2003 10-02Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 2, 2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 2, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Michael Rohm, and Leslie
Mathes.
Members Absent: David Zaremba.
Others Present: Jill Holinka, Bruce Freckleton, Jessica Johnson, Brad Hawkins-Clark,
Steve Siddoway, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance:
___O__ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday,
October 2nd
and begin with roll call of the Commissioners.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Borup: The first item is the adoption of the agenda. I think staff has brought to our
attention it may be advantageous to perhaps adjust the agenda on one item. Any
comment from any of the Commissioners?
Mathes: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move Item 12, Public Hearing PP 03-026, after
Number 7.
Borup: Okay. Motion to move 12 up to between seven and eight.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of September 18, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 2 of 71
Borup: Okay. The next item would be approval of minutes from the September 18th
meeting.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes of the
September 18th
meeting.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to approve the minutes of September 18th
. All in favor?
Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 4. Public Hearing: AZ 03-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 5
acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealy Parcel) by BRS Architects
– southeast corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road:
Borup: The next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-022, request for annexation and zoning
of five acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealy Parcel) by BRS Architects. I'd like
to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Chairman, members of the Commission. This item is
only an annexation and zoning request. There is no development application that's
associated with it. To orient you, there are two properties currently in Ada County, both
have RUT zoning, one with the frontage on Ustick Road is about 1.1 acres and, then,
the second parcel is about 3.8 acres, a total of about five acres. As noted in our staff
report that was dated October 2nd
and transmitted on September 25th
, the property is
adjacent to the Kissler annexation that you reviewed a few weeks ago. That annexation
request the P and Z Commission did approve it. The City Council will be acting on that
in about two weeks.
Centers: And, Brad, that would be right there?
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Right. Then, the second application that is also in the pipeline
right now is this parcel here that's kind of triangular shaped that there is, as you can
see, some adjacency there as well. This parcel is, I think, about 23 acres in size and
was part of the Red Feather Estates No. 2 project, which is going to be before you in
two weeks. The zoning that was requested on the Kissler property, on the Bryson
parcel, and on this, is all C-G. The Comp Plan designates it as mixed use regional and
we have -- staff has -- considers the C-G to be a zone that fits within the mixed use
designation on the Comp Plan and does conform to that. I did want to point out as well
that the -- if the City Council does not approve the 18 acre Kissler annexation, which is
also combined with the six parcels over here, then, this parcel tonight would not have
adjacency and it would just have to be withdrawn. I did note that in the staff report. I
analyzed -- provided some analysis of the findings for you in the staff report. Generally,
we do find that the annexation request meets the required findings there. We have --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 3 of 71
since the intent here is for the development to be done together with the Kissler. As
you might have noticed, we basically requested similar conditions, almost verbatim, on
this Dealy parcel as we requested and as you approved on the Kissler annexation.
Seeing if I can -- here is an aerial. As you can see, there is one existing residence that
has the Ustick frontage and, then, the 3.8 parcel is mainly just pasture land on the south
end. It's not shown on this aerial very well, but there is a -- about a 400 square foot
parcel that Intermountain Gas Company owns, that is here on the northwest corner and
we did ask the applicant to try and contact Intermountain Gas and see if they could be
incorporated into this annexation, so we could avoid that out parcel. The last I heard
that there had not been a return phone call from Intermountain Gas, so I don't know if
we are going to hear about that tonight, but I would ask the applicant to address that.
Other than that, I think we have the four recommended conditions on the annexation
that they enter into a Development Agreement, that all future uses have a Conditional
Use Permit. Then, the final thing I'd point out is I think the tie to the development
agreements. Obviously, we have eliminated any recommendation that there be some
kind of frontage road on this annexation, since it doesn't have adjacency to Eagle Road.
Other than that, I think probably the main points that might be up for discussion tonight
is the -- whether a conceptual plan should or should not be required with this property
and the Kissler property before they can come in with a Conditional Use Permit.
Obviously, the impact on that is if you do choose to approval and the City Council
annexes the property, they could straight in with a Conditional Use Permit to the city
without showing how this five acres would work as a whole with the other 18 acres. We
think there is some value in -- at such a critical corner of the city, to see a master plan
and how they are going to get connections in there, since it's a fairly narrow parcel. I
think that's all staff has to offer at this point.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to
make their presentation?
Strite: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Billy Ray Strite, 1010
Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of the Kissler Dealy application obviously, in
support. I think I'll make it very short. I think the staff has done an excellent job. I think
it's, quite frankly, exactly what you saw -- I believe it was three weeks ago and without
any adieu, I guess it was Yogi Bear who said it's deja vu all over again. I will suggest
that I think that a conceptual plan at this particular point in time is a little premature.
That I strongly believe that the DA could be containing solely the fact that Conditional
Use will be imposed on any and all uses, as well as perhaps even defining the
particular uses in a C-G zone, which can or cannot -- which would or would not be
available and certainly compatible with the neighborhood.
Borup: Mr. Strite, let me ask you a question while you're on that, then. Is it intended
that these five acres would be developed with the other parcel, the other Kissler parcel?
Strite: Mr. Chairman, most definitely this ground has been purchase by Mr. Kissler.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 4 of 71
Borup: So, whatever development is done there, it's going to be a total development
with this parcel included with the other?
Strite: That is correct. I think it's obvious to see and I think the staff would agree that
the configuration of this site would make it extremely difficult to develop on itself, so
having said all that, I would be happy to entertain any questions and I'm sure
Commissioner Centers will have one, so I'm ready.
Borup: Any comment on that out parcel?
Strite: Yes, sir. Oh, I do have a comment. I spoke to Brent Wilde today, Intermountain
Gas, and they believe that that's there on an easement, that it is, in fact -- that it is not,
in fact, a legal lot of record. Unfortunately, I was unable to get back to Brad and I do not
have the documentation that would show that, but I certainly agree with staff that that
will have to take place and we are prepared to do that prior to City Council.
Borup: Questions from Commissioners?
Centers: No. I tend to agree with you, Mr. Strite, that that parcel would be very difficult
to develop on its own. I think staff probably recognizes that and, then, conceptuals are
nice. However, they seem to change a lot by the time they get to this point, so that's my
feeling.
Strite: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Okay.
Strite: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none,
Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend approval for
item four on our agenda, AZ 03-022. It's a request for annexation and zoning of five
acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler (Dealy Parcel) by BRS Architects at the
southeast corner of Ustick Road and North Eagle Road, including all staff comments
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 5 of 71
and most specifically the special note regarding the applicant's continuing --
continuance of trying to nail down the Intermountain Gas out parcel. End of motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Are we assuming that we are in favor of
tying the Development Agreement together with the --
Centers: Yes. That was included in staff comment.
Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 03-044 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Development in a proposed C-G zone for proposed
Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance Investments – southeast
corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road:
Borup: Next is item five, Public Hearing CUP 03-044, request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Development for a proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone
Business Campus by Sundance Investment. I'd like to open this hearing at this time
and start with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, this item is a
Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development. The property was formally
annexed, I believe, just last week. It's located here on the south side of Overland Road
about a quarter mile east of Eagle Road. There are three parcels involved and the
Preliminary Plat that this body approved and the City Council approved last week does
propose to create 49 new lots that would have a C-G zone. The red that is in
Silverstone Corporate Center currently is also C-G. They have a split zone in
Silverstone Corporate Center. They are not proposing a split zone here. They were
annexed with the full 80 acres being C-G. Just to remind you that the parcel does have
the Eight Mile Lateral that is here on the northern quarter of the parcel. The Preliminary
Plat was approved with -- on the south side about a 3,500 foot long, 10-foot wide, multi-
use public pathway and they have plans and are moving ahead with that, as well as the
plat. My understanding is they have had -- continue to have negotiations with the Corps
of Engineers and the Highway District on the parcel that's shown here in red, which the
Highway District owns, being shifted to the west to be located more centrally here.
What they are proposing tonight with this Planned Developmental, the Development
Agreement that was required with the annexation basically put all of the uses in terms
of what uses will be permitted in this project, basically deferred any discussion of those
uses until this application. The development agreement required that they come in with
a Planned Development. There was several discussions between staff and the
applicant and, clearly, they did submit that. So, the main reason for this application to
be before you, I think, is really to talk about the uses and as you may have seen in the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 6 of 71
staff report, there was some discussion -- one of the conditions dealt with that in
particular. They have -- they are proposing two special use areas. I'm just going to skip
ahead here to a slide to show you what they are showing in their application. Again,
here is Overland Road on the north proposing to extend two public streets to the south
in the project and continue Copperpoint Drive here from Silverstone Corporate Center.
The Eight Mile Lateral drain is shown here and they are proposing basically standard C-
G zone uses here on the north, some retail along Overland Road, and, then, the special
use area A is adjacent to what is shown as future residential on our comp plan to the
east and that, really, encompasses all of -- all of special use area A, with the exception
of these northerly two lots. Then, special use area B is basically from the Eight Mile
Drain all the way south to their south boundary with Sutherland Farms Subdivision.
And as they showed in Exhibit C of their application there, they have different uses for
these different special use areas and staff did review those, compared them to the
Silverstone Corporate Center Development Agreement that already exists, basically just
bearing in mind the residential to the east and we recommended four changes to that
exhibit and I will just touch on those in just a minute. Two other highlights, though.
They are proposing two amenities for the project, since it is a Planned Development,
they need to provide two amenities. One of those, of course, is the public pathway.
The second one, the ten percent of the project they are proposing in open space and I
pointed out that they are just about 8,000 square feet below what would be ten percent.
They would need to have a little over eight acres of open space to have ten percent and
they have 7.88, so they are just a little shy on that and we have asked for them to
submit a revised concept plan that shows where they are going pick up that additional
8,000 square feet of open space. Then on page six of our staff report that was
transmitted on September 26, I did mention the open space, that was one of our special
considerations and, then, the second one is a plat modification and in their letter
basically the applicant, as with many commercial industry developers, is wanting as
much flexibility as possible to market the property and they are asking, as I understood
it, for some options with lots and just to point out, we don't have in code the ability at
staff level to change the number of lots, that would have to be done through another
platting process. As they have done with Silverstone, they can do lot line adjustments
and maintain the same number of lots, but just to clarify -- to clarify that. There are
some photos that they have submitted with their application that show the types of
buildings that would be typical. These are office buildings on the left and retail buildings
on the right. The flex and office buildings, which would be primarily in that special use
area B, are shown here, a warehouse building there on the right-hand side. Then,
some smaller user buildings, some typical elevations are shown there. These smaller
buildings -- and I will just go back to the site plan again, would -- what they are
proposing is primarily to be along the future residential here on this east side. Then, on
page seven, just to highlight, again, on item number two of our conditions, we are
recommending that the utility facility major be deleted as a permitted use and that this
be only allowed through Conditional Use. The special use area A, we recommended in
the staff report a contractor's yard also be deleted. These lots along this eastern
boundary are all less than 300 foot as the Preliminary Plat was approved and the
ordinance says if you do a contractor's yard it needs to be at least 300 feet away from
residential. So, clearly, a standard contractor's yard would not normally be allowed at
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 7 of 71
all on that east boundary, because they don't meet the 300 foot separation. I did talk
with Mr. Larson today and they have, I think, given some thought to how they would like
to maybe amend this. They disagree with the complete deletion. They want the ability
to market those eastern lots for contractor's yards. So, I think that's probably one of the
main points for the Commission tonight to discuss. I think the other changes that we
recommended that all the manufacturing in that special use area A be indoor -- be
restricted to indoor and any outdoor manufacturing would need to be pushed on the
other side of Topaz, the north-south street there, and, then, D, item 2-D, is limiting the
public utility yards to minor public utilities, instead of allowing both major and minor, just
restrict that to minor. Then, on the supplemental uses we are recommending that that
paragraph be deleted and that basically was requesting some flexibility with their
current Silverstone project. There is the Michael's building that some of you may have
seen back there that they were looking for some flexibility and this development
agreement is a different development agreement than Silverstone Corporate Center, so
at least from staff's perspective we didn't see how those two development agreements
could really be merged. I think other than that, we have some standard CUP conditions
that are in there. The Overland Road -- they are still talking with the Highway District
about access points onto Overland Road. Mr. Larson did confirm today that they have
not -- that they don't have a date with the Highway District on that reconsideration to
possibly add another access point to Overland Road. So, I think that's also up for the
Commission, whether you're comfortable with just leaving that as it currently stands and
they would have to come back to you if there were any significant changes to the plan.
On item number four, the last thing I wanted to point out on page seven of the report,
the way it words now, the way we worded was the Planning and Zoning Department
staff is hereby granted authority to approve modifications to the master site plan that
conform to either of the concepts submitted with the application and I will just show you
briefly they have submitted three different site plans with the application. This one, as
you can see, the main difference is the large lot on the south end and a relocation of the
street. This revised plan has the lot on the south broken up and, then, the Copperpoint
is more or less extended in a straight line to the east. Then, this one, which is fairly
close, I think as you can see, the main difference is some of this area in the center of
special use area B, they have kind of changed the orientation of some of the buildings.
They would allow, if the uses as they propose them, it would allow some heavier uses,
like light industrial and warehousing in here that normally would not be allowed in the
commercial in the C-G zone, but since it's a Planned Development, that's what they are
requesting is to be able to increase some of the intensity of the uses in the project. I
think those are the main things to point out right now.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the
applicant like to make their presentation?
Larson: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larson, I'm
here tonight representing Sundance on the Silverstone Business Campus. I would be
happy to go through and address some of the issues that were brought up by staff. In
general, we are in concurrence with all the issues, but two of them, so I wanted to kind
of go through and talk about that, as well as when we went through the approval
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 8 of 71
process -- and it's not necessarily reflected on the plan that's on the wall, but there was
another street added here to serve the Sutherland Farms development to the south.
That was a requirement. So, that street will be added as part of the platting process.
This piece of ground that exists right here is, actually, a C-G zone and so these lots
wouldn't really be butting up to Sutherland Farms Subdivision directly, so that's why we
-- I want to just make sure I was a little bit clear on that.
Centers: Let me interrupt. Is that a separate ownership, Mr. Larson, the C-G to your
south?
Larson: Yes. That is a -- it is not our ownership, it is Sutherland Farms ownership and
it was rezoned, I believe, to a C-G or was brought through with that process.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. That's correct.
Larson: It would be a piece that sits right in here that's part of their -- actually, it's right
along the canal that goes through sort of like that. So, it's right in that area.
Centers: Everything north of the canal?
Larson: Correct.
Centers: Right.
Larson: In addition to that, we wanted to talk -- there were a couple of comments in the
staff report about ACHD's facilities that were going into the project. We were proposing
to relocated, as you know from the previous presentation, this area that now is ACHD's
property more over into the middle of the project, that kind of brings it away from this
residential line. We were planning to take that property and landscape it, put grass in it
and use as much of it as -- open space as we could. It's our intent to improve it. The
Highway District was looking at potentially not improving it and using as typically one of
their retention ponds. We -- the owner has a similar one at Black Eagle in Boise and
they have gone in and improved that and they continue to do the maintenance on it, so I
kind of wanted to let you know that it's the intent at this point in time and we are pretty
close to an agreement with the Highway District that we can improve this grass and
make it a fairly nice open facility there and have it look better than just the standard
retention facility. As far as the street improvements on Overland Road, we have been
working with the Highway District and last week we received four drawings from them
that show some of the options that can be done on Overland Road. The developer has
sent out a letter to the adjacent homeowners on the north and has scheduled a meeting
early next week -- I can't remember if it's Monday or Tuesday, but the first part of next
week to present those options to the homeowners, so we could get some input on what
their feelings might be, so, then, when we go back to the Highway District we will have,
hopefully, a little better direction on what the homeowners might like to see. So, that is
in process and is moving along, but it's probably going to take a little while, as did Eagle
Road when we went to get it improved, so -- I don't know if Bruce Mills is here or not,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 9 of 71
but he might be able to give you a little more information on that if he is here and is
available. The idea of the concept plans or the different plans that we were asking for
staff to have approval on, it does give us a little flexibility in selling the property. We
have had a couple of large users looking at the facility and that was part of our reason
for the request was to see if we could have your concurrence that we could work with
staff to make those changes if we needed to or if we did get a large user. Then, in
looking at the items that staff had requested on the -- I believe it was page seven. Yes,
on page seven. We are okay with item 2-A. 2-B we wanted to talk a little bit about and
2-E we wanted to explain why we had asked for those supplemental uses under 2-E. I
will go ahead and start with 2-B, the special use area for the contractor -- or the
contractor yards. We were looking at these smaller buildings along this side as
potentially contractor yard areas and we are pretty sympathetic to what the staff is
saying about that being adjacent to residential and what the owner was willing to do
was have a restriction of hours of use on those buildings along here, so that we could
have some control on when they might be using those facilities. They were looking at
like a 7:00 in the morning until 7:00 or 6:00 at night for hours of use to help control that.
These are relatively small buildings, so we are not anticipating any large equipment in
there or anything, but some of the small businesses that are contractor type businesses
do like to have a little bit of space to store stuff in and vehicles and et cetera, so that
was our request for that, so we would like to have you guys consider, if you would, the
request to maybe limit the hours on those buildings along that side. I'm not sure
whether you will remember, but on the supplemental uses, which are on five -- on page
five of the listed uses in the proposal we had sent with the application, included apparel
manufacturing, metal fabrication, assembling of leather products, some machining,
some bottling of flammable liquids -- these were all items that we -- actually, there is
one more. Interior and exterior storage. These were all items that we came back to the
Commission when we did the Michael's of Oregon project, which sits about right here
and they are looking at expanding over onto the sight here with another facility and so
rather than go back through the same process again, we ask for those as they related
to the Michael's of Oregon project, that was built in the corporate center, and so it was
our intent to be able to bring some of these uses that existed with Michael's over here
should they need to expand their business. So, in an effort to try to explain that a little
better to you than maybe we did in the application, which was the intent for those items
that were listed under supplemental uses. With that, I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Larson, on page six of the staff report they mention
the open space and where you're almost 7,500 square feet short. I don't think you
really addressed that, unless you want the ACHD detention pond to cover that.
Larson: No. We will make up the open space, but the detention pond is also included
in our open space.
Centers: Yes. Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 10 of 71
Larson: But we will make up the addition seven or eight thousand square feet that we
need to add to that in order to make sure we are in compliance with that.
Centers: Okay. And was the detention pond passive or active?
Larson: Meaning is it a detention or a retention?
Centers: That was a question that the staff posed here. Is it passive or active? I can
give my definition. I think you have one, too.
Larson: The intent there is that the space would be available for use if someone
wanted to walk across the space or do something like that, but as far as it being an
activity area, like an outdoor soccer field or something like that, it would not be that.
Centers: It's not going to be fenced or --
Larson: It will not be fenced.
Centers: It would be -- you would require -- or you would have to mow. I think I have
seen the one at Black Eagle. It's close to the highway, isn't it, to Overland Road?
Larson: It's, actually, back along the residential area on the north side and they
currently do mow and manicure that. There are riparian plant materials down in the
bottom of it that acts as a -- if you will, a bio-filter.
Centers: Right.
Larson: But they did mow and maintain it and they would continue to mow and
maintain this one as well.
Centers: I would call that active, wouldn't you, Mr. Clark? Yes. Thank you. I guess in
relationship to the contractor's yard and shop, I guess what I'm visualizing there -- we
had one situation off Overland, west of Meridian Road, that didn't fly -- it flew here and it
didn't fly at Council. I think I'm right on that. But I think that was a more active yard with
a lot of heavy equipment coming and going and that type of thing. So, are you talking
like an office warehouse situation where you might have -- and it comes to mind every
quickly, an electrical contractor's shop in the back where he has his goods and his vans
and he has it office up front, are you talking something like that?
Larson: That would be more the intent of a small user. We wouldn't be looking for
somebody who would have heavy equipment in there and that's kind of the reason
those buildings are smaller, is so we could the size and those lots are smaller, so we
could control the size, so we --
Centers: So, warehouse-office situation?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 11 of 71
Larson: Is typically what it would be, yes.
Centers: Okay. So, if we tagged a condition there with that verbiage, you wouldn't
object to that?
Larson: I don't think we would.
Centers: What they are objecting to next to the residential is the chain link fence with
the backhoes coming in and that type of thing and that's not your intent?
Larson: And we actually -- no. We discussed with staff that we might even be willing to
do some solid fencing in those areas or -- and I think some of those provisions are
available in the code right now, too, in the discussion with Brad about the landscaping
setback and screening and those kind of things. So, we were fairly comfortable with
that, it was just more if we did find a small electrical firm or a plumbing firm or
somebody like that that we could certainly utilize those lots for that type of use.
Borup: I had the same thoughts as Commissioner Centers, you know, an excavation
contractor with the trucks and equipment and backhoes coming and going, I -- that
would not be appropriate there, but a small contractor's shop -- but -- and some of them
may or may not have storage outside, so if there is a provision in there to have proper
screening and a solid fence and stuff, are you comfortable with that if there was outside
storage?
Larson: Yes. I think we are.
Centers: And limit the hours I think was a good suggestion. I don't think 7:00 to 7:00
would be enough. I think 6:00 to 7:00 would be more appropriate for --
Borup: And the time of year, too.
Larson: One of the things we have seen is like, for example, contracting -- or a
concrete contractor might be pouring concrete at 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning in hot
weather conditions. So part of the reason for limiting the hours would be to have those
guys get their equipment that they need out, loaded in the trucks, and sitting out front
and not back by the neighbor's housing.
Centers: Very good.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? I think Commissioner Centers
asked the couple I had. I don't know if you had any additional comment on the
Overland access or not. It looks like you're talking just a couple of drive entrances, I
guess working out with ACHD --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 12 of 71
Larson: That's part of the proposals that would be going to the neighbors the first part
of next week and, hopefully, back to the Commission for reconsideration. Obviously, I'm
sure the neighbors will need some time to, you know, get together and consider those
options or what's being made available to us. The Highway District has completed the
drawings and different options that they would like to see, so those will be available for
the neighbors at that meeting.
Centers: One more question, Mr. Chairman. Are you saying that Michael's of Oregon
in Silverstone presently performs those six functions?
Larson: Yes, they do.
Centers: Really?
Larson: Yes.
Centers: Okay. They are diversified.
Larson: Yes.
Borup: Yes, I can see all that in just normal outdoor stuff, not on a -- because the
definitions are pretty wide encompassing, so it covers all that real easy. Okay.
Anything else, Mr. Larson?
Larson: No.
Borup: Thank you.
Larson: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to come forward and testify on this? Okay. Seeing
none.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. I guess we could leave the hearing
open. I guess, you know, how do you feel about the contractor shop and yard as we
would define it to be mini warehouse slash office space concept with no heavy
equipment coming or going? That would be my definition that would be allowed for him.
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Centers --
Centers: And fenced.
Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I mean that would be a change to the way that the zoning
ordinance defined the contractor's yard.
Centers: Yes. But could we tag that on tonight?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 13 of 71
Hawkins-Clark: Certainly. I mean, yes, as a Conditional Use Permit that's possible.
Yes. You know, I think the zoning ordinance defines the contractor's yard processing
storage, maintenance of -- that are incidental to operations like demolition and -- you
know, so I -- just to point out when it comes three years down the road and, potentially,
this property has -- along the eastern boundary has been replatted or maybe the lots
change size, they get bigger, and, then, we are -- we are going to be enforcing the
definition of a contractor's yard and there is -- as -- you know, as shown there would be
nothing limiting that, you know, as it is. So, that was the reason we recommended the
deletion. But I think if I hear you correctly, Commissioner, it's -- you're changing the
definition, which is okay, we just need to be sure to get that into the plan.
Centers: Or any contractor yard use shall come back for a CUP at that time.
Hawkins-Clark: I think that's an option. I think we know enough about contractor's
yards today that it may -- it may be a waste of time in the future --
Centers: Yes. I'd rather put the new definition on it and --
Borup: If we have a narrow definition.
Centers: Yes. And, then, we don't see it again. Then, my next question is the original
graph that you had up there showing A and B, A was adjacent to the Michael's of
Oregon -- or, excuse me, B, and the parcel there that he's speaking of, could we limit
that expansion and allow that? How do you feel about that? I guess if a company
wants to expand and it's in the area of -- in the B area, it's not next to residential, I don't
object to it. How do you feel?
Hawkins-Clark: Right. No. I agree.
Centers: Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's all I had. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Any comments from any of the other Commissioners?
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Centers: Then, I would make a stab at recommending approval on this item five, CUP
03-044, it's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development in a
proposed C-G zone for proposed Silverstone Business Campus by Sundance
Investments at the southeast corner of east Overland and South Eagle Road, including
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 14 of 71
all staff comments dated October 2nd. On the front page it states reference Silverstone
Business Campus and we should insert request for a CUP -- request of a Conditional
Use Permit for a Planned Development. That's just a little technical thing that I noted
there. That was the agenda item. So, including all staff comments and, then, as
amended referring to page six, the applicant has indicated that they will comply with the
open space and storm water detention pond will be developed as active open space,
subject to ACHD's approval. I can't imagine them denying that. Page seven of the
comments, item 2-B, the term contractor's shop and yard definition would change to a
contractor's warehouse slash office space with no heavy equipment coming or going.
Rohm: And to strike the delete.
Centers: Correct. Thank you.
Borup: I assume that would also not allow demolition storage and that type of stuff, too.
I don't know how exact we need to get in the definition, but --
Centers: Well, all uses shall be enclosed, other than parking of vehicles, with no heavy
equipment coming or going.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Yes. And, then, fenced per their landscape plan. Brad, jump in if you like.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I guess the one -- two clarifications. I mean -- so you
are saying that no outdoor uses will be allowed --
Centers: Correct.
Hawkins-Clark: -- at all?
Centers: Other than parking and, you know, that type of thing.
Borup: That's what I was wondering, because that didn't come up earlier. I mean I can
see --
Centers: Other than parking of the company's vehicles --
Borup: -- a plumbing contractor might have some pipe lying out on a rack or something,
so you're saying that wouldn't be allowed?
Centers: Well, I guess, you know, you wouldn't be that technical if it's -- you have a
fence that is site obscuring. I think the big thing is heavy equipment or contractor's
equipment coming and going would not be allowed. Equipment of the backhoe and --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 15 of 71
Borup: Well, the other one thing that would concern me is it talks about demolition -- a
demolition as also a definition and, you know, demolition storage could be quite
unsightly.
Rohm: Possibly just have an exclusion of heavy equipment and that wouldn't preclude
them from having a material yard.
Borup: Maybe exclude heavy equipment and demolition storage?
Centers: Yes. That's fine. You know, I don't think the applicant is -- and excluding
demotion, then.
Borup: Those are the things that are -- seem to be in the definition that would maybe
be a concern.
Centers: And -- are we okay there, Brad, do you think, then, with the definition? For
you to enforce it later?
Hawkins-Clark: I think what we would relay on is definition of heavy equipment that's in
the zoning ordinance Title 11, which says establishments primarily engaged in the sale
or rental of tools, trucks, tractors, construction equipment, ag implements and similar
industrial equipment.
Centers: Right.
Hawkins-Clark: So, I mean it does cover a lot, but I think it's important to clarify whether
the Commission does or does not want the materials storage outdoor to be a part of this
--
Centers: Well, I think as Chairman Borup stated, you know, a plumber's pipe that he
might store on racks, I wouldn't object to that, you know, if they are going to have a
fence behind it and that type of thing.
Borup: Maybe if it's storage of supplies incidental to their business.
Centers: Related to their business.
Borup: Something that would be inventory, not something that's going to be sitting out
there for permanent.
Centers: Right.
Borup: I don't know how you get all that in a short definition, but --
Hawkins-Clark: It's your motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 16 of 71
Borup: Well, maybe just equipment incidental to their business use.
Centers: Yes. So included. A contractor's shop and yard to be defined as their
warehouse slash office and materials stored related to their business and excluding all
heavy equipment or contractor's equipment, for example, backhoes, et cetera. Office
hours shall be no less, no greater than 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. I say 6:00 a.m., because
people should get up at 6:00, especially if they work for me, so they can get to work on
time. I had a problem with that lately. Strike item 2-E and in the applicant's submission
they refer to an expansion, that item would only be applicable to Michael's of Oregon
expansion, as requested. End of motion.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Did we make -- did you make note that
the applicant said they would comply with the open space?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: That was -- you mentioned that? Okay. We have a motion and second. All in
favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 6: Public Hearing: RZ 03-010 Request for a Rezone of 4.47 acres from
R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside
Properties, LLC – 1115 North Ten Mile Road:
Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 03-025 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15
building lots and 5 other lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties, LLC – 1115 North
Ten Mile Road:
Borup: The next application is items six and seven, Public Hearing RZ 03-010, request
for rezone of 4.47 acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed Woodside Creek by
Woodside Creek Properties, 1115 North Ten Mile Road. And PP 03-025, request for
Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and five other lots on the same 4.47 acres,
both R-8 zone. Like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff
report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this is an application for a rezone
from R-4 to R-8 and it's a Preliminary Plat for 15 building lots. This is an in-fill
development that will be north of the Berkeley Square Subdivision. It's located on Ten
Mile Road approximately a half mile south of Cherry. There is currently one existing
home on the property, which will remain on the property. Let's see. I will go to the site
plan. That's the aerial. There is one existing home, which will remain on the property.
They will be given up their access to Ten Mile Road and there will be no access points
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 17 of 71
off of Ten Mile Road. All access to the subdivision will be through Berkeley Square.
The proposed rezone meets the Comprehensive Plan. It's designated medium density
residential and they are asking for an R-8 zone, which is compatible. And the
Preliminary Plat meets all code requirements for Preliminary Plat. Do you have any
questions of staff?
Mathes: I have a question.
Kirkpatrick: Okay.
Mathes: On the fire comment by Joe Silva, can you explain number three where it says
minimum of two points of access with 50 homes? Are they including -- is that Baldwin
or -- or whatever it is below it.
Kirkpatrick: Oh, it's Berkeley Square to the south.
Mathes: Berkeley Square. Is that -- are they including that? Because they are coming
in off of Berkeley Square?
Kirkpatrick: Let's see. Let me get those comments. Let me see if I have another
picture that shows Berkeley Square. No.
Mathes: I believe it makes like 51 homes if they are including Berkeley Square.
Kirkpatrick: Unfortunately, I didn't clarify this point with the Fire Department. This -- I
mean this project is, technically, completely separate from Berkeley Square, but I don't
know if the fire chief is looking at this as functionally being a part of Berkeley Square,
because it shares that access point.
Mathes: Right.
Kirkpatrick: I think that if we can't come to a decision tonight, we definitely want to
condition that before it goes to City Council, that needs to be clarified, and we need to
either add an emergency access point or receive approval from the Fire Department on
the proposed plan. Since I'm not Joe Silva, I don't want to interpret what he meant
here. I don't know -- it possibly could be -- yes, I don't want to -- I'm afraid to interpret it
for him.
Borup: Where does that 50 homes come from? Is that -- that's not city ordinance.
Kirkpatrick: It's part of the International Fire Code.
Borup: It is part of the Fire Code?
Kirkpatrick: You have to have two access points for every 50 homes. Oh. Correction.
Oh, actually, it's our Fire Marshal's interpretation of that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 18 of 71
Borup: That's what I was wondering. I mean we have had some others where we said
they had to have another point once we reached a hundred homes, I believe. That was
a project that did have future access, so there may be a little bit of flexibility there and
maybe one home is --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the -- I believe the
International Fire Code states 30 before a secondary access has to be provided.
Borup: Thirty.
Freckleton: Joe Silva and our Planning Director and representatives from Public Works
Department got together and looked at -- looked at the code, looked at requirements in
other areas, and settled in on 50. The International Code, I believe -- correct me if I'm
wrong, Brad, but I believe it gives the Fire Marshal some flexibility to set his number.
So, that's how we arrived at the 50.
Borup: Okay. And how was the decision not to have access to Ten Mile? Was that --
was that staff encouragement or is that the applicant's desire?
Kirkpatrick: It was a recommendation of the Highway District.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from -- did you have some other,
Commissioner Mathes? Questions from any Commissioners? Would the applicant like
to make their presentation?
Cook: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Richard Cook, I'm with
Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road, City of Boise, here tonight representing
the applicant on this project. We, for the most part, are in favor of all the comments
within the staff report. This is a subdivision that -- a rezone and a subdivision that
consists of slightly over four acres and it is an in-fill project. We feel like we have come
up with a very good design. We have a lot of open space. The five common lots that
you see -- Lot 14 is frontage for future right of way by the Highway District and, then, we
have our landscape buffer in through here with an easement going around the house
right here, because the house does extend into the landscape buffer just a bit. Then,
we have a large open space area here, nearly 15,000 square feet, which will serve as a
mini park for the development. Then, we have a micropath right here, Lot 4, that goes
up against the fence for the Chaparral Elementary School and in this particular area we
will modify the fence to allow access for school children from this development, as well
as Berkeley Square to give them safe, easy access into the elementary school. I do
have an approval letter here from the -- from Wendell Bigham with the school district
regarding that particular micropath. During the discussions that we had with the staff
and Ada County Highway District on this particular development, we were allowed to
eliminate a five foot sidewalk that went around this park area, because of the reduced
street sections that we were proposing. We had proposed a 29 foot wide street section
within a 42 foot right of way. A meeting I had with Deputy Chief Silva on this, he had
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 19 of 71
some concerns about that 29 foot wide street section and he wanted us to widen it out a
bit and I said, well, seeing how we have been allowed to remove that sidewalk from
around the park, that gives us five additional feet, how about three more feet for the
street section, giving it a 31 foot wide street section. He was in total agreement with
that. However, after that I learned that the Highway District likes their street sections
either at 29, 33, or 36. So, I have gone back and we have widened that street section
out to a full 33 foot wide street section within that 42 foot right of way. So, that gives
the Fire Department much -- much better maneuvering room within this subdivision.
When I sat down with Deputy Chief Silva and discussed this, the issue of secondary
access was never brought up. He felt that what we had proposed here was more than
adequate and I'm somewhat surprised by that condition three in that report that was
submitted along with the staff report. I don't know how we could provide secondary
access anywhere within this subdivision. We have a developed area to the north,
developed area to the south, developed area to the -- what would that be --
Borup: West.
Cook: West. Thank you. And, of course, trying to take access out onto Ten Mile is
something that the Highway District is opposed to and it would also really interfere with
the landscape along the Ten Mile frontage. We have a lot of mature trees that are
existing along this frontage and that, of course, would require removal of some of those
nice looking trees that are along there right now, without mentioning the fact that we
would also lose a lot. That would have a significant impact on this development. And
as staff pointed out, we are not a part of the Berkeley Square Subdivision, this is a
totally separate project. So, I think that's something that we will have to work out with
the Fire Department between now and Council. Condition one in the staff report, it
requires -- or says that we should have 20 foot wide common lot at this location for
sewer. In earlier discussions with Public Works staff, we talked about being able to
provide a 15 foot wide easement or common lot through here if our sewer depth was no
more than six or seven feet. Lot 12 right now is at 6,510 square feet. If we have to
encroach any further into this lot with a common lot, it's going to drop us below our
6,500 square foot minimum and --
Centers: Could you go the other way?
Cook: -- that, of course, could cause problems. I beg our pardon?
Centers: Can't you go the other way?
Cook: We had taken the major slice of it out of this lot up here and I suppose if we -- if
push comes to shove, we might be able to do more. I am concerned about maintaining
the correct amount of frontage. Although I think in this particular case, because it is on
a curve, we can go down to as little as 40 feet on our frontage. So, that may be a
doable situation. But I would like to point out that this particular proposal that we have
right here for tapping into the sewer at this point off of Ten Mile and coming through this
way is not carved in stone yet. There is a sewer stub right down here on North Cliff
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 20 of 71
Creek Avenue and that's at that location and the -- when they developed Berkeley
Square, I guess the individual involved in Berkeley Square had at one time designs to
take over this particular piece of property and develop it as well and as a result of that,
the sewer was designed to accommodate being able to sewer this particular piece
through the sewer in Berkeley Square. When we surveyed this, though, it looked like it
was a little bit shallow and it wouldn't -- and perhaps not be doable and in speaking with
my engineers today, they thought, well, perhaps we can do it after all and it may require
a little bit of fill on that site, but it's something that may be doable. We would have to
use a heavier gauge sewer pipe because of the shallow depth of the sewer, but it is
something that we can work out. So, if that happens, if we can do this, that is
something that we would prefer to do, we would prefer to connect to the sewer stub
that's in this North Cliff Creek Avenue street right here and that would, of course,
eliminate all the concern over here with the sewer going out to Ten Mile. And I think
that pretty well covers our concerns. I understand there may be some drain -- drain
pipes that run diagonally across this site and we will have to address that problem to
make sure that we continue those drain fields. Does Public Works staff have a plan that
shows where those are?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Mr. Cook, we do have the as-
built drawings for Berkeley Square that show their alignments of those tiles that they put
in to accommodate the drain coming across this parcel here. So, we can provide those
to you. That's not a problem.
Cook: Very good. With that I will include my remarks and request your approval of our
rezone application and our Preliminary Plat and stand for any questions that you may
have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First, I would assume someone thanked the Planning and
Zoning for requiring a stub street there on Berkeley Square.
Cook: Oh, absolutely.
Centers: Okay. Are there any other reasons to require stub streets? Otherwise --
otherwise. So, you're saying that this street is going to be 33 feet wide here, here, and
here?
Cook: That's correct.
Centers: Okay. The entrance, too.
Cook: Right.
Centers: You would be okay with a condition that two accesses is required by this
Commission, unless approved otherwise by the fire chief prior to the City Council?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 21 of 71
Because you said you spoke to him, he made no mention of it, so I guess we will put it
back in your -- my proposal, anyway, we put it back into your lap that you go back to the
fire chief and get him to sign off on no second access, since you're giving him a 33 feet
street.
Cook: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, that's correct, I definitely will be getting
back with Deputy Chief Silva on this and, hopefully, he will be real thankful that we have
a full 33 foot wide street section and see that as an adequate solution.
Centers: Then, the sewer easement, what I recommend is that, you know, you comply
with the 20 feet as requested, unless sewer access changes, unless you utilize --
meaning this.
Cook: Correct.
Centers: Okay. That's all I had. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions?
Rohm: I think that covers it.
Borup: A question for staff on the sewer easement. The 20 feet -- yes. Mr. Freckleton.
The 20 feet is intended for maintenance? Is that the main reason for that width?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the width is for maintenance,
for -- if we got to get in there and dig it up, we got to have room for equipment. We
need that 20 foot width.
Borup: And the point I was getting to -- and I can understand that and it makes sense,
but how much consideration to give to the depth of the sewer line. If you're needing to
maintain or repair a sewer line that's four feet deep or one that's 16 feet deep, there is a
difference in the amount of area you need.
Freckleton: Certainly. I mean there is a difference in the equipment that you're going to
use to do that job.
Borup: Right.
Freckleton: If it's four feet deep, I don't want to be digging that by hand, it's going to
take a backhoe to --
Borup: Well, no, it's still going to need equipment.
Freckleton: Yes. So, 20 feet is about the minimum operating room that you'd need to
dig. On this one we have --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 22 of 71
Borup: I guess what I'm getting to, if you need 20 feet to dig a sewer line that's four feet
deep, one that's 15 feet deep is -- 20 feet is not enough, then.
Freckleton: One that's 15 feet deep I don't think the Public Works Department would
sign onto it going down between lots, we would want it in a public right of way.
Borup: Okay. That answers that question, then.
Freckleton: This particular one we have man holes in the public right of ways. You
know, if we end up with a clog that we got to go out and take the hydroflush equipment
to it, we can get to the man holes within a public right of way. So, far as day-to-day
maintenance, it's -- you know, we are not going to need access it. It's --
Borup: Not in your lifetime, probably.
Freckleton: -- in the event that that thing -- you know, we have to dig it up, because it's
broke or something.
Borup: Okay. So, probably not a lot of flexibility on that 20 foot, then.
Centers: Thank you.
Cook: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone here to testify on this application? Seeing
none -- it looks like everybody is here for something else. Commissioners?
Centers: I don't have any other questions or comments. I think it's pretty straight
forward and a good in-fill project. As I said, I think -- well, you see a stub street
requirement necessary all the time. So I would move --
Borup: Our only thing that needs to be worked out is the location of the sewer access.
Centers: Well, I think -- I think he agreed he can give us 20 feet and take it from that lot
to the south, unless he changes his access to the other proposed --
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I think it's pretty straight forward.
Borup: Okay. They have the option of going either way.
Centers: Yes. So, I would move we close the Public Hearing.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 23 of 71
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Centers: Well, I made some notes, so I will continue on and would recommend
approval of item six on our agenda, it's RZ 03-010, it's a request for a rezone of 4.47
acres from R-4 to R-8 zones for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside Properties,
LLC, 1115 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments from their memo dated --
date stamped August 22nd. What am I looking at? That's not the right page. That was
from Nampa-Meridian. Cancel that. From our memo -- the staff's memo dated --
hearing date October 2nd, received September 29th. End of motion on the rezone.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Centers: Would also like to recommend approval of item seven on our agenda, it's PP
03-025, it's a request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots and five other
lots on 4.47 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Woodside Creek by Woodside
Properties, LLC, at 1115 North Ten Mile Road, including all staff comments and with the
following amendments. Page six, item one, simply add: Unless sewer access changes.
Then, of course, that paragraph would not be applicable. I guess let's make it item 10
on page seven, all streets to be 33 feet minimum width. Let's just make it item 11, the
Fire Department's requirement for two accesses to the subdivision shall be resolved
prior to City Council Meeting, otherwise, two accesses are required, unless the Fire
Department signs off and agrees to waive that requirement. End of motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15
building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision
No. 2 by Properties West, Inc. – west of North Eagle Road and north of
East Fairview Avenue:
Borup: Next item is PP -- Public Hearing PP 03-026, request for Preliminary Plat
approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision
No. 2 by Properties West. Like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff
report.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 24 of 71
Siddoway: One moment, Commissioners, while I change the slides. Thank you.
Chairman, members of the Commission, the project before you now is Stokesberry
Subdivision No. 2. It is a replat of four existing lots in the existing Stokesberry
Subdivision. That project is also known as Carol Professional Center. It's on Eagle
Road just in front of River Valley Elementary, which is right on the half mile between
Fairview and Ustick Roads on Eagle Road. You should have a staff report with a
transmittal date of September 25th and the October 2nd hearing date. The applicant is
proposing to take the four existing lots and resubdivide them into 15 building lots. That
area is 4.15 acres. The original plat had seven building lots and the four building lots
on the west side would remain untouched. This would resubdivide the front three large
ones, plus the front landscape buffer, which I will talk more about in a moment. It's
already been annexed into the city as L-O. The lot sizes that they are proposing do
conform to the L-O zone. This aerial photo was before the development was done. In
Stokesberry Subdivision there are existing businesses on the back three lots. They are
anticipating a fourth one. You can see the River Valley Elementary behind it. This is
the proposed Preliminary Plat, which is a little difficult to read at this scale. The site
plan itself helps to pop things out a little more, showing the different pad sites and the
parking, so I will use that one to speak from, but we also have the plat available for
reference. Just for the record, there is a revised plat from the original one that was
submitted with the application. That revised plat has an engineer's stamp on it of
September 8th
and that's the one that the staff report has reviewed. We have gone
through the Preliminary Plat findings and, in general, find that they do meet the
requirements of the ordinance in those regards. There are three special considerations,
which I would like to go over at this time. The first one is the landscape setbacks. The
landscape area along Eagle Road has already been landscaped and planted as part of
the original subdivision improvements. A condition of that original plat was to put that
landscape buffer in a common lot, which was done. If we go back to the aerial photo
and the lot lines, you can see there is a separate line in the front for the landscape
buffer. Current ordinances in the landscape ordinance also require the street buffers to
be on a common lot for consistent maintenance purposes. The proposed plat does
show a 35 foot landscape setback as an easement. It's note 13 on the plat. But it is
not a separate common lot. Without that, if this were a common lot, these lots would
not be able to meet the frontage requirement as well. So, we have noted in the report
that other subdivisions, such Silverstone that was before you tonight, as well as others
like El Dorado, Mystery View, Boyd, and others, has successfully petitioned the
Commission and Council to waive the requirement for the common lot and to meet the
intent of that ordinance by agreeing to common maintenance of those landscape areas
in the easement and staff does not object to that arrangement given the precedent
that's already been set by other recent plats. So, you may wish to discuss that and
consider whether you feel it should be or not, but I guess we are just saying that we are
fine with it as proposed. Number two, the parking area, as a plat we don't usually give
detailed comments on parking. There are no conditions of approval related to parking,
but I did get -- provide some feedback, since this does significantly affect the original
layout, which was only three building lots, it seemed apropos to consider it -- the effect
that this would have on the parking. I did total up the number of -- the total square
footage proposed in office space and calculated the number of parking spaces that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 25 of 71
would be required and came up with 109 spaces. They are actually depicting 190
spaces on here, so it seems to be amble for the uses that would likely move in there. I
did also note some -- there are some modifications to this layout that would need to be
done, which can't be handled with certificate of zoning compliance applications in the
future, as well as the handicapped parking would need to be refined per the Americans
With Disabilities Act. Item number three deals with building elevations. The applicant
has submitted the elevations of existing buildings on those back three lots, Specialty
Homes building the one north of it that currently I don't believe has a tenant and there is
also the day care that's on the site. The building elevations got quite a bit of discussion
in the original Stokesberry plat or the Conditional Use Permit, anyway, and they were --
at the time there was discussion about whether every lot in the subdivision should be
required to come back for a separate CUP. At that time the Commission and Council
steered away from that requirement in this subdivision and, instead, went the route of
just requiring some tight building standards for buildings to be built in the subdivision
and did not require each one to come through with a CUP. So, I would just ask the
applicant address how they will maintain the same quality and care through buildings as
required by their CC and R’s and the Development Agreement on these smaller lots
and I would just ask them to address that tonight. With that said, the conditions of
approval are contained in the staff report, we would recommend approval upon some
closure to these last few remaining items and would stand for any questions.
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Steve, you really didn't put the buffer common lot in your
conditions of approval, did you?
Siddoway: No.
Centers: I didn't see it. Okay.
Siddoway: Because it -- as written it would just be allowed to stay as proposed.
Centers: Right. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to
make their presentation?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, thank you, I'm Daren Fluke, JUB
Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. I
appreciate your indulgence in taking this application before the next item, not that I don't
love the public process, I'm just ready to get on this. We will just make it brief. This is --
should fall under the category of the best laid plans. We had three larger lots here and
they are just not going anywhere. It's been determined by the applicant that smaller
pads would work much better, given the current market conditions, and so that's what
we are trying to accomplish with this. We meet all the standards with these lots. We
have plenty of parking. We will have no problem redesigning the pop outs and we will
still be over-parked by a considerable amount. With regards to the issues that Steve
brought up, we are in agreement with the landscape easement. It's really, you know,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 26 of 71
half of one, six dozen of the other, it's -- we get frontage from Eagle Road, but all the
access is coming off the internal roadway, so there will be cross-access easements for
all of these lots to use all of that -- those drive aisles and parking places. So, we think
that's a good common sense approach. And with regard to the building elevations and
the required sort of design of the buildings, we are perfectly fine with the condition of
approval that says that the previous approval is still in effect, along with all the
conditional of approval. The buildings will look like -- just like the ones you see, which
comply with the current CC and R’s, they will just be smaller, use the same building
materials and the same basic design, the buildings will just be a little bit narrower and
not as deep, so we fully intend on complying with it, it's in the developer's best interest
to have nice looking buildings in there. The CC and R’s that the city originally bought
off on will be in full force and effect for this development and we don't have any problem
with a condition to that effect. So, I'll leave it at that and if the Commission had
questions, I would be happy to take those now.
Borup: Any questions?
Centers: He covered it.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, Daren.
Fluke: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here to -- come forward, sir.
Kane: My name is Ray Kane, I live at 3047 East Leslie Drive, which is directly behind
the fourth lot to the north. Originally, when this came up it came before the Planning
and Zoning and were guaranteed that this would be a professional development for
doctors, dentists, that type of thing. We agreed to that. Most of us in that -- in fact, all
of us but one family that abuts this property, are retired or semi-retired. So, the noise
issue from Eagle Road and additional traffic in and out of that place bothers us. It
seems to me that when you take four lots that aren't very big to start with and, then, you
divide them up into 15 and compare those to the four that are already there, there is no
comparison. We have gone from something that looked very nice and in Mr. Barnes
presentation here before -- you all are not the same ones. I think Mr. Borup is the only
one here that was here at that time -- he equated these to look like those professional
buildings that were on corner of Maple Grove and Ustick Road. Now, none of these
look like that, but they are acceptable the way they are now. Those were all brick
buildings, if you're familiar with them. St. Luke's is in one of them now, there is a
dentist, and there is several others. None of these have been built to compare to those,
but they are nice, good-looking buildings, and acceptable. We just don't -- I don't think
that throwing in a bunch of little cracker box buildings is what we were promised and so
I'm very much against it.
Borup: Questions from any Commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 27 of 71
Centers: No.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Come forward.
White: I'm Robert White, I live at 2995 East Leslie. I have got the same sentiments that
Mr. Kane expressed. We -- between Eagle Road and the school behind us, four more
or three more -- really, we are talking three lots the way I look at it, because the one lot
is already bermed, that's the buffer to Eagle Road. But three more professional
buildings in there I don't think hurt the area and I don't think creates too much more
noise, but my concern is 15 small buildings probably are going to be very hard to get
professional people in there and if there is a 190 parking spaces involved and the type
of businesses that are going to bring 190 potential cars, we are going to have a little bit
of a traffic problem on that -- in front of that grade school also exiting out onto Eagle, so
I would be opposed to it.
Serino: My name is Louis Serino, I live at 3109 Leslie Drive, which is adjacent to the --
backs up the cul-de-sac. Unless I missed something, I'd like to ask the staff if they have
addressed Riverside egress and ingress, the existing situation, at all.
Borup: Well, you need to address the Commission, and, then, we can address the --
Serino: Well I didn't hearing anything. I guess I'm wondering --
Borup: What was your question on --
Serino: If there has been any change to the egress and ingress at River Valley.
Borup: What do you mean by --
Serino: Is that going to change? Is that going to be improved? Is it going to be
expanded? Are they going to run more roads through the berm? Is there any plans for
additional egress and ingress. That's what I'm asking.
Borup: Okay. Well, we'll get an answer to that.
Serino: Okay. My point, I guess, that I'm leading up to is the existing egress and
ingress just seems to be being ignored. It was ignored initially in this initial proposal, it
certainly hasn't improved any, and I can tell you from a business man's perspective, I
can understand why these lots are not selling. Furthermore, it's going to be
exacerbated by 190 more cars and I can speak to you from experience, because I drive
a school bus for the Meridian School District and I'm in and out of that place eight times
a day. I can tell you it's a nightmare trying to get in and out with the existing situation.
So, I just can't imagine 190 more cars trying to get in and out of that situation, so to sum
it up, definitely I'm dead set against it. By the way, I do not speak for the Meridian
School District, I'm speaking as a neighbor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 28 of 71
Centers: Would you point out where you live, sir? There is a pointer right there. At
least there was. Yes.
Serino: Right there.
Centers: Okay. And the other two gentlemen are --
Serino: Ray Kane lives there. Bob White lives right there.
Centers: And, then, someone lives down here?
Serino: No.
Centers: Oh. Okay. So, all three live right up in here?
Serino: Correct.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Serino, question on the improvement for the access. Are you saying it
needs to be wider or are you saying it needs --
Serino: Who is speaking?
Borup: I am.
Serino: By access do you mean the River Valley Road?
Borup. Right. You just said it needs -- something needs to happen, but you didn't say
what you felt needs to happen.
Serino: We have a single road with no traffic control going into that facility. As it stands
now, the school parking is overloaded. They are already parking in the streets, they are
parking on the aprons to these --
Borup: Well, that's a separate issue.
Serino: Okay.
Borup My question was -- it sounds like you're saying you think it needs a traffic light
there.
Serino: Certainly a traffic light would help, although I just -- I just can't see Eagle Road
being stopped and grid locked with a traffic light there. I know, ultimately, it's going to
happen, but my concern here is that we are going to have too much activity in this
subdivision to the point where even a traffic light is going to greatly diminish the viability
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 29 of 71
of any use for this lot. Quite frankly, I think, rather than increasing density, this
subdivision should be reducing density. And, by the way, the original two story building
that was going to be Mr. Barnes' office building was never built. That's been replaced
by all this.
Borup: You'd rather see a two story building there?
Serino: Pardon me?
Borup: You'd rather see the two story building you mean?
Serino: Do I need to see it?
Borup: No. You'd rather see that there?
Serino: I'd rather see lower density than higher density. I really think you should hold
them to the plan at the very least.
Borup: By density you mean the number of people that would work or --
Serino: The existing road is overburdened by the school alone. That's why those lots
are not selling. There isn't any businessman that's going to want to go in there,
because he knows that his clients are not going to want to go in and out of that
nightmare.
Borup: Well, I'm trying to understand your definition of lower density. I assume you
mean less -- less people using -- I mean smaller lots doesn't necessarily change the
number of people that would be accessing this site.
Serino: Well, 190 parking spaces does.
Borup: Well, 109 is what the buildings would --
Serino: He's got 190.
Borup: Right. So, he's got extra.
Serino: Right.
Borup: You're saying if they build it they will come.
Serino: I don't believe they will come, quite frankly.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 30 of 71
Serino: What will happen -- what I'm afraid of is that there is going to be another go
around and it's going to be further watered down than what it is now. My feeling is that
you should hold them to the existing plan, at the very least, if not reduce it. I mean
those -- you got my sentiments. I really don't think it's a viable situation.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Does the applicant -- Mr.
Fluke, do you have any final -- any final comments? Maybe while you're coming up, I
don't -- Steve --
Siddoway: On the road issue --
Borup: No. On the first project, what the number of parking spaces that would have
been required as the original project was designed.
Siddoway: That's a fair question. I don't have the answer. I don't know if Daren knows.
Because there was a significant amount of parking for the three buildings, because they
have a large square footage, just about --
Borup: Well -- and that's what I'm wondering. You get large two story buildings, it's
going to have a bigger capacity than smaller single story buildings.
Fluke: Right.
Borup: Can you comment on that?
Fluke: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Daren Fluke, again, JUB
Engineers. Thank you. The parking ordinance is set up as a ratio and for office, Steve,
it's one for 250 --
Siddoway: It's one for 400 for professional and sales offices and one per 200 of specific
areas if it's medical, dental, or clinics.
Fluke: So, the ratio goes up with the square footage and the buildings -- larger
buildings means more parking. The ratio is going to be about the same. With regard to
their not being professional offices in there now, that's because, you know, a single
dentist or two dentists or orthodonists don't need that much space and that's exactly
why my client's asking for this is they are asking for a smaller amount of space. They
only need in the neighborhood of 2,500 square feet or even less in many situations and
so that's exactly -- this is in response to those varied requests. With regard to access to
the site, the existing River Valley Way is the one and only access in. That is at the
request of the Ada County Highway District when it went through originally. That road
does lie at the half mile and so there is the potential it will be signalized in the future.
Now, of course, it's wrapped up in a bunch of larger issues with Eagle Road and the
amount of trips that it's currently carrying, but, you know, I can tell you that if they do
allow signals on Eagle Road, they would be at the mile and half mile is where they are
planned to go, to enhance -- or to help with the operational aspects of the road. With
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 31 of 71
regard to the noise, I just simply don't see how this will be any noisier than what you
have got out there now. I mean there may be more people coming and going to the
site, but they come there to do their business and they leave. You know, much as with
the previous plan, whenever you have commercial or office uses abutting residential
uses, we try to buffer those and be sensitive to those other land uses and we will carry
through with exactly what was approved previously with regard to buffering and
landscaping and separation of those uses, and so, really, the intensity of use isn't that
much greater than what was previously approved. The Ada County Highway District
has reviewed the application and has approved it, it's not required any particular
improvements to the road system and so I'm not sure, you know, what the issue is
there. If -- you know, if the replat doesn't work and these don't sell, well, too bad for the
applicant, you know, but I think that it's in the city's best interest to give him this
opportunity to try something different, so that we don't have the vacant land sitting there
and I guess the market will answer that question about whether or not Eagle Road is
too busy to have anymore land uses on it and I don't know the answer to that, but I'm
sure we will find out when we go through. So, I think that's all I had. If the Commission
has questions, I'll take those.
Centers: If you could, Mr. Fluke, kind of with your pointer there, show me how the
original seven lots looked, especially on the north side there right -- yes. On the north
side.
Fluke: The north side was, essentially, as it is not, except for you had a lot line coming
across like. There was another lot line coming across there.
Centers: So, you -- and I guess my point is you were going to have how many buildings
on the north side originally? Up in here.
Fluke: One. Two. Three.
Centers: And how many are we going to have now?
Fluke: Four.
Centers: Thank you. That was my point. I don't think you have increased the density
next to the residential area. I don't think you have increased the traffic with the smaller
lots. I think you can have larger -- larger buildings, you were going to have two story
buildings, which were previously allowed, you're now going to have single story;
correct?
Fluke: Correct.
Centers: With the same uses, dentist offices, anything that applies to the L-O.
Fluke: It would apply to the L-O zone.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 32 of 71
Centers: Right. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Any comments from any Commissioners?
Centers: I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Centers: I'm open here. I mean any other discussion?
Rohm: The only comment that I would make is it appears as if the number of parking
lots is going to remain pretty constant based upon square footage and, you know, as it
is from the previous approved plat, they would have had at least many parking spaces
as they are going to have with the proposed change, so I don't see that as a huge
difference and I would say we should just go ahead and move forward with it.
Centers: Yes. And I think the applicant made a good point, this owner has sat there I
don't know how long, maybe four years now, or three.
Borup: Probably right before you came.
Centers: Okay. And I think he should be given the opportunity to market his product
and if he wants to go to the expense of hiring this engineer to redo it, which was
probably considerable, on the gamble that he's going to be able to sell smaller parcels,
then, let's give him the chance, so I would recommend approval of item -- actually, it's
item eight on our agenda, moved up from previous No. 12 and it's the PP 03-026,
request Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for
Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Incorporated, west of North Eagle
Road and north of east Fairview Avenue, including all staff comments with a transmittal
date of September 25th and our hearing date of October 2nd. It should be noted that
the applicant will have to convince the Council that a common lot for the landscape
buffer is not required and I didn't see anything else. Anyone else see anything? End of
motion.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, are we ready to move on or would
someone like a break?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 33 of 71
Centers: I'd like a break.
Borup: We will take a short break at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by
JLJ Enterprises, Inc. – 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59
building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. – 2310
and 2384 East Victory Road:
Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a Planned Development for a mix of single-family detached residential lot
sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ
Enterprises, Inc. – 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening and start with the next
project, three items, Public Hearing AZ 03-023, PP 03-027, and CUP 03-043. All these
pertain to proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises. I'd like to open these
three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this is an application for a
Preliminary Plat for 59 building lots, annexation and zoning of 11 acres. They are a
proposing a rezone to R-8 and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned
Development, to allow reduced lot sizes, frontage, and setbacks from the dimensional
standards for the R-8 zone. Now, before I get into my preparation, I wanted to make a
couple of corrections. The applicant will not be asking for reduced home sizes, they will
be meeting the home sizes required through the ordinance. I want to go through and
correct the setbacks that the applicant is asking for. If you want to go to that page in
your staff report. For front setbacks they are asking for a 15 foot setback for all home
types. For the rear setback they are asking for nine feet for the garages in the alleys
and 15 feet for all of the other home types. For side setbacks they are asking for five
feet for all home types. For street side setback they are asking for five feet for all home
types. For lot size they are asking for a 3,500 square foot minimum and for lot frontage
they are asking for a 34 foot minimum.
Centers: Excuse me. Wendy. Are you reading from page two of your report? Because
it didn't balance with what I'm reading.
Kirkpatrick: Oh. Okay. I have been reading from a fax that the planner working on this
project had sent me.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 34 of 71
Centers: Well, then, we need to amend the report, page two.
Kirkpatrick: Right. I think we want to go ahead and delete the submitted setbacks --
the setbacks depicted in the report and we want to include these setbacks.
Centers: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: And I can give a copy of this to the Clerk. Okay. Let me go ahead with the
site plan. Let me show you the location of this project. It is located on Victory Road. It
is located just to the east and south of Sherbrook Hollows and to the west of Thousand
Springs Subdivision. We also have a canal that runs along the northeast corner of the
property. I also want to point out that just to the south of this property, on the south side
of Victory Road, we have a proposed neighborhood center as part of our
Comprehensive Plan. Here is the aerial of the site. You all should have a copy of the
revised site plan submitted by the applicant. ACHD required for them to move their
entry point. They had it previously lining up with that road on the west. ACHD required
them move it to the center of the site, so they had more distance between another
access point with Victory Road. The applicant has also worked with staff and they lost
a lot in the northeast corner of the subdivision and they have increased the size of the
park. So, actually, now they are submitting for 58 lots. So, we acknowledge -- I'm sure
you will know we have a fair amount of concern and we have comments received from
the neighbors, so I wanted to address what I think some of these comments may be
and also let you all know why the Planning and Zoning staff is in support of this
application. I'm going to go back to the site plan. The Comprehensive Plan for the City
of Meridian, which is our vision document for how we want to have growth happen in
the City of Meridian, shows this area to be medium density. That proposed -- the
proposed rezone to R-8 meets the Comprehensive Plan. I think it's especially
appropriate, because it's located on Victory Road, which is a major thoroughfare and it's
located just to the north of a proposed neighborhood center. We also have a
Comprehensive Plan goal that supports a diversity of housing types and I'll go forward
and show some of the proposed -- we have -- towards the center of the subdivision
there is some long, relatively narrow lots and I will show you some of the proposed
homes that the developer is showing. So, we are -- staff supports that diversity of
housing types. This is a goal in our Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has worked
with staff throughout the application process. They worked with us on increasing the
size of the park and the applicant has also had a neighborhood meeting, I think it was
last Thursday, where they met with a number of folks in the community to discuss their
concerns and I wanted to -- before we take testimony from the public, I wanted to point
out that while the public -- I know they have some concerns over the price of the homes
that are coming in and the quality of the homes, while the audience -- while the people
that are testifying can address home prices, it's not appropriate for the Planning and
Zoning Commission to bring up house prices, whether you recommend approval or
denial of this application. Are there any questions of staff?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 35 of 71
Borup: Question at all from the Commissioners? Could you clarify one of the
setbacks? The alley setback for the garage.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. I believe that the applicant is asking for where there is an alley
loaded subdivision lot with the garage in the back, that there will be a nine foot setback,
so it would be nine feet between the street and the garage. That's what they are
proposing. Between the alley and --
Borup: The first -- the first they were saying ten originally; is that correct?
Kirkpatrick: I think it's been modified to nine. That's what the planner working on this
project submitted to me.
Centers: Well, ten is for a front garage.
Kirkpatrick: They are, actually, asking for just a 15 foot front setback for all home types
and we probably want the planner working with the developer to clarify that, if it will be
different, if there are any garages in the front of the homes.
Borup: That's why I was a little -- I was a little confused on that.
Kirkpatrick: Actually, the applicant gave us a plot plan showing how one of the homes
on the smaller lots in the center of the subdivision would fit into the subdivision. You
can see over on the left side, that nine foot setback between the garage and the alley,
and the 15 foot setback between the front of the home and the street, that's sort of a
plot plan to show how these -- and we, actually, asked the applicant to show us how
these homes were going to fit on these lots. It's not a lot size that we see a lot of in
Meridian.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to make their application?
Suggs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jane Suggs, I live at 200 Louisa
Street in Boise and I'm representing JLJ Enterprises and the Soda Springs
neighborhood. As always, staff, I think, has done a really good job of outlining some of
the special conditions around what we think is a very innovative subdivision for
Meridian. I'm not going to go over any real project specifics, but I do want to point out
that we are now at 58 lots, instead of 59. The original application did show an
additional lot in the park area. We have lost that. The ACHD did ask us to resubmit,
because they wanted us to move the entrance from the western street into the center.
If I need to, I can clarify those setbacks. Those setbacks were included on our letter of
intent. You probably have a copy of that in your file, so we have always intended to
have nine-foot setbacks on the garages in the alleys and 15 foot front yard setbacks. I
want to say I have reviewed the staff report and I think it's very complete. There is only
one place I think we need some clarification and I'm hoping Bruce can help me. We
understand that there is two different places where we talk about sewer lines and one
location in the staff report it says there is a sewer and water available directly adjacent
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 36 of 71
to the subdivision in this area here in Victory Road, because it's part of -- it came in as
part the Sherbrook Hollows Subdivision. In another one of the conditions it says we
have to extend the sewer line 3,400 feet up Victory Road and I'm hoping maybe Bruce
can help clarify that a little bit, if you would ask him during some question and answer,
because that is a condition that's fairly new, it comes from some decisions that were
recently made by City Council allowing another developer to move a sewer line away
from the master plan. However, I do think there are some alternatives, possibly
temporary, but there are some alternatives for that sewer, so that this smaller
subdivision doesn't have to extend sewer that length at this time. I just wanted to start
off a little bit -- again, I don't want to go over real specifics of the subdivision, I'm sure
you have read the staff report and the staff has done a really good job of that, but I just
wanted to tell you we did meet with the staff before we really even had a concept. We
wanted to talk to the staff and find out what it is that the staff and the city envisioned for
this area and one of the things that we heard was that the was city really interested in
some alternative housing types. We wanted something for -- I would say the 25 to 45
year old professional, active lifestyle -- okay, I'm going to say to 46, because I'm 46, so
this is the type of housing -- it's a lifestyle choice where people have smaller yards, very
high quality, but smaller homes and something that is maybe a little different out there
and I know that's going to be one of those issues that may come up with the neighbors.
Also, we started looking at this particular area, we did see that there were quite a few of
8,000 square foot lots, typical R-4 subdivisions in that area, but, then, we saw the
Comprehensive Plan with a neighborhood center just across the street and feeling that
this subdivision, which doesn't connect, because there are no stub streets from
Sherbrook Hollows or, of course, over the canal from Thousand Springs, that we feel
like this would be a nice little in-fill, with some good density, some incredibly attractive
homes, though they may be a little smaller than what surrounds them. However, it does
provide the density and the great number of folks that would -- that would use the
commercial center across the street. I mean one of the things that makes the
commercial -- little neighbor commercial work are roof tops and this is what we are
hoping that we can add to the viability of that plan that the city envisions. Wendy
mentioned, of course, we do have a lot of interest from the neighbors and your package
included a petition that was signed by many of those neighbors with some concerns
about Soda Springs. One was the depreciation of property values. That was listed at
the top. Now, I know you have heard this a lot and I don't know that I can actually stand
up here and say anything that's going to convince anyone that their property values are
not going to depreciate. I mean everyone seems to think if something's different it's
going to change the value of my property. I really don't know of a whole lot of
subdivisions that go in that actually do that. This is not -- this is not low income
housing, okay, and this is not an entry level subdivision, this is a medium priced
subdivision of high quality homes. There is a concern about the over density of the
proposed property. Again, this does meet the city's desire for medium density
residential that's in your Comp Plan. The 5.3 dwelling units per acre, even though we
are asking for an R-8, that is to be a little more in line with some of the dimensional
requirements. We had to ask for something and the R-8 is the jump from R-4 to R-8
and so we asked for the R-8. It is medium density. It is supported by the
Comprehensive Plan in that area. The other concern, of course, is traffic congestion. It
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 37 of 71
says Victory Road and surrounding streets. Victory Road is classified as an urban
collector. Actually, that's where the traffic should be. It would be very inappropriate for
us to construct something like this in the middle of a larger lot subdivision, so that those
homes had to go through the subdivision. I think it's very appropriate that there is an
entrance off of Victory Road. Again, I think it's unfortunate there is not another stub
street that could have connected us to Sherbrook Hollows, but that wasn't provided as
part of the Sherbrook Hollows Subdivision. We did have a very well attended meeting
on Thursday and many different opinions about the development and you're going to
hear probably several different opinions tonight. From the neighborhood meeting and
afterwards discussing with the builders, who we hope to represent, there are a couple
of builders that have submitted information to be included in the package and we have
some photographs of those. Two different builders now are hoping to be involved in the
project. After meeting with the neighborhood, I think we would like to add a few things
to the conditions and these are things that I know that we can agree upon and that is
that behind the 6,500 square foot lots, those are the lots that actually -- the larger lots
that touch Sherbrook Hollows, we -- there is now a chain link fence, because this
property is used as a pasture area, so what we would like to commit to is having a
cedar fence along here. Okay. That was something I think came from the
neighborhood. They wanted to make sure that they weren't looking into someone's
backyard any longer, so, of course, we will have to work with the adjacent property
owners to make sure that fence is located along the property line. One of the things we
also talked about is these homes here are the 6,500 square foot homes and we have
made a commitment that if we back up to a one story home, we will build a one story
home. If we back up to a two story home, we will build a two story home. Now, the
additional information about the one story home, that does include a bonus room above
the garage, which I think is typical. However, in this case that bonus room would not
have a rear-facing window, so one of the real keys we have heard from the neighbors
out there is that if you build a one story home here and it backs up to an existing one
story home, you can have a bonus room, but you can't have a rear-facing window,
because you don't want someone looking over the fence at the backyard. Now, that's
one of the commitments that the developer wants to make to try to work with the
neighbors. We also, of course, have had a lot of discussion about lot sizes and home
sizes, particularly. We have -- and I can make a commitment for the development team
and the builders that these 6,500 square foot lots will have these home minimum sizes,
1,500 for one story and 1,750 for two stories. Those are pretty good size homes and
they do match the minimum home sizes that are in the Sherbrook Hollows
neighborhood. Even though the Meridian code does allow us -- and we made our
application under the code allowing some of the homes -- percentages of the homes to
be built starting at about 1,001 square feet, as you understand the code, we would like
to commit to some higher standards and this is mostly to satisfy the neighbors who do
have some issues with the home sizes. For the lots that back up here on Victory Road,
we would like those to be a minimum of 1,300 square feet and we will commit to having
one-story homes there. For the neo-traditional homes that you see in the interior, of
course, they front on these streets, but they back up to the alley, so they do have rear
loaded garages. We would like to commit to have 1,300 square foot one story homes
and 1,600 square foot two story homes minimum. Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 38 of 71
Centers: Do you have that all in writing, so you can give us a copy?
Suggs: I can. I can make sure you get that. I'd like for that to be included in the record
with --
Centers: Right. That's why I --
Suggs: And it should be included. I think we have been asked to put together a
Development Agreement once we get to that point and that would be included in the
Development Agreement. But those are things now -- in our discussions -- I will have to
tell you a little bit about that. Now, these are a bit larger than the minimums that are
typical in Meridian and I'm thinking that the developer here really is trying to work with --
with the neighbors, but he's also trying to make sure he doesn't push these builders that
he's already got interested in this project with some really good quality homes, out,
because they really don't want to build the big boxes, just to get the square footage in
and not put the quality in those homes that they are used to putting into homes. Now,
Mr. Jewett, who is the developer, was unable to be here tonight, we did have a meeting
and at that meeting we did start talking about home sizes and one of the things Mr.
Jewett did want to do -- and you will hear this tonight, I'm sure, is he wanted to be a part
of the Sherbrook Hollows homeowners association, that way that except for the home
sizes, that he would have -- the Sherbrook Hollows folks would have some architectural
control. I don't think we are going to be able to do that, because I know that this --
Borup: We need to keep your comments on the record. If we can't do that, we would
ask you to leave, please.
Suggs: I do know that there was a real desire to do that, but I do know that after talking
to the builders, they really can't go higher than those as minimums. Now, you will see
that Mr. Roth is one of the builders that I'm familiar with and he has also built in Heritage
Commons and on Harris Ranch. His -- I like it, I like his work. Many of his homes are
larger than 1,300 square foot minimums for one story, but he is afraid to commit himself
to that -- to some -- something larger than that, because he may, indeed, have one
property owner who wants come in with -- an empty nester who wants a little bit smaller
home and I think that 1,300 on one story is adequately sized for these new urbanist lots
that we calling these right here. I think -- I'm hoping you will understand I'm seriously
hoping the neighbors will understand that we are really not backing up here. What we
are trying to bring is a very high quality project -- yes, it's a little different. It is
something that maybe Meridian is not used to. I'm seeing this in other subdivisions. I
work in Eagle and Kuna and those neighborhoods and I'm seeing more and more of
these types of mixed uses of homes and mixed sizes of homes, too. I'll just say on a
personal note I was also looking for a home last year, I found myself a nice home, it's
1,350 square feet, I don't need anymore than that, and it's just me and I can't afford a
home that's a lot larger than that, because of the prices of homes these days, even with
the great interest rates, so I just throw that out kind of as a personal note, because I like
to think that I'm building subdivisions that I could actually live in. So, again, we are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 39 of 71
asking for your approval of the Soda Springs Planned Development, with annexation,
with a zone of R-8 and the Preliminary Plat that you see as revised, required by ACHD.
We agreed to the cedar fencing as described and home sizes -- and I can go through
those again, if you want me to. On the 6,500 square foot lots we would have 1,500
single family -- square feet for a single story. That would include a bonus room over the
garage, however, no rear-facing window on that room. 1,750 square feet, two stories,
that would be only if there is a two story behind. On the Victory Road lots, 1,300 square
foot minimum home sizes, one story. In the interior lots that have alleys in the back,
1,300 square foot one story and 1,600 square foot two stories. I would ask also that we
might get some clarification on the sewer as a possibility. I will answer any questions.
Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission?
Centers: I just had one question and, first of all, it does appear that you tried to make
some concessions after the neighborhood meeting. Did you do a plat just based on
6,500 square foot lots and how many you would get on 11 acres? Would it be about 44,
45?
Suggs: I didn't even do that.
Centers: Would that be close, Brad? Here we have five point something --
Suggs: Three units per acre.
Centers: Yes. I think in a standard R-8 you have right four, don't you? Per acre on a
standard -- what I'm getting at is how many more do we have here? I think the
audience -- personally, I think it's about 14 lots more, 14 houses?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, yes, you know, kind of a general rule of thumb is you
can subtract 25 percent or so for the right of way. So, you know, if you round off and
say it was ten acres, I mean you're looking at two and a half just off the top for streets.
The R-8 is -- you're usually going to be right about three and a half at the 6,500 square
foot lot minimum. So, I think you're probably right in the ballpark. Probably 15 lots less
at a straight R-8.
Centers: I guess question for staff. What were the two amenities that they have given
us, which wasn't really talked about?
Kirkpatrick: They have proposed a park with a tot lot and they are also continuing the
regional pathway, which runs along the canal at the northeast part of the subdivision.
Centers: Yes. Which allows them to go with the Planned Development.
Kirkpatrick: To apply for the Planned Development.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 40 of 71
Borup: Maybe while you're here we will ask Mr. Freckleton. Any comments on the
sewer?
Freckleton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. As Jane pointed
out, there is some kind of conflicting information in the staff report. as you might
remember, the Tuscany Lakes project, the original sewer alignment for that project, they
had to pick the sewer up at Meridian Greens, they brought it out onto on Victory Road,
the original plan was to bring it down Victory Road to Locust Grove and south on Locust
Grove to serve the development. The developer of the Tuscany Lakes project
purchased the property that's on the opposite corner. He approached the city with a
proposal to reroute the trunk line down through his development and out onto Locust
Grove. Thereby it doesn't -- it did not come to the corner. His proposal was approved
by the City Council. City Council did place a requirement on him that he had to
financially participate in bringing sewer from the Ten Mile Creek crossing to the
intersection at Locust Grove. So, what I was kind of getting at in my staff report, when I
talked about the 3,400 feet, as I said, currently the sewer trunk ends approximately
3,400 feet, which that's where it is right now. When I was preparing the report I totally
had this sewer in mind as to where this project is going to sewer to and that is,
ultimately, where it's going to sewer to. Talking with Jane earlier, their thought was that
they would dump into the existing sewer in Victory Road, which currently serves out
through Sherbrook Hollows and out to another drainage area. That proposal is -- I
believe it's fine. What we are going to have to do is do some verification of capacity of
this receiving sewer to make sure that -- that we have the additional capacity to handle
the project. Right off the cuff I don't think it's going to be a problem. What we are to
going to do once the sewer is built up Victory Road is we are going to, basically, chop
this off, so that the sewer no longer will flow this direction and it will all come down to
the Ten Mile Trunk. So, long story short, when I was preparing my report, I had this
ultimate sewer service in mind and wasn't thinking about the interim solution and I think
the interim solution will be fine. We are just going to need to verify some capacities and
that sort of thing.
Borup: Okay. Does that clarify that?
Suggs: Yes sir.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton, I think when this project goes they are to bring the sewer line to
that point?
Freckleton: That's correct, sir.
Borup: And, then, anything -- when this develops it would continue on?
Freckleton: Well, currently, there is sewer in Victory Road along the frontage of
Sherbrook Hollows. The sewer from this point flows to the west to this point and that's
where it turns and goes into Sherbrook. We have sewer in this segment right here, but
it flows back to the east. So, when Sageland develops, they are going to be designing
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 41 of 71
their sewer such that it will be at a depth and slope that will be able to intercept this
manhole right here. So, basically, this segment right here is going to be redone, so that
the sewer will flow all the way down Victory and out.
Borup: Okay.
Suggs: It's all a matter of timing, it seems. And we appreciate the city working with us
on that.
Borup: Okay. Anything else you wanted to --
Suggs: I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Did we have any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you.
Like to take this opportunity to -- for any public testimony. I might mention a couple
ways that -- and I think the instructions in the back maybe outline that, because we do
want to try to hear from everyone to the extent possible. We have made some
provisions -- I mean to do that with a large crowd, that's why we have a three minute
stipulation, but when we have a -- affecting a large neighborhood, if there is a
neighborhood spokesman that would be speaking for the neighborhood, we would have
time -- I mean pretty much -- as much as they would want to go into. So, let me ask
that first. Do you have a neighborhood spokesman? You, sir. And is there anybody in
here that he is not going to be speaking for? Okay. We had three -- well, can we clarify
that again?
Rohm: I think that's a definite maybe.
Borup: Again, if we have a neighborhood spokesman that's going to be speaking for
the neighborhood, we will allow the extra time. Okay. Let me see the hands again who
he is not speaking for. One, two, three, four, five. All right. Let's proceed with that,
then. I assume everyone else, then, that he will be speaking in your behalf.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, could I add one thing?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: And I will just tell it like it is. If five different people come up and they all say
the same thing, I'm not impressed. You know, so if it's something different from each
person, I definitely want to hear it. But the first person comes up and talks about traffic
and the next one and the next one, you know, you have made your point with the first
one, so I think you see my point. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Okay, sir.
Semahe: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lucien Semahe, and I live
on 3036 South Grimes Creek Avenue in Sherbrook Hollows and I was appointed by the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 42 of 71
neighborhood or a few people in the neighborhood to come and speak on their behalf,
as well as the board -- the neighborhood association board of Sherbrook Hollows. Let
me, first of all, say that Sherbrook Hollows, in essence, is not opposed to the
development, in the sense that, yes, we do have some concerns and I will address that
shortly to you and it's based on various things that I will also address as well. With
development and progress, as you all know, comes challenges and we want to make
sure that those challenges are met and the development is designed to develop in such
a way that is cohesive with what's existing around it and we do welcome diversity, by
the way. We are not opposed to diversity. And, truly, we have no problem with the
pricing of homes. The pricing of homes is not the issue. What we have not had any
clear directions from the developer is -- we keep hearing the quality, but -- and we
haven't seen anything in concrete besides pictures and everything else, truly what's
going to go on that development. I mean I can propose 20 ways of how many homes or
how many, you know, plans of homes I can put on that development, but our concern is
what is truly going on that development.
Centers: Could I interrupt right now?
Semahe: Sure.
Centers: Lucien? They wanted to become a part of Sherbrook Hollows homeowners
association.
Semahe: Do they?
Centers: If you -- hold it. If you would allow them to come into Sherbrook Hollows
homeowners association, you can amend your CC and R’s and you can control the
quality of the construction, but you don't want to.
Semahe: The concern from the neighborhood is that the developer has not approached
the homeowners association board to truly join the Sherbrook Hollows --
Centers: It's my understanding they wanted to.
Semahe: They made in their application that they have intent, but they have not made
contact with any of the members of the homeowners association board.
Centers: Okay. Well, we will have the applicant address that. Excuse me for
interrupting.
Semahe: And that was a concern to us, because we don't only make as residents of
Sherbrook Hollows the decision, that's why we have a board that, you know, meets with
the developer and, therefore, comes with points to the neighborhood and, then, say,
okay, what do you want to do. So, we are really not out flat saying we don't want you.
We never said that. And, as a matter of fact, for the record when we had our first
neighborhood meeting last Thursday, I personally tried to bridge the neighborhood and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 43 of 71
the developer and the people representing the development together to say, you know,
we can work together here, we can make things work, let us work together. So, we are
saying here tonight we want to work with the developer, but we want written
commitments on what is going on, not just, okay, we can do this and we can do that. I
mean the fencing and all that stuff, granted, that's a very nice step on their part, but
there is more to it than that and that's what the neighbors -- and I speak, again, on
behalf of the neighbors, that's what they are really concerned about, because they don't
have clear direction from the development of what's really going to take place.
Centers: Written commitments based on the roof style? The colors of the homes? The
siding, the type of siding -- or what are you talking about?
Semahe: I'll tell you what I'm talking about.
Centers: Okay.
Semahe: During the neighbor meeting last Thursday when they said we would like to
join your association, our question was, then, you're going to abide by our CC and R’s,
because that's what it means to join the association. And the answer was, yes, but as
you well know, they would like some amendments to the CC and R’s. Okay. Well,
amending the CC and R’s does not happen just because the developer wants to amend
the CC and R’s, it's going to take voting to amend the CC and R’s. So, these are
technicalities that the neighborhood has to go through in order to accommodate the
new development. I mean we are not opposed to development, but we are asking for
the right steps to take place, not just we have a development, it's going to go, are you
with us or against us. Well, we didn't even have enough time to know about the whole
development. The public notice that went -- by the way, how many weeks or days do
they have to put the public notice up?
Borup: Ten.
Semahe: Ten? Okay. Then, they met it, because I know for at least two weeks it was
up. Okay. So -- but, still, there is so much involved in this particular development that
the concern of the neighbors is there and that's why the -- but let me maybe address
some of the concerns. First of all, it's the density as it was hinted to you and that's
because when we look -- if you put the plat on -- okay. The balance of what -- you
know, what we -- some of the things that we propose -- as you look at the balance of
the lots, we, first of all, yes, when the neighborhood went in it's like, oh, my gosh, look
at these small lots, what are they going to do there, and we said, well, wait a minute,
let's listen to what really they want to do. I mean we can't assume what they are going
to do until we listen to what they have to do. The middle section, you know, we said,
okay, fine, but on the perimeters, then, we said -- and that's something I talked to Jane
this morning about, I said is it feasible for your development with those big, you know,
larger lots on the perimeters to continue with them along the perimeters of Victory and,
then, give the development more feasibility and more balance. I mean we are not
telling them we don't like your small lots, get rid of them, you know, just stick to R-4 and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 44 of 71
that's all we want you to do. We said, fine, you want to bring diversity, we welcome it,
but how about some more balance. Now, we didn't hear any answer in that effect,
because I don't know if the developer thinks it's feasible or not. That's not an answer
for us to answer, it's for the developer to answer. And that's -- I mean in your opinion, I
mean, will it balance the development to have more of these lots go around Victory and
it gives the new neighborhood a better entrance and a more cohesiveness and, then,
therefore, the neighborhoods around it, then, it will blend better. And, then, we are not
objecting to a well done job, as they said earlier, you know, they -- for instance, they
said we -- we are going to stick to the quality that -- and they referred us, by the way, to
the development at Heritage Commons and, by the way, some of us went and visited
these homes in Heritage Commons and I can tell you these homes are very nice
homes, Roth Construction has done a very good job, in my opinion at least I could say,
they are very good quality, and what we want from them is that quality that they referred
us to at Heritage Commons would be followed in this development. If you refer
somebody from the neighborhood and say this is what we are going to do, are you truly
going to follow that standard that exists in Heritage Commons or is it going to be now
different in Soda Springs, but, yet, the same builder. I mean if we were told in the
neighborhood meeting that this is the example they are going to follow based on
Heritage Commons, I would say I don't have a problem with it, if that's what they are
going to do. But we don't have anything in writing that this is really what is going to take
place and this is where the apprehension on the part of the neighborhood, you know, is
taking place, because it's all talk and we haven't seen anything -- because during the
neighborhood all we have seen is the plat and, you know, commentary back and forth.
That's all we have done.
Borup: I'll just maybe mention one interesting thing along that line. The neighbors of
Heritage Commons had the same concerns when that subdivision went in. They were
acre lots adjoining that one.
Semahe: Well, they have 176 --
Borup: Yes. And -- but there were other neighbors that were closer and they had the
same concerns. I live near that area and I had a lot of people after it was approved said
how could you approve those little tiny lots with alleyways and I was getting that kind of
stuff. The calls and comments I got after the subdivision went in is the prices of those
homes are so expensive how can anybody afford them, you know, and I just thought it
was interesting the contrast that 12 months made. Earlier everyone was concerned
that the lots were so small that it's going to be a little, low income, substandard housing,
after went -- after they went in the comments was the housing is too expensive that
normal people can't afford it.
Semahe: We are not concerned about that. For the record, we truly want the
developer follow through with --
Borup: Well, I'm saying that was the concern of the neighbors of Heritage Commons.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 45 of 71
Centers: You're not concerned about what?
Semahe: I am not concerned about the type of homes or the prices of homes that are
going in there, because I agree with Keith, when he said, you know, if the quality --
again, what we are stressing here if -- that the quality will be pursued in these homes,
then, yes, I agree with you that the quality, then, that you're selling is not cheap,
therefore, there is no concern about --
Borup: But I don't think there is anything in those covenants that specified anything
different than what these covenants would say. You know, you would have to compare
the two to really know for sure.
Semahe: Well, are you referring to the covenants of Heritage Commons?
Borup: Yes. Yes.
Semahe: Versus which covenants?
Borup: The covenants of Soda Springs.
Semahe: Which means they don't have covenants, they are asking for our covenants.
Centers: They will have.
Semahe: Okay. Have they submitted any covenants?
Centers: We -- excuse me. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Well, they will, yes that --
Semahe: Okay. So, what you're saying to us, then, they will have the same --
Centers: No. No. We don't write the covenants.
Semahe: They do.
Centers: They do. And for you to ask us or anybody developer to put it in writing for
the quality of the project is unreasonable. Totally unreasonable. I have never heard of
it. Have you, Mr. Chairman?
Semahe: Well, they told us --
Borup: And that was the point I was trying to make, it would probably be worded similar
to what Heritage Commons was worded.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 46 of 71
Centers: They require square footage in the CC and R’s, she's committed to more
square footage on certain lots. Some CC and R’s require different roofs, like Meridian
Greens. Maybe no metal siding. You know, certain colors not allowed. Earth tones.
But quality is driven by marketability and salability of a good product and they are not
going to sell it if they don't have a good project.
Semahe: All we mean by the quality is the pictures that you have seen of these homes,
that's what we are referring to. I mean that's what they are telling us they are going to
do. I mean, are we not going to hold them to what they are telling us they are going to
do or they can do whatever they want? Is that -- I mean if they were going to do what --
one if they can do what they want after the commitment with the neighborhood, then,
why did we meet? Why were we informed of these commitments if they are not going
to follow --
Centers: You met. Obviously, you gained some ground, because she's -- they have
committed to --
Semahe: And we thank them for that and we recognize it. We are not ungrateful.
I mean we are not ungrateful, but what we are saying is they referred us to Heritage
Commons to compare the quality that is going to go into Soda Springs. We did go to
Heritage Commons and we liked what we saw and what we are saying is if this is what
they are really going to do, that is fine, and we are referring to the middle section,
because those are the alleyways, you know, homes. We do have a problem with those,
because personally, being in the profession as well, they are very well done.
Centers: And we can have the applicant address that.
Semahe: That's fine. That's all we are asking for. Now, the location of open space,
when you have a subdivision of this size, the only open space for this -- and this is
another concern that we have -- supposedly, for some reason, they did not -- or joining
the association was not feasible way of doing it. I mean that's a possibility, that's still on
the table. We are not saying we are pro or against, we simply need more time in order
to put that issue together. The only place -- I mean how big is that common area for the
subdivision itself only? Is it an acre?
Centers: A little over half.
Semahe: A little bit over a half and the Commission feels that's enough open space for
this subdivision with zero line lots, no backyards for the children? I mean, yes, maybe
it's designed for a single person to live in those homes, but it could be a family living in
it. I mean they cannot be denied access to live in it, which means there would be
children in those homes. Where are they going to go? To that lot and that's sufficient
for almost 60 homes to have just -- I mean we are asking the question, we are not
saying it isn't, we are asking the Commission the question is that adequate and if you
say yes, then, you made the decision.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 47 of 71
Borup: How much does Sherbrook have; do you know?
Semahe: No, I don't. We have -- we have common areas and we have all that line
behind that line that is common area and we have common areas, you know, sporadic
along the neighborhood. I mean the kids can play in the yards, but -- I mean we have
concerns for the -- I mean they have nowhere to go.
Centers: Well, to answer your question, it meets the requirements.
Semahe: It meets the requirements.
Centers: Of the City of Meridian. Correct.
Semahe: Okay. Then we got the answer to that.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that as part
of the Planned Development application, the applicant submitted photos as part of the
application. We require them to be within substantial compliance with those submitted
photos or, essentially, the elevations that were submitted.
Borup: So, that would be part of the approval.
Kirkpatrick: So, we would -- and by substantial compliance we would mean similar roof
lines, similar materials used, similar housing shapes and types, and the planner may
want to -- Jane may want to address that, but we would require them to be within
substantial compliance.
Semahe: So, again, to answer -- to ask the question again, if the plat is on the -- on the
screen again. How does the Commission feel on the fact that these lots, again, that
are, you know, adjacent to Sherbrook Hollows and as they continue along Sherbrook
Hollows all the way down and continuing on Victory, I mean is that a possibility? I mean
is that something we can negotiate with the developer, see if that's something maybe to
balance the neighbor -- the new neighborhood? I mean what's your opinion on that?
Borup: I know from a market standpoint the less desirable lots are those backing up to
a high traffic road.
Semahe: Which is Victory.
Borup: Right. So, you're not going to get people wanting the larger, more expensive
homes, are not going to want -- I mean I think you would agree the same way if you
were moving into a subdivision that's not your first choice.
Semahe: I wouldn't mind one of them. I would move in.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 48 of 71
Borup: Yes. And so that makes them more difficult to sell. I did notice that the lots
along the west boundary are seven lots and the lots in Sherbrook are seven lots, it
appears, so there are an equal amount of lots along that boundary.
Semahe: And we recognize that and, again, we do thank the developer on taking the
extra step, as you heard Jane, you know, saying that they will go single against single
and double against -- we do appreciate that. We are not, you know, saying that the
develop -- again, we simply need more clarification and I guess what I'm saying, on the
other hand, they need to sell us the development, too. I mean we are already there and
it's like, you know, you're moving in, okay, tell us what you're trying to do. And we are
not against it. And, again, for the record, we are not against the development, it's just
we want to make sure it's done right. That's all we are asking for, in essence. And the
other concerns are, of course, traffic. I mean you take Tuscany, who is going to have
500 plus homes, okay, you already have Thousand Springs -- God only knows how
many homes they have. I mean, again, abundance of homes. You have Sherbrook,
you have also Sageland Development going on the end -- I mean all within one block,
it's all going at the same time, and the speed limit, also, that is a concern to us. I mean
when we first moved it was 50. We got them to drop it five miles per hour, you know.
You know, 45 miles an hour, you and I know teenagers -- I mean anybody could be
living there. They don't drive 45, oh, they are allowed five more miles. They are driving
50. And, see, that is a dangerous situation just brewing and brewing and brewing and
we don't know what the plan is and, hopefully, you know, ACHD and everybody else
concerned, you know, will address that issue as these developments go in, that the
speed limit, probably, is no longer adequate for a rural area. I mean you go on other
more congested roads and they make you go 35 or 40, but yet our speed limit is much
higher. I mean that is a concern from a point of safety and traffic. I mean in the
morning, as we speak right now, without Tuscany, without Soda Springs, and without
Sageland Development, we have a hard time -- I'm never on time to work, even when I
get up early. Everybody is driving on Victory and trying to go and now with the
construction, of course, you know, that for Tuscany, et cetera, we all wait in line, waiting
with the flagger, you know, but that's not the issue, the issue is as we stand now with
the density that we have and the residents that live in that area, we have a traffic
problem and that's why the neighborhood, from the standpoint of density, we are
concerned. Okay. Anyway, traffic and the density, we talked about that, and -- so I
guess they want me to wrap up, so that's it. So, I will give them a chance to say their
peace.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioners? Note that was
your neighborhood that wanted you to wrap up. We were giving you the time.
Semahe: Can I say one more thing I just remembered? Can I --
Centers: Don't ask me, ask the lady behind you.
Semahe: One more thing. We, initially -- and, just for the record, we came to the
developer and I personally talked to Jane and I suggested to her 1,400 square feet
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 49 of 71
minimum on the inside and 1,600 square feet -- you know, 14, 16. Okay. Because
based on the plans that we saw that were submitted and, you know, like Roth has, the
smallest one we have seen on the Roth Construction was like 1,465 or 1,480. So, we
know that what was submitted at the neighborhood meeting, you know, meets the 14 --
you know, requirement on the part of the builder. Now, the way I understand it, the
builder is concerned that as these 1,300 square feet homes go on the perimeter of
Victory, how is he going to compete with those 1,300 square feet homes along Victory?
Well, I believe the promotion here should not be that the builders are completing
against each other, they are actually competing to make the neighborhood a better
place to live in and that should be the heart of the competition within the builders as
they go into a development. It's not like, oh, you have a 13, I have a 14, so your house
is going to sell before mine. I guess that's not a -- that should not be a concern.
Borup: I agree.
Semahe: And, you know, going 14, 16 in the middle -- and this is what we are
requesting, maybe is also another feasibility for the development and we request that
as well. Now, the --
Borup: Do you know what the minimum size for Sherbrook is?
Semahe: The minimum is 15 on a single story and 1,750 for a two story.
Borup: Okay.
Semahe: That is our -- and, initially, for the record, we suggested that along the
development and as we understood what they are trying to put in, we also understood
we needed to compromise a little bit with the developer, so he can develop his land and
put a reasonable square footage that is desired. And I end it right there.
Borup: Okay. Any questions from any Commissioners?
Centers: No, thanks. Don't dare.
Borup: Thank you, sir.
Semahe: You don't dare?
Borup: He doesn't dare. Thank you. I think we have got about five more people that
wanted to come up, so let's --
Harding: Thank you very much, Commissioners. My name is Steve Harding and I live
at 2243 East Mackay Court and just a couple things I'd like to bring up. Brad, can we
go back to the -- where it shows like Victory Road. This development here is going in
and that's an R-8 development, it has 39 lots going in. We have 59 lots -- or 58 lots
going in. And for me it's a matter of density, just that many people backed up there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 50 of 71
We have got two great -- similar size parcels, ten and a half acres versus 11 acres, we
have got 39 and 58 lots and, you know, he addressed a lot of those issues. There was
discussion about irrigation and whether they were going to tie into our irrigation system
and whether or not our system would support it. I don't know with the association not
tying in if that's part of the deal or not. We had had a meeting and discussed and
somebody had indicated that it would take quite a bit of improvement in order for them
to tie into our system to make our system work properly. And on the single story
homes, I would point out my home is right there and I have a two story home there, but
it is two stories that butts out to the road. I have no windows facing this subdivision
south and so when they said they want to do single story, single story, double story,
double story, I would want to make sure that what goes against my house is a single
story home, because that's what my home faces south to that subdivision. My two story
is basically like a -- it's a bonus room facing the street, plus other windows that facing
the street. So, I'd like clarification from that, if that's when -- if she could address that.
And that's all the points I'd like to make.
Centers: What was your name again?
Harding: Steve Harding.
Centers: Harding?
Harding: Yes.
Borup: So, your question is -- I mean she stated that the two story homes would not
have windows facing to the north.
Harding: Well, she said two story on two story and one story on one story.
Borup: Right. And the -- okay. She said that any bonus room -- any bonus room plans
would not be facing.
Harding: Right. And my point is my house has -- is a two story, but all my windows
face out towards the street, so, essentially, when it faces that subdivision, it's,
essentially, a one story home and I would want that addressed on the plot plan, if I
could.
Centers: Well, she's saying the same thing, she said a one story with a bonus room
above the garage.
Harding: I have a two story.
Borup: But he's saying he's got a two story, but he doesn't want his neighbor to have a
two story.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 51 of 71
Harding: But the way my windows face it is, essentially, like a bonus room. So, I'd like
that clarified at least for that lot that's going to abut against me.
Centers: And they are being required to have their own pressurized irrigation?
Harding: Are they?
Centers: Yes.
Harding: And I will point out she said that the builders didn't want to be part of the
association. We didn't necessarily say no to that, the builders said they didn't want to
be a party to more control that we might want to do with them, so it wasn't us,
necessarily, it was the builders that said no.
Borup: Thank you.
Hansen: My name is Nancy Hansen and I live at 2460 East Victory Road and I have
written some comments and I have copies if you want those. Our property abuts the
proposed development of Soda Springs. We would like to question the reason Meridian
feels it necessary to use up the rural properties to develop dense subdivisions in its
sprawling Comprehensive Plan area so quickly, to develop subdivisions and school
districts that cannot accommodate the rapid growth, to develop subdivisions before core
services of police, fire protection, et cetera, can be developed, to add another ten car
trips per household per day to already crowded streets. Is it really just, as the
developers of this subdivision stated at the recent neighbor meeting we attended, that
Meridian planners like dense subdivisions, so you can have a larger tax base. That
seems a poor reason to abandon the rural, agricultural history of this community. That
being said, we have been down this road before and realize that this is a train we
cannot derail. Therefore, for the protection of our property, we would like the following:
First, a buffer of landscaping between our property and the proposed development,
preferably a berm landscaped with trees and shrubs. Second, a vinyl fence to separate
our property from their development. Third, R-4 zoning at the very least, which at least
keeps it consistent with the previous subdivisions around us. Fourth, the developer to
present specific designs and plans to this committee before agreement is given. Fifth,
any conditions and agreements negotiated through these meetings to be written on the
plat, so that they are adhered to in the future. Sixth, the developers to be responsible
for any cost incurred for the necessary movement or change of our irrigation source due
to the Soda Springs development. And, seventh, that lights along the proposed roads
bordering our property be hooded. The developer also stated at this neighbor meeting
that Meridian's Planning and Zoning would not worry about a buffer zone between us
and the subdivision, since our property is considered future development. I hope you
truly do not dismiss our concerns so casually. We realize that the acreage is potential
development, but we have lived here for over 13 years and plan to continue to live here.
When this developer approached us about selling our property last summer, our
response was an immediate no thanks. Our property is not in Meridian city limits, but
it's quickly becoming an island surrounded by subdivisions and, thereafter, dependent
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 52 of 71
upon your decisions. I just remind you that we were here first and we have been good
members of this community. Despite the neighbor meeting, the developers are not our
neighbors and you do not know what the potential 60 households will bring. And I have
a few comments that I wanted to make after listening to the engineer tonight. At the
neighbor meeting they had agreed to a vinyl fence between our property and their
development, but she didn't say anything about it tonight up here, although she
commented to us in the audience -- or at the seats. And also I wanted to note that the
tot park that is an amenity, those are not buildable areas, the water table is too high and
when they went into the subdivision previously, they can't build there, so -- and also
calling them half acres, the boundary is actually in the center of the canal for that, so
when you talk about those half acre lots or that half acre, you're also considering the
easement between Nine Mile Creek and the canal. So, that's part of that half acre.
And, then, when Wendy Kirkpatrick talked about requiring the substantial compliance, I
just want to make sure that -- I don't know how you would insure substantial
compliance. We went through these meetings before, before Thousand Springs was
built, and the agreements that were made weren't followed and we wound up in a legal
battle with that and so that's something that these people need to think about is before
you say, well, we would require substantial compliance, how do you require it, how do
you police it, how do you make sure it's done? And that's all I have.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Do you live right there?
Hansen: Yes.
Centers: How big a parcel do you own, ma'am?
Hansen: It's four acres usable and if you consider the easements across Nine Mile
Creek and the canal, if you went to the middle of the canal like these lots do on the
subdivisions, it would be six acres.
Centers: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
M. Hansen: My name is Marvin Hansen, I live at the same property, 2460 East Victory
Road, and I'm not going to repeat all this, I just want to go on record that I agree with
everything that was said previously and I'm not going to bore you with it, I just want to
be on record that I state this, too. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 53 of 71
Hansard: My name is Donald Hansard, I live at 3035 South Gold Bar Avenue.
Recently moved in there. And I think Mr. Centers' very first statement, basically, about
the number of homes, 59 versus possibly 42 -- 42, 44 homes. I think that's more in line
with what should be in that particular area. That addresses a lot of traffic concerns.
Another question that I have is as far as an emergency type situation, how do they get
to those people if something has occurred, is there enough access to that for -- if you
can put that -- put the slide up -- there. They have a single access. Is there enough
room to get in there with, you know, fire equipment, ambulances, in the event a major --
you know, you're talking about dense area with people if there is a fire, you know, can
you get in there with the safety equipment to get those people out. Is there enough
room.
Borup: They do have -- they have the main access here, then, they have an
emergency access right here.
Hansard: Okay. Okay. Basically, I think everybody has, you know, stated great points
on this thing. The main thing, I think, that everybody is really concerned with is quality
of the homes and density. It's a little overcrowded. I think they need to cut back the
size of -- the number of units that are going to be in there. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Godby: My name is Louise Godby, I live at 2238 Mackay Court. I live on the common
area that they have been talking about. I have got a couple of questions. Number one,
if you have got 58 homes, where in the world are the kids going to play, other than jump
the fences or whatever and play on the common areas by the canal and I guess I'd like
a little clarification on the common areas that are behind, you know, our canal. When
we moved in three years ago, we were the last person in Mackay Court cul-de-sac. We
moved in because everybody else was fenced out and that gave us the look of a large
yard, the enjoyment of quail to feed, birds to feed, nobody back there. We came from
an area where we didn't live with fences and so I don't like my backyard fenced, so I
bought this house. Now, I'm concerned that because there is going to be 59 homes
there with no place for the children to play -- I mean, you know, ten feet between
houses and 15 feet to the road and nothing in back of the house, they are going to be
playing in the common area and destroying property. Now, I was told that the reason
the common area was there was that the canal company had to have access to repair
any problems with the canal. If that is the case and we have lots that leave that space,
isn't that going to be required of Soda Springs?
Borup: What -- could you repeat that again? Lots that leave the space?
Godby: Well, if you look at Mackay Court -- or I mean Sherbrook Hollows.
Borup: Okay. Yes. I'm looking at it right now.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 54 of 71
Godby: Okay. I live basically at the Mackay Court -- the 10:00 o'clock position. This --
right. Okay. I live right there. My house -- total backyard is open. I was told that the
reason this exists is because the canal company needs to get their big equipment in
there in case they have problems with the canal. Well, if that's the logic, doesn't there
need to be access along here also, so that cuts out most of the play area?
Centers: They have an easement. They have an easement.
Godby: Do they?
Centers: Yes. Seventy foot wide.
Miller: My name is David Miller. I live at 2225 East Dworshak Court. I bought in that
area for a specific reason, having a high quality home and large lots. The proposed
Soda Springs Subdivision drastically changes that way of lifestyle and that density that's
going in there and if the Commission thinks that what's being proposed is acceptable to
the neighbors, I think they ought to take another to look at it. Those small lots in the
center with nine foot off the alley to the garage, what kind of car -- if they can't get it in
for some reason, they want to stop and unload the groceries, it's going to be hanging
out in the alley. You got potential problems. I mean it just doesn't make sense. Think
about what's going in there versus what's around it. It doesn't wash. That's all I have to
say.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
K. Harding: My name is Kalyn Harding, I live at 2243 East Mackay Court and I wanted
to finish clarifying on that walkway back there. Right now there is currently a fence that
Sherbrook Hollows built and put up. Is there any reason why we have to take that
down? Yes. Right there. That is not a thoroughfare. I mean it is for us.
Centers: You don't want to take your fence down?
K. Harding: No.
Centers: I don't think they have to, but maybe the staff -- yes.
K. Harding: She addressed that -- you know, that there was all that walkway bike path.
Well, there isn't, because there is fence there.
Centers: Yes. Well, that is a 70 foot easement, according to the plat that I'm looking at
here for the irrigation easement. Seventy foot wide.
K. Harding: Yes. Okay. Well, that's fine, but, you know, she just -- when she was up
here speaking she was saying that we have this whole bike path, walkway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 55 of 71
Borup: Well, how about when it leaves -- how about where it leaves your subdivision, is
it --
K. Harding: It just ends.
Borup: There is a fence there also?
K. Harding: Yes.
Centers: Well, I think she was referring to kind of the open space and the quail and the
birds.
K. Harding: No. No. No. No. No. I'm talking about the developer.
Centers: Oh. Okay. I was talking about Mrs. Godby. Okay.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, just to clarify, there is a regional
pathway in our Comprehensive Plan that runs along the south side of the canal. I
believe in Sherbrook Hollows there is currently a private easement for the pathway.
The City of Meridian's Parks Department will need to work with Sherbrook Hollows to
obtain a public easement and continue the pathway through Sherbrook Hollows, but the
city's vision is that will develop as a regional pathway and will connect to the regional
pathway in proposed Soda Springs Subdivision.
Borup: Well, that's what I had understood the statement, but what happens to the
north? Is the pathway continued on?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, I'm not -- I'm not certain where it picks up again. On our
Comprehensive Plan it does show that it continues to the north. I'm not sure where the
actual next built-out segment is, but we do show a continuance for it on the
Comprehensive Plan. And we can bring the map over here if that would help, if you
would like to look at it.
Borup: There is one right down here. Okay. Have we got one final person? Come on
up.
Nelson: Sorry. I thought you were done. I thought I'd let everyone speak first. My
name is Mark Nelson, I live at 1236 East Brozdi Street and I don't even live in this
subdivision. Figure that out.
Centers: Where is it that you live, then?
Nelson: Sportsman’s Point. Right across Locust Grove.
Centers: Oh. Okay. I know where that is.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 56 of 71
Nelson: And, actually, we spend quite a bit of time in this subdivision. Our kids have
friends over here and the school system is -- and we, actually, have been talking about
moving, depending on what the school district does with the schools the next year or
two, and moving over into this area, because we really like it, we'd like to get a larger
home. So, that's why I see it having an affect in a year or two down the road. This is
where we were kind of looking and I just think that it's not -- the continuity of the design
and I agree with the higher density and the master plan and the whole thing, but across
the street there is going to be the neighborhood center and I think on that side of the
street it's more appropriate for the higher density. Right. But the plan is the
neighborhood center is going to be on the other side of the street in that area.
Centers: That's where the little half circle is on the Comprehensive Plan.
Nelson: Right.
Centers: You're right. But those little half moons can move a little bit.
Nelson: That's fine. But within that side of the -- in that township on that side -- or,
excuse me, that section, that higher density -- I know that --
Centers: You have done your research and you're right.
Nelson: So, anyway, there is going to be the neighborhood center, I think the higher
density is more appropriate where they can walk to it and that sort of thing.
Centers: You have done your research.
Nelson: And they can't be running across the street and even though right now you
might imply that the homes might be too nice for a starter family to get in there, the
concern is who buys the house ten years from now, not who buys it next year, and so I'd
just like to see that density more in tune with that side of the road. The higher density
needs to be in the neighborhood -- or in the side of the interstate, we need higher
density people or houses also, but I just personally feel that it belongs on the side
where the planned neighborhood centers would go. And I know that there is no way for
you to really control that quality, but the cost of the property really drives that more than
anything. So, the safety and security of the higher density, once kids do move there
and the amenities are on the other side of the street and I'm thinking ten years from
now and I'm looking at potentially moving out of our subdivision and that's the where we
--
Centers: What's the concern ten years from now on the resale of one of those? I don't
follow that.
Nelson: No. That's not it. The -- right now you don't really get into the other
subdivisions, there is no walkway in between them, it just looks to me like an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 57 of 71
afterthought, it's not a cohesive design. Eventually, the homeowner that owns the
property to the south -- or the east, rather, has no plans on selling now, but, eventually,
it's going to get sold, eventually it's going to be subdivided, and it's going to look like
another piece that wasn't designed to be a cohesive piece, so you have just tons of little
curb cuts up and down the road and, like I said, all the amenities will be on the other
side. So, I just think that's where the higher density needs to be and keep this one --
and maybe not as low density as that subdivision, but not this high density.
Centers: This property right here, I think it was 39 lots on eight acres -- ten. Ten acres.
Which was higher density than the R-4 and we didn't have anybody here. I shouldn't
say anybody, but we didn't have this many people.
Nelson: Well, I think you have more of a buffer between the homes on the other side.
Isn't there like a canal goes through there and --
Centers: Yes. That's possible. Okay.
Nelson: So, it's not the same.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Quickly.
Hunter: My name is David Hunter and I live at 2237 East Mackay Court. I have a -- I
moved to Meridian to kind of get away from the hustle and bustle of all the neighbors. I
love my neighbors now, I have two neighbors, and I live -- I live right here and I have a
back lot line of 184 feet and those three houses are going to be abutting my yard. And,
so, in other words, I would be surrounded by five different families. I don't know how
many people surround your houses, but I'm sure you don't like to be crowded in and I
just have a concern about three houses facing my backyard.
Centers: Are you on a cul-de-sac?
Hunter: I am.
Centers: Yes. Well, I think that explains why you have that big back lot line.
Hunter: And that's my concern.
Borup: What's your front lot line? Forty?
Hunter: Thirty-five or forty, yes. It's a bigger lot in that subdivision. That's all I got to
say.
Centers: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 58 of 71
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, you had -- he's been raising his hand two or three times.
Borup: I assume you have something new.
Anneker: My name is Shane Anneker, I live at 2019 East Dworshak. I'm, actually, a
board member for Sherbrook Hollows. I didn't know anything about this until two days
ago when some of the people that live in my subdivision told me about it, so I was,
actually, trying to sit back and hear both sides of the story a little bit. My biggest
concern, realistically, about all this is the walkway issue, because in that back area that
they are talking about putting a walkway through there, there is a ditch that goes across
there, along with the houses, so there is, really, only about ten feet, probably, where
they could, actually, put a walkway. The ditch runs perpendicular with the fence line on
the canal, just in case you didn't -- but -- so, the walkway is kind of an issue. I really
don't think it really would go well there. And, another thing, how come, if they offered
vinyl fencing to the other neighbor, why wouldn't they make that uniform throughout,
because that's going to leave an odd ball tie in, isn't it?
Centers: Hopefully, the applicant is making notes and she will address that.
Anneker: Okay. I just -- you know, to me it's looking like you're getting two different
stories from whoever they are talking to. And, like I said, I tried to sit back and watch
and see what's going on, because I kind of had a lack of knowledge, to be honest with
you, and -- but those are the -- just basically everybody else has already talked about
stuff that -- thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Hansen: My name is Marvin Hansen. I'm sure you know where my property is at by
now, but there is one thing that hadn't been addressed here. There is -- I think it's
called Nine Mile Drain between our property and the canal and since we have lived
there, it's been at least twice that Nampa-Meridian has come in there with backhoes,
dug the creek out, piled it on our property, their right of way, and just left us with a mess.
I assume if that drain gets plugged up where they want to tot lot, they are going to have
to do the same thing. I keep my property mowed, I don't let weeds grow. Where they
have piled all this stuff I cannot mow it. They dug up rocks two feet in diameter and
piled up there, they came with a cat and flattened it out, but it is still so rough that I have
no way of mowing that, so they need to be aware that if that drain gets plugged up, they
probably will come in there, they have the right to with their right of way, they could be in
there with a backhoe and a cat and they are going to make a mess of the place. Thank
you.
Borup: That's understood. Jane, did you have some final comments?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 59 of 71
Suggs: Yes, sir, I do have some. I'm Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street, representing JLJ
Enterprises and Soda Springs. I guess I should go over a few of these concerns,
because I understand that they are concerns of the neighborhood and I'm just as
concerned -- I'm just concerned in making sure that we have that dialogue as I am
convincing you that this is a great subdivision for the area. One of the things, though, is
I feel as if I'm kind of getting a little bit of a difference. I have a representative of the
neighborhood and most of the -- most of the neighborhood or many of the
neighborhood spokesmen agree that they like the overall concept, but -- but we did
have at least one person -- oh, okay.
Borup: We have got everyone's petition, so I think there isn't --
Suggs: I guess -- I guess my point is that there are still people in the neighborhood,
even though I feel like I'm negotiating this development with the neighborhood, I'm not,
I'm just negotiating this with a certain part of the neighborhood and already there are
people here that don't agree with the concept at all and are going to continue to be
dissatisfied, so I guess that's -- one of my issues is that it's so hard and you know this,
too, and I actually serve as a representative on the board of a neighborhood -- the north
end neighborhood association in Boise, where it was very hard to determine who was
really representing the neighborhood, so I just want to keep that in mind as I talk
through some of these. I know have difficult that is. We did talk -- you did mention a
really good point about putting larger lots along Victory. I'm not prepared to make any
kind of change to the lot sizes tonight on that. We do feel like those lot sizes are the
ones that are most appropriate to back up to victory Road. There will be landscape
buffer. We have committed to have that landscape buffer with the basket weave fence
in the landscaping along the front, along Victory. I didn't bring my pointer. Here it is.
This will be similar to what you see in front of Sherbrook. We would like to make that
seamless. But with these one stories here, I don't think you're really going to see
something that the detracts from the neighborhood, but we do know that those will not
be the most expensive lots in the neighborhood, so that's why they are shown as the
smaller lots. There was a concern about the quality of Heritage Commons. We did ask
that -- some folks that were interested in this -- the builders that were working with us
go out to the Palisades and Fenwick, those are the type of subdivisions and you have
photographs and I think you might be passing those along. Also, looking at some of Mr.
Roth's products now, I can say Mr. Roth likes to build and Mr. Campbell like to build
these products and they do a really good job of them. This is not going to be Heritage
Commons, this is not -- it isn't going to have a clubhouse and so one of the things I
want to keep in mind is that to tell one person with one subdivision we want you to look
just like another subdivision, it may be not look exactly like and I just really don't want to
fool anybody to think that every single home you see out in Heritage Commons is going
to be duplicated out here in Soda Springs, so I just want to be clear about that. We are
using the same builders and they do construct to the same quality. We did submit the
Sherbrook Hollows CC and R’s, because we did want to be a part of that. I'm seeing
some -- there might be some difficulty with that. I would hate to delay the approval of
this subdivision subject to some CC and R’s, because certainly the people bringing
those up tonight were not even on the board of the neighborhood -- of the homeowners
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 60 of 71
association, so -- and the homeowners association was notified our neighborhood
meeting by mail just like everybody else, because there were two addresses for the
Sherbrook Hollows neighborhood association.
Borup: So, did you -- are you saying that the wording of the CC and R’s substantially
the same as Sherbrook?
Suggs: We would have our wording of our CC and R’s and the architectural control be
very similar to that of the Sherbrook Hollows. We submitted that. The difference, of
course, would be that we will not have those same sizes that they have, but we did
submit some information --
Borup: Okay. That's -- that's why I just wanted clarification.
Suggs: Some of the information, just tell me tell you, that we did submit a 30 year
architectural composite shingles, hardboard or cottage lap siding, no vinyl siding.
That's important. I can't think -- we can't put it on the plat yet. We haven't convinced
Mr. Priester to let us put that on the plat, but we are talking about some sort of -- and
you have seen from the photographs there are some amenities in the front, masonry,
colors, some architectural details to the -- especially to the front facades. Various roof
pitches. So, that quality issue is really hard to address. I think when you show pictures
of the guys that are going to be building the homes in your subdivision, that's about as
close I can get and if we need to put some stuff in writing in our CC and R’s, in addition
to what's already in the Sherbrook Hollows CC and R’s, we can do that, but we would
like to mirror those. I have a commitment from the developer that if we don't get into
this Sherbrook Hollows homeowners association, our CC and R’s will look a lot like
theirs, except adjusted for the size of lots and homes. On the open space, we are not
able, because we don't have the ten percent open space, we don't -- we weren't able to
use that as an amenity for our Planned Development. We are using -- and I'm kind of
crossing over several of the different speakers. That is a regional pathway and we are
constructing that. We have been instructed by the Meridian Parks that we are going to
have to build that according to their regional pathway standards. I think that's part of
the plan for -- your Comprehensive Plan, it does show on your Comprehensive Plan, it
is one of our amenities. And, yes, it could be that that is a low lying area and can't be
built upon with homes, but you wouldn't really want to put homes back up against the
canal there, especially if we are to provide -- and we do, a 70 foot wide maintenance
easement. The area that you see of about a half an acre does not include that, so we
actually lose about a third of an acre, which is totally unusable to us.
Centers: When you calculated the .59 acres, did you go back to this line?
Suggs: To the fence line, yes.
Centers: Right to there.
Suggs: To there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 61 of 71
Centers: And what is actually usable there? From here out?
Suggs: I would expect that it could all be usable. I'm understanding from -- and this is
something I'm understanding from the property owners and from the engineers, that
there may be a -- there is a drain through there. Some of those may have to be tiled --
piped in.
Centers: Have you been to the property?
Suggs: I have only been in the front of the property, because --
Centers: Okay. You haven't looked back there?
Suggs: I have not looked back there. The engineers have when they did the survey of
it and they will be preparing appropriate plans for that.
Borup: The plat says that there is a ditch there that's going to be piped.
Suggs: Tiled. Yes.
Centers: I'm just trying to get at how much of that .59 is actually usable park area.
Suggs: I would say pretty much -- almost all of it. There will be a pathway through a
portion of it right here that will be the common pathway through here. There is a fence -
- is this the fence line right here? I can't see. This is the fence line that we can't use.
From the fence line here we can't use. That's the 70 foot easement. So, we -- that
fence like is the part that would be unusable.
Centers: Okay.
Suggs: And I think that's at the bottom of the slope and so there is a flat area with the
drain.
Centers: And your pathway is going to be on this side of the fence.
Suggs: Yes, it is.
Centers: Right here.
Suggs: Yes, it is.
Centers: Which is going to be 15 feet wide? Correct?
Borup: Ten feet is what the plat shows.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 62 of 71
Centers: Ten feet? Okay. So, based on the topog there, the fence is where the dotted
line is?
Suggs: Okay. I'm showing the fence on the plat here.
Centers: Right.
Suggs: With the -- my understanding was that that fence that we will install will be at
the bottom of the slope. If it needs to be someplace else, we will do that. We will
certainly make sure it's where the irrigation company wants it to be. We are --
Borup: The plat does show the pathway at the top of the slope.
Suggs: At the top of the slope? Up here?
Borup: That's what --
Suggs: Okay.
Borup: Well, that's on the landscaping detail.
Suggs: Okay. It was my -- well, we can't show the --
Borup: The other detail shows the fence at the bottom of the slope, so there is -- there
may be some conflict there.
Centers: Yes. You can't do that.
Suggs: No. And I apologize if there is discrepancy and we need to go on the record as
saying we will put the pathway in a place where it's accessible and not -- doesn't
endanger anyone being next to the canal there. I mean we know that there is a certain
portion of that property back there that is totally unusable to us. In fact, when we
worked out this the first time, we talked to the staff and the staff let us know that we
couldn't include that in any of our calculations for open space. That's just lost area. We
would like to make the commitment again that if there is a one story house -- and so we
know that in a couple of locations here there will be a place where there might be a two
story here and a one story here and I guess we just need to clarify that whatever is the
majority of the lot, I guess, is what we would build. I mean if there is a two story behind
us, we would like to build a two story also. If there is a portion -- a small portion of a lot
that's a one story, I would still say that we would like to be able to build a two story, just
for that same reason. If we build a one story we would have mostly a two story looking
over us, so it's sort of that, but that's been a concern with some of the property owners,
they have called me and said how do you deal with this, because the lots don't exactly
line up. The concern about the conditions -- the homeowners association and being a
part of the homeowners association, the only concern was when I talked to one of our
builders that I know very well, he was quite concerned with having some restrictions
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 63 of 71
placed on the square footage like we talked about before. And we have talked a little
bit about developing rural land. Mrs. Hansen, our next door neighbors, they are
concerned about that, concerned about they were building before the services are
available, and, as we all know, in many cases the houses come and the services come
later, that's the way they are paid for. So, that's unfortunate. They wanted landscaping.
I don't believe at this point we are going to be able to do a berm and a big landscaping
area. We are putting in a portion of a public street. We have been working with ACHD
to provide that. There will be a small shoulder and if ACHD allows us -- and I'd like to
work with them -- I would like to put a fence along here, if that's what the property
owner’s want. We were hoping that since they would be seeing the fronts of some
houses, separated by the street, or a portion of a street, that that would not be a big
issue for them. They do have a row of trees on their own property, so I have to point
out on their property they have a row of trees right here that do provide some visual
barrier, but those are not on our property. We have already -- I know you have already
talked to your staff about substantial compliance. We have provided those photographs
and some information and those would -- that information could go in the CC and R’s
about restrictions on roof pitches and that type of thing. Someone was concerned
about an emergency situation. We do have this as a temporary -- this is a lot right here
and this is going to be maintained as an emergency access until we have another
access and that would be only when this property does develop and that homes would
front here and there would be another access to that. Probably a street stubbed out
this way. We did this, because wanted to provide a better opportunity for that
homeowner, should they choose to develop. We felt a bit restricted, because there
were no stub streets and so someone had talked about the cohesiveness of the
neighborhood, we do feel that that might have happened if the Sherbrook Hollows
neighborhood here had been required to stub a street out, so that there would be that.
But now we really are a separate little pocket neighborhood and so we don't want to cut
that piece of property here off to do the same thing, so we want to provide some
opportunities, so that next to it is a smaller piece, it has an opportunity to develop
wisely. I don't know how to address where the kids are going to play. Again, I think we
are talking about some of these houses will have backyards where the kids can play
and some of these will have kids will -- the kids will go into the tot lot and some of them
will have kids that are old enough that they will sit at the video games, like most of the
teenagers do. But I don't -- I'm hoping that we can get to a point where -- one of the
things the developer wanted to do was maybe build the tot lot, so it was kind of
centered along the open space for the other neighborhood, too, but it sounds like that
that's probably not going to happen, because they really don't want those faces spaces
to connect. I think that's unfortunate. I would love to see the open spaces around all --
several neighborhoods connect together. That's the whole idea behind it, providing
those connections, that's a place we are working for. Again, Mr. Miller says the concept
is just not acceptable to the neighbors and so that -- you know, I'm hoping to negotiate,
but I don't know how to negotiate, because this is a concept that I think some of the
neighbors like and some don't. I think, though, we are asking, again, for the R-8, we
are not building eight units to the acre, we are building 5.3 units to the acre. I don't
believe that's too dense for this. The neighborhood center, typically, is characterized by
neighbor commercial uses and, yes, I think it's very appropriate, even across the street,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 64 of 71
to have denser development, closer to those neighborhood -- those neighborhood
commercial uses. Mr. Hunter, you already pointed out is on a cul-de-sac and that's why
he's going to have three houses backing up to him. We run into that all the time, you
know, so -- oh, why vinyl versus cedar. We had walked about it in the neighborhood
meeting, what we wanted to do here, and it seems that cedar is the fence of choice
throughout the Sherbrook Hollows neighborhood and so we were willing to put back --
put up between the homes what they have between their own homes, which is cedar
fencing. I haven't cleared this with the developer, but if we can put a fence here and the
neighbors do want it as something other than cedar, we can do vinyl, but I would ask
that -- that's because they don't have that kind of fencing around. I would hate to have
to put vinyl here, which is different from what you see throughout the entire
neighborhood through here, so -- I'm just hoping to put this cedar up. What else can I
talk about? Are there other concerns that you heard from the neighbors that you want
me to address?
Borup: Okay. Anything from any of the Commissioners? Anything else that still needs
addressed? Has there been any -- I don't know if there has been any demographic
studies of similar neighborhoods as far as the ratio of children.
Suggs: I don't know. I haven't -- I did not do any kind of study about this. I do believe
that what we are probably finding for some of these lots, especially since there are
smaller lots with some smaller homes, I don't -- it's hard for me to say a 15 or 16
hundred square foot home is smaller, but that you may find professional couples,
maybe fewer children. I haven't -- I can't justify that, though.
Borup: And the reason I asked, I just wondered if there was any little more
comprehensive study. Again, I live near Heritage Commons and my observation is
there have been few children in that neighborhood, percentage-wise, compared to what
you normally have. It's been empty nesters and young professionals on the most part
so far.
Suggs: And you may find some families there. I mean we hope -- one of the things
about providing different types of housing is to try to get, really, a diversity of families. I
was doing work on a much larger subdivision south of Boise and had some
conversations with the sheriff and they said one of the worst things that they could ever
see was a subdivision where everybody was alike. They all are young professionals
with young children and all these young children become adolescents at the same time
and so one of the things that they really miss is having older people and younger
people all mixed together. So, they really hope to get more of a mix and I'm hoping that
maybe by providing some of the 6,500 square lots, which may be standard homes, that
you will have some young families there, but you might have some young professionals
or even some empty nesters and that's one thing I know that some of our builders now
are trying to get the master down for the empty nesters, they really -- they want the --
some of the square footage, but that's some eyes on the community and that's a
wonderful thing to have from a social standpoint and I --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 65 of 71
Borup: Commissioner Rohm, you had a question?
Rohm: Well, I just wondered have you had a draft set of CC and R’s that anybody had
had an opportunity to take a look at, to do a comparison between your proposed
development and what their development currently is?
Suggs: Well, what we submitted for our CC and R’s were their CC and R’s, so we
submitted those CC and R’s saying that our CC and R’s will look like those. We have
some partnership issues with some of the people that were involved in their
construction, work in partnership often with the developer of this subdivision and so we
submitted their CC and R’s saying we wanted to be either a part of their homeowners
association or have mirrored CC and R’s, with the exception of this lot and home sizes,
so --
Rohm: Thank you.
Suggs: Okay.
Borup: Anything else? Okay. Thank you.
Suggs: Thank you.
Borup: Discussion? Is there anything else staff wanted to add?
Kirkpatrick: No.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Well, it seems as though people are bashful to speak up, I guess, but I never
am bashful. And it may be a flaw in our Planned Development code or what have you,
but they are going to put in a pathway that goes nowhere and that's one part of meeting
the PD. The other part is the tot lot, because they don't have enough open space. And
I'm seeing a nod of the head. And the open space that they are providing, in my mind,
is not all usable. I think the key to me -- even though Chairman Borup hit on it, Heritage
Commons -- how many lots there, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: I think there is close to 300 when it builds out.
Centers: You know, I haven't heard the stats either and the applicant -- I wrote it down,
because she made the comment and it was part of my concern; I don't know how to
address where children will play. That was her quote, unquote, and she doesn't. There
are going to be children there. I can't give you a state whether it's two per household or
1.3. 1.3 is always hard to imagine to me. But there is going to be children there and I
can see them playing in the alleys, in the streets, because there is not going to be
enough room to play in the area. And, by the way, folks, I'm not running for elective
office, so -- that was the big thing to me. If they would take out four or five lots and give
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 66 of 71
us more open space and, then, the big thing to me was the project we approved and I
don't know if the Council has approved it. Have they, Bruce? Where it was 39 lots on
ten acres.
Borup: Sageland.
Kirkpatrick. Sageland has not gone to City Council yet.
Centers: It hasn't gone. But it pretty much flew through here fairly easy. Thirty-nine
lots on ten acres. Here we have got 58 on 11. The gentleman that doesn't even live
there hit the nail on the head. The higher density is -- in the Comp Plan is the proposal
around a neighborhood center. You go with the neighborhood centers, some shopping,
and, then, you got higher density, so the people can walk to that. That's why I said you
did your homework. That's the thought in mind. I don't mind the higher density, but I
don't think they have got enough open space. That's my biggie. For the kids to play
there. I really don't. The higher density and the mix, I think the applicant has done a
good job. You know, the 65 foot lots abutting Sherbrook, they have done a good job on
that. I -- personally, I just think it doesn't have enough open space, because the
applicant doesn't even know how to address it, don't know how to address where
children will play. I don't either, other than the alleys and the street. But the higher
density doesn't really bother me. I think it just needs more open space. The traffic
bothers me, but that's up to ACHD. And the impact fees, they take care of that after the
fact, just like they take care of schools after the fact. You can't put them in ahead of
time. You can't widen Victory Road before you get the people, so you got to understand
that. So, anyway, end of speech.
Rohm: Well, to expand on that just a little bit, from a previous developments that have
come through and what we have always addressed is they will develop out based upon
their own marketability and if, in fact, this proposed development doesn't have enough
ground to play on, then, people aren't going to buy there. So just because your
perception is that there is not enough play room, if people have kids, they won't buy
there, so I don't know that necessarily this Commission should be about making sure
that there is a large enough backyard for each and every -- off of each lot. That would
be my position.
Centers: Yes. I guess I would move that we close the Public Hearing.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: The only way to really answer the two concerns is to know what families and
who is going to be living there and that's an impossible question to answer.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 67 of 71
Centers: I agree.
Borup: I guess the best this Commission can do is to try to anticipate, to the best of our
ability, what's feasible and what's workable.
Centers: I think what bothers me, too, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the developer has
just given us the bare minimum for the maximum. That's what concerns me. And he
hasn't even given us that with usable space. I don't consider a tot lot to be an amenity.
It's part of the Planned Development code, I know that, but maybe that needs to be
changed down the road. You give me a swing set and a jungle gym and you get to
have more lots. And, then, hasn't met the ten percent minimum. And the space that he
is given is -- most of it is not usable -- or not most, but a lot of it. Go ahead.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, I thought it might be helpful if I
were to go through the amenity sections of the Planned Development standards.
Centers: Good.
Kirkpatrick: Let's see. I'll just read from the code here. They are required to provide
two amenities and I will go through what those amenities can be. They could be, A, ten
percent of the gross area is landscaped, which they are not providing here. B, they
could be a private active recreational facility, such as a playground, picnic area,
basketball, or tennis court. I believe that's the intention of the tot lot. They can provide
provision for addition or public access to neighborhood parks or their public open
space. That's not applicable here. And I believe that the second proposed amenity that
they are proposing here is a public pedestrian or bicycle circulation system within the
project. Oh, excuse me. That one's not a -- that one's not applicable. And, then, I think
the point of contention here and the decision you will have to make, they also have the
option of providing other amenities appropriate to the size and used of the proposed
development as they be proposed by the applicant and approve by the Commission
and Council. So, it's your decision this evening whether the regional pathway and I
believe the five percent open space meets the intent of the Planned Development
amenities.
Borup: We have some question on the pathway. That's the regional pathway, it's in the
Comprehensive Plan. Wouldn't that be required no matter what size lots or what type of
project this was?
Centers: Exactly my thought. We have required it on other subdivisions, period.
Borup: So, if these were half acre lots, it would have been required.
Kirkpatrick: It would be required. I think -- I know personally I have worked on several
subdivisions that have come through Planning and Zoning and City Council where they
provided a regional pathway as one of the two amenities. You may want to -- you may
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 68 of 71
want to look at the scale of the pathway that's being provided here versus pathways
that have been provided by other subdivisions.
Borup: I think we have had some and in my mind the length of that pathway is a factor.
Centers: We have also had subdivisions come through where the developer -- we
required the pathway to be in and put in and it wasn't considered an amenity for a PD.
Kirkpatrick: And this is where this is up to your discretion.
Centers: Right. And the pathway that they are putting in for this subdivision doesn't
connect. Doesn't connect with anything.
Kirkpatrick: Correct. It's a part -- it's a part of the regional pathway system, but
Sherbrook Hollows to the north has not installed their part of the regional pathway, so it
does not connect to that pathway.
Centers: Right. And the way I look at it on the plat, it's about 150 feet and, as
Chairman Borup stated, it is going to be ten feet wide.
Borup: Between the asphalt and the --
Centers: Yes. Right.
Kirkpatrick: And, then, five feet of gravel on each side.
Borup: Five foot gravel shoulder on each side, so 20 total.
Centers: Twenty.
Mathes: But you can't guarantee Sherbrook is going to put theirs in.
Kirkpatrick: No. The Parks Department will have to negotiate with Sherbrook Hollows.
Currently, there is a private easement, they will have to turn it into a public easement.
Actually, I have a note -- I have a not from the planner who is working with the
developer -- and I don't know if this is an appropriate time to bring it up -- they are
asking to continue the hearing for revision to the plan to show ten percent open space
and they would be providing that as a second amenity.
Borup: That would be the second amenity.
Kirkpatrick: And they are willing to go back and revise their plan to --
Centers: How much open space do we have now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 69 of 71
Kirkpatrick: They are a little bit over the five percent that's required for a Preliminary
Plat.
Centers: Yes. She's, obviously, seeing the handwriting on the wall.
Borup: Well, then, that's an option to continue -- continue the meeting for a plat
revision, if that's what the Commission --
Centers: Well, that would be a good option for me. I mean I wanted to see more open
space. That hit me.
Borup: Any other guidelines for the applicant or would that -- leave that up to them.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, you could also use this
opportunity to require the applicant to have another neighborhood meeting, so maybe
some of these issues could be further discussed before it comes back to a continued
hearing.
Centers: If I made a motion to continue it, Mr. Chairman, would you agree on the 16th?
You know, we always pick the second meeting.
Borup: Oh, this month -- October. No. No. That's too soon.
Rohm: If you had another neighborhood meeting, would you not have to reopen the
Public Hearing?
Centers: No. We continue it, see.
Rohm: Well, didn't we close it?
Borup: We did, but we can rectify that.
Centers: Yes. We can rectify it.
Rohm: Oh, we can reopen it?
Borup: But I'm not sure if -- I wonder -- question what another neighborhood meeting is
going to accomplish.
Rohm: Well, that was my point is if you had another neighborhood meeting and didn't
the open public meeting again --
Borup: Right.
Rohm: -- what way would we have of knowing what came of the public meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 70 of 71
Borup: Well, if we are going to continue it -- well, see, we couldn't accept -- we couldn't
take in any new information either, which is what we are heading towards, it sounds
like, so we would need to take care of that.
Centers: And I'm not in favor requiring a neighborhood meeting, but -- and I guess I
would like to see a show of hands how many of the people would like to have another
neighborhood meeting? Well, then, that's out.
Borup: November 6th is not as heavy as the 16th.
Centers: And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we reopen the Public Hearing for
-- if I can find my agenda.
Borup: Did you close all three Public Hearings anyway or did you just close the first
one?
Centers: Not specifically. You know, I'm never specific. I would like to make a most
that we reopen -- or that we open the Public Hearings for -- we actually moved them up.
For items eight, nine, and ten on our agenda as numbered.
Rohm: Do you continue them?
Centers: We are just going to open it now.
Borup: We have a motion.
Mathes: Second
Borup: Second. All in favor? Okay. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: All right. Now, do we have another motion?
Centers: Yes. I would like to make the motion, Mr. Chairman, that we continue items
eight, nine and ten, on our agenda to our November 6th meeting.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: And with any -- do we have a reason?
Centers: Yes. I guess I was give that beforehand. I was going to. I think the applicant
understands -- you know, and saw a lot of testimony about density and, then, my
opinion on the open space and the project down the road that's 39 lots for ten acres -- I
think they need to give up some of their lots and give back some open space and the --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 71 of 71
if they come back with one lot, that's not going to impress me, but I'm not going to
dictate to them how much. You know, I think they just have to come back.
Borup: Okay. That's what we say, let them look on these --
Centers: If they are looking --
Borup: Well, I think Wendy has stated they are talking about reaching the ten percent,
so they are going to have to almost double what they have got.
Centers: I guess I'm not considering the pathway as an amenity and we don't have to
based on what Wendy just read. I don't consider that an amenity, because we have
required it of subdivisions, period, and it may be in the ordinance that tot lot or a jungle
gym is an amenity, but, you know -- so they got one there, but they haven't met the ten
percent.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borup: That concludes our meeting. Thank you, everybody.
Centers: Now, how many of you folks are going to come back on November 6th?
Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 03-042 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
new Carl’s Jr. restaurant with drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones
– north of Intersection of South Meridian Road, East Central Drive and
South Main Street:
Borup: Okay. You know, I didn't announce at the beginning, I hope nobody was here
for item number 11, but that has been renoticed for the 16th.
Mathes: I make a motion to adjourn.
Borup: We have a motion to adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: And second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 2, 2003
Page 72 of 71
Borup: Thank you. Adjourned at 10:50.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:50 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK