Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-13 MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Greg Oslund, Malcolm MacCoy: MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Shearer: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Richard Williams, Rodney Truax, Charles Horel, Rick Valla, Howard Foley, Bob Henbest, Ted Hanson, Dan and Angie Duncan, Darlene LaPizza, Doug Tamura, Billy Ray Strite, John Jackson, Steve Brown, Marty Seager, Dennis Nelson, Karen Gallagher, Sharon Christianson, George Kiler, Janet Butterfield, Kent Brown, Ann Brown, Brad Miller, Wes Weast, Pete Rockwell, Corey Grant, Charles Eddy, Tony Drost, Charles Eddy: Johnson: The first item on the agenda is I would like to recognize an individual that has contributed his time on a volunteer basis for the past 7 1/2 years and has resigned from our commission to become more involved in his business and his father’s business and that is Tim Hepper. If Tim , if you would come up at this time I would like to present you with this certificate for your service to the City of Meridian for the past 7 1/2 years. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 9, 1996: Johnson: Are there any additions, deletions or corrections to these minutes? MacCoy: I have a question here, was Tim here, do you recall? We show him down the way here being absent. Johnson: Thank you Malcolm, anyone else? No other changes then I would entertain a motion for approval of the minutes as written. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the approval of the Planning and Zoning minutes for last meeting. Oslund: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the minutes as written with the correction stated by Commission MacCoy, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED JULY 9, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 2 ITEM #2: TABLED JULY 9, 1996: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RANCH SUBDIVISION BY THE WESTPARK COMPANY: Johnson: Has there been any additional information submitted to staff on these applications? Does staff have any comments? Smith: No additional information has been submitted to Public Works Department Mr. Chairman. Stiles: Mr. Chairman, the only information I had was a telephone conversation with the applicant that indicated he was working on acquisition of some other properties and would be coming in with a new plan but I have not seen anything in writing or had any additional information submitted. Johnson: Thank you very much, what would you like to do with these two items gentlemen? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table items 1 and 2 until the October meeting, regularly scheduled October meeting. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to table these items to a date certain of October 8, 1996, items 1 and 2, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REZONE REQUEST BY KELLE WATKINS AND DOUG STEWART: Johnson: You have the findings before you, is there any discussion regarding these findings of fact and conclusions of law? Oslund: I had a question on page 6, under section 15, the last sentence there, it says that the applicant was told to his cut off coming out of the particular lot, it appears that sentence is a bit jumbled, I was wondering if anybody knew exactly what that meant. Johnson: Mr. Crookston, can you enlighten Mr. Oslund? Crookston: That was a statement by Mr. Longden, I agree that it is a little bit difficult what he was trying to state but that is what he stated. I had a problem with that myself Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 3 but I put it in as he stated. Oslund: Good enough. Johnson: Any other discussion regarding the findings of fact and conclusions of law? What would you like to do with this? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the findings of fact as written, this is a roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup - Yea, Oslund - Yea, Shearer - Absent, MacCoy - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Any decision or recommendation you wish to pass on to the City Council at this time? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian City Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends approval of this rezone requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, the uniform building code and other ordinances of the City of Meridian including that all parking areas shall be paved. MacCoy: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the decision onto the City Council, the recommendation onto the City Council as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Before I get into that I should introduce a new commissioner that has taken Mr. Hepper’s position and that is Keith Borup, this is his first evening here. It is a pleasure to have you with us, appointed by the City Council at their last meeting. ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 4 ANNEXATION/ZONING TO C-G AND I-L BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: Johnson: Is there a representative for the applicant or the applicant that would like to address the Commission at this time? O believe he has been sworn is that true Counsel? Crookston: I believe that he has but I think it would be appropriate to re-swear him. Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Tamura: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission first I would like to apologize for missing my first hearing and the last month we have been in negotiations with the Highway District on working out all of the details on what the future of this piece of property is going to be as it relates to the circulation. We recently bought the Madden property which is located at the corner of North Locust Grove and Franklin. What our plan is to develop a four phase project. What we have got here is kind of the big picture of what we think the tendency is going to happen. Our goal right now is to go ahead and develop the first phase which would consist of concrete tilt up light commercial buildings. The existing properties around us have all developed as light industrial and in particular the industrial subdivisions to the north of us and to the east of us has been mixtures of different types of building types. I guess our vision is that down the road this is going to become a fairly critical intersection for I think the doorway to the City of Meridian off the Eagle corridor. What we would like to do is see a well planned conceptual project where all of the buildings have more of a planned unit development concept to it. So we would like to go ahead and run our treescape our landscaping along all of the boulevards on both existing North Locust Grove and proposed Locust Grove. Along with the Lanark extension. One of the things that was decided from the Highway District was what was going to happen with all of these streets. The future plan is that Franklin Road will go to a five lane facility with a lighted intersection at the proposed new Locust Grove intersection. The Locust Grove will be relocated to the center or our property right along the section line with a 96 foot right of way and again another five lane facility and then Johnson: What is the time frame on that? Tamura: Right now they are in the unfunded portion of the five year portion, so I guess we are in the second year of the five year plan. So, within the next five years we can see where both Franklin Road and the proposed location on Locust Grove Road will be put in. I think in the ten year plan is the future bridge over the freeway of Locust Grove that will connect it to the Locust Grove South of the freeway. Johnson: On your diagram where is the Madden property? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 5 Tamura: Our property runs from the existing Locust Grove, this is our East boundary line and it runs contiguous to Builders Masonry to the west. So we own everything from there to the railroad right of way which includes the Evans Drain. The other thing that was decided was that Lanark would be extended both East to hit Eagle Road and then West to reach Locust Grove for the new proposed Locust Grove. The other thing would be they would go ahead and redesignate this to more of a local status but still require a 58 foot right of way on the existing Locust Grove to Lanark and then it is our responsibility to work with the existing neighbor here to the east and then vacate the northerly portion of Locust Grove from East Lanark to the railroad tracks. I believe the way the Highway District looks at it they have only got the ability to cross the railroad tracks at one location. So, it is either put a turn around culdesac at this point, terminate this crossing here and then relocate the new crossing here. So it is our thought that if we could work it out with the neighbor that we will go ahead and request this to be vacated. So I guess what we would like to do is once this vacation takes place then we can come back in with more detail about how we can go ahead and design this as far as landscaping and parking and the future use for this here. The other three phases our thought is that at some point in time there will be some kind of commercial use that will become needed at this intersection but for phases 2, 3 and 4 our thought is that we will come back in for detailed conditional uses for each one of those subsequent uses. It is our goal to go ahead and develop and own this whole project if possible. What we would like to do is start with phase 1. Our thought is that we do phase 1 and phase 2 would be all the similar types of buildings where this would all look like more or less a campus commercial project. We are, our thought is that we can visualize that there will be more of a single user type of commercial application on this corner, lumberyard that type of use. I think a lot of that is going to be dependent on the timing of the roads. So we are prepared, we look at this as potentially a five to ten year project as to how long it will take us. Johnson: Thank you Doug, questions from the Commission to Mr. Tamura? Oslund: Clarify what we were talking about a little bit about the phasing of the roads and the first phase that you have shaded there when that goes in then I am assuming that Locust Grove as it is today would have to continue to be there until the new Locust Grove went through. That can’t go through until, I guess there is another party in all of this and that is the property to the north that would have to, ACHD has to put the road in or that party has to come in and foot the bill. I guess I am wondering, it seems like there is a big gap there. What the discussion we had with the Highway District was to go ahead, road truss both right of way and future street improvements as far as curb, gutter and sidewalk, widening of the street. Let us have the time to go ahead, go through the process of vacation but then the vacation would be totally contingent on the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 6 relocation of Locust Grove to the new section line. So I think, what our thought was that we go ahead and develop these two buildings first and then use the existing Locust Grove and just leave it as public right of way until the timing of the new location. But then we would have all of the vacation and all of the paperwork in place. Once that happens it would trigger that vacation. What we are hoping to do is to get our ducks out far enough ahead of us that everyone knows what is going to happen so it can kind of follow the big picture of what we would like to happen. So that is what our thought is, if we can work this out with the adjoining neighbors to the north and the neighbors to the east that we can go ahead and kind of master plan what the City would like to see happen there. So, that is what we had the discussion with the Highway District. Oslund: So I guess what I am getting at, what this is going to look like in the first phase and possibly for the first, it could be this way from anywhere from 5 to ten years where you are going to have that one development there that is going to have access to existing Locust grove that these, that the future Locust Grove may not happen for, if it is unfunded now it probably won’t happen in the next five years. We have a representative from ACHD that can clarify that. I guess I just want to have clear vision of if this were to go through what is it going to look like for the next five to ten years. You have a nice picture of what it ultimately could look like but I am trying to get at what it will look like. Tamura: I think what we will do is work it out with the Highway District but my thought is if it looks like it is going to be long term before all of this happens, we will go ahead and push our buildings back, match our landscaping buffers around here so that this will look like a finished product even though Locust Grove will be vacated. I guess our thought was that knowing that this potentially will be vacated that we would like to have some other use besides just having a big road out in front of our project. So that is why I kind of showed it the way it is but we will go ahead and revise this landscape buffer to reflect what the rest of the project looks like. It looks like it is going to be more than a two or three year process. I guess the other thing that we would like to request, and I didn’t quite understand the process is that, in looking at the Evans Drain it looks like the Evans Drain is open from Eagle Road clean on down through. We will probably come back through with a variance request on leaving the Evans Drain open, we will go ahead and fence this on through here but we would like to leave it open like the rest of the drain is versus covering it. Crookston: You have a roadway in the Southwest corner there that (inaudible) proposed roadway. Tamura: We worked with Shari on this and even though I don’t believe there is a master plan for this implemented at this time she was requesting that the sewer Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 7 easement that runs along the kind of northeasterly portion of the drain that runs through our property where the sewer line is at be dedicated as a pedestrian pathway. What we are showing is that we wouldn’t have a problem, if they could work out a situation with Builders Masonry where they can continue that on down to the Evans Drain and make some kind of pedestrian corridor through there. The last I heard that Builders Masonry was thinking about realigning the drain along our property line here so they could use some of that property in their northeast corner. Our thought was is if we could develop that as a pedestrian corridor through there we wouldn’t have a problem with doing that. That is what we are showing third dotted line through there. Crookston: Thank you and that is the Five Mile Drain? Tamura: Yes Johnson: Any other questions? MacCoy: Yes, any of your discussions with ACHD since you just had one recently here they gave you no indication that you had any access to Franklin correct? All of your access is internal Tamura: We have one access point approved here, we went ahead and relocated this access point farther away from the Franklin and Locust Grove. I can’t remember if we had two approved for this upper pad or not, or if it is just one. The access points that we have shown on there pretty much reflects the recommendations of the Highway District. The main ones were that we only had three access points on Locust Grove which we went ahead and revised and shown. There was a distance regulation on our access points on Franklin. So we went ahead and relocated and eliminated some of the ones that we originally proposed. MacCoy: And that is due to the new signal that would go in on Locust Grove. Tamura: Yes, and they have new design criteria as far as right in and right out and distances from intersections. So what we tried to do with this picture was show as close to master plan of what the Highway District’s wishes were. MacCoy: When the new Locust Grove goes in and signalized do those places that you presently have as an agreement to get onto Franklin go away? Tamura: No, this one right here would remain, the ones that we have shown are what I believe is what the Highway District has agreed to. But again, what we will do is on the two phases that front Franklin Road we will come back in for a conditional use so Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 8 the Highway District will re-review those issues once we have tenants for those pads. Oslund: When you say two that would include what looks like really three blocks of development there is that right? Tamura: Yes Oslund: You have a light industrial, general commercial and what you are calling phase 4. Tamura: What we did originally, our original proposal we had was to bisect our property and have kind of a transition so that the northerly portion would be light industrial that was contiguous to the light industrial to the west and north of us and then have a general commercial that would face along the Franklin corridor. Once the Highway District requested the Lanark extension it seemed like this was a logical breaking point as far as where our zones were split. Our thought was we would go ahead and make this light industrial here and light industrial here and general commercial along the frontage. I think our thought is we could see this as some kind of, we submitted this site as one of the proposals on the Department of Employment when they were looking for a location. Oslund: But the conditional use that you are applying for now just applies to the shaded area? Tamura: Yes Johnson: Doug if you would put that on the easel I would appreciate it so that the public can see that and we might have some testimony. Any other questions for Mr. Tamura? Thank you, this is a public hearing is there anyone that would like to address the Commission on this application? (Inaudible) Johnson: Mr. Tamura, quickly could you just point out, I guess the main concern is streets and I guess if there are any other questions. Be sure you are near a microphone, this all has to be recorded. Tamura: For everyone in the audience, this is the Madden farm, right here is where Builders Masonry sits right there, this is where the existing Locust Grove sits right here. Locust Grove comes down to Pine (inaudible) Builders Masonry sits right to the west of us here. Locust Grove comes down to Pine Street and jogs over a 1/4 mile and extends south through here. So there is an industrial park that sits here, another industrial park Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 9 that sits here. And then along here is where the Union Pacific Railroad runs. This is where the existing Franklin Road comes and then Locust Grove darts back over and Locust Grove runs from here to the freeway right now. So in the future what the plan is, the Highway District will widen Franklin Road to Five lanes from Five Mile to Meridian Road and then they will go ahead and widen Locust Grove from Fairview to Franklin in a five lane facility that will be a 96 foot right of way through here. The other plan is where East Lanark is where it turns into Layne Industrial park that is right there. The plan is that East Lanark will run from the new proposed Locust Grove all the way to Eagle Road. So there will be two paralleling roads right here, actually three there will be Pine Street up here, East Lanark here and Franklin Road here and then there will be a new five lane facility through here. Then in the ten year plan there will be a bridge that will be built over the top of the freeway that will extend Locust Grove south over the top of the freeway. So at that time, this will be a fairly major intersection. I guess our (inaudible) at some point in time will be another Fairview at some time as far as it traffic carrying capacity. (Inaudible) Tamura: What our thought is we are going to do more of a light industrial single level like commercial complex. I guess our thought is now is that we can see that this property is going to transition as time goes on and it is going to be more light industrial uses but as all of this traffic and these road systems develop that these will become more of a retail light commercial type use. We would like to do this whole complex back here where they are all the similar type construction and buildings so they are all (inaudible) and like I was telling the Commission we can see this as some kind of a (inaudible) whether these are a bank or whatever is out in front. But when we do these subsequent three phases we will come back into Planning and Zonign and get input from both the Commission and the planning staff and neighbors as far as (inaudible). Johnson: Anyone else that would like to address the commission? I have a question regarding the application. Any comments from staff? Karen Gallagher, do you have anything you would like to add, since your name was mentioned in vain? Gallagher: (Inaudible) Johnson: Does anybody need a clarification from ACHD on anything? Well if not we will move on then and close the public hearing at this time. At this point we are only addressing No. 4 although No. 5 is related, we will address that separately. Annexation and Zonign, so we need findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we take the annexation and zoning in for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 10 findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on item 4, annexation and Zonign request by Doug Tamura and Arthur Berry, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: Johnson: A lot of the testimony already presented would already be pertinent to the conditional use permit and I assume the applicant would want that testimony incorporated into this item. If Mr. Tamura would please address the Commission and concur with that or add additional comments at this time I would appreciate it. Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Tamura: Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I guess I would just like to enter into the record the testimony that we gave on item 4. I have got a, this was included in your packet and the only thing that is different from what we originally submitted was the site plan configuration has changed to include the Lanark extension through it. But our thought was to do 20,000 foot single level concrete tilt up 100 foot by 200 foot building. So floor plans and elevations are more or less going to stay the same. What we would like to do is a real clean concrete tilt up project. So that is what that is. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of the applicant? Anyone from the public that would like to address the Commission? Any comments from staff at all? If not then I will close this public hearing. This is for a conditional use permit, what would you like to do. Crookston: You need to adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law on the annexation and zoning. Johnson: Customarily we would table this item until the findings of fact and conclusions of law were prepared and approved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 11 Oslund: I will make a motion that we forestall on this issue. MacCoy: Second Johnson: A motion and a second to table this item to what date certain, September 10, our next scheduled meeting, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Johnson: Mr. Tamura, that is property of the city so you will leave that. At this time then we will continue the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to come forward and address the Commission with additional comments or new comments. Is the applicant or his representative here? (Inaudible) Johnson: I am going to have to ask that there please be no conversations, it is difficult to pick up the recording and the lady has a problem transcribing. So if we could have your attention and silence I would appreciate it. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Strite: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission as I said my name is Billy Ray Strite, I am here on behalf of Eagle Partners in the request of this rezone and annexation. We are here specifically for the reason of annexation on a site that certainly you are all familiar with. This particular site and site plan you see before you is site plan No. 5 it is the third edition of revisions predicated on some neighborhood comments as well as Ada County Highway District and ITD comments. The site before you lies within your Urban Service Planning area and is a designated commercial in your comprehensive plan. Further in that plan the area surrounding this particular site is designated mixed use. That is depicted in the adopted land use plan of 1993. We come before you with the fact that this particular site in question has allowed for and right of way has been given to ITD along Eagle Road. The project is presently stifled with a signal that is of great concern not only to the neighbors but to the applicant as well that signalization lies at north boundary if you will the northeast corner of this particular site. Because of that signal your staff and Ada County Highway District has requested further right of way take in an effort to provide a roadway that will service potential mixed uses designated in your adopted plan to the west. This site has been Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 12 revised again tonight before you somewhat subtly different that than was presented to the staff in that the road alignment has been revised based upon two things once of which was the Location of the actual street improvements signalization as provided us by the Ada County Highway District. Secondly by a request of the neighborhood representative and Ada County Highway District that a buffer zone be placed along the north boundary adjacent to what may become the future road right of way to service that area to the west as I noted. The reason for the designation in your comp plan at least in my opinion is essentially this site is located on the intersection of a federal highway and a state highway. Each presently carrying greater than 30,000 cars a day, potentially designed for 40,000 cars a day. I think it is pretty obvious that because of this the particular site in question is not really going to be adequate I guess if you will or even deemed for residential use and or quite frankly office use. I think the comp plan specifically refers to this for that reason that any time you have a traffic demand and a site that is so inundated with traffic that the commercial is in fact the best use for the parcel. We have sat down with ITD and we have also sat down with ACHD as I have mentioned. What we would like to propose tonight and perhaps this may be better served in the conditional use portion of this hearing, we would like to propose to this Commission that if in fact this annexation and rezone is approved that if we along with some of the neighbors who I am sure you will be hearing from and the adjacent neighbor to the south are productive in our attempts to request signal relocation. We would like to ask this Commission that the roadway that you see there to the north be eliminated, the residential buffer remaining. And that this project could then be expanded if you will to the north by approximately 50 feet allowing for the development as was originally intended. I think also that I would like to suggest that unless there are questions relative to site specific those may be better addressed in the conditional use. We strongly believe that the request before you meets the intent of the updated comprehensive plan of 1993 and is certainly addressed in the design concerns. We ask for your approval that the site is one within your Urban Service Planning Area is a designated commercial site, is of adequate size, is serviced by existing utilities and adequate street systems. It preserves the integrity of the neighborhood in our opinion by adequate buffering. And is consistent with other land uses in the immediate area. That is the end of my testimony relative to the rezone. If there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Strite, any questions of the architect design person here from the Commission, the applicant’s representative? Anyone at this time, reserve those for later, you will have an opportunity, we would like you to rebut or respond to other comments that we may receive this evening as well. This is a public hearing, would anyone from the public like to address the Commission at this time on the annexation and Zonign request? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 13 Richard Williams, 3133 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Williams: As stated my name is Dick Williams, I have lived in Meridian for 27 years, I had the honor of serving on the City Council for six years, President of the Council that first adopted the comprehensive plan back in the mid to late 70's and was Chairman of the Ada Planning Association for two terms also during that period of time. I appreciate your efforts and I appreciate your time. I know that this a a volunteer job and you folks do a very commendable job. People like Jim who have served on it for over a dozen years have my admiration. We realize that the land, the site that is currently being discussed will develop in some form. It is currently residential, five acre, it was zoned D1 until 1993 and then it changed to RT, rural transition. That site borders the Greenhills Estates Subdivision numbers 1, 2 and 3 of approximately 110 homes that will be affected by the development of this area. I have been asked to speak tonight on behalf of these three subdivisions. There are a number of people out here in the audience tonight who I am speaking for, if I do wrong they will poke me in the back. I would like that group to stand up and just show the Commission who is in attendance here in support of our proposal, thank you. As I said we do agree that this site will develop, we do not feel however that there is a buffer of 30 feet between residential that is $175,000 homes plus with a commercial zone. Mr. Strite did specifically state that this is on the comprehensive plan as commercial, the map also states at the very top generalized land use map. In terms of the comprehensive plan, on page 21 of your comprehensive plan, it states specifically the comprehensive plan arranges major land uses to preserve the integrity and amenities of residential neighborhoods as well as the economic vitality of industrial and commercial areas. We do not feel that this annexation meets the comprehensive plan in terms of commercial, specifically your residential policies protect and maintain residential neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhoods physical condition and enhance its quality of life for residents. This is from the comprehensive plan. We also feel that within your zoning ordinances you have done a very good job of addressing that. In terms of the zoning requirements. We again believe that there is going to be development there, we feel that if it is annexed, that if the proper zoning is not C-G commercial but is in fact L-O which states the L-O district is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense, non-residential uses and high density residential uses and thus is a transitional zone. What we are asking is that when you look at these types of developments that between a subdivisions such as the ones the 110 homes we are talking about that there is about a 400 foot strip from the property line back where that green is back to Magic View Drive. We are asking that this annexation and rezone be denied that the planning and Zonign look at this as an L-O zone. We do know for a fact that there are people that are willing and able to develop this in terms of offices. The other thing that we are looking at which possibly should be addressed later on the conditional use is Meridian, how many drive in restaurants, fast food restaurants are we going to have in this City. How Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 14 many minimum wage jobs are we going to have. With an office development, especially with professional people we are looking at a much higher quality of employment, we know that is there, that naturally develops from a hospital which is across the street which is really an L-O zone that you have provided that buffer. We are asking that you continue to provide that buffer on the westerly portion of Eagle road through the area that is now under consideration. We believe that there are more opportunities for employment, more opportunities for economic vitality to the City and a better buffer for our neighborhood. I would be open to any questions that the Commission might have. Johnson: I appreciate your comments Mr. Williams, any questions from the Commission for Mr. Williams at this time? Borup: You had mentioned, do you know how many lots actually adjoin this property from the Greenhills Subdivision? Williams: On this specific property there are four lots including our well. There is a well at the corner that is a community well that serves 50 homes. We are concerned, that is an additional concern that we have is the type of development that goes in under the well head protection act of the federal well head protection act. This is a domestic water source for 50 homes. Oslund: What corner exactly is that located at? Williams: It is not on the corner at this point in time. Oslund: It would be on the corner created by this new street. Williams: It is a State highway now, the nearest federal highway is, at least 1/3 mile to the south which would be the interstate. Oslund: I understand that, where is the well? Williams: Right (inaudible) right here. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Williams, anyone else that would like to address the Commission? John Jackson, 3500 Commercial Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jackson: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission I was asked by the neighborhood association to kind of explain the process that we went through with our Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 15 development and the impact that we have had on the neighborhood. When we first looked at this site Crookston: I am sorry for interrupting, you are talking about your development, what development is that? Jackson: The one just south of this, all of this land was undeveloped at that time. We chose the location we did to give as much room between our type of business and the neighborhood. We are about 500 feet away, I think the back of our property is 1000 feet which we placed our Interstate sign is on the very back property line to minimize the impact that we have the neighborhood and we still had quite an impact. We still had a lot of comments negative. Our type of business unfortunately creates a lot of traffic. It is not during working hours it is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, it never ends. That is the type of business that we operate. It is offensive to neighborhoods, we try to minimize that as much as we can by shielding and dimming lights and this sort of thing. I would hate to think of the impact if we would be right on top of them. Like I say we are from 500 to 1000 feet away. We try to push our development back on our property and we still had a heck of an impact. I think that from a planning point of view and I am certainly not a planner, it seems to me that Magic View south toward the freeway for a high density type of business like that we are in high traffic, 24 hour a day type businesses makes more sense then to snuggle up against the neighborhood. I think the beauty of a limited office with that type of development not that a neighborhood even looks forward to something like that but that type of business is open generally from 8 to 5, closed on weekends, closed evenings or closed holidays. So (End of Tape) generally a lot of people are away from their homes anyway. That is all I have to say, I just wanted to comment on the impact. We have to have a special use permit in our business because of the impact, because of the amount of traffic, we pay a very high impact fee because we generate a lot of traffic. I think you need to be careful where you locate them. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of John Jackson? Thank you for testifying, anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time? Howard Foley, 2875 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Foley: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, I have a couple items that I would like to make sure that get into the record. That is kind of the attorney’s job I guess. We have previously provided the Commission with what we termed the position paper and copies of the signatures thereto. I would like to introduce the originals into the record if I might a copy of the ordinance that I think is relevant and a copy of the notice of hearing that we received and then a request that we made of the Commission on June Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 16 12, 1996. Johnson: Certainly if you would give those to Mr. Berg please, thank you. Foley: My comments, I will try and make them brief. The ordinance that I think has particular meaning to the proceedings that are going on today is Meridian Ordinance 2-416 E, it speaks to the notice provisions and that is what I want to limit my remarks to. That ordinance requires I am sure as the Commission is aware that notification be given to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of a proposed annexation or a zone change. In addition to that the ordinance provides that an additional area that may be impacted by the application must also be noticed by the applicant if the Commission determines that additional area will be impacted. As we stated in our position paper we have had a neighborhood meeting with one of the partners of Eagle Partners. At that meeting Mr. Devon acknowledged that more than just the 8 lots that received the initial notice would certainly be impacted. I think the Commission can certainly take some notice to the fact there are a number of people here who believe this type of development that abuts their residential property is certainly going to have an impact. On June 12 we made a written request to the Commission to make a determination that in fact other areas besides the 8 lots that received the statutory or ordinance notice be noticed under the provision of that ordinance. To the best of our knowledge no determination has been made by the Commission at this point. We respectfully request that you do so in your findings of fact and if you determine that in fact the other members of Greenhills Subdivision 1, 2 and 3 fall into the affected individuals that the applicant then be directed to give the notice as required under the statute. The final thing that I would ask the Commission to take notice of, the last this hearing was deferred from the July 9 hearing, the applicant through its Counsel indicated that one of the basis for that deferral was an opportunity to get together with the homeowners to try and work out some issues and some of those sort of things. I would simply mention that no effort has been made as far as we are aware of by the applicant to ever meet with the homeowners and of course that causes us to question whether that was a sincere statement or whether it is simply a matter of playing the game where there is deferral after deferral after deferral without the appropriate notices to the people who are being affected. So that perhaps a hearing is had without full participation by those of us who now face a possibility of 24 hours businesses in our backyard. The choice of either a 24 hour convenience store with a McDonalds and all of the business that will be produced during the day and night and evening or a multi-story hotel that might overlook our backyards. None of those of course we think are appropriate and we think with all due respect we are entitled to the statutory notice that is required of the applicant. Again we respectfully request that you direct the applicant to make that notification under the ordinance. I would like to submit the copy of the last letter (inaudible) to meet with the homeowners which hasn’t occurred. I would be happy to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 17 answer any questions? Crookston: Mr. Foley, in your documents that you have now submitted to the City or that you submitted prior, did you indicate those property owners that you believe should get noticed? Foley: I did, I indicated in terms of the subdivisions that I thought were affected. Crookston: Thank you Johnson: Thank you Howard, I saw another hand over here. Brian Diamond, 3134 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Diamond: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I have been a resident for approximately 9 months in Greenhills Estates No. 3, I will just make these comments very brief because my son is tired and probably needs to go home and be in bed. I believe that, I would mainly just like to ditto what Dick said. I believe that having a 24 hour commercial heavy commercial type use that close to our neighborhood will significantly decrease the quality of life for myself and my children. I would ask the Council to reject this Zonign and variance. Thank you Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Chuck Horel, 3043 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Horel: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners I appreciate the time you have afforded me here. I am going to make this a little brief, so I am not going to go into this detailed. Crookston: Excuse me, do you desire to submit that to the city? Horel: If I can get it back or a copy of facsimile thereof yes. I have some copies of letters here from some of the residents in our subdivision that I would like to present to you. I don’t feel that there is time to read them, but they are negative comments. Crookston: You can present what you desire to and the City would get you a copy back. It may not be tonight. Horel: Basically what I have here is a well head protection plan. It is a federal program and basically it is a voluntary program in conjunction with communities and purveyors of water which we qualify as. The thing is as homeowners we are very concerned as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 18 to what happens if, this is the biggest letter in the dictionary, what happens if there is some kind of contamination from the development or the proceeding developments that take place in this area, i.e. gas line, diesel fuel and with our well head so close to proximity of this project I think this is a legitimate concern. The issues in here, they are pretty basic, they are pretty clear. All they are doing is asking for community agencies and governments i.e. Meridian, I am sure you are all part of this. To be part of this program and to help establish this well head protection plan. Anyway I will give this to you, basically the concern is what happens if something happens with somebody’s system somewhere along the line who ultimately is responsible for maladies that occur somewhere on down the line. I am not going to point fingers at anybody but I think this is something that need to be addressed. Johnson: Mr. Smith, do we already have a copy of this plan? You are not familiar with this plan? Smith: I am not intimately familiar with the well head protection act, I had some information on it I don’t know that I have that. Johnson: Thank you Horel: Basically that is all I had to say tonight. Johnson: Any questions? Anyone else? Any comments from staff at this point, any other comments from the applicant? Strite: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, thank you for this opportunity of rebuttle. I tried to write these down as quickly as I can and I will try to do them in order if I might. I think Mr. Williams as some (inaudible) relative to the comp plan, however I guess I would like to suggest to you that the comp plan also specifically states that mixed use areas and the I-84 Eagle Road I-84 frontage roads is in fact determined to be in a commercial use or a mixed use. It also goes in further to say that in a mixed use lodging is a provided use. Lodging in our opinion by virtue of a hotel/motel may in fact provide the buffer that the neighborhoods wants. If you look at in terms of the traffic it produces approximately 45% less traffic than an office use either medical and or typical office user. I think that is a big factor. I think also the hours of operation are such that by virtue of the fact that we have absolutely no openings on the north side of this particular facility that the wall line of this proposal as shown in the designated plan is some 200 feet to the nearest residence. Now there was a question asked by Commissioner Borup of how many residents are actually affected by this particular lot. There are four, we have measured by aerial photo the distance between our proposal north boundary and the southerly most residential unit and we get approximately 200 feet which is 2/3 of the City block. Now they make reference to a 30 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 19 foot buffer, keep in mind that if ACHD is successful in their request to provide an additional 50 foot of right of way you have not only 30 foot of landscape buffering but you have another 50 foot of street frontage. To that you add another 15 to 20 foot of landscaping adjacent to the building site and puts you somewhere in the distance of almost 90 feet from our property line to our building as an adequate buffer between the residential uses and the proposed use. As to Mr. Jackson’s comments, he makes the same comment relative to buffering, it appears to me that this particular site by virtue of the fact that it is surrounded by streets that are carrying an excess of 20,000 cars that the types of uses that are going to be provided here are going to be considerably higher intense uses. In an effort to provide what we would think is would be transitional buffering what better use in our opinion would be than a motel or a hotel. Something that is large in mass, it is quiet, it doesn’t have very many lights, it buffers the more intense uses which we obviously took into consideration when we placed the like use to Mr. Jackson’s facility on the south. We put the Chevron facility to the north side of the street so those two uses would be compatible and used the motel as a buffering device for the neighborhood. I think also in response to Mr. Horel’s comments I think it is certainly known by this Commission that any tanks or anything done by Chevron is not only state and federally controlled but it is monitored continuously. So I think I will leave that at that point. Relative to Mr. Foley’s comment in regards to notice provisions, perhaps if I might, Steven Brown may be able to make comment to that. I will suggest in his second issue I guess, it was placed, the burden upon us the fact that we deferred with the idea of trying to cause the neighborhood concern that we were not forthright. Let me give you a very brief summary of what happened here. Mr. Devon who is one of the partners did meet with the neighborhood, we fully intended and we gave full information that we had at that particular point in time. It was not until two days later that the Ada County Highway District based upon your staff’s recommendation at an ACHD tech review made comments that perhaps a street should be located on the north end of this property because your comprehensive plan designates not only this parcel but the parcel to the west and parcels further west as parcels further west is future commercial and mixed use. Therefore Ada County Highway District along with Ms. Stiles decided that if in fact those (inaudible) are developed in the future this particular roadway system could not be supported by there mere local road that is presently existing in Magic View. Hence they asked us to go back to the boards. This was not a suggestion of this applicant but of Ada County Highway District and your staff to go back to the boards and redesign this facility. In an effort to do that we requested a deferral so that those things could take place. I think quite frankly we have been more than forthright with the neighborhood and although we have not had a second homeowners meeting. Certainly the homeowners were well aware of this by fact that we had Ada County Highway District meeting and we had a meeting just the day before I believe with Ada County Highway District and ITD where in fact a representative of the neighborhood was there. So I don’t think there has been any attempt by this applicant Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 20 to hold back any information that was privy to them at the time of submittal. That is all I have to say, if there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Strite, any questions at all? Anyone else that would like to come forward before we close the public hearing? Steve Brown, 707 N. 8th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brown: When Mr. Foley wrote his letter I reviewed that and took a look at the notice question myself and one of the things I did was to call the staff and try to find out whether the Commission or anybody on the Commission looked at or addressed the request that was made. As I understand it the request for this broader notice came in within a day or two of when the notice had to be given. I cannot indicate exactly what took place but I will tell you what I was told by the staff and that is the staff contacted Mr. Johnson and that there was some a determination made that there was sufficient notice to the neighborhoods based on the fact that there was active participation an indication that there were a lot of people in the neighborhood that were aware of this and might participate in the hearing. Based on that and the fact that of course by the time we could do anything the notice period had expired. My point is we were simply told that it was addressed at least by Mr. Johnson as Chairman of the Commission as to whether to provide additional notice. I think that the fact that there are a lot of people here from the subdivisions indicate that they have been notified, they have actual notice, they are here participating so it really isn’t a defective notice situation. Furthermore, the statute the part of the ordinance that Mr. Foley referred to states that when notice is required to 200 or more property owners that it can be given by publication and it is my understanding there was publication in advance of this public hearing. So I think the notice issue is a red herring and it is really not the main issue before the Commission to date. My only other comment would be in reading the comprehensive plan, it has a lot in it and it is a good plan but one of the thrusts that comes out over and over again is that at these freeway interchange areas there is the more intense uses are to be approved or contemplated that those will be given permission to locate in the more intense areas. One of the problems with locating the traffic light down to Magic View from the north is the concern of ITD that it is so close to the interchange. And their policies don’t permit that. I think this site is close to the interchange, there is going to be a lot of traffic here. This use with the hotel is somewhat of a buffer between the Chevron station and McDonald’s is appropriate for the site. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Brown, Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Is the only use proposed in the conditional use request the hotel? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 21 Brown: The conditional use request includes the site as it is drawn here with the hotel, and the Chevron station and McDonald’s. Johnson: Anyone else? Marty Seager, 2951 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Seager: Commissioners, I just want to talk about one point and that is security. With an L-O zoning is would be normally open from 8 to 5, if we saw cars there at 2 in the morning, we could call a policeman and say this is not normal. For example we got a knock on our door last night at 1 in the morning it was a police officer who had closed the back hatch of our van, why did he close it, why did he stop, because that is not normal. That immediately alerted him to something that you shouldn’t see a van open at 1 in the morning. Just like from our back windows we will be able to see this area, if something happens at 1 in the morning we can call a police officer. If it is a motel or hotel a 24 hour McDonalds and we see cars there it won’t tell us anything. So we will have no additional security. Without this, we have children that are sleeping, all of us have families. So we really request because of the security factor also to have an L-O zoning. Also, I would just like any of the Commissioners to comment if there are any residential areas right now that are buffered by a hotel and gas station in Meridian. Johnson: How many motels do we have in Meridian, if you want to ask questions. Seager: Correct, so this is your opportunity to set a precedent and we hope that you take it. Thank you. Johnson: We appreciate your comments, anyone else? Ted Hanson, 1882 Bentley Avenue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hanson: I just had some questions regarding the plan there. For one thing west of this development do they have a vested interest in that property. My question regarding that is are they going to allow truck parking back there. At the present time truck parking is parking to the south of the Jackson service center. I see them during the day time in there. Johnson: Okay, anyone else before we get an answer to that question? Dennis Nielson, 3019 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Nielson: I just wanted to make a comment on the gentlemen representing the case for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 22 the annexation. He stated that there will be 45% less traffic than if it zoned L-O. I don’t know where he gets that statistic but I think it is important to think when is that traffic going to be there. If it is L-O it is between 8 and 5, when we are up and moving around and don’t have children sleeping. If it is a hotel it is going to be late evening and early morning when we are trying to get our sleep not what percent is cut down but what time is it going to be there. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Dennis, anyone else? Mr. Strite, answer two questions if you can with respect to truck parking and also where did you get that 45%? Strite: In reference to Mr. Hanson’s question do we have the vested interest to the parcel to the west, the answer is absolutely no. The second question is there going to be any truck parking here, the answer is absolutely no. You might be able to see by the plan that there is no room for trucks. The only reason for that small parking area if you will on the north side of this project is for fire department and emergency turn around. It will obviously attach in the future and go west. What happens to that westerly portion I guess is anybody’s guess. I have been told but cannot confirm that particular individual is negotiating right to sell. As to Mr. Nielson’s question I have a report here by (inaudible) a well known traffic firm which is certainly as I described you and quite frankly I have also (inaudible) Ada County Highway District. They compared average week day peak traffic if you will for a dental medical building, 82 trips per day, motel 40 trips per day. So I was off by 10%, it is less than 50%. A motel (inaudible) 67 units versus a medical office building of 20,000 square foot this is another study done, medical office building 54 cars per day, motel use 40 cars per day. That is closer to the 40% that I mentioned to you. Ada County Highway District has looked at this number and they have also agreed with those traffic numbers. Crookston: Did you desire to submit that to the Commission? Strite: (Inaudible) Johnson: Karen Gallagher you had some comments? Karen Gallagher, 318 E. 37th Street, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gallagher: I just had a little bit of information I wanted to make sure the Commission had prior to making a decision. The applicant has been involved in meetings with the Highway District of which I personally have not been involved in so I cannot answer any of those questions if you had any other clarifications you needed on those at this point. I did want to let you know that currently this application has been tabled by the ACHD Commission to September 11. So we will not have a determination until that point in Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 23 time. That is a night hearing for any of the property owners involved that they want to attend that meeting. Johnson: What was the reason for the tabling is it just a matter of time or was there an issue that you needed to get resolved? Gallagher: They were resolving further issues on the road and at this point I know that they are working on having some surveys done for the neighborhood to the north and working out some of those distances and taking a closer look at those details. So our recommendation would be that you table any of your decisions until the Highway District has made their determination and can then forward that information onto you to aid in your decision. Thank you. Crookston: I have a question, I probably should know this, the road that we are talking about and the light that is the light, the traffic light where you would turn left into St. Luke’s? Is that the road that we are talking about that would then go to the west? Strite: That is correct. Johnson: That is where the signalization is right now and that is where he was talking about a possible relocation of that signal, right? Strite: Yes sir. (Inaudible) and certainly we were there with more people that was probably necessary. I should suggest to you that we would be opposed to tabling it only in the land use issue certainly because the land use issue is not going to change regardless of what the determination of what the traffic light and the eventual road. We are having and have requested studies as have the neighbors and we have quite frankly joined forces with Mr. Jackson’s attorney in an effort to request that the signal be moved. However, it would be the choice of the applicant and certainly I hope supported by this Commission to allow the annexation/rezone. Because the consequence of the road proposal whether the light is there or not there has absolutely no bearing on the land use as an issue with ingress and egress. Our original plan without the road was almost identical with we would still be providing a driveway in the location of the present requested roadway. So I think if anything perhaps the annexation and rezone should move forward and if in fact the Commission deems necessary perhaps the conditional use should be put on hold. Even that in my opinion at this point the reason for holding this for September 3 was solely to give the neighborhood in combination with ourselves, St. Luke’s and John Jackson the ability to go to ITD to move the signal light. It has absolutely nothing to do with land use issue that is before you tonight. Johnson: Thank you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 24 Crookston: I have another question, Ms. Gallagher, has there been any input from St. Luke’s as far as moving this light that you are aware of? Gallagher: I am sorry as I stated I haven’t been involved in those meetings. Strite: I might be able to answer that Mr. Crookston. St. Luke’s was represented in our meeting the day before yesterday. Mr. Hull was there from St. Luke’s, he specifically stated the only reason the signal light is where it is today is because ITD insisted the signal light be there. Their original proposal was to put the signal light at the intersection of Magic View and Eagle Road. I believe and I will qualify that, I believe that they are in concert with the rest of us including the neighborhood to trying shift that signal light to the south. So in a long way around, the answer is yes, they are involved, they have been involved and will continue to be involved. Oslund: How about ITD? Strite: Commissioner Oslund, ITD was also there, we had Gary Moles, there and we had Larry Strough, Larry Strough is head of whatever way, Gary Moles is the design engineer. Quite frankly and I hope Mr. Williams would agree with this I kind of thought that we got the cold shoulder. I believe that ITD at the level that we are dealing with now is solely stuck with numbers and figures and its policy. I think politically and I think realistically if you take a pragmatic approach which is what I believe Mr. Barber what the attorney representing Mr. Jackson will probably there is a good opportunity to the signal can be moved. Oslund: And who pays? Strite: Well as it turns out right now Commissions what we have been asked to do, this applicant pays to make the modifications to the signal as it presently stands. If in fact the signal is deemed to be moved it is anybody’s guess as to who is to pay for it. Certainly Mr. Jackson would be a big part, certainly this applicant would be a big part and probably more importantly St. Luke’s. Perhaps their level of interest may wane some when the find out the expense of moving it. At the present time we haven’t gotten to that point, but the idea of holding the ACHD meeting until September 3 was to give us the opportunity to try and come back before ACHD with some kind of proposal. Johnson: Thank you very much, I saw another question. Sharon Christianson, 3157 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 25 Christianson: I am the first house that abuts up against this property and I am definitely opposed to the proposal. The question I had to the applicant, he said several times that the traffic would be 45% of the motel compared to doctor’s buildings, doctor’s office or whatever. He didn’t say anything about McDonald’s or the proposed Chevron station. It is my belief that if he only gets 45% of the traffic that you get at a doctor’s office he (inaudible) because they won’t make a go of it. Johnson: (Inaudible) let’s not get into a pep rally because I don’t like that kind of thing and I clear rooms. Williams: I just have a couple comments, in terms of the traffic, for the motel and hotel as opposed to a dentist office or a medical facility. Obviously those numbers conveniently left out the fact that the Chevron and McDonald’s were involved in this too so I am sure the trips are significantly more than 54 cars a day, probably in the neighborhood of 54 cars every 30 minutes. And the fact that you are talking about cars, vehicles 24 hours a day not between the hours of 8 and 5 that a medical facility or an office facility would have. The second this is that I would ask that the Commission ask your fire department about the frequency of calls both your fire and police departments. About the frequency of calls that they have to make at the existing motels in the City. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Williams, another gentleman over here had his hand up. George Kiler, 5000 SW Meadows Road, Lake Oswego, OR, was sworn by the City Attorney. Kiler: I have heard a lot of comments, I think a lot of emotional rather that fact based on some issues, certainly the traffic report that was obtained had to do with the motel because it was my understanding people wanted medical office instead of a motel. Those are the facts that were obtained from the traffic trip pattern generation. If you drive between here and the new McDonald’s we recently opened at the Fred Meyer shopping center on Fairview in about 2.5 minutes you will reach the half way point. So if you are going to be on Franklin and you are going to be around certainly East of Locust Grove on Franklin it is not more convenient and Franklin to go up Locust Grove even with the traffic lights and the job on Pine etc. to get to the existing McDonalds. The point that I am trying to make is there is a difference between diverted traffic and generated traffic. We are here in the convenience business because the traffic exists on the road number one and number 2 our peak ours are counter cyclical to the a.m. and p.m. peak hours that are on that road right now. Our peak hours are clearly at lunch time and not early morning and not in the evening rush hour traffic. So therein lies some difference on the McDonald’s situation. The same is true on the Interstate Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 26 because we have a McDonald’s at the Meridian interchange that is about a mile I guess from here to Eagle two miles, the next interchange we have a McDonald’s there established and as a result you have interstate traffic that has just left Boise and has a result has already gotten gas and fuel etc. and possibly and heading out of town and the ones heading into Boise will see certainly McDonald and signage along the interstate in Nampa, Caldwell but certainly the Meridian one on 1st. So I just wanted to address that issue of peak traffic and see if I can clarify some of those things. Unless you have specific questions for me that is basically what I wanted to talk about. I kind of thought some of the other things were shots that I don’t even want to (inaudible). Johnson: I am sure that you have done studies or are familiar with studies that would relate to the McDonalds maybe more to the Chevron, you said you did your study based on a hotel versus dental or professional offices is that correct? Kiler: Correct Johnson: Okay, what in your experience would be the relationship between the motel and the Chevron C Store? Kiler: I don’t have an exact number. Johnson: I don’t want an exact, I would kind of like a ball park figure. Kiler: I don’t have a number that is going to be fact based. Johnson: I just thought maybe you would have done a study. Kiler: I just know that a McDonald’s and a Chevron are very compatible and it isn’t like having separate facilities that are unrelated and not tied together. So as a result there is some cross shopping so to speak going on. When somebody buys fuel they are buying food and vice versa. I am sure that is why Mr. Jackson has put fast food in some of the Jackson’s as well. That is a trend the industry is going on. Johnson: I believe he has Taco Bell there. Kiler: So I am just saying that there is some cross shopping habits going on. That further would reduce potential traffic as far as the buffers I think everybody has already addressed all of that. Johnson: Give me a short list on diverted traffic versus generated traffic. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 27 Kiler: Diverted traffic is what is going down the street today it is that 30,000 cars that is on the Eagle or 28,000 or what have you. It is the cars that are being driven down I-84 corridor. Generated traffic is car or a vehicle that leaves home let’s say drives to the McDonald’s and goes back home. It is not more or less a right in and right out situation or something on the path going from somewhere to somewhere. If a car leaves I-84 and goes north on Eagle Road and stops at McDonald’s and Chevron and continues going north we just diverted him to our property and not generated because he didn’t go back to the highway or that sort of thing. Johnson: Kind of like specific destination or something. Kiler: Right, people don’t make plans to go to McDonalds, it is typically a convenience, an impulse. About 70% of our business is what we define as impulse business which is the cars going down the street. Johnson: You obviously don’t have any young children. Kiler: There is no playland here by the way. If you want a playland you can go to Franklin. So there are some differences in the McDonald’s that we are building these days geared to what we see this market being. Johnson: I appreciate your input, did you have an additional comment Mr. Hanson? Hanson: In the Valley News newspaper a couple of weeks ago they had an aerial view of the area we are talking about clear over to South Locust Grove. On the north edge of this property that they want to develop where the light is they propose, this is Ada County Planning Commission has already approved a proposal to go from Eagle Road to South Locust Grove. And there is a developer back west of this property quite a ways I would say 1/2 mile without re-resurrecting a copy of that paper and I am guessing it was Sundance Corporation is already established some lots back in there. They don’t call them, it is much larger an acre or something kind of lots. Johnson: Anyone else? Rod Truax, 3091 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Truax: I heard several different things concerning the traffic and I would submit that most of those figures are highly suspect. I would reference the report from the State dated 6-14-94 stated the traffic count at that time was 24,233 trips per day. That was prior to St. Luke’s opening up, that was prior to completion of some adjacent area subdivisions. And I would submit that is going to increase significantly as things like Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 28 Sweetwater Junction open up, it is going to incur more traffic as improvements are made to the Highway 55 right of way. That those also will increase the traffic load on that area. I would request that the Council reject this rezoning to C-G, also giving the property owners, I am one of the property owners adjacent to the this proposed development. I can’t help to think that is going to have a rather significant impact on our property value to have roughly a 30 foot wall in our backyard. Back walls don’t give much aesthetic value to property, hence it would be more of a detriment to our property value and lifestyle in general. I think the other thing to consider again reference back to some of the traffic numbers this is an 80 unit motel or hotel that is being proposed and I think a lot of the traffic and surveys that have been proposed have been based on the typical facility. I would submit again with the Sweetwater Junction that this one is going to be a very high use above the normal occupancy rate as a result of that within the area. So I would request on some of those counts plus what Mr. Williams has previously stated that this be denied. Johnson: Anyone else that would like to come forward at this time? Janet Butterfield, 2833 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Butterfield: I just have a question, I wondered if Mr. Jackson, I am sure he would have an idea how much traffic his facility has generated, would that give us a closer indication of what we might expect as an increase. I know he stepped out the back but I think he is still here. Johnson: Does anyone else have anything? Any comments from staff? Is Mr. Jackson available? Could you come forward and submit your financial statement please? The question that was asked by (End of Tape) Jackson: (Inaudible) our customer count is currently running between 2500 and 2800 customers per day. I might point out that the fuel system on this design is providing for 50% more capacity than we do. So I think my estimation of trips per day here with a McDonalds and a hotel would probably be in the are of 5000 trips per day. Johnson: I appreciate your so called expert guess. Anyone else? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing at this time on the annexation and zoning only. We have been given some suggestions on what to do what would you people like to do? MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that take the annexation and zoning segment and put it in findings of fact and conclusions of law. Oslund: I would second that and ask for discussion. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 29 Johnson: We have a motion and a second to address annexation and zoning with findings of fact being prepared by the City Attorney, discussion? Oslund: There was a question asked of the applicant some time ago about exactly what part of this development is the conditional use. When you look at the zoning ordinance you will find that the only portion of this application that would have to be a conditional use would be the drive up window, everything else would be a permitted use in a C-G zoning. That gives me great concern because that means, I think that we are giving up some of our ability to, well if we were to consider approving this at all we would be giving up some of our ability to place conditions on this application. I think it is obvious that we have enough concern here that all elements of this application need some attention if it is approved. So I guess my only comment would be I say we go ahead and prepare the findings of fact but I can tell you right now I agree with some of the comment that has been taken today that this should be an L-O. I would like that reflected in the findings. Crookston: This is a mixed planned use area, and a conditional use permit required for any use in that area. Oslund: In the mixed use. Crookston: Yes Oslund: So we do have that ability to place conditions on all elements of this application? Crookston: Yes Johnson: Any further discussion? We have a motion and a second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea TEN MINUTE BREAK ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 9, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD’S W/DRIVE THRU, AND AN 80 ROOM HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS: Johnson: At this time I will continue this public hearing and ask the applicant to address the Commission for additional comments if any. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 30 Crookston: Are you going to request the previous testimony from the past application be submitted for this application. Johnson: You do say you have a request? Crookston: No I don’t. Johnson: We are going to get one in a minute. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Strite: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, without belaboring it I think probably and maybe (inaudible) a lot of the concerns and comments have already been made. However I would like further, with what Mr. Crookston said in response to Mr. Oslund’s comments we were told that because this was in a mixed use area and that there is greater than one use that the entire parcel would be subject to conditional use which we certainly agreed with doing and submitted. Relative to the building itself, I might be able to help you out here with some numbers as well. I think one of the things that I should suggest to you is there are 76 rooms, I am not sure where the 80 came from it may have been in the report by Ada County Highway District, and it may have inadvertently remained that way because if you recall in my earlier testimony our facility was considerably larger until such time as we were asked to put in a public road on the north side. We cut the size of the motel down as I just suggested. We also limited the number of seats or reduced the number of seats in the Chevron McDonald’s facility in an effort to park cars not only according to the City ordinance we are well in above the parking requirements of the City ordinance but we are trying in an effort to make numbers that are required of us by the motel user one and by McDonald’s Chevron two. Quite frankly we believe that the facilities adequately parked, I will make a comment here as I have with all of the other Chevron’s that we have done here in the valley most of the cities in the valley accept the pump islands NPD’s as we refer to them as parking islands as well. Obviously if one is in there buying gas and purchasing food he walks in and lives his car in that location. So not only are we over parked relative to total number of seats in the dining facility, but we are over parked in the C Store. I would like also to suggest that this particular proposal has 27,000 square foot of landscape which is considerably greater than that required by the ordinance. Again that is not withstanding the 30 feet that we brought to the table tonight. That was the figure that we had prior to the 30 foot right of way that was imposed upon us by Ada County Highway District by the mere fact that again without being repetitive to align with the St. Luke’s driveway. Our particular radii of north boundary of the signalization intersection Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 31 and I believe it is really like 32 and it may even be 37 feet south of our north boundary. That depicts the 60 foot right of way of the road being proposed. The road being proposed if in fact it becomes a reality will be fully signalized with left turn bays, we at this particular time as the applicant’s are required to provide curb, gutter and sidewalk, two lanes going north, excuse me going west to westerly boundary of our parcel. Ada County Highway District at the time parcel number 2 is developed will complete the roadway section to the north including curb, gutter and sidewalk and the north bound lane of the street in question. That does not preclude the applicant and we have suggested to Ada County Highway District that under phase 1 and that is what we would like to suggest to you tonight, phase one would be the completion of the McDonald’s C Store would include at this time a 30 foot landscape buffer on the north boundary regardless to what happens to what we are going to refer to as phase 2, the motel. It is certainly would be our hopes and our desires tonight that if you find it fit to approve both parcels and approve the conditional use as it is shown there with the proviso if in fact the roadway becomes null and void by virtue of us assisting the neighbors and Mr. Jackson moving the signal that this plan could change. The change will be minimal and I don’t expect that we will be going back and requesting additional units. Quite frankly what I think we would prefer doing is adding a little more buffering to the north side but provide for ourselves a little more buffering from the south side between our C store and our motel. One of the gentlemen asked me about the problems with having a 3 story motel looking down on his parcel. Let me first suggest to you that under the present zoning he could have that today, I could go place that there, I could build a house that way, probably not likely but I could do that. So it is not as though it can’t be done. Under the present zoning you could go build a house that way. Quite frankly, not only that could you build a house there you could turn all your windows to the north and look over everybody’s back yard. That is not the purpose here that is not what we are intending to do. We are intending, we have solely designed this motel which if I might approach the podium, this is an artist’s rendition of the building in question and you will note that on the right hand side of your picture this is the north side of the building, there are no openings. The only opening that are in this building face either east or west. There are no openings that are facing north or south if you will overlooking any of the residences and or the C store. Again without being redundant, the right hand side of this artist’s rendering is the north boundary if you will or south boundary of the road, it is the north side of the building. You will see that there are no openings, no windows on that north side which would in fact over look the neighborhood. That all of the windows in this facility do in fact face either east or west. Secondly I think in an effort to mitigate some of the concerns not only is there considerable, well mature landscaping in the back side of the neighbors yards, and I have to say very well done, I think the support of having another additional 30 feet with a landscape buffer certainly provides more than adequate buffer in a sound deadening system that is probably far superior to what they have today. I might add also that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 32 request of Ada County Highway District there was comment made by I believe it was Mr. David Schplitz who suggested if in fact Ada County Highway District was to have to take over this 30 feet on the north side of that roadway system that their proposal would be to build an 8 foot high block wall, sound wall. Quite frankly and I am not going to speak for the neighbors but certainly if I were in their position I would prefer much rather prefer a 30 landscape buffer as opposed to an 8 foot high sound wall. We have not been back before Ada County Highway District with this final proposal and I don’t expect to do so as we have already discussed with you until September 3. I would like to make that comment. I think unless I have overlooked something most all of the issues have been addressed in the prior hearing and perhaps it would be appropriate to open it up for questions. Johnson: Billy Ray, not to put words in your mouth or try to lead you a little bit here, did you want that prior testimony incorporated into this hearing. It would be of use to us is you would request that. Strite: Mr. Chairman, I do so please. Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Strite? MacCoy: I do, I realize this is an architectural rendering and they always do a nice job when they show it off that way. The trees you show here for your both your good visual as well as your buffering you plan to put in trees like that, it gets quite expensive. Strite: I believe your staff has suggested to us and it certainly has on other projects that any trees that go in along that buffer I believe have to be 3 inch caliper which is basically a specimen tree which is considerably larger than what you are going to find in most developments and that is a requirement of your staff. MacCoy: That also, three inches is also much smaller than what you see in your rendering. Strite: Well quite frankly not a great deal, I am not a landscape architect and would be the last to admit that but I think a 3 inch caliper tree probably runs in the neighborhood of 15 to 18 feet high and I don’t think those are probably that much higher than that. I will have to agree with you our rendering does get a little carried away. We would be prepared to provide, now keep in mind, this row of trees is on the south side, this is not even the north side. We would be prepared to provide a species as required or requested by staff or this commission and maybe even a little quicker growing for instance. I am certain that there are species that may grow a lot faster if that is the wishes of the Commission. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 33 Johnson: Anyone else from the Commission have a question? Oslund: You spoke earlier in the first application about the truck parking and I have noticed that along Eagle Road currently whether it is allowed or not trucks are currently parking on Eagle Road to get access to the Texaco that is out there now. I would assume that is going to continue to be a problem with your development. It is not really a question I don’t expect you to answer it but that is my belief. I think, when I look at the plan, there is kind of a paradox when I look at this plan because you have a signal located essentially that would serve the hotel and then we have an uncontrolled intersection or just a stop intersection further to the south there. That is going to serve the most intense portion of the development. I am concerned about how this is all really going to work. Is that signal even going to be useful. People would use Magic View Drive and what we end up with is that unsignalized intersection serving two highly intensive uses. I think the hotel at 3 stories is, it is a little excessive. I understand your taking issue with it and saying the motel will be an effective buffer but I would think the fact that it is not purely a buffer, not everybody believes that the hotel is an aesthetic pleasing buffer. In fact it constitutes an impact, so if you would like to address any of those points you can at this point. I have some others, I might as well go through those. I guess my biggest concern, I was concerned about this before the two times this was cancelled. I guess the one thing, I have only been in Meridian for three years but I look around and a I have been on the Commission for 6 months and I have noticed in the last couple of months what we are getting inundated with is auto related applications. Whether it be a used car lot, a gas station, drive ups, fast food, RV repair, auto repair, auto accessories. I could go on, that is what has come in the door the last 3 or 4 months. When I look at the Comp Plan there are a couple of things that I see in the comp plan that I would like to direct your attention to. First goal 3 of the comp plan is that we encourage the kind of economic growth and development which supplies (inaudible) self sufficiency and reduces the present reliance of Boise. I wonder how this development does that. There is also another statement in the comp plan under land use goals statement, page 22, item 1, all land use development of the Meridian area will be considered an asset to the community and not to detract from our quality of life. I wonder how this development achieves that. On page 223, 125U, encourage a balance, I underlined the word balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desirable, stable, self sufficient community. Further on that same page 1.10U, help to design of an attractive road way entryway areas into Meridian which clearly and I underline the word identify the community. So I look at this development and we could talk about the specifics but I just can’t get over the philosophical issue. That is I look around Meridian and I say do we need a third McDonald’s, do we need another Chevron. What do we want to portray our community as. I don’t necessarily take issue with the hotel I think there are things that can be done to it to make it acceptable. What Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 34 I really take issue with is another chevron, another McDonald’s and another car wash and when we already have plenty of that. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oslund, if I might, I guess will try to start with one, I think those are pretty salient points. First of all the signal it was never intended by this applicant to use that signal for anything more than an access to support this facility. The signal was placed there long before anybody had looked at this piece of ground. Quite frankly had I been involved early on I would have been concerned just as are the neighbors and Mr. Jackson and certainly St. Luke’s, why in the world they did not move this down to Magic View which made a lot more sense. However, that is totally out of our control. It is not going to make any difference what goes on with this parcel of ground whether you choose not to use your comp plan and go to a medical office complex that generates considerably higher traffic than the motel certainly not more than the other use, but whatever goes on that parcel is going to be restricted by either Magic View or this signal light. Oslund: I should state that I am not opposed to the signal, I am not opposed the signal at its current location. Strite: Let me continue though, you made the observation that the signal, I believe this was your observation, was done solely for the use of this motel and for this McDonald’s at least that is what I construed it to be. That is not the case, the only reason that this roadway is being proposed is your comprehensive plan calls for more intense uses. Not only on this parcel but on the parcel west and on parcels west of that. You have mixed use designations and I think it goes without saying that when you can put a State highway together with a Federal highway carrying greater, I think there was a comment made, there was 23,000 at the last time, well it is greater than that now. They are figuring an excess of 40,000 on both streets. What type of particular uses can function on that kind of an intersection. I can tell you right now we are doing probably 5 medical office buildings today and not one of them would even envision being in a place like this. It is totally inconceivable. That aside, that signal light if in fact that is where you would like to see it is not solely for the purpose of this development. It was never intended to be, we never intended using it. We had no discussions quite frankly with Ada County Highway District until we had already submitted our first plan which was to be before you on the last hearing. Oslund: I guess that is exactly my point, the way you have laid out this development your intended use as a hotel between it and that intersection. Who is going to use it because they are going to have to drive past the hotel and deal with internal circulation which just isn’t going to function. What people are going to do is use Magic View Drive and that is the same, you have already got an intersection there that is trying to access Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 35 a State highway. I guess what I am saying is that I don’t want to see another roadway choked up with local access problems off of that roadway. That is why that signal is there, I think that signal should be used. I am not as concerned about its location as the neighbors are. I think there are things that can be done to mitigate the impact of that roadway. Strite: I don’t share your thoughts with the internal circulation quite frankly I think it works well. I do however suggest to you that the more intense uses were placed on the south specifically to get them further away from the residential uses. Make them adjacent to similar uses. Also the idea, it was our point at the time to use Magic View as a major ingress egress to the more intense user. Quite frankly the signalization again has nothing to do with this particular development as for future developments. If in fact and again I guess I don’t share your feelings relative to signal location. It would seem more appropriate to me and I think the neighbors would be supportive of this if that signal were shifted south. They are having a difficult time getting into Autumn Way now because the stack lane on northbound traffic is virtually nil. It interferes with the south bound left turn movements into St. Luke’s. Mr. Williams testified to Ada County Highway District that there is an accident waiting to happen. I think he is absolutely correct and I think Mr. Jackson, I am not sure why they did ask for this at the very beginning, but I do know that Mr. Hull at St. Luke’s requested to have that signal at Magic View. We are going to support that. Oslund: You can support it but the point is ITD has made the determination that they don’t want a signal any closer to their ramps and that interchange has to function at a much higher level than anything down here. That is a minor issue, let’s move on to the other issues. Strite: I liked your comment relative to being able to do something with the motel that may make it more attractive as a buffer. Quite frankly I consider it more as a transition and the fact that it is a low intense use, considering what your own zone will allow if in fact you choose to use your comp plan as the guide and this becomes a commercial parcel. What else what type of intense use that would locate on a street frontage with 30,000 cars a day would be more appropriate in your opinion against the residential zone. Oslund: Office Strite: Well if in fact you could find somebody to office there that would be a consideration. Quite frankly we think it is highly Oslund: (Inaudible) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 36 Strite: I agree and I appreciate that. Relative to your auto related uses, what are we going to do at the intersection of I-84 and Highway 55, we have (inaudible) Oslund: (Inaudible) I know some of the neighbors do Strite: But your issue is auto related uses and I agree with you. However why don’t we concentrate the auto related uses as your comp plan has already contemplated at intersections where all of these cars are existing now. We talked about 5,000 cars a day in this facility and according to Ada County Highway District and APA like 50% or 48% of those are passer bys. Well the passer bys are on the freeway, they are going to get off and come down Eagle Road they are going to be heading for Eagle. Oslund: Let’s back up, my primary concern is that I am tired of approving developments that don’t do anything for this community. I live in this community and when I want to take my family out to dinner most times I have to drive all the way into Boise to do that. I am looking and we have a community here of about 23,000 now and we are going to have an application tonight a little later for Louie’s to come in and I applaud that. What I am saying is that I don’t really need another McDonald’s and I don’t need another Chevron and I don’t take issue with the hotel but I take issue at 3 stories. That is my point. Strite: I think it is a philosophical argument that you and I could probably sit and discuss for a lengthy time. But from the pragmatic approach and from the fact that the comprehensive plan and the site itself based upon the traffic numbers I think it would be highly improbable to have any other use. Relative to your goal number 3, it would appear to me that in relationship to employment, first of all the motel is certainly going to increase the employment base, so also is the McDonald’s Chevron. I think that is certainly a worthy goal. It creates a tax base, again I don’t want to get philosophical because we could go on forever. But you made references to those things and that is certainly done by this development. The balance of land use and again your comment another one of these and I assume you meant another McDonald’s and another Chevron. Well again I just have to emphasize that when you are at a node of a highway and a highway commercial uses of this nature are going to be the norm. I think that your plan obviously in 1993 envisioned that. It may not have envisioned that this particular highway was going to increase 4 fold over what it was in 1993. Oslund: I don’t believe the comprehensive plan envisioned a McDonald’s and a drive thru and a car wash at this intersection. What the comprehensive plan says, (Inaudible) the comprehensive plan is fairly general on that point. I would just add on your point of employment, the comprehensive plan does not say that we are out there seeking as many minimum wage jobs as we can get. I think it is important to have those but we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 37 have our fair share, again that is a philosophical difference but I just wanted to clarify that. Strite: Mr. Chairman I think that we probably belabored that enough. Johnson: So do I, I am not even too sure this is the forum for that type of discussion. A lot of us have problems finding a place to eat that is really not a problem tomorrow. Strite: I am sorry if I was lengthy in that, I apologize. Johnson: Developments are market driven and that is basically what you are talking about when you are talking high intensity auto use (inaudible). Would anyone like to address the Commission on this issue? Chuck Horel, 3043 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Horel: I guess a question here to Mr. Strite, if I could have an explanation about the rendering here. If this roadway is accurate from a standpoint of the ACHD meeting and the comprehensive plan of Meridian in showing where these roads are going to go in the future. We don’t have situation in Meridian as it stands of double fronting lots with roads, i.e. here. The long range plan is to take that entrance off of Eagle Road at the north end of this project where the road is currently drawn and then swinging it over to Magic View. I really don’t see any, where is this leading and that I guess is my question to Mr. Strite, where, how is this addressed. When we were down at ACHD we had talked about a 15 degree divergence from that angle of entrance off of Eagle Road and it would angle to the southwest. I don’t see that in this drawing. The width of the road doesn’t match up to the road across the way at St. Luke’s entrance. We had asked for a dimensional equivalent. We are getting 60 feet roughly well from curb to curb on the other side of the road is 82 feet. I don’t see that in this drawing. I guess those are just some of my points I wanted clarified or if I can have those clarified I would appreciate it. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Richard Williams, 3133 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Williams: First of all I appreciate very much Mr. Oslund’s comments and I agree 99% with them. The fact that this commercial development as it is proposed is a 3 story hotel literally in your backyard and I doubt that anybody on this Commission would live in that environment. Or live with a McDonald’s frying hamburgers all night while you are trying to sit in your back yard with a light shining in your bedroom window from the cars at 2 in the morning or the fire alarms going off at the hotel which they do and you can Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 38 ask you fire department about that, on a very frequent basis. We are again really emphasize the fact that there has got to be a transition between commercial and the residential. This development as it is being proposed and our opinion and I think the opinion I (inaudible) presents severe degradation to the neighborhood in terms of property values and aesthetics. I guess what we do then is we put a bulletin or a poster up there (inaudible) and here are the numbers. Office development is a better transition, not a 30 foot buffer strip with a few trees in it, that is not a buffer zone. There has got to be a buffer zone and a transition is really a number of feet, it provides some definition. We really again ask your consideration that definition (inaudible). Johnson: Thank you Mr. Williams, Mr. Foley? Howard Foley, 3875 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Foley: There have been some comments regarding traffic flow and the amount of use that Chevron station and convenience station is going to draw as compared to the motel. I just I want the Commission to recognize what appears obvious to me is that as the traffic signal is now situated and as ACHD proposes, if the road is extended along the north boundary of the subject and our homeowners south boundary all traffic north bound is coming off of the Interstate, north bound on Eagle Road is going to go to the traffic light to make that turn. Whether they are going to the Chevron or whether they are going to the Jacksons. They are not going to try and cut across a turn lane and south bound traffic to get into Magic View. If you are a traveller out on a highway you are going to come off the freeway, if you are looking for gas or whatever the case is and you are going to go to the traffic light to get in the left turn lane and then turn into the backside of our property. So it is meaningless to say the motel is only going to have X number of cars 40 or whatever of traffic because every car that is north bound off of that freeway going up Eagle Road is going to that traffic light to go past the motel to go into the Chevron station and get a hotel or whatever and go back out the same way. We are going to have traffic all night long. Our point is that there is no transition, if you approve this you can put buffers and do whatever you want we are going to have extremely high use, 24 hours a day, traffic in and off of that signal. There is just no question about it. South bound traffic probably a different story. But the vast majority of your traffic has got to come off that is going to use those types of facilities I assume are going to be interstate travellers. The representative from McDonald’s just said that. It is not a designation place they are going to go these are travellers and we are just going to pick up a tremendous amount of traffic coming to that signal, shining lights into the back of people’s yards, going in and going back out. It is going to go on all night long and that is inappropriate. There isn’t anything close to transitional, there isn’t anything close to a perpetuating the lifestyle of any kind of a residence when you do that. There isn’t anything close to striking any kind of a balance between residences Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 39 and commercial, how can there be anything higher use than 24 hours a day, how could that be. There aren’t more hours there are only 24 and that is what you are being asked to approve and that is totally inappropriate. There is no way, you are not launching off of the huge philosophical arguments, the comprehensive plan directs all of us to take some sort of a balance and that is not a balance in my opinion. I guess the last thing I wanted to say is it seems to me until we make some decisions on annexation and if there is an annexation and number 2 if there is an annexation under what kind of designation that property comes into that considerations of conditional use and what conditions and those sorts of things seems to me to be premature. I submit that perhaps any of this discussion ought to be tabled until those other decisions are made. Johnson: Thank you Dennis Edson, 376 Ravenswood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Edson: I would like to make some comments with respect to the light office the other gentleman had stated that with the amount of traffic that is on Eagle Road that he didn’t see that anybody would build light office in that area. I just take a look at, we have a major medical facility there with St. Luke’s and looking at other cities and this City and Boise and whenever there is a major medical facility like that you tend to see the growth of all kinds of light office support facilities and we have doctor’s offices and lab facilities and so forth. I know that if I was over at St. Luke’s and they wanted to send me to a specialist I would much prefer to go across the road then to drive someplace else in town even if that is a high traffic area. Also, with regard to the road going in and the signal there Mr. Oslund was talking about he was concerned, no light being at Magic View and the traffic going in there. If that road goes in and curves around down to Magic View as the Highway Commission wants it to do they have proposed shutting off Magic View Drive to left turns from Eagle Road and not allowing traffic to come out of Magic View and make a left turn on Eagle Road. In which case as the lawyer that was just here claimed all traffic that has to get into the gas station all traffic that has to get into Jackson’s would indeed have to go into that signal and run in past our property. I don’t even know what that would do to Jacksons, that means that all people have to go in there (inaudible) if this facility goes in it means the traffic once that road was finished would have to go around and pass the Chevron first. I don’t know what it would do to Jackson’s so I think that needs to be considered too. Johnson: You are only talking north bound traffic. I saw another hand here. Kent Brown, 361 Springwood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brown: Some of the things that I guess come to my mind that I am curious about is the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 40 signage that is going to go on the buildings. I don’t know about Jackson’s but you can probably see it from City Hall here, you can see it from everywhere else in the valley. You can go out to Kentucky Ridge and you can see that sign. What kind of sign is Chevron going to put up to compete with Jackson’s,? What kind of sign is the hotel going to put up to compete with Jackson’s? Where is that going to be located? The sign that, the rendition shows a little tiny sign, is that what they are going to put. Is it going to be lighted? Are they going to get hotel customers off of the freeway with that kind of sign or where are they going to put that sign, I guess I have a question about it. The Highway District has opposed this four lane road to go into the north side of this development to supply access to the entire property, I don’t know if it is 30 acres or whatever it is. I think that this application is the time to plan for what is going to go in there in the future for the remaining portions of that. If the roadway is constructed along the lines of like park center, you have a high commercial use but you have buffering with berms and so forth on either side. That is going to promote that kind of use instead of more hotels and gas stations and people using it off of the freeway. So I would make that recommendation that everything to make this similar to the St. Luke’s road. If you look at the rendition you see the St. Luke’s side they have islands in the center of the road and it creates slower traffic, I believe the Highway District can tell you if you have a series of islands in the center of the road that the traffic slows down. That is going to reduce the noise and impact to our development in the existing subdivision. I think the gentleman that just spoke hit it on the head when a hospital goes in you are going to have all kinds of offices around them. St. Luke’s currently in Boise has been buying up existing neighborhoods and existing homes and turning them over and making office complexes, parking complexes. I was in the meetings with the Highway District when the hospital went in. They are not sure that their 40 acre site is large enough for them, 47 acres. They purchased that other 7 acres recently so that they have an access down to Franklin. But they weren’t sure that they were large enough, they were surprised at how fast they filled up. I think that is what is going to happen around there that you are going to have a lot people labs, and doctors offices that are going to want to be near the hospital when it finally meets its final capacity. Thank you Johnson: Thank you. Rod Truax, 3091 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Truax: In the hearing that we had with the County one of the things that was brought up at the County was that the Idaho Transportation Department is pretty adamant about not allowing the light down here because of the close proximity of the freeway on ramps and off ramps. What I would submit that makes this very undesirable, as was previously stated, they are considering blocking this or berming this so that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 41 northbound traffic cannot make left hand turns Johnson: Who is they? Truax: ITD, into Magic View because of the safety hazard created by the south bound traffic. The current service station located in this lot over here Jackson’s has tanker trailers that do currently pull into this median and then turn into here. If that is bermed up and that left hand turn access is not allowed, I have a hard time visualizing that same tanker trailer coming down to the light and making a U turn and coming back there. Which means they are going to have to pursue some other route and long term development would have this angling back over and connecting with Magic View which would ultimately be the delivery route for petrol into that area. Again granted that the tanks and federal regulations around the tanks and dispensing of the fuel are more than adequate, however the transportation of that, DOT regulations are not as robust as they are for the underground containment of the fuel. Hence with our well head located here with that kind of volume of traffic, not only one service station but two service stations being serviced off of this road. The opportunity for car wreck, discharge of any fuel is increased by it sounds like at least 2/3 more because it is going to be double the capacity of what the Texaco station currently is. Which creates even more concern for the residents in that area. Also we talked to the Ada County Highway and Planning, one of the proposals was that number one the roadway be made to match up with that of St. Luke’s also that it be angled now as this is showing back towards (End of Tape) According to the Planning and Zoning layout that area is going to be developed even more. So that means all the traffic access to that long term wise is going to gain access through this new road. With this drawn it almost indicates without being able to see any other rendition of what is playing around that area it leaves you with the idea as Mr. Williams pointed out earlier that road is going to shoot right on down the backside of all of those properties. That is part of the planning part of it as we see opportunity for it at this time. If it is not planned that is what will proceed. Johnson: Thank you, is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Is there anything from staff prior to the applicant? Go ahead Billy Ray. Strite: Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, I will try to make this very brief and hopefully hit only the salient issues. First of all relative to the roadway and the closing off of Jackson Food Stores and avoiding any left turns onto Eagle Road Mr. Williams was a party to the meeting we had where ITD said there is no way they were going to put an island out there. In fact if they do not approve and their design standards would not allow an island which would block left turn lane movements out of Magic View. Quite Frankly I think Mr. Jackson’s attorney Phil Barber was a big part of that. He made certain at that meeting that is what was discussed and his minutes were Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 42 quite clear. He said if that were in fact to happen as I think was suggested by 2 or 3 of these comments earlier that would be an unfair competition because it would run everybody right to the middle of the Chevron on their way to Mr. Jackson’s. He was assured at that meeting that would not be the case. Again we are in support as Jackson’s and also the neighbors of moving the light but I think as Commissioner Oslund said that is a not an issue that is going to be solved here tonight. Relative to this roadway I think it was also mentioned where was it going to go, what is it going to do, and why here. First of all this is a configuration that was agreed to with Ada County Highway District. We sat down, this is actually the third version that we sat down with them and had them layout the access as they see it happening. They are suggesting that if in fact none of this development on this site goes this road will go because their convinced so also I believe is your staff that the 30 to 40 acres on the west end of this will in the future as already designated in the comp plan become mixed use. Therefore this roadway in their opinion whether it is signalized here or at Magic View it is going to happen whether this development goes here or not. The configuration again was discussed and preliminarily approved with tech staff, Ada County tech staff contrary to the comments made here. There were some suggestions made at the Ada County Highway District meeting whereby we were asked to off set the road I think the full with of St. Luke’s and take it to a 15 degree angle on the south. Ada County Highway District staff keep in mind they have to purchase the ground upon which this goes were totally against doing that because they did not want to have to purchase the right of way that would enable them to do that. They did not feel that the 20,000 cars a day that they are projecting coming off the west bench of this roadway system, which incidentally goes if you will approximately 80 feet to the west, it has 125 foot radius the center line and lines up with the northerly end of the loop road at Magic View. So there is a 4 way intersection and that is the way that Ada County Highway District has laid it out for us. I think with that to avoid any more lengthy time and philosophical discussions I think those are important issues. There was one other comment relative to St. Luke’s in fact that office use would be appropriate. Certainly office use is appropriate there, they have 47 acres, they have 5 phases according to Jeff. And they (inaudible) probably will absorb a majority of the market. I think with that, that is all I have to offer. Johnson: Thank you Mr. Strite, any questions from the Commission for the applicant? One last time any one else like to testify? Ann Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowen: Those of us in the audience know what this looks like, I would like you guys to see what it is so you know what it is I am talking about. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 43 Johnson: We have a copy of that. Bowen: Good, I live in the Greenhills Subdivision and I want you guys to know I don’t know if any of you have had a chance to drive through that area. It consists of beautiful homes and are on 1/2 acre and acre lots. We are people who have jobs and pay taxes and we work hard at keeping up our neighborhood. It is hard to find homes to the caliber that we have with the nice lots. People keep their yards up, it is a beautiful place to be, it is the kind of place that Meridian should be proud to have as a neighborhood. I feel like with this construction coming in it is raping our neighborhood and it will ruin it. Right now my home is located about right here, I am missing all of this major development but it will come and get me. The day that I came home from vacation and the Jackson’s had opened up, I walked into my backyard the lights were so bright I couldn’t see my backyard. I couldn’t see fences, I couldn’t see my dog, the lights were so horrendous and Texaco from my house right here Texaco is clear over here and now we are looking at sticking it even closer to our yards. Mr. Jackson was pretty good to work with us and managed to lower down the lights to dim them to put a shield around them. At 2 in the morning I come home from work and I have to call over there and say I can hear your radio, I know what song it is playing turn it down. This happens quite frequently and Jacksons is clear across the field. What is going to happen when we have Chevron with people coming in at 3 in the morning to get gas and their radios are blasting it is going to ruin our neighborhood. It wakes my kids up at night. Most of the homes along this area have 2 story homes and my kids all sleep upstairs. I have had to buy special thick blinds to pull down to shield it so it looks dark at night instead of light. That first week after they opened there was no moon I had no lights on in my house at 2 in the morning I could sit in my living room and read the paper it was so bright. I could hear the music and it is ruining our neighborhood. To pull all of that any closer will do nothing but hurt our property values. The music is the problem and even worse than the music is the idling of these big semi trucks, it is like somebody turns on a base and all you hear is the boom, boom, boom and you hear for about an hour and then you want to hit somebody because it is so obnoxious. All of these big trucks are going to be pulling in and idling for hours. That is going to hurt our neighborhood too. I feel like Greenhills Subdivision is a subdivision that Meridian should try and protect. It is a nice neighborhood. If you guys let this kind of thing pass and come in and ruin our neighborhood other neighborhoods in Meridian aren’t going to have a chance either. ITD said at our last meeting that I went to they said that there would be between 20 and 60,000 trips a day on Eagle Road. I don’t know where all the other numbers are coming from but that came out of their meeting. They are thinking it could be up to 60,000 trips a day. So I just think it is important that we try to preserve a neighborhood that is nice and that looks good and that people are paying their taxes and doing a good job with and not try and pull in more commercial development. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 44 Johnson: Anyone else? At this time I will close the public hearing. As a suggestion we might consider the comments and recommendation from Mr. Foley and also from the applicant that the conditional use part of this application be tabled until the annexation and zoning findings of facts are prepared. That is a suggestion, what you would like to do? MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we table this to our discussion on this subject item #7 until such time as we can get our facts together and (inaudible) next regular meeting which is 9-10. Oslund: Second Johnson: Any discussion? We have a motion and a second to table item 7 until a date certain of 9-10-96, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: I appreciate everyone that provided testimony this evening. If there is any question as to what happened tonight of anything feel free to speak with Mr. Will Berg or myself who whoever you can get a hold of. We will be looking at the findings of fact and at our 9-10 meeting and at that point there will be no further testimony taken on that issue however but those will be available for your review once they are prepared. Move onto to item 8. ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF EASEMENT BY RICHARD VALLA: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his representative to address the Commission. Richard Valla, 16685 Rose Briar Lane, Nampa, was sworn by the City Attorney. Valla: We are asking that an unused City water line easement a 1951 easement that runs diagonally through our property virtually cuts it in half be vacated. We feel that the existing lines to the north, the east and to the South of the property the City has service that area and surrounding areas. Basically that is it. Johnson: Thank you very much. Crookston: I have a question, where is this water line, where is this located? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 45 Valla: The property is the Northwest corner of Franklin and Meridian Roads. Crookston: Thank you. Johnson: This is a public hearing is there anybody that would like to address the Commission on this issue? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing at this time. Request for vacation of easement, what would you like to do? Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that recommend to the City Council that they approve this application for the abandonment of this easement. MacCoy: Second Johnson: There is a motion and a second to recommend approval to the City Council for vacation of the easement by Richard Valla, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR KARATE CLASSES BY BRAD AND DEBBIE MILLER: Johnson: We have your application, would you come forward please and address the Commission, I will now open the public hearing. Brad Miller, 855 N. Eagle Road, Kuna, was sworn by the City Attorney. Miller: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners what I want to do here is lease the space next to Weast T.V. on Franklin Road for the purpose of conducting Karate classes. The classes will be conducted after hours approximately for 3 hours in the evening Monday through Thursday. Johnson: Did you want to address anything like the City’s comments or staff comments with regard to landscaping and berming? Miller: Mr. Weast is the owner of the property so I don’t have a whole lot to do with that. Johnson: We have a letter from a concerned neighbor are you aware of that? Miller: No Johnson: We have a letter from a neighbor that I believe is directly north of the property and we got that in today’s mail we would be glad to make a copy of that available to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 46 you. It is from Calvin and Edith Harris. Are there questions from the Commission to the applicant. Would you like to reserve those. MacCoy: As long as he has read the staff report and agrees to those because I thought our staff report on that was very good and spelled out a lot of the items we had in our minds. Miller: I would like to address something, it says here that, Johnson: You are referring to the Harris letter? Miller: Yes, to the letter, it said children outside, our property is still vulnerable for children outside waiting for parents to pick them up from class. I have a hard and fast rule, of course martial arts has to do with discipline. No child leaves my premises until his parents come to pick him up, they are not allowed outside. They have to wait inside until class is over. That is a hard and fast rule. Johnson: If that is a rule that they are inside then that would probably handle the last paragraph as well. Miller: It is a hard and fast rule. I have a very high level of discipline in my classes. Johnson: Any other questions, I have some questions I guess for the owner of the property then. Somewhere indicated in the material submitted to us that there would be a berm there by the end of July. This is as of this morning it wasn’t there. I guess I would like the owner to comment with respect to that. Wes Weast, 1785 Windy Ridge, was sworn by the City Attorney. Weast: As far as the berm, the berm is there, there is a vinyl fence on top of it. There are plants, I called Shari Stiles and told her we have curbing people coming in. It is also going to be sprinkled. Johnson: Excuse me, I guess I am confused, when I went over and looked at the property your property facing south is located on the east side of the building right, your business and there is also an office to the left of that. Is that, is or is not where this planned karate school is? Weast: That is where it is going to be. Johnson: Well the berm is further east of your building, the berm that has been Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 47 constructed there doesn’t have anything to do with the paved area. Weast: This berm has to do with the trailer business that I had a conditional use permit, it has nothing to do with the Karate. Johnson: So what you are telling us is with respect to this application you don’t have any plans for a berm or landscaping is that correct or am I putting words in your mouth. Well there is another comment in there that you plan on doing what Meridian Plumbing did. Would you explain that to me because if you line your building up with Meridian Plumbing you would have to landscape your entire paved lot. Weast: As far as this paved lot, where this berm came into play is I got a conditional use permit to run the trailer business. That is where the berm came in for approximately 50 feet on that side where the trailer business is. This berm has nothing to do with the karate business. Johnson: Well it is mentioned in this application so I tie the two together. I guess that might be a little logical to do that. Weast: Actually this berm was brought up about 2.5 years ago. Anyway we are in the process of putting it in, but like I say it basically has nothing to do with the karate business. When we agreed on this berm that was on the trailer business and that was on that side of the building. Johnson: I am sure that would be of interest to staff, I appreciate that clarification. Are there other questions that we might have of the owner of the property at this point? Borup: I think there were some other landscaping items that Shari had mentioned in her letter as far as the trees. I guess it doesn’t go beyond that, but is that also considered being taken care of in the berm or is there still going to be some additional? Weast: As far as trees, there was nothing mentioned in our agreement mentioned about trees at the time. I didn’t bring a copy of my letter from the City back when we done this 2.5 years ago. Borup: No this wasn’t from then it was on this application. Weast: Well as far as trees, I can put a couple of trees in there. What we have in there right now is just bushes and shrubbery and so forth like that. MacCoy: Have you read this material here from Shari Stiles? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 48 Weast: I have read some of it as far as from Ada County and so forth. MacCoy: What Keith is referring to is an item 2, there is currently no landscaping on the site of 1 inch 3 inch caliper tree per 1500 square foot of paving is required. That is, I am assuming that you have read this and agreed. Weast: First of all the way that property is set up that is an older part of town. As far as putting a berm out in the middle of that pavement would be ridiculous. It would be useless, as a matter of fact it would interfere with traffic. People come in, that place has been there since 1972. We haven’t had any problems, like I said this landscaping deal has come up with the trailer business. As far as putting a berm out in the middle of that thing I don’t see the reason for that. That is all paved clear to Franklin, there are no sidewalks, there is no curbing, there is no nothing in there. Oslund: I think another point that is important on there maybe even more so is on item 1, because it is obligating, if you were to agree to this it is obligating you to even more. It is a 20 foot wide common landscape area in addition to those trees stating that this is an entrance corridor to the City of Meridian and basically it is saying they would want you to match the landscaping that has been agreed to by Honor Park across the street. So you (inaudible) these comments here. If we (inaudible) all of this stuff is included in there. Weast: First of all as far as putting, is this what the County is asking? Oslund: No this is what we are asking. Weast: I wasn’t aware of that but I don’t intend on landscaping the front of that because then you are going to deter traffic coming into those two businesses. There has always been a business there. Basically what we are doing is changing signs on that. There has always been a office to the other side of that building. The whole thing is paved all the way through there. As far as this landscaping deal from what I was aware of was from 2.5 years ago on the trailer end of the business. Johnson: No, you have got to read this August 9 letter from Shari Stiles. She is addressing this application she is not talking about anything from 2.5 years ago. Item 6, she is requesting from you a detailed landscape plan. This is an opportunity for the City of Meridian even though there has been a business there since 1972 or whatever it is to improve the entrance corridor to the City. Okay, it is very important in my opinion that you work out some kind of plan with our Planning and Zoning Administrator Shari Stiles (inaudible) requirement for landscape. We cannot ignore that we won’t ignore her Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 49 comments here. Maybe you haven’t had time to massage that and communicate with her. It is all summed up in item 11, it just plain says there aren’t going to be any classes in that building until an agreement is struck. She says it better than I do but that is the just of it. So, that is something that whatever happens here tonight is going to be conditioned upon compliance with her guidance to us, her instructions to us or suggestions to us however you want to phrase that and conditioned on that. That is where we are at with this right now. I am trying to make this as clear as I can make it. Weast: I was not aware of that as far as what the City of Meridian. Now the County had a meeting and they were wondering why we were even there. We aren’t new construction Johnson: Their interest and ours don’t always agree that is true, I agree with that. Weast: Sometime down the road here from what I understand they are going to widen Franklin Road. So anything we do there will probably be torn out down the road here anyway. As far as with Shari Stiles, I was from the understanding of talking to her that we were concerned about the berm on the east side of the building. As a matter of fact I believe her and the Planning and Zoning people or you guys or somebody was out there measuring that here the other day. Johnson: I was out there but I didn't’ really measure it. We can get some comments on that. Are there any other things that we need to address? MacCoy: There is also the other letter which is from the City Engineer which was hand in glove of what she came up with. So you are going to need both letters, copies of both and sit down and agree with that. I think each one of those has some very definite things in there that are going to cost you something to put in if that is what you want to do at this moment. Johnson: Do you have those letters? Weast: (Inaudible) the only thing I read was from the County. I am not aware Johnson: These letters are dated August 9, which is Friday. Weast: I would like to make a comment on the letter you have from the neighbor. This has been a feud going on since 1969, the man was not happy where there were horses out there, he wasn’t happy when there was cows out there, he is not a happy man. That is the way it is, he has a complaint constantly on what I am doing. I have Ada County weed control come out and spray the weeds and he says I sprayed his lawn. It Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 50 is ridiculous. He is just a constant complainer as far as this letter coming from him. That is a 7 foot chain link fence not a 10 foot, I see he made a comment on the fence. As far as the letter from Cal and Edith like I say that has been on ongoing battle. Johnson: Well I don’t interpret their letter to be particularly unusual, they just brought up some questions and concerns. That is the way I read that letter. Weast: What we are going to have to do, this is the first time I have ever seen this, I don’t know if one of these was sent to us. Johnson: That didn’t come in until today. Weast: I mean this here. Johnson: That is dated August 9, I don’t know when that was mailed. We can clarify that for you before you leave tonight. Crookston: Is there your property not annexed to the City of Meridian? Weast: No it is annexed to the City. Crookston: I was just wondering about your comments about Ada County I don’t know why those would be applicable in any fashion. Weast: Well we were called and told to go down. Crookston: I am sorry you were referring to Ada County, apparently you were referring to Ada County Highway District. Weast: Right Johnson: Thank you Mr. Weast, is there anyone else that would like to comment on this? Is there anything that would be appropriate to add by staff? Borup: I have a question of clarification probably from Shari, that was on some of the items I think we already covered. I don’t think there is much doubt on what is talking about the trees and having a detailed landscape plan submitted. But on item 1, she says that it should have something similar but not that it must. I was wondering is that anticipating what ACHD may be doing in the future and would there be some coordination with them as far as what they would want. I guess relating to the comment that if the road is widened what would be there would be torn out. I don’t know if ACHD Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 51 knows to this point exactly what they will be doing if that could be coordinated with future plans if that would (inaudible). Stiles: The City of Meridian has adopted a standard of 90 foot right of ways on all section line roads as a minimum. Before any occupancy is given for this use or any other use that roadway right of way needs to be dedicated to Ada County Highway District which is 45 feet from the centerline and there shouldn’t any landscaping installed whatsoever within that 45 feet. The 20 feet begins where the right of way ends. Does that answer your question? Borup: And the Highway District wouldn’t be doing any more than the 90 feet? Stiles: Not at this time. That is what they requested just recently across the street on a commercial subdivision. That will accommodate a 5 lane roadway with curb, gutter and sidewalks. Borup: Did you intend for your language to be a little stronger than should that is should say will or will meet this requirement? Stiles: I guess I would like to say shall but I will leave that up to the Commission and Council whether they would mandate that 20 feet at this time. Oslund: I have a question for you, on the other side, on Honor Park that is considered new construction and so they have the ability to meet those standards more readily possibly than this gentleman might. I don’t know his exact situation but let’s just supposing that the location of his building that if he goes out to the 45 foot point the ultimate right of way and then puts in 20 feet of landscaping as we would require here you add all of those numbers up and so form the edge of landscaping to his front door is 9 feet. No place to park makes the situation impossible. What is the process for him to work through that, is that a variance. I am wondering, like I said I don’t know how far it is, I haven’t looked at it. Stiles I wouldn’t know without physically going out and measuring the site. The site plan that we received has no scale that I can, I can’t determine this from this site plan that we have. Oslund: I guess we don’t need to but if we require him to do this say we do the findings and the next time we say this is the deal and he gets into the detailed design of his landscaping and finds that he cannot meet this standard that we have set. Is there a mechanism by which he can get it altered i.e. a variance from Council. Is it, what is his recourse? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 52 Stiles: I don’t think it is our intent to make the site unusable but to have that there, without seeing a landscape plan I can’t answer that. Crookston: Mr. Oslund the 20 feet deal is an ordinance requirement that has been enforced by the City when anybody comes in for a conditional use permit regardless of where the property is located. The City has tried to enforce those particularly on section line roads. There is no doubt it is somewhat of a problem here because Ada County I believe has intentions to widen Franklin. Whether or not that is something that is in the funding process for ACHD I am not aware of, it could be. I think that needs to be considered. If it is in the five year plan, if it is in the 10 year plan that is I think another thing that the City needs to be concerned with. Do they want landscaping there for 10 years. But those are things that the commission needs to be concerned with and if they are ordinance requirements he can request a variance. Johnson: Could you come back up, I have a question or two for you, Brad. This may be in the material but I didn’t pick it up. What would be your proposed hours of operation and also what would you anticipate in terms of numbers of people or students? Miller: My class will begin at 6:30 and the last class will be at approximately 8:30 at night. Johnson: So we are talking 2 hours? Miller: 3, 6:30, 7:30 and 8:30 class. Johnson: Oh, you have 3 different classes. So they are hour classes so the maximum use would be from 6:30 to 9:30 in the evening. How many days a week would that be? Miller: Four Johnson: Is that week days or weekends? Miller: Monday through Thursday. Johnson: So actually your hours of operation would not conflict at all with Mr. Weast because his shop would be closed by then right. Miller: Yes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 53 Johnson: So any required parking I have been over there, there is a minimal amount of parking right in front of the building, you could utilize all of that for drop off or whatever, I am just trying to address the letter as well that we received. How many students would you anticipate, what would be an ideal situation. Miller: It varies, it depends on whether they feel like coming to class that night. Approximately around 10 students to a class on average. Johnson: That is all I had, I should have asked you that earlier. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to make a comment on this application? Weast: As far as parking in front of that building and so forth we are almost 80 feet from the center line of Franklin Road to the building. So if we want to landscape that and you want to pull a crew cab in there you are out of luck. There is just no enough room there to do that. Like I say as far as the letter Crookston: Excuse me, your building is 80 feet from the centerline? Weast: From the centerline of Franklin. As far as this letter I did not receive this letter, the one from the City of Meridian. Johnson: Did you receive it Brad? (Inaudible) Weast: This is all news to me. Johnson: Usually it is mailed or always it is mailed to the applicant is it not? (Inaudible) Weast: Back to this berm deal, I think we have a communication gap here somewhere. Johnson: I am certainly part of that communication gap. Weast: I always thought it was to the east of the building and that was the big deal and so that is what I have been working on. Johnson: Thank you, if there are no other comments then I will close this public hearing. What would the commissioners like to do. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I propose that we table this until the next meeting which is 9-10 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 54 at that time the owner of the property will have a chance to meet with our staff and pound out exactly what material was written for him does say. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second, any discussion? The motion is to table the item until next month. Borup: Is this so the applicant can discuss the landscaping? MacCoy: No, it is to the whole thing, all of the staff comments. He said he never had a chance to read and digest those. So I think we are (inaudible) but to table. Johnson: Okay are we read for a vote, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT BY CHRIS MALLANE: Johnson: I will now open the public hearing and invite the representative to address the Commission. Pete Rockwell, 713 Elwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rockwell: I have a drawing, shall I put that up on the easel here? (Inaudible) Johnson: Is that an enlargement of what we have? Rockwell: Yes, just walk you through this thing a little bit if you are not familiar with it. This piece of property is on East Fairview and corner of Hickory Way. There is a Capital Christian Church which I believe is adjacent to that. This piece of property is 7 acres. We are requesting a conditional use to build two restaurants on the southwest corner of the property. We have access in off of Fairview according to Ada County Highway District regulations and we have shared access at 2 points off of Hickory Way. Hickory Way goes back to residential subdivision back here. This property is zoned LO and adjacent property just to the west is zoned RT. Right now the only restaurant that is planned is an 8000 square foot Louie’s restaurant. We want to plan also a restaurant that would compliment that like a Pancake house or something like that (inaudible). There is still (inaudible) on the site and we are trying (inaudible). This preliminary plan is intended to comply with both the requirements of the City of Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 55 Meridian and Ada County Highway District (inaudible). We agree with most of the recommendations of the staff report. There is one thing on Bruce Freckleton’s report that I have a question about, I just don't’ understand it exactly and that is number 7. Which talks about constructing acceleration and deceleration lanes and curb and sidewalk and gutter. We are not clear as to whose responsibility that would be or should be on this project. Let’s see, there is also a traffic light planned for the corner of Hickory and East Fairview that we are required to put some money up towards and in fact we would like to accelerate that because the traffic light would make things better for this business and for the neighborhood there. So, that is all that i have to say. We would request your approval of that conditional use and I would like to answer any questions if anybody has any or anybody in the audience. MacCoy: What is your seating capacity in Louie’s restaurant? Rockwell: 250 maximum (inaudible) MacCoy: Any place for a conference section be able to (inaudible) any place to be sectioned off for special meetings or smaller meetings? (Inaudible) Rockwell: It is intended that there be different banquet facilities and maybe some modified ones so you could have smaller groups of 10 people in there and also some larger groups of up to 30 so that it could also be used for regular seating when there are not meetings scheduled. MacCoy: We are in great need for that in this City. Rockwell: We realize that (inaudible) Crookston: I have a question, you said that there were going to be two restaurants, is this conditional use permit for two restaurants or is it for one being Louie’s? Rockwell: We would like it to encompass two restaurants. Crookston: But you don’t know what the other restaurant is. Rockwell: We don’t know what the other one is we are looking for another one right now, a compatible one. (End of Tape) Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 56 Borup: You had mentioned item 7 from Bruce Freckleton on the acceleration and deceleration lanes, were there any other items between the two City ones and ACHD? Rockwell: Well there was one from ACHD that we had talked with at the preliminary meeting with them where they wanted I think it was $3200 towards the traffic light. That was for both restaurants and if we wanted to pay those in installments of $1600 and that was agreeable with them. That was the only other thing that I noticed in there. Borup: Was there any discussion with ACHD on the added lanes at all? Rockwell: They said that they were planning Fairview to be a seven lane road. That is their plan. So they were already thinking that way with the acceleration and deceleration lanes on there. So we had always considered that as something that was inevitably coming. That is why this item 7 is, I am not sure who Bruce is suggesting these deceleration (inaudible) if he is saying we should be building those lanes or ACHD should. Borup: So this site already takes in account allowing for the wider Rockwell: Yes, they asked for an extra 4 feet of right of way along there and we have (inaudible) Johnson: Just a comment, you introduction was, with respect to zoning I don’t think was accurate, you mentioned something about an RT zoning, we do not have RT zoning in the City of Meridian, that is a county zoned and this is all zoned LO from our records, the way I indicate it. Well you may have been looking at an old zoning map or something from the County, I just wanted to correct you on that item. That Rural Transition zoning doesn’t exist, we don’t have it as part of one of our zones, otherwise we couldn’t be doing a conditional use permit we would have to annex it first and it has already been annexed. Any other comments? MacCoy: You show four spaces for handicapped (inaudible) first place for Louie’s that you are complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rockwell: Our intent is that we will comply with it, one of Shari’s comments was that we needed two more for the number of parking spaces that we had. MacCoy: Yes I was going to bring that up, then over on the other one that has no designation whatsoever, accept just a restaurant you don’t have any handicapped parking over there. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 57 Rockwell: No, I am just trying to show a concept of what we intend to do. The basic size of it and we still have to find the other people that want to run a restaurant there and coordinate their needs but we would be providing the handicapped parking spaces. MacCoy: So you would come back with that then? Rockwell: Yes, building permit we will have all of that stuff taken care of including the detailed landscaping and what we are doing with the irrigation and site utilities and all of that. MacCoy: What kind of signage are you planning on putting up here, big, small, lighted, what? Rockwell: We haven’t really talked about signage yet. MacCoy: You realize that has to go through here also. The reason I bring that up (inaudible) Rockwell: (Inaudible) Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, this is a public hearing, is there anyone else that would like to address us on this issue? Corey Grant, 2505 E. Grapewood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Grant: Basically I just have a few questions in reference to this drawing. We received a sketch basically in the mail, I will say a month ago, three weeks. It wasn’t as detailed, actually the arrow was on the other side of the street in front of Capital Christian on the drawing that I got, it didn’t really go across this lot. So I have a few questions, I am not really here to debate whether the restaurant should go there or not. I know something is going to have to go there eventually, I am not saying that I am voting for the restaurant but I (inaudible) my question is I will speak loud. Are you guys basically purchasing the whole lot here that is vacant to put the two restaurants or is it only this section? Rockwell: It is the whole property with the exception of this point up here on the end. Grant: So you are getting all of that, and you said that you have entrances both from Hickory. Now my complaint for the Commission would be that Hickory is basically a two lane street and to have commercial traffic trying to use Hickory to try and go in and out of this establishment would really be detrimental to Dove Meadows for the simple fact that Dove Meadows is one way in and one way out. So residents don’t have another Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 58 way to avoid traffic coming in and out of Louie’s or whatever other restaurant would be placed here. Also my concern would be the sign because I live on Grapewood which is the street that is right behind this property. So maybe the noise factor, I don’t know what you guys have in store for that. We didn’t get any more than basically a sketch saying that there would be a meeting tonight. There is a large sign, I would basically get the light because my backyard is about here. So I am going to be fairly close the the restaurant. Again the traffic in Hickory would be congestive, I assume you guys operate on Sunday also, you have Capital Christian here which they do a lot of parking basically on this street area. So on Sundays you have traffic coming in and out of these two exits along with cars from the church here that can also get a little hazardous shall I say. So those are some of the concerns that I think at least need to be looked at or addressed for granting use of this. Like I said I realize something has to go there, the property is there and somebody has to sell it that is the American way. But again with my property being on this first street and on the south side I am really going to be affected by whatever goes there. I just want to make sure that these things are addressed because I had been here prior (inaudible) which he still hasn’t done what he should have done. So I am really concerned, this is my first home and I don’t want to lose too much money on it. Basically that is all I have to say. Johnson: I appreciate your comments, it does appear that the original sketch that you got was incorrect in terms of the arrow, we got a copy of that too and unless I am reading it wrong. Anyone else? Any questions from staff from anyone? Hearing none I will close the public hearing. What would you like to do, this is a conditional use permit request. Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that direct Counsel to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded that we have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUM BY BOISE VALLEY CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask that the applicant or the representative address the Commission. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 59 Charles Eddy, 4345 South Timridge Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eddy: First I have some pictures for you of the proposed site. I will pass those around. This site is located in Section 6, T.3N, R.1E, which is generally located about a 1/4 mile north of the existing Cherry Plaza mall. It is a resubdivision of Bridgewood Park Subdivision, it is a resubdivision of Block 1. The original subdivision was done in 1994 as a 12 lot subdivision. Currently there are 12 four unit apartments on each parcel. The existing zoning is R-15 and the comp plan designates this area as an urban development. The applicant is requesting to resubdivided these current lots into condominium lots, this is allowed through the conditional use application in an R-15 zone. As I said before the building are already existent on the property, services are currently there, there is an improved street with curb gutter and sidewalk that runs through the property. The property directly north of it is newly developed apartments, property directly west is existing apartments that have been there for quite a number of years. The property to the south is currently under develop as what looks like single family development. This development will not add any new services to the current system, everything has been served with water and sewer. As I said before the roads had been improved. What the applicant is looking to do is take the current four unit apartments that are on the parcel and create condominiums which would allow either the current renters to purchase these units or any other parties that would be interested in purchasing a condominium unit. I would like to address some comments that were in the staff report. Item 1 restates what I have told you. Item 2 we submitted a copy of the covenants and restrictions with the application and you should have that in your file. Item 3 the planting of additional trees the applicant doesn’t have a problem with the planting of additional trees on the site. The pictures will depict that there are some trees that have already been planted on the site. Item 4, constructing the 12 foot wide gravel access road over existing sewer. That has been done, there was 18 inches of gravel that were poured onto the site and then 3 inches of top soil were put on top of that and grass was planted. So it is there it is just that right now it is landscaped over for aesthetics. If the City would require that grass be removed and the gravel exposed that can be done. Item 5, there is a problem with the existing stone water system. However that is Ada County Highway District under their maintenance now the applicant wishes ACHD would resolve the problem with the standing water. As I interpret the comment from staff it is making a point that the applicant should resolve it and it is at least in my opinion difficult for him to resolve it when it is not under his control. He has been in discussion with ACHD to try and get it resolved and it is my understanding that they have been working on it along with Briggs Engineering to try and alleviate the problem of the standing water. That is all for the comments. Just general comments on how this will affect the City, the City of Meridian it is difficult to find an entry level affordable housing for people trying to buy their first home. What this will allow people to do is come in and purchase a condominium at a very Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 60 reasonable rate of between $60,000 and $70,000, turn them from being renters into property tax payers and make them a part of the community. As you can see from the pictures the site is already very well maintained. As people become homeowners it will continued to be maintained in that manner as well as probably increase because they will have a definite interest in the aesthetics of their area. There will be a homeowners association that will maintain the common areas throughout the subdivision. The association will be managed by a company by the name of American Management Inc. They will take care of providing the maintenance for the property, collecting the dues from the homeowners and making sure what might be missed by the homeowners is picked up by themselves. A technical note that I missed, the R-15 zone allows for a minimum of 2400 square feet of lot per dwelling unit. This particular development has 48 dwelling units on it at 3.1 acres which equates out to 2795 square feet per unit which is well above the required 2400. Are there any questions? MacCoy: Yes, on the map you gave us here, number one I have been out on the site and I commend you for your upkeep of the place. I was expecting something else and I was very much pleased to see that we had in our town our City here a well kept place of this type. You show 12 buildings, are all 12 of these going to be the condominium complex? Eddy: Yes they are, there are 12 four unit buildings (inaudible). MacCoy: And you are saving the center section for some future Eddy: That is owned by separate individuals it is not owned by the current applicant. MacCoy: That is interesting, it is kind of a strange way to break things up. Eddy: I think there are future plans to try and follow this although (inaudible) separate application. I would like to add that the developer has been approved for a ten year warranty on all of the buildings. So when the buildings are sold as condominiums the ten year warranty will go with it and that is a warranty on structural or any type of mechanical problems that might occur. That warranty travels with the building so if it transfers five times it will transfer to each of the five owners. And also the developer is creating financing to where it is possible if the homeowner is unable to come up with a down they would be able to move into the developments with zero down. MacCoy: I had another question but I can’t think of it right now. Borup: Do you know what warranty company that was? Eddy: It is by the same management company called American Management Inc. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 61 Borup: Do they have a separate homeowners warranty? Eddy: It is HBW Borup: I guess I had, one concern was on the storm water problem, you mentioned it, how do you control, it sounds like it is something that needs to be addressed by somebody at some time. Has there been any in your discussions any recommendations on what can be done or any possible solutions to come up with? Eddy: What the problem as occurred from I believe the development to the north, through their process of building, a lot of the silt came into the storm drain system. It is my impression that Briggs Engineering which was involved in designing this storm drain system and also ACHD are currently working on remedying, they have been pumping the system to alleviate any type of water problems that have been occurring. So they are addressing the problem. Borup: It sounds like the problem has been coming from the other development with silt build up you say? Eddy: That is my understanding. Borup: So you don’t know whether they are, are they looking at some other settling tanks in there to remove that first? Eddy: Remove it Borup: To remove the silt Eddy: (Inaudible) I am not an engineer so I can’t give you the technical specifications on what they are trying to do. I know they are trying to alleviate the problem. Borup: You mentioned you were in agreement with planting some additional trees, I don’t know, I assume at some time a landscaping plan will need to be turned in or how many trees will have to be determined at some point. Eddy: I guess that would be determined by staff since they made the recommendation on how many additional they would like to see. Borup: I assume them on the gravel what you said is already in (inaudible) visual inspection it wasn’t obvious so I don’t know if staff, I don’t know if (inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 62 Eddy: What it is is 3 inches of top soil (inaudible) staff would like to walk the site I am sure we could expose it form them. Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you Mr. Eddy, anyone else like to come before the Commission this evening on this? Tony Drost, 10336 W. Silver City, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Drost: I am a property owner of two of the four plexes within the center that is not shown on this application. There are three other, excuse me two other owners, I don’t have the lot and block, if we look at it as 6, the upper left, that is a separate owner and three at the end of the horseshoe. We plan to, I plan to discuss with the other owners with the help of the developer to ride their coattails in on this as well. There is a storm drain, I have talked to Ada County Highway District myself as a property owner concerned. They said they already have got several contingency plans in place, it is just a matter of choosing the proper one the least expensive was going to cause the most problems with the current tenants an what not. If there is a problem with water on the street Ada County Highway is draining and the current management company is draining it if Ada County does not respond. I of course am in favor of this as an investor, this will increase the property value, it will also as far as aesthetics in the complex right now you have a tenant base you will have property owners, property owners will show much more concern about their property so I think it will be a good thing for Meridian. Johnson: Thank you Tony, anyone else? Eddy: I just have one more thing, what I wanted to do was restate that AMI is not American Management Incorporated but Association Management Incorporated, that is all I wanted to say. Johnson: Okay, any questions? Anybody else that would like to talk to us this evening about anything? Keith had some comments that you may want to address and you were here, you were taking a break there. Can you state those quickly? Borup: Yes, items 3 and 4 on your comments. One was just requiring additional trees, the question was whether you would be getting together with them as far as how many and or have them submit a landscaping plan and then approve that. The other was on the gravel, he stated the gravel road was already in and they just put sod over the top, I didn’t know if you were needing some additional verification of that too. Stiles: On item 3 I guess I would like to plant additional trees. They do have trees there, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 63 they were probably quite small when they were planted. The main concern is along James Court where there doesn’t seem to be anything but open grass and we received a letter from the developer of Aspen Hills Apartments concerned that they had done some extensive landscaping along that collector road and would like to see something similar done across the street. On item 4 that is something that Bruce came up with that was from the original subdivision. I guess I would have to ask him if that is going to work for them. Did you say, how much top soil. Eddy: It is an 18 inch gravel base with 3 inches of top soil on top of it. Stiles: I will let Bruce know that and see if that is adequate for them. Johnson: Is that all you had Keith? Borup: Yes Johnson: Anyone else? If not I will close the public hearing at this time. This is a preliminary plat only that we are addressing right now. So this does not require findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend approval of the preliminary plat for item 11 for the Bridgewood Condominium. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and second to approve the preliminary plat for Bridgewood Condominium by Boise Valley Construction, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUM BY BOISE VALLEY CONSTRUCTION: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Eddy to return to the podium, do you have any additional comments at this time. Charles Eddy, 4345 S. Timridge Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eddy: I would like to have the comments that I made from the previous testimony be incorporated into this application as well. Are there any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 64 Johnson: Thank you, any questions of Mr. Eddy on the conditional use permit? Thank you, anyone else that would like to address the Commission on this application? Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This is a conditional use permit so we do need findings of facts. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we have findings of fact and conclusions of law written for item 12 Bridgewood Condominium. Oslund: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for item 12 on our agenda, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Oslund: Mr. Chairman, I move that the meeting be adjourned. MacCoy: Second Johnson: Motion and a second to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:23 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission August 13, 1996 Page 65