2004 03-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 4, 2004.
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup.
Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm,
Commissioner Wendy Newton-Huckabay, Commissioner David Zaremba, and
Commissioner David Moe.
Others Present: Jill Holinka, Tara Green, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Wendy
Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Craig Hood, Steve Siddoway, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ David Moe
___X___ Wendy Newton-Huckabay ___X___ Michael Rohm
___X___Chairman Keith Borup
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly
scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and start with roll
call of the Commissioners.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
A. Approve minutes of January 15, 2004 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting:
Borup: First item is minutes of January 15th. Any --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: I would like to make two minor amendments. On page four, what I count as
the 10th line down, on the ninth line Brad Hawkins-Clark speaks. On the 10th line it
says Zaremba, but I believe that should say Borup, as you said that, not me. Then,
continuing on down below that there is a Seel, Borup, Seel, Borup, Seel -- on the 16th
line says Zaremba, which I believe also should say Borup. And, then, following that
was me. So, line ten and line 16 should be the Chairman and not me. I had no other
comments.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else?
Zaremba: Hearing none, Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the minutes of the meeting
of January 15th, 2004, as amended.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 2 of 76
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Before we go into the remainder of the agenda, we'd like to turn a few
minutes over to Mayor de Weerd.
De Weerd: Thank you. Do I need to give you my name and address? I just wanted to
welcome our two newest members of the Commission and restate, I guess, the
appreciation of the Mayor and Council to all of you. We know that this is a time
commitment and you add great value to our process and to the planning of our city and
we appreciate what you do and welcome Mr. Moe and Wendy, I have only known you
as Wendy, so I get caught up with this Newton-Huckabay -- Huckabay -- Huckabay.
But welcome. We do appreciate your commitment and your acceptance of this
appointment to the Commission. The six-year appointment.
Moe: Boy, I don't remember that.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me make those comments and, again,
welcome to the new members and just to again restate, we appreciate all you do and
the commitment you have to the city.
Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 03-038 Request for annexation and zoning of 21.38
acres from C-2 to C-G zones for proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision
by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – northeast corner of East Victory Road and
South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Item 5: Public Hearing: PFP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Final Plat approval
of 4 commercial building lots on 21.38 acres in a proposed C-G zone for
proposed Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. –
northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 03-071 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development to allow the construction of a combination feed
store and gas station / convenience store on one of the proposed lots and
to allow the existing commercial and residential uses to remain and the
property for Mussell Corner Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. -
northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Meridian Kuna Highway:
Borup: Thank you, Mayor. Okay. The first item is concerning the Mussell Corner
Subdivision. We'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-038, the request for annexation
and zoning of 21.38 acres from C-2 to C-G zones for the proposed Mussell Corner
Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. Also like to open Public Hearing PFP 03-007,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 3 of 76
request for preliminary final plat approval of four commercial building lots and we'd like
to open Public Hearing CUP 03-071, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned
development to allow construction of a combination feed store, gas station,
convenience store on one of the proposed lots and to allow the existing commercial and
residential uses to remain on the same property. Again, all three hearings are open at
this time and we'd like to start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applicant is
concurrently applying for annexation and zoning, preliminary/final plat and Conditional
Use Permit approval for a planned development that includes four build-able lot on
21.38 acres within the proposed C-G zone. The site is located on the northeast corner
of Victory Road and Kuna-Meridian Road, also known as State Highway 69. This
property is currently zoned C-2 in Ada County and is designated on the city's
Comprehensive Plan as commercial. The site is currently being used to grow and
store materials for the commercial landscape nursery. There is also a sprinkler
irrigation business. A drive-thru, expresso shop. And a single-family residence that
also serves as the landscape office. To the north of this site is Edmonds Subdivision,
which is right here. Large -- it's zoned RUT in the county. There is also a vacant big --
large vacant parcel that's -- there is some storage going on on this site and it's vacant
right now. To the south is a 143-acre here that's medium density residential in the city's
Comprehensive Plan. There is a single family home that's not on this screen here on
the site. Most of this is used as agriculture at this time. To the east is Observation
Point Subdivision. There is one single family home on this lot here. This is all one
large lot and, then, the rest of Observation Point. And to the west are some single-
family homes on large acreages as well. Also zoned RUT in Ada County. On one of
the four parcels proposed for building is a new combination feed store, gas and
convenience station. That is right on the corner -- the northeastern most -- well, the
southwestern most part of this site, but the northeast corner of the intersection.
Another one of the proposed lots is for a future stand-alone commercial building, which
is just to the north of that lot there here on the second lot. The remaining two lots and
the majority of the site are the existing commercial landscape business. There are the
existing structures. This is -- the home office is in this location here. The sprinkler
irrigation business and some other buildings that are on site -- there is a large pond in
this general location. A CUP PD application is required, because there are multiple
buildings proposed on a single parcel and because the existing residential use is
prohibited in a proposed C-G zone. The subject development is eligible for a combined
preliminary/final plat application, which you see here, because the proposed subdivision
does not exceed four lots. There are no new streets being dedicated or widened and
this development is not located within a flood plain or hillside, or the like. The planned
development application requests that the existing single family home be approved in a
C-G zone as a use exception, as allowed by city code. The applicant has not
submitted detail plans for Lot 2 and is requesting only conceptual approval at this time.
The submitted site plan and landscape plan do depict the required 35-foot wide
landscape buffer adjacent to Kuna-Meridian Road and a 20 foot wide landscape buffer
adjacent to Victory Road. However, except for the landscaping adjacent to the
proposed gas feed store in Lot 3, the applicant is requesting that the landscaping
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 4 of 76
requirement be waived until these lots redevelop. The applicant is proposing to utilize
the open space provided by the commercial nursery as one amenity and a meandering
sidewalk adjacent Kuna-Meridian Road as the other. There is the elevation for the
proposed feed, convenience -- or feed store on that lot on the southwest side of the
property. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed annexation and zoning and
development of this property at this time for these main reasons: The site lies outside
the five-minute response zone goal of the Meridian fire department. Municipal sanitary
sewer and water systems are not readily available to provide service. The applicant is
not proposing to bring the existing uses that are to remain, signage, landscaping, public
infrastructure, screening, drive aisles or parking into compliance with current city code.
The proposed access points to Kuna-Meridian Road do not meet the location
requirements of ITD or action item two in Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed building setbacks, landscape waivers, and lack of a frontage road or
accounting for additional right of way on State Highway 69 does not meet the policies
outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and Meridian city code. The applicant did submit a
response letter a couple days ago, I believe, and I believe all of you should have a copy
of that. I did want to touch on a couple of those, answer a couple of questions that the
-- respond to a couple of the questions and, then, also ask a couple of questions of the
applicant or have a couple of responses anyways. I also did want to make sure that
everyone got a copy of the letter from Cloyd and Bonnie Nelson, dated the 23rd of
February. They had some concerns with an alteration of a drainpipe. They are on the
west side of the state highway -- just on the other side of the state highway from this
site and did have some concerns there. They have contacted, to my understanding,
ITD and ITD was supposed to send an engineer out there to look and see what type of
alterations has been done, but I did want to make sure you all received a copy of that.
Sorry about that. Get back to the site plan here. In the applicant's response letter
there is -- they stated that they will be eliminating the middle curb cut on Victory Road
per the highway district's requirements. I can't exactly see it. It's somewhere in this
location here, though. And that they will also be installing curb, gutter, sidewalk and full
roadway improvements along the frontage. This is a good step, I guess, and I do
support them in reducing the curb cuts. That is something that's encouraging. I
wanted the applicant, maybe, to clarify what type of improvements, because in the
submittal they stated that they weren't going to do any roadway improvements adjacent
to the existing landscape business. So, I wasn't sure if that included landscape -- a
landscape buffer adjacent to that lot and irrigation business or not, so I just wanted to
kind of find out a little bit more from the applicant on that and the applicant also states
that they are willing to correct the past issues and uses on the site and I didn't know
how that was going to be done, what they are proposing in the development agreement
may not be some past actions in the county doesn't really seem to be seem to be
applicable -- may or may not be applicable to the city and removing buildings or signs or
lighting that's been installed without county approval. Some of the uses on the site
haven't been approved by the county, so I just didn't -- wasn't sure what type of
improvements they are willing to do, if we decided that this is in the best interest of the
city to annex and it's developed. I did want to point out a couple of things to you that --
even if ITD decides to approve access points, that doesn't necessarily mean that the
city has to allow the development to utilize those access points and they have certain
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 5 of 76
criteria -- they do have jurisdiction over those roadways, the same with ACHD
roadways. And we also have policies that we can restrict points and if we don't think
it's in the interest of the city to utilize those access points, we can restrict that
development, so that's something that I wanted to point out and a couple of times in the
letter the applicant stated that ACHD's recommending approval of access points to the
state highway and, really, that's not stating what ACHD policy is, if this were an ACHD
roadway. Now, ACHD does not have jurisdiction over any roadways that are 55 miles
an hour, so I would doubt that if this were an ACHD roadway that they would approve
access points, you know, consistent with their locations, they are looking at, you know,
roadways that are usually 35 miles an hour, thereabouts. Another thing that the
applicant asks if a gas station doesn't make sense on arterials, where do they. And I
guess staff doesn't necessarily -- I'm not necessarily opposed to a gas station in this
location. Again, it's more kind of the access point and the design thereof. I think if
access were taken from Victory Road, which is a collector roadway, I think that a gas
station does make sense in this location. It's more the design of kind of what's going
on there. So, some of those concerns could go away with better -- a better site plan.
It wouldn't have as negative an impact, I don't believe, if it were on a roadway with
lesser speeds. The applicant also asks why it's not in the city's best interest to annex
the home office and because the applicant was not proposing to bring that site up to
current city standards, I didn't think it was in the best interest and this site has had some
history and just -- if it were a vacant piece of ground, the city does often allow phases to
go in and you install landscaping when that phase goes in. This is an existing
commercial business that will continue to be utilized and we don't know when it's going
to and I doubt the applicant or his representative knows when it's going to redevelop.
So, if we don't get some of these improvements at this time, that landscape business
could be there for 20, 30 -- however many years. I mean we don't know that. So, that
was an issue that I wanted to just point out. And, then, also the vacant parcel, 143
acres there to the south and there is a neighborhood commercial designation also on
the Comprehensive Plan. There will be -- there aren't a lot of people around here now
and the applicant's correct in that. It is county ground pretty much all the way around
this parcel, but in the future there will be people here, so we just -- I was just making
sure that these uses are the uses that the city wants to see, if that's the way that the city
decides to go, there will be people around here when you look at when it's fully
developed, not just existing residences in this neighborhood, but future residences as
well. And, in conclusion, I'm encouraged by some of the things that were stated in the
rebuttal letter and especially about the developer's willingness to develop this project in
line with the city's requirements, but for the reasons listed in the staff report, annexation
of this site does not seem to be in the city's best interest at this time. So, that will
conclude my report and I will sit for any questions you may have.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Powell: Chairman Borup, if I could add some testimony just on a staffing -- it's not
zoning related, but I did want to provide testimony. This site doesn't -- this property
owner, as documented in your staff report, doesn't have just a short history of
noncompliance with Ada County, they have a longstanding history of noncompliance
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 6 of 76
with Ada County. It takes their code enforcement officer quite a bit of time dealing with
this property, as well as the prosecuting attorney's office. I would encourage you to
consider whether it's in the best interest of the city for this reason also, because I mean
the City of Meridian prides itself on being kind of lean and mean as far as staffing goes.
Or staffing is stretched to the limit. Is this really an area where we want to have to
focus a lot of our attention as far as code enforcement and the attorneys. I mean there
have been -- I heard today -- and I don't know all the particulars, but I heard that there
was even an issue regarding the irrigation district that went all the way up to the
Supreme Court on this property. So, you're talking about somebody -- and the county
standards aren't even -- aren't that great -- you know, they are not that onerous to begin
with and I really fear that this will become a staffing concern in the future and that it -- I
strongly believe it's not in the interest of the city at this time to accept the property until
we have a full development plan where everything is going through all at the same time
and we can get this site developed as it should be. I question the -- just the timing of
annexation and zoning.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Dave
McKinnon. I'm representing the applicant tonight. My address is 12552 West
Executive Drive. I'm representing Pinnacle Engineers, but on behalf of the applicant
tonight, which is Double D Feed and Seed and not Tim Mussell, the owner of the
property. I guess I better just start off with where Anna left off there talking about some
of the issues that the owner of the property has had with the county and just address
those really quick, so that we can talk about that. You should have all received in your
packet a letter from the county stating five different violations that have been on site
and the ongoing issues that they have had with Ada County and in my rebuttal letter I
responded that we have talked with the owner of the property about this and he said --
he has stated that he will take care of those problems before we get to the point where
we do building permits and in my rebuttal letter I recommended that prior to the
annexation or prior to the signature of the city on this project or for -- or prior to the
issuance of a building permit, that all five of those issues be resolved prior to the city
signature. So, there is a way that you can do this and some of the questions that Craig
brought up about whether it's appropriate for the city to be able to handle it that way -- I
can answer that in the affirmative that, yes, the city can handle it this way, because an
annexation itself is a legislative function of the city, you have to determine whether or
not this is something that the city wants and if the city wants it, under what conditions
does the city want this. If the city wants all of the conditions completed by Tim Mussell
prior to annexation that is something that the city can require prior to the annexation.
So, there is a way for you guys to take care of the issues with the county for the county
and for the city before this property is brought in. The issues that Anna addressed
earlier about the issue of the irrigation district going all the way to the Supreme Court,
Tim Mussell did settle with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation Company -- I heard the long
story and to make a long story short, Tim had to pay a lot money and it's mostly going
to be handled through insurance money to correct the problem that was there and it
was a tiling of the ditch and they went ahead and piped it and Tim fought the payment
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 7 of 76
and so that's why it went to the Supreme Court, but it's, actually, been settled now. So,
there is a way for the city to be able to control what happens on this site through the
legislative process of annexation. I'm going to jump just right to -- in talking a littler
earlier tonight, I talked a little bit with Mike Rohm and he told me how much time he
wanted to spend on this tonight and I'll keep my comments brief. I'll just start with the
staff report that Craig Hood had right from the beginning. His major reasons that he
stated for the denial of this project was, number one, that there was a -- that we are
outside the five minute response zone for the fire department and, Craig, if you can go
back to the overhead. All right. That's great. Let me show you all the projects that are
outside of the Meridian five-minute response areas that have already been approved by
your board and the City Council. Observation Point, which is actually further away.
Meridian Greens. Bear Creek. Still outside of the five-minute response zone for the
Meridian fire department is Kentucky Ridge, the adjacent subdivision to the site. When
the Wal-Mart, ShopKo, and Crossroads Plaza was approved that was outside of the
five- minute response area. The northern Meridian -- north Meridian -- the majority of
north Meridian was outside of the five-minute response area. There is a lot of projects
that have been approved outside of the five-minute response area and while I believe
that that's a very good goal to have to have everybody within five minutes of the fire
station, based on limited resources and the amount of growth that has happened in the
City of Meridian, it's not always possible. I have had a chance to talk with Joe Silva
about that and Joe Silva has stated that -- one, that if it was all to be a fire sprinkled
building he wouldn't have as much of a problem with it and we are intending on fire
sprinkling this entire building. So, the fact that the response time can go down, if the
building is sprinkled is something that he said he could live with. So, there has been a
precedent set by the city of Meridian to take pieces of property and approve properties
outside of the five-minute response area. To take a stand at this point to say that
nothing outside of the five-minute response area could be approved, there is a number
of final plats that should not be approved until additional fire stations as well are
approved in the City of Meridian. So, it's a great goal to have, but it's not one that
continues to allow for growth in the City of Meridian. The second issue was dealing with
sewer and water and the availability of --
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. David, before you go on, I would only comment that none of
the ones that you mentioned are gas stations.
McKinnon: They are not gas stations.
Zaremba: That may make a difference.
McKinnon: Okay. Well, the gas station response is typically the automatic shutoff and
there is a requirement to meet all the Uniform Fire Code requirements for the gas
station. Those are all things that have to be done with the fire station. I could
probably -- I didn't get all of the fire -- all of the gas stations that are outside of the one
and a half mile radius of the fire department, but the fire department's itself area is
much greater than the City of Meridian itself and there is a number of fire stations -- a
number of gas stations in the Meridian fire district's response area that are outside of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 8 of 76
the five minute response area as well. So, one of the major concerns that they have in
the five minute response area is typically tied to life safety in regards to if someone was
to have a heart attack, they need to get to that person in that amount of time. It's not
typically associated with the fire, especially for a sprinkled building. Back onto the
sewer and water issue being the second reason for the recommendation for denial, that
it's not located conveniently with this site. Just to point out where the water is at and
the fact this would be developed or borne and it's also in accommodation with the city's
master plan for water. The city plans on having water brought from Observation Point
along Victory to State Highway 69 -- actually, across State Highway 69 and continue
over. In talking with the Public Works Department originally with this project, they
asked us if we would provide an easement for the water and sewer at this location, so
water and sewer can be brought to this site and across the front of that site. We are
annexing -- requesting annexation of this entire site. Water is less than a quarter mile
away from this site to be brought to this site. It's not as though we are dragging the
water miles to this site. There is several projects that have had to have water brought
to them and the developer is paying for the expense to drag the water to the side, in
accordance with Meridian's requirements. The sewer is a little bit tougher and I spent
quite a bit of time with Brad -- Brad Watson and Bruce Freckleton concerning the
location of the sewer and how sewer can be handled. In your staff report you received
from staff there is a recommendation for a four inch lift station, essentially, to pump this
sewage all the way up to a gravity sewer location -- I'm indicating approximately a half
mile north. Currently under the City of Meridian's master plan for the sewer system
there is plans to bring a sewer in line down along State Highway 69 with a diversion
structure someplace in this location; is that correct? More or less. Bruce is nodding. A
diversion structure in this location. Then, continue down and provide another structure
at this location for sewer. The sewer from this site would be able to accommodate -- it
would be able to go into this site, but prior to tonight's meeting, in talking with Brad
Watson, they haven't been able to do the modeling yet to determine what would be the
most appropriate location and whether or not the four inch is better than bringing the
whole thing down. The applicant would prefer to wait -- in talking with Brad Watson he
said probably about a month's time he could have better modeling that would show
where it would be -- where the sewer should come from down through here to the site.
The applicant would rather do it once the right way, rather than construct a pressure
main for a half a mile, then, to be able to hook onto gravity within several years. The
developer is willing to bear the expense of this, with late-comers fees, obviously, but to
bring sewer down that location in accordance with Meridian's requirements. So, the
idea that we will continue to work with the Public Works Department, we may need
some extra time for that, so at the end of tonight's meeting we will probably ask for a
continuance in order work this issue out. The third issue that Craig brought up that said
that we are not bringing the existing uses into compliance. This is something that's an
interesting item to discuss. We are dealing with an existing site -- existing commercial
uses and there is no intent right now of the commercial nursery to change what they are
doing. They have been there for a number of years and, then, to automatically require a
landscape nursery to provide landscaping and curb, gutter, and sidewalk a full quarter
mile, essentially, north of this site -- it's a little less than a quarter mile, but we will call it
an eighth of a mile north of this site and landscape that when they are not planning on
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 9 of 76
doing any redevelopment to the site, seems this is not the appropriate time to do that,
but, rather, when this site redevelops. I happen to know that Tim is working with other
people for future sites along this property and, to be quite honest, he probably will not
be the owner of this property for many years to come, he will probably continue his use
until the land becomes valuable enough that he can redevelop. The issues along
Victory Road, as Craig pointed out our letter, we are actually going to build the full
length of Victory in accordance with ACHD requirements. You all should have received
a copy of ACHD's report with ACHD's requirements for all of the improvements, which
include a sidewalk, in addition to a bicycle path lane, and the striping. Craig, if you can
go to the site plan that's just below this one, the next one. ACHD has previously
acquired right of way for the signalization of this intersection. Within the next two years
this intersection will be signalized. The right of way has already been secured at this
location for -- the right of way for the widening for the right turn lane at this location.
Craig, if you can go back to the next -- to the previous picture again. There was some
discussion about which driveway we are eliminating and Craig wanted us to point that
out. There is currently a driveway right where this red line is and that's the driveway we
will be keeping and that driveway goes directly into the gas station off of Victory Road,
approximately 185 feet from the near edge of the existing pavement back to the gas
station. So, there is an access to this site off of Victory. The existing access, for those
of you that have ever visited the Victory Greens, there is an existing access point right
here that's right next to the house between an outbuilding. That's the access that we
will be closing and so there won't be any access to the existing office house off of
Victory. We will have to come in from this curb cut further down Victory that's in
accordance with ACHD or this curb cut that's 185 feet off of State Highway 69. So,
those are the -- that's the curb cut we are closing. It's the middle one in this location.
The issues dealing with ITD, we are still in discussions with ITD. I have spoken at
length with Matt Ward and Dean Golden and Dan Kuntz and, basically, what we have
boiled this down to at this point is we have received a deed that states -- from ITD back
in 1987 that we have three deeded accesses to State Highway 69 from this parcel.
You should have all received a copy of that deed with the accesses in my letter. So,
there is three accesses that have been deeded to this property owner from Idaho
Transportation Department. We are working with them to try to get those accesses.
Just to address the final comment that was made by Craig concerning ITD, that even if
ITD grants these to us and ACHD recommends approval of this, the fact that you don't
have to grant these to us is absolutely true. This is an annexation. It's a legislative
function. However, bear in mind that just a half mile north of this site you have recently
approved a project with two curb cuts just south of Overland Road off of State Highway
69, which is a more congested intersection. The application for that was approved by
the City of Meridian. However, Idaho Transportation Department did not approve those
accesses and they are currently in litigation with ITD to be granted those accesses that
were approved by the City of Meridian. This is not as congested a site as that and we
would ask that we be granted the ability to continue working with ITD in the future.
And, again, we will probably ask for a continuance of the hearing tonight in order to
continue working with ITD to gain access. The fifth item that Craig had had to deal with
the right of way and the building. He just wanted some clarification. I think I have
addressed some of those issues already. I'll just move down through a few other
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 10 of 76
things. In response to Cloyd and Bonnie Nelson's letter, I spent a couple of phone calls
with Cloyd -- in fact, I'm the one that put Cloyd in contact with the Idaho Transportation
Department to find out about the ditch that runs underneath I-84 and just in accordance
with state law, we will continue to allow the water to flow from his property through this
property and we will work with him on that. Design issues regarding that ditch haven't
been addressed. It's typically addressed with the final plat construction drawings, which
have not yet been constructed in our office. It's a long report and there is a lot of
issues that have been brought up. Just to wrap things up -- I know I will have a chance
for rebuttal and I know there is some other issues that need to be addressed with this
tonight, but you might have some questions. Just to wrap things up, we are really
looking at -- Craig, could you go to the picture of the gas station. This -- essentially,
what we are looking at having approved tonight. The annexation of the property is in
the interest of the city for a number of reasons. One is that we are trying to do it in
accordance with the City of Meridian's master plan for utilities. It's a developer-borne
cost, rather than a city-borne cost. You will be annexing a large piece of property into
the City of Meridian, which will increase the commercial tax base of the City of Meridian,
rather than keeping it in Ada County. You will see this corner improved fully with
landscaping and curb -- or sidewalk and you will see Victory Road completely improved
all with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. And you will see an increased viability in this area,
because other developments will be able to spring up if the sewer system is brought
through. So, it is in the interest of the city to see this area developed, rather than to let
it remain as is. It's been mentioned that this has had problems with Ada County. This
is going to clean up some of the problems that are with Ada County. If it's not annexed
into the city and not allowed to develop, it will sit and remain as is with no improvements
for a number years to come, possibly. So, it is in the interest of the city to annex the
piece of property, to gain the tax base, and to gain the improvements for this area and
to gain the infrastructure improvements for the area. The major area that we are
looking at developing through the Conditional Use Permit alone is what you see on the
overhead right now. We are looking for approval of a gas station. We know that we
have some issues that are still outstanding with the Idaho Transportation Department
concerning gaining access and we'd ask that you continue this meeting tonight to allow
us to have the additional time to work with ITD to gain those access points and
determine where the access points are best left. Ada County Highway District had
mentioned that they recommended approval. Craig had some concerns about the
recommendations for approval. One thing that needs to be pointed out that with
ACHD's recommendation for approval that included acceleration and deceleration
lanes, it wasn't just coming off a 55 mile an hour road onto this site, it was to include
acceleration and declaration zones for the accesses. We know that this access will
have to be removed. It doesn't even meet Ada County Highway District's request for a
right-in, right-out. Their request was a 220-foot offset from Victory. We know that that
right-in, right-out would possibly be moved and we believe that we can live with it to be
eliminated if we would have shared access in this location. This is what we'd like to see
approved tonight. The annexation is the only way to get this to this point. The
preliminary plat separates this lot from the remainder of the lots, so that the owner can
sell this property. We have worked with the different agencies to try to get to a point
where we can approve this project and I'd ask if you have any questions at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 11 of 76
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Could you elaborate on the acceleration,
deceleration lanes, where they were planned for?
McKinnon: Sure. Craig, could you go back to the aerial again? Typically, on a 55 mile
an hour road, Idaho Transportation Department requests a 250 foot long deceleration
lane and that's typically one lane wide, which would be 12 feet wide, where a vehicle
could pull off of the main areas of travel, it's a five lane road, so that the external lane,
the lane that's closest to the property, will have 250 feet to slow down out of traffic
before making a right-hand turn into the site. In addition to that, an acceleration lane is
the same thing, but just on acceleration, then, where they have a period of time to
speed up and catch up with the existing traffic. The acceleration-deceleration lane is
something that we would need to workout with ITD, but one thing to keep in mind is we
are dealing with a controlled intersection in the near future and we will be putting a stop
light in this intersection in the near future. The best guess -- the best guess that ITD
had for this area for this traffic light was two years -- within two years and they have got
it scheduled -- well, two years ago they had it scheduled for two years, so it could
happen anytime between six months and two years from now. So, there is the intent to
control this intersection, as well as the intent on our part to work with ITD for
acceleration and deceleration lanes for this project.
Zaremba: Clarify for me the same subject, if you would, that would be in addition to the
current lanes and this, actually, would add to the right of way coming out of your
property?
McKinnon: It would come out of our property. Craig, could you go back to the site
plan? Next one. That one. What we would do is create a little bit of reconfiguration of
this site, where we would have to drag the deceleration lane -- this is the edge of the
right of way right here. We'd have to drag that onto our property, basically 12 feet in,
with a curb and asphalt, to bring that in to be able to pull off and come in on our site, but
that 12 feet would be basically an additional lane of traffic that would be striped to go
into this site.
Zaremba: Then, your 35 feet of landscaping would be inside of that?
McKinnon: Inside of that. That's correct:
Borup: That is on Highway 69?
McKinnon: That would just be on Highway 69. Victory Road, there was no requirement
for acceleration or deceleration lanes at this time from Ada County Highway District.
Borup: Okay.
Moe: I understood as far as developer cost for the water, you went into the sewer -- I
understand that should be developer borne as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 12 of 76
McKinnon: Correct.
Moe: But what are you anticipating doing early on on that sewer?
McKinnon: Early on on that sewer? If you could go back to the site plan that showed -
- one more up. There we go. The sewer is currently at this location at the end of Elk
Run Subdivision. It would be to bring it -- I believe it's across the street, isn't it, Bruce?
Bringing it to the east side of State Highway 69 and, then, bringing -- I think it's a 22-
inch pipe down to this location. It would be a diversion structure, so that in the future
when the Black Cat Trunk comes through they would be able to access this diversion
structure. That 22 inch pipe after that diversion structure would continue down to
Victory and at that point I'm not sure where it goes and Bruce could better answer that,
but that's something that we are willing to work with on the site and, actually, to put that
in order to develop this site. And so it hasn't been completely worked out with Public
Works. They have been very busy, as you well know. You have had a lot of site plans
in front of you and a lot of projects that have been moving on and they have been
working with that and they haven't had a chance to model that, but they have been
working with their consultant and their consultant's best guess at the time of the writing
of the staff report was that a four inch pressure main would be the most appropriate at
that time, but we'd rather do it right the first time and we can wait a little bit of time to
make it done right, rather than do it wrong and have to connect to gravity within a year
or two.
Moe: Thank you.
Zaremba: I need to have you run something by me again.
McKinnon: Okay.
Zaremba: The existing conditions that don't currently comply with county ordinances
and in their current condition wouldn't comply with city ordinances either, the logic to me
is they should be fixed before we even recommend annexation. Run your argument by
me again for why we should move ahead.
McKinnon: Okay. The way you could move ahead with this is through the use of a
development agreement. The development agreement says these are the certain
conditions that have to be done prior to the city doing what need's to be -- prior to taking
any further action the city wants a development agreement that can limit our client or
myself to do certain things before the city will allow certain things to happen. And Jill
could probably go into it a little bit more. It's a legal document between the applicant
and the owner and the city saying we will do these things, as long as the city allows us
to do these things and so you could set up a development agreement that would say
these are the issues that need to be resolved prior to signature on the final plat or prior
to Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law being done. Typically, a development
agreement is done after those issues have taken place, but -- after the Findings of
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 13 of 76
Facts and Conclusions of Law have been adopted, because those are usually inserted
into the development agreement, the conditions of approval. So, what you do is make
a legal document that says these are the things that need to be done prior to us issuing
a building permit for this site and if you do that, then, the only way that we can get a
building permit is to make all of those conditions be made.
Zaremba: But wouldn't it even be better faith to complete all those things before we
even apply for annexation? It certainly would show good faith to have them done.
McKinnon: It would show good faith to have them done. I think it would also show
good faith on the city that if we were to do those things that the city would annex it and
the recommendation wouldn't be for denial based on those issues that are outstanding.
If -- I know that Mr. Mussell has been working with the county for years and I guess they
have had some of their battles and I haven't been at the county when those battles
have happened, but I have heard stories and there is some things that need to be done
that haven't been done on this site and he's assured that -- our applicant tonight,
Double D Feed and Seed, that those things will be taken care of and we can have that
limited by the city doing a development agreement. If this isn't approved and there is no
development agreement, he may choose to continue fighting with the county. This may
be the way to get these things corrected, rather than allow it to continue in the future.
Borup: I'd like to discuss that a little bit more, too. It looks to me like there is -- the
issues are the storage trailer with the sign on it.
McKinnon: Right.
Borup: Storage areas without screening, mercury vapor light, and an overhead line.
Those look like things that could be handled in a couple of weeks if someone diligently
worked at it, couldn't they?
McKinnon: They could.
Borup: So, I mean that could be taken care of by the time that you worked out the
details with ITD. I think that would -- that would address Commissioner Zaremba's
question. I mean that looked to me like the issues, unless there is some others that
weren't listed here. Is that your understanding of those items?
McKinnon: That's my understanding. There are a few things in here that, you know,
although they are out of compliance with Ada County, that doesn't necessarily mean
they are out of compliance with the City of Meridian.
Borup: Well, those are -- I mean, you know, taking care of lighting and overhead line
and -- you know.
McKinnon: Those are things that can be taken care of.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 14 of 76
Borup: I would think the nursery could find some screening pretty easy.
McKinnon: Uh-huh. And number four and five -- in fact, if you take the mercury vapor
light and, number five, which is the power line for that mercury vapor light, that's really
one thing. Take out the overhead line and the mercury vapor light is no longer good.
Those are things that can be done and taken care of and those are things that can be
taken care of within the time frame of us working with ITD and working with the Public
Works Department to come to an agreement on the issues of access and utilities.
Borup: So, does that sound like a reasonable solution, to just go ahead and get those
items taken care of?
McKinnon: I think so.
Borup: Other questions from the Commissioners? Anything else you think we ought to
discuss while Mr. McKinnon is up here?
Hood: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Yes. Mr. Hood.
Hood: I had a question, I guess, on the first one that the county has listed there and
how the city -- what the city would like to see good faith, if you will, how we are going to
move -- if anything, with number one, how -- the illegal uses that are presently on the
site, how would we like that cleaned up?
Borup: The illegal use being the rock storage?
Hood: Well, there is some landscaping -- my understanding there is some landscaping,
some rocks, that are not put on the site in compliance with the county's code and also
the expresso stand, I believe, was never approved as part of the master site plan for
this site and maybe the irrigation sprinkler business, too. Dave may be able to clarify
that, but I think there are a couple of illegal uses that are also on this site that have
never been approved by the county, so --
Borup: You mean the other business --
Hood: Yeah.
McKinnon: Well, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Craig, you bring up a
couple good points. Let me address those. The coffee kiosk, actually, was approved
by the county and Ada County Highway District. In fact, that's why this third curb cut
was approved originally, the one that we are going to be utilizing. It was approved
through the use of that coffee kiosk when it came through ACHD, that's when that
access was actually created. The existing --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 15 of 76
Borup: And that will be abandoned --
McKinnon: It will be abandoned when it's gone. Yeah. That's -- you all know Jesepe, if
you have been in the city for a while. He's here quite a bit. Poor Jesepe will be looking
for a new place for his coffee kiosk that -- the sprinkler system and the nursery, both of
those are permitted uses in that zone and they have been approved in that zone. The
issue is dealing with the rock storage and that was the one use that they are saying was
not a permitted use by the county. I think Craig makes a really good point there saying
what would you like us to do with the rock storage. This is a landscaping nursery
business, part of the landscape nursery typically includes landscape rock and I believe
the landscape rock is mostly located along State Highway 69 in this location. I'm not
sure as to how you would like us to address that. That is a portion of his business that
goes along with the remainder of his business as well.
Borup: Mr. Hood, is it the city's feeling that the landscape rocks would not be in
compliance with -- with Meridian ordinance?
Hood: Well, the rocks may not be in violation, but the landscaping there adjacent to the
highway would not be in compliance with the city code for the landscape buffer adjacent
to the highway and that's something else that the applicant is not proposing to do is not
proposing to bring any of -- I mean as you can see, two-thirds of that frontage into
compliance with current city code and it is an existing business, but it's an existing
business in the county and the city didn't come to the applicant's door and knock and
say, hey, bring this up to code, they are coming to us saying let us in the city and if you
want to come into the city these are our requirements, so you meet those requirements
as stated in the letter and that's -- you know, maybe some of those rocks could be
worked into a landscape plan, but they are not proposing to do any additional
landscaping along that frontage.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon, do you know about how far that acceleration lane would -- I
mean I realize you said it's preliminary, but is there an estimate on how far that
acceleration lane is going to go?
McKinnon: It's typically 250 feet on a 55.
Borup: Two hundred fifty beyond the entrance there?
McKinnon: Yeah. So, if we have an entrance at 440 feet, which would probably put us
about this location, basically 250 feet up, 250 feet back to have your acceleration and
deceleration lanes. We won't be --
Borup: So, you're saying 440 plus 250?
McKinnon: Yeah. That's typically how it works, but --
Borup: And what's the length of the entire property?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 16 of 76
McKinnon: The length of the entire property is approximately a quarter mile.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I need a clarification on the coffee kiosk. When you were talking about that,
I thought you said that the access that was granted for the coffee kiosk is the one you
will be closing?
McKinnon: That's the one we will be keeping open.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: It was created when the coffee kiosk was approved. And, again,
Commissioners, we realize that we are bringing in an existing business, but, you know,
typically, you see development happen in phases. You don't see it happen all at once.
The idea that it's coming into the city doesn't automatically mean that there is a lot more
money for the development of this site. There is a lot more money for the development
of this site, because as this develops there is going to be more money to be gained
from that. By bringing this into the city, there is not a great deal of money to be put into
this, because it's not being redeveloped. The use is staying the same. With a
preliminary plat you approve a project for a single phase, each final plat as it comes in,
you don't require all of the improvements from the entire preliminary plat to be
completed prior to the first phase being done. Essentially, what we are looking for is
phase development. We are asking for this portion to be allowed now and the
remainder as it redevelops to be brought into compliance.
Moe: But you have also stated that the landscape business has planned to be there for
quite sometime, so, therefore, the improvements on the highway side probably would
not be done.
McKinnon: Well, let me correct that. This portion here is the more expensive portion,
because of the frontage and the owner is currently trying to locate people to move to
this location for commercial uses. But the landscape business could remain for some
time, just like you see many businesses in the City of Meridian that don't meet code, but
out of code, and they remain out of code until such time as they redevelop.
Redevelopment is usually what kicks in the requirement for the additional properties,
not annexation.
Zaremba: That brings up another issue, partially, which staff has mentioned. This is a
nice, large piece of property and in a perfect world we would see a plan for the whole
piece of property, rather than do little pieces here and there and leave some the way
they were and nonconforming and create some new ones that may not be exactly what
we wanted if we saw the whole project. I know you have already resisted saying when
the landscape business would change, but the development along the frontage, is there
a push for that to happen soon? Any concept of what might be there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 17 of 76
McKinnon: Sure. Craig, can you go ahead and go up to the next -- right there. You
can see what we have got in the conceptual layout for this is actual two commercial
building pads. Well, there is one commercial building pad north of this site already.
That remains just the -- you know, this section to be developed and I have talked with
the representative of this piece of property here and they'd like to develop in a
residential manner, they'd like to take access from State Highway 69 in some manner to
get back to this project and so there is a push for redevelopment in this area. In talking
with the City of Meridian Public Works, that they have received other requests for
development in this area, so there is a push for that. As to whether or not -- there
hasn't been resistance to say when this is going to move, it's not that I know and I'm not
telling you, I really don't know. But I have had discussions with people concerning the
development of that property, but I don't know the time frame for it to redevelop. And,
like you said, Commissioner Zaremba, if it was a perfect world I would have a
wonderful, complete site plan for the entire project, but this project is not ready to
happen at this time. The owner is not willing to redevelop his entire site at this time,
but he is willing to work with Double D Feed and Seed to put a portion of his property
into -- bring the whole project into the City of Meridian, but to develop a portion of it at
this time and without this project we would see no improvements in this area.
Borup: And that aspect is not very much different as -- than what we see with a small
parcel being annexed into the city and, you know, the adjoining parcel is un-annexed.
Still county property and undeveloped. I mean I realize that's -- I don't know if that's a
good example, but -- because this is all under one ownership. And this is one parcel;
is that correct?
McKinnon: They are the same parcel right now. There was a record of survey that was
performed, but it was never recorded to split the property, so it still remains as one
piece.
Borup: Okay. I don't know if we have discussed everything we need to, but if there is
nothing else --
McKinnon: I think there is somebody else that has come tonight to testify. I saw a
name back there, so --
Borup: And that's what I meant, are we ready to move on for other testimony?
McKinnon: Okay. Thanks for your time.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have someone that would like to testify on this
application? Come forward.
Hepper: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Tim Hepper, I reside at 448 West
Victory, which is immediately -- well, not immediately, it would be the second parcel to
the west of this property across the street and the next one over. Approximately two or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 18 of 76
three hundred yards to the west. I don't believe I necessarily have any opposition to
this, but I do have a couple questions. I thought I heard the representative from
Pinnacle say something about bringing in the sewer line, maybe a possibility of a four
inch pressurized thing that maybe they'd put a lift station at the north end of the
property as an option that maybe there could be either a 22 inch mainline brought in or I
thought maybe he said a four inch pressurized line or something. I just wanted to
make sure that that would be a 22 inch main, so that the other properties -- the original
master plan for the city to bring the sewer is to bring it down the Meridian-Kuna Road
and, then, turn west on Victory Road and so that those parcels on Victory Road could
later tap into that main line and be able to develop those properties.
Borup: We will get some clarification. I believe that he said if they went -- one option
would be to put in a pressurized line up to here. They were talking about bringing it --
the main trunk line down as per the master plan, which you were talking about. Is that
your understanding, Bruce?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the temporary solution is what we
are talking about, Tim, with the -- dead laser pointer. The lift station at their north
boundary. That was just a temporary solution until we get figured out how we want to
serve that south end. If you remember the -- our facility plan showed sewer kind of
going out through Kentucky Ridge and out that way. Our consultants JUB that did the
original master plan for us is right in the middle of reevaluating about a four or five
square mile area right here as to which would be the best way to route the main trunk
lines through here. So, when Dave talks about things kind of being up in the air, that's
why they are up in the air, is because we are trying to figure out the best way to serve
these properties. So, the ultimate build out is to still take the trunk down through there
to provide that service, but the temporary solution would be a lift station.
Hepper: With a four-inch line to this property?
Freckleton: Well, the pressure line would go -- have you got a pointer? See if we can
make this work. The lift station would be located somewhere up in this area and, then,
the pressure line would pump back north on Kuna-Meridian Road to the existing gravity
sewer that comes out of Elk Run Subdivision. So, it's just the force main that pushes it
north.
Hepper: Okay. And that would have the capacity to pick up the other properties to the
west if they -- whatever developer, that's just a temporary solution for the --
Freckleton: Temporary solution for this project.
Borup: Mr. McKinnon said they want to wait and do it right by bringing the sewer line
down here. I wasn't -- I don't know if I understood what size sewer line they were
proposing at that point.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 19 of 76
Freckleton: Well, that's what our consultant is going to be telling us, too, as part of their
study that they are conducting for us right now is what size and where it runs.
Borup: That would be --
Freckleton: And that's the ultimate.
Borup: That would be the trunk line.
Freckleton: Yes. Correct.
Borup: Which is, I think, Mr. Hepper's question, so if that's -- if they wait and bring that
in, then, it would be the permanent trunk line that would be going in.
Hepper: Speaking of the findings of the study, we really don't know where the mains
are going to be located in the future.
Freckleton: Well -- and it's our concern as well as we want to do it once and we want it
to be right, so -- things have changed quite a bit out in this area and that's why we
wanted to reevaluate it.
Borup: But right now this applicant would like to wait and find out what needs to be for
the permanent and, then, work with that.
Hepper: Yeah. Okay. And, then, my only other concerns would be maybe a --
Borup: Is this your property here?
Hepper: No. It would be right -- right here.
Borup: Oh. West. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah.
Hepper: And the only other concerns would be lighting, make sure the lighting is
shielded. There is other gas stations around Meridian, particularly one across the road
from the hospital, that has just extremely bright lights. I know the city has lots of
complaints about the amount of light that's emitted from that and I'd like to make sure
that we don't have something like that sitting on that corner. And also the sinage be --
that's all commercial property on that corner. I don't think we need a big neon flashing
sign that says Pepsi $1.99. I think just a regular sign -- lighted sign would be fine, but it
doesn't need to be -- I'm not really sure what the city ordinance is on signage, but I
know that we have got quite a few of the flashing light signs and I don't think that's
necessary there. That would be my only other concern. So, thank you.
Borup: Yeah. And the city's got the same concern on that. I think maybe one of the
signs you're talking I don't believe would meet current sign ordinance.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 20 of 76
Hepper: All right. Any questions?
Borup: Questions of Mr. Hepper?
Hepper: Thank you.
Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. McKinnon.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I do -- I'll just share one thing.
I do live across kind of up on a knoll on the opposite side of that large Texaco sign and
while I don't like it, it is somewhat comforting at night to see how much Dr. Pepper is,
so -- just a couple things to wrap things up. We want to do this right and we want to do
it right the first time, but we are going to need a little bit of time and so we want to work
with the staff and we want to work with ITD to make this work. There is a demand for
this type of use in the area. There is a lot of vehicles that are traveling between Kuna
and Meridian every day and those vehicles are stopping for gas at different locations
throughout the area and we think this is a great location for that and we'd like to have
the opportunity to do that and request that you approve this project tonight and thanks
for your time.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner, I think this probably warrants some
discussion. Anything else -- comments from staff?
Powell: Just that you don't have findings for approval for tonight, so -- and conditions.
Borup: We understand that. And the applicant has requested a continuance.
Powell: Well, now, he just asked you to approve them tonight, so I just wanted to clarify
it if you can.
McKinnon: We'd request that you approve it at some point, but a continuation tonight.
Zaremba: Well, I do agree, I certainly don't think it's ready to be approved tonight and
I'm not totally convinced that it's ready to be denied tonight either. So, I would steer
towards continuing. There are a number of things I need to see fixed.
Borup: And that's what I was going to suggest. I think we --
Zaremba: I would stick to the applicant doing the good faith of fixing the things that the
county says need to be fixed and the city says need to be fixed, I would like to see
those done before we recommend annexation, not to recommend annexation first and
say, okay, there is some other carrot farther down the line to getting these done. I
would rather see the good faith of them being done before we annex. The amount of
time that that would mean continuing this would also give the applicant time to get some
final resolution from ITD. I would still like to see a bigger part of the project come to us
all at once, but I suspect that's not going to happen. I guess my question for staff is if
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 21 of 76
we continued this, could there be some conditions worked up, if we were to approve it,
and the conditions would be -- I mean at sometime in the future, conditions for approval,
and the conditions would assume that the current deficiencies are already fixed,
because my personal opinion is I would not annex it, they are not fixed.
Borup: And I would -- the only thing I would add to that is -- at least on the copy of the
letter from the county, items two through five, it looked like were fairly simple solutions,
other than number three we don't have any detailed information on what areas need to
be screened better than they are now. Item number one is probably the one that
maybe I'd like -- I mean I asked Mr. Hood that a little bit, but what the city would like to
see and I'm not sure how other Commissioners feel. I mean there is a lot of material
out there. To me it's not unsightly, it's -- if it's any type of hazard is because it's
interesting to look at and maybe people have a tendency to slow down. I don't know.
But I guess it depends on what -- what interests people. So maybe --
Zaremba: Well, it is a rock yard and when you drive by it appears to be a rock yard,
which out in the country is somewhat appropriate, but if it continued in its present state
for another five years it probably wouldn't irritate anybody. If it continued that way for
another 20 years, the area is going to be pretty well developed around it and it's going
to be an eye sore. I mean once the -- once the surrounding properties don't look just
like it, which they currently do, then, it becomes a problem. But right now they all look
the same and whether it's a rock pile or whether it's an unimproved parcel next to it that
looks like a rock pile doesn't make much difference today, but if there is no target for
changing it, then, I definitely would lean towards screening it and I agree with staff, the
rules are the whole frontage needs to be landscaped.
Borup: Maybe something -- some type of time frame, which is hard to enforce, maybe.
I don't know.
Moe: Well, but the biggest point that I would make there is a time limit would probably
be the way to go for the simple fact the applicant already made the statement that they
are looking to sell off that portion to do something other than the rock area there.
Zaremba: Which could be suggested in the development agreement, right? That we
could put a time frame in a development agreement? That's a question.
Powell: Sure, you can put time frames in the development agreement. I did want to
get -- I have been thinking about the first question you posed, if I might get back to that,
Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. You asked if staff could come back with
conditions of approval. Basically, you would be asking us to write a recommendation --
a new staff report recommending approval on this any appropriate conditions for
approval attached to that. We generally don't have two do reports. It -- we typically
just do one. If new information comes into the public record, such that you feel
comfortable recommending approval of the project, then, we come back to you with
your recommendation for approval and the attached conditions of approval. So, I'm
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 22 of 76
reluctant to have staff write a new staff report for approval until you make a decision for
approval.
Zaremba: Well, I would agree that under the current conditions denial is appropriate.
The applicant, I think, has indicated that the owner can be prevailed upon to fix many of
the reasons for which it would currently be denied.
Powell: Well, just as a reminder, the applicant has agreed to several conditions of
approval for -- since 1995 and agreeing to conditions of approval is a lot different than
meeting conditions of approval.
Zaremba: And that's why I'm saying, we'd have to see that they had actually been
completed before we would vote --
Powell: And that would be new information in the public record and, then, that would go
toward your recommendation. But I think the staff reports are just based on the
information before the public hearing and I think it's best for now just to keep -- there is
-- there gets to be some confusion if there is multiple staff reports in the file as to which
one -- you know, what was going on and I think the history has been we do one and
only one staff report for each project and we can add memos and things like that and if
you'd like -- I guess we could do a clarification memo or a position statement, that might
be a possibility. But he's going to have to come back after you make the decision to
approve it with the conditions of approval. We could provide a listing of those
conditions of approval, but we are going to need to come back with your findings after
you make your decision.
Borup: I think that would be appropriate. I'm wondering if we could discuss maybe
some of the -- they are numbered, but -- the bullet points under the reasons for denial.
And I made notes on most of them. The one I'm down to -- and I feel most of the others
have been addressed, at least to my satisfaction, I don't know about other
Commissioners -- I'm down to the one on the single family home not a permitted use.
Thoughts from staff on that item? Is that something that could be handled under the
conditional use or --
Hood: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Yeah. With a planned
development you can actually ask for use exceptions and that single family home also
serves as an office, so wether the office is accessory to the single family or a single
family accessory to the office use, I really don't know. It does a fairly good business,
the landscape nursery does, so, you know, for a commercial zone it is a single family
home with an office. So, I'm not so concerned about an office, but it is a single family
home in a commercial zone, so -- but, like I said, with a planned development use
exceptions may be allowed. And with redevelopment -- potentially redevelopment of
the site I will concede that it won't be a single family home forever.
Moe: Was that not noted to be a caretaker living in the house now?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 23 of 76
Hood: I believe so. The owner actually occupies that home and runs the office out of
that as well.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: Okay. The next item was -- mentioned is a -- not proposed bringing existing
uses into compliance. But I thought maybe that got answered to as far as sidewalks
and bike lanes, at least on Victory. On Highway 69 is still to be determined. So, is
there any specific things there that are still a concern? Is signage maybe the one?
And, then, landscaping on the north end would be the other?
Hood: Mr. Chair, those are two good ones. I guess the main ones -- I'm still unable to
make -- you know, none of those findings -- the bullet points above are not changed.
You know, those are facts that really don't change much. And some of them were just -
- you know, may or may not be, but they are -- you know, the proposed development,
there are some -- the big ones, I guess, that would still be outstanding is ITD and their
access points and what they are going to approve. I mean that's going to have a
significant impact on what we look at and if it's just a lot developing at this time, where
is that access point going to be? It may only be -- and we have a letter from ITD, we
don't have anything else. I don't doubt that the applicant's talked with ITD, but we have
two letters from ITD saying, you know, access to -- type four access to type four
roadways are at half miles. So, I -- and they have -- before we granted those, you
know, at other locations, but they do try to limit them and so where their access points
end up playing out -- it's almost like ACHD -- I know this body oftentimes defers action
until ACHD has a chance to act on an item just to see what their requirements are going
to be or maybe it's denied, maybe just stick with the original letter and they say, no, only
at the half mile. We see you have three deeded access points, but you're not getting
them. I don't know how that's going to play out.
Borup: I think the Commission -- I mean assuming we are all in agreement that that is
something we need to see is -- is their report and what they approved or recommend.
Hood: And it's just -- the other big thing -- and you touched on some of the landscaping
things. I guess the bullet -- the letter from the county, I don't know their code, and so
maybe something from the county saying he has done -- you know, he's now in
compliance with item two, three, four and five, something like that. Or, you know, these
are still the outstanding things, but they have cleaned up this or that. You know,
something like I guess I would feel a little bit more comfortable and that would change
at least that part of the staff report, that part of the finding, you know, if we had
something in our record from the county saying, you know, now they have done this to -
-
Borup: In my mind, the only thing of those items that you couldn't tell just by driving to
the property would be their screen -- screening requirements and -- because that wasn't
specified what that was referring to. In the county letter I'm talking about. The only
other question I saw was the next to the last bullet point and that was proposed building
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 24 of 76
setbacks -- your reference to a frontage road, which, again, that would be addressed by
ITD, I'm assuming. And you're talking about not meeting Comprehensive Plan policies,
but I didn't see any elaboration on that. Well, maybe there was, but -- is there anything
there that would be pertinent to mention at this point?
Hood: Not necessarily. I mean it's just kind of going along with ITD's action.
Borup: Okay. Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: Do we know is the north end of this property at the half mile point or is it
somewhat south of that?
Borup: He said it was about a quarter mile.
Zaremba: Oh, yeah. Okay.
Borup: I looked on the plat and it looks like there is, what 12 or 13 hundred feet. I
don't know that Mr. McKinnon mentioned how much time ITD is going to need. Can you
clarify that? Or how much time you're going to need in talking with ITD.
McKinnon: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. In response to that
we, have -- in order to get access onto ITD, you have to make application with ITD.
Part of the application requirement is a traffic study. The traffic study is not complete
yet. We wanted to find out a little bit more about this project before we went ahead
with the traffic study. We have a quote and a time frame from the traffic study from the
time we say go to having that complete will be two weeks. That's when the application
can be made to ITD. In talking with ITD, they have stated that once they receive that,
because they have already issued those letters, they will more than likely reject that
and, then, it becomes an appeal process and goes to headquarters and that can be
handled rather rapidly or it can take a number of months to take care of. One thing that
we have going for us on this, it's just a very similar situation just to the north of this
project. They are dealing with the exact same issues on the exact same stretch of
State Highway 69 on the Ross and Mitchner property that was recently approved by I
think the Land Group. Dave Koga brought that to you. I can't remember the name of
it. Do you remember the name of that?
Hood: Southern Springs.
McKinnon: Southern Springs. Thank you. And so once a precedence is set, it may
actually, go much quicker and that's nearing the end of their appeal process and it looks
very favorable that they will be granted access as was approved by the city. So, as far
as a direct number, the only direct number I can give you is it will take two weeks for us
to get the application in and, then, from there it's in ITD's hands.
Borup: The reason I asked, if we are going to be looking at a continuation, we need to
also figure out a date. Do you think a month and a half?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 25 of 76
McKinnon: If we could go for -- we'd love to have two weeks and have it all resolved by
then, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen, unfortunately. If we had a month
and, then, if we needed to continue it from that, I think that would be preferable,
because, then, we'd have a chance to have the issues worked out with Public Works
within that month time. That's what we'd like to see happen. As short a process as
possible, but if we need to go further --
Borup: You're saying there is a chance that it could happen in a month?
McKinnon: It could. If the precedence is set and they already have made the same
determination on one site, they could just say we have already made a ruling that this is
the way we will determine this on these types of accesses and we can move forward
with it. It just depends on how quick ITD moves, but there is a possibility that that
could happen.
Moe: And, then, within that same period all items that the county is wanting to be taken
care of would be taken care of as well?
McKinnon: Correct.
Zaremba: My comment on the access would be that the City of Meridian, as well as
ITD, wants to limit the number of accesses and, if I remember correctly, the project that
you're referring to -- I felt our recommendation of approval was based on prior approval
of ITD. I thought they had already approved it before we recommended approval. We
--
McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba and Members of the Commission, similar situation.
There were two deeded accesses. Those two deeded accesses were there. When
they finally made application to ITD to do work in the right of way, they were rejected.
It's the same process that we are going through now, rather than going through the city
and getting approval, it would be the same process that we are going through. We will
make application to ITD to create those curb cuts and, then, we deal with whether or
not they will give us the access for those three deeded accesses that we have. So, the
same process is being done, it's just being done in a different place. There was a letter
from ITD -- from ACHD in the file for Southern Springs that says they had checked with
ITD about those accesses and it was in their statement from ACHD that, yes, there
were two deeded accesses. So, there was just some confusion in place. Those were
not approved accesses, rather just deeded accesses.
Zaremba: Well, the precedent that it would start has impacts for Meridian all up and
down Eagle Road, as well as Meridian and Meridian-Kuna Road. If ITD is going to
establish a new precedent of reversing themselves and allowing extra driveway on the
high speed, I don't see that as in the best of interest of Meridian. I think Meridian
agrees with ITD to limit or refuse accesses.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 26 of 76
McKinnon: Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, just two things in
response to that. One, the city determined in their Comprehensive Plan that this should
be a commercial piece of property and if the only access for a commercial piece of
property that is a quarter mile can only be taken off of Victory, we are not asking for a
full three curb cut for this sight, we are looking to restrict the accesses as well, but to
allow one access at least on this site. It's a quarter mile long in length with an
acceleration-deceleration area for that. We are not asking for all three curb cuts or
additional curb cuts. There is a restriction on that. ACHD on a 50 mile an hour road will
allow you to do a curb cut 250 feet back from the intersection on an arterial, which is
what this is determined as -- by the City of Meridian as a major arterial. So, we agree
with the limiting, but, at the same time, the city has already said this should be a
commercial piece of property and to limit it to the half mile that we don't have access to
a half mile makes it impossible for this property to develop commercially, which is what
the City of Meridian has designated this to develop as.
Zaremba: And the mitigating fact of that is you've offered to do acceleration and
deceleration.
McKinnon: That's correct.
Zaremba: Okay.
McKinnon: And just one other thing of clarification. We are dealing with a precedent
setting. These are legal issues and if ITD is granted these accesses unrestricted, then,
ITD has to honor that. They can't come behind that and say, oh, sorry, we were just
kidding, it's a recorded document, but we are not going to let you have it. It's something
that has to be litigated out and so it's not precedent setting in itself, but those are
deeded accesses that have to be worked through. It's not as though we are asking for
something that we don't have.
Borup: April 1st we have six projects. Actually, one subdivision and the others are all
smaller projects, but it's a fairly full schedule. I mean there is 13 items, but there is six -
- six projects. One of those is a city Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, do we have to continue to a specific date?
Borup: Yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Zaremba: Otherwise, it has to be re-noticed. This is a noticed hearing.
Rohm: I see. Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Do we run the risk of having to continue again if we don't resolve
these four issues here? Would it not be better to -- or these five issues. Ask for these
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 27 of 76
five issues to be resolved and, then -- I may be out of line here, but ask the process to -
- to apply again?
Zaremba: Well, the mechanism for that would be to deny it tonight.
Newton-Huckabay: That's what I'm saying, you know, in the interest of not having to go
through this exercise three or four more times, if we are going to next time ask them to
-- make sure all these five -- you know, rather than risking denying it again a second
time. Am I --
Zaremba: Well, that's the choice that we are discussing --
Newton-Huckabay: Right. That's my --
Zaremba: -- deny it tonight or put it off a month and saying at that point either
everything is fixed or it's likely to be denied, then. The question is do we want to give
them the opportunity to try and remedy some of the --
Borup: Historically, if the Commission has felt something could be corrected and
remedied, then, it's been to continue it. I mean the application process is fairly
extensive and expensive. Commissioner Rohm, it looks like you --
Rohm: Well, I just have two comments. The first one being, obviously, we have to have
the time on the agenda to add it, number one, and we can't take something that's
already proposed for that meeting and put it off. So, if, in fact, we have time, we should
make that offer to the developer. But, secondly, if, in fact, they would prefer to continue
it say six weeks, as opposed to the four, then, it would be something we could settle on
based upon those two conditions and if, in fact, all of the issues from the staff report --
and, as a matter of fact, you did a very good job on this, it lines out the issues that need
to be resolved very well, and I think that as long as in that four week period or six week,
depending upon the developer's position, we will hear it at that time. That seems
appropriate.
Borup: Our agenda on the 15th is -- well, it's still filling up, but at this point it's -- well,
there is two items.
Rohm: I guess that's my point is we have to make sure that we don't over fill our
agenda, but at the same time, if, in fact, the applicant is willing to continue for the six
weeks, then, we have an unfilled agenda and that gives them ample time to respond
and that seems to address both sides of the equation.
Borup: Okay. The only thing I'd add to that, I think we need -- if that's what we are
going to ask for, I think we need some clear intention of what it is that needs to be
corrected. In my mind, that items two, three, four and five is probably easy enough to
understand, other than I'm not sure what they are referring to on this screening. It's the
first one on the rock storage that maybe we need some direction.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 28 of 76
Rohm: And it's my belief that the applicant and staff can work through that issue over
the course of the next six weeks and come to some resolve that addresses the point in
this staff report with an appropriate response from the applicant.
Zaremba: Or I think the suggestion was made that the response that we are seeking
from the applicant is a letter from the county that says they have complied.
Borup: Well, see, the county -- at least the way I read this, the county wants them to
have the whole site -- site plan amended and approved. I don't know how much sense
that makes on something you're ready to annex into the city. We should be more
concerned about what's going to -- what the city would want it to comply with than what
the county wants it to do.
Rohm: Just a comment on that. I think we have approved for annexation other parcels
that have not been fully defined as to how they will be developed, so I can understand
the applicant's position on that as well.
Zaremba: You mean not have an entire site plan? Yeah. I don't think we have
accepted things that were in material noncompliance with ordinance.
Rohm: Good point.
Zaremba: We didn't have a full site plan.
Rohm: Exactly.
McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we can work within that six
week time frame. I happen to know Mike Williams, the code enforcement officer from
Ada County, and I can work with him to see if we can secure a letter from him for items
two through five. I think, Chairman Borup, you make a good point that that first item is
requesting that the items that were brought in were not a part of the approved site plan
and it should be amended for that. I think that we can work with staff to try to figure out
a way to figure out what Ada County's requirements would have been for the screening
of that rock area and to address that as part of the conditions of approval for this
project, rather than have this brought back through Ada County. And that could be
something that could be addressed through the conditions of approval as
recommended by staff.
Borup: That was my problem. Maybe there could be some screening along that area
without doing the full curb, gutter, sidewalk landscaping berm on something that was
not developed yet, but there could maybe be something -- an interim type of thing.
Zaremba: Even if they took a row of trees that's officially for sale and lined them up
along the property line? Is that what you're saying? Line them up along the street?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 29 of 76
Borup: Well, yeah, that or go ahead and plant them and remove them later or -- that
wouldn't be up to us to determine.
McKinnon: A solid sight obscuring fence, something that would meet ACHD's needs
and something that would meet the needs of the City of Meridian. That's something
that we could work out as soon as we get approval.
Borup: To me a site obscuring fence is -- I don't know, maybe that's -- I'm different.
That's not an improvement.
Zaremba: I'd rather see trees.
McKinnon: Okay.
Borup: I mean I don't see -- it's that objectionable to be right now the way it is.
Zaremba: Yeah.
Borup: Other than maybe cleaning up a little bit.
McKinnon: I would be happy to work with --
Borup: Is that enough direction?
McKinnon: That's enough direction. If we can -- the sooner we can get together with
staff and get a memo kind of detailing the conditions of approval, then, we'd have a
better go at it, too, just so we can see what the staff would like, too, so -- within that time
frame it would be nice to get that. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Do we have a motion?
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing --
Borup: Well, no --
Rohm: Continue the Public Hearing --
Borup: Well, maybe I shouldn't speak too soon. I guess it depends on what your
motion is going to be, whether you want to close it or not.
Rohm: Well, I want to continue it. Excuse me.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. Then we need to keep it open.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to continue the Public Hearing on AZ 03-038 and
continue that to -- what was the date? It would be --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 30 of 76
Borup: The 15th. April 15th.
Rohm: April 15th.
Zaremba: Fine day.
Rohm: And -- can we do all three of them at the same time?
Zaremba: All three hearings are open.
Rohm: All three hearings be continued to the April 15th Planning -- regular scheduled
Planning and Zoning meeting. End of motion.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 04-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 24.45
acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC – 3615 South Locust Grove Road:
Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98
single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 24.45 acres in
a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC – 3615 South Locust Grove Road:
Borup: I think we are ready to move on to our next item. The next item is Public
Hearing AZ 04-002. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and also Public Hearing
PP 03-001. And that is it. I'd like to open both these hearings at this time and start
with the staff report.
Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Brad
Hawkins-Clark with the planning department. These two applications -- the first one,
annexation and zoning and the second one preliminary plat for 98 building lots. I'll just
quickly touch on this first item. The general location is on the west side of South
Locust Grove Road. Victory Road is about a quarter mile to the north. Tuscany Lakes
Subdivision is here to the east. Phase one is -- the final plat is shown here. They
have come in with a couple of other phases in addition to this one, since this map was
done. It's zoned R-4. Tuscany Village is not shown on this map. I think we did include
-- just go down to the -- yeah. Here is a plat of Tuscany Village, which is immediately
to the north. So, the subject property we are talking about tonight is this parcel to the
south. This does not reflect the exact final plat approval for Tuscany Village. This
short stub, as I will touch on in just a minute, is not -- was not final platted. But,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 31 of 76
generally, as you can see, they have a basic R-4 layout in Tuscany Village. So, let me
go back and -- Sageland is another subdivision that was also recently approved, not
shown on the vicinity map, that's here at the northeast corner of Locust Grove and
Victory. So, this is the second annexation request in this square mile that the city has
received. The land is designated as medium density residential on the Comprehensive
Plan. The parcel that is shown here touching the northwest corner of this 25 acres is
shown in our Comprehensive Plan as a future neighborhood center, mixed use
neighborhood center area, and that is why one of the recommended staff conditions is
that they provide a stub street that provides better connectivity to get to this area, which
we do envision to be about eight dwelling units per acre for any residential in this area.
As you can see by the aerial, existing agricultural uses. There is a one-acre -- existing
one acre parcel, also in Ada County, zoned RUT, that's part of this annexation and
preliminary plat application. Staff has recommended approval of both the annexation
and the preliminary plat tonight. We had several recommended conditions and we did
receive a revised plat after the applicant received our comments and they adjusted four
or five items that we asked for. So, I believe there is really only one outstanding issue
tonight for the Commission is at least as far as staff and the applicant are concerned.
What I have shown here on the screen is the revised plat that we received. This is the
plat that was submitted with the application and that you probably received as a part of
your packets. The entrance is largely the same. There is really just two or three main
differences. As you can see, they originally did not show a stub street up here to the
northwest. Now, they have. So, they have revised this part of the plat to get the same
number of lots, just that instead of a corner lot with a common driveway configuration,
they just ran this north-south street straight up and fronted lots on there. The open
space is the same configuration. The rest of the street layouts are the same. They
have added these islands in the east-west streets. That was a condition of the Ada
County Highway District as traffic calming for this long straightaway. We also included
that in our staff report and so they have made that adjustment. There was some
concern that we also had about the entry off of South Locust Grove Road and the width
of these common landscape lots being only ten feet resulting in only a 15 foot house
setback back versus 20 foot, which is what code requires for a street side setback.
And they did widen these. They were able to do that also without losing any lots.
Essentially, it resulted in some narrowing of the frontages, but they do still meet the
minimum 65-foot frontage for the R-8 zone. I'll let the applicant address a couple of the
other issues. The main item I wanted to point out in the staff report that is unresolved
is on page five and this is a part of the annexation and zoning required findings. It's
Finding G, which is the finding that says that the city has to determine that there are
adequate public facilities and that the site is designed to accommodate those public
facilities. The issue mainly is on the common driveway that is shown here in Block 3
and this, actually, I think, may have been resolved, but I wanted to raise it to the
Commission. The common drive is approximately 170 feet long. As you can see, each
of these is a flag lot that comes down, has ten feet of frontage on -- let's see, what is the
name of that street? Chatsworth Street, which is the southerly east-west, and the
ordinance does require that you can have no more than four dwelling units on one
common driveway, which is what they are showing, but we would like to raise this to the
Commission to -- I guess mainly for future issues where we have this. Other cities in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 32 of 76
the valley have, as I understand it, required that you can't front a lot on a common
driveway unless you actually take access onto that common driveway. So, in this
circumstance these two lots that are on the south of this common driveway, you know,
do have frontage onto these -- what could be a common drive, but they -- that would
result in six lots. They are proposing to take access onto Chatsworth for these two on
the side. I think mainly it comes down to a question of how we interpret this ordinance,
which was adopted about two and a half years ago. It's really unclear -- it's a little bit
vague as to whether or not this was intended to be. Obviously, if you said that you
could not take access on here, it would result in shorter common drive lengths, what the
result would be. The concern about the length is primarily one of emergency services
getting back in there. The width of it is 24 feet, whenever it's over 150 feet long, and it
has to be, you know, designed to Ada County Highway District sub-grade standards,
but, again, it is only one way in and the turn around can get more congested in there,
depending on where people park, if there is a party going on, et cetera. What the police
chief asked for is an ability for any responses that might -- any emergency responses
they might need to make at these four houses to be able to -- for an officer to have
quicker response should this be blocked. Of course, the natural question is is it really
any different than houses that are fronting on a street, since there is only one way into
those as well and I think their concern was just, you know, the length of the common
driveway and not being able to actually see those houses, whereas the other houses,
you know, they are typically only 20 to 30 feet off of the street. These would be, you
know, longer than that. So, the recommendation that we made was for this whole
fence in the back to be a maximum of four feet in height. They have agreed to that.
We suggested a break in that fence, so that an officer could come down this linear open
space and have another way in there. They have agreed to a gate being placed in that
fence. I have not gotten a response back from the police chief as to whether or not
that suffices his concerns. I did leave a phone message for him, but didn't get a
response back before this hearing tonight. So, we'd like -- I guess asking for the
Commission's input on both of those issues, whether or not you believe that only four
houses, not six, could front onto a common drive and, then, whether or not that gate is
adequate for public safety issues. So, that's one of the concerns. The second item I
wanted to bring up is item J in required findings, which is on page six, and this relates to
the existing residence that is up in the northeast corner of the project. The house -- let's
see if I can go to the aerial. You can -- I guess it's not -- as you can see, the house
does sit more on the front of the lot than on the back. It's -- I think the face is about 22
feet behind the future Locust Grove right of way. The garage is also on the front and
what staff is recommending is that they continue the sidewalk and the landscape buffer
in front of this house and that they take access internally to the subdivision off of what
could be designed as a common driveway here. There is a couple of main reasons for
that, as I outlined on page six. As the traffic volumes increase on Locust Grove Road
we do believe that the northern driveway could become an interference, which is what
the highway district has allowed them to have one of their two driveways that they
currently have. There is one driveway north of the house and one driveway south of
the house and the highway district required the southerly one to be closed off and the
northerly one open. If they were to take access internally, obviously, they wouldn't need
either one and I think the long term cumulative result of these older residences is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 33 of 76
something that the City of Meridian is just starting to kind of see more and more of as
the old farm houses, homesteads, et cetera, are selling off the larger acreages, how do
you deal with access on those, what is the long-term use. Many of them could go to
rentals with, you know, much higher volumes, noise -- Sanitary Service Company has
also expressed some concerns about accessing those houses for trash pick up and
needing to backup onto the arterial street and if you don't deal with it now, it is much
much more difficult to deal with it later. So, we have -- we have recommended that that
adjustment be made and we think from a standpoint of pedestrians, it makes for -- in
the future, it makes for a cleaner, less hazardous walkway if that can be continued
straight without having to cross another driveway. So, I think, really, those are the main
two points of discussion. The site-specific conditions that start on page nine, I think
they have complied with now with their revised plat, with the exception of item number
two and item number three on page nine. I would also point out that I guess that the lot
numbers have changed with the revised plat, so rather than going through each and
every condition and changing all those numbers, I think if you just wanted to refer -- if
you choose to recommend approval tonight, just refer to the revised plat and staff can
go through and make the lot number changes accordingly, because they are different,
so -- and if you do agree with the plat, the date is revised March 2, '04, just so we have
that in the record which -- that we are dealing with the right plat and moving that onto
the City Council.
Zaremba: Brad, the one I'm looking at actually says -- well, it's received by the city clerk
March 4, '04. Are we talking about the same one?
Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. We usually refer to the revised -- the revision block on a plat.
Zaremba: I got it. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Moe: Yes. In regards to the common driveway, is the fire department okay with this
configuration now?
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Moe, they are. They have reviewed it.
The turn around would have to be designed to a standard hammerhead type design
that they approve.
Moe: Okay.
Borup: You had mentioned maybe some -- that the ordinance on that may be a little
ambiguous on the number of lots fronting. Now, you used the word fronting. Does the
ordinance say fronting or adjoining? Was the word adjoining used or --
Hawkins-Clark: I will just have to look that up, just the quote in here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 34 of 76
Borup: Okay. I mean I think I had the same assumption you did -- or maybe not, but
maybe the ordinance didn't intend that, but my assumption was it intended that -- not
that it would be a group of lots behind an existing lot.
Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner, the wording is common drives shall serve a
maximum of four dwelling units -- shall serve a maximum of four dwelling units. Any
private driveway or roadway serving more than four can only be approved as a private
street. That does not apply to this.
Borup: And no maximum length either.
Hawkins-Clark: It does address length. The code says common drives serving three or
four dwelling units shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. If they are less than 150 feet
it gives design standards. If they are greater than 150 feet, then, a common driveway
shall be built to ACHD standards.
Borup: So, how is that distance determined? We're over a 170-feet here.
Hawkins-Clark: Correct. And the ordinance doesn't say that the length is prohibited, it
just says if you go over 150 it needs to be designed --
Borup: To ACHD standards.
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Which include curb and gutter?
Hawkins-Clark: No. Built to ACHD standards for the materials and loading. So, it's
really just talking about the sub grade.
Borup: Okay. That was it. All right.
Zaremba: On that same subject, though, at the street Chatsworth, that common
driveway -- or at least the four flags add up to 40 feet. Then as you get back to going
between Lot 16 and 19, it drops to only 20 feet, it still needs to be a 24-foot roadway at
that point, doesn't it? And, actually, that's two questions. The second is don't we need
cross-access agreements among those four lots? Because if it's 24 feet wide, it's a little
bit on all four people's lots.
Hawkins-Clark: I guess on your first question, Commissioner, I think where it becomes
20 feet -- it appears that it really just serves two lots at that point. And on the second,
yes, they would need a cross access.
Borup: This appears to be something that, maybe, meets the letter of the law, but not
the intent.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 35 of 76
Hawkins-Clark: Correct.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission?
Moe: Yes. On Lot 5, Block 1, I assume right now that's a driveway that takes access
off of Locust Grove; is that correct?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes.
Moe: Okay. And we are, basically, looking to do something off of Eden Hall Avenue
into that property, then?
Borup: Yeah. There is a corner between there and Roseleaf.
Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Yeah. And Roseleaf is the east-west and Eden Hall is
the north-south, so it would be in that knuckle there.
Moe: Got you. Okay.
Borup: Is that currently a U-shaped driveway where they pull in one way and pull out
the other? I mean you said there were two entrances -- two access points.
Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe it's a -- it's a literal -- it's a U-shape. I think there is --
actually, you would have to go around the house to get back to it. I don't think the U-
shape -- but I don't know that for sure.
Borup: Okay. We will maybe get some clarification. Anything else, Commissioners?
Mr. Moe, you look like you're kind of -- you're still thinking?
Moe: I'm still thinking. I'm still on that lot, actually. Is the owner of that house -- is he
part of the development? Because, quite frankly, I mean I would assume, then, the
developer is going to take care of this and somehow get access to that house, then?
Borup: Well, as they submitted it, the access is from Locust Grove.
Moe: Right.
Borup: But that lot is part of this application.
Moe: Exactly.
Borup: So, this is the time for us to address it, so -- let's go ahead and with the
application -- or would the applicant like to make their presentation? Well, I'm sorry,
was there anything else? Did we finish --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 36 of 76
Nickle: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you. Shawn Nickle, 52 North 2nd
Street in Eagle. Here tonight representing Centennial Development. I will be brief,
because I know we want to get moving forward.
Borup: Well, we think we are down to only two issues.
Nickle: That's correct. We do meet the Comprehensive Plan as far as the density and
majority of the subdivision does meet the --
Borup: So, you want to talk about those four lots first? That is ugly.
Nickle: The four lots right here -- it was my impression that we were meeting the intent
of the code, because these two lots right here are taking access off of Chatsworth.
Borup: You say the intent or the letter?
Nickle: I think both. I mean if you read back what that states, it states that --
Borup: But do you think the code really intended to put a grouping of lots behind
existing lots?
Nickle: It's been done and approved by this board before. Most recently last month with
Chesterfield where we had four lots accessing off of --
Borup: But one --
Nickle: -- common lots.
Borup: But weren't those four lots -- had access -- they weren't behind other lots, were
they?
Nickle: Yeah. Same concept. I think the issue at hand is whether you consider these
two lots as part of the common driveway and I don't consider that, because these two
lots will take access off of Chatsworth. Now, if that means providing a fence along each
side to restrict access on those -- on that common driveway, that's something we could
do. As far as the length of the road, I think the only concern we would have is if the fire
department had an issue with that, because of their equipment getting back there and
that was not the concern of theirs, because they were going to have a turnaround. The
concern was as far as the public services over at the police department and, as Brad
did state, we have agreed to provide some sort of access. Now, whether that's an
open fence or a gate, we will work with the police department and whatever they decide
we will comply with. We'd like to at least have a gate there to provide for some sort of
security for the houses back there. Now, whether that gate's locked, I don't think the
police department is going to want that, so it will be an unlocked gate or it might just be
an open -- an opening in the fence. We'd like for the police department to make that
decision and we will agree with that as a condition of approval. If you do choose tonight
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 37 of 76
not to allow that or you feel the intent of the code is not met and you do consider that
six lots, we can redesign this in a way that will still allow us to have this configuration.
What we would do is we would have a common drive coming this direction to access
these four and, then, we would bring this down right here and you would just have --
you would have the common drive come up here to access the two lots. You would,
actually, have four and four. I'm going to leave that up to you if -- I guess it's an unclear
-- it's an unclear part of the code that staff is kind of asking you guys to interpret.
Borup: I think how it's stated this meets that, but this is not the same as the
Chesterfield one, though.
Nickle: It's not exactly the same.
Borup: Because those four -- two of lots had -- maybe it wouldn't be considered
frontage, but they bordered on the street; is that correct? And none of these do. So, the
other one the street went back to the depth of one of the lots. Let me ask you a
question. The open area, are you needing -- are you needing all of that open area for
drainage or was the decision just to have some extra open area?
Nickle: I believe it's going to be dual use. Yeah. It will dual use, but it's going to be
designed to where it will be --
Borup: And all of it's necessary for the drainage?
Nickle: Yeah. But it's going to be a slight indent --
Borup: Right. And that's the normal --
Nickle: Yeah. But it's not going to be --
Borup: What I was leading to is -- so, there is not room to run a street back there and
do a cul-de-sac or something there.
Nickle: Correct. Unless we were to lose common area and drainage.
Zaremba: Run that last suggestion by me again. If I'm understanding, if you group
these four lots and took access off the road, then, access to these two lots -- okay. If
this is no longer there, then, these two lots can share left and you would essentially --
this lot line now would pretty much line up with that lot line and that's where you would
run the access?
Nickle: Correct.
Zaremba: That would work for me.
Borup: It still puts the lots behind the other lots.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 38 of 76
Nickle: My engineer is going to address that, because he kind of drew a little drawing
back there and I'll let him explain that. If you want I can talk about the existing --
Zaremba: Let's go there.
Nickle: Could you put the picture on the overhead, Brad, please? And we don't
necessarily have a problem with that accessing that lot off of the interior of the
subdivision. The reason we would like it to stay the way it is is because of -- Brad's
going to put a picture up here. It's because of the existing driveway and the exiting
garage for the house. This would be Locust Grove. And, then, to answer your
question, it's -- the U shape -- here is the -- this is the north driveway, it, actually, goes
back around behind the house and, then, it U's back over to Locust Grove. The
condition from ACHD was to remove that south entrance. This one actually access
those outbuildings right there. So, our problem is -- and that's a better -- I guess that's
a better picture right there -- is that there is no way to get to the garage without having
the access off Locust Grove, which means that we would have to abandon that garage
and build a detached garage behind the house to access off of the internal street
system. Now, that can be done, but it's a brick building, there is no other way to modify
that structure and get access. We even tried -- the developer, who is not here tonight,
Kevin Amar, actually drove back behind there and there is no way to really get a car
around to get back into that garage from behind the building, if that makes sense.
Moe: Now, the other photo -- did you not say that the road wraps around to the back?
Borup: Look on your plat. That road that wraps now is on the other lot.
Nickle: It goes back to the north -- or to the west to access those outbuildings, which
we are going to be removing.
Moe: So, you get access and, then, you go around. Okay.
Nickle: Without coming -- I guess coming back through around and doing some sort of
funky T turn and -- yeah, it is still really tight. We are going to extend the sidewalk
along this frontage, but that's the main reason why we want to keep the access where
it's at. We are going to leave that up to you to make your recommendation. My
engineer has reviewed that and we can get a common driveway back there to access
that lot internally, if that's the decision of you all tonight.
Zaremba: Well, if I may, let me pursue your comment that the resolution would be to
build a separate garage behind the building. That wouldn't necessarily mean
abandoning this -- I mean you wouldn't have to destroy the current garage you could
convert it to a nice bonus room or family room or something. It just wouldn't be a
garage.
Nickle: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 39 of 76
Zaremba: I mean it's a nice structure.
Nickle: It's still a nice residence, but that's the reason why we left that on there, we
wanted to discuss that with you tonight. Now, if we -- if we do have to abandon that --
and, obviously, we would abandon both driveways on Locust Grove, we would extend
the landscape strip along the frontage of that. However, we would reduce that, because
you can see it would go -- if it stayed at 30 feet it would go right through the house, so it
would reduce that down probably by half.
Zaremba: But let me ask staff if there is any problem -- if the resolution were to take
access internally and that meant building a separate garage on the property and
converting the current garage to some living space, is that all doable? Permitable?
Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I think it would require that -- the Commission to grant a
little bit of a waiver, because the -- if you do a detached garage in the side yard -- and,
typically, I think it needs to be connected to the principal use, right? So, this would
require somewhat of a waiver to make it -- to allow it to be detached without being
connected with like a breezeway or something. And, heightwise, I mean they are a
maximum of 15 feet, so that's -- the code says a maximum of 15, but that usually isn't a
problem, unless they want to do an RV garage, which a lot of times those do go taller,
but -- so, otherwise, I think it would work. So, it's just a matter of laying out the lot. It's
the largest lot in the subdivision. I think it's like 12,500 square feet or something and --
Zaremba: I just wanted to make sure we weren't going to propose a solution that we
would, then, say, oh, you can't do that, that's not legal.
Nickle: Commissioner, it sounds like staff is saying that we possibly would have to get a
variance at some point or waiver of --
Powell: I think the code -- still what it says is it can be detached, if it's attached. So, I
think if the Planning Commission wanted to recognize and recommend that the
applicant be allowed to do a detached garage that wasn't attached in that side yard,
that that would be okay. It's just -- it's very gray code, so I'm not too worried about
having to make them go through a variance procedure and, hopefully, it won't be code
very long.
Nickle: It sounds like the common lot issue. Common driveway issue.
Borup: They'd still need to meet the normal setback regulations and everything else. I
assume there is living space behind that garage? Part of the house has living space
behind it?
Nickle: That I don't know.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 40 of 76
Powell: Chairman Borup, I did ask Mr. Amar if that's the case and he did say there was
living space, so they couldn't just move the garage doors around, so --
Borup: That's what I was wondering. Anything else? Have we settled anything?
Zaremba: We appreciate all the other changes you made.
Nickle: We are in agreement with the stub street to the north and, again, the gate and
to work with the police department, if you decide to go with this layout. And, again, we
will get Dave Bailey up here and you can get --
Rohm: Yeah. I'd like to hear the alternate.
Nickle: Other than that, thank you for your time. Again, we meet the code. We do
have 12 percent open space within the development and we feel it's a nice addition to
this area. It's in compliance with all the codes and the Comp Plan and compatible with
what's going on in the area. So, with that I will let you talk to Dave. Thank you.
Bailey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is David Bailey with
Bailey Engineering. Office address is 1117 Plaza Drive in Eagle. And representing
Centennial Development. I guess I will go ahead and address this first. On the
common lots here -- and I'm kind of talking off the cuff here, which, hopefully, is going to
get me someplace, but I hadn't seen the comment on the problem with the common
driveway until tonight, but I'm looking at it there and saying, hey, how can we resolve
this and get you folks where you want to go and get the staff where they want to go and
get us in the same condition. And I guess to back that up, maybe if I talk real briefly
about why we come up with this configuration to start with. And Kevin Amar and I, in
talking about the layout and how we are going to put this thing together, noted that
when we had done common driveways in the past, when we configure them -- say the
common driveway came in this way for these four lots here, as Shawn was talking
about, then, these houses face towards the road and these houses face towards the
backs of those houses and we just don't like that configuration in general for the sale of
lots, although it certainly meets the letter and the intent of your code to do it that way
and that's the way it's often done. But as far as for configuration of those, we thought it
was a better configuration to have the houses so they would face each other within this
area and we'd share backyards here, share backyards here. Granted, we are sharing
a side and a backyard here, but that's not too uncommon in a subdivision, especially if
you have got an odd configuration on it. So, that's how we got there in the first place.
And we did look through the code and, you know, I do quite a few of these in Boise city
as well and I'm not comparing you, except for that -- the only other place that I have
done these before is in Boise city. They do restrict their driveway length to 150 feet.
But you don't have such a restriction. In fact, you have a provision in your code that
says if it's more than 150 feet, then, do this. It certainly indicates to me that more than
150 feet is not a problem, as long as we meet the fire department requirement, which I
think we have. And as far as the 24 foot width and being outside of those lot lines
there, really, the common driveway is this entire 40 feet of easement for the common
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 41 of 76
driveway, which would continue up to those lots to the north end and there would be an
easement for that, which if you're concerned with the cross access, I think these
easements which are shown on the plat for the common driveway covers the issue of
the cross-access easement on that. So, that's how we got there in the first place and,
like Shawn, I believe that this meets the letter and the intent of your code and we
certainly reviewed that and looked at that when we put this together as it is. Given
that, if we were going to reconfigure this, we could put -- and Kevin wouldn't like me for
this, because we would have lots that he doesn't like, but we could put a common
driveway in here to serve these two. These two lots here would rotate 90 degrees, so
they would back up and we would have the two two -- or one, one, one, one, and a
common driveway coming up the center that way. Does that make -- I hope that makes
sense. Basically, it looks like this configuration, but rotated 90 degrees down here.
And I would have the room -- I would end up losing some room out of the park and I
may end up providing kind of a goofy park configuration or some deeper lots between
here, so that I could get things to line up with these lot lines on the bottom here. If we
lose a little bit out of this park, well, I think it would be a shame, because most of this
park portion we put here is so that you get that view when you come in here and we
have a nice entrance to the subdivision. I don't need all that area for drainage on this
site. I need most of this, because we do have shallow groundwater conditions that we
are dealing with out here. But as far as on the entrance here, I could lose some of this
park and reconfigure that, if that's your choice, that you need us to do that. I think this
works fairly well, if we can meet the fire department and the police department
requirements, which I think we have on that and access driveways here, if we need a
fence on there, I'm sure we would be fine in putting a fence there. And, then, these
houses face each other and we have matching backyards and we end up with a more
pleasing configuration for the people that are going to be living there and that's
something that we try to look at, obviously, all the time when we are putting these
subdivisions together, is what's the configuration not only for everybody around this
thing, but for the people that are going to buy these houses and live in these lots. So,
we are concerned with that. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
Rohm: I guess my biggest concern is this strip here and this strip on this side are -- will
be the responsibility of the lot owner and I can't even hardly -- what are they going to
put there, just grass and, then, have to mow that on a -- I could see that turning into a
wasted area myself. It looks like they are not going to be as concerned about that as
the balance of their yard.
Bailey: I don't have any rebuttal to that. I can understand that concern.
Rohm: I personally like the alternate much better.
Zaremba: Well -- and I'm wondering how you say you would lose parkland. If you
don't have the 40-foot wide strip that is the current common driveway, even if you
reorient the lots, you have actually gained some parkland. It's not the same shape,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 42 of 76
now your park is L-shaped instead of square, but it seems to me you have gained at
least a 20-foot wide extra strip of park.
Bailey: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I agree with you in that I'm just
saying when I start lining up properties on the lot lines they don't always hit here and
the lots can get bigger. I'm not saying I will lose parkland or even that that's a concern.
We are well over what we need as our minimum area of open space on this. And I
don't think that's a big concern on that. I guess now that I'm sitting here talking off the
top, I could take these two lots and bring them down, you know, beside here and we
would have just a narrower, but larger park area this way and that would also be an
alternate configuration that would work and we would have two lots in the back that are
sideways like that and, then, these lots would, then, be required to take access off of
the common driveway, which solves your question about who maintains that
landscaping there, because it's their driveway there, then, and they would maintain up
to their driveway edge.
Zaremba: And I'd charge more for those lots, because they have got plenty of park
frontage. Might be an advantage. Okay. Internal access for the one-acre lot. The Bell
property.
Bailey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't really have any take on that -- an
issue that -- the fact of the matter is that if we do take the driveway off of Locust Grove,
we met with your staff and with ACHD prior to putting the application together and
ACHD said we probably can support that and they came out in their staff report and
said they could support that. It's an extra expense to the developer and some little
working things around to figure out how to build an extra garage -- a detached garage in
the back of that, because the engineering fact is if we put that berm across there and
the landscape strip all the way across the frontage of that is we are not going to be able
to adequately access that garage with a car. So, we are going to need another garage
in order for them to sell that house, in order for that house to sell. Other than that, I
can make it work from the inside, so that's a developer cost issue and not -- I guess not
really an engineering issue. Did I skirt that one well enough?
Borup: As far as the four lots, what would be your preference? Well, I assume your
preference would be to leave it like this.
Bailey: Mr. Chairman, it would be to do it like this. I it works out really well for what we
want to do. Second to that, our preference would be say our code -- for you to say our
code says you have to have all the lots access off the common driveway and provide us
with a configuration that meets that -- meets the code in accordance with how we
described the intent to you, because I can't say standing here until I sit at my computer
and play with the lot lines -- I can't tell you standing here whether this configuration
works or I need to come in this way or -- so I can't tell you which one of those is going to
work, but I can feel pretty confident that I can make one of them work.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 43 of 76
Borup: Well, I -- Commissioner Rohm, your concern was the way it is now there is four
properties -- or at least two properties would need to maintain that --
Rohm: Yes, that was my concern, just that --
Borup: And which one of the two neighbors would do it? I mean even though, you
know, it's going to belong to the one lot, it's part of the one lot.
Rohm: Well, true. This flag right here belongs to this lot. But it certainly isn't going to
be part of what they would normally maintain.
Borup: Right.
Rohm: I mean they could have a real nice lawn and leave that unattended.
Borup: Because all four neighbors are using that.
Rohm: Yeah.
Borup: But I don't know if the other solution as far as a long driveway -- I mean the
driveway really doesn't -- you still have lots behind other lots and looking at it now, at
least to me, I don't think it makes a lot of difference which configuration.
Rohm: I guess I would have to see the alternate in print to --
Borup: I don't see how that solution is that much better. Then you have -- then you
have two driveways coming in, rather than one. And, then, if they do the access on the
other way and, then, you do have lots that are really very hard to -- I mean they don't
lay out real well as far as putting houses on it. Mr. Bailey, you had something else?
Bailey: I guess, Mr. Chairman, as far as -- I guess we've got two issues here that I think
-- I think we can come to a resolution on and I think it's just a question of where you
want to go as the Commission with how you're going to decide these things in the
future, because I think this more affects those, maybe, than it does this particular
application. I think this is a satisfactory layout, but if you decide that this doesn't meet
it, I think it would be easy for you to say bring it -- you know, we will approve it with the
condition that you design your common driveway, so they meet the code on that -- that
issue. I think this is a great layout and works really good and I think those -- all four of
those would be, you know, desirable lots, because they are off the street, because they
have a common driveway that forms a little neighborhood. When I think about layouts
and I do a lot of PUD stuff as well, when I think about the layouts and those kind of
things, I like to create those neighborhoods of little groups of houses where people can,
you know, associate with each other, you know.
Borup: Has that design been marketable? They do -- or are those going to be the last
lots that are going to sell? Or do you know?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 44 of 76
Bailey: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know, because I design them and I don't sell them,
so I can't tell you for sure. But that's what Kevin Amar is thinking that's going to work
well.
Borup: And, ultimately, that's what it comes down to. I mean if the developer is taking
the risk, I guess, with something that's not going to sell, then, that's the risk he took.
Any other thoughts?
Rohm: I guess only that what would it take to make this a roadway that meets all road
standards? Could you not widen that?
Borup: It's wide enough right now to be a private road. But you don't have enough for
a cul-de-sac or even a hammerhead.
Bailey: I guess I hate to get into this, you know, I have got some space here and I add
ten feet to that and I put -- actually, I move it over this way, because I have done this
layout before.
Borup: Well, ten feet would give you a public road.
Bailey: Ten feet gives me 50 foot and I do a public road, a cul-de-sac in there, and,
then, I get four lots off of this thing and I eat up a whole chunk of park here and I build a
whole bunch of curb, gutter, sidewalk and cul-de-sac turnaround that really isn't
necessary to get to the lots, you know, and I just think that's a real waste of everybody's
money down the road to go build another 170 foot long road with a cul-de-sac on it and
curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides, when all we are trying to do is serve four lots
with it. So, it's technically feasible, but it eats into the park and causes a whole lot
more expense to construct the development, which goes into lot prices and goes into
house prices down the road.
Powell: Chairman Borup?
Borup: Yes.
Powell: Members of the Commission, I think the applicant is correct in that he does
meet the letter.
Borup: Well, I'd agree with that.
Powell: But I do think, as do you, that he doesn't meet the intent, he just -- in having
authored the -- what now seems inadequate code -- at the time it was not the intent.
But regardless of that, he's not coming in with a PUD, he's just coming in with a straight
sub and it probably does meet those requirements. In the interest of perhaps moving
on, I think it's clear, though, that maybe when we do the revisions to the code we will
just try and clarify that four lots, because when we did it we were thinking of Berkeley
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 45 of 76
Square and the consensus was that Berkeley Square had too many people on the
common drives. But, again, that was our fault for not catching it as it was written, so --
Borup: Thank you. That was --
Powell: That was the Bailey bailout.
Rohm: Well -- and, ultimately, it's the developer's risk, I guess, of being able to sell
those lots as configured if, in fact, it meets code and so maybe we should just let it go
and move forward based upon meeting ordinance.
Borup: That's what I'm beginning to think. Do we have anyone else here to testify on
this? I think our numbers are dwindling, so --
Zaremba: I could see leaving that one configured the way it is. I think I still would like
to support staff's request for internal access to the Bell property, even if that means a
detached garage, which we will ease the approval of any way we can, including
converting the current garage to living space.
Borup: Well -- and that makes sense, you know, my concern -- my concern on the way
it is now is not so much the access point, but if cars are going to be backing out onto
the road, rather than being able to pull out face first.
Zaremba: Well, there is trash trucks and --
Borup: Yeah.
Zaremba: -- deliveries, anything else. Yeah.
Borup: And if you can -- if there is not room there where they turn around and pull out
straight, then, that is going to be a hazard. So, is that how we would like to proceed?
Rohm: This is the time to address that, so --
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Well -- and without having the measurement, our plat indicates that across
the street just slightly north are two more entrances to something and I'm not sure what
the offset would be. If we left the north driveway of this property where it is, what the
offset is from those, but I think it would just be better for Locust Grove if this driveway
were not there.
Rohm: Then, the subdivision would have a continuous greenscape, so --
Borup: Okay. Are we ready to move on?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 46 of 76
Rohm: I believe so.
Zaremba: I'll make the easy one. Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on AZ 04-002 and
PP 04-001 be closed.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Let's see. I would suggest one addition to the staff conditions and that is that
if the property to the south of us does not develop for awhile and stays in farmland, that
we probably should have a reference to the right-to-farm act on the plat. Is that where
it goes?
Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it does go on the plat.
Zaremba: Okay. And I would make that a condition 12 on page 12. And, then, on the
plat that we are referencing, revision date 03/02/04, the lots that we were talking about,
the little note that says proposed common driveway for Lots 12 to 15, those numbers
didn't get changed with the new revision. It should read proposed common driveway
for Lots 16 to 19. Am I correct?
Hawkins-Clark: That is correct. Yeah. The four common lots are 16 to 19 now. Same
block number.
Zaremba: Yeah. That and the Bell property are the only changes I would suggest.
Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead with -- are we ready for a motion on the annexation?
Zaremba: I'm letting you guys practice tonight.
Borup: I don't think we had any changes on the annexation, so --
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward on to the City Council our
recommendation for approval of AZ 04-002, request for annexation and zoning of 24.45
acres from RUT to R-8 zones for Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development,
LLC, 3615 South Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 47 of 76
Borup: Thank you. We still have one more, if you're interested.
Rohm: You can do the other one, Dave.
Zaremba: Okay. Let see. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the Council
recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 04-001, request for preliminary
plat approval of 98 single family residential building lots and seven common lots on
24.45 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial
Development, LLC, 3615 South Locust Grove Road, to included all staff comments of
their staff memo for the hearing date of March 4th, 2004, received by the city clerk
March 1, 2004, with the following changes: The note that I'm referring to, the revision of
plat, with a revision date of March 2nd, '04, received by the city clerk March 4, 2004,
and the changes to the staff notes are: On page eight, preliminary plat special
considerations, paragraph one, the second paragraph in that refers to some lot and
block numbers and those lot and block numbers should now be Block 3, lot 15, and Lot
20. And the point of that is that those lots shall take access from Chatsworth. On
page nine, paragraph three, will be changed to read applicant has agreed to
reconfigure, so that the Bell property, which is Block 1, Lot 5, takes access internally
and the city has agreed to help the permit for a new garage and conversion of the
current garage to living space. Then, on page 12 we will add a paragraph 12 that says
a reference to the right-to-farm act shall be stated on the face of the plat.
Moe: Second.
Zaremba: End of motion.
Moe: Make sure you were done there.
Zaremba: Did we get everything?
Borup: I think so.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, are we -- would we like a short break? Okay. We
will take a short break at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
temporary bank facility with a drive-thru window and a drive-thru window
for the permanent structure in a C-C zone for Farmers and Merchants
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 48 of 76
State Bank by CSHQA – southwest corner of East Overland Road and
South Eagle Road:
Borup: We'd like to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting, start with Public
Hearing CUP 04-002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary bank facility,
drive-thru window, in a C-C zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank. We'd like to
open this hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a request
for Farmers and Merchants State Bank in El Dorado. We recently went through the
approval process for Farmers and Merchants Bank here in downtown and this is a
second site for them out at Eagle Road. The proposal is for a new bank. It's located --
trying to get the mouse -- here we go. This is Eagle Road running north and south.
And, then, Overland Road runs east and west. This is right at the intersection of
Overland and Eagle. This is an aerial photo of the same property, largely unbuilt when
this photo was taken, although some of these lots in Silverstone have since developed
around here. The proposal for a new 4,765 square foot bank building with two drive-
thru tellers and a third lane for a drive-up ATM. They are also proposing a temporary
bank structure while the permanent one is being built. It will sit on the south end of the
site and they have submitted two site plans. So, both of these represent the same site.
The one on the left is what will be built first for the temporary bank and I have some
representative photos of what this would look like. They would intend to operate out of
the temporary facility for no longer than 18 months while the permanent one is being
built, after which they would remove it from the site, replace it with landscaping, and
move into the permanent facility. I have on page five of the staff report shown five
special considerations that I need to briefly go through. The first is a lot line
adjustment. The proposed site for this project, similar to the Key Bank project, which is
just two lots west of here, it doesn't fill the entire site and is a portion of what was
platted in El Dorado as Lot 9, Block 5. In anticipation of shifting the lot line, they have
already submitted a lot line adjustment to match this configuration. That lot line
adjustment has been approved by the city engineer, I did verify that, but they will not
record the lot line adjustment until they see if the Conditional Use Permit is approved
through City Council. So, we have added a condition that that lot line adjustment will
need to be recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance and that's
already in the conditions. The second item I wanted to point out is that temporary use.
We did a similar arrangement of a temporary bank facility for D.L. Evans Bank about
one year ago. They had requested 12 months in their faulty and we suggested giving
them 18 to give the extra time, just in case there is a lag, and so they have requested
the same amount of time that was granted to D.L. Evans Bank and we don't have a
problem with that. But we did want to place a limit on the amount of time allowed
between occupancy of the permanent structure and removal of the temporary one, so
that they are not just sitting there simultaneously for a long period of time and so we
have added a condition to address that and that is also in line with what was done for
D.L. Evans Bank. Item number three is the site plan modifications that we are
requesting. If you look at the landscape plan here, there were two items mentioned on
the site plan modification. One, the stalls along the south side of this property are 17
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 49 of 76
feet deep. You can see on the permanent configuration that they are adjacent to
landscaping and we typically do approve that, but under the temporary bank location
they have a 17 foot deep stall adjacent to a four foot wide sidewalk and we are
requesting that they increase the width of this sidewalk to be at least seven feet to allow
for the overhang. If they wanted to do a temporary surface, like asphalt, instead of
concrete, that would be acceptable and, then, could be removed and replaced
completely with landscaping at the time of the permanent structure being occupied.
This second point is the handicapped parking. On the -- there is handicapped parking
delineated for the permanent structure, but there is none delineated on this plan for the
temporary building and so we have requested that one of these stalls be turned into a
handicapped accessible parking with an accessible route into the building and I have
also noted that by doing so they will still meet parking requirement for the site. On the
landscaping, on the permanent site plan, there is an island up here at the end of this
row of parking that does not currently contain a tree and we are asking that a tree be
added. And, then, in our meeting with the police department, they had expressed
some concerns about wanting to coordinate with the applicant about the planting
adjacent to the drive-thru, so that they make sure that it is low plantings and will have
good visibility for police patrols to be able to view the drive-thru and the ATM at all hours
of the day that they would be patrolling. So, I will let the -- I don't know if the applicant's
met with the police department yet. It looks like he has, so I'll let him address that to
the Commission. The final item is an easement. Up in the upper right-hand corner of
the site there is a common lot right on the corner that contains the El Dorado
Subdivision signage. Their proposed driveways do cross over that common lot and so
we have required that an easement be put in place that allows them to have access
across that corner of the common lot and to show a recorded easement for that location
prior to the certificate of zoning compliance. All other issues, I think, are taken care of
and I will stand for any questions.
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make
their presentation?
Slocum: Good evening, Chairman, Members of the Commission. Craig Slocum with
CSHQA Architects, 250 South 5th, representing the Farmers and Merchants Bank this
evening.
Borup: I just might mention that -- I mean staff has recommended approval. You have
got the list of their recommendations. Are there any of those you have any questions or
concerns with?
Slocum: We take no exception to any of those special conditions and, for the record,
we have spoke with Chief Musser regarding the police concerns regarding visibility and
are in good shape to meet those desires. Other than that, we'd just stand for any
questions.
Borup: Questions from the Commissioners?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 50 of 76
Rohm: It looks like a good proposal and no questions.
Zaremba: If we could just have the record show that for the first time in probably history
I have no questions that haven't already been answered.
Slocum: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing
none, Commissioners?
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on CUP 04-002 be closed.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: We are moving along now, if we can just get a motion.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward on to City Council recommending
approval of CUP 04-002, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary bank
facility with drive-thru window and a drive-thru window for the permanent structure in a
C-C zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by CSHQA, southwest corner of east
Overload Road and South Eagle Road, including all staff comments dated March 1,
2004. End of motion.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 04-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of .5
acres from RUT to C-G zones for Equity Benefits by Equity Benefits, LLC
– 2540 East Franklin Road:
Borup: Thank you. Next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-001, request for annexation and
zoning of .5 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Equity Benefits by Equity Benefits at
2540 East Franklin Road. Open the public hearing at this time and start with the staff
report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you stated, this
application is for annexation and zoning of just over half an acre in an existing RUT
zoned property in the county to C-G, which is general retail and service commercial
district. Included within the .56 acres, 4,200 square feet of that will be right of way to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 51 of 76
ACHD, which is 40 feet from center line, making a build-able area .46 acres. The site
is located on the north side of Franklin Road, approximately 2,000 feet west of Eagle
Road. The current mailing address for the property is 2540 Franklin Road. East
Franklin Road. To the north of the subject site is the Meridian Academy School and
there is some bus storage, too, on the backside of that property. To the south are the
Greenhill Estates Subdivision, the one-acre lots in the county-zoned R-1. To the east
are -- is a single family home on this long five acre parcel. I believe that's a single-
family home. I can confirm that, but it is five acres, approximately. And, then, also the
school district owns this property here directly to the west of the site. This is all one
parcel. Just for reference, this is the Wooden Nickel tavern and the apartment complex
that's currently under construction in -- this is part of Sparrowhawk Subdivision, you saw
a couple months ago. In the applicant's submittal letter it stated that the property will
be used for Class A office space, professional and sales offices are a principal use in
the proposed C-G zone. Therefore, a CUP will not be required for an office type use.
Staff asked the applicant for a site plan showing what's going on on this site. There
was not a sight plan originally submitted with the application, which the city does not
require. However, we do like to have -- a visual people, we do like to look and see
what's going on there, so the applicant graciously submitted this site plan and as a
condition of approval for the subject annexation and zoning, staff is recommending that
the applicant enter into a development agreement with the city and as a condition --
there are a couple of conditions, I guess, in that development agreement staff is
recommending. One is that the applicant file for a certificate of compliance. So, the
site can be brought up to adopted city standards. This site is real close to being in
compliance with some city standards. Now, the existing driveway -- and there is just
two approaches on Franklin Road. Go back here. One approach in this location here --
now is -- it is paved in this site and the parking area is paved. I didn't drive back there,
I don't believe that the parking area is striped, so there will be some striping, some
landscaping requirements, those type of things that will be taken care of with the CDC
application. So, that is a condition -- recommended condition of approval on the staff
report. Another point I just wanted to highlight in the staff report is the fire department's
need for a hydrant in this area. There are a couple of hydrants that are going -- at least
the lines for hydrants are being put in with the Franklin Road project, so, they are
getting some of one those lines. However, the sites come in between where those
hydrants are going. So, another hydrant is needed to service this project. So, that
was also a condition that the applicant put in and, especially, getting that line in before
the paving -- I believe is done to Franklin Road. I believe those are the highlights and
I'm available for any questions you may have.
Borup: Questions for Mr. Hood?
Zaremba: Yes. Please. Would you go back to the aerial view and I'm remembering
maybe a year ago, something like that, didn't Meridian Academy make an application
either for -- I know there is quite a slope here, but they made an application either for
another building or a second story or something and included in that they were going to
make an access to Franklin Road. Am I correct in any of that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 52 of 76
Hood: I do remember the application. I don't remember exactly what it's for and I don't
remember access points specifically.
Zaremba: The reason it sticks my memory is that we were discussing the grade and
they said they didn't have any problem getting a road up that grade. The reason I'm
asking this is having driveways along Franklin, is there some way that this project could
share access with that project if the roadway is close enough to their property line?
Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I remember the project you're talking
about. What it was was currently at the academy there was all the relocatables around
the green common area in the middle. They replaced the relocatables with a
permanent structure. That was what the application was for. I'm not remembering that
there was a road as part of that application. There was a lot of discussion about the
treatment of the slope. They were talking about using some native -- like fescue
grasses and some longer grasses and things like that, but I don't recall the road issue
that you're referring to.
Zaremba: Okay. Sometimes I make things up, you know. Some people have a
problem of forgetting things that happened and I have a problem making things up that
didn't happen, so --
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Wolfe: Good evening. It looks like we are getting a draw here tonight. I appreciate the
time to be able to meet with you folks. I think we have got a great addition -- Brandon
Wolfe. I'm with Equity Benefits. I'm one of the owners. We think we have got a great
addition here to the City of Meridian. We have got a beautifully stucco home with
wonderful exotic landscaping. We have got there towards the -- if you could go back to
the site plan there for me. Right here. Already got great landscaping here up against
the Franklin Road, with a pretty nice waterfall. All this is parking back in here and
knowing our requirements, it actually already is striped. The building is vacant right
now just waiting to get the proper zoning, so that we can use it for a professional office
for ourselves and also for, hopefully, another company, which will be an investment type
firm that will be handled out of here. The building already is -- looks very very
professional with the stucco that it's got. The previous owner was actually a stucco
contractor and has made the home very, very nice. We are prepared to match up and
meet all the requirements that the city has put on us. We don't have a problem with
any of them. We are working in coordination as Franklin comes on and widened, we
have already ran the sewer pipe. We are currently on a septic system and the parking
lot is paved. So, they have already ran the piping for the sewer, so as soon as it
comes down we are ready to tie on and come into compliance there. We will be
meeting with the -- regarding the fire hydrant here hopefully this next week to plan that
just perfectly as well. So, we are pretty excited about this project and I think it's going
to be a great addition to the city. And I am open to any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 53 of 76
Borup: Questions for Mr. Wolfe? So, you stated you're fine with all the conditions staff
had in their report?
Wolfe: Uh-huh.
Moe: I have no questions.
Borup: Okay. No questions? Thank you. Do we have anyone else here to testify on
this application?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-001.
Zaremba: I'll second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Okay. I make a motion that we move onto the City Council approval of AZ 04-
001, request for annexation and zoning of .5 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Equity
Benefits by Equity Benefits, LLC, at 2540 East Franklin Road, including all staff
comments dated with the hearing date of March 4, 2004, and received by the City of
Meridian on March 1st, 2004.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 04-001 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
224 stall R.V. resort with 4 buildings and amenities in a C-G zone for
Boise West R.V. Resort by Aaron C. Hoeft – 184 West Pennwood:
Borup: The next item is CUP 04-001, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 224
stall RV resort with four buildings in a C-G zone for Boise West RV Resort. Like to
open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This applicant is requesting
approval for a new 224 stall RV resort on 13 acres within an existing C-G zone. The
site is located within Troutner Business Park on the north side of Pennwood Street,
approximately 200 feet west of Meridian Road and outlined in the dark black here. A
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 54 of 76
CUP application is required, because RV parks are not specifically listed in the
schedule of use control. Because a development agreement affects this property, it
requires all development to obtain CUP approval and because there are multiple
buildings proposed on the same parcel. To the north of this site is a vacant field and a
tavern and, then, a commercial business in this location here. South is the future
undeveloped lots within Troutner Business Park. And to the east are the Hope Arms
Apartments, zoned R-15 and R-40. And there is a little vacant piece that will be
adjacent to the proposed office which is in this approximate location. To the west are
the existing phase one of Troutner Park, business park, and there are some existing
office uses on those lots. I did want to point out on this map this area that Pennwood
Street does currently dead end and does not extend all the way out to Meridian Road at
this time. There was an application approved -- I believe it was in 2000 -- late 2001, I
believe, for a commercial business in this location and they were required to construct a
portion of this extension on their property. They recently -- fairly recently got a time
extension to not construct that right now, but they did receive a time extension, we do
anticipate that to be constructed in the near future, but I did want to just point that out.
Right now to get to this site one would have to -- heading northbound would have to use
Meridian Road, go down Franklin, come down 5th, and kind of make a loop all the way
around. So, I just want to point that out. The park is proposed to be on Lots 10
through 15, Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 5 through 8, Block 3, of Troutner Park Subdivision
No. 1. The current owner of the lots I just listed is proposing to replat the lots to make
one lot for the RV park. You may remember this Troutner Business Park No. 2 and the
vacation -- they are vacating a right of way that the previous map showed that runs --
almost bisects this property here. In January the City Council approved that preliminary
plat and the concurrent vacation. In order to comply with city ordinances Troutner Park
Subdivision No. 2 must be -- the recording the vacation of 3rd Avenue must be
approved by ACHD before a certificate of zoning compliance. That's one of the
conditions that is outlined in the report you have. I want to just touch on a couple of the
design features within the proposed site and, then, I'll let the applicant make his
presentation. The internal drive aisles are 24 feet. There are 25 pull through stalls,
which are on the southern end of the development and 199 back-in RV stalls. In
addition to that, there are 75 additional parking stalls that aren't within the RV lots, they
are kind of scattered throughout the development. There is a parking island here.
Currently there is some on either end of some of these RV islands. On each RV lot
there will be a tree, picnic table, a concrete patio and full utility hookups, including
sewer, water, television, phone, electrical, and wireless internet. Within the office
building, which is near the entrance -- their entrance is in this location. Here is the
office location. There is a shower, bath area, an indoor swimming pool, a spa, laundry
facilities, a library, and a conference room. Other amenities on the site include a
miniature golf course, which is approximately here. There is the -- there is the Nine
Mile Lateral that runs right through the property here where that miniature golf course is
proposed in this location and a pedestrian crossing is also proposed to kind of back into
the office area and separate from the vehicular crossing. There are also some
playgrounds and dog runs. They are proposing propane distribution, which is almost
directly across the main entrance from the office and a second bathroom and laundry
facility north of that Eight Mile Lateral. There are four buildings on the site that the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 55 of 76
applicant is proposing. That primary office facility, here is the elevation for that. A
conference room. The second building is the modular home, which will house the 24-
hour on-site manager. This home is located on the west side of the entrance directly
across from the office. The other two buildings are the garage associated with the
storage of maintenance equipment for the site and, then, the fourth one will be the
laundry bath facility on the north side of the Eight Mile. I did want to just go back very
quickly to the site plan. One of the recommendations in the staff report -- and this is
based on comments from the police department -- was that this area proposed for bath
laundry facility area be relocated to be more centralized in this area to kind of allow
better access from all of the RV stalls and also to provide more sets of eyes on that
area. I guess historically areas that are kind of off to the side and may be out of view, I
guess have been prone to abductions and other types of things where someone can
just pull up, pull out, than something that's more centralized and, again, they can kind of
police themselves if there is more eyes on there. So, I just wanted to point out that
change. That's, really, the only site change that staff recommended. I believe this is a
pretty good project that the applicant is proposing. I did also want to point out that
ACHD has not acted on this yet and that is because that right of way has not officially
been vacated and they are waiting to process that, so it's kind of a conflict with them.
They have got right of way that some of these stalls are proposed over, so that process
still needs to be gone through. And, then, the other condition of approval, I guess, is
that the Pennwood extension be constructed all the way out to Meridian Road, because
staff did have some concerns with RV's making that loop all the way around and
disturbing the major intersections, but also going through the office park. Today I also
received a letter from the police department from the City of Pasco where there is a
similar type RV park and I did ask the clerk to make copies of that for you all. I just
received that a few hours before the hearing. And also I wanted to make reference to
a letter that was on the table here from Seventh Heaven here in Meridian. It's received
March 4th, not dated by them. I assume you all have that letter as well. And, then,
also the applicant did e-mail a response letter yesterday and you all should have gotten
that as well. In that response letter there is just one issue, if I may speak for the
applicant, and let him have a chance to go, but in the staff report dust free gravel
historically has not been something that we support. It's usually not dust free. Based
on the letter that the applicant submitted staff would be fine if the Commission feels it's
appropriate to recommend that dust free gravel be allowed in those areas for the back
in RV stalls, because they are a -- tend to be a longer term tenant in these places and
won't be kicking up potential dust and because the other reason stated in the letter that
the gravel will be the larger material and not so much dust and staff feels comfortable
with that change in the staff report if you so choose. With that I will let the applicant
make his pitch and stand for any questions you may have.
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Zaremba: I do have a couple of questions. Since RV parks are not called out in our
ordinances, necessarily -- maybe this is a question for the applicant, but let me get the
city's perspective first. A lot of what makes RV parks unattractive are people that move
in and stay a long time and let their own equipment deteriorate. RV parks where there
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 56 of 76
is mostly transient people coming and going and leaving don't usually look that
deteriorated. Can we or should we make some requirement that there be some
turnover, either that people can't occupy the same stall for a certain space of time or is
that necessary?
Hood: I guess that would be at the discretion of the Commission. I don't -- and that
would be a possibility if you wanted to condition it that way. Just in -- some of the facts
that the applicant -- some of the letters that they have provided doesn't seem to have
been a problem in some of the other developments that they have had. You may want
the applicant to -- I don't feel comfortable telling you one way or the other. That was
something that I thought about, too, how long do we want them in something like this
and if, you know, the -- are the RVs even able to run sometimes, you know, someone
just ends up living there or something.
Zaremba: Yeah. I think my concern is if it becomes a permanent residence for
somebody, then, we have got other requirements about what permanent residences
have to look like.
Borup: I think that's a good question to ask the applicant.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: It makes sense.
Rohm: Could you talk about that road access out to Meridian Road, again please, just
to clarify.
Hood: Let me jump back to that vicinity. So, Pennwood Street -- this is Pennwood and
it does currently terminate here. Commercial Tire was approved in this location here
and the -- one of the owners of this is in the audience tonight I see, so he may be able
to tell you a little bit more. My understanding from the applicant is that there is in the
purchase and sale agreement for this site a condition that an access will be provided to
the subject site from Meridian Road within 150 days, I believe, or 180 days, something
like that. So, that was a condition that the city was going to put on the applicant that
access be had to Meridian Road prior to occupancy. So, regardless of what that time
frame is that's been worked out third party, the city will require that this either be put in
by Commercial Tire or a joint agreement between Commercial and the RV park or
whoever, but this access does need to be in place prior to occupancy of that RV park.
So, again, the reasons for that where RVs are coming off the freeway -- probably 99
percent of them will be coming off the freeway -- would have to go through the
intersection of Franklin Road, make a left, and then -- and I don't believe there is
currently even a turn lane here to turn left across traffic and, then, go through the --
right. Most of the uses in there are office-type uses to get into this RV park and that
just didn't seem to be an efficient way to move RVs around town. So, that's -- I don't
know if that totally answers your question, but that's kind of what's going on out there
and --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 57 of 76
Rohm: Well, the reason why I asked is because the last time when this same proposal
came before us there were a number of people that spoke to that access off of that
commercial drive and I just wanted to clear that, that this access to the RV park would
actually come off of Meridian Road primarily, as opposed to through the commercial
development.
Hood: And I would like to point out -- I mean they are public roads. If someone wanted
to go that way they could, but I imagine that 90 -- again, probably close to 98 percent
are going to take the right out and go this way, so --
Rohm: Right. And that's why I say primary access, not -- there is not other ways to get
into the development. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? And
it sounds like most of the questions have been addressed.
Hoeft: My name is Aaron Hoeft. My address is 2404 Stateline Road, Walla Walla,
Washington. I'm the developer of this RV park. Before I forget, we did have a
neighborhood meeting last Thursday for the neighbors to come and talk. Two people
came -- actually, a man and his wife, Mr. Dave Olsen, who, I believe, if you look at our
west boundary line, where Pennwood comes in -- it wouldn't be the building right on
Pennwood, it would be the next one --
Rohm: There is a pointer on there.
Hoeft: That one right there.
Rohm: Thank you.
Hoeft: And, then, the other gentleman, Lawrence -- I can't quite read his last name, but
I believe he owns this property right here. And they showed up at the meeting and it
was pretty much informational, you know, what's your landscaping going to look like,
that type of stuff. We discussed the fence we are putting in and the buffer between us
and them that we are installing and we talked for a half hour and everything seemed to
be fine and those were the only people that showed up. Give you a little background
on myself. I own two other RV parks. One in Pendleton, Oregon, it's called Mountain
View RV Park. It is 100 stalls and was built in 1995. It actually opened in '96,
although one of my letters I think I have '97, it actually opened in '96. The other RV
park I own is in Pasco, Washington. It has 185 stalls and it opened in '99. Both these
parks are Class A parks and what a Class A park is is a park that is designed to meet
the needs of current RVs, which means I can handle the latest and greatest RV in my
park. I got the right power, sewer, everything that he needs I can provide for him. Plus
I have all the best amenities for them.
Rohm: That almost makes it sound like they tend to stay longer.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 58 of 76
Hoeft: We have -- we like them to stay several days. There is no question about that.
And, actually, we are running at 70 percent repeat business, which is terrific for us, and
the reason is because they like our RV park and they like what we supply them with.
So, we build a nice park. We want them to come to our park. We don't want them to
just stop by our park because it happens to be there. When they are planning their
travels, we want them to plan our park in their travels.
Rohm: What would you say a reasonable normal stay for a person is that used your
park?
Hoeft: That question comes up at almost every planning commission and it's a good
question. Typically, what we like to make sure is we have enough time so that when
tradesmen come in, say they are working on the highway, they are working on a new
Wal-Mart building, whatever, they can stay at our park without us telling them, gee,
sorry, you have to leave now, because you have been here too long. So, that's what
we look at as far as time frame. Typically, when you're working on highway jobs, they
are shut down during the winter, so you're looking at nine months of construction. So,
we always like them to be able to at least stay for nine months. And a lot of times
people say, oh, gee, you're going to have tradesmen in there for nine months.
Tradesmen are great tenants and the reason they are great tenants are generally the
husband or wife, whoever happens to be that particular tradesman, comes to town in
his RV, he parks in our RV park, he's working during the day, he comes home at night,
he goes to bed, wakes up in the morning and goes back to work. On the weekends he
heads back home to the family. He's not even there on the weekends. It's terrific.
They are one of the best tenants you can have. They have very little use of our
facilities, so it keeps our maintenance down. They are great tenants. And sometimes
people see a pickup with a lumber rack in there and they go, oh, no. They are a great
tenant. They really are. And we have rules and regulations, which I will have Jack
Saunders, who is my on-site manager at Sandy Heights talk about how we makes sure
our park keeps looking clean, because one of the questions was, geez, this thing could
be there forever and deteriorate when it's sitting there. He will touch on that, because
we don't allow that in our park and we have specific rules that prevent things like that
happening and I think it shows by the letters of recommendation that we don't have stuff
like that in our parks.
Borup: So, that the majority of your short-term -- or your long-term tenants are those
maybe coming in on a construction project or something like that, rather than --
Rohm: Vacation.
Borup: Well, no, I think for the long term.
Zaremba: You're talking as opposed to a permanent resident?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 59 of 76
Borup: Right. Someone that's living here and it's cheaper to come in here than --
because they own an old pickup and a camper, than to rent an apartment.
Hoeft: We have very specific rules on what we allow in the park and typically the tenant
that wants to do that is coming in an RV that is older, maybe deteriorated, and we don't
allow them in our park. And I have people say, okay, you're telling me that if you are 50
percent empty and somebody comes in an old RV, you're not going to let them in?
That's true. We don't let them in, because if we let them in and somebody pulls in a
1985 Prowler with tin foil on the windows and goes and parks next to 500,000 Privos, I
have just lost that Privos client and all his friends. It costs me too much to let him in.
So, they are not allowed.
Borup: So, how do you restrict that?
Hoeft: If the RV is over ten years old, we have to physically approve it. We have to
view it and see if it's allowed.
Borup: That's just one of your conditions for --
Hoeft: Absolutely. And we do enforce it, because we don't want to lose the word of
mouth that the full-time RV'ers give us. That's how we get 70 percent repeat business.
You see the parks that are full of older RVs, their repeat business isn't that high. And
it's pretty simple. We make more on the daily tenant than we do on the monthly tenant.
We need monthly tenants. We like monthly tenants. They are less maintenance with
a monthly tenant. An overnight tenant uses all the facilities. A monthly tenant he uses
very few. But we make more money on the overnight tenant. So, we want the
overnight tenants. We do need a base of monthly tenants and that's why we like
tradesmen. And tradesmen are not the majority -- it would vary what time of year.
During the summer, no, there probably wouldn't, even if there is construction going on,
because Boise is an area where people who winter down south, they like to come up
here and stay the summer. So, we will have full-time RV'ers and they will be in some
very nice vehicles and they will want to stay a couple months, because they like the
area and we provide that for them. Another great tenant. And, typically, the people
that stay by the month, if they are not tradesmen, they are retired people who are full-
time RV'ers and they travel the nation. They will come in and stay a month or two, a
week, you know, that's the typical clientele that we get.
Borup: Okay.
Hoeft: I have just -- touch a little bit more -- I'm also the owner of ACH Engineering and
I have designed over a dozen RV parks throughout the northwest. I don't only design
the ones that I build for myself, but I design for other people, and it's actually quite nice
designing parks for other people and actually building parks for other people, because
everybody has a different idea and I travel to national conventions, national RV
conventions, keep up on all the latest motor homes, all the latest RVs, what's coming
out, where are the utility locations on these RVs, what do these RVs need for power,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 60 of 76
what do they need for water, sewer, and so I can make sure that the parks that I design
meet all their needs. One of the most important things that you learn when you design
them, since I'm also involved in the management, is where not to put things. You put
something out there it's pretty much a target. You have people coming in that aren't
very familiar with their RVs -- if you put something in the wrong spot it gets ran over and
so through the evolution of designing these and building them and owning them, we
have learned not to put things in the way of an RV. You would think it would be pretty
easy to figure that out, but you will put stuff that you think is out of the way and it
becomes not out of the way real quick. So, that's been very helpful and, basically, this
is the latest and greatest RV park that I have designed. Everything that I have learned
from the national conventions, everything we have learned from running RV parks, from
building them and maintaining them is going into this park.
Zaremba: On that subject, can we address --
Hoeft: Sure.
Zaremba: Are you comfortable moving -- I guess you call it the utility center, shower,
and stuff -- the northern version of that more central?
Hoeft: Yeah. The reason we put it where it is right now is this park sets up really well
in the fact that it has a detriment and -- but I think we have turned that into a positive.
The Eight Mile Lateral cuts diagonally across the park, as you can see. It really goofs
up the road layout, because you put a lot of roadway in for the amount of RV stalls you
get, which, obviously, takes your costs higher. But on the flip side, we basically have
two parks. We have got a park that in the back the people that are coming for a week,
for a month, they like it quiet, they don't like the overnighters driving in and out every
day, they like to go where it's quiet. We can put them back there and they are not
going to get the overnight traffic. We can have the overnight traffic in the front, so we
keep it quiet for them, so we are satisfying their need of all the utilities, plus quiet, plus
we are satisfying the need of the overnight traveler up front and the overnight traveler,
he wants to be close to the office, the people staying for awhile, they don't care. So, it
works out really well the way it's broke up there. Did I answer your question? I think I
forgot what --
Borup: I think his question was about this -- about moving this location, that really
worked for you.
Hoeft: Yeah. I kind of got sidetracked there. But we had located it there, because we
thought, okay, we are going to have people back there for a week or a month, so we will
have a lot of eyes on that building. But it was a very good point by the police chief that
if we move it up it even has less -- it would be even less likely to have vandals and it is
a little more centrally located. So, we have decided, okay, we will go ahead and do
that.
Borup: Where would you move it to?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 61 of 76
Hoeft: It will be straight -- it will be right in this area right there. And it actually works
really good for refuse collection, because the big truck can come in right in, pick it up,
and be out. And I went over all that with him this afternoon and he actually stamped
our drawing approved where we have the refuse container. We talked about aligning
them so he could get his big trucks in. There is one there, one there, one right there
and, then, this one that's here will be moved up here with the building. There is one
there that we may or may not need and, then, there is one right here. And all those
line up so he can pull in with his trucks and pick them up without having to get out and
move them around by hand. So, he was very happy about that. And, then, we got a
design of his enclosure, so we can --
Borup: Did the police chief like this location better?
Hoeft: The police chief wanted us to move it from there to there. Yes.
Borup: Okay. But I mean that's -- it appears to me that you have less sites that can
see it from here than where it is.
Hoeft: I think he was concerned with possibly people coming from off site --
Borup: Okay.
Hoeft: -- and coming in.
Borup: Okay.
Hoeft: And, see, we really weren't concerned with that, because, one, we have this
fence and, plus, every one of these RVs has eyes.
Borup: Right. I mean it looks like you have got a lot of them around there that do that,
other than, you know, your new location maybe is more central for the tenants, but --
Hoeft: Yeah. It is more centrally located and it costs us probably one RV stall. But if
he's happier with it -- and, actually, we can probably make the building a little bit bigger
to get a couple more showers in, so that will be okay as far as we are concerned. As
far as the RV park itself, I'll just touch a little bit on the amenities and why we have
them. It's, obviously, 224 stalls. It's what we consider a Class A resort. That
terminology is used loosely in the RV community. Everybody wants to call their RV
park a resort and it's used loosely. What we have determined what we call an RV park
and what we have got over at national conventions is you have got a park that people
will come to -- they come to the area to stay in the park, plus you have amenities for
those people to use while they are there. And we don't mean just a bathroom and a
shower, we mean, you know, surrounding amenities as well, because they will come
and stay at this park, even though they might be over at Roaring Rapids or Bedrock
playing -- shopping downtown, but also here we have an indoor pool and spa here. It
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 62 of 76
will be in this corner. We have got a conference room that goes here. We have got a
laundry room that goes in here. We have got bathrooms and showers. We have a
lounge and a library, plus we have our office right in here. Pools are -- an indoor pool,
as far as I'm concerned, is the only way to go. Why have a pool if you can only use it
three months out of the year. It costs too much to maintain. Put it inside so your
patrons can use it. And we have that at Sandy Heights. It works great. They love it.
We will have the miniature golf here. And this is more for the people traveling with their
kids during the summer. The kids like to play miniature golf. Great. We will give
them miniature golf. Same with the play sets. They don't get used nearly as much as
you think they would, but if you don't have one, they will say where is it, so, you know,
you got to have it for the youngsters. We have places for pets and pets are always a
big issue. We have what are called dog runs and those dog runs basically is a chain
link enclosure for them to take their dog, let their dog do their business, pick up after
their dog and take their dog back to the RV. They are not allowed to leave that dog
there. We do not like barking dogs. We don't like dogs period, but too many people
travel with a dog to exclude them, as we would lose way to much business. About I
would say 50 percent of the full-time RV'ers have a pet and you just have to allow them.
And so we put stuff in to contain them and contain their waste. And it's amazing, if you
give them a place to use, they will use it and they will clean up after their dog. If you
don't, who knows where it's going, but somebody is going to find it and not in a pleasant
way. So, we try to provide that for them. As far as what each stall has, this particular
park -- the latest thing in RVs is wireless internet connection and the RV'ers want it, so
we are going to provide it. It's pretty straight-forward. Not too many parks have it.
That helps us get them from everybody else. We are going to give them everything
that they need in one park, so that they come with us, instead of going to the other RV
parks in the area. They also have a designated phone line, so that if they don't want
wireless internet, if they want to come in for -- and this really applies more to the full
timer that's coming in for the summer, going to spend two months, three months here,
wants to call his kids, maybe his kids live in the area, that happens quite a bit, the
parents come back to stay in the area with the kids, they will want a land line, so we
provide phone to the stalls, so that they can hook up the landline. We will have cable
TV. We will have 50, 30, and 20-amp power. We will have water and sewer -- pretty
much everything they have at your house they will have here. Each stall has grass, of
course, concrete patio, a table -- whether it be a picnic table or just a regular dinner
table. A lot of people have their own chairs. A tree. They are very nice sites and
that's why we get repeat customers. As far as the design and why you see things at an
angle, it's much easier to come in with an RV and pull into a stall that's at an angle with
the road you're coming in on and that's why we have that a 60-degree angle. Plus,
they can get out. If it's easy for them to get in and get out, they are less likely to run
over our utilities. Less-likely. They are still going to hit them from time to time, but less
likely. And, then, we have got the water and sewer. As you noticed up here and in the
standard detail, the water and sewer is quite a ways off the side of the pad. That
allows for two things. One, it keeps them from running them over. But, secondly, most
RVs these days have slides or tip outs -- there is a lot of names for them, where the RV
enlarges in width. We have got them at least three and a half feet away, so that RV
can enlarge and not hit those utilities. You can tell when they do get hit, because you
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 63 of 76
go over there and the utility is sideways and the RVs beat up. So, we have moved
them to accommodate that.
Borup: Okay. I think that -- I don't know if there is any other questions? Any of the
Commissioners have anything?
Moe: Basically, I just wanted to make sure that you are in approval of all conditions
from staff.
Hoeft: I am with the addition of being able to use the gravel as has been stated.
Borup: That was the one comment in your letter. Craig, you -- did you say staff agreed
that maybe that the gravel issue makes sense in how they presented it?
Hood: Yeah. And just for reference, that's site-specific condition number seven on
page 11 in the staff report. There is some parenthesis there that do prohibit that and if
the Commission so chooses we can remove that and add that dust free gravel be one
of the allowed surfaces for those. I do have some photos that show our RV park and,
actually, show some gravel, so you can see that it is kept clean, if you would like me to
pass those around. Would you guys like to see them?
Zaremba: I'm probably satisfied already.
Borup: Yeah. I think we are fine.
Zaremba: I do appreciate your supplying the brochures and seeing that in your
brochures you mention things that are to do within close range. Just a comment; I was
alarmed when I saw we had an RV resort proposal. You have made it clear that this is
a class operation and could very well be an addition to the City of Meridian. The one
thing that I would comment on for your consideration is that within the City of Meridian
being called Boise West is kind of an insult. You might want to consider a different
name.
Hoeft: We certainly didn't mean to insult anybody. And the only reason Boise is listed
in the name is from out of town you see this as Boise area, no insult intended. But it's
kind of like living in Troutdale, Oregon. Well, where is that? It's in Portland, you know.
It's just the general area, so people know where we are at. That is it. As far as the
west, we couldn't come up with any other good idea. One of the -- Mr. Olsen, who is
one of the tenants out there, he said, well, maybe Boise Valley. I don't have a problem
with that. I don't have a problem with Boise Meridian. Yes, I'm open to suggestions.
Rohm: Meridian Boise maybe.
Hoeft: Boise is there only for marketing. That is it. So people know where we are.
Zaremba: Maybe west of Boise or something like that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 64 of 76
Hoeft: Yeah. West of Boise.
Zaremba: The specific words Boise West are thrown around unpleasantly.
Borup: Well, I didn't feel that was an insult to me. When I travel people ask me where
I'm from, I -- most of the time I just say Boise, because it's easier if you don't want to go
into an explanation where Meridian is, but --
Hoeft: And that's, really, the only reason it's named that.
Rohm: Thank you.
Hoeft: If you do have any questions as far as maintenance in the park, how we
maintain the park, Jack Saunders, who is my manager for Sandy Heights here, if you
have got any questions about the RV community at large, Ken Creed, who would be my
on-site manager, has been a full-time RV'er for the last nine years and he would be
happy to discuss any of that with you as well.
Borup: I think it's one of the most professional presentations we have had for a long
time. Very well put together and probably answered all the questions.
Rohm: I think if we were to see if there was any opposition, then, we would pursue
some rebuttal. So, let's -- I think that might be the appropriate way to go.
Hoeft: Okay.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Anything you want to add, Mr.
Ballentine? We are covered there? I think we have covered that when we talked about
the vacation before.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing.
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
Sorry.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. One item. Item number seven on page 11 talked about the gravel.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Commissioner Moe.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 65 of 76
Moe: Yes. I move that we send on to City Council approval of CUP 04-001, request
for a Conditional Use Permit for a 224 stall RV resort with four buildings and amenities
in a C-G zone for Boise West RV Resort by Aaron C. -- how do you pronounce your --
Hoeft, at 134 West Pennwood, including all staff comments for the hearing date of
March 4, 2004, received by the City of Meridian clerk March the 1st, 2004, with one
change being in the site specific conditions on page eleven, item seven, that the
notation that the dust free gravel would be allowed material for installation.
Zaremba: Within the stalls.
Moe: Within the stall area.
Borup: Yeah. And I think within the conditions that they have outlined in their letter, if
that's an acceptable addition.
Moe: I would --
Borup: And they are pretty specific on, you know, like the curbing around it and that
type of thing.
Moe: Oh. All right. And along -- let's see, how do I want to -- basically I want to note
including their letter dated March 3rd, 2004, received.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any discussion? Okay. Thank you. It
looks like it will be a nice project.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12: Public Hearing: AUP 03-021 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a
bookkeeping office out of home for Susan Rice by Susan Rice – 230
West Pine Avenue:
Borup: Okay. Last item is Public Hearing AUP 03-021, request for an Accessory Use
Permit for a bookkeeping office at the home of Susan Rice by Susan Rice at 230 West
Pine Avenue. We'd like to open the hearing at this time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for an
Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation in an R-4 zone. The property is located -
- let me go to the property. Here is a vicinity map. The property is located at 230 West
Pine Street and the application is here this evening -- the applicant is here this evening,
because we have received two objection letters. Otherwise, this would be an
administrative application that wouldn't go to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but
because there was an objection it's here at Planning and Zoning Commission. The
application -- the requested application is for a bookkeeping business. Basically, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 66 of 76
proposed bookkeeping business meets the standards of the home occupation section
of our code. The objection letters that we have received allege that no one is actually
living in the home and that a business is being run out of the detached garage on the
property. And we have some photos of the home. And you can see the detached
shop there. We also have a report from our police chief. He did some surveillance,
basically, of the property and upon observing the site -- actually, we have two days he
observed the site, he concluded that a business Sealco is actually being run out of this
attached shop. The applicant currently has applications in for a Conditional Use Permit
to run a commercial business out of the home and a rezone application. And they are
scheduled to have an April 1st hearing. So, those two applications are in the works.
So, the position staff is in is that while we recommend approval of the bookkeeping
business, it meets the intent of the home occupation, it's apparent that most likely a
business is being run illegally out of this home, so a condition of this home occupation
should be that if there is actually an illegal business or an un-permitted business being
run on the property, the home occupation permit should be revoked. It should be a
condition of approval that no illegal uses are allowed on the property. We also wanted
to let the applicant know that they are -- at this point they are jeopardizing their
Conditional Use Permit application by running this business un-permitted out of the
home. Do you have any questions of staff? I also wanted to point out we do have a
copy of the police report in with the application. The two objection letters and, then, we
received another objection letter today, which you all should have received a copy of
from Darin Rokovitz, a neighboring property owner. Are there any questions?
Zaremba: The configuration of the property looks familiar to me. Didn't we have an
application for a day care center or something? Was that this property? I got one right?
Kirkpatrick: Same property and that was -- I think it was this past winter.
Zaremba: Which was denied.
Kirkpatrick: I believe it was New Horizons day care.
Zaremba: Uh-huh. And it was eventually denied; is that correct?
Kirkpatrick: Correct.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? I'm a little confused on the
statement that recommend approval, but if there is an un-permitted business being run
there, then, it would be denied. But the testimony from the police chief and from the
neighbors are saying that there is.
Kirkpatrick: When I wrote the staff report it was before I had the testimony from the
police chief.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 67 of 76
Borup: Okay.
Kirkpatrick: But I would -- we are kind of in conflicted position here, where basically the
bookkeeping business is fine and if that's actually what is going to be permitted and
what's operating out of the home, that meets code, we are fully supportive of it. We do
-- we do have -- you know, especially now we have the report from the police chief of it
and said there is another business being run out of home. So, it's up to you to make a
decision tonight. If you want to go ahead and approve the bookkeeping business, be
just very clear that Sealco cannot be run out of that garage in the meantime, but they
have shown good faith in bringing forward the applications for the rezone and the
Conditional Use Permit. So, that is in the works and that is --
Zaremba: But they have not stopped operating the business.
Kirkpatrick: Not that I know of. And we could have the applicant address that.
Borup: Any other questions?
Rohm: Yeah. I really think, though, that they are two separate issues. I mean if, in
fact, you're making an application for a bookkeeping business, that's independent of the
other and if they are in violation of occupancy for the other business, then, they could
be cited for that. I mean it doesn't seem as if the two are even of the same issue,
because one doesn't -- I mean the bookkeeping business doesn't address the Sealco
business or --
Kirkpatrick: Well -- and, actually, I think the bookkeeping is related -- is related to
Sealco. I, actually, called just to kind of ask the applicant a couple questions and the
phone was answered as Sealco when I called there. And, then, she does the
bookkeeping for Sealco. I don't know if that's exclusive -- if that's her exclusive client,
but there is some relationship between the bookkeeper and Sealco.
Rohm: Well, then, I guess we should listen to the applicant.
Zaremba: That was going to be one of my questions.
Borup: Would the applicant like to come forward?
Powell: Chairman Borup, before she does, I just want everyone to know that this
started off as a violation. Joe Veneman noticed that there was a business being run
out of the house. He cited them. They immediately came and talked to me. At that
time she had already signed a lease and I said they absolutely -- the only thing she
could do in the interim until the rezone and a conditional use went through was to do
the bookkeeping business and that's when they promptly turned in the Accessory Use
Permit. And this is part of staff's conflicting feeling on this or -- it's just that they have
done what we have asked to do in the interim. Now, should they have started the
Sealco business on that property knowing that it required conditional use, no, probably
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 68 of 76
not. But they -- the comment has been made to us that they are hoodwinking us, but
they have been honest all along that what they eventually want to do is get Sealco on
this property and the condition -- the applications they have turned in are for that. So, it
is -- it's a hard one to make a decision on. So, I just wanted you to know that they
haven't misled staff regarding what their eventual intentions are. I did make it very
clear when I said that they could do the bookkeeping only, that they could not be
running trucks out of there. I said you can't have trucks showing up in the morning
and, then, leaving. That's not part of it. They can't have any deliveries. So, they
were informed of what they could and could not do as part of that Accessory Use
Permit. That's the interim use. Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would you like to come forward?
Rice: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Susan Rice and I'm here because I
applied for that application to have a bookkeeping business out at 230 West Pine,
which I reside at. It started that Sealco took this -- that property over and when they
found out that they couldn't occupy the property, that's when I decided to go ahead and
do a private bookkeeping business, instead of just working for Sealco. One, I'm a
single income now after my husband passing away and this is something that's just
much better for me, so I can stay at home. So, I ended up doing bookkeeping. I
ended up taking over the property, so I do the bookkeeping on that 230 West Pine.
Sealco is one of my main clients, but not one of my only clients, and to address some of
the reasons why they think maybe there is a business being run out of the garage is
once I took that over, they did have material and they have equipment that was in the
garage. I told them they could go ahead and keep that staff in there for a short amount
of time until either they found another facility that they could put their material in or so
they wouldn't have to move it twice, because some of it is just in a short period of time,
instead of moving it into like a storage unit and, then, they'd have to end up moving it
back out onto a job site. So, I told them they could keep that there, because I knew it
would be in a short amount of time. Not only did they have material in there, but also
the owner Merlin Schmeckpeper, I let him keep stuff in there, because I'm just not using
the garage. So, the guys do come and they pick up material and leave, but they are
taking that material away, they are not renting the space from me, they are not going to
continue to have that stuff in there, I just gave them a short amount of time until they
could find something else. So, I think that's one reason why they see trucks coming
out. Another is all the employees do have to drop off their time cards to me, so instead
of taking them out to the DeVainey's residence, they just bring them in to me, since I'm
in town. So, there is maybe one or two trucks a day, maybe, at the most, come in
there. I have asked Sealco that they keep it down to a minimum, not have anybody
parking in the back, because I know that it disturbs the neighbor in the back, so I have
been trying to keep allowances there. My other clients -- any of them I asked that they
park out in the front street, so that we don't create noise for the back neighbor. Also on
the site on the alley where the house is, they are building a four-plex in the back, so
they have been -- have a bunch of workers going back there Doing that and so either
they are pulling into the back over by the garage or they are also parking out front. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 69 of 76
that looks like there is more traffic, which is really not related to me whatsoever. To
address --
Borup: Yeah. The main thing -- I think the question before us is -- of the accessory
use. I mean we realize this other is what's got most of the contention with the
neighbors, but -- so that's probably the main thing we need to cover here, I think, is --
and that would be -- probably a question I would have -- you say you are residing
there?
Rice: Yes.
Borup: That is your full-time permanent residence?
Rice: Yes.
Rohm: And you're running a bookkeeping business?
Rice: Yes.
Rohm: There you go.
Borup: You were going to -- you can continue.
Rice: Well, I didn't know if I needed to address anymore, but just -- I can understand
why it looks like someone is running a business out of there, but that's really not what
the intention is -- I just let them have more time to find another facility. If they need to
get it all out at one time, then, I will tell them to pack it all up and not have anything.
But there isn't very much left in there anyway. Because it didn't cause enough traffic, I
didn't think it was a problem. I didn't know the neighbors were upset about it.
Zaremba: They are moving stuff out and not putting any stuff --
Rice: Not putting any back in, no, sir.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: While you're up there I have a question of staff. As these employees drop off
their time cards on a daily or weekly basis, does that violate this application for the
bookkeeping business?
Kirkpatrick: Well, actually, I'll go ahead and read to you one of the sections in the home
occupation section of the code. It states that no significant traffic shall be generated by
such home occupation and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such
home occupation shall meet the off-street parking requirements. So, I guess it's our
interpretation -- for your interpretation to make if this is significant traffic.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 70 of 76
Rohm: And would you walk me through the time card deal again, please?
Rice: Yeah. They'll drop off time cards, which is on a weekly basis.
Rohm: Okay. That's -- thank you.
Zaremba: About how many people do that?
Rice: Seven to eight. Now, they don't all do it at the same time. So, they have a
week to turn them in, so some will drop them off here or there. But it's so minimal, it's
less than, you know, the chiropractor down the street or the beauty shop or even the
residents across the street, I mean it's just not that much traffic.
Rohm: It sounds like the primary issue is the materials and the vehicular traffic
associated with moving the materials out and if, in fact, that's going to cease, then,
that's not part of this application.
Borup: Which is your vehicle? What car do you drive?
Rice: I own the T Bird.
Borup: Okay.
Rice: Plus we have another vehicle, but he doesn't have that written.
Zaremba: Among our notes -- and maybe I should ask this of Mr. Schmeckpeper, who I
guess is the property owner, but it says that it's the property owner that's applying for
the rezone to Old Town and a CUP to actually run the business there. Are you saying
that that's probably not going to happen?
Rice: To run what -- okay. Rephrase that question. Sorry.
Zaremba: To run the -- what was the name of it?
Rice: Sealco.
Zaremba: Sealco.
Rice: Not at this time.
Borup: Well, there is an application turned in on the agenda for April 1st.
Zaremba: Yeah. Right. For a rezone and a CUP.
Borup: Which is separate -- again, separate from this application, but -- and, you know,
whatever happens there will be determined at that time. So, you weren't aware of that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 71 of 76
Rice: I think I'm aware that he wants to make it commercial.
Borup: Right. Yeah. That's -- that was Commissioner Zaremba's question, I believe.
Zaremba: Okay. You're still planning to live there, even if that happens, though?
Rice: As long as the neighbors are nice.
Zaremba: And just to clarify --
Rice: I am very tired.
Zaremba: Since a couple of the letters that were written questioned whether anybody
was really living there, you sleep there, you eat there --
Rice: There is somebody living there at all times.
Zaremba: Okay.
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Now, how long have you been in there?
Rice: Since about the first of the year. In December. I can't remember when in
December, but --
Borup: Okay. Is there anything else you think we need to cover? Thank you.
Rice: Okay. Thank you very much.
Borup: Okay. Who is next? Anyone else like to come forward to testify on this
application? This is the opportunity right now.
Rokovitz: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Charlene Rokovitz, I own the
property at 918 West 3rd. My son is living there with his kids right now. He couldn't
get off work tonight, so he gave you the things, the letter for you to read, the cars that
are parked there and a log as to what goes on there daily, from what he sees just as he
comes and goes. From talking to the neighbors, they feel tonight is a waste of time, as
this is a done deal. Bob Chrisple, the neighbor to the west, is at home tonight with a
torn rotator cuff, but said that he has handed in numerous papers with logs and activity
that you should have in your file. We are hoping that they got to your files.
Borup: Yes, they did.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 72 of 76
Rokovitz: He has been trying to follow the rules, but found them only to be for the
residents and not for the businesses. He talked to Joe Veneman several times until he
was told his boss would do nothing. He, then, talked to the out-going mayor twice with
a promise something would be done. Nothing was. No citations, no anything was
done. There was a meeting, which they said that this business had to stop. It still has
been going on daily. He, then, talked to the new mayor and was told that you can bend
the rules as you please. While there was to be someone living there because it was an
out-of-home business, they have parked the Thunderbird behind the car -- or behind the
house, left it sitting there, it's not been moved. I noticed Ms. Rice drove up in the BMW
today, which comes and goes daily. They leave the lights on all night with no sign of
movement during the night and no cars during the weekends. I stop in at my house a
couple times a week and 99 percent of the time I have seen the pickups loading
insulation, pipes, buckets and ladders and these are the Sealco, I guess. All I see is
the seal on it. This goes on, from what I can tell, daily from -- every time I have
stopped in. And, to me, it doesn't sound like this is a bookkeeping business. I talked
to one of you men from Planning and Zoning and was told they know their way around
the system and are going in the back door. I talked to the Planning and Zoning director
and was told when I sent in my objections to send in proof. I believe that when they
held their meeting, which, from what I understand, was just about the last day after they
had been told that they had to stop or -- I don't know how your paperwork goes, but it
was about the last of the time that they were given, that they were -- when they held the
meeting, that they were told to stop unless they lived in the house and that should have
been proof enough. I should not have had to give additional proof. I was also told that
the next step would be to file for a change in zoning, indicating that things were already
in motion to change the business from a bookkeeping business to whatever else they
have been running out of the house and also indicating that Planning and Zoning knew
exactly what has been going on, but not enforcing the policy. From the sounds of it
tonight, they know exactly. The homeowners around there have not been notified of
this April 1st meeting, however. We have -- none of us have received anything at this
point. And, you're right, Mr. Zaremba, we went through this zoning thing a year ago
with both you -- Planning and Zoning and the City Council turning it down, because
everyone in the neighborhood feels that this is a smoke and mirrors, is a done deal. I
have just a few questions for the Commissioners. Why are they able to run an illegal --
run illegally a business out of the place without consequences, when the Planning and
Zoning people and the Mayor know they are not following the policies? Why are any
rules, regulations, or policies in place for the city when they can be set aside if someone
wants to break them and knows how to talk their way around the system? What is the
use of a meeting to make something legal after months of objections from the
neighbors, when they -- we were told by the Mayor that because a lot of money was put
into improving things, that you can waive the rules, regulations,and policies. Why is
one person's tax dollars more important than several residentials' tax dollars, just
because they happen to be running the business. And, last, if a petitioner does not
physically live on the site, how can it be a business out of her home. And, like I said,
she drove up in her BMW tonight and from what everybody has said, that comes and
goes morning and night. It does not stay around all night long. And, yes, there is a
Thunderbird parked there behind the car -- or behind the house, which has been parked
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 73 of 76
there and not moved. It has not been used. Why -- hopefully you can see through this
and see the truth and what's been happening and why the residents, who really don't
want this business there after everything that's happened. In my son's letter when he
called the police, it was because he was being awakened at -- I believe it was 5:00 or
5:30 he said, by the ladders and whatnot being banged and put in their truck. And
even the police that came and talked to him that day said that the code enforcement
should be involved in that. We are hoping -- the neighborhood is hoping that you can
restore our faith in the system after hitting the brick walls for the last several months
and thank you for your time. There is not much to say. It's the neighborhood against --
against someone that comes up and kind of twists things. So, like I said, we are not
trying to be defeatist, but it's -- after several months of trying to get something taken
care of by the policies, in listening to what was said tonight, it's just very disheartening.
So, do you have any questions?
Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners?
Zaremba: I do have a couple. You and your son apparently have noticed activity
around the garage.
Rokovitz: My son lives there, so he has been able to keep a better --
Zaremba: Well, let's clarify. He lives seven blocks away, according to his address.
Rokovitz: No. No. My son lives directly behind. The property connects.
Borup: This house right here?
Zaremba: 918 West 3rd Street?
Borup: No. That's her.
Zaremba: Oh, West 3rd Street. Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. I was thinking West Pine.
Rokovitz: The house right here behind is --
Zaremba: Yeah. He's on 3rd Street.
Rokovitz: Okay. This is it? This is theirs and this is mine.
Zaremba: And that's where your son lives?
Rokovitz: Uh-huh.
Zaremba: I was reading the address wrong.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 74 of 76
Rokovitz: And he doesn't keep -- he doesn't go out purposely to keep tabs, but he does
look as he comes and goes to work.
Zaremba: But my actual question is do you notice whether they are taking things out of
the garage or putting things in the garage.
Rokovitz: When I have been there to visit, okay, because, like I said, I come a couple
times a week, when I have been there to visit, I see them out by the garage moving
things, putting things in and there was times that it looked like they were putting things
back in the garage. I have no way of knowing, because I don't stop my car and, you
know, take a picture, but from what I could tell -- and it's still going on. I mean it's not
like they are emptying the garage out -- by now it should be emptied after this many
months. It's going on, from everything we can tell, and I saw the Sealco trucks there
this last week, so -- any other questions?
Rohm: Do you have a specific objection to the bookkeeping business that the
applicant --
Rokovitz: If it were someone that was actually living there doing the bookkeeping, you
know, like on a computer and stuff, no.
Rohm: Thank you.
Rokovitz: But that's not what's happening, you know. I'm sorry, if someone is living
there, no groceries are being brought in. From listening to the neighbors, nobody is
taking anything in there for groceries. Like I said, the car comes and goes. It's not
there on weekends. It's not there in the evenings. Thank you for your time.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
Rohm: I'd like the applicant to come back up and --
Borup: Okay. You have an opportunity to respond to anything, so --
Rice: Well, I'm not really sure how to respond. I think there has been a problem
between the landlord and neighbors way before Sealco came or I came, all about the
property line, and I think it's something personal between them and we are just kind of
getting caught in the middle. And she did see trucks in the beginning, that's when
Sealco was there and I believe all that, you know, but I have kept that down to -- they
are still going to show up.
Borup: I mean the police report showed trucks coming and --
Rice: Well, right, and I tried to explain why they do that and as far as personally, you
know what, I have my own life and I don't think that I need to explain when I'm here,
when I'm at home and when I'm not at home. And I really do have a huge problem,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 75 of 76
especially with her son's note, about surveillance. I mean I just feel like it's an invasion
of my privacy. This man is watching me pretty much 24 hours a day. I don't know
what to say.
Moe: Is this address your mailing address as well, as far as your personal mail and
whatnot? Does it come to this --
Rice: Well, I have a P.O. Box. I try to keep all my --
Moe: Okay.
Borup: Did you say you live there alone?
Rice: No, I did not say I live there alone.
Borup: Okay. That's what I couldn't remember. I was trying to --
Rice: No, I do have a roommate that lives there also.
Borup: Okay. I wasn't sure if there were any children or --
Rice: No.
Borup: No children. Okay. Any other questions?
Rohm: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. I think that's all.
Rice: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to comment that this Commission is not about code
enforcement. We have an application for an in-home bookkeeping business. The
staff report specifically states that an in-home bookkeeping business is appropriate
within that location. If, in fact, they are running the Sealco business out of it, if, in fact,
there is nobody living there, those are enforcement issues, not specific to the
applications. That's as I see it. And so from my perspective, if, in fact, they aren't in
compliance, then, it's a violation based upon something other than the application itself
and so I think we should move forward based upon the specific application and let code
enforcement take care of any violations. That's the way that it seems to me.
Borup: Comments from anyone else? Okay. Let's move on, then.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing be closed on application AUP 03-
021, request for an Accessory Use Permit for a bookkeeping office out of a home for
Susan Rice by Susan Rice, 230 West Pine Avenue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 76 of 76
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: One question for staff. Is an AUP a final decision here or recommendation?
Kirkpatrick: It is, actually, the final decision.
Zaremba: Well, okay, I'm comfortable that the CUP -- that the rezone and the CUP is
going to come before us. The bookkeeping business, if it's being operated the way the
applicant is telling us, is a legitimate request. That being said, I would make the motion,
Mr. Chairman, that we approve Item 12 on our agenda, AUP 03-021, request for an
accessory use permit for a bookkeeping office out of the home of Susan Rice by Susan
Rice, 230 West Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo for March 4,
2004, received by the city clerk March 1, 2004, and request that the attorney prepare
Findings of Facts and Conclusions for approval.
Rohm: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That does conclude our meeting this evening. I might just
-- well, I think everyone is aware that there is a separate application for the location for
a business on April 1st.
Zaremba: And that will be noticed; is that correct?
Borup: Yes. It just hasn't been the two -- two weeks, is that --
Zaremba: The property posted and people notified within 300 feet and all that.
Borup: Thank you.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I --
Borup: Well, no, we have got a new commissioner, her first time.
Zaremba: Oh, yes. Absolutely.
Borup: And, Wendy, you get the last motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 4, 2004
Page 77 of 76
Newton-Huckabay: I guess I would -- which is to close this meeting or --
Borup: To adjourn. Yes.
Newton-Huckabay: Do I just motion to adjourn? I make a motion that we adjourn this
meeting.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Meeting adjourned at 11:15.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:15 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
______________________________ _____|_____|_____
KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK