2003 10-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 16, 2003
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 16, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Michael Rohm, David
Zaremba, and Leslie Mathes.
Others Present: Jill Holinka, Bruce Freckleton, Tara Green, Anna Powell, Craig Hood,
Steve Siddoway, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Sonya Allen, and Dean Willis.
Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance:
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers
___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission and begin with the first item of business, that of the minutes.
Centers: Roll call.
Borup: Yes. Trying to hurry things along.
Zaremba: Anybody not here speak of.
Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda:
Item 3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of October 2, 2003 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: Okay. Item Number -- minutes for our October 2nd
meeting.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend approval of the October 2nd
minutes.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to approve minutes October 2nd
. All in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 2 of 114
Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2003: AZ 03-021
Request for annexation and zoning of 114.52 acres from RUT to R-8 (PD)
and C-G zones for proposed Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by
Packard Estates Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east
of North Eagle Road:
Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2003: PP 03-024
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 302 building lots and 28 other lots
on 90.29 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Redfeather
Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates Development, LLC –
south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle Road:
Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from September 18, 2003: CUP 03-041
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for
single-family residential use with reduced setbacks, lot sizes, lot
frontages, house sizes and increased block lengths for proposed
Redfeather Estates Subdivision No. 2 by Packard Estates
Development, LLC – south of East Ustick Road and east of North Eagle
Road:
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: As you may know, we have a letter from the applicant on four, five and six
requesting postponement to November 20th
and I would recommend that and -- that we
move it to the November 20th
meeting, if you agree with the agenda on that day.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the date of the moving.
Centers: Yeah. Well, that's why I'm asking the Chairman. He has the agenda.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Of the November --
Mathes: 20th
.
Borup: -- 20th
.
Centers: 20th
.
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: While you're looking, my comment, Mr. Chairman, would be that their reason
for asking it to move to November 20th
is that it doesn't get heard by the Ada County
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 3 of 114
Highway District until November 19th
. My comment would be I like to read the Highway
District's comments and I'm not sure we would have them in time for me to read them
by the 20th
. My suggestion would be that we calendar this for December 4th
instead.
Borup: The reason for the continuation last time was to wait for the ACHD report.
Centers: I don't have an objection either way, it's just -- I always hate to slow up the
process.
Zaremba: I hate to put it off too long, but I --
Centers: And does staff does --
Zaremba: -- have read it by then.
Borup: Does staff have a comment on that? I don't -- I think that that doesn't really give
staff a chance to really -- or does it? One day?
Powell: Brad had not expressed concern to me personally, but, of course, it's a lot
easier if we have a little more time to review it than one day. It would certainly give us
an opportunity if we had comments that we wanted to get in written form to get them to
you. Otherwise, the comments are just going to be verbal at the hearing, you won't be
able to get comments in advance.
Borup: I think sometimes it may depend on the project. The traffic was one of the big
concerns on this and so that makes sense, it's probably not something we would want
to try to hurry through.
Centers: That's fine with me. I would move we postpone it to December 4th
, the first
meeting in December.
Zaremba: I will second that motion.
Borup: Okay. Motion and second to continue Items 4, 5 and 6, Redfeather Estates
Subdivision to the December 4th
scheduled meeting. All in favor? Any opposed?
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Powell: Chairman, I'm a little confused. Are these just changes to the agenda that we
are proposing or did you open that Public Hearing or did we need to?
Centers: It never was open. It's postponed.
Borup: Well, this was a continued hearing from the previous meeting. It was opened at
the last meeting and --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 4 of 114
Centers: We did open it?
Borup: Yes, we did open it at the last meeting and they were continued, so do we need
it -- so this is already open, isn't it? Do I need to open it again?
Powell: Maybe our attorney can give us some advice. Do they need to reopen it and,
then, table it, so it doesn't need to be -- or continue it so that --
Borup: Because it is continued now.
Holinka: Right. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I guess I'm confused on that
as well. I think probably the better thing to do would be to reopen it and continue it, so
don't have any notice problems.
Borup: So, every time you continue a hearing, it's got to be reopened? How do you
reopen a hearing that's already open?
Zaremba: If you continued it it's still open.
Rohm: It was never closed.
Borup: The last meeting we opened it, we were open for testimony on other than traffic
areas, and, then, continued it.
Zaremba: It was a continuation, then, with sufficient notice to bring people to this
meeting, then, continuing it again should be.
Borup: We can open it again, but it's already open, I thought.
Holinka: Perhaps the better motion would be to move to continue it, rather than to
postpone it. I mean maybe it's the same thing, but --
Borup: Okay. Yes, I --
Centers: I would amend my motion to continue the Public Hearings, Items 4, 5 and 6 to
our December 4th
meeting.
Zaremba: The second accepts the amendment.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 5 of 114
Borup: Okay. Is anybody else in here confused? Those items are continued to the
December 4th
meeting, give a chance for -- be able to receive and review the ACHD
report.
Powell: Chairman Borup, forgive me for this, but did you adopt the agenda and, if so,
there was -- we did want to request a slight modification to it. Item Number 11, we do
have Mike Reno here to talk about it, so we were hoping to move it forward, so -- in
deference to --
Borup: Okay. I was not aware of that request, so did that get --
Powell: I was going to talk to you before you --
Borup: Right. Why didn't you do that?
Powell: You were rather fast today. I'm sorry.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: If it requires a motion to rearrange the agenda, I'd so move that Item 11 be
considered next.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
demolish existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling
for caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point
Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction – 500 East Victory Road:
Borup: Motion and second. We will look at Item Number 11. In doing so, we'd like to
open Public Hearing CUP 03-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish an
existing home and rebuild one single-family residence for a caretaker’s quarter in Lot 2,
Block 2, of Observation Point Subdivision. As I said, the Public Hearing is open and
we'd like to start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Planning and -- this is Craig
Hood, Planning and Zoning. The applicant R.F. Construction has requested approval of
a Conditional Use Permit to replace an existing single family home with a new 1,125-
foot -- square foot -- single family home on a 1.8-acre site located at 500 East Victory
Road. The subject site was recently annexed into the city and zoned R-4. In 2002 a
plat was recorded that included this property as Lot 2, Block 2, Observation Point
Subdivision. A note was placed on the face of the Final Plat restricting the issuance of
Building Permits for this lot until a sewer line had been constructed to serve the site.
Further, a note was placed on the face of the Observation Point plat that required all
single-family lots to contain structures being a minimum of 2,100 square feet. The
applicant is proposing to construct a single family home utilizing the existing septic
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 6 of 114
system. The applicant's proposal requires a Conditional Use Permit, because connect
to the municipal water and sewer systems of the City of Meridian is required in an R-4
zone. Further, Meridian City Code requires only single-family detached houses in the
R-4 district to contain at least 1,400 square feet of living space. Due to the findings
listed in the staff report, staff is recommending denial of the applicant's proposal to
utilize the existing septic system on Lot 2, Block 2, Observation Point Subdivision for
new single home as requested and as was brought before earlier, Mike Reno from
Central District Health is here to answer any questions that the Commission may have
and the applicant is here as well. I will stand for any questions you may have.
Borup: Yes. Questions from the Commission? Would any of the Commissioners like to
hear from Central District Health on this point?
Centers: Read his notes. They are very clear.
Borup: The only question I had is whether it was going to be relocated, but maybe the
applicant can answer that, so let's -- would the applicant like to come forward?
Sheffield: I'm Elliott Sheffield, RF Construction.
Borup: You have heard the staff report, so we would be open for any comments you
would have and anything else you'd like to say.
Sheffield: Okay. We looked into a couple of different options we could do with that. We
called Briggs Engineering, discussed some preliminary estimates, what it would cost to
put a lift station and an individual sanitary sewer across the lot and tie into the existing
system at Observation Point. It does not come across the canal currently. The price on
that was started at 7,000 dollars and up, depending on how much it would cost to bore
the canal. I haven't priced that yet, I'm not sure what the canal people would charged
for -- to have us go under the canal, what type of casing or whatever we have to do on
that. It felt like that just really made it almost cost prohibitive to do for a single family
home. What I have not had a chance to talk to Mike about is that we do have a septic
system there now that was put in I believe two years ago, so it's a new working system
and what we propose to do -- we don't want to keep it forever, we don't want to keep it
for any length of time, other than as soon as sanitary sewer is available we will tie on
that day and we would be happy to do that, we just don't want to go through the extra
cost incurred right now to tie onto the sewer that's in Observation Point.
Zaremba: There was a suggestion that you orient the garage in such a way that it can
be connected to the future subdivision to the west of you. Have you reconsidered a
new configuration?
Sheffield: That's not a problem. We can do that. We'd still like to keep the Victory
access for now, if possible. To orient the garage and try to bring a bridge across the
canal at this point would be -- I think it started at -- well, they said 40 to 50,000 dollars to
do that, so that -- there, again, that put it cost prohibitive for a single family home.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 7 of 114
Zaremba: I, actually, wasn't thinking of bridging across the canal, I was thinking
whenever the property to the west of you or what would be left on that map, that you
orient that direction.
Sheffield: Okay. Can I point to the map?
Zaremba: Yes. Take that microphone with you, please.
Sheffield: What I had thought of doing is take this same house and orient it so that we
could have either a side entry garage or the garage could come in on this other side, so
that at some future date when we do have a subdivision here, if this does get developed
in Victory Greens and come in from this area, that the garage could come into the other
side. The garage is almost symmetrical, so we would be able to go either way with it.
Zaremba: And if that's the case, does it meet the set -- it would, then, be a side
setback, eventually, right, and it would meet -- that landscape buffer could be completed
across this property and would it, then, meet the setbacks?
Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's correct. That's kind of what the
staff report had outlined in some of the findings, that if this were to be approved and a
new residence were allowed at this time, if the garage can be oriented so in the future
access can be taken internally, then, that would be a side setback or a street side
setback and not as restrictive as if the garage were coming in off of Victory Road.
Borup: Okay. I had some of the same thoughts. I mean we -- I don't think we should
be approving a structure that's going to cause a future problem with meeting this
setback when it's developed, so we need a plan for that, so if that can be done. Mr.
Sheffield, did you say you were planning on utilizing the existing septic system and
drain field or were you planning a new one?
Sheffield: We would like to use the existing one, if possible. It's less than two years
old, it's a new system, a new tank, and everything was all brand new. We'd like to use
that system until sewer is available.
Borup: Okay.
Sheffield: We do have city water available.
Borup: Right. I understood that.
Sheffield: Okay.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, would it be safe to assume that that property was annexed
when Observation Point was?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 8 of 114
Borup: Yes, it was.
Centers: It couldn't be a holdout parcel. I figured that. How do you address the
problem where you want to build a 1,125-foot home with a restriction for 1,400 square
feet in an R-4 zone? Why don't you build 1,500 feet?
Sheffield: We would go up to 1,400 feet. We would be willing to do that. We talked
about it today and said that if it was necessary to go to the 1,400 feet, we don't have a
problem doing that.
Centers: When you were annexed two years ago and you had the property there, did
the city inform you at that time that if you ever needed a building permit on that property
you would have to hook up to sewer?
Sheffield: I believe -- I believe it was addressed. I don't know. Mike Caven was taking
care of it at that time and I wasn't involved.
Centers: How do you propose us to address the Central District Health comments?
Have you read them?
Sheffield: I did.
Centers: How do you want us to address those?
Sheffield: Well, I guess what I was looking for was a Variance of some sort on Central
District, if we could have just a Variance from Central District to hook up to the existing
system until sewer is available. From what I understand, from talking to -- from Tammy
de Weerd, she said that sewer was planned to go down that road in a short amount of
time, shouldn't be long. I would just like to use the existing system until sewer is further
down.
Centers: Well, I think you should have talked to the Public Works Department, rather
than someone like -- other than -- and that brings up a question I had for Mr. Freckleton.
Is there a definite date that sewer will be available for this home?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Centers, we
don't have a definite date. It is planned for the future, but as far as having a date on the
calendar, we don't.
Centers: Because, you know, I look at it like other scenarios where we could approve it
if we had a date down the road and give them one year and, then, extend it for one year
if something were to happen, but if we don't have a date, then, you can see where our
hands might be tied or at least mine.
Sheffield: Sure. I understand that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 9 of 114
Centers: You know. Yet, I have sympathy for the operation. Let me keep talking. The
Building Department would also have to issue a permit if he remodeled the home, too;
correct?
Freckleton: Correct.
Centers: So, he's stuck. Even if -- and from what it looks like there, you don't have
much of a home.
Sheffield: It's in a sad state of disrepair.
Centers: Yes. You were informed two years ago that you would have to hook up to
sewer. I think you admitted that, if you did anything there.
Sheffield: Okay.
Powell: Chairman Borup?
Borup: Yes and I -- did you read the minutes from City Council?
Centers: Yes. It didn't make much sense to me.
Borup: Okay. The reasoning at the time was the city did not want this piece to be
developed without sewer, whether it was a neighborhood commercial or any other
residential or whatever, so that was the rationale behind that restriction. Yes. I'm sorry.
Hood: Members of the Commission, I just had a couple more things that I'd like to
clarify that had -- on the history of this a little bit. When the original Observation Point
Subdivision was submitted to the city, this specific parcel was left out. It created an
illegal split and so the developer was required to include this as a lot and block within
that subdivision, so that's kind of how this specific piece got included. It had to go
through the subdivision process and also with that approval the landscape buffer that is
along Victory against the built out part of Observation Point, if you will, has been
constructed, but this was -- this whole landscape buffer was left out of that requirement,
so that landscape buffer hadn't been -- so it was kind of -- it was platted, but it wasn't
treated, really, as one of the lots in that subdivision and, then, just to follow up kind of
on what you have touched on, the City Council had determined that the square footage
that the applicant was requesting and not hooking up to city services and being plate
note violations, that just this was the best means to get anyone from the public that may
want to come and testify, give them the opportunity, if they had any concerns with both
of those, to come before you and voice those concerns as well.
Borup: Thank you. Then, the other -- the other comment I had was on the Central
District Health denial comment. One, they were -- they had mentioned no septic or well.
A well is not proposed. It is going to be hooked to city sewer -- city water, I mean, and
then, I'm not sure if Central District Health was -- and maybe we can get some
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 10 of 114
clarification on that, whether they were considering putting in a new sewer system or
using the existing tank and drain field that were there. I don't know if that would make a
difference also. I think when you're done we'll get some -- anything else you wanted to
add, Mr. Sheffield?
Sheffield: I think that pretty well covers it.
Borup: Okay. We may have some questions for you at the end.
Sheffield: Okay.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Yes. If -- could you clarify that a little bit?
Reno: Commission Borup, when that --
Borup: You need to get on the microphone. Your name for the record.
Reno: Mike Reno with Central District Health. When that plat and the application came
before Central District Health, it was based on all lots would be served by city water, city
sewer, and that's the way the sanitary restrictions were listed. At this time, even if they
wanted to use the existing septic system, I could not approve a new dwelling going on
that -- approve a conditional use for a new dwelling to go on that lot connected to that
septic system, because sanitary restrictions were listed based on city water, city sewer.
He would have to connect to city water -- city sewer. The only way around that would
be to replat that one lot, submit a new report, and application for lifting restrictions on
that lot with individual septic and public water. Once that was done and approved, then,
we could approve a dwelling on that to connect the septic system and something else
about that septic system that I don't know if you're aware of. That septic system was
installed two years. Shortly after it was installed, when Idaho Power trenched through
the lot to connect the pump house for the irrigation, they trenched right through that
septic system, so we are unsure whether -- how much damage was done at that time or
not, but, obviously, it's still working out, because it's not servicing anymore.
Borup: Sir, would -- if they were to remodel this home, the existing service could be
used, though, if they were to add onto it or --
Reno: Commissioner provided they did not add any bedrooms to it. The way we look
at that, we wouldn't have to be involved in approving a conditional use. If they were
adding any bedrooms to a structure, you know, that may increase the -- need to
increase the size of the drain field. If the drain field size did not need to be increased,
then, they could make it -- do an addition to it.
Borup: Okay. Questions from the Commission?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 11 of 114
Zaremba: Assuming the question about the damage to the septic can be answered
successfully, is there any mechanism for making a temporary exception? We are not --
the applicant has already stated they will hook up to sewer as fast as it's available and
we don't know how long that's going to be, but --
Reno: Without a date, Commissioner Zaremba, they would not -- we would not be able
to, I don't think approve a variance without a sure date --
Zaremba: Without a target.
Borup: All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone here that would like to -- anybody
from the audience to testify on this application? It looks like you got no neighbors.
Sheffield: I just -- Elliott Sheffield, RF Construction. I just had one other thought, talking
about the date. What if we were to go with an exception and put a two-year date on it
and if services were not available at the end of two years, then, at that time we would
put in some type of a lift station and hook onto the existing sewer? Just a thought.
Zaremba: Yes. Do you know the condition of the septic system? Was there damage or
has it been repaired?
Sheffield: I know they did go out and repair. I did not see it myself, but I know that
when Idaho Power was notified and, then, we had a septic person go out and an
excavator go and do some repair work on it for us, so I don't know -- I didn't see it, but I
understand it was repaired.
Zaremba: Is the house occupied or has it been occupied all this time?
Sheffield: It is. It is.
Centers: Is it your preference to build 1,125 feet, rather than 14?
Sheffield: We'd go either way. We'd rather do the eleven.
Centers: Well, what I'm thinking, you know, it's a give and take. If we required the hook
up to sewer with the lift station or whatever it took, if we were able to give you an
exception on the square footage of the home --
Rohm: Yes. That would be -- that would be a nice give. We had that plan and built it
several times. We know what our costs are in that.
Centers: Yes. Of course, you know you would have to meet the setbacks and we
talked about the garage and all that.
Sheffield: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 12 of 114
Centers: That's just a thought I had, you know.
Sheffield: Okay.
Centers: Because I think a new home, whether it's 1,125, would be a lot better looking
than what we have there and -- you know.
Sheffield: Well, we intend some landscaping, even in the vacant field beside, to green it
up and make it look more usable, instead of the way it looks now.
Zaremba: Although another 275 square feet isn't that extreme of a change, is it?
Sheffield: It would help a little. Every little bit --
Centers: At 40 dollars a foot it's about 10,000 dollars, so that offsets the lift station.
Then, it -- I guess it is relevant. The owner of this property also developed and owns
Observation Point; correct?
Sheffield: He does.
Centers: In a common sense view that I have, if he wants to put 1,125, I realize it's
against the R-4 zone, but he also owns and developed the property that's adjacent to it,
so --
Sheffield: Right. It's his intention to keep this just like it will be finished up once we get
-- and just do some heavy landscaping there and make it -- make it very attractive.
Centers: Right. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: A couple -- do you have -- does the owner have any -- do you know what his
plans are for the rest of the property? Is he looking at commercial down the road?
Sheffield: He's not. Actually, what he -- he told me that I could -- and I briefly
mentioned this to -- I think it was Bruce earlier, but he would be willing to forego any
other development or building on that property if we could build this little house there for
a caretaker's place and just landscape it and leave it just as it is.
Borup: I'm not -- I don't know if the city is asking that or would want to that.
Zaremba: Actually, we would like it to go the other way around.
Sheffield: I guess the way that answers is that he does not have any plans for it, he
wants to leave it just like it is and landscape it and have it as a nice entry to the
subdivision and also to his home across the street.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 13 of 114
Borup: But I meant the rest of the property. The weed patch. I mean I assume he's
going to do something with that some day. He's not going to just leave that there, is
he?
Sheffield: Well, that's what he said. He said he'd just like to keep that landscaped.
They are going to green it up and just make it look pretty nice.
Borup: Oh, the whole -- the whole piece.
Sheffield: The 1.8 acres. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Mathes: The home across the street.
Sheffield: No, not across the street. This same piece beside the house that's adjacent
to it.
Mathes: Right. I mean his property across the street is all green, too.
Sheffield: Oh.
Mathes: Right?
Sheffield: Yes. Yes.
Borup: Okay. Well, then, that would be very nice. I thought you meant just landscape
around the -- around the yard or the house, so --
Sheffield: No. We would landscape the entire -- the entire lot, too.
Borup: Okay. Well, that would make a nice entrance to the subdivision, too.
Zaremba: Well, I'm sorry to say, but that goes the wrong direction for me. Part of the
objective would be to lose the access onto Victory and connect to whatever is going to
be there and if there is no plan to have anything there --
Borup: Then why have the other. Yes. I was making the same assumption, that there
would be some development to the west.
Zaremba: And close the access to Victory, which I think ACHD would be prefer.
Sheffield: You mean when Victory Greens develops, if it does, or whatever -- whatever
would happens to that side.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 14 of 114
Zaremba: Our discussion earlier about which way you would orient the garage, my
thought was that whatever goes in the rest of that triangle there, whether it's
commercial or residential, that the access, then, would be through that development
and not to Victor.
Sheffield: Right.
Zaremba: Victory Road.
Sheffield: And that still would be a possibility, landscaping --
Zaremba: But you're making it sound like that's way in the future -- maybe never.
Sheffield: Well, I can't answer that question for him, but I know that he did want to
make it a more attractive place than what it is now and was not looking at the possibility
-- he, nor I discussed the possibility that Victory Greens may sell out and that piece
develop also.
Hood: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to clarify, staff -- what staff kind of envisioned
happening and understanding the applicant doesn't intend to develop this specific lot.
In the future, it probably will be developed to higher densities and the idea with the
Victory Greens or parcels for further to the west a stub street would be provided or
analyzed, at least, for provisions in the future when that develops. When this piece
does redevelop, there is an access point that this lot can build off of, rather than taking
direct access to Victory Road. Even though it's not maybe this applicant's intention to
develop that property at this time, we are trying to preserve that for the future and limit
those access points to the arterials and collectors.
Mathes: But somewhere along the line it's going to have to come out on Victory,
whether it's here or Victory Greens.
Hood: Mr. Chairman. Not necessarily. What could happen is that stub street could
come in from the development and, then, just cul-de-sac either there or have a
driveway, even, come off there and just get a couple -- maybe a couple more homes in
that driveway could get closed. Maybe a secondary access for emergency services
vehicles, if that's necessary, but a primary access point for either a single family home
or two, three, or four single family homes. It doesn't necessarily have to come off of --
Borup: Well, I think what Commissioner Mathes is saying it would come off Victory off
property and that is true, there is going to have to be some access, but right now I think
the concern is from ACHD that that entrance would be so close to the other entrance
and that's a concern, that this driveway is close to the entrance to this subdivision.
Hood: The driveway is fairly close. I think it may meet their policy for being offset, but if
a future street were constructed, you know, that's kind of what we are looking at is a
street or -- versus having direct lot access and everyone have a driveway to Victory
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 15 of 114
Road, rather than one street that intersects the road and they all take driveways
internally.
Centers: But the fact remains that what you have right there has been approved by all -
- all agencies and you have a driveway to a home on Victory -- off Victory Road and you
have Observation Point. I think we are off the point, in my opinion. What the owner of
that property does in the future is relevant, but not tonight, in my opinion.
Sheffield: We are really not asking for any more than what we already have.
Centers: Right. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. You want to build a new house and
you want to meet code with it, other than you don't want all the square footage, so --
Sheffield: Right.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. This might be pertinent for a little bit of discussion, maybe,
before we continue on. I don't know if you want to continue on what you were saying,
Commissioner Centers, but I was thinking along the same line, they are not trying to do
anything different than what they have already got, other than make it more attractive.
Centers: Right, and what I'd like to ask staff, if -- you know, my proposal for the
applicant, if we all agreed, that is, to allow them the 1,125 square feet, make them hook
up to sewer, whatever they have to do. Do they have to apply for a variance when they
go to City Council? I think that would cover it, wouldn't it? They would have to.
Hood: Members of the Commission, Craig Hood. That's what this kind of is for, is for
that nonconforming use to not hook up, so this will go on to the City Council.
Centers: Well, I'm aware of that.
Hood: Yes.
Centers: But will they have to apply for a variance to reduce the square footage of the
home in the R-4 zone?
Powell: What you're acting on tonight is the extension of a nonconforming use, so the
nonconforming use is not only the fact that they are on septic, but also that their house
-- their current house doesn't meet minimum standards.
Centers: Okay. So --
Powell: So, you're okay.
Centers: Okay. All right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 16 of 114
Borup: And my thought was that it would be easier just to have the 1,400 feet and not
have to worry about noncompliance with that aspect the zoning ordinance.
Rohm: How many bedrooms are there in the existing home?
Sheffield: Two.
Zaremba: The answer was two.
Rohm: A 1,400 square foot home with two bedrooms to get around the Central District
Health requirement that they --
Borup: Yes. That's not reasonable, is it?
Rohm: Yes. That's what my point is, is a 1,400 square foot home with two bedrooms
doesn't seem to make much sense either.
Zaremba: Well, the applicant offered to put a two-year deadline on the septic system.
Would that help with the Central District Health variance?
Reno: Mike Reno, Central District Health. Commissioner, I don't know how the
variance would come out. It would go to a committee after public notification and the
variance committee would evaluate what Mr. Sheffield's proposing and I can't say
whether they would -- they would allow a variance when sanitary restrictions were lifted
for city water, city sewer only or not. I can't speak for the variance committee.
Rohm: Can't seem to get around this one.
Borup: Well, that's something that -- we are not going to be able to settle tonight with
Central District --
Zaremba: But we continued it until that process had run its course.
Borup: Well, we can still -- we can still move it on. I mean they have still got to jump
through that hurdle --
Zaremba: Before it gets to City Council.
Borup: -- separately.
Centers: Well, I think that -- I don't think that is -- should be even considered, because
we heard Mr. Freckleton state that there is no definite time frame and we may be just
prolonging the agony, you know, and have to address it two years from now and hook
up at that time, so -- because there is no definite date.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 17 of 114
Zaremba: So, your proposal is to require the hook up and allow the smaller size?
Centers: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: Give and take.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: It's going to be a lot nicer looking than what they have got now and they are
going to be hooked up to sewer.
Zaremba: I could live with that.
Centers: And they are nonconforming now anyway.
Borup: And, apparently -- how many -- how many notices were sent out? I mean one
of the reasons City Council had to come back here was so there would be adequate
notice to the neighbors. There may not be any within the noticing area. I mean they
still got -- they are still not in compliance with their own covenants.
Zaremba: Yes. The question would be how built out is Observation Point and I'm not
familiar with that, so there may not be anybody close enough to respond, but, clearly,
the developer has --
Centers: You want to come up to the microphone?
Borup: Did you get notification?
Zaremba: I was going to wait until he's at the mike to ask him that.
Borup: Yes.
Logue: We are at 574 Observation --
Zaremba: Would you give your name first, if you would, please?
Logue: Bert Logue.
Borup: And was that your interest here, because of this project or are you here for
something else?
Logue: We have this and, then, also there is -- there is, apparently, another subdivision
that's --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 18 of 114
Borup: Okay. Yes.
Logue: -- that's going to be going in that they are asking for a zoning change, so -- our
concern being --
Zaremba: Okay. You're within 300 feet and did not get a notice?
Logue: Well, I believe I am.
Borup: Well -- but you live in this subdivision, though?
Logue: Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Logue: As you go into the entrance there, I'm right on the corner there where you see
the bend it road on Observation --
Borup: How long have you lived there?
Logue: Since February.
Borup: Okay. So, your -- what would be your perspective on this? What would you like
to see happen next?
Logue: So, you know, I just -- it's an eye sore right now, so anything is going to be an
improvement, but I would like see that -- you know, that to some degree the covenants
are, you know, upheld, even through, you know, that's kind of outside of the subdivision,
you know, as far as size and -- you know.
Borup: But would that be a big concern to you, whether it is 1,100 feet or 1,400 feet, if
the whole place was landscaped and you had a park-like setting?
Logue: I don't think I'd like to see anything under, really, probably, 1,500 square feet.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions, any Commissioners? Thank you.
Logue: Okay.
Stricklin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ron Stricklin, I'm a
future homeowner in Observation Point, so I didn't get a notice, don't have a mailbox
yet. I don't know all of the details on this situation, it kind of came as short notice, but I
do believe that the residence in question is a bit of an eye sore and for future property
value I would like to see something done to that and your decision tonight will facilitate
that occurring and I would have more comments, possibly, after learning more about
what's going on, but just from what I have heard, I would urge some action be taken.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 19 of 114
Zaremba: Would it concern you if it were smaller than your house?
Stricklin: I believe I do have some concern there, but I -- not knowing the history or the
technicalities involved, I would not like to comment on that. I'd rather be informed.
Zaremba: Given your choice, you'd like to have a more attractive house there than
what is there now?
Stricklin: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: And maybe we can clarify that a little bit. When this subdivision came in, they
originally -- their intention was they wanted just to leave this section separate, but
because it's all under the same ownership, it had to be annexed in.
Stricklin: Okay.
Borup: But they did not develop it and the house that was there was what was there for
however many years.
Stricklin: It's --
Borup: So, it sounds like if they get turned down, that's what's going to stay. They are
proposing that they'd like to go in and tear that down and put a new home on there,
even though it's smaller than what the rest of the subdivision is, so that probably might
be the choices. I don't know.
Stricklin: I can understand that. I don't know the full impact of the landscaping that's
proposed. I would want to find out more about that before I really commit to saying
anything, other than visually it's not -- I have seen a lot better.
Borup: What's there now you mean?
Stricklin: Yes.
Borup: Yes. I think everyone recognizes that.
Stricklin: So, all I can urge at this point is just I hope arrangement can be made or a
variance can be issued to at least move something forward to make it happen.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Stricklin: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 20 of 114
Zaremba: Let me ask staff. If we required the sewer hookup, left it the 1,125 square
feet, required the garage to be orientable -- or approachable from a future connection,
the landscape buffer along the Victory side they need to leave space for that to be 30
feet -- or is it 40 feet?
Borup: Twenty.
Zaremba: Twenty? Plus --
Borup: Twenty, plus future right of way; would that be correct? They need to allow for
the future right of way of Victory, plus 20 feet.
Zaremba: Okay, and then, plus at five foot side setback.
Borup: Right.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Yes. The setbacks would need to stay the same.
Zaremba: If they can comply with all of that, are there any other issues?
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't believe staff would have any
problems with that. You may just want to clarify with the applicant, though -- and maybe
verify with public works -- I think that's a costly expense and I understand that he's
aware of that, but that sounds -- as far as staff is concerned, that sounds reasonable. I
think we would be happy with that.
Centers: Did staff have any landscape requirements in their report or was that ever
addressed? I didn't think it was.
Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, that's what I was going to get to, that
the staff report right now is a recommendation for denial with no conditions of approval.
At this point the way you seem to be headed -- not supposing that I'm going to tell you
which way you're voting. It would seem that you have two options. One is to either
continued it, so that the staff can do a different recommendation for you and come up
with conditions of approval or if in your motions you would like to be very specific about
what conditions you would like to see and direct staff to write recommendation -- or
findings for approval prior to the City Council. We can do it that way, so you have a
couple different options.
Zaremba: My personal preference on that would be to give it a short duration
continuance and have applicant work with staff to solve as many things as they can and
have as few left as conditions as possible. The applicant seems pretty willing to --
Borup: So, how many things are there to solve? I don't see --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 21 of 114
Centers: Yes.
Borup: I mean as far as landscaping, I think we just need -- I mean should be the same
as the rest of the subdivision, you know, the landscaping buffer.
Centers: Right. What we would be asking staff to do would be just that, in my opinion,
because he wants to build a house on a piece of land that he owns, then, let's let him
build it. I think the neighbors want him to build it and rather than continue it, let's move
it forward. That's my opinion.
Zaremba: No problem. The hearing is still open.
Borup: Yes. It's still open.
Smith: My name is Lori Smith, I am currently a homeowner with a home under
construction in Observation Point, and we also believe that this is somewhat of an
eyesore as it currently stands. However, it is also a large piece of property that is part
of the subdivision and the subdivision itself, with its covenants, has far greater
requirements for the homeowners as they stand, with square footage and landscaping,
and it would be of significant concern to us, as homeowners, to have a small property --
building placed on a large property with no requirements or -- requirements for
landscaping and also with the stated purpose of -- possibly of a caretaker's residence
where you have a 1.8 property -- acre property where you could conceivably someone,
you know, parking trucks and --
Borup: But it's presently used as a caretaker's house, so the use would stay the same.
Smith: Yes, and it's a large -- it's a large of piece property, but, you know, we have a lot
of smaller properties within that -- obviously smaller properties within the subdivision
that have far greater requirements for square footage and landscaping and -- whereas
we would like to see the quality of this property improved, to have it okay to be at a
much smaller -- significantly smaller square footage and no requirements for
landscaping, just an approval that says, oh, we will landscape it and make it look nice
and like a park, but no requirements within that use permit would be a concern to the
rest of the homeowners there, who, you know, have paid a significant amount of money
to live there and this is part of the subdivision and should be required to meet some of
the standards of the subdivision as such. I mean we'd like to see it improved, but we
don't want to see it improved as a very small building on a large piece of property that
is, then, going to be used as a caretaker's facility that may be parking a lot of work
vehicles and isn't subject to at least some defined landscaping limitations that keep it an
improved property that is in -- that goes well with the rest of the subdivision, because,
you know, it is part of the subdivision and if he -- if he developed it knowing it was part
of the subdivision -- part of the subdivision, then, they should be required to at least
meet some of the standards.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 22 of 114
Borup: Well, he developed it, because he was -- I mean it was -- it's part of the
subdivision, because it was forced on him.
Smith: Yes, but it --
Borup: I mean it had the canal -- it has the canal separation and their original intention
was that it would not be part of the subdivision.
Smith: But it is.
Borup: But it is. Yes.
Smith: It is.
Centers: Did you think it was when you bought your home? Be honest now.
Smith: We saw the plat map before that.
Centers: What did you think of the property as it is? They don't have to do anything
with it. They can leave it as is.
Smith: Well -- and we would like to see it improved, we just would like to see enough
restrictions on the approval, not just, okay, fine, we will let you -- we will make you hook
to the sewer, but you can build a nice tiny property there and we have no restrictions
on --
Centers: Ma'am? Ma'am, a motion hasn't been made yet.
Smith: Well -- but that's been a discussion and I simply want to say that we would, as
homeowners, hesitate to see -- be approving of a situation where we are approving a
smaller square footage on a property that is part of our subdivision and then, doesn't
have any restrictions that at least -- or guidelines that require them to adequately
landscape it in order to be in keeping with the rest of the subdivision, which is not
considered a low end subdivision.
Borup: Do you have an architectural approval committee for the subdivision?
Smith: Yes.
Borup: Okay. That's probably -- that's probably the point -- or place where that would
be addressed.
Smith: And I believe, you know, the owners are on the -- are the architectural
committee.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 23 of 114
Zaremba: Can I ask you a question before you go?
Smith: Sure.
Zaremba: I'm just looking through my paperwork. I'm sorry for rustling it around here.
I'm not finding quickly an affidavit that the property was posted, but I think those of you
that have spoken have come here for a different issue and just stumbled onto this one.
Smith: Well, it's true we didn't know that this was --
Zaremba: Okay. I see a sign on the property. There has been some notice. Okay.
Sorry. That answers my question.
Borup: Do you have something new? You need to come up to the microphone if you
do.
Logue: Just wanted to make a clarification.
Borup: You need to state your name again, sir.
Logue: Bert Logue. That house that's going up right there is right next to our property
and I think that the owners of the development have an interest in improving that
property, because those homes that are high level homes are facing that property and
it's going to affect the lot sales. I think they have a genuine interest. Now, when we
originally talked to them, we were led to believe -- because we asked them what was
going to happen to that piece of property, we knew it was part of the subdivision, and
we were told, you know, we don't really know yet. We are thinking about maybe a
home, we are thinking maybe office, so we know that their intent was to develop one
way or another.
Centers: Well, they were honest with you, though.
Logue: Right.
Centers: They made no promises.
Logue: And the only thing that I think, as a homeowner and buying the property from
the developer, investing -- you know, it's my home there, and they led us down the right
path, I don't think there was anything, you know, that isn't intentional here, but I do have
an objection with the 1,100 square feet. I think that they need to kind of meet us part
way there, you know, to bump the square footage up. I think it's unreasonable for us to
maybe say the way the canal divides the subdivision, that there is enough of a
separation there, that if they are held to, you know, landscaping within the covenants
and if they are required to build a little bit bigger home, which is apparently going to be
for the caretaker and I think it -- that would probably meet my interest, anyway, and, you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 24 of 114
know, I'm in a home that looks at it everyday, I'm not on the back side or up on the
corner, you know, it's right off my porch, so that's how I feel about it and I just thought,
you know, you guys need to know that before you made your decision.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. I think maybe a little more discussion and I'd like to maybe have Mr.
Sheffield come back up, if that's okay.
Centers: Yes. Yes. That's what I was going to say.
Borup: I think maybe just a couple -- just, you know, a little bit of discussion first, if
that's all right. Unless everyone -- if anyone have a question for him right off? I'm
thinking maybe some of the items for discussion would be the size and landscaping
plan. That's kind of really, in my mind, what it's down to. Well, plus the sewer hookup,
whether it's now or when service is available. Are those the issues? Thoughts from any
of the Commissioners?
Centers: Well, you already have my thoughts and I think the landscaping should be
adhered to and I'm reading a letter from Sheffield. He states: New landscaping will be
placed on the site to enhance the area and I think we could add to that: Comparable to
adjoining subdivision.
Borup: Well, that's the street buffer.
Centers: Yes, and how -- I guess we could get help from staff on the wording in
compliance with --
Zaremba: Well, he can't complete the buffer, because he has a driveway there. I mean
that's his access to Victory until something else happens that he can go west.
Borup: Right, and if it's -- if it's a side entry garage, they are going to need to have a --
you know, an L-shaped driveway coming in or something. The entrance would just
move on down is all it would do and it would have to be blocked out for the driveway,
but -- I mean that's -- that's just a -- that's just a design thing. I don't think that's a big --
big problem. I'm -- well, let me -- Mr. Sheffield, you want to come on up. Let me ask
some questions and, then, maybe the other Commissioners may have some for you. It
sounds like you're okay with going ahead -- as far as you understand it, the developer
would be okay with going ahead and completing the landscaping buffer as the rest of
the subdivision, along the -- along the same standards as --
Sheffield: We didn't specifically talk about the buffer area, we just talked about
landscaping in the area, but we didn't talk about the berm and a buffer. I can talk to the
owners about that. I'm not positive on that one.
Borup: Okay, and, then, you were talking about landscaping the entire parcel, then.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 25 of 114
Sheffield: Right. Well, when I'm saying landscaping, I'm saying green up the field.
Borup: Right. Right.
Sheffield: In other words, it will be some grasses that don't need a lot of care, you
know, something we could plant in there, keep it green, get some irrigation on it, so we
don't have the dry cheat grass that's on it now.
Borup: Now, is it anticipated that there would not be any more machinery or other items
on the property, any more than what there is now?
Sheffield: No. None.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, then, maybe it would be beneficial for you to come back,
because your comment earlier -- I'd have to talk to the owner on that buffer -- if we
made an approval like that, you'd still have to talk to the owner, so what do you think,
would you want to come back at our next available hearing, knowing the way we are
leaning and what you could give us after you have talked to the owner and go back to
staff or something like that? What do you think?
Sheffield: I think he's probably very amicable. He would listen to anything the
Commission had to say to him on this.
Centers: So, if we required the buffer similar to a subdivision requirement and that type
of thing, you -- you would live with it or you feel he would?
Sheffield: You know I really do need to ask him about that first. That would be quite an
expense incurred on top of that, that he and I have not discussed, to haul in that much
to bring the buffer up that large.
Centers: Of course, any requirements we make -- do they go to -- it goes to City
Council. Any requirements we make, then, maybe it would be advisable for the owner
to be there if he wants to appeal it.
Sheffield: Okay.
Centers: Right?
Zaremba: Well, let me ask staff. This is part of another subdivision. Isn't it usually the
requirement that landscaping around the perimeter be completed no matter what?
Hood: Members of the Commission, I was not around when this was approved.
However, my understanding is that this kind of was looked at as a nonbuild piece, if you
will, because there was this restriction on this lot. You can't build anything, you can't
pull building permits, and therefore, you don't have to landscape it like the rest of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 26 of 114
subdivision, because nothing is going to be happening here. That landscape buffer was
platted, as you can see, and right of way was dedicated with the plat, but as far as
improvements on the peripheral of the whole subdivision, they weren't done on this lot
and that was the reasoning for that.
Borup: Well, we could still -- we could still move it on.
Centers: Yes. That's --
Borup: A statement just -- you know, that the street buffer would be in compliance with
-- and substantially the same as the rest of the subdivision to the east, that the whole
property would be greened up. I don't know if a landscaping plan would be required for
that or just saying that the entire property would be greened up is sufficient and, then,
beyond that would be whether -- what we say on the sewer, whether requiring it now or
-- or by my -- my tendency would be to go towards compliance with the R-4 zone, as far
as the square footage and allow the sewer to be hooked up when it's available, but it
would be up to the Commission.
Rohm: Well, I don't think Central Health will go with that.
Borup: Well, then, that's another hoop that they are going to have to jump through and
so that will be a mute point, but --
Centers: Well, they would have to go back to Central District.
Zaremba: They can't get the permit without the Health District's approval right?
Borup: Building Permit.
Zaremba: The Building Permit.
Borup: Right. I don't think that's our job tonight is to worry about that. I mean to work
through getting a permit, is it?
Centers: That's a good point.
Rohm: Well, if we have a limitation --
Borup: And maybe it needs to be an either/or. I mean maybe that's their other option is
to hook up to the sewer, but -- and that's fine, too, if that's the only choice they have, but
--
Centers: Well, yes, if you can't get the permit, then, he may have to hook up to the
sewer and say I give up.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 27 of 114
Centers: Uncle.
Borup: Now, as far as part of what we are trying to do, I mean we have the opportunity
for a parcel to have some esthetic improvement here. Even though it is part of the
subdivision, it's not much different than a subdivision that's adjoining another piece
that's under separate ownership. You have that all the time around town where you
have an old -- you know, an old home that's right next to a subdivision that is owned by
somebody else and I've never really seen that that's a big effect on property values, it's
--
Centers: Well -- and what I was pleased to hear was one of the individuals state that he
was not led to believe anything on that and I was really pleased to hear that, that they
didn't make any promises on this, we don't know what we are going to do here, so that
was music to ears. I like that thought, to make them do 1,400 feet and approve it as is
with the septic tank and in order to get a permit you got to battle with the Central District
Health and, then, do the landscaping per the --
Borup: That way I don't think we are really out of compliance with -- other than the --
well, would we be out of compliance with any of our city ordinances, then, with a motion
along that line?
Hood: I believe the only thing that -- it's just the violation of the plat notes. I mean
that's pretty much --
Borup: Right.
Hood: But as far as city ordinances I believe that would -- it sounds like you would be
pretty close to in compliance.
Borup: The plats notes on the square footage and nonbuildable.
Hood: Exactly.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: I suspect you'd have to hook up the sewer to get that Building Permit, but, as
you say, that's not our --
Borup: And part of it – no, and part of it's still the intent of that -- of that plat note and
that was this piece wouldn't be developed without the sewer system. If it would have
been brought up at the time, well, what if we want to remodel that home or replace it, I
think the thing would have been different but that was never mentioned.
Centers: I'd like to move we close the Public Hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 28 of 114
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: I'll make a stab at that motion, if we have some support. Mr. Chairman, I
would recommend approval -- on our agenda it's shown as Item 11, which is the Public
Hearing for CUP 03-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish an existing
home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretakers on Lot 2, Block 2,
of Observation Point Sub in an R-4 zone by RF Construction, subject to the home being
a minimum 1,400 square feet, subject to the applicant performing all landscaping and
buffering per subdivision ordinance and similar to the adjoining subdivision and
greening up the remaining acreage of the property, I think it's one point something
acres, and the approval would be with the existing septic tank, with the applicant
knowing that a building permit may not be issued until they get that resolved with
Central District Health. End of motion
Zaremba: I would only suggest adding the requirement that he show the garage is
accessible from the west
Centers: I would include that in the motion.
Zaremba: And I will second your motion.
Borup: Motion and second --
Powell: Mr. Chairman, does that include direction for staff to write recommendations for
approval and findings?
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Yes. With those conditions. Is there any other conditions that staff feels should
have been included in that? Okay.
Rohm: Before we vote on that, I just have a question about -- the CC&R’s of the
subdivision are not in question as part of this motion; is that correct?
Borup: That's correct.
Rohm: So, if, in fact, they still have that hurdle as well internal to the subdivision, so
even if we vote in to approve the 1,400 based on the Conditional Use Permit, they still
have to get it passed the architectural committee within the subdivision; is that correct?
Borup: However that -- I mean that's a separate issue.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 29 of 114
Rohm: That's a separate issue. I think just for some people in the audience that don't
attend these things often, they should know that this Conditional Use Permit does not
necessarily override any of their --
Borup: Definitely not.
Rohm: -- restrictive covenants.
Borup: Right. Right. It definitely does not. The city does not get involved with
CC&R’s.
Rohm: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that for you folks that may not attend.
Zaremba: We have listed the requirement that would make it comply with the
ordinances and the city does not enforce CC&R’s.
Rohm: Right. Right. I just thought that that was important to get that out.
Borup: But I definitely feel a lot more comfortable that we are complying with the
ordinances and not having to do exceptions there, too. Okay. We had a motion.
Second. Discussion. Any further discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O zone for Idaho
Central Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union – east of South
Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road:
Borup: Okay. Item Number 7, Public Hearing CUP 03-046 -- and thank you,
everybody, that testified. Back to CUP 03-046, request for a Conditional Use Permit for
a bank branch facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O for Idaho Central Credit Union by
Idaho Central Credit Union. I'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start
with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for a bank with
four drive-thru lanes. The application is here as a Conditional Use Permit, because of
the drive-thru. The property is located on Overland Road, just to the north of the new
high school and just east of Locust Grove Road. It's in Resolution Business Park. Let's
see, and I will go ahead and show you the site plan. Let's see, a couple things to note
here. The applicant wants to later subdivide this property, so you may -- I noted in my
staff report you may want to condition them to share an access easement on the
southern driveway and the parking -- the parking aisle -- this is actually shown on the
site plan. The parking aisle to the west will stub to the proposed new lot on the -- I
guess it's the western side of the subdivision. If you -- you may want to go ahead -- the
applicant may address this this evening, but they may want to go ahead and add that as
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 30 of 114
a condition of approval, so you can make sure that those things happen when they do
come back and subdivide this lot and staff is recommending approval of this application.
Are there any questions of staff?
Borup: Could you maybe clarify how that -- the wording on that.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. Let me go to the page in the staff report where I wrote it. Let's see.
If you go to Page 4, special considerations, that was where I noted that if they are
planning to go ahead and subdivide this, they should make sure these things happen.
You could have one condition that the parking aisle on the west side -- on the west side
of the subject property must stub to the proposed new lot and, then, a second condition
of approval would be a shared access easement on the south driveway must be
established.
Zaremba: Are you thinking the stub would be in the lower area down here right?
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Then, why didn't you just make that a condition of approval to start with?
Kirkpatrick: It's up to you.
Borup: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: And my recommendation would be that those were conditions.
Borup: All right.
Zaremba: I have one question, if I may. This is in ACHD's report on their Page 8,
special recommendation to the City of Meridian, Paragraph 3, ACHD's Park and Ride
Division staff has indicated the need for a park and ride location at the application's site.
The district requests that applicant grant the district an easement for a 10 to 12 space
park and ride area at this site. Commuteride staff will contact the applicant to
coordinate blah, blah, blah. My question is if they give up 12 spaces to a park and ride,
will they still comply with our parking ordinances?
Kirkpatrick: Actually, Idaho Central Credit Union or the developer owns -- owns this
entire lot in Resolution Subdivision, so they currently have more than enough property -
- I mean I suppose it would depend on what the second use would be that would go in
on the property, but they currently have more than enough parking for the bank and I
want the applicant to address that, the ACHD request, and how they would deal with
that.
Borup: Does that conclude?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 31 of 114
Kirkpatrick: That concludes staff's --
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Christensen: My name is Steve Christensen with Lombard Conrad Architects. Mr.
Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have reviewed the special considerations
and conditions of approval with the owner, Idaho Central Credit Union, for the subject
project and the owner has agreed on the conditions of approval as so stated, including
the stub out of the future access into the property to the west and also the shared
access on that south drive. As far as the comment is concerned on the ACHD, it's our
understanding that that ACHD Comment Number 3 is pertaining to the whole resolution
business park, not just at the Idaho Central Credit Union property, so --
Borup: Have they contacted you? Have they contacted you?
Christensen: ACHD?
Borup: Yes.
Christensen: They have just informed -- they have just forwarded their report to us.
Borup: That was it?
Christensen: Yes for him information, basically.
Borup: Okay. That's not the way I read the letter, so they haven't done what they said
would like to, then.
Christensen: No, they have not contacted me personally.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Centers: No. He agrees with everything. That's the kind of guy I like.
Borup: Yes.
Christensen: We agree with everything, with the exception of this ACHD comment, so -
- I don't think it -- I don't believe it's the intent that all these park and share ride parking
spaces be located as part of Idaho Central Credit Union's property, so --
Borup: But if they haven't contacted -- my question would be is if they have contacted
the developer of the whole project and discussed the location with him, but it doesn't
sound like they have followed through on contacting very well.
Christensen: They may have contacted the developer of Resolution Business Park.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 32 of 114
Borup: Right.
Christensen: But they have not necessarily contacted Idaho Central Credit Union.
Borup: Yes. It seems like that's who they need to contact.
Zaremba: I would think so.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Christensen: Great. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this application?
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, regarding that ACHD requirement,
we could condition this --
Borup: Well, it wasn't a requirement is how I read it, it was a recommendation.
Kirkpatrick: It's a recommendation. We could require a clarification from ACHD prior to
Council, either they grant them the -- I guess this would be an easement for the 10 to
12 spaces or they have to provide a letter clarifying this, but either way they have to
provide it for the next hearing.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Centers: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: I don't want to belabor the park and ride, but there is one at Eagle Road and
Overland. There is one at -- behind Gold's Gym and those parking spaces are never
full and -- so end of speech. Let's move on.
Borup: Oh, that's right. I forgot about the one on Eagle. There is already one right
there.
Centers: Yes. Yes. Drive by it every day.
Borup: So, they want one every half mile?
Centers: Yes. Right. Where you can park your bicycle.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 33 of 114
Borup: Okay. I think that's a good point. I don't know if every half mile was in -- is that
their plan?
Centers: If it is, it's a bad plan. I don't know mind saying that publicly.
Borup: Okay. The meeting is -- or the hearing is closed. Do we have a motion?
Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman I will just move right on here. Item 7 on our agenda, I
would like to recommend approval for CUP 03-046, it's a request for a Conditional Use
Permit for a branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O zone for Idaho Central
Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union. At the east side of South Locust Grove
Road and south of East Overland Road, including all staff comments from their memo
dated October 13th
and our hearing date today, October 16th
. In addition, as the
applicant has agreed, additional requirements would be parking out on the west side of
the subject property will stub to the proposed new lot. Also a shared access agreement
on the south drive shall be supplied. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 03-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 17.5
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision
by Tuscany Development, Inc. – north of East Victory Road and east of
South Meridian Road:
Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 03-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52
building lots and 8 other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. –
north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road:
Borup: Okay. The next item is Items Number 8 and 9 and I'm assuming that's why we
have a few of the people here tonight. Public Hearing AZ 03-024 and Public Hearing
PP 03-328. Both of these are for the Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany
Development. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for the
annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres. It's currently located in the county and zoned
RUT, Rural Urban Transition. They are proposing a rezone to R-8. There is also an
application for a preliminary plat for 52 building lots. The property is located on Victory
Road west of Locust Grove Road. It's directly to the east of Observation Point
Subdivision and to the west of Kachina Estates, which is a county subdivision. The lots
range is size from 7,824 square feet to 21,357 square feet. I'll go ahead and show you
the plat. The applicant is proposing 5.5 percent of the subdivision to be devoted to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 34 of 114
open space. Because this is a straight Preliminary Plat, rather than a Conditional Use
Permit and Planned Development, they are only required to meet the five percent open
space requirement. The Comp Plan designates this property as medium density and
the R-8 zoning designation that they are asking for does comply with the
Comprehensive Plan. I'll go through a couple of the issues with the subdivision. Block
2 of the subdivision, which is the long block on eastern side of the subdivision, exceeds
the maximum block length of 1,000 feet. Staff is recommending that the applicant be
required to provide a stub road to the east and to the second issue, ACHD has
requested the applicant move Trinidad Road, which is the entrance road off of Victory.
The applicant needs to address how open space is going to be impacted by that road
shifting and how -- and they also need to submit new plans showing that. We don't
have a copy of the plan showing how that will change and staff recommends approval
of the subdivision. We feel it meets the Comprehensive Plan and are there any
questions of staff?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have a question of staff. The stub street that you
want the applicant to put in to the east is that adjacent to the RUT zone -- five-acre
parcels are they? Are you saying stubbed to the five-acre parcels?
Kirkpatrick: Let's see. I think in my staff report I described where a couple places we'd
like for it to stub.
Zaremba: Page 6 Paragraph 1. That was a question I had also.
Kirkpatrick: You can see Kachina Estates there on the east side of the subject property.
Basically, we -- we are assuming at some point that there is at least the potential for
Kachina Estates to redevelop.
Centers: You want to stub about in here?
Kirkpatrick: Right. I think you would want to stub --
Centers: Whatever. Are these five-acre parcels?
Kirkpatrick: Those -- yes. It's an RUT five-acre subdivision.
Centers: I don't think those will ever be developed. I think you're going to have to have
those four homeowners get together and say we will sell our 20 acres to Mr. Developer
but that's neither here nor there. What is the minimum lot size for R-4? Refresh my
memory. I mean you have it quicker than I can look it up.
Borup: Eight thousand. Eight thousand.
Centers: And these lots sizes were 7,500 to 17?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 35 of 114
Kirkpatrick: They are requesting R-8. Their lot sizes range from 7,824, the smallest
size, to 21,000.
Centers: Right. Which -- and in the staff report I don't -- I can't tell you which page -- or
maybe I read it where the applicant was -- why did he go R-8? Maybe the applicant
needs to address that. Why did he apply for R-8 when he meets the R-4 requirements
on the minimum lot size? Almost.
Borup: Yes. He has -- he could do it by losing one lot.
Centers: Yes. The applicant is going to address that. He's shaking his head and on
page two of the report, isn't -- surrounding property, isn't it adjacent to Meridian Greens?
For the record, I'd like that inserted up there at the top.
Borup: Just right up there, Jerry.
Centers: Yes. I know where Meridian Greens is.
Kirkpatrick: Meridian Greens is that subdivision to the north. The north and to the west.
Centers: Yes. It happens to be the oldest, most prominent subdivision in the City of
Meridian.
Kirkpatrick: Okay. Duly noted.
Centers: And I can't believe it was overlooked. Were they notified?
Kirkpatrick: Everyone within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subdivision would have
been notified.
Centers: Was there a community meeting? Okay. That's all I have for right now. Thank
you.
Borup: Anything else, Wendy?
Kirkpatrick: No, there is not.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is Steve
Arnold I'm with Briggs Engineering. Address is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise,
Idaho. 83705. I'm here tonight representing Tuscany Development on the subject
subdivision that we have before you tonight. Some of the questions that Commissioner
Centers brought up I will address further on in my presentation, but I will go briefly
through the site and some of the specifics of what we are doing there and, hopefully, it
that answer some of the questions. We are proposing 52 building lots on 17.5 acres.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 36 of 114
There are eight common lots. Our density is .97 units per -- dwelling units per acre.
The Comp Plan does call for quite a bit higher than that. The .97 units per acre are
consistent with the R-4 zoning. Average lot size here is 9,670 square feet. We are
proposing the required buffer along Victory and, in addition, we are adding to that
landscaping with -- a nice landscape approach into the sub to try to create something
nicely. Now, as you know, we are moving the entrance. We will comply with ACHD's
requirement to move that in a safe location. Ironically, I used to work with ACHD, I used
to place these entrances and I assumed that this was a safe location. I will be out there
investigating where they are asking us to move it, just to make sure that is safe, but we
will comply with all of ACHD's requirements for the location of that entrance. We are
installing fencing along Victory Road. The fence is proposed to be a five-foot high vinyl
fence on top of a three-foot high berm. We are proposing the same fence along the
east boundary of the subdivision. Currently, along the west boundary of the site we --
there is already a vinyl fence. At the north property line we are going to be proposing a
wrought iron fence. Again, that will be five foot. We are providing pressure irrigation as
required by the city. It will be designed to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District standards.
Sewer is currently existing -- let me get the light pen here. The sewer has been
constructed from this point through the subdivision down this road and down out to
Victory Road here. That was constructed earlier I believe this year. That sewer was
provided to Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. This design has basically been predicated on
that sewer construction, so this -- we did meet with the Public Works Department.
There was a preliminary layout presented to them to show how the subject subdivision
could be laid out based on the sewer installation. We are providing -- or proposing
reduced street sections here in this cul-de-sac, this cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac up
here to the north. Those will be 29-foot street sections within 42 feet of right of way.
There are two existing structures located, oh, approximately in this location and down
here. Those are eyesores. They are proposed to be removed, along with all the
weeds. The request in response to Commissioner Centers' comment for the R-8 zone
is for dimensional standards only.
Centers: Minimum house size. I was just writing that down right?
Arnold: Not minimum -- not minimum house size. It's for dimensional --
Centers: It will allow you to go to the minimum house size.
Arnold: It would allow a minimum house size, less -- I believe it's 1,301.
Centers: Yes. I just wanted to see if you knew. You do, and you do.
Arnold: Did I pass that test?
Centers: Yes. You did.
Arnold: Thanks.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 37 of 114
Centers: But I thought that might be it, so you can go to the minimum.
Arnold: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, no, that's clearly not the case and
I'm -- I will present to you tonight the design, the layoff, and how it relates to your Comp
Plan and the planning principles. I do have the developer -- and employee of the
developer is here tonight to talk to you about the proposed value of the homes, the
proposed house square footage, but we are not doing the R -- and I will go on record
tonight, we are not doing the R-8 zone for the 1,301 square foot house size.
Centers: But it would allow you to and --
Arnold: I will let him address that, but --
Centers: Okay. I will pose that for him.
Arnold: Pose that for him, please.
Centers: Thank you.
Arnold: But I did pass my test.
Centers: Yes. You always do, Mr. Arnold.
Arnold: Thank you. Just to give you a brief project history, we did have a precon with
the staff. We showed the proposed development. We believe we have made this
comply with some of their requests. That was on August 14th
. August 15th
we
submitted the application and as questioned earlier, we did hold a Public Hearing. I
personally notified properties within a 300 notice. The Public Hearing was held at the
Meridian Fire Department. It was last night. We had five people show up no one from
Meridian Greens. We had a representative over here for -- oh, it's not -- it's --
Centers: Observation Point?
Arnold: Observation Point, but 41 LLT or something, that company that he represents.
We had the property owners -- the five-acre subdivision from here this lot owner. This
property owner was absent. However, I do have a letter that was written and I hope the
property owner -- the other property owners here to attest, but basically, there is letters
written about the subdivision. They weren't signed, but they were delivered to me. I
don't know if they made it into the city's packets, but I will hand them out real quick right
now if I may.
Centers: Well, excuse me, they are from different people and they are not signed?
Arnold: I hope -- that is correct.
Centers: You hope that is correct or it is correct?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 38 of 114
Arnold: No. It is correct and I hope that someone's here tonight that will attest to this
being sent, but I was supposed to deliver that to the Commission tonight at their
request.
Centers: Let me ask you, Mr. Arnold. You know I'm not bashful.
Arnold: Good.
Centers: Did you send a notice to all these people adjacent to your property line?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, within 300 feet, the same mailing notice
that the city uses, I used to notice all the property owners.
Centers: Well, those are within 10 feet.
Arnold: Correct. Yes.
Centers: So, your answer is, yes, all of these people got noticed.
Arnold: My answer is, yes, all those people got it.
Centers: Okay.
Zaremba: Well, are all those properties developed? Is there somebody on each of
those properties?
Arnold: I can speak -- I know there is someone here at this -- there is building going on
here, there is building going on here, and, then, my memory fades. There is an existing
house --
Borup: But he said the developer came also.
Arnold: The developer's representative for Observation Point did attend the meeting.
Let me go into some of the issues that were brought to you tonight and I will be brief on
that. One of the first ones was block length. I measured between Trinidad Drive here
and this first intersection here basically less than 1,000 feet. It was approximately
1,000 feet. The stub street issue and the reason for providing the stub to mitigate block
length, I don't -- it shouldn't be an issue. We did meet with the property owner here and
the property owner located here -- we will provide a stub street, if that -- we met with
them, they want the stub street, we will do it.
Borup: You say they do or if they do.
Arnold: They do. They wanted it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 39 of 114
Borup: Oh, they do want it.
Arnold: We will provide it. It was not something that was required by ACHD, but you
know, that's what these neighborhood meetings are all about, we met, they wanted it,
and so we will give it to them. There was no opposition about that. Gravity irrigation,
that was an issue that we brought up with the neighbor -- at the neighborhood meeting.
I'm here tonight to go on public record to reiterate basically what we promised to them.
One of the issues was currently these properties are draining towards a gravity
irrigation ditch along our eastern boundary. We committed to them -- and I'm here
tonight to commit to you and go on record that we are going to work with them, we are
going to pick up their tail water, essentially, we will pick it up in a pipe and channel it up
here to the Ten Mile Creek. Just to confirm to our neighbors that we met with last night
that is something that we intend to commit to. One other issue about gravity irrigation.
You do have a condition in here, I believe it's Condition 11 it speaks about tiling all
ditches. The Ten Mile Creek, it's a fairly substantial irrigation facility in Tuscany Village
and other developments that was allowed to remain open. I know it's a generic
statement, but that is something that we don't -- we are asking that it not be required to
be tiled.
Borup: Is that open in Meridian Greens?
Arnold: It is open in Meridian Greens. It is open in Tuscany Village, which was just
more recently approved this year.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I can just speak to that issue. Ten Mile Creek is classified
as a natural waterway and our ordinance specifically talks about natural waterways
being exclusive.
Borup: So, it's automatically included.
Zaremba: I thought it wasn't required on that, so --
Arnold: Another issue. The entrance location, we will -- we are going to work with
ACHD. I -- this is something that I should know and I will make sure that we coordinate
with them. We will get that in safe location. We did have a conversation with the
property owner of Mr. Campbell here to the south. His biggest concern is that we don't
line it up with his house, so we are committed to work with that property owner, so that it
doesn't line up, he doesn't have headlights, and it's not a nuisance to him. We are -- we
are willing to relocate this entrance. My bad -- I thought I was safe there, but I need to
go relocate that.
Zaremba: I don't remember seeing it, but what was their issue, is it the distance from
other entrances to the two roadways, the one to the right of one and one to the left of
you or was there some kind of a rise or a dip in the road that --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 40 of 114
Arnold: Commissioner -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, it's not so much the
distance as there is the sight distance, the elevations in the road and being able to
visibly see a car coming at the speed limits that are out there.
Zaremba: So, it's not all level right at that point.
Arnold: Correct. I mean, as a matter of fact -- and I stipulate, we are -- we are moving
some dirt here to bring down and fill in this hole down here. If you have been out to the
sight, there is quite a little pit, along with five foot weeds, which are kind of nasty and we
plan on -- we have committed to the property owners we are planning on trying to clean
that up here sooner than later. Common lot that was brought up to provide for the
sewer. We will comply with that. I think when we end up relocating this entrance, we
are going to end up doing some modifications down here and we will provide that
common lot. We are requesting the approval of 52 lots here on 17.5 acres. We are
asking that -- for the R-8 zone. The only reason -- and, again, I want to go on record,
it's not -- it is not for the minimum house size. It is for lot dimensional purposes only.
We have designed the streets here to mitigate the impact on our subdivision, along with
the neighboring parcels. We think we have a very nice design here. I'm going to leave
some time for the developer to discuss the house size, the house value. I'd like him to
address that before this Commission tonight. We envision the subdivision to be very
similar to the Mesa lots in Bear Creek Subdivision. I think we have got before you
tonight a quality subdivision within -- essentially, kind of an in-fill piece of property, it's
between an existing subdivision to the west and to the north and east. I think what we
have provided to you tonight is a quality subdivision and I think based on this
developer's past history, I think what you will have here is a nice product in the future
and I will stand for questions.
Borup: Mr. Arnold, back on the -- a little bit on the design. You had -- you said you are
going to design the street stub in, would that be correct?
Arnold: We are -- what we committed tonight and we have discussed with the property
owner is to stub a street here to the east to one of those five acre parcels.
Borup: Okay. Okay. I assume a 50-foot right of way?
Arnold: Fifty-foot right of way.
Borup: So, then, that 50 feet that you're losing, are you going to be -- you are still going
to be having 52 lots? Are you going to be reducing the size of the other lots?
Arnold: We may end up losing a lot or two.
Borup: Okay. Well, I don't think you will lose -- that's what I wanted to get to. If you --
assume you're going to lose one lot. You got 24 feet left over. You take -- you take
those, divide it into the remaining lots, and every one of your lots along that street are
over 8,000 -- well over the 8,000. You got one lot left, Lot 19, that's under that, and you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 41 of 114
got a 14,000 foot lot on one side and a 9,300 foot lot on the other side. A little bit of
redesigning and your whole subdivision could comply with the R-4 zoning.
Arnold: We could, but at this point I don't want to commit to -- obviously, our goal would
be to try to keep as many lots as we can.
Borup: Right. I understand that. If you're going to do the stub street anyway, the only
way you can keep the same amount of lots is to reduce the size further from what you
have already got; isn't that correct?
Arnold: There are some options that we can play around with some of these lots up
here, but we are going to end up -- when we provide the stub, there will be some
reduction. I don't see a great deal, because we got --
Borup: Well -- but, then, you said earlier you might lose a lot or two.
Arnold: We could lose, but my goal is -- obviously, the developer is going to be pushing
me to not lose a lot.
Borup: I just thought that sounded like an easy solution to me is you could go with the
R-4 zone, you got the stub street, you'd lose one lot, everything is over 8,000 feet, you
don't have to worry about having different zoning than the adjoining subdivisions.
Arnold: You know, I guess when it comes down to zoning, it is -- the zone is compatible
with the Comp Plan and --
Borup: Oh, I understand.
Arnold: And, you know, I think the major concern with the compatibility of uses is not so
much the zoning and the size, as the house value and the size of the houses.
Borup: I understand.
Arnold: And the developer will speak to that.
Borup: That's what I was going to say. Maybe we will let him talk to that. It just looked
like that might save some hassle.
Centers: But I had one other question. I wanted you to elaborate, Mr. Arnold, on your
rationale for R-8 was due to lot dimensions? Wasn't that it?
Arnold: Right.
Centers: Maybe elaborate on that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 42 of 114
Borup: Yeah. The frontages along these lots here are all 78 feet, instead of 80. That's
what I'm saying. If they do a stub street, they have got more than enough room to
make all those lots over 80 and over 8,000 feet.
Centers: Right.
Mathes: I have a question. Where do you suppose ACHD wants that entrance? On the
top of the hill or on the bottom of the hill or in the middle of the hill?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Mathes, they have told us, essentially, to move it
100 feet to the east.
Mathes: In the middle of the hill.
Arnold: Well --
Mathes: And that's safe?
Arnold: I have not gone out there and done those -- the ACHD test to verify it. I'm
assuming they -- they still know what they are doing about stuff and that it is a safe
location. Maybe that's not a safe assumption, so I will --
Mathes: Probably about as safe as Thousand Springs entrance onto Victory.
Arnold: I can't comment on that.
Zaremba: I just had one question. One, I commend you for having the neighborhood
meeting. That was a very good idea. The owners of the larger lots over here that came
and -- they didn't have any issue with how many lots backed up to their lots?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, no. Ironically, that -- I mean that was --
the only -- and there is the representative of the Observation Point here tonight. The
only concern they had -- and in the letter that's unsigned and I hope that one of those
persons is here tonight to attest to the letter, the only concern they had was about they
are wanting to leave this property owner, John -- and I forget his last name -- wants to
leave the ditch open for esthetic reasons. North of this portion they agree to have it
piped and want us to -- they want us -- and I'm going on record tonight, we are going to
pick up their tail water, their historic tail water and we are going to work with them, we
are going to put a fence up there, as stated. But that was their only concern. It wasn't
lots at all. I mean they are -- it was a very pleasant neighborhood meeting. No one
threatened to change my gender, which was nice.
Borup: Well -- and the -- you have less lots bordering the western boundary then the
adjoining subdivision. That's probably the factor there, too.
Arnold: We have much more lots --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 43 of 114
Borup: No. I mean these lots -- you have fewer lots on your side than the adjoining
subdivision does.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman -- and that was purposely done. We knew that some of the
concerns with Observation Point would be the lot sizes backing up to them, but that's
two fold and we have got some -- we needed lot depth there also, because we do have
some cut and fill that we are removing there, so we need -- we need the distance, we
need the larger lots there. So -- and those are on the cul-de-sacs. Those will be the
more expensive lots. I mean there was some consideration given to existing and
neighboring subdivisions.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? You said there was a representative
of the developer here?
Arnold: Yes. He's here and I should leave some allotted time to him to speak to cost.
Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. I'm with the Westpark
Company at 660 East Franklin here in Meridian. Happy to be here tonight and, like
Steve said, we are happy we had the neighborhood meeting last night. We were able
to flush out some of those issues that always come before you about irrigation and
fencing and berming and I feel it was a successful meeting, especially with regard to the
people to the east of us and like Steve said, we do plan on working with them to provide
the screening and the ditch tiling that they requested. As far as the -- the owner to the
south of us on Victory Road, he was very concerned about -- there is a high accident
rate right there, because it is a very abrupt hill that just drops right off. I, actually,
located that entrance where it was. I thought that was a good spot, up on the hill, as
opposed to down, because you could see both ways. Having looked at -- it's actually
staked out there right now, there is a spot where the driveway is a hundred feet, where
ACHD wants to move it and the hundred feet is a better spot. It's better and you can
see both ways perfectly -- you can see down the hill and you can see what's coming.
That is -- 100 feet over I believe is the best spot. ACHD is requesting it. We will comply
exactly with what ACHD requested, because they are the experts and we want -- we'd
rather have the ball in their court on that one. You know, let's just cut to the chase. You
guys are concerned about lot -- or, excuse me, house sizes and house prices and the
whole reason for going an R-8, like Steve said, it would allow us to go below an 80.
Sometimes 80 works, sometimes it doesn't. I believe there is a 74-foot minimum,
instead of 78. At absolute minimum, I'd like to go down to a 70, even though an R-8
allows you to go to a 65, because when we do put a stub street in and do some other
things, I'd like to have a little bit of flexibility. These lots will still probably be at least
7,500, if not 9,000. Good size and we feel that these lots -- I mean I can't be exact on
the market, but if the market continues like it -- I mean these lots will probably sell
between 50 and 60,000 dollars and the homes going on them will probably be between
180 and 260. Probably. I mean I can't guarantee that. Yes, the R-8 does allow to a 13
-- down to a 1,300, but that's not the reason for us coming in here and doing this. The
whole reason for an R-8 was to allow a little bit of flexibility in the frontage, which I don't
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 44 of 114
believe dictates house quality. An 80-foot lot and 70-foot lot, you can put a nice -- very
nice home on -- on that size lot. We knew we might get some opposition from
Observation Point and Meridian Greens, because of the R-8 zone. I believe it's kind of
in semantics. I know it does allow down to 1,300, but I believe we are going to have a
quality subdivision that's -- it won't be as expensive as Observation Point, but it will be
close. It will be a nice product. We are doing Bear Creek. We are doing Tuscany. We
believe we have got a good standard going and we want to maintain that in our -- in our
developments. Quality landscaping. I know there is some concerns and I can't
guarantee that there won't be a -- I literally don't see there being anything less than a 16
to 17 hundred square foot home. Even that I would doubt would happen. Just the
market is really demanding that we get a bigger size home right now for the price and
that's what happening that's driving it up. From what I have seen in developments that
we are doing, like at Bear Creek, it's just amazing to me what the square footage is
doing out there. It's going through the roof, so --
Centers: We can't -- the city can't put minimum price limits on your sales prices.
Schultz: No.
Centers: We can't require any of that. An R-8 zone allows you to go down to 1,000
square feet. Did you know that?
Schultz: I did not.
Borup: A percentage of them.
Centers: Right.
Borup: But we can put a restriction --
Centers: If you don't disperse the square footages of the homes in an R-8 zone, you're
limited to 1,301. If you mix them up, you can go down to 1,000 and it's different
percentages. One thousand is the minimum. That's the only way we can control a
neighborhood is by the zone. You're not going to promise me that you won't build a
1,301 square foot home, are you?
Schultz: Yes, I will.
Centers: We can't make it a requirement, I don't think.
Schultz: I can offer it.
Centers: Well, you have the R-8 zone. If the market becomes stagnant for this price
range home and a year from now the developer says I got to get these sold, I'm going
to build 1,300 square foot homes and I'm going to just pop them and get them out of
here. You could do it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 45 of 114
Borup: Except for you're not going to do that on a 50,000-dollar lot.
Centers: I don't know what he's paid for the land and that's a figure that we can't pin it
on them either, Chairman Borup. We don't know that. He's got an R-8 zone and he
can do what he wants with it. That's the bottom line. That's the only thing we can
control and your point was excellent. Hey, you're going to put the stub street in, you're
going to lose a couple lots anyway, go to 80 feet.
Borup: Well, I was -- I was mistaken. The plat shows 74 in the front and 78 in the back.
I was looking at the back measurement, so I think there is a typo on the plat here.
There is enough to get them all well over 8,000 feet, but maybe not 80-foot frontage.
Centers: What I look at is your -- I haven't even heard the neighbors, but I know why
they are here, you know, because they spoke earlier on another issue. Oh, they are
here for that one and it's just obvious to me that, you know, you're asking for an R-8
zone adjoining Meridian Greens and Observation Point, which is R-4 and very nice
subdivisions. You're going with an in full, then, you're asking to stub at the city's
requirement, you're asking to stub right into Observation Point.
Borup: It's there.
Centers: Yeah. It's there. I mean you have to. I know that. You're not going to be a
good neighbor to them, as far as they are concerned, because you're R-8 and they are
R-4 and they are going to be driving through our neighborhood, you know, so --
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out because this
is an annexation and rezone, through a development agreement we can address some
of these issues. You could do restrictions on home size and on lot size through a
development agreement.
Centers: So, would you be okay with minimum 1,500 square feet?
Schultz: I would right here tonight say 1,500 square foot minimum is okay and through
the development agreement --
Centers: And we can cover that in a --
Kirkpatrick: Through the Development Agreement.
Schultz: Development agreements, they are fine. It's going to be an extra piece of
paper we have to process, but we have a preliminary plat as well, but I understand your
concerns about if I get the right zone and, you're right, say in three years it all goes
down, who knows. Property is going to change hands and it will still be zoned and --
Centers: Oh, I know. Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 46 of 114
Schultz: -- somebody could come in and say I meet the zone, give it to me. There are
a lot of people coming in with 40-foot wide lots now and 55-foot lots in R-8s and they
are putting some real narrow stuff. We are not doing that.
Centers: Right. Right.
Schultz: We are going something different, but --
Centers: I know that.
Schultz: But, you're right, technically and legally that is a possibility and through a
development agreement we could further control that to this, so you guys can get a
defined plat. We are going to make some slight -- I think the adjustments we are
making are minor enough that you could recommend approval with the conditions we
make those changes with some consideration to -- I'd like to be able to go down to a 72
foot minimum lot width --
Borup: So, you're plans are still to keep the same number of lots?
Schultz: Trying but we may not. It's going to be the same or less is what it's going to
be. You know, I can't gain. I doubt we are going to keep it. We might lose one. We
are going to move the road a hundred feet, the entrance over. We are going to meet
landscaping requirements of five percent, one way or another we are going to do it. An
interesting fact that Steve pointed out to me is that green you see up there along the
Ten Mile Drain, we can't count that as open space, because there is no pathway on it.
We are not proposing a pathway on it, because it really kind of goes nowhere. Meridian
Greens doesn't have a pathway. If -- you know, if we wanted to, we could put a little
short loop pathway around there so people could enjoy the nice, natural -- I mean there
is some beautiful trees back there, there is a nice, natural waterway, and we could
count that as open space, if we put a pathway and I -- and if it comes down to it and I
need to get it, we will put that in. I just don't -- I think it's a little bit of a waste, since it
would go nowhere, but in Tuscany Village, we are doing a pathway. I'm open to a
development agreement, if that's something that staff can work with us on and here
tonight to say we will do a 1,500 square foot minimum. I still think it will be higher than
that, but that would be a minimum. You know, the market's going to -- it's going to push
it up there, and if that would address your concerns, I'm happy to agree to that and if
there is anything else you'd like to discuss, I'm here to answer any questions you may
have.
Borup: Anything else from the Commission? Thank you. We may have some
questions at the end.
Schultz: Thanks.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 47 of 114
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this? Now is your
opportunity. Come on up.
Berg: Yes. My name is John Berg. I live at 788 East Trinidad in Meridian Greens.
Right here. First of all, I'd like to take exception to the adequate notice of the
community meeting. I have a copy of the letter that was dated October 7th
, which the
meeting was held October 15th
. Now, I don't know about your schedules, but stuff from
the city comes and -- you know, dated September 3rd
, which --
Borup: First of all, they are not even required to have a neighborhood meeting, so --
Berg: I understand.
Borup: -- so that's something we appreciate them doing, so --
Berg: Right but I take exception to the -- I take exception to his comment that
everything is hunky dory and nobody showed up to say anything negative about it.
Borup: Okay so noted.
Berg: Okay. I have a concern about the project. Trinidad Drive comes down this
direction. On the plat, which I understand is preliminary, we have Trinidad Drive, we
have Trinidad Drive, we have Trinidad Drive, and we have Trinidad Drive. You have
both -- two east-west sections of Trinidad Drive.
Borup: Before you spend much more time on that, because I did read your letter.
Berg: Right.
Borup: Do you realize that all these street names need to be approved by the county
street name committee?
Berg: I understand.
Borup: And if they think there is a problem or a safety problem or a confusion problem,
then, those will be changed.
Berg: I understand but I think it goes -- I guess I would say why would you even put
together a preliminary when it's obvious that those wouldn't work. I have concerns, of
course, about the lot size. I have 4/10ths of an acre right here and we are looking at
substantially less in the neighborhood all around -- you know, all up and down this side.
R-4. Urban rural transition. I agree with Commissioner Centers, it just seems natural to
make this R-4 and, you know, then, we can -- then, when they bring the development,
then, we can argue about what restrictions you put on the development for house size.
To go R-8, I don't think there is anybody in this room, other than maybe two individuals,
that think that this is -- should be R-8. The sewer line that they put in this summer, you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 48 of 114
know, I watched them come in and put that in and I made calls to the city and calls to
Ada County and I couldn't get any answers in terms of what was going in or if anybody
knew of any -- of what that was going in. I assumed it was sewer, because of the type
of pipe. He said they met with the city and they laid out the sewer line in anticipation of
this. I guess my question -- and I will plead ignorance here, is that why wasn't there any
kind of community involvement if we are going to place sewer line in terms of a
proposed project --
Borup: Because all they needed was just a sewer easement.
Berg: Okay. Okay. I appreciate that. I have concerns about Lot 27 and what is going
to be done with it. I assume the city -- or the sewer runs through there. Is that going to
be a green lot? Is that going to be a building lot? If it's a building lot, I guess I've got
concern, because they can't -- I assume they can't build over the top of the sewer.
Borup: Right. No, that's not a building lot.
Berg: Okay. I guess I would be concerned with what exactly they are planning on
doing with that, so would my neighbor right next door, whether or not that is going to be
a -- what type of a park. You know, I guess he addressed the issue of all the vinyl fence
along Observation Point, but there is some of us that have vinyl fence, I guess, up in
here and just what his designs are there, so I think we have a real vested interest in
terms of what goes in right outside our back door and whether or not -- and whether or
not my -- my gate that I have on my property, you know, how that would -- how that's
going to play into that subdivision.
Borup: Okay. We can show you the plat. That is on the plan designed with drainage --
as a drainage area, a storm drain, but has lawn, sod, and landscaping around it. It
would be maintained like you see in the other subdivisions with grass and landscaping.
There it is right there. Yes.
Berg: I guess I would -- you know, obviously, when I bought my home -- built my home
five years ago, I wasn't naive enough to think that a 15 acre parcel was going to be just
empty. At one time it was farmland. For the past five years, there hasn't been a drop of
water on it and we have had to fight to keep the weeds down. When a fire broke out -- I
came home and there was -- see the Meridian Fire Department putting out a fire here,
very concerned about the fact that there was -- there was weeds, dry weeds, and the --
I understand that the developer has probably had it under option, but they have done
very little to upkeep that property. As I say, nothing on it. We are not naive enough to
think that nothing is ever going to go in there, but we would hope that it would be
something that is contiguous and compliments the surrounding properties and the
subdivisions of Meridian Greens and Observation Point -- Observation Point was very
accommodating to the residents of Meridian Greens in designing theirs, so that it was a
nice fit. I don't think this is a nice fit.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 49 of 114
Borup: Okay. Did this answer your question on what was going in here? This is all
landscaped area.
Berg: Well, yes, but -- you know, I guess -- yeah, so it's going to be grass and trees,
but what does that mean? I guess it would also be safe to say that that -- if that is
common area -- that's not a city park, so it's going to be maintained by the homeowners
association, so that goes down to how strong is the homeowners association of these
52 homes -- 52 lots on how well that is maintained.
Borup: Okay.
Berg: Thank you.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: I just had a question, Mr. Chairman. Not a question. You have 4/10ths of an
acre you have about 17,000 square feet.
Berg: Correct.
Centers: You have one of the biggest lots in your subdivision.
Berg: That's why I chose it.
Centers: Yes so, it's not common. We are in agreement on that. It's not a common lot
even in your subdivision. That's large. They have some lots, Mr. Berg, 14, almost 16,
12.7, 14.3, 15.2 -- those are cul-de-sac lots, too, and that's what you have. If we made
the requirement that they can build no home less than 1,500 square feet, which is an R-
4 zone requirement --
Borup: Well, that's above an R-4. R-4 is 1,400.
Centers: I meant to say 14.
Borup: Well, they agreed to 15.
Centers: But he agreed to 15. Yes. Right. You have got an R-4 zone sub next to you,
other than some lots would be 74-foot frontage, rather than 80. To me that's not a big
deal and I can see why they did that, because it's an in-fill parcel and the street that
goes up, you know, it -- I will be honest with you, I'll tell you eye to eye, if they put the
stub street in to the east, I don't want to see any further lot reduction in size or come
back with another plat. I guess I'm speaking my mind right now. If they put that stub
street in, either come back to another plat for approval at this level, or don't reduce the
size of any of the lots. What we are seeing tonight is a minimum of 74 and that's the
way I look at it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 50 of 114
Berg: I would have to review and see what the -- what all the other lot sizes are inside
Meridian Greens. I -- you know, I can't answer exactly what ones, especially in the
ones in the latest phase here.
Centers: Well, see, my opinion is it would be very compatible, especially if we tagged
the minimum house size on to the sub of 1,500 square feet, which we could do --
Berg: And I don't know -- what are the minimum house sizes in Observation Point?
Centers: 1,400.
Berg: In Observation Point?
Centers: Well, they made them higher in the CC&R’s. I don't know.
Berg: Okay. Okay.
Centers: But it's 1,400 by the zone.
Berg: Okay. I understand.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Who is next?
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to make a correction.
The Comprehensive Plan actually designates this as low density residential, but a note
on our Comprehensive Plan land use map allows an applicant to ask for one step up,
so they are asking for medium density residential, but the actual designation for
Observation Point, Kachina Estates, and for this proposed subdivision is low density
residential.
Centers: Did you say that in your staff report?
Kirkpatrick: No. I'm making that correction.
Centers: Oh.
Borup: Go ahead. You need to state your name.
Tisdale: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Toni Tisdale. I'm at 1357 East
Doberman and we are actually building in Observation Point right now. I was going to
make that correction, because I looked at this map earlier and I noticed that it is low
density all along Victory Road during that mile section. It seems to me -- I'm also a
planner by profession, but I'm here as a citizen and it seems to me that making an
exception to the whims of the developer has gotten the city into some difficulties in the
past and I hate to see that happen at this point. I guess, personally, I just don't want to
see houses of lower value go in there and I know that it could be some smaller homes
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 51 of 114
and if it was -- and I know you can't make it mandatory that they cost a certain amount
of money. At the same time, the neighbors are going to suffer from that, if they are -- if
they do end up being really small homes that are not worth as much money. I just
wanted to make that point, too. I don't know even know of 1,500 is big enough, but I
guess it depends on what's in their CC&R’s as well.
Borup: Okay. You'd like to stay to the R-4 standards, is what you're saying?
Tisdale: I would like to see it at R-4 standards. Yes, sir.
Borup: Thank you. Who is next?
Hahn: My name is Frank Hahn and 4919 Cherry Lane, Nampa, and I own a lot in
Observation Point and just from what I have heard, because I just became aware of this
today, but, anyway, from everything I have heard, with them going to the 15,000, which
is above the R-4, but the low density, which was just brought out, it seems to me where
they are between five acres and Observation Point, which is relatively big and fairly nice
lots, should be kept with. That's all I have.
Borup: Thank you.
Marsh: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Allan Marsh, I live on 2940 Mesa Way,
which is a five acre parcel behind the proposed development. Right there. Anyway, I'm
so happy to see something go in there. I have lived out there for 12 years, I have been
flooded out with their drain ditches, nobody's taking care of it. It has been a weed
patch. My -- the drain ditch is flooded over. It floods into the pasture. It backs up all of
our sewers. I'm just glad that something is finally going on there and I think the
proposed lot sizes -- I think they are good. I think it's a good blend with Observation
Point with the bigger lots, moving back into the smaller lots back up to my place. I'm
sure my horses won't mind. I'd like to see you approve it. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Sir?
Borup: Mr. Marsh?
Zaremba: The stub street that they are being requested and where they propose to put,
it would stub towards your lot is that correct and you're comfortable with that?
Marsh: That's what he said, yes.
Zaremba: You're comfortable with that?
Marsh: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 52 of 114
Borup: Was that by your request or --
Marsh: Well, he said that they requested a stub street and I said I wouldn't mind it there
at some point in time and who knows what's going to happen in the future.
Borup: Okay. Do we have anyone -- you, sir? Come on up.
Stricklin: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Ron Stricklin. My
wife and I recently purchased a lot and have a home under construction in Observation
Point. We moved out of an area similar to what the developer wants to put in. That's
the reason we moved out to where we at. We moved out of a 1,305 square foot house
into a much larger house in an area where the CC&R’s give a minimum of 2,100 square
foot for a single story house. That's the reason we came out here is for that kind of
lifestyle, the low density effect that Observation Point provides. The location, being in
Meridian, it was all part of the package and I just don't think that allowing the R-8
designation in that knew subdivision is appropriate. It does not fit with the area and I
sympathize with the adjacent landowners, having lived near land like that, it's an eye
sore, it's a danger, but I don't think for the rest of the homeowners in the area that it's to
the best effect, so I would urge you to retain the R-4 designation.
Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else or are we through? Come on
up, sir.
Logue: Bert Logue. I'm a resident in Observation Point and I guess my concern is from
the R-4 to R-8 is not the here and now, it's what's going to happen and if they are
stubbing out to the five acre parsecs to the west -- or to the east, I mean, you know --
you know, I mean what's -- what are those zoned right now? R-4 or are they --
Borup: They are in the county.
Logue: Will they be zoned R-8 once this goes through as an R-8 or --
Borup: They are in the county right now.
Logue: Okay. It's possible they could be annexed in and, then -- and, then, the smaller
type of units to go in at 1,100 and 1,300 square foot homes off the side. It may -- who
knows when that happens, but what -- it sets us up for that and so, you know -- then,
you have got the property on the other side of Victory that needs to be developed. I just
think that if that's the type of areas to kind of set the tone -- and I realize it's in-fill, but
what I'm concerned about is the fact that where it stubs out to the east into those five
acre parsecs, that -- that that allows, you know, those pieces of property to be, you
know, later on subdivided and a whole lot lower housing and a whole lot different type of
units to go in there, which is definitely going to impact the existing subdivisions, as well
as -- even if you decided to go R-8 and the developer did step up and say, look, I'll go
minimum 1,500, what's to stop the people that are going to be hooking up to that to do
that. I just see that, you know, in the future, five, ten years down the road, it's going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 53 of 114
be a problem and I think if we leave it R-4, it sounds like the developer can make some
changes and still make his money and build nice homes. It may be a little bit more
difficult and they may not make as much, but it's going to set it up to keep it, you know,
to where it pretty much fits with the -- with everything that's already there and protects
us, you know, down the road after the developer has made his money and has moved
on to bigger and better things. I mean we are the ones who have to live with the fallout
and that's my concern, is that if you zone that R-8, you know, what's going to happen to
that property on the other side and earlier I mean the gentleman who just spoke that
owns the property up at the top where the stub is going to go into, he said that they had
said that they were going to put the stub in there and, if I'm not mistaken, the
representative earlier from the development said that the owners had requested that
they put the stubs in there. So, that shows --
Borup: No. The city requested it.
Logue: The city requested it? You know, that -- I just see it being an opportunity for it to
be much less than what's there and if you go R-8, then, it -- I don't see how -- if
somebody comes back to develop those five acres later, I don't see how you could turn
them down and like Commissioner Centers here says, once it's zoned, it's zoned, you
know. You guys can't control price or what goes on the property. That's what it's zoned
for, so --
Borup: Well, we can control what goes on the property. That's -- we have already
discussed that.
Logue: Right. Well, that's my fear is that down the road that's what happens. I'd like to
see it the way it is and let the developer comply with it in what he has and maybe make
--
Borup: No. I mean that -- you turned what -- turned around what I said. We can
control what goes on the property. We already had a discussion that a 1,500-foot
minimum, rather 14, which is what R-4, would do.
Logue: Even on the five acre parsecs to the --
Borup: Oh, no, not on those.
Logue: That's what I'm saying.
Borup: Well, you're speculating future. That's not something that even makes sense to
even address right now --
Logue: Well, we know that it's going to grow. Right.
Borup: -- as far as what's going to happen there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 54 of 114
Logue: I realize that. That's -- you know, again, what happens down the road is what
we have to live and I'm just asking that you guys consider that, because the growth is
going to happen, you know. If they are stubbed in, those pieces of property are going to
get developed. Sooner or later it's going to happen and so I'd just like you to consider
that when you're, you know, looking. That's all I would say.
Borup: Thank you. Did we finish? Was there anybody else?
Sackett: I represent the developer. Gary Sackett, and it's unfortunate that --
Borup: You need to --
Zaremba: Which developer?
Sackett: The developer of Observation Point Subdivision.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: What's your name?
Sackett: Gary Sackett.
Centers: Okay.
Sackett: When Observation Point was in its developmental stage, Meridian Greens was
very actively involved in seeing what we were doing over there. Our first proposal had
lots along the north side that were -- I think they were 10, 1,100 square foot lots across
there. They looked at them and said, well, would like those to be a little larger, so they
are closer to the -- similar to the ones that they back up to to Meridian Greens. We
expanded those, we added two more feet to the frontage of those and expanded them
and now they are 12,648 square feet all across there and felt that that gave a very
compatible to Observation Point, but, then, we didn't back up and start plugging little
9,000 square foot lots in the middle of that either. Those were some of the smaller lots
and as we went further into the elevations and so forth of the Observation Point
Subdivision, they are 13, 15, 16 17,000 clear up to 23,000 square foot lots, so Meridian
Greens had an issue of those initial ones that were right up against Meridian Greens
and we accommodated that. That wasn't our token large lots and, then, boom, we were
going to put a whole bunch of little guys out there and go to the 8,000 potential limit that
we could do, which made it a substantial project that I think coexists very well with
Meridian Greens. Now, the Glacier Springs shows a little strip of them that they
expanded out, but the reality is that those lots that they expanded, the elevations have
to go up substantially. They have the back yards above where their house is going to
sit. They have got to go -- they have got to be bigger, but they are not necessarily more
value lots. They go up in the air and, you know, we have lots like that and they are not
going to be the easiest lots to sell in the subdivision, because people don't usually want
their yard higher than their house. That, to me, doesn't seem to buffer the issue of -- it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 55 of 114
would be no if they just stuck 8,000 square foot or 7,000 square foot lots bordering
Observation, just having one set of lots that are a little larger and the rest are small lots,
is a concern to the value of the subdivision of Observation Point. It doesn't appear to
be as compatible with the values. Our minimum square footage is 2,100 on a single
level there. There is not a home under 2,800 square feet in Observation Point and our
average values and 350,000, with only 20 percent of the subdivision developed. Now,
since we have a lot of work left developing that subdivision, we don't need a negative of
a smaller subdivision with view lots that look right down into lots that are substantially
smaller than the lots in Observation Point. It just stacks up another obstacle just to
continue to developing such a nice subdivision looking down and having so many small
lots, I would -- we would like to see it remain R-4 and even R-4. We would -- then, if
they came back and showed us a subdivision, we would still have issues if they were
still at the minimum of 8,000, we would be going, well, we want them to be comparable
to our 12, 13, 14,000 square foot lots, not have the opportunity to be able to come clear
down to 6,500. Even if they were R-4, we still would look at it and say we'd like them to
be larger, just as Meridian Greens, but -- we were happy to be an R-4 subdivision, but
they still wanted even larger lots and we went clear up to 12,600 on the border of
Meridian Greens. Even if they moved it to R-4, we'd still want to see good, large lots
there that made it compatible with Observation Point and Meridian Greens, and so, you
know, we would -- I also have a home to try to sell that's right on the corner of the stub
that would go into their proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision. It's on a 13,000 square
foot lot and it's a 2,850 square foot single level home and on that street as it continues
into the Glacier Springs, those are tiny -- those are small eight -- you know, seven,
8,000, 9,000 square foot lots. Much smaller. They are ding ding ding lined up right next
to that home that's there. We have the potential of someone looking at that and going,
gee, I don't think I want to buy that, it being right next to such small homes. You know,
we would like to see R-4 and compatibility that's comparable to Observation Point and
Meridian Greens.
Borup: Mr. Sackett, were you at the hearings when Observation Point went through this
Commission?
Sackett: No, I was not personally.
Borup: Okay. Some of the things you said reminded me of quite a bit of that meeting
and just about every argument that's been made here tonight was stated about
Observation Point.
Sackett: To uphold it and make sure --
Borup: No. No. They were complaining about the size of the lots, it's going to
downgrade Meridian Greens, Meridian Greens doesn't want these small homes next to
them, it's going to hurt our home values -- I mean on and on and on, the same
argument, other than the zoning, was made. I just thought that was an interesting
observation. It would be interesting to get the minutes and review that again, but --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 56 of 114
Sackett: You're probably exactly right and when I look at the --
Borup: Mr. Sackett, you're not getting on the tape.
Sackett: Oh. As I look at the lots that run across Meridian Greens and the lots that run
across --
Borup: Right. There is one less and Meridian Greens, the neighbors weren't happy
about that.
Sackett: Yes. They are just -- they might be a hair smaller. Some of them actually
have larger frontage than the Meridian Greens Subdivision.
Borup: I don't think so, from what I remember, but --
Sackett: Well, if you went across and just count them --
Borup: Yes. There is one less.
Sackett: -- they are pretty darn close.
Borup: Observation Point had one less lot.
Sackett: Right so, I know they pushed to --
Borup: Well, you added one more lot. You took out one lot.
Sackett: Right. We wanted to have --
Borup: But I'm saying the same statements made here tonight were the same thing that
was made about Observation Point when it was before this Commission.
Sackett: But I would imagine that Meridian Greens would have had substantial
opposition had we made large lots just across the border of Meridian Greens. Then,
went back to the minimum of 8,000 on the rest of the subdivision. I would imagine they
would have been livid to have seen that happen and that's what I -- what it appears
Glacier Springs is going by saying they have a few lots along the border that are larger
and, then, all the rest are the smaller lots, with the potential of an R-8 being even
smaller, and they have somewhat acknowledged that if they have to do the stub street
and pull a lot out, they are going to make up for it and still keep their 52 lots, if not more.
Centers: Mr. Sackett -- but a long of times, you know, if it meets the R-4, that's where
we are obligated and we have made concessions a number of times on adjoining
properties, you know, to make the lots more compatible with the adjoining lots, but, you
know, I had a question for you. Tell me how long you have been marketing lots in
Observation Point.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 57 of 114
Sackett: Two years. I have been there for two years. I think they have -- they received
final plat in August of 2002.
Centers: Okay.
Sackett: So, they started somewhat marketing them before that, but they weren't
allowed to sell any of them.
Centers: And you're only 20 percent sold out.
Sackett: That's correct.
Centers: So, it could be that there is a market for a smaller home.
Sackett: Well, there certainly is a great market for -- I would agree there is a great
market for the smaller homes and they are built --
Centers: My point is the market dictates --
Sackett: Absolutely.
Centers: -- and at the time Observation Point went in there, they had probably high
hopes for selling all those lots within a year and having it build out within two and that,
obviously, hasn't happened, so it -- you get where I'm coming from?
Sackett: Oh, sure. Certainly. I don't know exactly what their time frame of when they
would have the development completed or sold and, you're absolutely right, the market
creates the demand and they meet it. I think they are, with their huge project at
Tuscany just up the road, there is another subdivision that just went in just a little bit
further -- they certainly are meeting that demand and I would just object to having the
smaller lots right up against a subdivision that's made a substantial commitment to
larger lots that certainly make -- is a lot harder work to sell and develop out and takes a
substantial amount of financial wherewithal to be able to do that and stretch it out as
long as it takes. They haven't backed up and said, oh, well, we are going to just lower
our lots and start blowing lots out. We have -- we have maintained the sizes of our
homes and our minimal values that we are committed to, 500, 700,000-dollar homes
being up on the top rim of that subdivision. I don't know if those people are --
Centers: But that could change tomorrow.
Sackett: Certainly, it could.
Centers: Because you're still in control of the homeowners association, you can
change those CC&R’s tomorrow and you can build 1,500 -- 1,400 square foot homes in
there tomorrow, if they want to, because you control the homeowners association.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 58 of 114
Sackett: That is correct.
Centers: You have the R-4 zone and the minimums.
Sackett: Right.
Centers: So, to tell us that you're building 24, 2800 square foot, that's great, that's
fantastic, but you can change that tomorrow.
Sackett: It is very true that we could do that. We also have shown precedence in the
subdivision that we developed in Boise next to Centennial High School that is in its third
phase and they have been going at it for, you know, eight or nine years that they have
never relented and lowered values of lots, they have stayed committed to what their
plans were. Thank you.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Sackett. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. Schultz, would
you like to come on up. I'm going to ask you a question before you start.
Schultz: Thank you. Matt Schultz again.
Borup: Would you like to make it easier for us?
Schultz: Can I at least respond to the concerns as the people brought to you, the best I
can?
Borup: Well, yes. No. I'm just -- I'm still -- I'd like to get back on that one thing I talked
about earlier and I'm thinking if -- you know, you talk about putting a stub street in, you
had made a statement earlier that you felt that the plat as it stands could go on through
to City Council with having the stub street; is that, essentially, what you had said? Yes?
No?
Schultz: Yes.
Borup: Okay. I'm thinking, you know, if you're talking about keeping the same amount
of lots and redesigning, then -- I mean that's going to be a little bit more of a redesign of
the subdivision. I know you're saying it's not, but something is going to have to -- if
you're talking about putting a stub street in and taking that extra footage that you have
left over and spreading it down the street. I can see where you could have every lot in
here be the 8,000 foot minimum and you would be complying with that part of the R-4, if
maybe not the frontage. That's -- I wanted to put in your head to think about. Go
ahead.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 59 of 114
Schultz: Thank you, Commissioner Borup. Maybe I'll start with your statement first and
I'd like to maybe step through and -- I took some notes as people come up and I'd like
to satisfy some of their questions that maybe weren't able to answered or whatever, that
I can answer more -- better for them. We are still asking for an R-8 zone to allow us to
go down to -- we will stick with the 7,400-foot minimum, but if you put a stub street
through, which I thought was -- it's becoming a liability. My generosity is becoming a
liability here, but you actually have to allow for more setback on those corner lots, so
you don't generally gain it back, you don't just give up 50, you give up, really, 80,
because you have an extra 15 feet on each corner lot.
Borup: You're right.
Schultz: So, that's what happens when you punch through a stub street. It's really one
80-foot wide lot that you're --
Borup: Yeah. I wasn't accounting for that. You're correct.
Schultz: The setbacks, and that's what happens. I have done this -- with all due
respect, I have been through this a few times that this happened to me. If I could just
step through the responses. The first gentleman -- I may not get these in order and
they may be a little disjointed, but I kind of took some notes and one gentleman had a
question about that back lot and the drainage and the landscaping and all that. That's -
I think the landscape plan that we submitted may not reflect how nice that could be. We
usually submit some minimums, because the city makes us bond -- if we put extra in
them, they make us bond for it, but it's kind of a liability, even though we are going to
put in nice stuff, because we think nice landscaping sells lots and we like to do that. It
will be a dry pond. It won't be -- it will be dry, unless it rains really hard for a couple
hours and, then, it will have some water and it will perc out within 24 hours.
Borup: I understand.
Schultz: So, I think it's an asset to that lot to be behind that. It will be a nice, quiet,
open space back there. As far as the weeds on the property, I will be honest, I drive by
the site and those weeds really -- I can focus on other projects and we -- it is under
option. We don't technically own it, but we are going to go over there this weekend, if
not Monday, and blade off those weeds with some construction equipment that we have
just right down the road. I talked to my contractor today about that after our meeting
last night with the adjacent owners who were concerned about that eyesore. What we
are, essentially, asking for is an R-4 -- we will commit to an 8,000 square foot minimum,
but we'd like to go down to a 74 foot minimum width, not a 70 like I said earlier, we will
go with Mr. Centers suggestion that we stick with a 74.
Borup: Well, you don't have anything less than that now.
Schultz: I don't think we have anything less than 74. Right, and so we will kind of hold
with that, if we punch a street through. As far as -- I had to chuckle when I heard him
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 60 of 114
say 9,000 -- a little 9,000 square foot lot. I don't know, but where I come from 9,000 is
not bad. I mean it's a nice lot that you can put a 300,000-dollar home on it if you want
or 400,000, I mean, really, you can. You might be going straight up, you know, double
decking, you know, a couple thousand square feet on each floor, but you can do it. It's
possible. We don't think 9,000 square foot is small. We have good sizes of our lots
along their boundary that are compatible with Observation Point. Some of them are
bigger than theirs, some are smaller, but I think it's a good -- it's a good, compatible --
we laid it out that way and that's the way it works out. Back to the 74 foot minimum. On
the curves and cul-de-sacs, we would like to go to a 40-foot width on those, but we will
hold a 74 minimum. Lot sizes are developer choice within the parameters of the zone
that we ask for. They chose to develop large lots that sell maybe one every three or
four months. From what I can -- I drive by it every day and it's just not moving very fast.
We cannot survive in that market. I can't say -- tell you today that we could develop this
with 500 to 700,000 dollar homes, we would probably go broke, and they would
probably fire me if we tried to market it that way. It's not the wise thing to do. We are
not going to go minimum, we'd really blow through it quick, then, but we don't want to
do that. We want to hold to a 1,500 square foot minimum as suggested by Centers, but
I think the market is going to be even higher. The density that that -- that I'm talking
about generates is 2.97 to the acre, which is -- does fall within the low-density range.
Staff mentioned that -- oh. Oops. This is a low-density zone. No. I think we are still in
the high end of the low density, but we are within that low density -- density of three to
the acre. We didn't really push this one in the R-8. We could have pushed it to an R-8,
probably, to at least four to the acre. We are down at three and that adds up over
acres. That adds a lot of lots. We don't believe this is a negative development for the
area. We believe it's positive. It's going to add some vibrancy to the Meridian fabric of
neighborhoods. It's going to be a little bit different than Observation Point, but I think
difference is good. I think it mixes it up a little bit. We don't want another just an area of
road with hardly any lots going for years and years. That's not what we want. We want
to get families moved in there and we want them to move into a nice subdivision. Like I
said about the stub street, it seems to have become a liability, but we are going to stick
by our word to the homeowner to try for that. We like -- I think we are people of our
word and we are going to stick by it. It's going to lose us a lot, but the city's asked for it,
if you didn't want it, I probably could have finagled my way out of it, maybe, but if he
wanted it, we will provide it. I really think this is a good subdivision. I think that -- with
all due respect to the protestors, I -- there is a little bit of that not-in-my-back-yard
mentality that's pervasive and I don't think this is a subdivision that they should be
arguing against. I think it's a nice positive influence to the neighborhood and I will stand
for any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? While you're here, then, how -- I'm thinking on
the stub street again. After looking at the adjoining properties, how strong does staff
feel about that? I've always been a strong advocate of neighborhood continuity and
interconnection, but I'm wondering about it in this case.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that a
subdivision you all saw at the last hearing, Soda Springs, it's basically an in-fill project
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 61 of 114
where there are two existing homes that are being removed and they are redeveloping.
I think it's just a little over ten acres. I think there is definitely potential for Kachina
Estates to redevelop at some point. I don't know the value of those homes I don't know
the value of the property. I think there is definitely that potential --
Borup: Well, they are probably not teardown type homes.
Kirkpatrick: I don't know.
Borup: I don't believe so.
Powell: You have to remember -- excuse me, Chairman Borup, Members of the
Commission.
Borup: Please.
Powell: You have to remember that this urban fabric goes on a really long time. I mean
it's not just our life times, it's forever, basically, and as you see in Boise, as the city gets
larger and vacant land supply is in very limited supply -- or vacant land is in very limited
supply, five acres is a big site for Boise City pretty much these days. You know, the one
acres are a little hard to develop. It's not easy to redevelop a five-acre lot, but over
time, if they have got that option of a stub street available, then, it's much easier.
Borup: Well, one -- for one of the lots it is. The other two still have to have access from
the existing road. Okay.
Centers: Yes. That was --
Zaremba: I guess my question is that --
Borup: Well, what I was thinking of, if the stub street wasn't there, they still eliminated
one lot, then, it would be a straight R-4 zone and this wouldn't even be an issue.
Zaremba: Well -- and my question is, I guess, in agreement with the Chairman. You're
defending so hard having an R-8 when you're so close to being an R-4 already that I
worry about why you defend it so hard. If you lost one lot, if this had to be a 51 lot
subdivision or even a 50 lot subdivision, if you were talking about a 52 lot subdivision
and I think you said something like charging 50,000 dollars a lot, if you lost two lots, you
would only have to go up 2,000 dollars on each of the remaining 50 lots and you're
saying that simply makes it unmarketable?
Schultz: No, I'm not saying that.
Borup: But it's -- speaking as -- I mean in the marketplace, that's a factor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 62 of 114
Zaremba: Two thousand dollars on a lot?
Borup: Well, 2,000 dollars is a lot of money to me. I don't know about you, but --
Zaremba: I don't have that in my pocket, for sure, but what I'm wondering is it's so
close to an R-4 --
Borup: Were you going to say something, Mr. Schultz?
Zaremba: -- why there is such a strong defense of R-8.
Schultz: It's what we submitted was an R-8. I hate to change applications in mid
stream and I really believe it's -- all we are talking, really, about is an 80 versus a 74, six
feet, which would seem small from both sides. You say why not move up, I say why not
leave 74, but --
Borup: Well, you would be talking -- I mean if you're at the 8,000 feet, you would need
to be 75.
Schultz: We are talking -- what I'm talking about is we want to -- we will hold an 8,000
square foot minimum --
Borup: Oh, you will.
Schultz: -- lot, but we like the dimensional ability to go down to a 74.
Borup: Okay.
Schultz: To get a little bit extra depth, you make that up. We'd rather sell depth than
width. That seems to be a bigger sell. People have bigger backyards than they do
wide front yards.
Borup: Okay. I didn't understand that.
Schultz: I proposed that. Maybe I didn't speak well, but I think I did propose that.
Borup: Eight thousand foot minimum?
Schultz: Yes.
Borup: Okay. I'm sorry. I apologize. That didn't sink in.
Schultz: I did when I first came back up here to rebut or provide clarification that I
would be willing to do that. It will, really, just give us some flexibility in our design.
These changes do happen, like the stub street we didn't know about until we get to the
hearing. Moving the entrance road. We'd just like a little bit of flexibility to not get
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 63 of 114
locked into exactly 80. Sometimes 78 works better and it's really a shame for two feet
to have to just throw out a whole layout or something. It's more just you guys are acting
on principal, I'm trying to act on principal, you know,
Borup: Well, no, that was the point I was really originally trying to make, if you get
8,000 foot lots, it's -- and there is no choice on the zoning, other than R-8, because we
are not full 80 foot everywhere, but it's substantial compliance, it's a step above the
minimum square footage that an R-4 zone would require.
Zaremba: If the only thing that doesn't comply to an R-4 zone is the frontage --
Borup: That would -- that's it.
Zaremba: -- can we say that it's an R-4 and go for a variance on the frontage? I don't
know the legality of that. It's a question.
Borup: I don't think so.
Powell: To make -- excuse me. Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission,
variances should only be approved when there is extenuating circumstances where
they cannot develop otherwise. The example I like to use is when there is a rock in the
middle of a lot and so you have to reduce a setback. That rock is an unusual
circumstance. There is no overriding unusual circumstance about this development
that would warrant having a variance to the lot width requirement or the frontage
requirement. You could -- if you don't want to go to the development agreement route,
you could go the planned development route, but, quite frankly, it's going to get you
exactly in the same, it's just going to be recorded as a separate document. We will
reference it on the plat and we will attach those conditions in that Development
Agreement to the physical copy of the plat at the building department.
Borup: How is a Development Agreement modified? I'm back to some of the
statements earlier. If someone wanted to change the square footages later on, what
would --
Powell: By Public Hearing.
Borup: That's what I was getting to. They would have to come back for a Public
Hearing, so --
Powell: Before City Council. I don't believe they come to you, but they do go to City
Council.
Borup: City Council.
Centers: Let me ask you -- we addressed the 1,500 minimum for a single level, I
assume. What square footage would you have in mind, then, for a two story?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 64 of 114
Schultz: You start getting into bonus rooms and everything else, what is technically a
true two story and what's a single story with a bonus room, but, generally, anytime you
do a single story with a bonus room, which, I guess, qualifies as a two story, you're
pushing over 2,000 easy, 1,800 to 2,000 no problem. That's just what the market really
is at right now is a nice size 1,800 to 2,400 square foot home. These could go even
bigger, I'm not saying 1,800 is my minimum, you know, 1,500 is what I'm agreeing to,
but I think it's -- that's what the market demands.
Centers: Well, we have to put a minimum on a two story, unless you're going to build all
single levels. Do you want that requirement or --
Schultz: Oh, no. I don't -- I mean we --
Centers: Well, then, we have to come up with an agreement on a two story.
Schultz: Yeah. We are way below them. I don't think there is any kind of warrants for
single stories, like you do with adjacent -- other subdivisions, but what I have committed
to is a 1,500 square foot -- minimum house square footage, which exceed the R-4 even.
Borup: Yes, but he -- I think Commissioner Centers is saying what would the minimum
on a two story be.
Centers: Yes. Right.
Schultz: A two story? I could offer up a 1,800 minimum on a two story. I don't -- I hate
to get caught up on that, because I really feel uncomfortable, because I --
Centers: Well, then, we ought to go R-4 zone. The Comp Plan says low-density right
there and staff overlooked that.
Schultz: Right but we --
Centers: But you can look at the Comp Plan map, just like I can when I went down
there and looked at it.
Schultz: You're right.
Centers: It says low density.
Schultz: Right.
Rohm: But it also says you can move up one, too.
Borup: Let me ask you, you said this would be comparable to some of the stuff in Bear
Creek. You said Mesa lots, but let me go back to you in the step down from the Mesa
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 65 of 114
from phase two on, are you aware of anything that was built in there less than 1,700
feet?
Schultz: No. No. I'm not.
Borup: And that was 1,400-foot minimum.
Schultz: Like I said, the market is going to push this up here. I know you guys want
commitments in case this the thing sells to somebody in the future and I'm willing to
provide that 1,500 square foot minimum for that, but I really -- this is comparable, really,
even the lot widths are Bear Creek Phase 6, which we as selling for 60,000 dollars a lot
right now. Now whether those move -- those aren't on line yet, they are coming on line
here in about a month, but we think they are going to move pretty good. You know, not
too fast, not too slow, but just a nice even pace.
Centers: So, you haven't sold any.
Schultz: They are not available right now.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Phase 6?
Schultz: Phase 6, they are still putting joint trench in, they will pave it in about --
Borup: They are all -- they are optioned out.
Schultz: They are optioned, they are not sold. They can't transact until we -- but they
are spoken for, let's put it that way.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Well, I mean -- and sometimes -- and that's why I asked what the historical
situation was in Bear Creek, because I -- they say you can't guarantee the future, but
going by what's happened in the past, sometimes you --
Schultz: It's a mile away to Bear Creek. It's one mile. South side of Meridian. It's a
nice place to live. I'm -- I live in Bear Creek -- or I'm going to live in Bear Creek. I'm
having a house built there. I like the south side. I think this is very comparable. Almost
identical. We are asking for, like I said, 74-foot wide minimum, 8,000 square foot
minimum lots, and I hope you would approve this tonight.
Centers: Thank you.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted to point out that the
proposed density of this development is 2.97 units per acre and so it, technically, does
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 66 of 114
meet the low-density standard. Low density is one to three units per acre and this is
just under three units per acre as proposed.
Borup: So, it's not even a step up.
Kirkpatrick: To -- the R-8 zoning is a step up.
Borup: Right. Okay. Yes.
Centers: But the density it not.
Kirkpatrick: But the density is not and the R-4 zoning is similar, would also be a step up
from low density.
Centers: Well -- and what I found interesting is that Meridian Greens is medium density.
Borup: Yes.
Centers: You have to go down there and really look at the colors, but Meridian Greens
is medium density.
Zaremba: So, even -- let me ask you a question. Even if this were nominally an R-8
zone, we can, essentially, solve all of the issues with a Development Agreement?
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Zaremba: I don't see much of a problem with that.
Borup: And, really, the only issue as far as zoning is the frontage, lot frontage.
Everything else -- I mean the lot square footage he's already committed to comply with.
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm just --
Borup: Because the lots will be deeper than the minimum lot.
Zaremba: Even if we went with a request to the neighborhoods said this had to be an
R-4, at most there would be one, maybe two less lots on this property. They have
already agreed to a Development Agreement that would require a larger house size
than R-4 requires.
Centers: And we can't dictate the CC&R’s.
Zaremba: I can't see that we could enforce anything better than the R-8 with a
development agreement that they have already agreed to. Even if we made it R-4, it's
not going to be anything different, really.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 67 of 114
Borup: Right, and an R-4 -- and straight R-4 could even have smaller homes,
technically.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: I mean that's not the way the market is going, but it could.
Zaremba: Yes, and I'm just thinking as -- you know, as for traffic, the way it's been laid
out, the majority of people in the new subdivision are going to go to Victory Road, they
are not going to go through -- I don't see it as a traffic issue. The design of Observation
Point, is it, doesn't lend itself to the traffic from this subdivision going through it.
Borup: No.
Zaremba: As a matter of fact, I see more likelihood that Observation Point people are
going to go through this subdivision so it's not a traffic issue. The houses that back up
to Observation and the lots have comparable lot lines on that side. We would not really
gain anything if we called this an R-4. I'm comfortable with an R-8 with the
development agreement.
Borup: Are we ready to move on?
Zaremba: I'm not speaking for everybody, but --
Borup: I mean are you looking for any testimony from anybody else or are we ready to
close this hearing?
Centers: I'd move we close the hearing.
Zaremba: Before we do, I would only comment that we did receive a letter from Jerry L.
Calen, who has not spoken tonight.
Borup: He had a representative here.
Centers: His representative was here.
Zaremba: His representative was here and said, essentially, what he said in this letter. I
just wanted to note for the record that we have seen this letter. In that case, I second
the closing.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. All right. Have we discussed it to death or do we need to work out
anything --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 68 of 114
Centers: Well, the two story issue I think needs to be worked out, even though the
code doesn't talk about that and --
Borup: Well, the code says 800-foot minimum on the ground floor.
Centers: Well, I guess my vote is -- or my opinion would be that a two story -- any story
should be a minimum of 2,000 square feet and a single level 1,500 square feet.
Borup: And where do the bonus rooms come in, in your definition?
Centers: That's included in a two story.
Borup: That's a two story.
Borup: Not by Building Department's definition it isn't.
Centers: Anything above the first level is a second story.
Borup: But it depends -- I mean for -- as far as setback requirements, if the roofline
is --
Centers: I'm talking about square footage. You know, anything above the single --
Borup: Well, what I'm saying, you have got a definition that's not already on the books,
I think. Unless someone can correct me there. Which may be confusing to have two
different -- I mean to have --
Centers: Well, you can --
Borup: Or the definition would have to be defined in the development agreement.
Centers: Homes other than a one level shall have a minimum of 2,000 square feet.
Borup: So, you're saying -- well --
Centers: Yes. Homes other than a one level, and 400 square feet --
Borup: I don't think a home of this size is going to be built in there, but a 1,500 square
foot home with a 300 square foot bonus room would not comply, then.
Centers: Right. It wouldn't. Right.
Borup: But if you take the bonus room off and make it smaller, it does comply.
Centers: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 69 of 114
Borup: That's not logical to me because the ground floor is not changing in size.
Centers: Right. I guess, what the thought in mind is trying to keep -- we couldn't get
the applicant to commit, so --
Borup: Well --
Centers: He wanted to bounce around it.
Borup: Well, he said 1,800. What I'm getting at, what you're saying --
Powell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I think the reason that you're
seeing reluctance from both the builders that have spoken recently is because there is
quite a bit of confusion about what constitutes single story versus a second story. One
would think it would be a simple definition. Unfortunately, it isn't and the Building Code
doesn't provide a whole lot of guidance for residential properties either. It's a little more
definitive on commercial properties, but there is a lot of gray area on what constitutes
the second story for a residence
Centers: That's why I wouldn't make it gray, Mrs. Powell. Any home, other than a one
level, shall have a minimum of -- and that's not gray at all.
Powell: It is.
Centers: Not to me it isn't. If it's not a one level, it shall have at least a minimum of.
Powell: And I have to be frank. I'm a little concerned with the way you're going.
Minimum house sizes, in general, are iffy ground. The city has established them and
they have seen to have gone forward. You're providing -- you're establishing a
minimum house size that is quite large and I'm not sure the benefit of it, because there
is no requirement that this builder build --
Centers: The benefit is because of the neighbors that were here tonight, Mrs. Powell.
Powell: But you're not requiring him to build any two story houses, so all you're doing
is, really, encouraging him to build single story houses.
Borup: Well, see -- and that's my only concern, Jerry, is --
Centers: I don't gather that.
Borup: -- is so you can -- with that -- your definition you can have a 2,000 foot home
that would only have a 1,000 foot on the ground floor. Or even less. I mean you can
have a two-story home with living space over the garage and the upper floor large can
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 70 of 114
be larger than the ground floor and a smaller footprint. I agree with what you're saying,
I think we need -- something needs to be in there. I don't know --
Centers: Well, I see what you're saying, Chairman Borup.
Borup: And I'm still back to the part that's confusing to me is your -- by your definition a
1,500 square foot single level is okay, but a 1,500 foot with another 300 foot on top
would not comply.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: So, I don't know how complicated we want to make it. I --
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: We could have a minimum ground floor size and a minimum total square
footage and that may be more logical, but --
Centers: Yes. Well, minimum single level and ground floor shall be 1,500 feet.
Borup: Yes.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman?
Centers: But I see what you're saying.
Rohm: We, through discussion, limited it to 1,500 square feet or larger, as part of the
Public Hearing. Now that the Public Hearing is closed, I don't see how you can -- we
can turn around and raise that to a higher standard without the public having an
opportunity to speak to that.
Borup: Well, I don't think the public is going to mind if it's higher.
Rohm: If, in fact, we are to say a two story house has to be 2,000 square feet or
greater, you would have to reopen the Public Hearing, so that somebody could speak to
that issue, in my opinion. I think it would be just as well to leave it at what was
discussed in the Public Hearing at 1,500 square feet and if they go with the two story
building, then, they will address that as -- as they construct. That was not part of the
discussion during the Public Hearing and I don't think it would be fair to make that a
limitation after the Public Hearing is closed.
Borup: Unless I misunderstood him, I think Mr. Schultz committed to 1,800 feet.
Zaremba: For a two story.
Borup: For a two story.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 71 of 114
Zaremba: During the Public Hearing.
Centers: Yes. He did.
Rohm: And I think we should go that, but I don't think we should go over what was in
open discussion as part of the Public Hearing. That would be my opinion on that.
Centers: Well, we can certainly go over, if we so choose, and the public -- we know
how the public feels, and the public is the adjoining landowners and property owners in
Meridian Greens and Observation Point that want it to be R-4 and bigger homes. They
want 2,500 square feet.
Borup: I think the public Mr. Rohm's referring to is the developer, I assume.
Rohm: They are part of the public as well. I mean we are here to represent not only the
developers, but also the adjacent property owners -- well, all of them, so it's not just the
-- just the existing property owners that we are representing here, we are representing
the developers as well.
Centers: I totally agree, and it happens day in and day out, we make it a requirement
and they go to the City Council and they appeal it. You know, the Public Hearing
process doesn't stop here and the developer, if he didn't like our approval, he's going to
appeal the decision to the City Council and they it all the time. They reduce our
requirements or they increase our requirements, so the public is not getting shut out
and especially the developer.
Rohm: Well, you know, each of us has --
Borup: I understand what you're saying.
Rohm: -- our position there and I respect what you were saying about having a
limitation based upon the adjacent property owners' desires and I just think that 1,500
for a single family and the 1,800 that the developer had agreed to, seems more in
keeping with what was part of the Public Hearing and if, in fact, the City Council wants
to --
Borup: And maybe we should have discussed it a little bit more with them. I mean in
my mind there is a difference between the bonus room and the two story and, like I say,
you know, an 1,800 foot straight two story could have a -- you know, could have a 900
or less footprint.
Mathes: How was it worded for an R-4 zone? Or is it?
Borup: I don't believe it is. Two story is not even mentioned in R-4, is it? It's just
minimum square footage and minimum ground floor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 72 of 114
Kirkpatrick: Correct. It's just minimum square footage.
Rohm: And so, in essence, our position here is to put conditions that are greater than
the R-4 --
Borup: Right.
Rohm: -- and I think we have already done that with the 1,500 square foot and 1,800
square foot two story.
Borup: Okay. I was going to say, I think we can't ignore the two story, if it's going to be
1,500 total. I mean a 1,500 foot two story is a pretty small home, basically.
Rohm: Well -- and the developer had agreed to the 1,800, but we are only discussing
200 square foot difference. Maybe that's not a huge issue.
Borup: What are you comfortable with, Mr. Centers?
Centers: Well, I -- I have to read this. It's Section 11-10-2 of our zoning regulations.
Compatibility with existing or proposed developments. All new residential housing
developments in the city shall be designed to assure compatibility with adjacent,
existing, and/or proposed developments. Period. That's what we are trying to do with
minimum square footage. I mean that's -- that may be old as the hills --
Borup: Yeah, and that's been discussed. That means like zoning compatibility, I
believe.
Centers: And you have to nail it down or -- in the development agreement,
Commissioner Rohm or -- as Commissioner Borup stated, you're going to have a 1,500
square foot two story home look like a little box sitting there, you know, so you have to -
-
Borup: Well, is it getting too complicated to have three sizes, 1,500 single story, 1,800
bonus room plan, and 2,000 two story?
Rohm: My only opposition to what you were saying, Commissioner Centers, was that
you brought up a condition that exceeds what was discussed in the open Public
Hearing. That was -- that's my only concern, is that if, in fact, that was a condition that
you wanted to put on the subdivision, then, that should have been brought up while the
Public Hearing was open. That would just --
Centers: Well, I'm not going to sit up here and argue with you, but we don't have to
have the agreement of the applicant to put a condition on it. Would you agree with
that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 73 of 114
Rohm: He should an opportunity to respond --
Borup: Oh, he's very agreeable, though.
Centers: We do it all the time.
Borup: Mr. Schultz is very agreeable.
Centers: Yes but we do it all the time. We tag something else one and, as I said, they
have the appeal to the City Council. They really do.
Rohm: I think we have discussed this enough. I move that we close the discussion -- I
don't know --
Borup: Well, do we -- unless someone wants to just make a motion. Do we want to
formulate that a little bit? It sounds like the only thing that's maybe up in the air is the
square footages.
Centers: Well, I'll get back on it. I would like to see -- if we are going to have a
development agreement, I think you have got to nail it down tight, tight.
Zaremba: It will cause havoc unless you're pretty specific.
Centers: Any single level home shall be a minimum of 1,500 square feet.
Zaremba: I'm on board with that.
Centers: Any home built above a single level shall be a minimum square footage of.
All two story homes shall have at least a minimum of 1,500 square feet on the ground
floor and then --
Borup: Oh, really?
Centers: -- then you have the maximum. Well -- or whatever. Whatever you decide.
But you better nail it down. You're going to have 1,200 on the ground floor on a two
story, I agree with you.
Borup: That could be a 2,400 --
Centers: If you're going to give him an R-8 zone, this has got to be nailed down. You
know, maybe you're -- whoever has to draw it up, but --
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, one option would be you could
require a minimum footprint of 1,500 square feet and that would address -- that would
address the issue.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 74 of 114
Centers: Which would mean the foundation --
Kirkpatrick: The first floor.
Centers: -- would always be 1,500 square feet.
Borup: See, that's pretty large on a two story.
Centers: Yes. Well, if they are going to go up, then, they are going to end up with
twenty --
Borup: -- 3,000 feet, possibly, or more.
Centers: Well, the minimum footprint in an R-4 is 1,400, isn't it? Or is that footprint?
Borup: No. It's 800.
Centers: Eight hundred. Geez.
Borup: Yes. It just got complicated.
Centers: Well, you could say -- you could also say that minimum footprint of 1,000 or
whatever you agree on and any single level home shall be a minimum 1,500 square
feet. Then, you wouldn't have to address the two story.
Borup: Oh.
Centers: Right?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: But, I'm with you, 1,500 footprints is pretty -- pretty heavy.
Borup: Well, if you double it, it's --
Centers: Yes.
Borup: Well, yes, for the city -- R-4 is 800 square foot on a two story, and they just
specify the total square footage and that minimum footprint. You're saying -- you're
saying 1,500-foot minimum single level size, with a minimum footprint of 1,000? That
probably simplifies it.
Centers: Minimum footprint of 1,000 if they are going up above a single level.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 75 of 114
Centers: Right.
Borup: I can't see very many homes that wouldn't -- I don't think there has probably
been anything built in Bear Creek that hasn't -- that wouldn't comply with that.
Centers: Well, this isn't Bear Creek, though.
Borup: No but that was used as an example. Okay. Well, I think, as you say, if they
have some heartburn over that, they can present their case to City Council.
Zaremba: And, then, for a Development Agreement minimum lot size, right?
Borup: Yes 8,000 feet. That's probably it, isn't it?
Zaremba: Stub street was already in the staff notes; right?
Borup: Yes.
Centers: Yes.
Borup: That wouldn't be part of the Development Agreement.
Centers: Was the stub street in your requirements? I don't think it was.
Kirkpatrick: It was addressed under additional considerations on page six.
Borup: Under -- yes. On the same page -- or same paragraph as the block length.
Kirkpatrick: If we are going to require the stub, we should go ahead and add that as a
site-specific requirement.
Zaremba: I was going to say, it's not a requirement. Okay, and it should become a
requirement.
Centers: Well -- and the revised plat would be available prior to the City Council.
Kirkpatrick: It's 10 days before the -- ten days prior to the hearing.
Centers: Ten days prior the hearing. Which would include that new entrance.
Borup: Anything additional?
Powell: The applicant wanted to know if you wanted to specify that it would be form
Logger's plat -- in alignment with Logger's plat.
Borup: Oh.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 76 of 114
Powell: I believe that's the way he's going to show it, so --
Borup: I don't know that -- I don't know that we care, do we? I mean the reason staff
wanted was for connectivity and block length, but -- and that was -- block length was
real marginal anyway, so it looks like, really, it's connectivity to the east. I think that
would be up to them to work out their own design, whatever -- whatever works. Unless
any of the Commissioners have any other feeling on that. Okay. Did we work out the
wording there?
Centers: Yes. I think so.
Borup: Okay, are we ready to move on?
Centers: All right. I'll make the -- I'll make the motion, Mr. Chairman. Item 8 on our
agenda, I would recommend approval for AZ 03-024, it's a request for annexation and
zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision by
Tuscany Development, Inc., north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian
Road, including all staff comments from their memo dated October 16th
. End of motion.
Powell: Chairman, Commissioner, I believe this is where you would state that they
need to enter into a Development Agreement.
Centers: Oh, in the annexation and zoning?
Powell: Yes.
Centers: Okay. Not the end of motion. The recommended approval is subject to the
applicant entering into a Development Agreement with the City of Meridian, which would
state minimum home square footages of 1,500 square feet for single level homes and
should the builder developer build two level homes, the minimum footprint would be
1,000 square feet.
Zaremba: Always not counting the garage right?
Centers: Yes. That's always the case. The garage is not included and I think that's all
we had there, other than --
Zaremba: The 8,000 square foot lots.
Centers: Well, we address that in the plat, don't we?
Borup: Yes. Oh.
Powell: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission that would all be tied to the
development agreement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 77 of 114
Centers: All of it? Okay.
Powell: Oh, no, I'm sorry. You're correct. The plat would be revised to -- I'm sorry. Yes,
you're correct.
Centers: Right. Right. Okay. So, that would be the end of the motion, then.
Borup: Mr. Centers, I just -- when you read that, I just thought of another worst-case
scenario thing.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: A two story with a thousand foot footprint could have a 200-foot upper room.
So, I don't know how we answer that.
Centers: Well, why don't we make the footprint 1,500 feet?
Borup: Well, you could still -- we could do a 2,000-foot minimum home with a 1,000-
foot footprint. No, that's --
Centers: Because if you have a footprint of 1,500 feet and they do the bonus room, as
you said, for 300 feet, then, you got 1,800.
Borup: Well, yes, that works on a bonus room, but a straight two story --
Centers: A straight two story, 3,000 square feet -- you know, I think the applicant was
talking a bigger home. Bear Creek's size. He mentioned Bear Creek a couple of times.
Borup: So, in that case -- if you want to do a stack two story, you couldn't do it -- you
would be bigger than 2,500 feet even.
Centers: Well, then, are you saying a footprint of 1,250?
Borup: I don't know what I'm saying. I maybe still saying a minimum two stories.
Maybe we still need a minimum two story.
Centers: Okay. Minimum -- yes. I would -- yes. Minimum footprint if going above one
level would be 1,000 with a minimum square footage for a two-story home above a one
level of 2,000 square feet and I think the staff would --
Borup: Which still doesn't cover the question of a bonus room plan, which that has a
1,500-foot -- if you got a 1,500-foot footprint there shouldn't be any restriction on the
total size, then.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 78 of 114
Zaremba: I need a clarification. Why isn't a bonus room a second story? Because it's
not a living space?
Borup: There are no walls that reach the plate line. It's a truss. Just -- you could have
that same pitch on a truss and not have any living space up there.
Centers: It's storage.
Borup: It's increasing the pitch on a -- on the roof trusses and making living space in
there.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: So, it's still based on a normal wall plate height.
Centers: Well, you know, I'll meet you back halfway. Why don't we just say a single
level 1,500 and with any living space above the single level, square footage shall be at
least a minimum of 1,800 square feet and you don't talk about the footprint.
Rohm: I can live with that.
Borup: Yes. I'm thinking, again, even more -- you know, we are worrying about
something that's not going to happen.
Centers: Yes. Well --
Borup: The homes aren't going to be that small. No one's going to design a house that
would fit the other criteria.
Centers: Probably not.
Borup: It's not going to be a salable property.
Centers: They have to have a fire sale so, does that cover it? Single level homes,
minimum 1,500 square feet. If the builder developer builds a home above a single
level, the minimum square footage shall be 1,800.
Borup: Okay. There is still going to be architectural approval from the developer and --
Centers: Well, I think their CC&R’s will probably be --
Borup: Tighter than that.
Centers: -- more than that. They are agreeing, but -- you know.
Borup: Sorry I brought that up again, but --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 79 of 114
Centers: No. I'm glad you did.
Borup: All right.
Zaremba: I think I understood the motion and I'll second it.
Borup: Any other discussion? All in favor? Any opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: All right. Next item.
Centers: Would recommend approval of Item 9 on our agenda, It's PP 03-028, request
for preliminary plat approval of 52 lots and eight other lots on 17 and a half acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development.
North of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road, including all staff
comments from their memo dated October 16th
, in addition to the stub street would be
required to the property to the east. The revised preliminary plat to be available at least
ten days prior to the City Council meeting. No frontage lots shall be less than 74 feet.
No cul-de-sac lots shall be less than 40 feet, and no lots shall be less than 8,000
square feet in total. The revised plat shall also show the realigned entrance as required
by ACHD. I believe that covers it.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: And thank everyone for coming. I hope the audience could tell that we do have
the concern of the city as a whole. We -- some of what we are doing is what is by past
experience. We have seen a lot of subdivisions where there are smaller homes next to
it. Bear Creek was the one that was mentioned. They have got homes within the same
subdivision from 150 to six, eight hundred thousand right in the same subdivision. They
can be compatible and without -- thank you. Commissioners, are we ready for a break?
We will take a short break at this time and reconvene for the next item.
(Recess.)
(Reconvene at 10:24 P.M.)
Item 10. Public Hearing: AP 03-003 Request for an Appeal of denial to extend
Final Plat approval for Olsen Bush Subdivision No. 2 by R2
Development, Inc. -- west of North Eagle Road, north of East Franklin
Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 80 of 114
Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. Item Number 10, Public
Hearing AP 03-003. This is a request for an appeal of denial to extend a final plat
approval of Olsen Bush Subdivision No. 2 by R2 Development. I'd like to open this
hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, on August 1, 2000, the City
Council approved a final plat for the Olsen Bush No. 2 Subdivision and it's at the end of
Lanark Drive, I believe it is, on Eagle and Franklin Roads next to the railroad. On June
20, 2001, the developer filed a one-year time extension for the final plat with the
recorder. That extension was approved, which established a new recording deadline of
August 1, 2002. Then, on August 1, 2002, R2 Development submitted a variance
application requesting a second one-year extension of the final plat. Our code only
allows for a single time extension. The Variance was for the second time extension.
On September 17, 2002, the City Council approved their Variance application,
extending the recording date until August 1, 2003. On August 21, 2003, the applicant
contacted us and wanted to submit a time extension. I verbally at that time said I would
not accept one. They, then, asked for a formal interpretation as to why I would not
accept that application. The letter that is in your packet was the response to that
request. At this -- at this point they have filed an appeal of a director's decision. About
a month ago we changed the zoning ordinance, so that you guys would hear appeals of
my decisions, so it's -- this is the first one you have seen. It didn't take us very long to
get here. This is an official appeal of my denial to basically accept the final plat -- or
time extension for the Final Plat. Tonight our discussion should focus on just whether or
not I made an error in my decision not to accept a time extension application. We don't
need to get into whether or not the plat is appropriate or anything related to the plat.
The appeal is solely on my decision of whether I erred or not.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: Yes. I guess I would have, actually, a question for legal. Their extension of
their extension had already expired by 20 days before they even asked. Is there any
reason even to consider it?
Borup: Well, that was my question. Don't you need to request an extension prior to
before one expiring?
Zaremba: Before it expires. Even if it's going to be considered.
Powell: That certainly entered in my decision to deny.
Holinka: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would agree that if the -- if the
application for extension had not been submitted prior to its deadline expiration, then, at
that point it became null and void and so there is no -- I would agree there would be no
need to consider it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 81 of 114
Zaremba: It's not even a valid request.
Holinka: Right.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: But yet, the City Council approved the variance after the deadline the first
time on September 17th
.
Powell: But the request was before then.
Borup: The approval was after, but the request was before.
Zaremba: The request was made timely that time.
Centers: I have a question, though. When this plat was submitted, was it part of an
annexation and zoning? Did we annex the property at the same time?
Powell: I'm not sure. The applicant may be able to answer that. He is nodding his
head in the affirmative.
Centers: And our decision of whether you erred is appealable to the City Council per
your letter.
Powell: Yes. Well, the applicant is -- if you uphold my decision, then, the applicant has
the option of appealing your decision. If you don't uphold my decision, a member of the
audience or perhaps even myself could appeal that decision to the City Council. It is an
appealable decision.
Centers: Because -- Yes. Well, it's going to the City Council one-way or the other, is
what you're saying.
Powell: Perhaps not. If -- I don't know whether I'd appeal it yet. It depends on how
convincing you all are.
Centers: But I have a lot of empathy for a developer, owner of land, that we annexed,
he filed a plat, had intended to sell those lots, couldn't get them sold, now he's saying
that he can sell them and, you know, the market -- we always talk about it's market
driven and I don't think we ought to penalize him more and say you have got to come
back with a new plat.
Borup: Well, he didn't have any lots to -- he didn't have any lots to sell. It was never
recorded. There is nothing developed.
Centers: Oh. Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 82 of 114
Borup: It was a bare piece of ground.
Centers: Well, I still feel the same way. You know, why hold him up. You know, we
annexed him, he's been paying city taxes, I take it.
Powell: I would imagine so, yes.
Centers: And --
Borup: Then, along that same line, what would the applicant's course of action be, if
the appeal were upheld? They would need to resubmit a new plat?
Powell: I believe the number of lots that they had would allow them to submit a new
combined preliminary and Final Plat. For some reason I was under the impression that
it -- again, we are starting to talk about the plat and I am not familiar with the plat, I am
only familiar with the question that --
Borup: Have there been any ordinance changes or anything that would prevent the
existing plat from being approved? I mean the previously submitted plat from being
approved on a resubmission?
Powell: If you decide to -- that is not an issue for the appeal, so we have not done that
review.
Borup: You haven't looked at that. Okay.
Zaremba: Well, we do know we have a new Comprehensive Plan since, then, and we
have -- there have been ordinance changes.
Powell: Yes, you do those, too. Whether they affect the development of this property --
Zaremba: We don't know.
Powell: -- we don't know.
Borup: Well, I'm kind of agreeing with Commissioner Centers on -- not to hold someone
up, but I also -- you know, if we are not going to stand by regulations and ordinances,
why have them and if it's not going to substantially penalize them to resubmit, you
know, with any ordinance changes, which we don't know -- it's kind of hard to answer
that, but -- I mean I'm thinking they could just turn in -- resubmit the plat that was
submitted before and have a preliminary/final plat approval and it wouldn't have to delay
things a lot. It's been three years.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, maybe just one point of clarification. I don't believe that they
would qualify for a preliminary/final combo, due to the fact that there were more than
four lots in the plat and there is right of way dedication.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 83 of 114
Borup: Okay.
Centers: Well, I was just looking at the number of times the Council has seen it and,
you know, they approved it on -- in August of 2000 and, then, in June of '01 and
extended it, September '02 they extended it -- it just appeared to me that the Council
was trying to be lenient and I think the point is well made that it was annexed at the time
the plat was -- you know, which is kind of the norm.
Borup: But the zoning administrator doesn't have that luxury to be lenient.
Centers: I understand.
Borup: She has to follow --
Centers: I understand.
Powell: And, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I have been talking to
people about when we do rewrite the zoning ordinance, which we started forward with,
we probably will change the platting requirements to give them an initial two year -- if
that's something the Commission and the Council are interested in looking at and the
ability to do time extensions with the caveat that the Council could add additional
conditions based on changes in ordinance at the time that those extensions go through.
Again, we are back to the issue of does this meet the ordinance and my interpretation
of that.
Borup: Okay. Any other discussion? We'd like to let -- see if the applicant would like to
add anything. Is there anything the applicant would like to add?
Miller: Oh, sure. Daydreaming there. I'm exhausted --
Borup: That's fine.
Miller: -- from the previous hearing. My name is Brad Miller with Ronald W. Van Auker,
Incorporated, representing R2 Development, 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. One of the
questions I'd like to address initially is why did we submit our request for an extension
after the approval had expired. Part of the reason was we were under the improper
assumption that if we had broken ground that that permit extended. We have already
cut the roads, the sewer is in, we have tenants who are committed to move into the
development and, then, we -- came time to have a precon to put the water line in and
we didn't qualify for that and we realized that the approval had expired. That's why we
submitted that at such a late date. To the best of my knowledge -- and I don't think
there has been a complete review by the city, but to the best of my knowledge in my
discussions with Brad Hawkins-Clark, there have been no changes to the subdivision
ordinance which impact this subdivision. I don't -- I think, technically, Anna is correct,
that we do not meet the requirements for an extension. Then, also Anna says that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 84 of 114
she's hopefully going to change that, so that we would meet those requirements. We
have cut the road in, as I said. The sewers in and we'd like to put the water in. We
have covered the irrigation ditch. The Evans Drain will be tiled -- I think the pipe shows
up next week. We have tenants who are committed for that. It's not our intention to sell
off lots, although we may sell off a few lots, our intention is to build out buildings and
move new businesses in the City of Meridian. Let me see. I think that's about all I
have, unless anyone has any questions for me. I think -- one other comment I would
have is going back to the subdivision process, if I felt like it would materially change the
subdivision or benefit the city, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it, other than I would
lose two of the existing tenants that are ready to move in there. The first building is
scheduled to be completed and have a national tenant move in on April 1st
. I would
lose that tenant. Which is fine if that's the decision that you make, but I don't think that
the city would gain anything or that we would gain anything by going through the
subdivision process again. I think it fully conforms to the existing subdivision ordinance.
In regard to the Comprehensive Plan, it's slated for light industrial and that's what it's
zoned right now, so that wouldn't change anything either. Thank you very much.
Borup: Any questions? Maybe I have -- you understand that the item that's before us,
though, is --
Miller: I understand. I understand.
Borup: I mean I agree with Commissioner Centers and I think -- well, I won't speak for
the others, but it makes sense to get the subdivision finished and move on and --
Miller: I think it does.
Borup: -- do like it was intended, but that's not the question that's before us.
Miller: I understand and like Commissioner Centers said that if you deny it, then, I will
appeal to the Council, so -- I mean I'd like to cut it short and do it today, sign the lease
tomorrow, and move on with the national tenant, but I understand your hands may be
tied on this.
Centers: Well, not if we find her making a mistake.
Miller: But I like Anna too much. I don't want to --
Centers: Because I'm with you, I had thought if you broke ground and you're putting
roads in that you didn't have to apply for an extension.
Miller: That's the case with a building permit. I found out not the case with the Final
Plat approval.
Centers: So, we can't -- we can get her?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 85 of 114
Miller: Well, I think we can get her if you want, but if you do it nicely.
Centers: I had always thought that, too.
Miller: I don't think there is any benefit to the city. That's the problem. I don't think
there is any benefit to be gained, it just kills time, and we get a later start on the thing.
The reason we delayed the project, just so you know, for so long is the economic
climate has not been good for this and we have been watching things and we feel like
there is a little light shining through the dark clouds and feel like there is an opportunity
here and we want to take advantage of it, so in the springtime we can have three or four
new businesses move to the City of Meridian and, hopefully, I mean the thing -- it could
be -- and the other thing that we are going to do at some point -- and we are going to
apply to ACHD, is we are going to get a road -- right now, if you will notice there is a
stub road that goes to the south, but it doesn't go all the way to Franklin Road. We
have since -- since we have done this subdivision we have acquired that five acres to
the south that goes to Franklin, we bought Len Barnes place, and so we will be able to
extend a road all the way to Franklin and that's what we are going to try to do next
summer is get that road punched through to Franklin. Whether we succeed or not, I
don't know. My office right now is on East Lanark and trying to turn on Eagle Road is a
real bugaboo, so we want to try to get access out to Franklin Road for all those tenants
there.
Zaremba: That's a considerable grade, isn't it?
Miller: Well, it's the same as Eagle Road there. I appreciate your consideration. Of
course, I don't want you to be rough on Anna, but I don't think it benefits the city to deny
the extension. Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Okay. We did have a letter from --
oh, I forgot who it was. Yanke had submitted a letter for the record.
Centers: Well, I think we have just a little formality here. I think, you know, we can
state for the record that we agree with Anna, however, we recommend to the Council
that they approve the applicant at their next meeting.
Zaremba: I support that. I absolutely agree that she did the right thing with what she
was given to work with and went beyond that by explaining all the options to the
applicant and -- you know, because, you know, she's following the rules and explaining
to the applicant what they could do about it, which I think is also as nice. I certainly am
in favor of bringing every business we can bring into the city and not doing anything that
delays it. My question would be by what mechanism can we do this? There has been
an extension and the rules at the moment are that you can only do that once.
Borup: Well, all the extensions are granted by the City Council, too.
Zaremba: Is this another variance?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 86 of 114
Centers: City Council has to approve it anyway.
Zaremba: Yes. Is this another -- but what are we asking the City Council to do? If we
are going to overrule Anna, what are we asking the City Council to do? Another
variance?
Centers: However they want to do it. Approve an extension, and I guess --
Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, if you're over -- if you're
upholding the applicant and saying that the appeal -- that I erred in my decision, then,
you're not making a recommendation to the Council. He will just be able to file his -- his
-- I don't know what he's filing and that's the next question you were asking, because I
don't --
Zaremba: I'm not willing to say that you erred. I think you did the right thing. But we
want to overrule you anyhow.
Powell: Well, you -- yes. Yes. I'm not sure how you could find I made an error, but
that's what he's here for is for you to say that. If you say that, then, it will not go to the
City Council.
Borup: It's done with.
Powell: It's done.
Borup: Unless you appeal it.
Powell: Yes. Unless I appeal or somebody else out there. I mean it's still an
appealable decision but there is -- regarding your question of whether he goes forward
with the time extension or a variance, I'm -- quite frankly, I don't know how to answer
that, because I haven't talked to the attorney's office on how they justify the Variances in
the first place. I'm guessing that the answer is a variance, since there was a Variance
the first -- the second time that -- the time extension option isn't really available. It
would have to be another variance application.
Borup: Which needs to go to City Council.
Powell: Which will go to City Council.
Borup: So, does that save us any time?
Powell: No, other than I was not willing to take an application in.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 87 of 114
Borup: Right. Well, it wouldn't save any time assuming that City Council would grant it.
If City Council wanted a new -- a new plat application, then, that would extend it out
even further. If they didn't --
Centers: Well, I would say you erred, because sometimes it makes sense to make an
exception for the benefit of the city. That would be my rationale.
Zaremba: I don't think she's given that latitude.
Powell: That's fine.
Centers: That would be my rationale.
Powell: That's fine. That -- you don't have to worry about hurting my feelings or
anything, really --
Zaremba: We will all come over and give you a big hug after this is over.
Borup: Let me ask another question, then. Are they at a stand still on development? It
sounds like they can't proceed with the water design. Is there any way that that could
be handled while this other goes through, that they could continue on with
development?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is no way that I know of
without Council approval. We have an expired plat.
Borup: But the sewer has gone in -- or going in.
Freckleton: But the sewer went in when R.C. Willey was built. The sewer went in three
years ago.
Borup: Oh. All of it?
Freckleton: Three years ago. Yes. That was how R.C. Willey area got their sewer
services was by bringing it out of where Blue Cross is, underneath the railroad tracks,
and up Lanark and down into the R.C. Willey area.
Borup: Okay. It's -- all the stubs and everything are in according to the plat layout on
this?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I don't remember if the stubs were put in through that area
or not. Were they, Brad? Okay.
Zaremba: The hearing is still open and the applicant is saying yes.
Borup: So, you're saying there is no way they could proceed ahead with their water.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 88 of 114
Freckleton: Well, technically, their development plans are expired as well. The plat is
expired. The development plans are expired. It's going to take a Council action to turn
us loose on it. I feel like my hands are tied, too.
Borup: Oh, you feel that way. Are they?
Freckleton: If my director tells me otherwise.
Zaremba: Well, how fast can we move this to the City Council? I mean we -- we can
overrule the director here and, then, direct that a variance be moved to the City Council
as fast as possible.
Borup: Well, the applicant has to apply for the variance.
Miller: I will apply tomorrow.
Zaremba: The applicant has indicated that will happen quickly.
Borup: I'm not -- I don't know. I'm not real comfortable overruling a proper decision, but
--
Zaremba: While I'm not comfortable with the precedent, but --
Borup: But the result is, really, what we are looking for; isn't it?
Zaremba: Yes.
Rohm: Well, if they have to go to the City Council anyway, then, why overrule her
decision and let the City Council take care of the whole thing all at one -- in one fell
swoop and we are not --
Zaremba: If we don't overrule her decision, she will not accept an application for a
variance from them. Is that correct?
Rohm: So, it does delay it for two weeks at least.
Borup: Well, it would be another two -- so we are saying that they would have to appeal
to City Council, they get that ruling, and, then, a variance could be applied for, which
would be another two weeks or more.
Zaremba: And I think as she has already offered, we have the right to overrule here
and, then, that starts the variance happening tomorrow. She's the one that has told us
that. That doesn't have to go to the City -- the variance has to go to the City Council,
but overruling her doesn't.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 89 of 114
Borup: So, really, the only work that's been done, other than three years ago, is streets
are starting to be cut in; is that correct? Nothing's happened beyond that?
Zaremba: And ditches.
Powell: And tiling the ditches.
Borup: Oh, tiling the ditches. Well, that's major.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed.
Borup: Okay.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I move that we lovingly overrule the director on her decision not to consider
this extension and leave it on the applicant to file a variance that will go to the City
Council.
Rohm: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? Is any of this going to go to City Council?
Powell: No, sir.
Borup: So, we can't even add a footnote to what we have done here, they would --
Powell: When the Variance application goes up, we can include the testimony -- or the
minutes from tonight's hearing.
Borup: Oh, you can?
Powell: Sure.
Borup: Okay. Well, is there anything else we would like to add? Okay. I mean I'm
thinking we are -- I don't know how you overrule a proper decision, but, again --
Zaremba: It's power.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 90 of 114
Borup: To get the results if you want to -- I mean the end is --
Zaremba: I think the end goal is in the best interest of the city and I realize overruling it
is not in accordance with the statutes, but that's the reason why things go to public
hearings and there is a decision process. There are times when it is reasonable and in
the best interest of the city to overrule something that is actually correct.
Borup: Okay. Well stated. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Item 12. 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. Is it time to leave or do we want to have one more? Our last item is
Public Hearing CUP 03-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Jr.
restaurant and drive-thru window service by Clayton Jones and we'd like to open this
hearing at this time and, Mr. Siddoway, do you have a report?
Siddoway: I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Members of the Commission. This is an
application for Carl's Jr. There have been two previous applications for Carl's Jr. at this
location. I will give you more details on that in a moment. It is located right on the split
of Main Street and Meridian Road. The KFC-A&W site sits right in the south corner and
the old Kentucky Fried Chicken site, which is on the north end of that same property,
would be demolished to make way for the proposed Carl's Jr. You should have a staff
report that is -- has the re-notice date of October 16th
. That's tonight. You will recall this
was on the first agenda of this month, but was opened and continued or re-noticed, I
should say, sorry, for lack of proper posting on the site. It was properly posted for this
night and so it will be heard. When the A&W and KFC project was proposed in the
south corner of the site, one of the conditions of approval was that they abandon the
drive-thru use of the existing KFC. The proposed application tonight proposes a new
building with a new drive-thru and it's in a different location than the previous drive-thru
was, so that one thing the Commission needs to decide is whether the proposed site
plan meets the intent of that condition of approval. This is an aerial photo of the site.
It's, actually, a few years old. The new KFC-A&W is not showing up, but you can see
the existing building in this location here. Taco Bell is across the drive aisle to the north.
This is the proposed site plan. North is to the right on this drawing. This is Meridian
Road. This is Main Street. This is the new KFC-A&W building, and this would be the
proposed Carl's Jr. project. This project is a planned development. It's required to be a
planned development, because of having two principal uses on the same site. As a
planned development they are required to have two amenities. Let's see if I have a
picture of those. Oh. I have several site plans in here. I'll just flip through them for you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 91 of 114
This one is the proposed landscape plan for the project. This was the previous site plan
that was heard earlier this year. It had a drive-thru that cut in front of the building and
everyone had to cut across. Pedestrians wanting to access the front door had to go
across the drive-thru to access the front door. That was one of the reasons it was
denied. I believe this has the wrong date in the title, but this was the original proposal,
which had the drive-thru on the east side, and was a much larger building than what
they are currently proposing. These are the proposed elevations. You should have in
your packets a copy of their proposed Welcome to Meridian monument sign. As a
planned development, as I was saying, they are required to have two amenities. The
first one that they are proposing is a Welcome to Meridian gateway sign for the city that
they are offering. The second one that they are proposing is a memorial bench and
three flag set next to it. They did submit a revised site plan dated September 16th. I
wanted to note that the staff report is based on that plan. I wasn't in the office this
afternoon when they were putting this together. It doesn't look like the final version got
inserted, but the only difference -- the only substantial difference is that they shifted the
speaker further north, so that they can get a couple additional cars stacking depth in
here and allow for seven cars to be stacked at the same time. What I would like to do is
go through the special considerations that begin on page five. There are three of them.
The first one has to do with the amenities. The proposed location of the monument sign
is right here in the south corner of the property. It is a nice sign staff feels that the
applicant is proposing. It's a substantial one. I can't remember the dimensions off the
top of my head. But the issue is that the city is trying to come up with gateway signage
for the city. They have not yet settled on what the design of them should be. While this
is a nice sign, it may or may not match what's done in the future. I guess whether or not
that's a problem is the first question. To make this easy, I have been in conversation
with the -- a couple of members that have been working on gateways and they have
asked for a little bit of time to finalize their own design. I have also talked with the
applicant and they were in agreement to what I have proposed in the staff report.
Maybe we can give the applicant a chance to verify that, but the proposal is to -- instead
of just building the gateway sign right away, to have them dedicate an easement for a
gateway sign and, then, give us until the end -- give the city until the end of September
to come up with the city's design. The applicant would also be asked to submit a cash
bond for the value of the sign and its construction that they were proposing and, then,
the city could use those funds to build the city's design of a sign. But in order to keep
this from going on and on forever and giving ourselves a deadline, I put in there if the
city hasn't figured it out by the end of September, that that money would be returned to
the development, they would put in the sign that they proposed, and have it in by the
end of November of '04. I would ask that the applicant talk about the -- that proposed
sign and whether they are amenable to that arrangement tonight, as well as some of
their ideas for the materials, colors, and lighting that may be part of that. There is also
an issue that I bring up that -- they are proposing to -- and I'm sure they are flexible on
this, but the draft that they are showing says established 1893. I question whether we
wanted to -- and that is the date we have on our wall right here. We are also, this year,
celebrating our incorporation date, which is 1903 to 2003 and I thought maybe the
incorporation date was the date that we should be showing on the sign as incorporated
in 1903. The second amenity, moving on, is right in front of the store on the west side
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 92 of 114
where the -- right in this location. They have three flagpoles and a memorial bench and
I have asked them to address tonight what that is, what's memorializing, et cetera. The
second special consideration on page six, which I thought you would want some
additional detail on, was the prior reasons for denial and there were basically three
reasons for denial. Let me step back for just a moment and say each of the prior two
were recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then,
each of the prior two were, then, denied by City Council. The reasons cited by City
Council for denial on the first one, which is this one, was inadequate parking, especially
for employee parking. I have shown that -- done a calculation based on their proposed
site plan that shows that with the combined square footage of the KFC-A&W and the
Carl's Jr., that 26 spaces will be required and on the site they are proposing 52, which is
exactly double. So, they seem to have met that reason for denial. The second reason
was the drive-thru configuration. That first version had a stacking depth for only two
cars. The second one had stacking depth for five cars, but, as I mentioned, required
patrons to cross through the drive-thru to get to the front door. In their new proposal,
they have increased it to seven cars -- seven cars and have removed the requirement
for people parking here to cross over to get to the front door. They have tried to
address that one. The final one is congestion and this is a finding that the Commission
will need to make. It was found that the proposal was incompatible due to traffic
congestion on the site. They have tried to address this one by adding stack space in
the drive-thru. The second thing they have done is you will recall the others exited right
here, which is very close to both the exits of the Taco Bell drive-thru and this drive aisle
and this curb cut on Meridian Road. They have wrapped it around so it's more central
to the site to try and ease some of that and so that's a -- probably the main question for
the Commission, if you find that the -- that they have sufficiently addressed the
congestion. The last item, number three, is the street buffers. Standard ordinance
would require a 35-foot buffer for entry corridors along Meridian Road and along Main
Street. They are proposing measuring from the property line in to the curb a 10-foot
buffer along Meridian Road and measuring from this property line in to the curb eight
feet along Main Street. This alternative compliance was granted to KFC. Theirs was as
narrow as seven feet on the approved plans. I believe it was built, actually, with a little
more, but the approved plans show seven feet, so based on that precedent, we are
recommending approval of that alternative compliance. All the site-specific
requirements are listed. We believe they have sufficiently addressed parking, stacking
depth and the drive-thru versus pedestrian issues and if the Commission and Council
find that their proposed site plan also addresses congestion adequately, we would
recommend approval and I stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Siddoway? I just want to comment that the -- I thought the
report was excellent. It makes it really easy when you go through and give a summary -
- especially where this has been an ongoing project. I just thought it was an excellent
staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 93 of 114
Zaremba: I would second that. I think the one thing that concerns me is the exit from
the drive-thru. It's pointing almost right at the drive-up window of the Taco Bell. You
have already stated that they have more than adequate parking. I would like to see
them lose these two parking spaces and force this traffic to just go out this way. Is that
a possibility? I don't see those cars completing a u-turn in one move. They would be
into the lane where cars are at the Taco Bell.
Borup: Well, I think there is enough room, isn't there, to do a u-turn?
Zaremba: I didn't see on my drawing the width -- the total distance from where these
cars would stack to there. It just looks like that would be a tough u-turn and I'd just as
soon not turn them towards the Taco Bell in the first place.
Borup: If they go towards Meridian Road they are still going to be crossing a lane of
traffic and at the angle they are going to be crossing it for a longer distance, rather than
a right angle. Maybe the applicant would like to speak to that, too. It looks to me like
we have -- yeah, about 20 feet before you hit the centerline.
Zaremba: That may be enough.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any Commissioners? Would the applicant like
to make their presentation?
Jones: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Clayton Jones, at 14071 West
Rochester in Boise. Thank you for allowing me to make a new presentation and I
appreciate -- I appreciate the staff report. As you, I thought it was very well written and,
actually, I believe this is the first time that staff has actually supported the project, which
I appreciate. The reason why we are here again is because when we were -- when we
were denied the last time at City Council, we asked the question to the Council please
help us out, you know, what can we do that could possibly get this project approved.
Because of that, Bill Nary gave some specifics, went ahead, and said that he'd flip
around the building, do this, and increase the stack and he should be an architect.
Anyway, so with his recommendations, we, actually, did meet with Bill after the fact, and
-- to see if we had kind of met the criteria that he was looking for and without saying that
he would approve it, he indicated that -- that this could be acceptable. I won't
presuppose -- you know, I won't say that they will approve it or not, but, anyway, it
seems like we had some support. Looking at the site specific, we did -- we were able to
increase the stack to seven cars with the staff's help and I appreciate their help on that
as well, which in looking even at the KFC project, the KFC only has three cars, except --
on their fourth car they are actually in their parking lot and so we have seven cars
stacked behind the speaker post, which we think will go -- will alleviate the -- any
possibility of congestion over there. We have proposed this time around a 2,500
square foot building and I just want to assure you that it is a little bit larger than the last
proposal, which was 2,100 square foot. In our opinion, that particular prototype that
Carl's uses is pretty inefficient in the kitchen, so the increase in size we made was just
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 94 of 114
the kitchen and storage areas. The dining room still only has 46 seats, which even in
Boise standards only requires 23 parking spaces. We have, as staff has indicated,
doubled the parking requirements of the City of Meridian and we think that it's more
than adequate. To deal with your question regarding the u-turn. Clinton, from BRS
Architects is looking at the u-turn there and it looks like it's more than 22 feet radius and
he's indicating that that's adequate for a u-turn. A couple of points on the amenities for
the project. T he Welcome to Meridian sign, we are actually -- we are kind of proud of
the sign. Golden West designed it. We estimate it to be about 5,000 dollars in cost and
we are more than willing to put that up in a bond or whatever that you folks would want
to do with that. You're welcome to use your own design. You have -- staff has
requested that we secure an easement for the sign and we will work to do that. I can't
guarantee that that will happen, but we will work to secure the easement and I would
ask the Commission that should we not be able to secure the proper easement, that
you allow us to spend the 5,000 dollars allotted to the sign on another appropriate
amenity for the site, perhaps approved by staff?
Borup: The easement needs to come from the property owner?
Jones: The property owner has indicated that he's willing to do an easement.
However, we have not approached KFC, who leases that space. I don't know if that
would be considered common area or not. I know that my neighbors don't want me
there, so I don't know if they will help me out or help out the City of Meridian in this
case, but --
Borup: Isn't all that area maintained --
Jones: It is all maintained.
Borup: -- by one -- I mean KFC is not maintaining that area, are they? They are so they
are leasing the building and the ground.
Jones: That's what the property owner indicated to me today.
Borup: So, then, you would be maintaining your own landscaping, too, then?
Jones: We haven't entered into a full -- full-blown lease as of yet. We have got a letter
of an intent so, that all is to be determined. I would assume so, but we have not --
Borup: That's a little different than we have usually seen on commercial projects.
Jones: Usually some common area maintenance. Exactly.
Borup: Yes.
Jones: The owner of the property is here, maybe he might be able to address that for
you, but, regardless, we have -- we have allotted 5,000 dollars towards the sign,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 95 of 114
whether it's your City of Meridian sign, we would be happy to do that, or another
suitable amenity for the site. The next amenity was the three flags and memorial
bench. Unfortunately, these last couple of years there is plenty to memorialize, so I
don't think that we would have trouble with that. You know, first thought, of course, is
the veterans that have lost their lives in the war on terrorism, the folks that have lost
their lives in 911, or veterans in general that support the county. Any of those would be,
I'm sure, appropriate memorials for the -- for the gateway here to the city.
Borup: Would you be looking at personalizing that a little bit more, like for the veterans
of Meridian or something like that?
Jones: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Borup: Okay. Go on. I'm sorry.
Jones: I have been out to the site many times, you know, for obvious reasons. I have a
vested interest in it and, you know, at the beginning -- now, what, a year and a half --
about a year and a half that KFC's been open they were really busy at the beginning
and the site was very very congested and anybody that went over there knew that. The
stacking was a problem. The parking was a problem. But in the restaurant business
we know, you know, eventually, the honeymoon is over and you establish a sales
pattern at the restaurant. I think our Carl's Jr. restaurants at the beginning of our life
here in Boise we had serious honeymoon periods, as the Krispy Kreme is right now. It
probably wasn't as big as they had anticipated. There are problems at the beginning of
any restaurant chain. This will be, potentially, our seventh restaurant, so we don't
anticipate a huge bump in sales as we did in the very beginning. Garden City opened
up pretty steady. We have just maintained an even keel. I don't anticipate a huge
problem and congestion. I snapped some pictures for you, as I'm sure -- these were
taken on Thursday lunchtime and Friday lunchtime. I have tried to -- wanted to
represent --
Borup: We have got some in our packet from earlier. Are these the ones?
Jones: No. I think those might have been turned in by someone else. I just wanted to
show that -- that during the lunchtime -- and these were taken between 12:00 and 1:00.
I had a bunch of them, but I didn't want to -- didn't want to waste too much of your time.
This is exiting the restaurant. There is another one on the entrance where that's --
actually, that's the Taco Bell. They have -- I believe at that time they had six cars in
their drive-thru and they were wrapped around the drive-thru appropriately. It seems
like people have figured out how they are supposed to do the Taco Bell thing and it,
actually, seems like they are a little bit busier than they were the last time around. On
the KFC, this one on this side, you can't see it, but there is, actually, two -- two cars
stacked in their drive-thru and when I observed the most cars that got stacked back up
were to the fourth car, which blocked their first two parking spaces. If this is any
indication as to how the business is going on a Thursday and a Friday, which should be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 96 of 114
a -- you know, probably the busier days, there is not a lot of congestion on that side of
the lot. On the Taco Bell lot, they are using the drive-thru appropriately and there was
always parking available. As far as adding another restaurant -- actually taking down
that -- the restaurant that's there that's very -- in an awkward location, there is not
adequate -- you know, the parking is messed up and everything in the middle. By
taking that down and building the new restaurant with the new appropriate site plan is,
actually, going to continue to improve the site and I think that we have, actually, solved
the congestion issues as well, so --
Borup: Do you know what the difference in parking spaces are between what's there
now and what is proposed?
Jones: You know last time around Billy Ray did the presentation. I believe there are 36
or 37 spots.
Borup: On the site right now.
Jones: On the site right now and we are asking another 16, 18 slots, for a total of 52.
With our restaurant being just 46 seats, we are encouraging the folks to use the drive-
thru and I think that that will help the -- help the parking issue and it will not -- it will not
hurt the project as far as congestion. You know, we are putting out about, you know,
one car every minute through the drive-thru and with one car a minute on ours, one for
KFC, one for Taco Bell, so it's just three cars each minute and it's -- that's not an
incredible amount of traffic. With the improvements and with the staff's
recommendation, I would ask that you approve our third try at this, knowing that we
may have some support at City Council. I would stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Clayton?
Zaremba: What really appeals to me is fixing the driveway going out onto Meridian,
which you also had in the second plan last time.
Jones: Yes. We took care of that for you.
Zaremba: That's a very important thing to me. Let's see. Have you decided not to go
with a play area?
Jones: There is no room for a play area.
Zaremba: Okay. I have no other questions.
Centers: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Centers.
Centers: These parking spaces here, are they going to be your customer parking?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 97 of 114
Jones: We had -- really, I anticipate -- and that's where a lot of the KFC is parking right
now. A lot of their customers are parking up against the old KFC building. How it's
configured, I'm going to imagine that those are going to be for KFC parking -- KFC
quests. I'm envisioning the parking down here on the low side to be employee parking.
Centers: That's what it says on the plan, but it didn't have anything on the plan for
these.
Jones: Got you.
Centers: And I'm very aware of Mr. Nary's hang up with drive-thrus and walking across
and he's going to look at that right away. If customers are parking there and going
through the drive-thru to get to the entrance right here -- correct? Is that where the
entrance is?
Jones: That could possibly happen. However, if you'd care to put a condition, I would
be glad to put a --
Centers: Well, you're going to have to identify those, you know --
Jones: As KFC?
Zaremba: Yes. I was going to say a low fence or something, or just a rail across there
that would make it more difficult.
Jones: I, actually, think there is one already identified.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: There is one already identified and required on that plan. It is -- on the
latest plan it is --
Borup: Number 16. Note number 16.
Siddoway: Note 16, a 30-inch high continuous decor safety rail.
Centers: Right. Right so they can't get through there.
Siddoway: Right. They wouldn't be able to cut across.
Centers: And I guess, for the record, I have been to McDonald's across the street and,
you know, I like your plan and I think it will fly. These people coming in to get into the
drive-thru -- and I have seen it happen at McDonald's, I have witnessed it, kids running
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 98 of 114
out to go get in the car and these cars are -- not whizzing -- coming in there at a pretty
good little speed to get into the drive-thru and kids coming out -- bam. McDonald's,
right across the street, the same way, except worse and I would much rather -- and I will
go on record with Bill Nary, I would much rather walk through parked cars to get into the
entrance than to have to come across with my kids and be in danger here with the cars
coming in. Get my drift?
Jones: I do.
Centers: McDonald's is a perfect example, if you have been into McDonald's. It is bad
news. Right, Leslie?
Mathes: Yes.
Borup: You know, since this first -- and I haven't been in McDonald's, but since this first
came up, I have looked at a lot of drive-thrus over the last year --
Centers: Yes. Me, too.
Borup: -- for some reason, every time I'm at one, that's what I think about.
Centers: But Nary's thing, when he was on the Commission here, he talked about the
Arby’s that he would never wish he wouldn't have approved it, you know, out on Eagle
Road at Crossroads. I'd much rather walk through parked cars than -- with my kids and
holding their hand, but --
Borup: But there is -- I mean there is some sites that have better parking layouts, but
there is an awful lot of them that are much worse by far.
Centers: Drive-thrus are dangerous I don't care what you do with them. Period. I think
they are necessary. You mentioned the Krispy Kreme. I was there at 7:00 this morning
and it's the biggest mistake that ever happened to this city. I don't know how they let
that happen.
Borup: They? You were one of the they.
Centers: No. I'm talking about the state of Idaho putting up the sign exit onto Florence.
Borup: Oh. Oh, that.
Centers: You don't know where Florence Avenue is. That's a huge disaster waiting to
happen.
Zaremba: Well, in this case you have a very odd-shaped lot, triangular, narrow,
between two streets and -- it's tough to find a configuration that's going to work, given
the constraints around it. I see this as an improvement over the previous one.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 99 of 114
Jones: I think we did it.
Centers: Well, as you said, you got the staff to go along with it.
Zaremba: Did you get any sense from Councilman Nary that a drive-thru would just flat
be unapproved ever?
Jones: He did not say that.
Zaremba: Okay. That's some we had questioned, because of the previous -- I guess
it's the development agreement, whether that was a blanket statement forever or not.
Borup: Okay. Anything else? Does that conclude?
Jones: Great. Thank you very much.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Now is the time. Come up.
Hofferber: Hi, I'm Skip Hofferber, I'm the owner of Vista Corp and I have the Taco Time
behind the Chevron. I have a problem also. Maybe the pictures that you spoke of --
are these --
Borup: You're across the street you're saying?
Hofferber: Yes.
Borup: All right.
Hofferber: Those are the pictures that I took, again, some of the same days that -- on
the back, which you don't have, probably, I dated them and everything. It's lunchtime
on the 26th
of September from 11:45 until 12:30 and, then, at 5:45 to 6:30 on the same
day. Now, you can look at those pictures and I don't know where their excess parking
is, but they are parked all around that old KFC building. There is a truck in the back
illegally parked not -- which would actually be if you put up the -- the one that -- the
Carl's layout -- yes. There you go. They park in here, exiting, where there is not --
currently no parking designated, they park there. I have seen them parking in the drive-
thru there. These are all parking and these pictures all show this and this is filled here,
so I'm kind of wondering with another business and with a drive-thru, where all this
additional parking is going to come from, because all those pictures were taken on the
6th
, which, again, is, you know, one of their busier days. When I came here this evening
at 6:35, it was the same way, on a Wednesday night. You know, they say they meet the
requirements, I understand that, but the reality is what those pictures show, that there is
a cross-easement parking and cross-easement access, I would assume. They only
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 100 of 114
show the two businesses. You have four businesses there that only have one, two
access in and out of that whole -- and I don't know what's there, acre plus and, then,
whatever Bolo's and Taco Bell is on. On my property, I have four accesses onto
Progress, onto Main Street, and two onto -- whatever the road is that they call
Corporate, when you enter corporate, in between McDonald's and that. I have four
accesses and there are only two businesses -- only one with a drive-thru, me, and
Chevron, and we have 48 parks with a cross-easement parking and I only seat 48
people. You know, the requirement's there, all of a sudden, you know, with the seats
and I don't see where they are going to be getting enough parking here for employees.
He said this is for employees, but this is all taken up right now with the customers from
KFC-A&W, Bolo's, and Taco Bell, as those pictures show. You know, I'm trying to figure
out where -- and this right here, if you look at it -- and I know he said they wrap around,
but if you come in Taco Bell's drive-thru, they stack them to here, now you expect a
drive-thru for Carl's and both for KFC all to come in here? Because I'm betting more of
the traffic comes from this way, where you have only two access points of cars leaving,
if you're saying one a minute and you got three drive-thrus, you got three cars every
minute trying to get through their parking lot and if they do back up here, then, how do
the cars get to the A&W. I just, you know, find it hard -- and I know the Wendy's just
opened up and I know the requirements put on them and the stacking and the parking
requirements and they have it -- I just think they are trying to squeeze maybe a little too
much in here, from what these pictures show, like I say, you go down there anytime at
lunchtime and his pictures were taken, you know, maybe a day it was a little slower, but
the day I took it, you can see the results. I mean they are -- they are very busy, so --
and you're going to add one more business with eight to ten employees at lunch and
dinner? You know, I know that's what we run at my Taco Time, is usually 7:00 to 8:00,
and they probably run even more, so I'm kind of wondering where all the parking is
really going to come from when it's already filled up, so -- thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Atteberry: Chairman, Commissioners, I'm Phil Atteberry, I represent KFC, and this is
the third time we have been here for this project. I'd like to address a few of the items
that we have concerns with and especially the staff report on Page 6 on the prior
reasons for denial. Item number B, the drive-thru configuration, if we -- we have a
drive-thru here and everybody knows where our drive-thru is and, then, you have
another drive-thru for Carl's Jr. coming out here and they do have more stack here, but
if they should stack out through here, this is blocked off and there is no way to get into
our drive-thru or exit through here and at busy times it is just exactly like the last
gentleman said, we are packed. I'm sure all of you have been in there when parking
and getting around in this area here is very congested.
Borup: And you realize the new design adds two more cars?
Atteberry: It does add two more cars.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 101 of 114
Atteberry: But there are times when a drive-thru backs up, even with those two more
cars and it just so happens that those times are at your busiest times and that's going to
be the busiest time for Taco Bell, the busiest time for KFC, busiest time for Carl's Jr. It's
going to be the times when there is going to be the most congestion there. It's not
going to be the slow times. Slow times it's not going to be any problem going in there. I
think what we need to be addressing is when the busiest is when people are eating
lunch and when people are eating dinner. When that happens, that cuts that off and
with this new design here, this -- I believe in the prior configurations we had, I believe,
at least 25 feet here. This is down to 22 feet between these -- this driveway right here.
This is already very difficult to maneuver right now and now that we have lost two to
three feet, I'm not sure exactly what the numbers are here, that just adds to the
congestion and for this drive-thru to be exiting right in front of Taco Bell's window here,
along with cars driving both directions here, that's another congestion point right here.
Now, this right here being addressed is great. I believe Jonathan Gibbs has addressed
before, that no matter what goes in here, this is going to happen. This entrance is
going to be addressed along with -- and, then, on item C -- well, still on item B, they talk
about the drive-thru and pedestrians crossing -- not crossing the drive-thru. You have --
this parking right here and this parking right here is 21 of the spaces. Are all these
people going to be KFC? I don't think so and are they going to have to -- where are
these people -- how are these people going to get into Carl's Jr? Are they going to walk
through this drive-thru land with kids or are they going to walk out here on this busy
thoroughfare here where cars are exiting Taco Bell, plus going back and forth here?
There is just no way for these people right here to go around to this front door.
Centers: That's designated as employee parking on the plat.
Atteberry: This is designated as employee parking?
Centers: Right.
Atteberry: How are they going to designate that?
Centers: Signs, I guess.
Atteberry: There is no customer parking going to be there?
Borup: Well, if the employees are parking there, you can only get one car in a space.
That's what I feel.
Atteberry: Well, I really -- I really question whether that would be signed and
designated as employee parking.
Borup: So, you think the employees are going to park up there in the handicapped
spaces or what? I mean the --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 102 of 114
Atteberry: I don't know where they will park.
Borup: Okay.
Atteberry: They will probably park anywhere on the site.
Borup: Is that how you have your employees do it?
Atteberry: Our employee’s park right out here, they park here, and they park back in
here.
Borup: Okay. Wouldn't it be logical to think that the other business would do the same?
Atteberry: That would be -- and having a fence here, you're still -- you're going to be
crossing the drive-thru lane. I just -- I just can't see this drive-thru -- having three drive-
thrus in this small area right here is ever going to work.
Zaremba: Okay. What do you think should be there?
Atteberry: Well, I think any kind of business without a drive-thru would be perfectly
okay.
Zaremba: Aren't restaurants going to be -- if you don't have a drive-thru, then, you have
people getting out of their car and leaving them there and sitting in the restaurant --
Atteberry: That's correct.
Zaremba: -- which means more cars are going to accumulate than a drive-thru would
push through.
Atteberry: No, you would not have -- if you have people sitting down in 40 seats, you
can only get so many people sitting down. A drive-thru is a constant flow of cars
coming in there.
Borup: So, how much stacking do you usually get on yours?
Atteberry: On our drive-thru?
Borup: Yes.
Atteberry: We, actually, come all the way out to here sometimes.
Borup: So, you have got all your customers that are parking here have to go walk
through your drive-thru, then. Have to walk through your drive-thru cars.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 103 of 114
Atteberry: Right. There is parking right here right now along that -- the existing KFC
building and we have parking here.
Borup: And anyone over here has to cross through the drive-thru.
Atteberry: Correct, and we have people here that park out front right now, too. On Item
C, the congestion, I just -- I just don't see how the congestion has been addressed,
anymore so than the other two designs that were denied.
Zaremba: I remember the very first time this came to us, there was discussion about
how much of the parking is actually Bolo's.
Atteberry: Correct.
Zaremba: I guess evenings and particularly weekends --
Atteberry: Friday nights -- yes actually, Bolo's spills all the way over -- all the spaces in
front of KFC. All of Taco Bell's are used by Bolo's on a Friday night or I imagine tonight
the gentleman mentioned that their parking was all full. I'm sure everybody watching
the game tonight in Bolo's is part of the reason that was -- all the parking was used up
today. Because right now you have three restaurants in there and it is just very
congested.
Centers: Is the owner of this property the owner of Bolo's also?
Atteberry: That's correct, and Taco Bell.
Centers: So, all of you lease from the same individual?
Atteberry: That's correct.
Centers: Is there anything written or otherwise that nothing would be done with this
when you built -- or when you occupied the new building?
Atteberry: When we occupied the new building, the only thing that was said is the
drive-thru had to be abandoned, that the building had to be -- you know, the use permit
for the drive-thru had to be abandoned at that time --
Centers: As far as KFC.
Atteberry: As far as KFC.
Centers: If you have a new building, why would you want the old one anyway?
Atteberry: That's correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 104 of 114
Centers: Right. There was nothing ever indicated to you that something else might go
there? An ice cream shop, Carl's Jr., or whatever; right?
Atteberry: That's correct.
Centers: And you probably assumed that something would be going there at one time.
Atteberry: Oh, we always have.
Centers: Yes. Okay. You just don't want the drive-thru.
Atteberry: That's correct.
Centers: But you want your drive-thru.
Atteberry: That's correct.
Borup: But your drive-thru has more congestion than this one, from what you just said.
Atteberry: Well, my drive-thru does not, because we have all this over here, we come
out to here, and these cars can still get out of here from here.
Borup: No, they can't. You said you're backed up clear to this --
Atteberry: I said at times we come all the way back out to here.
Borup: Right so, these cars can't get in or out, then.
Atteberry: At times that's a problem.
Borup: Okay.
Centers: But I -- don't take me wrong, because I zero in on Bolo's, too and if you have
the same owner of all those properties --
Atteberry: That's correct.
Centers: -- you should be able to do something about Bolo's parking there, because I
know you're absolutely correct, Bolo's takes most of that parking at busy times and I
think some of these pictures that were submitted were Bolo cars.
Atteberry: That could very well be. I don't know when the pictures were taken.
Centers: I don't need the pictures, because I have been by there and, by the way, when
you submit pictures, take photos that have date and time on them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 105 of 114
Atteberry: I didn't submit those.
Centers: Yes. They do me no good. There is no date and time on there. I mean not
that I'm calling people liars, but if you had a date and time on the photo, by God, it's
fact, then.
Borup: Assuming the date's right.
Centers: Pardon?
Borup: Assuming the clock is right on the camera.
Centers: Yes. That's right, you could -- but, anyway, I agree with you on Bolo's totally.
Zaremba: Well -- and my comment I made when this came on the first hearing is I
would think it would be agreeable to the owner, certainly, and certainly in your favor to
mark some of those parking spaces as like one hour only. Your customers don't stay
any longer than that.
Atteberry: You can mark them anything you want and I have been doing this restaurant
--
Zaremba: Who would enforce it?
Atteberry: Who is going to enforce it? Who is going to -- especially a customer, we are
in the service business here, you're sure not going to go out there and tee off a
customer -- a potential customer that they shouldn't be parking there. That's just not
going to happen.
Centers: The only way you can address it, it has to be addressed in the lease and,
then, you can enforce it and the property owner can with the lessor.
Borup: Any other questions?
Centers: So, just to be straight, you're opposed it?
Borup: Yes. We were wondering.
Jones: Were you wondering?
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? The owner of the property. Come
forward.
Gibbs: Jonathan Gibbs, 9502 Scorpio in Boise, Idaho. I'm general partner,
administrative partner in the G&H Enterprises, which is the owner. You know, there is
certainly times on -- I have been watching that property quite a bit since the last year
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 106 of 114
and a half, too, to see the congestion and there are times when KFC has parking even
passed where he said it was and there are times that it runs very smooth and there is
plenty of parking on the lot and that's the nature of this business. I wanted to say one
other thing about that proposed sign to the city. I don't know what we can do there.
Right now we have -- we take care of ACHD property -- excess property on there. We
have an easement, we have lawn on it, and they are redoing that whole corner. I don't
know what they are going to have available and what -- you know, we can't put up a
sign that's going to -- even if it's not on KFC's leased property, if it interfered with
visibility and stuff for their restaurant. I don't think we could really say how a sign would
fit on that property at all until ACHD finishes that corner, which they are supposed to do
in the next six months.
Borup: The design you mean. The design of the corner or the construction?
Gibbs: The construction. They tell me they are supposed to have it done by spring.
Borup: So, they have got the design work done?
Gibbs: I don't know. They have never been able to show me anything really concrete
on that.
Borup: Okay. I'm saying once the design work is done, then, it should be able to be
located at that point.
Gibbs: Yes.
Zaremba: I have seen a version of it, but I couldn't describe it to you.
Gibbs: Yes. I can't -- I have never gotten anything really specific out of them on that.
Now, as far as parking, you know, I mentioned before we would have some off-street
parking. Both Taco Bell and KFC indicated they didn't want that for their employees and
Brad Bolicek did want some off-street parking for his employees. In fact, he bugs me all
the time, when are we going to get some of this parking. He would like to have it. We
are going to get it, but we don't want to do anything until we find out for sure what we
are going to do with this other site. We will have some for at least Bolo's employees
and probably Carl's Jr. employees, because they tell me they would like some, too. The
other two --
Borup: So, you're saying some off-site parking; is that what you're referring to?
Gibbs: Yes.
Borup: Okay, and when you say the other site, you mean the site to the west of Bolo's?
Gibbs: There is some --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 107 of 114
Borup: Do you still have some bare ground to the west of Bolo's?
Gibbs: We don't have any extra bare ground. However, there is some sites available --
there is some parking -- of course, there is a new plan now for over where Wendy's is,
because I talked to them about the possibility of some parking spots over there and
they were receptive, but I understand there is a Starbucks going in over there now and I
don't know what that's going to end up with.
Borup: So you have got the whole triangle is that correct?
Gibbs: Yes. Yes.
Borup: And is this -- and this property to the west of Bolo's, is that parking clear out
here to Meridian Road, then?
Gibbs: Oh, yeah. They have their -- there is like 40 some parks on the Bolo Taco Time
side, as well as the 49 or 50 that's on the site we are looking at now. Is it 60? Anyway,
we are going to get some off-site parking no matter what I put there, whether it's Carl's
Jr. or --
Borup: Krispy Kreme.
Gibbs: Probably not going to put a Krispy Kreme, but we do have two other tenants
that will go in there without a drive-thru if we have to. They are probably going to take
more parking than Carl's Jr. would with their small building, so -- but we will get some
off-site parking. As far as meeting the code of either Boise or Meridian, the parking we
have on there is adequate to meet the code. That doesn't necessarily mean it meets
the --
Centers: If Bolo's didn't use it it would.
Gibbs: We will solve some of Bolo's parking.
Centers: I think you got to agree with that. If Bolo's didn't use it, you would have ample
parking.
Gibbs: Yes. Especially in the evening. Bolo's doesn't use an awful lot during the lunch
hour. Their big time is evenings.
Centers: Yes. Right. Right.
Gibbs: And they do congest the place at that time.
Centers: Right. Are you saying that there are no guarantees for that sign easement?
Gibbs: I don't know where it would go.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 108 of 114
Borup: How about where it's drawn?
Centers: Out at the triangle there in front of the KFC, there is no guarantees on that?
Gibbs: I have a lease from KFC on that property, except for the property I have an
easement from ACHD, which I don't know what's going to be left when they finish the
road, whether there is anything we could use there or where that sign would fit in.
Borup: Right now the design shows it right here, Mr. Gibbs. Right there.
Gibbs: Yes, and that design is probably not on my property. Or if it is, it's barely on the
line. There is about 50 feet of ACHD property between my property line and the -- and
the road there at the corner right now that we maintain, so I don't know how much we
are going to have left, if any, on that.
Borup: Well, if this plat is correct, this is your property line right down here and right
down here, so it's just barely right inside it.
Gibbs: Well, that would be on KFC's property. I lease it to them. I can't put something
on there without their approval.
Centers: Okay. I don't think you're going to get that, in my opinion.
Zaremba: Well -- and the other part is if ACHD takes back all of their right of way, then,
that would be within the site triangle.
Centers: What I was leading up to -- this has to be a planned development? Do they
have to have two amenities? From what you're telling me I think we only have one
amenity left.
Gibbs: I saw that the first --
Centers: And that's the bench and memorial --
Gibbs: It was told to me like two days ago and I saw it the first time tonight, so I didn't
even know anything about it.
Borup: That was proposed last time, wasn't it?
Centers: Yes. They didn't talk about where they were going to put it, though.
Gibbs: Yes.
Centers: Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 109 of 114
Borup: Anything else you'd like to add?
Gibbs: Nothing from me, unless you have got any questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay.
Centers: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else have anything? If not, let's move on.
Centers: Well, Mr. Siddoway, would that be a fair statement? I mean --
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I -- we don't know what the second
amenity is if it's not this.
Centers: Because I don't think we are going to get that. I guess --
Siddoway: Based on the testimony tonight, it doesn't sound like it. I mean that was -- I
was under the impression it was the property owner's right to dedicate an easement
where it was and I didn't know that the lease affected that, so --
Centers: I would assume that, too.
Borup: Mr. Jones, would you like to -- final comments?
Jones: Yes. A little problem. A little problem. I don't know how this will play out.
However, ACHD does have quite a bit of right of way. If there is any left, of course, we
will definitely apply for a license agreement from them, if that's available to us. We will
try for the sign, because I think it's a great great idea and it's a perfect spot for it.
Actually, we could even, you know, put on the bottom of the sign presented by KFC and
Carl's Jr. Might even help be a little more neighborly. That being said, I -- you know, I
wish I had an idea for you for a second amenity, that's -- that's why I stipulated that we
would be glad to put those same funds towards any other amenity that we could deem
appropriate with staff's help at this time. We will -- the first priority is the sign, because I
think it's a great -- a great idea for the city.
Borup: Have you talked with ACHD or looked at their design --
Jones: No.
Borup: -- or anything that --
Centers: Any other amenity, then, staff would correct me if I'm wrong, it has to be on
the site.
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 110 of 114
Centers: Be nice to just take your money and put it in the bank, but --
Jones: I wouldn't mind that either.
Borup: Well -- but that's a perfect spot for a Welcome to Meridian sign.
Centers: Yes. It is.
Zaremba: And I think there was an aerial view that showed more land around the piece
that we are looking at. Okay. There. My understanding is that what's going to happen
is this is going to be closed off and somewhere along this property line Waltman is
going to make an L, that means a little bit more of this will be lost, but maybe not a
whole lot.
Borup: Yeah. If that gets in too tight, that makes the right-hand turn really difficult.
Jones: We would try and resolve this one way or another before Council.
Zaremba: Yes. I do know that there will be no access at this point and I think what they
are doing now is directing traffic here, so whether they need to take part of this, I don't
know.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, assuming always gets me in trouble, but, nonetheless, I
would assume that ACHD would not be this far along in design and ready to build if they
did not already have their right of way, so I would not anticipate that they would be
needing more right of way than what they already have for the improvements that they
are about to do. I don't think this lot line is going to change as a result of the
improvements, they are going to be doing it within the --
Borup: I'm sure that's right.
Siddoway -- they have quite a bit of distance between the property line and the current
curb, which sits out here, and I believe they will be working within that area.
Borup: I'm sure that -- I think that's correct.
Jones: As we did with Mr. -- or Commissioner Zaremba's first request, we would
immediately go to ACHD to see if we could secure a licensing agreement, and if I could
just quickly comment on the parking for the employees and I know that we have kind of
done this to death, but, you know, right now my competitors don't want me there, but I
think once we -- once we get approved we will be good neighbors and work together
and, in all reality, we will use that whole side there for both his parking -- or his
employee parking and ours.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 111 of 114
Borup: Okay. Anything else? Thank you, Mr. Jones. Commissioners, where do we go?
I think the thing that kind of got thrown in at the last there was the gateway sign, but --
anybody want to start?
Zaremba: Well, let's see. Actually, let's ask Mr. Jones again. If -- yes. If the Meridian
sign, which we all like, were not a possibility, do you have a suggestion for a second
amenity?
Jones: You know, water features are big. I am not a creative person, unfortunately. I
was counting on my sign and, then, I just kind of realized, oh, oh, you know, there could
be a problem on there. A water feature of some sort. All these -- you know, these
buildings are beautiful with the office stuff and they have got -- you know, that could be
an addition to the memorial bench and flags. You know, I would offer a playground, but
I think that would a bad thing. I'd work with staff to come up with something --
something appropriate for the size and scope of the site and I would dedicate the
monies towards it.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Question for staff? Is that feasible for that to be worked out before City Council?
Siddoway: That's what I'm sitting over here mulling over in my mind. The safe thing to
do would be to have an agreed upon two amenities before sending it onto Council. We
can send it on to Council with the requirement that they do the sign and work it out with
ACHD and/or the property owner, but the question in my mind is what if the answer is
no, does it, then, get remanded back here to discuss the second amenity that -- as
modified or will City Council just act on it and I don't know.
Borup: Well, that's what I was wondering.
Zaremba: Our regular instinct has been to send as few mysteries onto the City Council
as possible and our feedback has always been they appreciate that.
Borup: I think in this case the only reason that we are talking about two amenities,
because the ordinance hasn't been changed yet to allow two buildings on a single site,
which -- how is that coming along? A month or so ago they said that was one of the first
things you were working on is rewriting that ordinance.
Siddoway: Well, Anna is initiating a rewrite of the entire ordinance and I'm sure it will be
looked at as part of it, but I don't think we are going to piecemeal it.
Borup: Oh, I thought that's what we decided we were.
Siddoway: Oh. I don't know, then.
Borup: So, it wouldn't take so long. Unless I'm thinking of something else.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 112 of 114
Siddoway: I don't know the answer to that without Anna here.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: We need to separate the sign ordinance from the rest of it, but I think she still
wanted to incorporate all changes at once. She's changing the format, too, as well
right?
Siddoway: Yes.
Zaremba: To make it more user friendly.
Siddoway: Yes.
Borup: Well, that was one of the notes I had going through this. I was wondering how
that was coming. I mean to me it seems like this is more of a technicality just to comply.
So, I don't have -- I don't have a big problem with City Council deciding on the second
amenity, but I don't know if they want to get into that either.
Zaremba: Well, the Public Hearing is still open. Let me ask Mr. Jones. I think he
already answered the question, but are you going to approach ACHD and see if you
can learn exactly what their final configuration where this Waltman change is and if you
can lease some of their space?
Jones: Yes.
Zaremba: The answer was yes. Okay. I would be comfortable forwarding it to City
Council with that knowledge.
Borup: Would that be your preference, Mr. Jones that it be forwarded to City Council
even with some loose ends? His answer was yes.
Zaremba: Well, I'm -- my question was could you have an agreement with ACHD
before it gets to City Council or the knowledge that you're never going to have the
agreement?
Jones: I will approach ACHD tomorrow with the architects and, you know, we should
have a resolution before City Council one way or the other.
Zaremba: Okay. Even if it went to City Council with a no, then, you would be prepared
to offer a second amenity at that point?
Jones: Yes. That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay. I'm comfortable with that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 113 of 114
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to close the hearing?
Zaremba: If it's appropriate to close the hearing, so moved.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion to close the hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Centers: Well, just so you know where I'm coming from, so you're not in the dark, I
drove by there tonight on the way to the meeting, 20 to 7:00, a quarter to 7:00 -- and I
don't know how many percentage of the parking was taken, but a lot of it was. My
previous position on this was, you know, you want to see a business do well and come
in and, you know, if it's congested, the public are going to find out about it and they will
avoid it, you know, so be it, let them have it. You know, I just keep coming back to
Bolo's and the owner of the whole parcel not controlling that situation and it is a mess
there and I won't patronize it. I think A&W hit the nail on the head and I didn't hear this
at the previous two hearings. I think you could go on record, you're fine with a
restaurant there, as long as it doesn't have a drive-up and that would be my position,
too, because the third time's usually the charm and maybe it is with me, but you folks do
what you want. I'm not in favor of it at this time, even though they have made some
good changes, they really have, but that Bolo's, that parking is a mess. I guess I
experienced Krispy Kreme this morning, too, and it made me more negative on these
kinds of operations. That's where I'm coming from, but you folks just go right ahead.
Zaremba: I agree with Commissioner Centers on one point, which I think he even
made the last time and that is if customers can't get in there, they'll go over to Taco
Time and McDonald's and I think it behooves the three or four restaurants that are there
to work out together specifically I guess what has to be done with Bolo's, because they
appear to be the ones that are messing it up, but I -- it's to their detriment to chase
customers away. That being said, I don't have a problem approving it.
Centers: Not to jump back in, but the owner of this property or the general partner
commented that he had a couple people waiting in line that didn't have drive-ups, so I
don't think it's a disservice to the owner if he can build to suit without a drive-up, he's
got two people waiting in line and that's what he's testified earlier to, so --
Borup: Anyone else? Anybody want to venture a motion?
Zaremba: Along with being sensitive to what Commissioner Centers is saying, I think I
am willing to send this on to City Council and, therefore, I will make a motion. I move
that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda,
CUP 03-042, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new Carl's Jr. restaurant with a
drive-thru service window by Clayton Jones. North of the intersection of South Meridian
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 114 of 114
Road, East Central Drive, and South Main Street, to include all staff comments of their
memo for the hearing date of October 16th
, received by the Clerk October 9, 2003. Just
noting that the applicant will be prepared with a second amenity if they cannot work out
with ACHD the location of the Meridian monument sign. Are there any other issues?
End of motion.
Mathes: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? Three ayes. One nay.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE
Borup: Thank you. That's moved on to City Council and I don't know -- anything --
housekeeping issues staff needed to mention?
Zaremba: I would just make a comment, as much for the record as anything else. Last
Saturday Meridian lost a very valuable citizen, Malcolm MacCoy. His funeral was today.
This is somebody who was at one time chairman of this Commission and has been very
active in the city, just volunteering for everything, Kiwanis, Boys Scouts, nearly every
committee that has anything to do with deciding the future of Meridian and I'd just like to
say he's a great loss. He's also a personal loss. He took me under his wing and is part
of the reason that I asked to be on this Commission. Has done a lot of mentoring with
me and we have had some long talks and I will miss him and the city will miss him.
Borup: Very well said. Thank you. One more motion.
Zaremba: I move we adjourn.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: We adjourned at 12:03.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:03 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
/ /
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
October 16, 2003
Page 115 of 114
ATTESTED:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK