we would have to come back for a Public Hearing.
Borup: So you're asking us to consider this as the only access, that of Montvue?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 68 of 94
Butler: Correct. And the others are all --
Borup: Then, what this Commission needs to do is have the input from the neighbors,
probably, to make that --
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Your comment, Ms. Butler, on -- we have a public road and
we should grant -- access is demanded. Maybe not the correct word, but -- that's not in
the city. It's not a city public road.
Butler: No.
Centers: It's a county public road. You would be the only city property serviced by
county public roads and asking the residents to allow it. I understand where you're
coming from. You make a very good point. You make a very good point. But, in effect,
it's not the city's public roads to allow it.
Butler: Commissioner Centers, it is -- this is -- it's a county wide highway. It serves all
the city, it serves the county, it is a county wide public road. I don't know exactly what
the neighbors are going to say. This is an office building, something that they have
been promoting in this area.
Centers: I agree.
Butler: And so I realize this is the first annexation and zoning of this area after many
years. You know, ACHD has clearly indicated by its review, if this is an office building
that clearly the roads can handle the capacity and so on. I think you're going to hear
from some of the neighbors that -- and as you heard from Mr. Boyle, there are
connections coming to Montvue as we speak from Touchmark and, presumably, we do
hope that there will eventually be access to the St. Luke's Drive, we just can't count on
that. So, I think, yes, you do need to take the testimony of the neighbors, but also look
at the expert testimony of Ada County Highway District, your traffic engineer that is
telling you what the impact on the roads would be. And if there are no more questions,
I will --
Rohm: I have a question.
Borup: Go ahead.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman. I wasn't on the Commission when St. Luke's went in and I'm still
curious why there is a private road there in the first place. Why was it not built as a
public road -- don't go there? I mean I was --
Borup: That was before my time, too.
Rohm: Well --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 69 of 94
Butler: And, I'm sorry, I can't go there either, so I don't know.
Rohm: Well, it just seems like -- well, it just seems like that would have been a more
appropriate road in the first place, but --
Borup: It may have been. But, either way, that's passed and I don't know if we can do
anything about it.
Rohm: All right.
Borup: But that's a good question.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: I don't know if we want to go there or not, either, because we have no control
over that in any way, so --
Butler: But just to -- and I will reserve a couple of minutes for rebuttal, but we -- as we
talked about it with the city attorney, we are more than -- more than happy to do a
develop agreement with the city that commits to the use, so that the city is clear that
that use would go in and that we would -- if, for some reason, anybody was ever asking
for a private road that involved this property, we would, obviously, have to come back
for a Public Hearing, because, as staff has told me, that requires a Public Hearing. So I
think that would address, Commissioner Borup, your issue, instead of having to call it a
conditional use, you would get practically the same result. But, believe me, we are not -
- we are just waiting on that.
Borup: Okay.
Butler: Thank you.
Borup: Were there any other questions? Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would ask -- I would appreciate if we had one spokesman for
everyone that signed up, but -- was that the plan?
Borup: There was two signed up, but I did want to mention that, too. This -- we are
ready to hear some input from the neighbors. But, as has been pointed out, the
application before us is annexation and zoning. But it's also been pointed out the city's
always requested a conceptual site plan, at least, to know how that property is
envisioned to be used. In my mind, I think it's hard to separate them. In some
situations I don't think it is. In other situation it is. They go hand in hand. I think this is
one of them that does. So, I think we would be interested -- we don't want to have a lot
of repetition and hear the same things over and I think we will control that accordingly,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 70 of 94
but we would be interested in testimony at this time. Who would like to come forward
first?
Griffith: Trishia Griffith, 3295 North Montvue. And I knew when you guys seen Montvue
on there, I knew you guys would shutter. Especially staff.
Borup: No. We have been waiting for something to happen here for years.
Griffith: Oh. Well, we thought we were going to get things taken care of. I would like to
see this just postponed for awhile until we do get our agreement. We are very close
coming to terms and we have worked long and hard on it with St. Luke's. If we did go
back to the public road issue on that, that would probably take a week to sit down with
us and go over everything, so we -- yes, we prefer not to do that. But right now I know
these developers are interested in buying their property, but it hasn't been closed yet
and, you know, as residents and with St. Luke's and Touchmark, I feel it's really
important that we do try to get something worked out, so maybe a lot things could be
abbreviated in the future. So, basically, what I'm hoping is that you guys would just,
please, postpone this for awhile, because I think it's a little bit premature, and let us try
to get some of these road issues and stuff worked out amongst ourselves and, then,
come back and, hopefully, we have everything worked out by then.
Borup: Okay. Any questions?
Zaremba: Can you, for me, hit some of the high points of your discussion with St.
Luke's about coming to an agreement?
Borup: And maybe where the hang-ups are.
Zaremba: Yeah. What's the problem?
Griffith: We were close, but my mom was terminally ill and she passed away last week
and so we had to postpone for several weeks.
Zaremba: Sorry to hear that.
Griffith: And since I'm the main person involved in this and working with the attorneys
and working with St. Luke's, I could not concentrate on this kind of stuff and it was --
has nothing to do with the developers or St. Luke's or the residents or anybody, it's just
because I had a personal situation and I chose to be with my mom until the last minute,
so --
Borup: The location of the private -- the road that's proposed here, is that something
that --
Centers: Is it just going to be in this area? Anyplace in this area? Is that what you're
looking at?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 71 of 94
Griffith: Well, you know, I'm not really sure how much terms I could --
Centers: Okay.
Griffith: -- release to you guys with this agreement yet, because we have a lot of
conditions. The residents and St. Luke's have both given up quite a bit to come to
terms and --
Borup: See -- and that's where I'm confused. I don't see why either party needs to give
up that much. I don't understand why there is such controversy on this. Especially if
this project went through, that private, they are going to build it. There is nothing that
either party has to do, other than agree.
Centers: Give up some land from --
Borup: They're not.
Centers: I think that's the big thing.
Borup: No, it isn't. This project right here takes care of the -- takes care of the road.
Zaremba: The only issue that I could see on the St. Luke's part is --
Borup: They are just going to --
Zaremba: -- it would add additional traffic, their maintenance cost goes up a little bit, or
they have to resurface it every four years, instead of every five years or something like
that.
Borup: Well -- but they are interested in a doctor's office right next to their hospital.
Zaremba: Sure.
Griffith: Right. And it took us over a year to go through mediation on this and we
covered every little aspect that we think we could agree on the terms and that and so,
you know, I think it would be best if we just postponed it for a little bit, so we can try to
get some of this covered and then --
Borup: See, I'm still back to my question. I don't see how there can be that many areas
that are in disagreement, unless someone's not being reasonable.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 72 of 94
Siddoway: If I can make just an interjection. It is a -- I would just recommend leaving
that agreement between the homeowners and St. Luke's. There is, obviously, some
points of contention, they may not be able to talk about it, it is important and I think that
we need to let it come to some resolution on the private side before making the public
decisions, but I don't know that I would push for too many details here until it -- and just
let them be worked out amongst private parties.
Griffith: Now, we are meeting Saturday, so, you know, if you could just give us a little bit
more time, then, a lot this stuff may be resolved.
Borup: Now, are you opposed to having access come through Montvue Drive?
Griffith: We want a public access to St. Luke's Drive.
Borup: No. I mean -- my question was are you opposed if the access to this property
was through the existing public streets?
Griffith: One thing I can say with the agreement, it's stated that the parties will agree
where the road is going to go and that has not been discussed yet.
Borup: Right. But that wasn't my question. My question was are you opposed to this
property being annexed if the only access was through the existing public roads through
Montvue?
Griffith: No. I know that our subdivision is going to develop. That's what we are
planning on. You know, trying to correct all these things for the future, we know that we
are not going to be around and we see that it will develop into some kind of commercial
office or whatever space. That's been our goal for quite awhile. It's just been a matter
of trying to get access to --
Centers: So, as a follow-up to that question -- and I was going to ask the same one.
Knowing that it's office -- doctor office type space, I'm sure that would be the use, and
limited traffic. The homeowners would not necessarily object or have a big objection to
them coming through their sub for access?
Griffith: Well, if that's the only access they have, then, they have no choice to do that.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Anything else, Ms. Griffith?
Zaremba: I think the thrust of the question is -- we have had other homeowners
associations come to us objecting to have any commercial activity, including child care,
in their subdivision and this is buried deep in your subdivision.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 73 of 94
Centers: Excuse me. You don't know the history of this subdivision. They want
commercial. They want commercial.
Zaremba: So this would be the first step of transition.
Griffith: Right. Right. You know, if it was like 50 years ago, it would be different, but
now, as much as things are developing around us, you know, it's -- you know where it's
headed to. Anybody could see that now. But 50 years ago we wouldn't have seen it.
Or even ten years, I guess. I don't need to go back that far.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to add some new light on
this? Come forward.
Kerns: Forrest Kerns. I live at 230 West Montvue Drive. Just a brief history for you.
When St. Luke's went in, ACHD did want a public road. We backed St. Luke's. We
shouldn't have. We do want a public access to connect with St. Luke's. We are at a
point of agreement with them. Part of the problem is where St. Luke's wants the access
to come through is exactly where they put -- where they are showing a private road. In
other words, they want it to come through -- if you could switch to that -- the aerial.
They want it to come through at their third row, which just barely shows right there.
They want it in line with that.
Borup: Which is, essentially, where this --
Kerns: Which is, essentially, where they want to put a private road, we would prefer to
see it public up to St. Luke's. Touchmark's road is built to the property line now. In fact,
there is a little road that we can get through there occasionally.
Rohm: Is that here?
Kerns: Yeah. And there is a little bit of road that we can drive through and connect
onto ours. So we don't get a lot of traffic through there, but some of us can get out that
way. Those lots do exist on the outside. They are owned by this -- this lady represents
the people over there that own them along Eagle. So those are there. The other
question I had is -- I was told by one of my neighbors that on their conceptual plan they
said they were abandoning the ditches. Now, my ditch that irrigates my property -- if
you will excuse me a minute.
Borup: Well, maybe to clarify that, they would not be able to abandon the ditches at this
point.
Kerns: My ditch runs here, here, here, here and, then, down into these. So, it crosses
right across this property. So, that was an issue.
Borup: They would be required to still have the same water delivery.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 74 of 94
Kerns: Okay. Well, that's what I thought, but I just wanted to make a note of it.
Borup: They may be moving them or relocating them or something.
Kerns: But, other than that, the road is the main issue and that is -- at the last point that
I heard that was where St. Luke's wanted the road to be, even though we would have
liked it a little closer to Eagle, so if there are no questions, I will sit down and let
someone else talk.
Borup: It sounds like your point was the location of the road as proposed on their site
plan would be acceptable, other than you would like to see a public road, rather than
private?
Kerns: Yes. And someone had to give up property for the road being the way for it to
be public and that was probably where it was being considered.
Borup: Now, this road that's being -- is that splitting the property line? I guess you're
the wrong person to ask that.
Kerns: Sort of and sort of not. No, I'm not, really, the wrong person to ask, because I'm
a licensed surveyor, I just happen to live in the subdivision and I know where most of
the property pins in the subdivision are, so -- it does -- sort of splits onto the other lot
and sort of not. It could be built either way. So, if it went just directly across this lot, it
would be -- actually, probably be fine. It would align close enough that --
Borup: Is this -- Steve, is that the property line? Is that your understanding? This line
right here?
Kerns: A little bit -- I think the property line is a little farther to the west there. I think it's
over on their -- right in there. Where my ditch line comes down through. So, it's -- but
the main consideration with St. Luke's was that it lined up with their emergency exit over
there. In other words, my feeling was they wanted to be able to use the road, too. If
they couldn't get out their street, they wanted to go out the other way, so -- but it doesn't
have to line up exactly, from an engineering standpoint or a survey standpoint. It would
close enough. And I think that that's reasonably close to their access.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Kerns, what would you say about this comment. I'll read it to you. A lot of
times I don't read the full ACHD reports, because they get redundant and they are
pretty repetitive on the subdivisions there, but I'll read this: St. Luke's advised district
staff, the ACHD, and the ACHD commission, that St. Luke's would allow access to their
driveway from Montvue Subdivision for residential uses only and would provide up to
100,000 to construct a connection. The residents of Montvue Sub declined this offer
and attempted convince both the City of Meridian and ACHD to require St. Luke's to
allow unrestricted access to the driveway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 75 of 94
Kerns: And that's basically what happened and since that point we have come to terms
fairly close with St. Luke's. They have returned back to the point of providing 100,000
to help build the road, to last my knowledge, and we have said, okay, we will go for
limited access, but it's not just for -- it's my understanding it's not just for residential, it's
for future commercial, too.
Centers: Yeah. And I can understand that and -- but let's cut through to the chase
here. I think the reason you want this delayed is because this property sits right in the
area where you want the road to go through.
Kerns: I don't really care if it's delayed or not, as long as it's -- that there is -- as long as
it's understood that with -- I mean I don't want to have to fight with the new owners
about where -- about an easement across that piece of property, you know, when we
have already about got it settled.
Centers: And you feel as Mrs. Griffith feels, that if they come through the subdivision to
go to the doctor at this building --
Kerns: It doesn't bother me a bit.
Centers: So I don't know what we are talking about here.
Kerns: Okay.
Borup: Mrs. Griffith, let's see if there is anyone else that wants to come forward first.
No one else, then? Okay.
Griffith: Trishia Griffith. One thing I forgot to mention is that the staff report -- or I mean
the report from ACHD, we did not have an opportunity to comment. We weren't told of
a hearing. I don't think St. Luke's was privy to it. I don't know if Touchmark was either.
Touchmark apparently was not privy to ACHD comments. So I would like all of us to go
back and talk to ACHD and see if we can get this worked out with them, too. They
didn't give us any kind of notice, apparently. I don't know if they had a hearing or not.
Borup: Yes, they did. February 19th.
Griffith: And nobody was notified of it. Apparently, they didn't have a hearing. So I
think -- you know, I think they should have a hearing on something like this. At least to
get comments from our neighborhood, from St. Luke's, and from Touchmark, too.
Centers: I don't know for sure, I'm just guessing, but annexation and zoning only may
not require it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 76 of 94
Borup: Yeah. Maybe I read this wrong. It said it was heard. It didn't say a Public
Hearing, but it may have been heard from staff to the commission, but it was heard
before the commission.
Centers: Because you don't have a specified use, it was just conceptual, to generate
traffic and that's what they usually look at, the traffic generation. So, I don't know, I'm
guessing. Maybe Steve knows.
Griffith: I just wanted to let you know that we didn't have a chance to comment.
Borup: Okay.
Griffith: Thanks.
Bensinger: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Ron
Bensinger, I reside at 3250 North Montvue. I think you can see it form the
representation of our neighborhood here. This is an issue that we are all very anxious
about. We have watched our property values decline and decline and decline. This
very issue is proof of the fact that our property is going to sell for commercial for more
than it is as residential. And access to our property -- good commercial access to our
property has been a real issue for us.
Borup: You say your property has declined?
Bensinger: That's correct. Tax assessments have declined as residential value.
Borup: And sales in the subdivision have reflected that?
Bensinger: Yes.
Borup: In the last two years?
Bensinger: That's documented. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Bensinger: But we just -- we -- I, myself, would like to ask the wisdom of this
Commission just to not lock us into more private roads and limit our options, you know,
especially when we worked so hard for this agreement with St. Luke's. If you could just
consider that, that's all I want to say.
Borup: How about if that road was a public road?
Bensinger: We would all -- I can't speak for the whole -- for everybody, but I personally
-- we all want a public connection to the St. Luke's road and I don't think anybody has
any real problem with where that occurs along that road.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 77 of 94
Borup: Okay. Thank you. I'm assuming that was -- concludes the public comments?
Does the applicant have final comments?
Butler: Thank you. Just briefly, I do have a copy of the Ada County Highway District
notice provisions and I think that my understanding is what took place at ACHD is it was
placed on the consent agenda, as they typically do when it's just annexation and
zoning, and it wasn't taken off the consent agenda. I know that there were some
neighbors at that meeting and that's just the typical annexation and zoning procedure of
ACHD, to place it on the consent agenda, unless a particular commissioner takes it off
just for that. I think that's -- as you can hear from the neighbors, it's very clear that they
are in the midst of a very private agreement, so much so that they can't share it with this
Commission or anybody else here, and so all we are asking is in the light of public to
address us in this public request, acknowledging that we meet all of the conditions of
your ordinances and your Comprehensive Plan -- you have taken testimony where the
neighbors have clearly said that this particular public road, if no connection ever goes in
over in this area, that they are not opposed to that access. Clearly, it's up before you
for this public request and we can't imagine the city delaying its recommendation
because somebody is waiting on a separate private agreement that has not been with a
request before you and I do realize that we just respectfully disagree with staff on that
on their position on delaying any recommendation. Even if you deny us -- we are
asking you for your recommendation. If you do deny us, though, tonight, we are asking
you to be very clear to tell us why we don't meet your ordinances or requirements as we
go to the Council. And if I can answer any questions, we appreciate the deliberations of
the Commission.
Borup: Questions from any Commissioners?
Butler: Oh, I'm sorry, Commission Borup, just one -- I just wanted to clarify something
that somebody said about the location on this. I told you earlier that this private road
that we showed in here was just merely because staff had asked us to show something.
We -- our understanding is that St. Luke's and the neighbors, if there were a connection
right in this general vicinity, they would like us to line up with their driveway to their
property. That makes perfect sense to us. The reason we could never show something
like that, even if we chose to, is because that would take into consideration somebody
else's property, which is not our property, which is why you see what you see there. But
even so, again, that's another reason why this road shown there is just pie in the sky
and it shouldn't even be considered, because it just has no basis in reality. And so we
will commit to that development agreement as to use, but we will not commit to any
private agreement with roads.
Borup: I thought I asked that four times and you didn't want to come up then. Come on
up now. Come on up. And I do have a question for either you or one of the neighbors,
so you may be able to answer that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 78 of 94
Holst: As you already know, this has been in controversy for some time. Wesley Holst,
385 Montvue Drive. We are -- we asked for this to be a commercial zoning and here it's
before you to be changed to I-O. So we are still wanting it to be commercial and --
Borup: The commercial designation was on the Comp Plan.
Holst: Yes.
Borup: And it can change.
Holst: Okay.
Borup: Is that correct? One step either way?
Holst: Sure.
Siddoway: Well, the one step is -- Mr. Chairman, is for the residential, but office zoning
in a commercially designated area of the Comprehensive Plan, are in compliance with
that designation.
Borup: Right. But – yes. Go ahead, sir.
Holst: But that's what we asked for and that's what we still feel that it should be.
Borup: So you're not visualizing medical office buildings there, then? Next to a
hospital?
Holst: No.
Borup: You'd rather see a --
Holst: A commercial --
Borup: -- Wal-Mart or something?
Holst: No, Not a Wal-Mart. There are agreements of such and there are agreements
that we are very near making this agreement to come to fruition. It's just the fact that it
has not been signed and they jumped ahead and tried to -- and we haven't got the
agreements yet and until we do, their project is not going to work either, because they
need entry into -- into St. Luke's private driveway. So, it's important we get this
agreement first and I have said this to the developers, that we need to hold off on this
and that's what we are asking for is to hold off for this rezone until we get the
agreements and, then, we can all work together on it. But right now we feel they are
working against us.
Borup: The developer?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 79 of 94
Holst: The developer.
Borup: Of this project?
Holst: Yes. Because we just don't trust their -- the way that they have gone about this
and so that's why we want you to delay this, so that we do get our agreements and,
then, they can come before you and we will come before you in a unified development
and as a Montvue Drive, if we are all together on it, but right now we are not together on
it with them.
Borup: And, Mr. Holst, that brings up my question. Is if this project was approved, do
you feel that it would jeopardize your agreement with St. Luke's? Do you feel that that
would be a possibility of that not being approved, because this wasn't annexed?
Holst: That's what I fear.
Borup: Okay.
Holst: I would like to delay it, so --
Borup: Is there any reason that -- any reason you fear that? I mean has St. Luke's said
anything that might indicate that or --
Holst: No. St. Luke's -- we are working very well with St. Luke's.
Borup: Okay. That's what I mean. If this project was approved, is there a concern that
St. Luke's would not continue with the agreement that they are working with you on?
Holst: I don't know for sure, because I can't speak for St. Luke's.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: If I can ask the question a different way, maybe, just for my own
understanding. If you had this agreement with St. Luke's -- if Montvue homeowners
association had this agreement with St. Luke's in hand, already done and signed by
everybody, how would that change your relationship with this development -- with this
annexation request?
Holst: Because, then, we can make a -- work with these folks. But right now we don't
have an agreement to work with them.
Borup: Work with them how?
Holst: Where the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 80 of 94
Borup: Share the -- share the building of the public road?
Holst: What we have always been trying to get is the right for entry and not for a
placement of where the entry is going to be. The developer would make that decision
when the time came. And so that's -- so that's all we want with St. Luke's is a right of
entry and --
Borup: Anywhere?
Holst: And we feel that if this project goes through, if the zoning is changed or if the
development occurs, then, we are jeopardizing our right.
Zaremba: Well, to exercise that right you're going to have to buy the strip of property
from somebody, either one of the homeowners or this new -- I mean how -- how are you
going to provide the space that the roadway has to go on?
Holst: That will be brought back to the zoning of this committee at that time.
Zaremba: Probably not us. ACHD, maybe, but you would have to replat somebody's
lot to leave a space for the road, right?
Borup: Or a larger development that would encompass several lots and the road would
be built at that time.
Holst: All we are asking for at this time is just postpone it.
Zaremba: And I'm trying to see what you gain by postponing it. If at some point you're
going to have to buy a piece of property to build a road on anyhow, you could approach
these people and say here is what we have to buy the strip that we want.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think what I read here is that -- depending on the
development of Montvue Subdivision as a commercial development, you would like to
have that developer be able to choose where the access would go.
Holst: That's correct
Centers: I thought so. And --
Borup: And guarantee that there can be access? I mean that's what the agreement --
Centers: Yeah. But that's none of our business, in my opinion. That's yours.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's potentially very far in the future.
Centers: That's right. It could be tomorrow, it could be ten years, and that's not our
business, you know, that's yours as the Montvue homeowners. But we have an
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 81 of 94
application before us that meets all the guidelines, you have said that you don't mind
them entering your sub, but you just want it delayed, so that your negotiations can
continue. I don't think it's our business, personally.
Borup: I realize hindsight is much better, but when that private road first went in the
subdivision supported a private road.
Centers: Well -- and the other point that I was going to make, you have been working
with St. Luke's for -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a minimum of four years. More like five?
Yeah. And, then, you know, how much time do you need? You said St. Luke's is very
easy to get along with and -- well, I thought I heard you say that.
Holst: I didn't say that. They have been very hard to get along with.
Centers: I won't argue with you. Anyway, thank you.
Borup: Well, I might -- maybe just a quick question from Mrs. Griffith. That was the
same thing. Do you feel like your agreement with St. Luke's is in jeopardy if this is
approved?
Griffith: I can't answer that, but I hope not. I hope things --
Borup: Is there any reason it should be?
Griffith: I can't think of anything right off.
Borup: I mean they haven't indicated any -- St. Luke's has not been tying anything else
into what your discussions with them have been? They haven't brought anything else
into the mix?
Griffith: No. We will know Saturday when we meet.
Mathes: I have a question. If they buy the property, don't they -- aren't they involved in
the negotiations, then, because they are part of the subdivision, then, if they buy the
property.
Griffith: They haven't closed yet. They haven't closed on it yet, so they are not the
owners yet.
Mathes: I thought it was signed.
Griffith: One side. Their side, but the other side hasn't.
Mathes: Okay.
Griffith: So they are not the owners yet.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 82 of 94
Mathes: Right. But as soon as they are owners they can get in on the negotiations.
Griffith: Right. Right. Yeah. That's -- you know, that's just amongst the property
owners, we are negotiating with St. Luke's.
Borup: Thank you. Did you have some pertinent information, sir?
Holt: Chairman Borup, my name is Jim Holt, I'm the director of architecture and
construction for St. Luke's.
Borup: Okay.
Holt: I was hoping to sit in the back row and be silent tonight, but maybe I can help a
little.
Borup: Good. We appreciate it.
Holt: We would like to respect the process we are engaged in with our friends and
neighbors in Montvue. We are very optimistic. We are very close to coming to terms,
hopefully, here in a matter of a few days. However, if I might try and answer your
question, I don't believe that a decision on this application tonight has any bearing on
our negotiations and would affect anything we are trying to do here. Her other
statement tonight, there is a difference between the public process and this piece of
private property you have to deal with tonight and our private negotiations, our issues,
so I -- again, if that helps --
Borup: It helps me an awful lot.
Holt: Any impact on what happens tonight, our negotiations will continue to go forward,
and I believe that's independent of how you may choose to act on this application.
Borup: That's exactly the answer -- I mean that's exactly what I wanted to --
Zaremba: I appreciate that piece of information very much.
Borup: Any other questions while he's up here?
Holt: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Since we have had some additional public testimony, do the
applicants have anything else they want to --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes. Anything else from staff? Yes, it looks like there is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 83 of 94
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have got to vent a little bit of
frustration here. I'm going to throw a few things out here on the table for you to mull
over. When the application -- excuse me. Prior to the application when Mr. Boyle came
into our office and we had a pre-application meeting, the item -- the issue of the private
road was presented to us. It was part of the plan. The application -- the formal
application was filed. Mr. Boyle's narrative in his application -- here is a paragraph: A
private roadway is proposed near the west boundary of the site. The roadway is
proposed as a 29-foot street section with sidewalk along the east side only. Sidewalk is
not proposed on the west side in order to preserve a buffer of existing conifer trees.
The sidewalk will tie into the pathway along the north side of St. Luke's Drive. Further,
the sidewalk on only one side of the private roadway is similar to the street section of
St. Luke's Drive, which, as a path -- which has a pathway on the north side only.
Parking will not be allowed on either side of the private roadway. My point here is that
this was presented to us as this is an integral part of this application. It was never ever
presented to us as conceptual. Tonight is the first that your staff has learned that that
this is -- this road is a moving target. I would guess that ACHD, more than likely, has
the same type of application before them. I can't help but think that their decision might
have been different had they known the traffic, potentially, would not be using St. Luke's
Drive and that all traffic would funnel through the existing residential roadways to Eagle
Road, to an already very congested access point onto Eagle Road. So I just wanted to
make those points and let you kick it around.
Siddoway: Along the same vein, Mr. Chairman, if I might. The applicant has pointed
out that we have made the findings in -- that they -- that the application meets those
findings, but, again, those findings were all made based on the assumption of that road
and they may be different with that removed. If you -- if we -- if the road -- if we take the
site plan out of the picture and we just say should we annex this property with the only
access being what is described in the staff report as a difficult access off of Eagle Road,
that's not easily accessible to vehicles traveling south due to the high number of
vehicles stacked up at the Franklin and Eagle intersection and, additionally, is difficult to
make a left-hand turn out of the subdivision onto Eagle Road, I don't know that we
would be able to make all those findings. The findings that we made were based on the
assumption that that connection was a part of the application and I'm not sure that it
makes sense to annex that property with the current access.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant would like to respond.
Borup: I'm sorry. I was -- thank you.
Boyle: Thank you, Chairman Borup and Commissioners. Clint Boyle again. In
response to that, your -- Bruce is correct, there was a plan submitted, like we indicated
before, with a private road and some discussion on that in the narrative on the
application. However, what was left out of that picture was many discussions with
planning staff from the City of Meridian and ACHD before we ever submitted this
application, before we even had a pre-application on this application, in which it was
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 84 of 94
indicated from ACHD that they were adverse and would not accept a public road. Now,
to move this application forward with that said, on the other hand, we had that issue to
deal with where ACHD was saying they were not going to accept a public road
connection from Montvue and on the other side of that we had Meridian planning staff
saying that the annexation would not go forward and ultimately be approved by Council
unless we had a site plan associated with it. So, essentially, that left us in a position
that to get through your possession to annex and rezone we had to come up with a plan
that we could submit that showed a development on the site, showed the size of office,
the type of office, which we have indicated on there, the size, the type, a potential
layout, and that's how the conceptual plan came to --
Borup: But couldn't you have designed that with just access to Montvue only? Did you
say staff required you to have access to the private road?
Boyle: Staff did not require the access to the private road.
Borup: You could have designed it with Montvue access?
Boyle: We, potentially, could have designed it with just an access out to Montvue, that
is correct, but, again, at the time, the reason that the roadway was put in was because
we were aware that there were negotiations and we wanted to, essentially, present a
good faith showing to the neighborhood that, yes, you know, we were on board with
them in wanting to provide an access into the neighborhood and into Montvue. So,
that's kind of the background behind that. I just want to clarify, because there was a lot
of discussion related to the road related to this site plan as well in -- preceding even the
pre-application meetings on this. ACHD is very well aware of what we are doing here. I
have had many discussions and I can name people down there if you'd like, with
various staff members at ACHD on this particular project on the access issues on the
public road connection and situation there, on their previous decisions with Touchmark.
So, with that said, again, the submittal of the site plan, again, was to facilitate Meridian's
process with the annexation and rezoning request. It was to indicate to the city the type
of development that was proposed on the site. The agreement, again, with St. Luke's
that the Montvue neighbors are working on, again, we wanted to just have a good faith
showing that we are willing to work with the neighbors on that connection. However, it
didn't seem to make much sense to us to show, essentially, a public road across our
site, again, when ACHD was saying they wouldn't accept that. We are certainly willing
to continue to work with the neighbors on that issue, in conjunction with them working
with ACHD on it. So, again, tonight we do have the annexation and zoning request in
front of you. The discussion has gone through ACHD and as far as the trips utilizing
this development, again, if even there were no development in the future -- excuse me -
- no agreement in the future between St. Luke's and the Montvue residents, there still is
another entry that will likely occur in the future into this project that will provide another
public road outlet. So, there are some options here. Again, we are requesting that this
Commission move this project forward. We believe that given ACHD's input on this
project, given their approval on the project, and given the findings, we do believe that
we comply with them. Staff has indicated potentially that they feel otherwise. However,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 85 of 94
I will say that we have had extensive conversations with Meridian planning staff on
these issues, on the site plan, on the private road issue, and, again, this was a
facilitation movement on our part to be able to move through the annexation process.
Certainly, the developers of the project would have much rather just came to you with a
blank piece of paper and just said we'd like to annex this piece of property and zone it
L-O at this time and move through the process just like that without spending any time
and the engineering cost putting together the site plan and the other issues involved
there. However, our understanding was that we needed to present something that
indicated to the Commission and Council what type of development we were proposing.
It would facilitate any potential development agreement related to the use of the
property by showing that site plan and thereby that's why it was submitted.
Rohm: I have a question. Staff indicated that the access road that they requested you
include in your plat helped them with their staff comments, so that there is access
across. If you don't have that road, then, your only access to that lot is through the
subdivision and they would have possibly changed their comments had you not put the
road there. So it seems to me that the two are intertwined, are they not?
Boyle: Well – okay. And if I could just address that briefly from the standpoint of the
staff? I have had discussions on the city staff, the planning staff that drafted this report,
so the staff members from the planning staff that have drafted this report, I had
discussions with that very issue and my indication was that there may not be an
agreement reached -- you know, we feel that from what I understood that the Montvue
residents and St. Luke's were close to reaching an agreement, but there may not. What
are the considerations involved if that agreement isn't reached? And we talked about a
bunch of different scenarios and what we are looking at is something that fits into the
Comprehensive Plan that city envisioned and we talked about that Montvue
Subdivision. And, obviously, the discussion with the Meridian staff member that wrote
the report was, yes, Montvue wants commercial there, we are going to see this
transition, we are going to have other access points available from Touchmark. We had
discussions about the potential connection to Touchmark. In fact, it's even referenced
in your staff report that their -- one of the comments they made was related to the
potential that there may be some cut-through traffic avoiding the intersection. So to say
that the staff didn't contemplate other connections, it was certainly a point of discussion
that I had with the maker of the report related to this project and that agreement with St.
Luke's. So I don't know -- at least my understanding was that it certainly isn't a surprise
that we are in here indicating that that agreement may or may not happen and that if it
doesn't, that we would potentially take an access route through the subdivision or out
through Touchmark from some other direction.
Rohm: Well, just from a logic perspective, it seems to me that without the private road
your only access is through the subdivision and there are, in fact, limitations of access
from the southern -- trying to come in from the south -- traveling south, because you
can't get across the traffic, because it's backed up all the way to the Chevron station.
So I -- you know. So, the upshot of the whole deal is staff would not be able to
recommend to us to annex at -- as that use without having another access point, which
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 86 of 94
would be the private road currently owned by St. Luke's. That seems like that's the
logic that was incorporated into their staff report.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: If I might. Two comments. First, one question for Clint. Given your
discussions with ACHD and the meetings that you had there, do you believe that the --
that their report would include concerns that are not currently shown if the application
had been just a connection out to -- out to Eagle Road through Montvue?
Borup: Well, I'd like to address that, because that was a question I had also, if that's all
right. My reading of the ACHD report, that's the only access they refer to.
Siddoway: I know.
Borup: Just the one to Montvue -- just the one to Eagle Road through Montvue. They
make no reference to the private road.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: But I can certainly understand Mr. Freckleton's frustration when that was the
site plan that was presented to you, and now you feel a little like a bait and switch.
Siddoway: If that's the case, that's fine, it's an honest question is to see if --
Borup: Right. We'll now let Mr. Boyle answer that, too. Or you had two questions. I'm
sorry.
Siddoway: Well, no. Do the first. Go ahead.
Boyle: And, again, for me to speculate on would ACHD have changed -- again, ACHD
reviewed it as an annexation rezoning request and their report and the way that I
remember it as well is along the lines of Commissioner Borup with the access out to
Montvue Drive being the only existing access and --
Centers: Well, could I jump in? How about if there were a development agreement that
specified prior to development ACHD's approval of the development and having access
only via Montvue, if that were the only access at the time? Because as we discussed
earlier, they don't know the use, so they are not able to judge traffic, so if you had a
development agreement that had to be approved for use by the ACHD and access only
through Montvue or Montvue, then, we'd see if they would approve it, in which I -- I
don't know if they would. I can't speak for them, but I --
Borup: Well, they know the use was intended as L-O.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 87 of 94
Centers: Yeah.
Borup: But beyond that they don't.
Centers: But they didn't have specific --
Zaremba: I have two comments, actually, one a comment and one a question. The
first, I think it's essential to staff to ask for a site plan. There is no other way to support
what a zone should be unless we have some understanding of what's intended to go
into that zone, so I certainly support the need for that. We would want to see it. We
would not automatically rezone something without having a clue what was going to go
there. The second is a question. If this road were to happen as a private road, what do
you envision as the ownership of that road? Would the medical clinic own it, because it
runs across that piece of property, or would you envision selling it to the homeowners
association? Who is going to own --
Borup: The way the site plan is designed now, it would be owned by the medical clinic
that's on that property.
Zaremba: Is that something you're willing to do?
Boyle: Yeah. I will defer that one to Joanne. It's more of a legal question for her to
answer, if I might.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Well, I think Mr. Siddoway had another question. Do you still have any other
questions, Steve?
Siddoway: Just more of a statement than a question. Clint's referenced several
meetings that he's had with planning staff, I'm assuming Dave McKinnon. I agree, they
have met pretty extensively on this and revised the staff report accordingly and what it
all comes down to -- and I believe Dave's feelings are clearly stated in the
recommendation, that says staff does not feel comfortable with recommending the
approval of this project if this access cannot be agreed upon. Without an agreement in
place, the only access to the subject property will be through Montvue Subdivision, a
single point of access on Eagle Road. If the property is developed without the access,
it would bring a high volume of traffic into a residential subdivision and create additional
congestion near the entrance of the subdivision. Therefore, staff recommends
continuing the Public Hearing until an agreement has been signed, etc. I think that's the
point that staff came to and I think that's all.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 88 of 94
Butler: Joanne Butler. I think Mr. Siddoway's comments underscore, again, the reason
why we separate private and public in these matters. Mr. -- I don't doubt that Mr.
McKinnon would have loved to encourage people to come to some private agreement
during this public process and although I appreciate that encouragement, I don't think
that that's a proper place for staff in this regard. Staff has said in their comments when
they originally introduced the staff report was if the only access were off of Montvue,
they wouldn't -- staff would not recommend approval. Not because ACHD denied
approval, because ACHD did consider just that single access, but because they would
prefer to see access down to St. Luke's. I don't blame them. I think we would, too. But
we just can't expect it, we just don't know. You have heard from the neighbors and their
comments on if the traffic comes through. So, clearly, ACHD and the people that are
immediately affected would see this as appropriate. I appreciate staff's attempt to
encourage that private agreement coming to fruition, but, again, I just want to say that
that just underscored the fact that that's why we separate the public from the private
and try not to merge them. I know it's difficult to do sometimes. So, with regard to -- let
me paraphrase the question. Would -- I think you were asking about the ownership.
Through the attorney of the neighbors, we tell the attorney that if this wound up being
private on our property and that their agreement showed it in this location, their
agreement being St. Luke's and the neighborhood as a whole, that we understood the
concerns of the neighborhood, the whole -- that they had been given with one private
only for a long period of time, our efforts would be to insure that access would be for the
area as a whole. We even asked the neighbors' attorney to feel free to draft that
easement agreement in a manner that comported with their St. Luke's agreement, so
that we could take a review of it. So I can only tell you in that private arena, which is
not here tonight, we have said that we would -- would do whatever it took to make sure
that that access for the neighborhood as a whole, if it should come to pass, that it
wound up in whole or in part on this property. I hope answered that.
Zaremba: Well, I'm guessing you're saying that the medical clinic would retain
ownership of that piece of property?
Butler: Yeah.
Zaremba: With an easement --
Butler: I mean -- which it doesn't mean that the neighbors as a whole might not form
themselves into a -- if it was private, form themselves into a maintenance entity to
maintain it and assess themselves so that they could maintain it. That certainly could
be on the table, surely.
Borup: Would the Commission like to have some discussion before we maybe
proceed?
Centers: I think I would propose to close the Public Hearing. I would make that motion.
Rohm: I will second that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 89 of 94
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. Any discussion? All in favor?
Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: What issues do you think we are facing here? Just the road? Anything else?
There can't be very many other things on the annexation.
Zaremba: I think they have expressed willingness to work it out, I think, however it
turns out.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I -- ACHD was okay with the Montvue sub entry.
Borup: Yes. That's the way their report says.
Centers: That's the way it reads. The homeowners are okay with it. I don't think it's
any our business on the agreement. If staff thought they were looking at a private road
and, then, it flopped on them, bait and switch, whatever you want to say, I can
understand their frustration there, but that really doesn't change the issue, because
ACHD is okay with Montvue and the homeowners are okay with Montvue and one
statement that I always read -- and I was looking for it. I know it's there. Maybe it's not
with annexation and zoning. I don't think it is. Will it be harmonious to the
neighborhood? The neighbors don't care. The neighbors are fine. So, staff's
comments wouldn't change there, you know. So, I guess what I'm saying is I'm okay
with it. But I do think this: I really think -- I don't think that that developer, when he
builds that building, will build it knowing that he's going to access it through Montvue. I
think he's going to have an agreement signed with St. Luke's to access on their private
drive, because who in the heck would want to direct people to their office building going
through Montvue Sub? It's not going to happen. The guy that builds that is going to
have his agreement set to use St. Luke's Drive and I think there is probably going to be
a 30,000 square foot building going up there. Is that about -- it's conceptual, but --
Borup: And you know it's going to have to have access to Montvue, because that's the
only --
Centers: Yeah. But I don't think he's going to build it until --
Borup: I agree. That was one of my comments, that it's in their best interest and --
Rohm: Yeah. That doesn't insure that the subdivision will ever gain access to St.
Luke's private drive, which may be essential --
Borup: Sure. Sure, it does. It may not assure they have public access, but they are
going to have access through this private road.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 90 of 94
Rohm: I think the only thing that I'd like to say in rebut to what Commissioner Centers
was saying is staff would not have made their recommendation to move forward with
this had they --
Borup: They didn't.
Rohm: -- if the only access was through the subdivision and it's only due to them
showing this private road that we are where we are right now in the first place. So,
there you have it.
Centers: Well -- and to -- as a come back to that, they had to have conceptual. They
put the private drive there. Staff knew that there was no agreement. And, you know,
staff knew the history on Montvue and an agreement would be hard to get, because
Montvue residents were working on it themselves, but, hey, here is a conceptual private
road. They don't need that private road, this developer doesn't. All he needs is a
cross-access agreement with St. Luke's to use their private drive. That's all needs and
he's got good access; right? And I think that's what they are going to go after. And the
private drive would be up to the Montvue residents, which is where it should have been
to begin with. It's been there for five years.
Borup: Well, Mr. Centers, I -- you're saying he could build the project with just access
on the private drive only?
Centers: Couldn't he?
Borup: I don't think so. ACHD approved it with access to --
Centers: Well, it's going to have the other one, too.
Borup: And they said any change in the application would -- was there -- I'm not sure
which one of you -- Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a couple of points. One,
staff did not instruct the applicant to put the private road on their plan. That's the way
the --
Centers: I didn't say they did.
Freckleton: It was brought up earlier.
Borup: Well, we had the impression it was encouraged.
Freckleton: That's the way that the plan was presented to us. I don't know what
discussions Clint has had with Dave McKinnon prior to our pre-app meeting. The pre-
app meeting was the first glance I had with this project and it was presented to us in
that meeting that here is their project, the road is an integral part of it, we are working
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 91 of 94
with St. Luke's to get the access point approved by them. That's the way it was
presented to us. The second point I wanted to make was just a question that -- I have
read this ACHD report and I don't see -- I don't see their approval of the access going
solely out through Montvue Subdivision. So, if you have got that, could you point it out
to us?
Borup: Page three, number nine. Unless there is somewhere else? That's the only
one I saw.
Freckleton: Access to this site is currently provided.
Borup: Well, okay. I guess that's -- that's talking about existing access.
Freckleton: That's the portion of the report where they are basically laying the facts on
the table for you for consideration.
Borup: Yeah. And in the other areas they don't address it at all. They talk about
private drives and Touchmark and everything else, but they don't ever tie this into that.
Freckleton: Exactly. That's why I questioned whether ACHD drew the conclusion that
the road -- or the access for this commercial project was going to be solely taken
through the subdivision to Eagle Road. If this map that Pinnacle Engineers prepared
for the project was present to ACHD, they probably drew the same conclusion I did.
Centers: So, then, we get back to the one comment that I made. If we had a
development agreement on the approval of this annexation and zoning that included the
applicant's approval from ACHD on any development coming forward for access via
Montvue Sub only -- you follow what I'm saying?
Borup: You're saying --
Centers: They would have to go back to ACHD and say, hey, folks, we are going to
enter our project through the Montvue Sub only.
Borup: Only.
Centers: So our development agreement could say that, that they should get that
approval.
Borup: So, if they get this other access, then, they wouldn't need that approval.
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: Well, anytime -- if they submit a certificate of zoning compliance, it's going
to ACHD regardless of where the access is. So, ACHD will review it again through the
certificate of zoning compliance process, regardless of where the access is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 92 of 94
Centers: Before they build.
Siddoway: Before they get building permits.
Centers: Yeah. Okay.
Borup: Okay. Maybe one -- and Mr. Centers had brought up all the points that I had
written down, except for one, and that's -- St. Luke's has said that they will proceed and
continue good faith negotiations, that this would not have any affect either way. I know
previously I -- I don't believe we had a lot of detail. I know they had offered to provide
100,000 dollars for access into the subdivision, which, originally, the residents said they
just wanted access for themselves to get out to Eagle Road. That was what -- originally
what I had heard. Later, they change their mind and decided they wanted unlimited
access for more than just private residences and I think that's where things fell apart
with St. Luke's. But beyond that I'm not sure of all the details. But they have said that
they would continue. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Mathes? Any input there?
Mathes: I figured just annexation and zoning --
Borup: Well, once it goes -- I mean once it's annexed and zoned, we don't see it again.
Centers: What I liked hearing, though, is ACHD -- it has to go back to them regardless.
I will make a motion. I don't know where everyone is going here, but I'll make a motion.
I would make a motion that we recommend approval for AZ 03-004, request for
annexation and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic
by Pinnacle Engineers, including all staff comments from their memo of March 6th --
and, specifically, the annexation and zoning conditions of approval. Strike item three
and replace it -- and I will take help on this. Replace it with the development agreement
shall address use of property only and include language similar to other development
agreements in an L-O zone. All other -- items one, two, and four would be included.
And number three amended as I just did. Are we okay with that?
Siddoway: Just so I understand for the recommendation, this is just on the annexation
and zoning and items one, two, and four are not changed. Item three regarding the
development agreement is modified to address use of the property only.
Centers: Right. And include language that you have used on similar agreements in an
L-O zone. And I'm thinking across the street.
Siddoway: Well, we usually tie them to a specific site plan, frankly. But I don't think you
want to go there. So, that's why I'm --
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: We usually do tie those developments to site plans.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 93 of 94
Centers: Similar to a -- similar to the site plan offered, other than the private drive, then.
Okay?
Zaremba: I will second.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? Are there any questions on that
from the city attorney? Did that motion make sense? Okay. I asked if there was any
other discussion. I think I did. All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. That will go forward to City Council. I assume the applicant realizes that
I'm sure staff will have the same objections at City Council.
Zaremba: But it may be resolved by then.
Borup: Well, yes, that would certainly help things for the applicant also if ii was resolved
by then. I think that would help your presentation.
Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
forTemporary building for Urgent Care, Occupational Medicine, and, and
Administrative Office of St. Alphonsus Temporary Facility by Rocky
Mountain Management and Development, LLC – east of North Eagle
Road and south of East Presidential Road:
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? I believe --
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: -- I noticed in our packet a request to withdraw Item 13.
Borup: The very first item in the packet. Yeah. That's my understanding.
Zaremba: In that case, we don't need to --
Centers: We can just throw that away, can't we, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: They didn't -- do we need to make a motion to that effect, counsel?
Holinka: Yeah. You probably better act on it just to --
Borup: Okay. Would someone like to maybe mention that and make a motion to accept
the withdrawal, I guess.
Zaremba: Well, is there anybody here to speak on that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 94 of 94
Borup: I don't -- do we have anybody here on this last issue? I don't think so.
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the application's request to
withdraw CUP 03-003.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Maybe just one final thing. The city is going to be interviewing for a new
Planning and Zoning director. I don't know if there is any -- and there is a list of
questions that the HR people put together, a pretty extensive list. I don't know if there is
anything any of the Commissioners would like to add to that, if so, if you want to get
those to me soon. That's next week they are doing this. Or if you had anything tonight,
I would -- okay.
Centers: And I heard that Mr. Clark didn't want the job. Well, I would -- Mr. Chairman, I
would make a motion we adjourn.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:39 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED