HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-8-98 P&Z Item PacketMERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING: September 8. 1998
APPLICANT: DAKOTA COMPANY ITEM NUMBER: 9
REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY:
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
COMMENTS
SEE ATTACHED MINUTES 08/11/98
SEE ATTACHED LETTERS SUBMITTED BY
SEVERAL INTERESTED PARTIES
CITY WATER DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
MERIDIAN POST OFFICE:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE:
P�
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: Y
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:01,
SETTLERS IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
US WEST:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION:
OTHER:
All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
ru !
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 20
Cartwright: No statements, just request for the outside seating.
MacCoy: Commissioners you have anything you want to say to him or ask him?
De Weerd: I have none.
Smith: Looks good tome.
Borup: Any staff comments? Everything fine there?
Nelson: I have no comments.
MacCoy: All right you may sit down thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to
make a statement for or against the seating at Starbuck's location? Having none, I'm
going to close the public hearing.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we direct the city attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIE: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 6: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA COMPANY — SE
CORNER OF EAGLE AND FAIRVIEW:
Smith: Mr. Chairman before we get started I'd like to make a matter of public record
what I stated at the beginning of this meeting and what I just gave Mr. Bradbury such a
hard time about is here we are again reviewing a project that we haven't received on
iota of information on since the last meeting, and I don't know why we even got it on the
agenda. We haven't been — had anything submitted to allow us to review and digest.
MacCoy: You raise a very good point, Commissioner Smith.
De Weerd: We did read in the paper though that they met with the subdivision.
MacCoy: Well my comment before anybody starts speaking so that we all have the
same reference there, there's been a lot of press on this issue. And if you have read
either the local paper or our Idaho paper, you've got a pretty good feel for it, and if
you've had your public meetings internally in your housing area, I'm sure that's a help.
•
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 21
Since this is a continued public hearing we have a lot on record already we'd like and
request that you keep everything brief and we are giving you fifteen minutes at most to
do the pitch and hopefully we'll get this thing moved on.
Borup: Mr. Chairman would it be appropriate for us to reiterate the items that we felt we
tabled this meeting for.
MacCoy: Probably be a very good idea Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I'm not sure if we need to rehash stuff.
MacCoy: You want to read those off?
Borup: I'm not sure if I've got them all and staff maybe able — in my notes the one
request we had for the developer was to meet with the neighborhood regarding
buffering between the development and their neighborhood. I think that was probably
the major one. We had asked that they submit their responses to staff comments in
writing. And there was some discussion about — I don't know Commissioner Smith, you
may elaborate a little bit. We talked about parking lot additional landscaping, but I don't
know if we had anything specific other than —
Smith: Ask for more.
Borup: Then I believe there was still some issue and staff may want to elaborate on
that is landscaping along Eagle and Fairview. As far as I know those are issues we felt
that we were going to be covering here tonight.
MacCoy: What about the buffer zone between the —
Borup: That was the first thing I mentioned. Yeah, and I felt that was number one.
Does anybody else have anything else to add?
De Weerd: No, I think you summarized it very well.
Borup: Did staff have anything they would like to add?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, in regards to the issue of written
response that was a suggestion that I had made during the public hearing. The
applicant addressed each of the comments. Commission elected not to follow my
suggestion and I believe that Mr. Durkin's responses were entered into record and that
was how it was left.
Borup: Okay, thank you for the clarification.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 22
LARRY SALE ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 318 E. 37TH STREET BOISE WAS
SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission for the record my name is Larry Sale.
I'm supervisor of planning and development for the Ada County Highway District. I'm
pleased to meet with you. Some of you I'm meeting for the first time. I hope to change
that in the near future. I have a very short statement, .and some of it is overstating the
obvious. But this is a very major project. It has very major ramifications on the facts on
the transportation system. The Highway District staff has not finished it's review of
those impacts and thus we have not been able to forward a report to you or even to our
commission. If you chose to have those comments prior to your making a decision, that
will be a couple of weeks before we have those to you. If you wish to take action on the
application tonight and forward it to the City Council I would ask that you adopt a
requirement that the developer be required to comply with all requirements of the Ada
County Highway District. I need to warn you that those maybe major also, those
requirements may match the magnitude of the project. For beginners we will be forced
to acquire substantial area of right-of-way at the intersection of Eagle Road and
Fairview for a future interchange. And there is still some doubt as to whether or not the
intersection can be modified sufficiently to accommodate the traffic that will be
generated. There's an old adage in the transportation business that if you throw
enough money at anything it will go away. And I suppose that applies here, but it will be
a very expensive mitigation requirement that the project will have. That's the end of my
statement. Does the commission have any questions of me?
Borup: Maybe a couple. The last letter we had from ACHD is that the staff will be
reviewing that July 20th, so you are saying this is still be continued from — I believe that's
the correct date.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, would you repeat the last part of your
question?
Borup: Essentially we expected to have an answer by now. The letter had indicated
that ACHD staff would be meeting on July 20th. Did they in fact meet on that date and
you are saying it's just taking longer or are you saying you need more time because you
didn't do what you said you was going to do.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, perhaps a little of all of the above. In fact
staff has met a few times on the application at least twice with the applicant. We had
requested additional information from the traffic engineer. Some information was
submitted. We requested more information from the traffic engineer, and I think we
finally have a response to our questions. We have elected to retain a traffic engineer by
the Highway District to examine the project, and the result of that analysis I hope will be
0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 23
complete next week. Following the receipt of those comments by a separate traffic
engineer, we'll formulate a report to our commission and it will go to our commission
probably the first Wednesday in September.
Borup: By traffic engineer you are referring to the engineer the applicant hired.
Sale: The first part of my comments, Mr. Borup, I was referring to a report submitted by
a traffic engineer employed by the developer. The second part of my comments were
intended to convey the information that the Highway District has retained separately
retained a traffic engineer.
Borup: Okay, that was my understanding, but the engineer that you requested more
information from that was the applicant's engineer?
Sale: Yes, that's correct.
Borup: You said the major issue was probably going to be the intersection widening,
that's still what you would consider — any other short brief concerns at this point other
than that?
Sale: An issue that we have to look at a time like this is how much of the future capacity
of a facility one application uses up. We can add lane to that intersection and
accommodate this traffic and some significant traffic into the future, but sooner or later
there's a limit to the number of lanes we can add to the intersection and the affects of
that limitation on the long term future traffic of ten years hence or longer. So that we
can accommodate the project and other growth for some short period of time. We don't
know if we can accommodate a twenty year period of growth for example.
Borup: Are you looking at perhaps future development on the other intersection
corners? Is that what a concern would be?
Sale: Not only on the other corners of the intersection, but regional growth as well. We
have to accommodate the overall growth, the long term growth, of traffic on Fairview
and traffic on Eagle obviously Eagle is a state highway. So we don't have jurisdiction
over that. Those are the issues that we're going to have to address to the satisfaction
of our commissioners and prior to finalizing a recommendation to you.
Borup: Thank you. That's all I had Mr. Chairman.
Sale: Thank you for letting me —
Smith: Mr. Sale, what capacity are we running Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue at
now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 24
Sale: Commissioner Smith, I can't answer that question. I don't have that information
with me.
Smith: Do you have knowledge of how many years down the Eagle Road was planned
for five lanes because it seems to me being a major north/south corridor through the
valley off of 1-84 connecting on to Idaho 55 that five lanes is a pretty short time frame if
that's going to be adequate to handle the traffic because Eagle Road is going to be
especially between the interstate and Fairview is going to be fully developed very
shortly and I would imagine that will connect down the Eagle eventually, and I'm just
curious as an independent party here what kind of projections were used to plan that
road.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, unfortunately none of us are individual
agents, we all are part of the problem and part of the solution. The state is overwhelmed
by the increase in traffic on Eagle Road. Traffic for the first, I guess it's been open five
years, and it's averaging about 20% of growth in traffic per year. Now that's distorted
somewhat because of its newness. It obviously is going to grow. It's traffic is obviously
going to grow much faster than an established route. But the capacity of a five lane
roadway that we prefer not to exceed is somewhere around 30,000 trips a day, and I
believe back to my affirmation this is to the best of my recollection and it may be wrong
but the traffic information up further south up near the interstate is exceeding 20,000
trips a day now.
Smith: Thank you.
Sale: Sorry I don't have a better answer.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, just for a clarification if Commissioner Smith recalls Mr. Sale is
correct that the traffic numbers — the project just south of there that the Eagle Partners
is being considered, the traffic numbers are I believe your recollection is correct, it's
about 22,000 is the current traffic on that road.
MacCoy: Before you leave here, any other questions from the other commissioners?
Thank you very much. Okay is the applicant ready to come back up and make a
statement.
LARRY DURKIN 380 E. PARK CENTER BOULEVARD BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman, it's going to be very difficult for me to respond to the comments,
questions and concerns expressed at the last meeting and on our follow up meeting,
and to respond to Mr. Sale's comments for a 45 —50 million dollar shopping center of
0 •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 25
this magnitude in fifteen minutes, and before I start my presentation I know that you
have some agenda problems and some different things, but it's unfair to me as an
applicant. I think it's unfair to you as commissioners and it's unfair to the hundred of
people in this room tonight to expect me to jam that much information in that short of a
period of time.
MacCoy: Let me clarify that. As the applicant we have given the carte blanche across
the line and said everybody fifteen minutes. You have need for more, then I'd ask you
that you would estimate it what it would be and the commissioners would have to agree
to that.
Durkin: I estimate that my comments in total with my prepared remarks and questions
will take about forty minutes.
MacCoy: Any comment from the commissioners?
Smith: Let's get started.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. I'm the president of Dakota Company, Inc. I'm here
tonight on behalf of developers diversified Family Centers, Inc. I'm seeking your
approval for a conditional use permit for our shopping center project at Eagle and
Fairview. During the last meeting I explained the plan at length and I'll do so again
tonight should you wish. Of course I'll answer any questions you about the plan. At the
last meeting many people testified that they have no notice or knowledge of a shopping
center plan for this site. They said that the realtor told them of other uses, yet not one
person identified the name of the company of the realtor that made those claims. I ask
you tonight that if you have this type of testimony, I'd request that you ask the person to
identify both the real estate agent's name and the company. Because it is something I
would pass along to the real estate commission. The changes in the site plan that we
discussed at the last meeting, we discussed with about 50 residents or so that attended
a meeting in this room. We talked about landscape buffers along the adjacent parcels.
We talked about changing the landscape berm area. I don't know if you can see the
plan here. But we talked about changing the landscape berm area along Eagle and
Fairview Avenue. But we made some changes. As a result of that meeting, we
immediately the next day we got with our landscape architect, and I'm going to just walk
over and point those out on the plan. The adjacent residents a number of them were at
the meeting and other people from the shopping center so as far as the buffering and
the —
Nelson: Excuse me, sir. Can we make that available to more of the public?
Durkin: I will make it more available to more of the public after I make it available to you
first. I'll turn it around.
0 •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 26
Nelson: I mean you are explaining an awful lot of stuff visually and if there's any way to
push it back a little bit.
Borup: But I think it's our responsibility as commissioners, we need to see it.
Nelson: Yes, I want to see it too. I've been vented on in the past by people who say
they can't see what's going on.
Durkin: For the people in the audience my first responsibility tonight is to explain it to
the commission, so I am going to address my comments here and everything will be
available for you to look at but as an applicant that's my responsibility is that — is that
fair?
MacCoy: That's correct.
Durkin: After our meeting with the adjacent residents we made changes to the plan in
an effort to address the concerns stated both at the public hearing and at the meeting
with the residents. Now you may recall the first plan we submitted there was a ten foot
buffer area along the back of the project. We have been able to increase that to 20 feet
instead of ten feet. We committed to do so at the meeting, and in fact the meeting with
the residents that was a strong desire of theirs at the very least to do that. But in doing
so it had another benefit. I think I expressed to you last time a concern we had in trying
to find a place for all of the trees. We have now been able to exceed the landscape
ordinance and the suggestions in the staff report for the tree plantings. By increasing
this width we are planting a solid wall of trees and our suggestion is going to be a
combination of pine trees and other so year round it will block and I want to clarify the
word block but it will soften the impact of the center. I know of no plantings that I can do
that will hide the shopping center. I know of no wall or fence that I can construct that
will hide the shopping center. The offer is still out for the adjacent residents. Nobody
had contacted me or talked to me about, but it there's a type of species that anyone's
interested in, we're more than willing to do that. Another concern as it relates to
landscaping that was expressed in the staff report was the berm area and buffer area
along Fairview and Eagle. What we have done in the previous plan, we had a 20 foot
berm area that was landscaped. Half of that was on the Highway District right-of-way.
Half of that was on our property. Both on Fairview and on Eagle. We've now moved
that entire berm on to our property, so we have a 20 foot berm on our property and then
in addition there is for the time being there's improved area of landscaped area that
would be on the state highway property and on ACHD property. Those are the two
significant landscape changes that we made. In addition if I can just point to this area of
the plan, you may recall from my last presentation that this area that we call parcel five,
this is an entertainment area. We have a theater planned here, and some other
entertainment uses. The plan that we had originally drawn had a driveway access
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 27
going back here. We have eliminated that, and we've substantially increased the
landscape. No more will fit in that area, but we've really secluded that so if there are
people here, this will be the area of the plan that would have more late night or later in
the evening type of activity and their access here was a concern for these residents, so
that's been eliminated, and the access now will go out to there. I might ask you to hold
that up again, but for right now, you can give your arm a rest. As I stated the change
will not hide the buildings, but it will soften the look of the buildings from the homes that
are adjacent to the property. In the last public hearing there was discussion about a
block wall versus a wood fence. I made every effort at the last meeting to convince you
that a block wall or a masonry wall is less desirable. It causes an echo, and I asked
some of you to go look at some of the other ones around. I think that some of the staff
did that, but I don't know if you had a chance to do that. But the semi trucks and
delivery trucks 13 feet 6 inches high and a wall that would be higher enough to block
those from a sound standpoint right on someone's backyard would be a huge barrier
along the property. I want to state tonight our interest is to keep the project moving
forward. If you require us to build a masonry wall, we'll build a masonry wall, but I want
to be on record with you that I don't think it's a good idea based on my experience in
other developments. I'm skipping pages here. Another concern was traffic. As I stated,
we submitted a traffic study to ACHD. We've answered the questions that they've
asked us. But we found other this past month that the adjacent subdivision was
designed and approved with the expectation that there would be an 800,000 square foot
development on this corner. Now the concern came up would people be leaving the
shopping center and driving through the subdivision. Well in fact when the subdivision
was designed and approved by ACHD and by the city, that was a concern and the
streets I'm told and from the minutes and references that 1 can find were designed to
accommodate an 800,000 square foot development on this corner. I have a traffic study
that I'm going to hand to you that was submitted on October 18, 1993. It was submitted
to Ada County Highway District and to the City of Meridian, but before I hand it to you I
just want to read for the record for everyone in the audience I don't have enough to
hand out, "Evaluated in this report are the traffic impacts associated with the
development of a mixed use commercial and residential development at the intersection
of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road. Crossroad Subdivision is a mixed use
development proposing 256 single family residential lots, and an 800,000 square foot
retail, commercial and general office use center. The residential lots will be developed
between 2994 and 1997, and the commercial area will be built over a period of 12
years." The idea that this shopping center is a surprise to the adjacent property owners,
I can't help that. But there's been as far as the city is concerned as far as Ada County
Highway District's been concerned and as far as the state's been concerned, that
planning information the size, the number of lots, that's been a matter of record for
some time. Since you have those reports now in front of you, if I could just ask you to
go back to the very back two pages, there's figure four and figure eight that are the
same. I call your attention to figure four, I'm sorry to state they are not exactly the
same. Figure four has a little bit more detail as it relates to Pine Street, and I think it's
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 28
more appropriate. But the subdivision I'm told and from my viewing, the subdivision has
been built in accordance with the plan that you have here. You can see the roads are
built in that way. The only changes two changes have come to just jump out at me.
The street that we now know as Records Drive, where we're installing a signal, on this
plan that was submitted it was named Reagan Drive. That intersects on to Fairview so
if that helps you with your bearings, that is now Records Drive. The other street is
Congressional Drive that comes on to Eagle. That was not constructed. We are not
proposing to construct it. And from what I've been able to gather that was a concern
that would in fact cause traffic into the subdivision. So that street's gone from the
project forever and it's not one that we are proposing in any of our plans. But there are
certain things that we can do and try to develop a nice shopping center, but when
people have — I guess I just wanted to point out with this plan, this study that this has
been a matter of public record for some time and I apologize for the surprise by
everyone. We are moving faster than the 12 years. Another comment and suggestion
that I made at the last meeting was as it relates to the ACHD approval process. We're
aware, we've done a lot of these centers. We've another one in Meridian right about a
mile west of here and we're aware of requirement to go through the ACHD process. I
stated last time on the record and I'll restate it again tonight we are seeking approval
tonight in order to keep our process moving and our designs and our planning moving,
and we will commit to you tonight to abide by the conditions imposed on us by ACHD.
Mr. Sale is cautioning that that's going to be expensive and we know that it will be. A
rough estimate our impact fee alone for this shopping center will exceed two million
dollars. So we understand the scale and the scope of what we're getting involved in.
Another discussion we had last time were the interior landscape islands. For the record
I have Tom Bowens is prop man. I don't know if that's necessary to have on record.
I'm going to pass this around to you and I'll make it available to all of the audience in a
moment. I am not a fan of interior landscape islands. I'm not a fan for one reason and
one reason only. I think the idea is that an interior landscape island is beautiful and
provides shade. I had a couple of people go around town and gave them cameras and
said go take pictures of interior islands, and I'll pass those photos so you can get a
closer look, but you'll see there's some photos on here from the Shopko Shopping
Center at Fairview and Milwaukee Street. That center was built in 1986. The trees
were built and installed at that time, and those trees that are shown here are the original
trees. So I don't know how many years that is later, but they are not providing shade,
and they are not providing beauty. If we could emphasize the perimeter they have a
larger area to operate in and they will develop and grow beautifully, but when we put
them in the middle of a parking lot, they don't have a chance and I just have some
photos that I'll show and that can go on the record, but again I want to state tonight, if
you require internal landscape islands, we'll build them, but I want the record to show
that in my opinion they don't provide the beauty and the shade that some of you may in
mind. The photos of the Target Store on Milwaukee Street where these trees were
planted in November of 1988, Circuit City has planted in the fall of 1997. The Wal-Mart
were planted in the spring of 1996. The Shopko, Fairview Avenue Store planted in July
0 0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 29
of 1986. And there's another one of the Shopko trees as well, but I think it will show that
they had not developed fully and that they are sickly looking, and they don't provide the
beauty and shade, so I will pass this along and I will leave it will Will. The last meeting
there was a great deal of discussion about the noise that this shopping center would
cause. We have agreed to sign the back of the shopping center with quiet signs
requiring trucks to turn off their engines during certain hours. We have gone around the
city again. Actually it was the same group that was taking the landscape photos. And
they took photos of the hours of operation that are posted on the backs of a number of
buildings in the Boise area. I think it's important that you know that these are similar
types of uses that we are planning here. But in addition we've agreed to have the
following restrictions in our conditional use permit. We will restrict the sweeping of the
shopping center, which from my experience is the noisiest of any of the operations. We
restrict that between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. I'd like to just be completely
frank with you tonight. You'll find that the earlier hours are more desirable to the
sweeping people than the later, so you could expect that more likely to occur closer to
7:30, 8:00 to 9:00 in the morning versus later in the afternoon. But no sweeping will
occur at the shopping center after 3:00 p.m. The trash pick up for the compactors and
the dumpsters on the premises will be restricted from the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 3:00
p.m. Snow removal will occur when necessary. (End of Tape)
Durkin: The photos that I've taken are from the Shopko, the Broadway Avenue
receiving. Their hours are 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. It's posted on the receiving door. The
South Shore Albertson's this is in southeast Boise at Apple and Park Center. This is a
typical sign that's posted along the back of that. It's a sound restricted area. Tum off
engines and refrigeration units. This is a typical photo I think that you would find typical.
It's the Shopko loading dock area. This is taken at 11:00 a.m. in the morning. There's
an empty trailer parked there, but no activity. Linens and Things which is a mall area
store it's a fairly new opening. They have their hours posted 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The
South Shore Albertson's and again as I stated at the last public hearing the earliest
hours of loading dock operations are going to be for your food stores. Their hours of
operation for their receiving are 4:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. And again the reason the early
hours as I testified last time the early deliveries are the vendor trucks. They are the
small vehicles. I don't believe they actually occur at 4:30, but they may. But they don't
occur after 12:00 p.m. The Target Store at Milwaukee Street, their posted receiving
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. K -mart loading dock, this is just another typical
photo. This is taken at 10:30 a.m. There is no activity there. The Wal-Mart Store out
on I think it's Overland, their receiving hours are 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the Shopko
at Fairview and Milwaukee Street there posted receiving hours are 9:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m.
The receiving hours and the receiving noise is a concern, a common concern, to local
residents. My experience in developing more than a hundred and fifty such centers,
although I admit this is by far the largest one, but most of my projects are discount
store, grocery store type of operation. My experience is that after the first few weeks of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 30
operation when the hours are posted and when the regular delivery people understand
what's going on, it's not an issue. An issue that continues after that time are grocery
store trucks, leaving their refrigeration units on. This center will be patrolled. We'll have
on staff property management people. It will be signed. The grocery store coming in is
brand new to the market. They are open six days a week, closed on Sundays. I don't
have any reason to believe that they won't strictly enforce the signage and the deliveries
and the refrigeration trucks, but if they did not enforce that, we would be enforcing that
as property managers. It wouldn't typically be something that the Meridian Police would
be called on, but if there was a serious problem, that may have to happen. I'm ready to
just move through a couple of specific comments that I had on the traffic report that I
wanted to ask you about. Before I do that are there any questions of me as far as the
shopping center plan, the changes that we've made or any of those comments?
MacCoy: Commissioners, anything you want to say?
Borup: I got a few. I don't know if this is the time to do it or want to wait a little bit.
Durkin: All right as I stated last time on the record, the staff report it was discussed
about submitting written comments, but through meeting with the residents and meeting
with staff, we've reduced those to a very few concerns instead of a great number. And I
would like to just touch on those right now. Under the site specific comment section of
the staff report, item eight and ten have been addressed by me tonight, and I would
request a modification consistent with the plans that we have shown tonight and
submitted to Shari, and I really didn't hear the earlier comments about when things get
submitted. I was out in the hall. I couldn't hear what you were saying, but I want to tell
that — we had the meeting with the residents at the earliest possible time. We met with
our landscape architect the following morning, and these plans finished the machines at
about 3:30 this afternoon. So we did everything as fast as we could. And we delivered
the plans to Shari this evening, so she's just gotten them. Item number 12, the
reference to a masonry fence. We'd like to have that reference deleted from approval.
Item number 24, we would like to have deleted. And otherwise the recommendations
and comments of the staff report are generally acceptable to us. And with the changes
that we've made and submitted tonight. And that's it for me.
MacCoy: Very good. Thank you. Anything from the commissioners now at this
moment?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Durkin you talked about the 20 foot landscaping buffer
between the subdivision. It looks like from what you said that filled it fairly well with
trees. Was that going to be bermed at all?
Durkin: No, it wasn't going to be. There would be a minor, but it wasn't going to be a
major berm area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 31
Borup: Is there anything preventing to get a little bit more height in there?
Durkin: There isn't really anything preventing it. We have a lot of materials on site to
accomplish it, but I don't know if it's a good idea as far as drainage and how that
drainage would effect the adjacent property owners with the wood fence that's now
installed. So our engineers have not bermed it. I don't know what that — there's a six
foot high wooden fence right now that's installed along the property. And you wouldn't
be able to see a berm from the other side.
Borup: And I wasn't thinking a berm as much as a visual effect of getting the trees up a
little higher and doing the job of buffering that we're trying to accomplish here. And I
realize what you are saying on the drainage, and that would depend on how much you
stagger the trees, but you'd be able to grade that such that it — I don't think it would
affect the lots. In fact their lots should be draining to that property line anyway.
Durkin: Commissioner Borup, when we met with the landscape architect I heard very
loud and clear from both this commission and the adjacent property owners last meeting
that they wanted a dense cover. So what we've done is we've met with the landscape
architect and we've basically planted these trees at about 12 feet on center, which is
really tight. While I would be happy to look into the berm idea, it isn't something that we
did look into. But I would like to not be required to do that if we have to spread our trees
out farther. In meeting with the land group, our Boise based, I think Meridian actually
based landscape planning company, this is the tightest that these trees can be planted
without — and still grow to a satisfactory level. So I think if the berm had a negative
effect on that for any reason which I don't know, I would like to not do that.
Borup: Were you looking at sodding the berm or the other material around the trees?
Has that even been decided or discussed?
Durkin: What we're dealing with is a berm area that's 20 feet wide that is absolutely
packed with landscaping so I would imagine that it would be a decorative bark or
something.
Borup: Well I realize there can be a problem with too steep of a berm. Well you do
have a berm out on Fairview and Eagle don't you? And the same width? I understand
not as many trees though.
Durkin: There's not as many trees. There's a lot more bushes and we don't have the
density of trees in that area, but I would be happy to —
Borup: But I realize there would be a limit on how high the berm could be. You get too
steep and the water is going to run right off without benefiting the tree, and I'm not sure
0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 32
what that height is but I would think three feet would probably not be prohibitive. And 20
feet, you know a 20 foot area. That's an additional three feet of buffering. Especially on
some of the evergreen trees. The widest part of that is down on the base.
Durkin: I have an engineer from my office and he might cringe when I say this, I'd be
happy to install the maximum allowed — a maximum size berm that we can in this area,
but I would like to keep the density where it is, so if we increase the size of the berm
and it decreases the density, I'd like to not decrease any density, but we have about a
half a million yards of top soil that's access material on the site, so it isn't a matter of
material. It isn't a matter of cost. My only concern would the affect of the —
Borup: I've been looking, there are some berm around some other commercial projects
that are raised up quite a bit more than I think would be practical here, but again they
are very sparse with the trees and vegetation, and the other question you mentioned on
the interior islands and landscaping about the problem with the trees and I assume
that's because of getting sufficient water into the roots and maybe is the soil situation
there? I'll defer to the experience there. The question I have is how would shrubs do in
those areas?
Durkin: Commissioner, it's been my experience and that's what I'm going on. Again if
your staff and you want the landscape islands, we'll put them in. But it's been my
experience that the heat from sitting out in the parking lot, the engines and cars parking
next them, the reflection, the maintenance of the parking lot, both the sweeping and
snow removal have a serious impact on the viability of a tree.
Borup: That's what I'm wondering about some shrubs and bushes rather than trees.
Durkin: It's been my experience that shrubs fair worse than a tree because they are
lower, the cars pull right up to them, and so people walk on them and shopping carts
and different things. I think a lot of developers stand up here and they try to cut corners
or cut an expense. That is not at all what we are trying to do. We're adding more in
every other area where it's going to be viewed by community and where it's going to
affect the adjacent property owners. But for us to put them in the parking lot they won't
be beautiful. I'm just not aware of them being beautiful anywhere.
Borup: Thank you. The other question I had the South Shore Albertson's, do you know
how close that is to residences? Specifically the loading area?
Durkin: The loading area is about 210 feet from the adjacent residences, but a couple
of things that are different there. There is adjacent property owners to the Albertson's
loading dock are up on a bench. So the elevation of their backyard is actually higher
than the —they look down on the truck dock area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 33
Borup: And then maybe more of a statement, I think the buffering what you've done is —
I would think goes along to take care of concerns, the only concern I would have would
be probably the grocery store, and I'm wondering if something on some additional
buffering. It appears from what you said, that's probably the only facility that would be
doing early morning deliveries, and I don't know what you can do there other than a
redesign. Maybe push the thing further away, just in that area. But I guess at this point
just more of a statement.
Durkin: Commissioner my statement to that is the setbacks that we are now proposing
exceed the ordinance. Every other grocery store in the vicinity they have the same
vendor trucks. So if you see the Frito Lay truck he goes to Albertson's out on Cherry
Lane. He goes to Albertson's so to have different hour or different time you know have
them drive across to Boise and come back —
Borup: No, I'm not talking about the hours, because I realize they've got schedules and
I don't know what can be done there. That's why I'm saying because of the hours if
some additional buffering in the grocery store loading dock would be appropriate.
Durkin: I can't fit any more in back there that would be viable. The landscape architect
is telling me to put them 12 feet on center and if there's anyone that has more
experience in making that different —
Borup: I've got some suggestions that might work. It may not be what you want to hear
though.
Smith: I want to hear them.
MacCoy: Before you leave this, just one question. Are those trees in the buffer zone
staggered?
Durkin: Well they are — how can I describe this. There are staggered. They're
basically two deep. But you're not going to see a tree and a tree. You'll see a tree,
tree, -- our instructions to our landscape architect were to load it up, spare no expense,
put as many as you can possibly put in of the most viable species to provide what we're
after kind of screening and soften.
Borup: So at this point you've got the 1296 or whatever that number was?
Durkin: Yes. We have the required numbers. We actually decreased our parking lot
size a little bit and so that increased the requirement. But we exceed the required
number in the ordinance.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 34
Borup: Well I don't know if you want to hear but my solution for buffering around the
grocery store would be to move the store to the west which would give you more
distance back there and allow you the space to do.
Durkin: I appreciate your suggestions. It's just not a — it isn't viable for us on that site.
I can't get the parking depth and I will have more parking then behind the store adjacent
to the property.
Borup: I'm not talking about moving all the buildings, just the one specific. I mean it's
already separate from the other buildings as far as the — two deep is that the grocery
store?
Durkin: This is the grocery store right here.
Borup: Yeah, I'm saying just to slide two of these to the west.
Durkin: This is west.
Borup:- Right.
Durkin: So if I move this to the west I have to keep it —
Borup: No, why would you have to move the others?
Durkin: Um, just planning and keeping the drive you know the alignment and different
things.
Borup: It might slow them down if they didn't have such a straight shot.
(Inaudible)
Borup: I'm not talking about a lot. I'm saying maybe another 20 feet. Take out two
more parking spaces along the front there. I've said enough. I think the other
commissioners may have —
Smith: While we're on that subject if you want, that in an effort to increase the height of
the landscaping at the rear of the site, the berm I don't know that that berm necessarily
has to extend that full 20 feet either. If the drainage is a concern maybe the berm starts
on the paved side as opposed to the property line side of that 20 foot zone and then that
gives the opportunity of the back portion of that 20 feet to create a swale back there that
— it also raises the trees up that are farther away from the houses so you get the
stepping up away from the houses, which would be I think more desirable than having
the highest trees closest to the homes. That way they wouldn't loom over them over so
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 35
much, and Commissioner Borup's concern about that deliveries on the grocery store,
I've seen Albertson's trucks parked over here at Cherry Lane as late as midnight and I
had no idea these stores started taking deliveries at 4:30 a.m. I know I wouldn't be
happy about being rousted out of the bed at 4:30 by a refrigeration truck. Maybe
something that can be done to really push that landscaping up at that store would be to
use some kind of retaining wall system to be able to elevate your grade up there, and it
wouldn't be the whole periphery, but you know that particular tenant may — something
along those lines may help with that screening as well. I don't know what the answer is.
I'm kind of at a disadvantage here having not seen the plan before. I also think that the
Chairman's questions about how the trees are sited on there brings up a concern that I
had as far as the scale of the drawing as presented. You can't do a finished
landscaping plan on a scale of that size. It's too small. I mean I don't know what your
landscape architects used to draw on there, but I'm used to working with much larger
scale sized plans to have those trees located and spaced properly.
Durkin: You know, I'm not taking notes. Do you mind if I interrupt and comment on a
few things. Because I'm not going to — there's some things I'd like to comment on. With
all due respect Commissioner, I think if you are in the business or if you are familiar with
this I have to able to present a plan tonight that's viable for you to look at for the
audience to look at and if I were to roll out the giant plans that we submit for our building
process, that wouldn't be possible.
Smith: No, I understand, but specifically (Inaudible) —
Durkin: In more than 150 shopping centers this is exactly the same type of plan we use
for submitting — I've traveled the United States, I've not seen it done a different way. I
can't fit more, and if I had seven boards around this room it wouldn't blend together, but
obviously the plans for the building permit process and the plans that will be available to
staff for staff to review will be adequate. This is the best picture I can show you.
Smith: That's where you'll indicate the final landscaping schemes is on those individual
building plans?
Durkin: No, as a matter of fact they're indicated on here right now.
Smith: That's you landscaping plan? What scale is this, one to —
Durkin: Mr. Smith this is a landscaping plan that we use for the purposes of this
meeting. It's a very small plan. But it enables you to see the entire shopping center.
When we submit our drawings for our building permit and for the review they will
obviously be in a different scale. They'll probably be broken down in ten or more pieces
of large blueline sheets, but the information on this plan that I'm showing you tonight
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 36
which is reduced and it's difficult to read is what we will be submitting in our building
permit process in a larger sheet. I just can't —
Smith: I understand.
Durkin: The next thing I'd like to address is the retaining wall. I'd have absolutely no
objection to installing a retaining wall along the back of the loading dock area for the
grocery store or for the whole shopping center for that matter as long as the people who
live right here were in agreement to it. It's not a good idea in opinion. I'm under oath
tonight, and that's all that I can tell you. If you want the wall, I'll put the wall up. I don't
think it's a good idea, and I think they will be very angry that it is there. If they want the
wall or you want the wall, I'll put it up. As far as moving the building forward, that isn't
going to be viable for us and we will — that's not something that's going to be acceptable
for our overall flow for the overall plan of the project. Your first comment that you've just
seen this. We haven't moved the building on the plan. This is exactly the plan that was
in your packet and it was in our application in May. The modifications to this plan were
to take some of the parking area away behind here. This building is in the same place.
This house is in the same place. The street is in the same place. All we did was widen
this landscape area and reduce the width of that drive lane and widen this landscape
area and reduce the number of parking stalls out in the front, so as far as the plan of the
shopping center, it's the one that we submitted to the city in our packet in May and so
the changes are those landscaping and the ones I pointed out earlier over here. But I'm
sorry that — I think you are an architect or you in that field, I'm not sure. You seem
pretty sharp about it, and I know that you are probably used to looking at larger plans
and I just for what we're doing tonight it's not a reasonable thing to do.
Smith: No, that's not my issue. It's difficult to respond specifically to a lot of landscape
items when you're talking about a drawing this size. That's all I'm commenting on. To
clarify the retaining wall statement, the goal of it being the same thing as Commissioner
Borup's comment about a berm is to get the trees up not to use that wall as a screen,
because I have listened to your comments on the masonry walls and the echoing and I
defer to your experience with that. I'm not going to belabor this point, but the things
were changed on this plans were the ones that were specifically brought up last time
that were concerns to the residents and to the commission, so that's you know we didn't
ask that you look at moving buildings, but just that you get together with the residents
and those are the things that we haven't really had a chance to look at.
Durkin: There's one more thing I need to answer. As far as the berm area along the
back, while you were asking me another question I asked Tom what we could do and I'll
be frank with you. It's not something we thought about before. At least it's not
something that I thought about before. But we can commit tonight to build a 3-4 foot
berm area all along the back, and I would commit tonight to build a larger if you wanted
it larger but I would commit to build it as high as we possibly can if the recommendation
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 37
of the landscape architect that we are using — if it's his recommendation that it doesn't
affect the density. That's my only concern, but we do have a 20 foot area and I was
imagining that it would be raised somewhat, you know, like a foot so that it's not part of
the parking lot. I can assure you that we can do it three to four feet without any problem
without affecting the trees, and I think it's a good idea. We have excess material on site
and we'll happily do that, but if I can do it larger, specifically in the grocery store area, I
think it's a good idea. I'd rather have it lower and more dense and that's my only
concern.
Smith: This could be my last comment. At this time it will be, regarding the landscape
islands in the parking lot, I appreciate your position on that. I don't say that I necessarily
agree with it. I think what you showed us in those pictures is a clear example of exactly
what you said is cheap, going the cheap way. The trees at that Shopko probably were
about as small a caliper trees as the developer could plant there. It's hard to say
whether they've been adequately watered and whether the planter area is adequate for
those trees to receive proper root system. I would not want to see shrubs instead of
trees. The idea of the trees to me is to break up the large expanse of asphalt and
parking area. The other thing that those pictures you showed us exhibited was poor
design in the fact that they are just plopped on a regimented spacing with no design
considerations to clustering or grouping trees to help create the pockets of landscaping
in the parking areas, and I think that's one of the things that most shopping centers
don't do very well is parking lot landscaping, and for that reason is they just plop them
here, here, and here evenly spaced, and they use too small caliper trees. I think
something more creative than that is what I would like to see you do there. I know you
don't want to do it, but I'd like to see it done and that's kind of where I'm coming from on
that so at this time I'm done.
Durkin: May I make a suggestion to that. In the event that that's in a motion for any
kind of approval tonight that we do that. Would you be so kind as to consider to give
staff the authority to approve the location and the design of those interior islands?
Smith: I don't know.
Durkin: Well it's just something that the architect comes in and meets with staff versus
the full committee approach on it, and it's —
Smith: Yeah and that's how I would hope that your consultants would interact with staff
is to sit down and meet with them and —
Durkin: That's what we normally do.
MacCoy: I'd like to make a suggestion though along that same line. I think if we knew
in advance, commissioner wise, that when staff is going to meet with you that we could
• 0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 38
make some alterations for ourselves to come in and help join with them if that was a
good example because a couple of us know quite a bit about this.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think this would be an appropriate time to break.
MacCoy: Well I'd like to finish up before we break. In the first place let me ask the
question, do you have any questions?
De Weerd: I would rather listen to the public before I have any of my comments.
Nelson: I have no comments at this time.
MacCoy: Okay, anything else you want to add. At this time since it's after 9:00, let's
take a break for ten minutes and be back in here to hear from the public.
TEN MINUTE BREAK.
MacCoy: I promised at the beginning of this meeting we were going to at this break
time take a look at our agenda to see what the future looked like for us and what I'm
going to do based on a consensus is that we're going to consider that the present
project will be the last one for this evening because we're going to be leaving here
between 10:30 and 11:00, and we believe it's going to take some time, so all those that
are here for item 10, excluding 14 which has been taken care of, through 18 will be
brought before this commission in this room on August 31St a Monday night at 7:00 so if
you're here for those things after the present item we have the best for you to do is go
home and get some sleep and come back and see us. With that, we're going to open
the hearing for the present project, which is item 6, the Dakota project. So the podium
is open for anybody who would like to speak and I would like to remind you as you do
that we're holding that to at least a minimum of three minutes and if somebody has
already said your peace, we'd ask that you'd take consideration for your people here
and for us too that it's already been said. It's on the record and you don't have to get up
and repeat that.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I might add if you have something that someone has said but
you would like your name on record that you are in agreement, you can get up here and
say — be sworn in and agree with what already has been said. If you want your name
record, that is appropriate.
MacCoy: Let me ask the question, I wasn't planning to use that because we have
agreed to something else? Is that in agreement to all you? Any problem with that?
Borup: I would rather see, and I've seen this at other Planning and Zoning meetings,
just have everybody raise their hand or stand up if they support the one position.
0 •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 39
MacCoy: That's a good idea. I think we'll be here for a long — it's very commendable
but we'll run out of time doing it that way.
ROBERT PHILLIPS 3437 PRESIDENTIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY.
Phillips: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I would like to ask for a little bit of
time. I've talked to my neighbors. I've got about half a dozen that will give me their
three minutes. I need about 15-20 minutes. I have some facts that need to be put on
record that will answer some of your questions.
MacCoy: Okay under your special condition, commissioners what do you want to do?
Borup: Could you repeat the request again?
Phillips: I need about 20 minutes.
Borup: And you are speaking for how many people?
Phillips: Half a dozen. That's three minutes —
(Inaudible)
Phillips: Is that enough?
Prior: Typical lawyer gets a consensus, doesn't he?
Borup: I would agree with that.
Prior: Would he speak on behalf of all you folks who just raised your hands? So you
folks won't be speaking? Is that what we're saying here?
De Weerd: Please go ahead.
Phillips: I do have two questions. I would hate to say something that was incorrect or
false, and I have two questions for Mr. Durkin. I just want to know if he's the present
owner of the property or if Gemtone still is. And second if there are any restrictions that
he's aware of on the property.
MacCoy: Well go ahead and he'll come back up to answer that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 40
Phillips: First of all I want you to know that I represent myself and nobody else. My
comments are mine and mine alone.
Smith: Wait a minute that contradicts how you opened up your argument for 20 minutes.
Phillips: No, I said they would give me their time. But that doesn't necessarily mean
they have to agree with what I say.
Smith: You can't have it both ways. One way or the other.
Phillips: Well let's go ahead.
Smith: Which is it?
Phillips: Well they'll agree — okay, I'll represent them then. First of all you are probably
asking yourself how did we get a residential subdivision in the middle of a light industrial
zone? Wouldn't you like to know the answer to that question?
Borup: We know the answer.
Phillips: You may be interested by the end exactly how that happened? Secondly why
is it all these residents are complaining that realtors told them that there would be light
offices next door? Or why is it the developer is claiming that 1991 he had the right to
build a shopping center? Well I think the only answer to those questions was to go and
look at all the reports so last Friday I spent a couple of hours and so I've got some
documents here that I've pulled and these all come photocopies that I made from staff
over here. Mr. Chairman, could I pass these out?
MacCoy: Yes, you may.
Phillips: Mr. Durkin, I have a copy for you as well. I'd like to do this in kind of three
parts. One is to go back and retrace the history too to talk about the ordinances just a
little bit. And third to talk about some other policy considerations. I think we all know,
and this is item number one, you'll see there that in 1991 a conditional use permit was
passed in a light industrial zone. It was a PD general, which allows for certain uses,
which wouldn't otherwise be authorized. Commercial use is not authorized in industrial
zone so they had to get a PD general. That's the only way they could have commercial
use. Item number one is a copy of that hearing. You'll notice it says, Kingsford: At this
time I open the public hearing. Hearing no response I will close that public hearing.
That was all that was said. Page two is just a continuation of the three or four lines that
were missed on page one. At the last hearing we held on July 14t''' 1998, a couple of
questions were asked and I'd like to go back to that, and this is page number three, the
question was asked of Mr. Durkin about the conditional use permit. It specifically allows
0 .
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 41
for a shopping center. The approval of Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law were
approved unanimously and signed by the Mayor. Commissioner Borup asked the
following question, a shopping center was mentioned specifically? Answer, yes. If
you'll turn to page four, I will read — this is from the second page of the PD general
permit that was issued in 1991. And this is the section that talks about the uses. The
petitioners propose to develop the property in a mixed use fashion containing both
commercial and light industrial uses as a planned unit development. You'll see there's
no mention of a shopping center. There is mention of commercial uses. Commercial
doesn't mean retail necessarily. There are lots of other uses like offices. Another point
I want to make is on — another discussion took place hearing on July 14th, 1998
regarding the timing when the residential portion was introduced. Commissioner Borup
again asked the following question, this is on page 5. Apparently the residential part
came in 1991. At the same time was the PUD from? Durkin: The residential
development occurred after 1992, 93, 94. The insinuation here was that the residential
came after the original commercial use, and so obviously the commercial would have a
higher priority first in place. However if you actually look at the permit that was granted
it did allow for residential use. Let's look at page six. Now this is a section quoting what
is allowed under a planned unit development. I'm just going to read the highlighted
portion. One is to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses
and functions including a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses. Okay so
residential is allowed and this is the actual Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that
was granting the original use in 1991. Now this is where it gets tough. And this is a
tough issue if you have questions please ask me. I'll do my best to try to explain this. I
told you I would tell you the truth, the whole truth. The proposed uses in that seven
page permit in 1991 never specifically mentioned residential. The only inference was in
the actual definition of a planned unit development general. But the PDG specifically
allows for residential uses. So now you've got a question you have to answer. Were
they granted simultaneously or was the commercial granted first? Okay Mr. Durkin
seems to be of the opinion that the commercial was granted first, and the residential
came second. However if the residential didn't come until later, then it would have
violated the conditional use permit on its face. And there wouldn't be any commercial or
residential allowed and it would default back to light industrial. Let's look at page 7 and
this is the actual permit the last page. Page 7 of the permit that any conditional use
granted by condition on compliance with the conditions herein and that the conditional
use be revoked for failure to comply with the conditions. In other words, if they fail a
condition then you revoke the permit. If they grant residential, uh-oh, we have a
problem. The only way to have both uses currently on the property is to take the
opinion that they are granted simultaneously. In fact in 1993 when the preliminary
platting took place on this property that's what they did. They asked for a residential
use under PUD general because it was granted in 1991 and they received it. Granted
they were granted simultaneously. I guess the most important question is what I'm
going to get to now. Why did they put residential property there? And this is my favorite
one. This is page 8. This is from Meridian Planning and Zoning May 11th, 1993.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 42
Crookston, who is the attorney at the time, what's the reason for the change from
commercial industrial to residential? Tom Wright was sworn by the attorney. He's the
principal at Gemtone. I believe it's the current owner. That's why I asked the question
at the very first to find out if he still is the current owner. Wright, I'm a part owner of
Gemtone. The owner of the property. The answer to Mr. Crookston's question was
strictly market demand. But it goes on. What kind of commercial are you going to
endeavor that's not going to interfere with residential living? His response under oath,
we're going to covenant as to color, height, types, landscaping, lighting, hours of
operation, etc. in order to protect in essence enhance the residential. We won't allow
major heavy industrial uses. I would call it light commercial and office type uses. This
is under oath in front of Planning and Zoning in 1993. You know I think Commissioner
Hepner shortly thereafter still on page 8 realized we'd have today. He said we've
recently had projects where there's been commercial and residential bordering the
same property line and typically you get home owners in their first, then you try to come
in with commercial project, and it was 200 mad home owners here and want to see their
rights protected. Does that sound familiar to everybody here? Page 9 is simply a
continuation of that hearing. That was Planning and Zoning still in 1993, similar
promises were made by the owner of the property Mr. Tom Wright to the City Council.
This is page 10, again Mr. Tom Wright is sworn in. In response to earlier questions,
there was some earlier questions asked about screening. He said the following. It's
difficult to be precise tonight Mr. Crookston as to exactly how it's going to be screened.
Our commitment to this community and to Mr. Yorgason who is developing the
commercial property at the time is that we will put covenants against all the property
surrounding him that will do among other things restrict height, color, hours of operation,
landscaping separations, etc. We have been discussing three variations of separation
per say between residential and commercial. One would be fenced. One would be
landscape. One would be berm. I don't know tonight precisely what combination, what
percentage proportion of those would be used but I will assure this Council and this
community that there will be separation between residential and commercial. But we'll
have to do it in tandem with Mr. Yorgason. Mr. Crookston asked the following question.
I know that these other situations that this has arised and there is quite a bit of concern
about light coming from the commercial and sound. Are those issues to be addressed
in your covenants? Next page, page 11, yes they will be by covenant mind you on the
property. Again back a month or so ago on July 14th, 1998, there was a question that
was asked to Mr. David Yorgason. They were discussing again the time frame of this
permit. And on page 12 it says as follows: Commissioner Borup, at that time did you
have any concept or understanding of what project would be going in this area? Mr.
Yorgason, no. You had no idea at all? Mr. Yorgason, I personally wasn't working for
Capitol Development at the time. And that's probably a truthful statement. Because Mr.
David Yorgason. Now let's find out what Mr. Ramon Yorgason had to say about that
same thing at the City Council. Now this is on page 13. Crookston, do you plan any
kind of barriers between your residential lots and adjacent commercial or industrial
uses? Hubble, let me refer that to Mr. Yorgason. Page 14, to address the questions of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 43
screening between the residential and commercial number one by covenant we will
have in the commercial area it will be light commercial and there will be screening on
their side as well as we'll be putting a fence on our side. As the commercial in there will
be shrubbery that will go between that as well. I believe this testimony clearly indicates
be people under oath that Mr. Yorgason believed that there would be some sort of
screening when he built the residential (End of Tape)
Phillips:... was that there would be covenants and it would be light commercial. Light
commercial. Now there was a question asked a little bit earlier by Mr. Durkin. He said I
want to see the names of realtors. I want to know who those people were. Wouldn't it
seem reasonable to you that if under oath at several hearings it was specifically
mentioned by Mr. Ramon Yorgason the developer and by the owner of the property that
those restrictions would exist that realtors, home owners and builders would rely upon
that? That seems perfectly reasonable in my mind. Had Mr. Durkin known all these
facts, I believe he would have had a different approach to this shopping center. Again
back to the last public hearing, July 14t�h, 1998 and this is in regard to the masonry wall
discussion that took place. Commissioner Borup again had asked a couple of
questions. On page 15, Mr. Durkin said I'm not familiar with large shopping centers
where masonry wall has been required. He goes on to say I'm familiar with it being
required in Boise elsewhere with the exception of — and then Commissioner Borup
asked the following question. Home Depot? Mr. Durkin says the following, maybe I
should be more clear on what I'm talking about similar use. If I were coming in tonight
and say this is on residential for an apartment building or office building, and I wanted to
build a shopping center I would and the people who are living there bought their homes,
built their houses with the belief that there was going to be additional residential or office
building there, and I came in and said I wanted to build a shopping center. I would do
lots of different things differently. I would build to meet their to satisfy their needs. I
think as you look at the history and a quick summary we relied upon what was said
under oath that there would be covenants next door. That's a reasonable belief. We
built our homes on that, and we understood that going in. But you know you have some
tough decisions ahead of you tonight and I want to give you some ways out. I don't
want to leave you there hanging. I know these are difficult decisions so my second
point is I think the ordinances actually discourage and prohibit this kind of a shopping
center especially in this location. Let's go to page 16. This is the application for
conditional use permit submitted by I think the Dakota Company. You'll note it says 73
acres. The next page, page 17, it mentions 74.74 acres, kind of a discrepancy.
Actually I did the calculation on the parcels. I thinks it's 74.67 acres. That's about how
big it is. The interesting thing is they ask for a regional shopping center. Let's look at
page 18. What is a regional shopping center? The largest of shopping centers, which is
all inclusive and self sufficient with at least two large department stores as the major
tenants and generally serve the population of approximately 150,000 or more. Here's
the key part. It is a center having over 750,000 square feet of gross floor space and be
located on a site greater than 75 acres. On the face of their permit they have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 44
insufficient acreage to meet the definition of a regional shopping center, but more than
that if you look at the comparison between 75 acres and 750,000 square feet. That's
the minimum for each. They want 850,000 square feet. A hundred thousand square
feet more with insufficient acreage. It's too big. That's a 13% increase. There's just not
enough space, and that also goes to violate the comprehensive plan of Meridian. Look
at page 19. This is page 23 of the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian. I'm looking at
section 1 AU as the left hand column the second one that's circled. This is the policy to
encourage new developments reinforces the city's present development pattern of
higher density development. Within the Old Town area and lower density development
in the outer lying area. You have to base your decision on that policy. Let's look at 1.3
above that. The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals
and policies of the comprehensive plan. Sub A, strip commercial and strip industrial, but
more important than that if you look over at 2.3U. Protect and maintain residential
neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood's physical condition and
enhance its quality of life for residents. Under the comprehensive plan it's clear how
you should make your decisions. So the second thing I'm showing you is under the
ordinance there are clearly problems with this particular application, and most of it
stems from size. It's too big for the location. We've heard insinuations of the serious
traffic problems it's going to cause and that's because of the size again. I realize how
difficult your decisions are. But he's asking for a conditional use permit. I just wanted to
read from the ordinances which is also supported by statute. This is exhibit number 20.
Upon granting a conditional use permit, a) your goal is to minimize adverse impact on
other development especially development that exists, and then g) require more
restrictive standards than those generally required in this ordinance. Now Mr. Durkin
has expressed that he has complied with ordinance, but when you ask for a conditional
use permit this commission can go way beyond those ordinances because of the
circumstances of protecting other development that's currently existing. You know I
really want to be a good neighbor with Mr. Durkin. I figure at some point in time there's
going to be some commercial development there, and I would like to be a good
neighbor and we have a lot of lemons here. And they weren't cause by probably any of
the people in this room including Mr. Durkin. We bought our homes on a reasonable
reliance that it would be light commercial. The ordinance supports our belief and
probably a denial of this conditional use permit in the form it is currently. There's a lot
of public policy considerations as well. There's traffic, there's design, there's lighting,
there's buffers. If I had a lot more time tonight which I don't I could go through and
show you different issues that I would be concerned about. For example my home is
right here. It's the first one on the right coming into the subdivision, and they are going
to bust out this beautiful berm in four places which mean trucks go right behind my
house. My three year old is going to love that, but the rest of the family probably won't.
Like I said there's a history you now know. You know what the ordinances say. You
know what good public policy considerations are. There's a lot of lemons. Your job is
to make lemonade. Don't give us a sip but give us a full glass.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 45
MacCoy: Thank you very much for your enlightenment. I'm afraid we have been
fighting this thing for some time in our minds because we have also reviewed the
material and we have really a hard decision to make and one of the things I'd like to
make point to everybody in this room we are by the time element he's been mentioning
here, we are the new commission and we take things a lot differently than the old
commission did just to be general about it. But what I would like to underscore is that
we really have your interest in heart and that's what make our decision even tougher
because if we were just callous about dollars and cents, then our decision would be a
lot easier. I just want you to know that we feel for you. We feel for everyone in this
room because we put ourselves in the same position. Thank you very much for your
discussion.
Phillips: I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding.
MacCoy: That's the next thing that happens. Commissioners?
Smith: Mr. Phillips, when did you purchase your home?
Phillips: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, 1996, May of '96.
Smith: I believe that property was signed by that time of Crossroads Development
Center.
Phillips: It was signed?
Smith: There was big eight foot plywood signs on Fairview and on Eagle.
Phillips: I believe there was signs up. Do I recall what on those signs? I don't
remember the exact — I know there was commercial use that they proposing it for.
Smith: Was it ever represented to you what that commercial use would be anyone?
Phillips: No. Well let me change that. Before I bought my house, I consider myself a
fairly sophisticated investor. I figured I'd be there three to five years. I made inquiry into
the community. 1 know people who are planners and various people and I asked about
the situation. At the time I purchased my home, I knew it was light industrial from my
own personal research. I knew that there was — I don't remember exactly if I knew it
was a planned unit development at that point in time. I did within three months
thereafter, and I was comfortable with what I knew that it would probably be something
along the lines of light offices that would go next door.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 46
Smith: Okay, but nobody ever represented to you that you know what in their opinion
that was going to be, and you did research it on your own with the city public records
what —
Phillips: Actually I talked like I said with some planners and they had told me that's
what they thought was going in there. If you mean by representation they told me this is
going to happen here, no.
Smith: Can you be more specific as to who the planners were that you talked to? Were
they with the City of Meridian?
Phillips: No, they were not.
Smith: City of Boise? Ada County?
Phillips: No, I talked to the planners who had worked with Ramon Yorgason and
previously worked for the city.
Smith: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, well I had a lot of questions from my notes, but I think maybe just
one is all I am going to ask of Mr. Phillips, and you made many comments concerning
light commercial. In your research did you come up a definition of light commercial? I
cannot find that.
Phillips: You know I did the same thing. I looked for light commercial, and I was trying
to find out light commercial and I couldn't. I couldn't find what light commercial was, but
then I pondered on what maybe heavy commercial is. And I think when you have —
Borup: What's heavy commercial?
Phillips: Like I said it's a gray area that's probably a question of what a reasonable
person thinks it is, because it's not addressed in the code.
Borup: You spent a lot of time giving us definitions out of the ordinances, did you find
one in there for light commercial or heavy commercial?
Phillips: No, I did not.
Borup: Did you find anything for commercial?
Phillips: Yes, there is a definition of commercial. That includes retail and office
buildings.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 47
Borup: And that was my point. I think there's only one definition, commercial, period.
Phillips: Let me mention one thing, when it comes to shopping centers there are three
different definitions of shopping center. There is a convenience shopping center, there
is a neighborhood shopping center, and there is a regional shopping center. The
question in my mind is to what heavy and light were, clearly a convenience would be
light, a regional would be heavy and I'm not sure what the middle one would be.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Phillips: One more thing along that line. A neighborhood the middle one that I
mentioned contains a 100 to 400,000 square feet which is about half the size of what is
being proposed.
MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have anything else?
Smith: (Inaudible) I couldn't- believe. I didn't know. No, I don't.
Phillips: I'm willing to answer anything. I mean I wanted to let you know what 1 found,
what I can do to help.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, I have a question if I may. Mr. Phillips, obviously in your mind the
original conditional use permit was violated in some way. Is that the understanding I'm
getting?
Phillips: That's a tough question. I'm not certain of the answer to that question. If they
were granted simultaneously, it seems like, like I said it depends on whether you
assume they were granted simultaneously. It was not. If they were not granted
simultaneously it clearly was.
Prior: So if the conditional use permit was violated our recourse is to revoke the
conditional use permit and what do I do? Do I tell all these folks sorry you are going to
have to get out of your house at the end of the week? I want you to tell them that
because I don't want to have to walk outside and tell all these folks the conditional use
permit has been revoked.
Phillips: That's a wonderful question, but it goes back to who violated the conditional
use permit. It was the owner of the property.
Prior: That's under the impression — that's with the assumption that residential was
planned after the commercial and if they were planned simultaneously, I don't think
there was any violation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 48
Phillips: That's correct.
Prior: And based on what I see here it doesn't appear that they were planned
separately. They were planned together but we're here on a separate condition use
permit. We're not here on — the old conditional use permit isn't in effect basically. It
doesn't apply to this — he's applying for a separate conditional use permit. Isn't that
your understanding?
Phillips: He's applying for a separate conditional use permit. If that's the case clearly it
fails on its face. Because it doesn't apply for a PD general. The only time you can have
a commercial center inside of an industrial zone is if you apply for a PD general.
Prior: And as a conditional use permit.
Phillips: As a conditional use, that is the only time. There is no other way, and so what
he's applying for is a conditional use permit for a regional mall, which would not be
allowed.
Nelson: I was going to save my comments until the end, and at the risk of making
enemies of my neighbors, I understand we can play games with the dates and times,
but the situation is that we've got to deal with the intersection as it is. We've got a prime
piece of real estate. We know it's going to be commercial in some fashion. We need to
do our best — I'd much rather deal with it as a package, call it a regional mall if we have
to or we could come back later and break it all up in little pieces and have them all
different colors, shapes and sizes. This is just a general comment that I am going keep
in the back of my mind as we go through the rest of this process.
Phillips: You know that's a fair concern I think. On the other hand you know if you
make a decision you grant the conditional use permit. Let me just walk you through the
steps you have to make.
Nelson: Before we go too far you've had your half an hour or so.
Phillips: Twenty minutes. If you're done, I'm done.
Nelson: I'd like to give — I mean do we want to keep —
Phillips: Can I make one final comment, and I'll sit down? If you grant the conditional
use permit you have to realize what the reliance of the people was on the owner who I
believe is the current owner of the property unless it's transferred in the last few months.
You have to do it in violation of both the policy of the ordinance and the ordinance on its
face and there are a lot of other considerations as well that you have to consider like
0 •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 49
traffic etc. And that's what you are going to have to do to grant it. And that opens
yourself for a lot of difficulty and thank you.
MacCoy: Counselor, do you have anything else you want to add. You were looking for
something.
Prior: No, I'm satisfied.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while this is fresh in our mind, I think Mr. Phillips asked
two questions at the beginning —
MacCoy: You want to do that right now? I think we'd wait until —
Borup: Well he's probably prepared to answer it. I guess I would like to right now those
two things though.
MacCoy: Just two things. Okay, would you back up one moment and go ahead and
answer those questions?
Durkin: It's very hard for me to just get up here and answer two questions. My name is
Larry Durkin. The answer to the first question is yes, the property transferred on or
about June 18th. And the title is held in the name of the applicant. The restrictions that
are encumbering the property are various. It would take a title report to show that and
it's more detailed than I'm prepared to go into right now. I could give a summary if
anyone wanted a general summary. And I do want — there are a number of other points
in his presentation that I want to reserve to —
MacCoy: Okay, thank you.
ROBERT R. SMITH 335 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Smith: I came here tonight to roast you guys real big time. Unfortunately the only
person I recognize on the board is Will Berg. We went through this —
Berg: I'm not on the board, so let's make that clear. I'm sitting here, but I'm not on the
board.
Smith: I am going to speak rather rapidly for the time factor. We were involved in this
same situation two years ago. We're still involved in it. We are being bordered by a
light industrial situation at right at our backyards. We ask for a berm. We asked for a
masonry fence. We asked for all kinds of these things that this gentlemen is actually
proposing he'll give these people. I suggest you take it. Whatever you can get and he'll
i 0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 50
volunteer to give you, you better take. If you want to see your tree berm and what it
looks like and we're putting up with, you can come out look at ours right now. It's 25
feet wide. It has trees spaced every 12 feet. They are six feet high. The chicory weeds
is 7. We've policed this through the people every day, and we are the policers (sic).
We've put up with dust, weeds, and all kinds of miseries involved in this situation.
We're still policing it. The Meridian City Council threw out the comprehensive plan. We
don't have a leg to stand on. And they have the ability to do this. So all these things
that you guys are going through we really have compassion for you. We're all retired.
There's five of us involved. We thought we'd live there our life. I've lived in Meridian my
whole entire life. l have worked here. I retired from Idaho Power with 40 years
seniority. I was a line crew foreman. I've been through a lot of developments. My crew
built all of Boise Town Square. I know what goes on within developing and I have a lot
of compassion for you, but 1 know that what's going to take place you are going to be
stuck with what's going to come down the road. What you can get you better get. We
couldn't get it. We're in legal recourse now so that's other alternative. Thank you.
Smith: Mr. Smith, where do you border on light industrial?
R. Smith: Pardon me?
Smith: Where about do you border light industrial?
R. Smith: Medimont Subdivision. Right there across from Pumice Products on Franklin
Road.
Smith: Okay. And what are the uses you are having problems with over there?
R. Smith: I would talk to you a lot. What are the problems? First of all we —
Smith: Not the problems, but what kind of tenants are you —
R. Smith: We're still dealing with the developer and what he was to suppose to follow
through with to give it our protection and our buffer area. We still not got what that —
they took away our irrigation system, access to our irrigation system. We're all
acreages. We all irrigate as a farm, and I've been a water master there for 33 years.
All of these things we fought with daily, constantly. I call and no one polices this
situation. You got a fine situation here in Meridian, but it looks like a Chinese fire drill
when you try to get something accessed or try to get some of your own rules and
regulations abided by. We fight this continually. We become the policers (sic) of this.
These people will become the policers (sic) of it, and what happens? Do you see it?
You don't see it. We argue with them all the time and it's a terrible thing to have to go
through this. It upsets the whole apple cart continually, and we don't get answers.
We're just sitting in kind of a limbo thing here. We're in the county, you're in the city.
•
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 51
We talked to the county. We're in the Meridian City impact zone. We have no elected
legal recourse. We have to go through our own legal now to fight this thing, and not in
the position to do that. Not you people, and I'm not pointing the — we came to you. We
came to you with exact rules that should have been abided. It all got thrown out when it
went the Meridian City Council. We have nothing that we have to back up. We keep
talking but the talk goes on. It's two years now into effect. We had to go to the EPA to
stop the dust mining of that soil. They started mining the soil out there. The dust in our
homes got so bad you couldn't even breath. Those are things that happen. And if he
volunteers a lot of this you people would be wise to take what you can get. Thank you.
MacCoy: Anybody else?
Prior: All I would ask is that if you are going to repeat what you said before, spare us.
MAYNARD MARTIN 3668 E. JUDICIAL WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY
ATTORNEY.
Martin: Issues still concerning the mall, the are a couple of things that I highlighted, a
couple of things that I would like to present to the commissioners. One concerns
ACRD. I want to start back at ACRD. Now Mr. Durkin had stated in his July 14th
meeting that — I'm reading here, I don't know what page it is, I have a draft of the thing,
but anyway it was number 28. It says the agencies have had adequate time to review
our application the engineer required. Recommend a delay on this in order to hear
comments back from ACRD, but we have to gain separate approval from ACHD. In
addition ACHD now has the approval rights for Eagle Road. Rather than continue the
hearing since are hoping to get started on the building design and our site, I would hope
that you would incorporate the future requirements of ACHD as part of our approval
tonight. We have had informal meetings with the ACHD. We have delivered our traffic
study to them. We have had and then it says blank, blank, blank. There aren't any
problems that I'm aware with ACHD. We are scheduled to have a hearing with them on
the 24t of this month. Well I have talked with ACHD, and ACHD had major issues their
proposal. I plan to give you a copy of that tonight and I did have a question. Have you
guys been keeping in touch with ACHD as a commission board?
MacCoy: I think our staff has.
Martin: The staff has, okay. Maybe I'll (inaudible)
Borup: The representative from ACHD was the first one that testified on this
application.
Martin: Yeah. Here I'd like to present copies for your guys' viewing pleasure so you
can see what issues ACHD is having with this guy's traffic study. And I'd like to read a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 52
couple of comments from it. The second one is the one that I'm most concerned with
and that's the latest comments that they did have concerning the traffic study that Dolby
Engineering submitted to them. And this is from July 30th. It says here Ada County
Highway District, ACHD, staff and Idaho Transportation Department staff had discussed
the reference draft traffic impact study. While the initial submission response to most of
the issues of concern to the district there are several considers which need to be
addressed for the final report. Please review the following topics and submit a revised
traffic impact study. The needed information includes: I am afraid that we will need a
complete new analysis of the submitted traffic study. Why? The submitted report uses
the a trip generation rates from a fifth edition of the I.T.E. trip generation manual. We
prefer the use of the current sixth edition of the manual. The new trip rates are shown
on the attached tables. Please update the analysis using the new data. It's only one of
several items that they document wrong. ACHD goes as far to say the assumption of a
four percent increase in Eagle Road traffic is silly. The observe increase has averaged
four or five times that figure during each of the last several years. Please reconsider
your figures and choose the appropriate course of action. I suggest that you assume a
more linear growth rate between the current figures and the 2015 forecast. I would
encourage you to review that. Moving on because I didn't want to waste time. I had
some questions here that I'd like to address. I'm not clear as to when was the light to
be installed on Pine Street if this mall goes through. When was the scheduled date for
the light at Pine Street?
MacCoy: I don't think we know yet.
Martin: So am I clear then to understand that this mall can be built and as far as I know
looking at Meridian future planning, I think the light doesn't show up until 2003.
MacCoy: We're pushing that forward. I happen to sit on part of the traffic board for the
county, and one of the things that we're concerned about is a number of streets and
traffic lights for our City of Meridian, and we think we've been kind of pushed to the back
door and we are working on it. The other way to say we need this because our
development is going so fast and they have now agreed that they have made a mistake
and they're moving our stuff forward. So I don't have any dates at this point.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think our three minute thing is not working. But if you could
ask your questions and perhaps the applicant can respond to them when he gets up,
this will help make this a little quicker.
Martin: Okay. Mr. Durkin has mentioned several times that in his landscape berm and
whatnot he has exceeded the ordinance, and here again I encourage you guys to
consider this a special case and we should push for the maximum exceeding of the
ordinance to make this a harmonious situation between the commercial and residential.
When he talked about — oh, there was another question I wanted to ask here. What is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 53
the current ratio of parking space to square feet? In his first report if I'm not mistaken
Mr. Smith Commissioner stated that normally for every 1,000 square feet of retail space
you want about 4 parking spot. Mr. Durkin came in with 6.11. 1 submit to you tonight
that if you reduce his parking back to the 4.9, which is standard for Boise Town Square
that that would give him additional room to create the berm that we the citizens of the
community have decided that we would like to have, because at the meeting that they
had nothing was accomplished. Because Mr. Durkin states up here that he was willing
to concede, but from what I hear from the meeting after about thirty minutes, he got up
and walked out and left my fellow neighbors sitting in the meeting. Now we have
walked the neighborhood, and I want to show you a draft and here are all the signatures
of neighbors who have signed on if this thing goes through the kind of berm that we'd
like to have. Anyway I've got to submit these, and I've got to hand on to one so I could
read what we'd like to see concerning a berm. I do also have figures of what it would
cost and how it is feasible to do to make these landscape berms. We had an engineer
do the work. He checked with local nursery people, and they said this is possible to do
and it will take care of drainage and all that issues.
MacCoy: You are pretty close to be completed with your — because we've got timing
here involved.
Martin: Yes. I'd just like to read over this very quick it says we the fellow home owners,
we the concerned home owners of Crossroads Subdivision propose that the following
items be installed by the developer of the Family Center of Meridian if this goes through.
Concerning the berm separating the Family Center and Crossroads Subdivision, the
following ideas have been selected as preferred choices concerning the berm. The
number one would be a landscape 20 feet wide, 6 feet in height berm with a 6 foot
wooden fence at the top of the berm. Berm to include Evergreen trees, and assorted
shrubs on both sides of the berm with the majority of the trees consisting of Evergreens
as opposed to deciduous. Or a landscaped 30 feet wide, 10 feet in height berm with
Evergreen trees and assorted shrubs with the majority of the trees here again consisting
of Evergreens as opposed to deciduous. Concerning the traffic impact study, we ask
that our concerns with cut through traffic be included with a submission including a brief
discussion of this issue and identifications of needed mitigation measures. Concerning
the signs to be used for advertising, we oppose the 30 foot high banner or pylon style
signs. We ask that the City of Meridian will consider our desires also and look at the
more monument style signs that are at Blue Cross so that when we drive home down to
our property we don't have to look at these big nasty neon signs that are standing there
beeping at us. Secondly, things we'd like to be — you guys to be considerate of is these
last items concerning issues surrounding the construction of the Family Center of
Meridian. We propose the following: Dust abatement as you just heard the gentleman
stand up and talk about dust. We're definitely concerned about dust abatement, the
noise ordinance, set construction times between the hours of 8:00 and 6:00 p.m.
Temporary fence installed around the construction site to limit debris from our
•
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 54
subdivision and in closing all we the home owners want is a fair shake from you council
members. It's an ugly situation like I stated last time for the record. We don't need to
perpetuate this thing. Now is a good time for you commissioners to stand up and
correct some wrongs, and in closing the concerned home owners of Crossroads
Subdivision would greatly appreciate the Planning and Zoning Commission of Meridian,
Idaho support of our proposal. That's all I had.
MacCoy: Any questions from the commissioners?
Borup: One quick one and that was pertaining to the landscape buffer. You said you
had an engineer felt that a six foot high berm was —
Martin: Yes, (inaudible). What you want and I'm not an expert on landscaping, but I
guess you need a one to one ratio. If it's 20 feet wide you can go six feet high and that
will give you still adequate space at top to place a six foot high wood fence and also to
place trees on both sides of that berm and fence.
Borup: And without a problem with run off at that grade?
Martin: It shouldn't be.
Borup: Did he address the reduction and the number of trees at the fence in the middle
of the berm would have?
Martin: The berm — what he's proposing a three foot high kind of berm is not going to
help with noise at all.
Borup: No, I think we already talked that. My question is if you add a six foot fence in
the middle of the berm is that going to reduce the amount of trees?
Martin: It shouldn't because you can put trees on both sides of the fence and berm. If
your berm comes up like —
Borup: Well, you are talking a tree that's not going to grow anything and diameter?
Martin: No. You can still put them. The deal is — no, there is adequate room according
to his estimates that you can do that and put your trees.
Borup: Was that submitted with your —
Martin: I will give a copy of that, and he also ran up the figures of what it would cost to
do said berming.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 55
Borup: And I don't know that the cost is the factor as much as the feasibility.
Martin: Yeah.
Borup: You say you do have the engineer's report on that?
Martin: His drawing and the cost. That's all I had.
Borup: Just a drawing.
Martin: Yes. All I had was the drawing.
Borup: And you feel the drawing that he came up with was superior to what the
applicant has already proposing as far as the amount of trees?
Martin: Oh, by far. His berm is a joke.
Borup: Trees, trees. He's not even proposing a berm.
Martin: Right.
Borup: I'm talking about the amount of trees, the number of trees. You're trying to get
more in than what they are proposing?
Martin: No, we don't want more necessarily more trees.
Borup: You'd like to get some height in there.
Martin: We want the height. The height is what's going to diminish the noise and also
the site of the back side of the building.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Smith: So, Mr. Martin, did I hear you correctly you would prefer to see a fence at the
top of the berm?
Martin: At the top of a six foot berm. Either that or the — you see we have that or. I
would prefer to see a 30 foot wide berm that goes 10 feet in height with Evergreens on it
with some deciduous trees and shrubs.
Smith: So the fence at the top of the berm isn't necessarily what you're looking for.
You are looking for height.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 56
Martin: Right. Now we have home overs who — we walked around and had them sign
it. This is like these are the two options that we came up with that we felt would satisfy
the people.
Smith: Because it just doesn't seem like good design tome to put a fence 10 feet away
from and existing fence. You've got -10 foot of dead area that — the other thing I'm also
concerned about is just the height of a physical manmade barrier above the grade of
your lots and that is why I think the going at it from a landscaping standpoint would be a
softer more sensitive kind of treatment there than placing the fence there. But I want to
be clear about what you are asking for.
Martin: Well if you look at like Bristol Heights Subdivision which is down Eagle Road,
they have incorporated the two where it's a berm and a fence. It looks rather nice to
me. Also if you go further down Eagle Road and you cross over into Eagle it is a nice,
the houses are like $250,000 and up. They have like a 12 foot berm in front of their
subdivision and it looks great.
Borup: Where is this at?
Martin: Island Park and it looks rather nice, so it does look good. It does.
Smith: I think both those examples you sited are quite a bit wider than 20=30 feet that
you are referring to.
Martin: They may be. I'm not sure. All I know is at these calculations 30 foot wide
berm you can get it 10 feet high and you will have your one to one ratio that is required
for that kind of a berm.
Smith: That would be one to three ratio.
Borup: I was going to say a one to one ratio is a 45 degree angle.
Martin: Yeah. Here again, I'm not a landscape guy, but if you look at his information it
is I'm assuming it's correct and you won't have an issue.
Smith: I think what we usually try to do is not go in excess of two to one. Just because
as Commissioner Borup pointed out earlier it's a problem with maintaining something on
a slope in excess of that. It gets to be a maintenance problem. So those are just some
design perimeters.
Martin: Here again I encourage you to look at the one down at Eagle and it looks great
and they maintain it. So it is possible.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 57
Borup: Another question, Mr. Chairman, and again I'm a very — I think you can tell we
are interested in the buffering here and something that's going to satisfy. On a 20 foot
area with your 6 foot berm which I don't know if that's exceeding what's practical or not.
Then you're talking about a fence in the middle. How big of a essentially flat area on
top are your — does that allow for the planting of the trees? The other question is and
what diameter do you anticipate these trees becoming? I've got a fir tree in my yard
and it's got 25 foot diameter.
Martin: Yeah. What the deal —
Borup: You're talking about planting that thing from a fence, it's just going to knock the
fence over. I mean have you looked at what happens after the trees grow?
Martin: If you look at pine trees and the way they grow which is pretty much straight up
and then —
Borup: I've got one in my yard.
Martin: I know, but what I'm getting at is the fact that as you have your hill that slopes
you don't have to necessarily plant the trees all up by the fence. They can be scattered
throughout on the sides of the berm. Right? So it would make accommodation for it.
Borup: You're talking about getting them in that 10 feet area then?
Martin: Yeah, that's all we're asking.
Borup: On the side of the hill.
Martin: Yes, and here again I cite the incidents that you can look at on Eagle Road in
front of that subdivision. It works there.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions? Anybody else from the audience that would like to
make a statement at this point?
CRAIG STEELE 2021 N.W. 8T" WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Steele: I guess I'm kind of in the minority. I don't live in the subdivision. I live here in
Meridian. I see the problem that you have is you have a city of 30,000 that you have to
development to where we have a tax based where we can afford parks and things that
the city needs. Here we have a subdivision that I feel for them that they have a
development going in next to them that they wouldn't want there, but the city of Meridian
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 58
needs taxes. They need the income. We need the parks, so I guess I'm coming at it
from the standpoint of the regular citizens of Meridian, so you guys have a tough
decision. One that I wouldn't want. But you do have to take into account the other
citizen of Meridian. That's pretty much all I wanted to say in this.
Smith: Just a statement Mr. Steele, I understand what you are saying but I personally
and I cannot speak for the other commission members but generating a tax base for the
city doesn't enter into any of my considerations on any project that comes before us
here. I look at the planning aspects, the compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and
Steele: and how that affects the city as a whole.
Smith: That is why I can't understand that the city ever approved a residential
subdivision at this location in the middle of a light industrial zone.
Steele: Exactly.
Smith: I said it last month, I'll say it again as a matter of public record, it was bad
planning. It shouldn't have been done that way, but it was. So now we have to — I do
believe that Eagle and Fairview are going to develop commercially. One of the
problems with the way Fairview has developed in Boise is it's all strip commercial
development. This is not strip commercial development, and if we break this down into
smaller pieces, inevitably at some point in time in the future it's going to be all
commercial even if this project is denied I think and personally I think it's better planning
to develop larger parcels, and I can appreciate the neighbors concerns. This is a scary
proposition going next to them. You know it's large in scale. But quite frankly I don't
know that you are going to see a density or amount of commercial development in this
half mile stretch down Eagle and half mile down Fairview that's going to be all together
different as far as size goes. It could be smaller. It could be some different uses, but I
just want to reassure everybody in this room that this thing isn't being looked at by at
least one member up here, and I doubt anybody else from a tax based situation.
Steele: It's the city as a whole, and it needs to be looked at that way.
Smith: Winston Churchill said we shape our buildings thereafter they shape us, and
that's one of the reasons why I have an interest in planning and architecture. I also do it
for a living. Your point is — I'm going to shut up.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, could I make a request that you remind all the people speaking to
limit their comments to three minutes and maybe the commission to limit their
dissertations to three minutes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 59
MacCoy: You have a good point there Commissioner. I would like to add one thing to
Commissioner Smith's thing. I think what you are looking at is a board nowadays is
about generally what he said is how we look at it is the overall viewpoint and we try to
balance things out, and it's a tough decision we know.
Steele: It is, but the City of Meridian still needs to grow.
MacCoy: But we come from a background that understands exactly what you say and
what they say. Thank you very much for your comments.
Smith: I never thought I would hear from you, Mr. Prior, about someone being verbose.
RONALD HOWARD 3587 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Howard: Thank you. I will stay within the three minutes because I don't have a whole
lot to say other than I'm not a real eloquent speaker. I don't talk in front of the pubic a
lot. The things that have concern with we moved in the Meridian Subdivision at the time
we moved in there, I knew there was some industrial going to come into the area.
There were signs placarding up there, A Family Center. That was the sign that was put
up there. Most people whenever they look at something that says a Family Center,
does not indicate a regional mall. But I know that we're going to have development in
this area. The thing that I'm asking of the Planning and Zoning is that they take into
consideration the lives of the people that are living in that subdivision, the children that
are at risk in the subdivision. There are some real basic problems that I see with their
plan as far as access to their mall area. There's two entrances at this time into the
subdivision (End of Tape)
Howard:... our entrances into our subdivision. If anybody goes into those mall areas,
they miss a street to pull in or they decide that they want to get from one end of the mall
without having to go around the L -shape, the subdivision is where their cut through is
going to be. This subdivision has a high number of little children within this subdivision
area. It's not an adult community center. Myself I don't have a lot to worry about. My
children are grown. My neighbors have little children all around me. My biggest
concern is their safety. My secondary concern is my property values. I spent a lot of
money to move into that subdivision. What I want is the assurance that this isn't going
to drive my values down. If they are so confident that this is going to keep our values
up, then let them make some proposal or some way of reimbursing us if our property
values do go down because of their development. Bottom line for them is strictly
dollars. The bottom line for us is our livability, and dollars do affect us as well. I've
always been a firm believer in the government and the city government and I do believe
that you people are put up here on the boards to protect us as well as the community in
its development. And our primary concern is the people not the developers and that's
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 60
where your main concern lies. Other than that that's my statement and that's the way 1
feel about it.
MacCoy: Any comments from commissioners?
Smith: Just a quick question. Who are you looking for assurances from about your
property values?
Howard: I think if it's a approved through the Planning and Zoning, the Planning and
Zoning has to give us some kind of assurance. What is in it for us? Why is the
community — where is the community benefiting from and this and especially the
community that here is going to be eventually wrapped completely around. It was the
Planning and Zoning, not you, but the other Planning and Zoning board that put this
thing in here that gave the residential permits to be built in here. Now they are going to
land lock us with major construction in there, major businesses that are going to create
traffic hazards. From just looking at their traffic patterns that they've got there I can see
major problems with trucks, with vehicles coming into the subdivisions. There again the
children in that subdivision just off of Judicial Drive, there's what five six bus stops right
in through there? There's more children under the age of three in that subdivision than
in most subdivision in this city I'd say. That's all young people. They are starter homes
for a lot of these people. They are getting started. They can't afford to take this kind of
loss. If the developers of this are so confident in what they are building and what they
are doing for the community let them put up the money and put it up into a fund that
they will receive back after a certain period of time when they proven that the values
don't drop. If the values drop, let that fund be disbursed among the home owners in
that subdivision to help replace what they've lost. I spent a lot of money on a home to
move into there. I can't afford to take a 10 to 20,000 dollar loss because of somebody
wanting to make a few million dollars out of money that I'll never see. I think that they
can come a long ways and I think that there's a lot of things that we can do to work
together to put this thing together. I don't think that it should be put together all in one
night and one meeting with the subdivision and the owners and have everything, well
it's all perfect now. It's not. Before they move forward I think there needs to be some
more meetings and I think those meetings need to be well publicized. They need to be
minutes taken at those meetings, how they are discussed and what they're discussed,
and you know there's a lot of things I've got real concerns with. I don't want to take up a
lot of your time because it is getting late, and like I say I'm not a public speaker. I'm not
the man out here to be doing this. There's been a lot of other people up here a lot more
eloquent than myself. People in suits that have better degrees than I have. I'm not an
uneducated man, but I do know that your job is to protect me. And I'm depending upon
you to do it, and I don't expect him to come in and change my whole lifestyle over a few
dollars that they're going to make.
Smith: Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 61
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just got to say something before we go on. One of
our purposes here is to get all the information we can and we want to weigh it as best
we can. But for anybody else coming up with ridiculous off the wall suggestions not
doing anybody any good. Just keep that in mind. Let's be practical here. Thank you.
(Inaudible)
Prior: Sir, you're not on the record, would you be quiet please? Will you promise me to
limit this to three minutes please? Obviously no one else is doing it, I'm going to ask
you to limit it to three minutes.
CHANDLER LEGARRETA 3683 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Legarreta: Just to first address your concern, Commissioner Borup, I don't think
anybody here intends to be flippant by any means and I think we're trying to make the
best efforts and the stress and the concerns that we have to try and resolve this issue.
For some of us, I am in the starter home category, and I have not yet had to deal with
something of this stature, and if I seem flippant and concerned, it's because I am very
concerned, and it's not to waste your time or to Mr. Nelson's time. They are true
concerns to us so that's why we're voicing them. One of my original issues that I want
to bring up is this realtor said this, the realtor said that. Clearly based on this
gentleman's testimony or comments earlier there was some discrepancies in the
information at a public level records level and essentially now as a result of realtors and
finding trust in a profession that we could buy our homes through we're now going to
suffer the consequences of this. I don't know that that burden is all on us as being
uneducated purchasers or if that burden lies in the fact that the public records weren't
kept well or maybe my misunderstanding of the law. Or the realtor's understanding of
the law. My second issue the traffic issue. We have to understand that from even not
only a Crossroad Subdivision perspective but from a community and valley perspective
that Eagle Road is a north south artery to the whole north end of Idaho. Whether you
want to believe it or not people commute and just having that built I've seen the traffic
increase personally just driving it. People travel that road to get to the north end of the
valley all the time. That's the main artery that way. You can guess that it's going to be
nightmare. And finally the third issue is by building this and building it to the statue that
it's listing here and developed here, you are going to set a precedence for the
surrounding area if I might approach this. If you recall this corner is also vacant. I don't
know. It's probably 100 plus acres, maybe 200 acres. This corner is vacant. I don't
know big and this corner is vacant. As with any development in retail area, retail breeds
retail. If you set a precedence with this for this be sure and know now that you are
going to set a precedence for that whole area. And what you are going to have is
another Franklin disaster at Milwaukee.
0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 62
MacCoy: Does that conclude your statement?
De Weerd: Well I would just have a comment that you know that's why it's — we need to
rely on ACRD. They are the experts and their report as Mr. Sale had mentioned will be
to us in two weeks and so as far as I'm concerned until we see that report, I can't make
a decision.
Legarreta: I appreciate that.
MacCoy: Any other comments?
Smith: Mr. Legarreta, you made some comments about realtors. When did you buy
yourhouse?
Legarreta: September '96. Actually August, excuse me, August '96.
Smith: Did you inquire as to the adjacent development?
Legarreta: I did.
Smith: And inquired that of your realtor?
Legarreta: Yes, I did.
Smith: And you were told anything specific or just said it was commercial.
Legarreta: Yes. I was told specifically that it would be office type buildings along the
dentist and medical field. Something to compliment Blue Cross across the street.
Smith: What was your realtor's name?
Legarreta: Is that necessary?
Smith: Yes, it is, because you were told a specific use that not one piece of information
that we've had presented before us either by Mr. Phillips or any previous information
that has been submitted to us that ever specifically stated what exactly was going on
that site beyond commercial and as Mr. Phillips pointed out commercial is not only
shopping centers, it's office buildings, it's also entertainment complexes, recreational
uses, etc. It's a vague all encompassing definition, so I would like to know who your
realtor was.
0 •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 63
Legarreta: Okay, can I answer that by asking one question if we could? Could we take
a poll of the audience by show of hands of how many realtors actually told the people in
this room the same thing?
Smith: Certainly. Go ahead. I'm still going to expect you to answer my question.
Legarreta: Absolutely. I just want to show you the magnitude of how much information
Smith: I think I understand what the magnitude is, and 1 think that's why I want to know
who these people are because again we've got some individuals sitting around this
room that depending on what happens here, you're all looking at us at the bad guy, not
them.
Legarreta: No, I don't want to pose myself as being confrontational, but I want you to
understand that if I give you my realtor's name, you're going to have about a thousand
people giving realtors names. I'm happy to do it, as long as I don't fall into any legal
slander or any other legal issue at all.
Smith: All I'm asking you is who represented you in the purchase of your home.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, not to disagree with Commissioner Smith, but I'm not sure if that
is really a necessary question. The thing I would be interested in knowing is how many
of the people that said your realtor told you this has gone back and asked the realtor
about it again in the last month.
Borup: Five. Thank you.
Legarreta: Can we asked the original question too? How many people told that initially
when they bought their house?
Smith: By your realtor.
Legarreta: Specifically by your realtor that helped you buy your home.
Smith: It's got to be a third to half the people in here.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand what the relevance is of him telling what the —
and sir you are not required to answer that question if you don't want to. I don't
understand the relevance of him finding out who specifically his realtor is. I don't see
the relevance of that, and I encourage us to move on.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 64
Legarreta: I appreciate your time. If there are any more questions I'll get out of your
face.
Smith: So, you are not going to tell me who your realtor is?
Prior: That's up to you sir if you want to do that.
Legarreta: Maybe afterwards. I can tell you in private. I wouldn't want to make it public
knowledge.
Smith: Okay.
MacCoy: Thank you.
KEVIN BORCHARDT 1071 N. FILLMORE WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Borchardt: Just a couple of quick things that really I think need to be brought up. My
house borders the fence line. I bought it a little over three and half years ago. The
Family Center sign was not up. There was a big retail sign on the corner. I did look at
that, did some investigation myself. I came up with the same conclusions by coming to
Planning and Zoning doing a few things like that myself. Being right next to the mall, I
have small children, and we're kind of concerned about noise. That's our biggest
concern. We do not want to see outside speakers on the mall. Home Depot is a good
example. We do have other areas down the street that have outside speakers. I can
hear them from my backyard right now. And noise ordinance is a big thing too.
Concerning the berming issue and all that. Being from another state I do know that
drainage is usually taken care of through different forms of systems. You can make
drainage piping all along the back sides so when you do water it flows down. It hits the
pipe, and goes down to another area and waters another area. So the berming we'd
like to see that as a neighborhood. And the water drainage system that would have to
take into effect when they are building the berming that they do need to incorporate that
because I don't want my backyard flooded, and I don't want to be picking up trash out of
my backyard all day long either, and if you would like since my house sits on a fence
line, if you would like to come out and get a better view of what we're trying to talk about
on berming, I'm more than willing to have you guys out so you can see from our
backyard what it's going to look like.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the commissioners?
Borup: Just a quick one. When you mentioned berming were you talking the same
specifications that Mr. Martin?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 65
Borchardt: I would kind of like to see more of a back support to the berming by the
fence and a gradual down on the front.
Borup: Slope away from your property?
Borchardt: Slope away.
MacCoy: Any other questions? Okay thank you very much. It is now about 12 minutes
before the hour of 11:00. In order to give the applicant a chance to speak at least five
minutes before we close this out, we have just about seven minutes left for this open
thing for you tonight. Unless we continue it on, so please take that in mind when you
speak to us. Thank you.
PATRICK HARPER 3644 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Harper: First thing I wanted to address since it was timely in that Commissioner Smith
brought up the issue as far as who is giving us this information. I have an interesting
story. I was curious on what kind of information was still currently being given out
because there's signs up. We have people have been in their houses one or two
months that are still being told this story. This is an open house being held by Tidwell
and Associates on Florence Drive near the Records entrance, and to my amazement I
received a very detailed description when I asked them what's going to go on out here
with this shopping center? I see signs up. And they described it. In fact I've mapped
out here essentially as they described. Records Drive on over to Eagle Road would be
a retail development. The area in red all the area directly west of this subdivision would
be — they are trying to get office, medical, dental tenants. This is with the three
billboards posted out in front, and we are still getting this kind of information. People
telling me this and called them back, confronted, they were still clueless and insisted
that I was wrong and that it was not until they called Capitol Development and got the
story. They did call me back repeatedly apologetically. Thankfully for straightening
them out. But this is two days ago that this information is still going out and people are
still buying homes in this subdivision with that information. My realtor was Germaine
Terrance. We were not necessarily buying a house in Crossroads Subdivision. We had
looked at several subdivisions. We were working independent so I don't think he had
any particular vested interest. I did ask him, I had seen the sign out at the corner. I had
asked him what the implications were. He looked into it and I have called him back and
confronted him on the issue, and as his recollection he did talk to the developer. Now
that could be one of two people that he would have been working with at that time. I
think it would be fantastic. I personally don't know how we go about pursuing this. I
don't know that it's my realtor or anybody's realtor, but somewhere, somehow this
misinformation has some very specific misinformation has been given out. This same
type of diagram is what my realtor explained to me. He went on to explain the vine,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 66
everything else in the area accurately, but this is the information that he got as well.
One other thing Commissioner Smith had asked about the signage on the property, and
as I said I did see the sign. I spoke with David Southers of Southers Properties who did
speak at this meeting last month and we had lengthy discussion about the subdivision
and the signage. He stated that at that time there was a large sign on the corner which
we've all discussed and also two smaller signs at the corners of the property. Well as
we pursued our discussion it was his opinion that those two corner signs which he said
were smaller and he does not have information on whether they were maintained but
they were also at the locations of the current Family Center signs, which are at the red
circles here, so as you see again leading to this perception. So my point here is that we
are not all just naive or stupid. That even those of us who did try and pursue that made
a best effort to get some information received quite specific misinformation. The only
other issue that I don't think has been adequate addressed is and I was glad to hear
Commissioner De Weerd address this was the traffic study. I've seen several of the
ACHD documents, and I'm certainly not the person to describe those in any detail or
with any expertise, but I have seen the proposed layout at least for the expanded
interchange that's going to be at this corner, and as the proposed interchange is
designed, it's going to take out a minimum of two of the pad properties. Two of the
buildings on the property and in addition the impact of that interchange is going to
extend a good 200 feet beyond the Florence entrance on Eagle Road. Now if Mr.
Durkin has worked with ACHD to address those specific concerns I think we would be
very interested in hearing that's going to impact. Because since Presidential is our
primary entrance into the subdivision that would mean that all southbound traffic at the
very least would not be able to use that entrance and would further add to the stress
that is going to be at the Presidential Drive. Their current traffic study shows that the
left turn lanes out of the shopping center on Eagle Road are at level service F, and that
was with the underestimated traffic flow. A lot of other bits and pieces I won't trouble
you with. I think other people have addressed them longer and in greater detail, but I
thank you for your attention.
MacCoy: Any discussion from the commissioners? I'm going to call it a point now for
our applicant to come back up and answer some of these questions so we don't run out
of time.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, before you do so, I think it's important to note if there is
further testimony out there, we will be continuing this public hearing.
MacCoy: Well I'd like to have you hold that for the time being until we get —
De Weerd: I'm not making a motion. I'm just letting them know that they are not just cut
off.
0 •
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 67
MacCoy: No, they are not. We hadn't said that. I'm just asking at this point that you
come back forward and answer some of these before we run out of time.
LARRY DURKIN WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Durkin: I'm the applicant. I guess my first comment is really I was offended by a couple
of the comments from people that seem to question my honesty, Mr. Phillips and others.
Everything I've testified here I've done. I've testified truthfully, accurately and honestly.
My reputation is in good shape with the City of Meridian on other projects, and there's
been no effort by me to distort be incomplete or inaccurate. The handouts on the other
hand that were given by Mr. Phillips tonight are inaccurate. They are out of context.
The dates don't follow the meetings, and maybe if the hearing is continued and he has
another opportunity to address it, but if you look at the dates on top of some of the
pages, he has various different minutes from a number of different meetings, yet his
testimony was talking about one meeting or another, and I can't see from this handout
that they necessarily coincide. Mr. Martin had some good points tonight, but Mr. Martin
again questioned my honesty and my integrity, and I will state to you as a matter of fact,
we had a two hour meeting. I was here for two hours with the adjacent residents. The
guy that states on the record that he isn't a landscape guy didn't come to the meeting,
but the meeting started at 6:00 and I walked out of here at 8:00. Tom Bowens from our
office stayed afterwards to answer questions and the president of the homeowners
association continued to have a home owners meeting. But during that time I thought it
was a real positive meeting. I would guess that there were 50 or so people here. I
know that some of the city staff was here during that meeting, and I thought it was a real
open honest exchange between us as the developer and the affected people in the
subdivision. I know Mr. Phillips threatened a lawsuit tonight in his closing arguments,
and so I expect a lot of this testimony will be — have exhibit numbers and date stamps
on it at a later so I'm very carefully wording this. I will represent to you tonight that the
Family Center sign was installed on the property on or about February 1St, 1998. It may
have been the 15th. It was not earlier than the first of February. The Family Center sign
that was installed three of them were installed the installation company went to the site,
took down the sign that had been there for years that said the Crossroads Shopping
Center and installed the Family Center, coming soon, the Family Center with a site plan.
Generally consistent with what you see there. Not exactly but I would say very
consistent with what you see there. So if someone bought a house three years ago and
they looked at the Family Center sign and thought it was going to be a family park.
There wasn't a Family Center sign at that time. I guess that's my point. I think it's
important to get accurate, honest public testimony. And so I'd like to ask for an
extension tonight and not put you in a situation where you are going to be spending a lot
more time discussing a motion. That's my suggestion and my request of you, and it will
enable people to come back and testify again. So I would like to say that. That would
be my request as the applicant and I'd like to give plenty of notice and have everyone
be available to come back and go through this again. But I want you to know that our
0 0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 68
efforts were prior to purchasing the property we conducted a lot of detailed studies in
the area. The services that we're offering we're convinced are needed in the area. We
have other developments in the Boise area. We live here. And we're proud of it. We
maintain them. The traffic study process for those of you on the commission that
understand that, we're required under statute to hire a traffic study engineer. We give
them the general facts of what we're planning to do. They go out and do a study. They
put it together in a book. They give it to us. We hand it to ACHD, and their entire tech
review committee has a meeting and they go over it. They have comments to that, and
they submit those comments for — they're generally considered questions. But at the
time of our last meeting we had in fact submitted the traffic study more than a month
before and had received nothing but verbal positive comments from ACHD. You may
recall one of the commissioners that night said have you seen this? And you were
faxed a letter that afternoon stating that they had questions. That's the first I heard of it.
And you gave me a copy that night, but in fact since that time we've met with ACHD. I
can represent to you that in my opinion we have answered all their questions to our
satisfaction and to their satisfaction. This is more study. It's a big project, but our
commitment is to accept the final recommendations of the Ada County Highway traffic
group and so that's our commitment. We're aware of the costs and the other matters
related to their approval. We've gone through it before. We have had more than one
meeting. We've had a number of meetings with staff. We've had two meetings with the
president of the adjacent homeowners association, reviewing our plans and giving him
copies of all our plans prior to ever having a pubic hearing here, and that's a normal
procedure that we go through, and we've had a meeting with all of the adjacent
residents, and I don't think that you could question tonight with the audience that people
are aware of what's going on and the opportunity to comment has been ample. That's
about it. I guess I'd ask for a continuance. I don't know the term that the City of
Meridian uses but continue it for another night. My only request and I don't know if we
have any influences is that we could be first on the agenda instead of last. The last time
we started at — I think we got out of here 12:00 at night or something because we
started late. So I'll happily answer any questions that you may have.
MacCoy: Thank you very much. At this moment I think I will ask you to take your seat
and put it to the commissioners since the hour is already passed 11:00 as to what do
you want to do?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment. I think there has been
considerable time on a lot of people's parts here. The developer, staff certainly and the
residents as well, and I sit up here and mudslinging seems to be the only term I can
come up with. But no one is being personally attacked. You know emotions do funny
things and certainly we're not sitting up here speculating on what your interpretation is
on those signs and what our opinions are of that or anything to Mr. Durkin on his
honesty level. I think we need to stay away from that, but I would hope that people
could put those emotional things aside and realize that there's nothing behind the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 69
personal attacks and I would hope you remember that when we continue this pubic
hearing. We all are trying to do the best we can. It's an enormous project and needs to
take some time. It's very rare that the developer does as much with the residents that I
think they are coming out and doing and they are trying to listen to your concerns. I do
appreciate also the time that the residents have spent looking at other options and Mr.
Martin you kind of surprised me on that, but I think that those kind of things really are
what we're looking for. We're looking at other ways to look at things. So we have to
depend on the public to do that for us as well. There's my soapbox speech and I have
been quite most of the evening. Anyway on this issue.
MacCoy: Commissioners what do you suggest?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this item until our
September 8th meeting if that gives the applicant enough time to — I guess that's a — we
have to continue this to a date certain. I think there's been some things brought up
today that I think I'd like to see prior to the next meeting in working with the neighbors
and staff that have been brought up tonight like studying this berm at the back. What
the best way to approach what we're trying to solve by putting that berm there and the
landscape screening. The neighbors have expressed concern over not only visual but
most specifically I think noise.
De Weerd: Is that all part of your motion?
Smith: No.
Prior: It's part of his dissertation.
Smith: Mr. Prior, I can't believe you are a Redwing's fan. The other thing was how we
can address this trying to break up these parking lots and not have the landscaping look
like the pictures that you showed. I think there are some creative ways that a good
designer could approach those, and I don't want to tell you how to do it because I don't
want to lock anybody in to something where somebody else might have a better idea
how to do it, but I would like to see these large expanses of asphalt broke up somehow,
and whether that's clustering trees or you know spreading them out the way you see
them done all the time. I don't know the best way is to do that. But somebody could
come up with some ideas and then I think Commissioner Borup's suggestion of moving
the grocery store ten feet, twenty feet, whatever deserves to be studied and looked and
see how that affect things. And then Mr. Martin brought up the point that 1 said 4
parking spaces for 1,000 feet was desirable. That what's the minimum required by
ordinance. As Mr. Durkin stated last month I think that's not always adequate for this
type of development. That parking gets over burdened and remember again when
we're talking about landscape requirements. Those are minimum parking requirements
those are minimums too. So do you need more than until next month? Okay so I'm
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 70
going to restate my motion to continue this item until September 8th and ask the
applicant to provide us with new site plan information based on those items I just
discussed prior to our meeting so we have a chance to review that.
Borup: Yes, I would like to second that, but I was just also maybe a clarification. 1 just
wrote down three items that you mentioned, and I would like to know if that fit in with
what you had in mind in your motion. Talking about the screening berm along the
subdivision property, parking lot, additional — to break up the parking lot with some
additional landscaping and then also look at additional buffering around behind the
grocery store. Is that the three items that you were —
Smith: Yes, and I don't know the residents — we didn't hear from everybody tonight so
you may have more things and Mr. Durkin may be more than willing to sit down again
and meet with the neighbors. I can't say what he's willing to do or not do. He's done it
once already so I would think that he wants to move this thing forward and continue to
meet with you. Again I can't say what he will or won't do. But there may be some other
things that the residents have to bring up.
Borup: We got the letter that (inaudible) turned in. You know we did not hear from
anybody that was behind the grocery store, which I would have been interested —
Smith: There are some —
Borup: Okay so I'm sure we'll hear from them. I mean maybe not only Commissioner
Smith, maybe not only your idea on moving it forward, but you also mentioned
increasing the height there is another option for us.
Smith: I would encourage the residents to get the developer's name and number and
call him and talk to him.
De Weerd: And he is the one that suggested that, so we're not putting into his mouth.
Before we vote on a motion, I think staff has been very patient with us. We haven't
asked them any questions.
MacCoy: I haven't finished yet thank you.
De Weerd: If there's any issues they would like to add on to these considerations. No?
Of course there is ACHD's report that we need to concern ourselves with too.
MacCoy: Okay any other discussion from the commissioners before we take a vote?
Prior: Mr. Chairman, would they just restate the motion and second it again and then
we'll vote on it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 71
MacCoy: Again?
Prior: Yes please quickly.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we continue this item until our
September 8th meeting and ask that the applicant look at the landscape buffer, between
the residential neighborhood and the proposed development, the parking lot
landscaping i.e. additional trees and the siting of the grocery store as Commissioner
Borup suggested earlier and any other items which staff or the residents may bring up in
subsequent meetings.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
(Inaudible)
Prior: Mr. Chairman the public hearing has been continued. We ought to stop now.
MacCoy: We're going to. I'm waiting for another motion. Wait.
Berg: I'm sorry just a point of clarification Mr. Chairman, I know you verbally talked
about these other items and issues, but I think we need to open each public hearing and
continue it to that date that you had recommended. Because these were noticed as
public hearings and we are suppose to have a hearing tonight on those items. And so
each item that we have on the agenda needs to be dealt with.
Borup: Individually?
Berg: Yes. So before your other final motion, I think you need to do that.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take items 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
16, 17 and 18 and continue those to our August 31st meeting.
Borup: second.
MacCoy: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 72
Smith: Doesn't that work? Doesn't that cover what you wanted?
De Weerd: I think we have to open them individually and continue them officially. Is
that right?
Berg: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, of all the information that I've gone to
seminars and classes, that's what I presume is the proper thing. What we're dealing
with is we notice for public hearing and we have to have a public hearing tonight. Yes,
we can continue it, and that's what we want to do, but I think you have to open up each
public hearing and get a motion to continue it.
Smith: Mr. Prior can we open up all these public hearings at the same time?
Prior: In the form of a consent agenda, I think you might be able to get away with that,
but they weren't listed as items on a consent agenda. So that creates a little bit of a
problem. So quickly just open the public hearing, close the public, -- if you'll just do it
very quickly. Chairman, very quickly say I'm opening up the public hearing, anyone
here and then just move along.
MacCoy: It seems like a lot of stuff to do but okay. If you say so.
Prior: Please quickly.
ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL
PLAT FOR PROPOSED FIRST MERIDIAN PLAZA BY WILD SHAMROCK
PARTNERSHIP — SOUTH OF GEM AVENUE BETWEEN MERIDIAN ROAD AND E.
1 ST.
MacCoy: Anyone here to speak? Since there's none, we'll continue the public hearing
to the date of September —
Prior: You need to make a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we continue the public hearing for a
request for preliminary and final plat for the proposed First Meridian Plaza.
Smith: Second.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, I think if you just note them by number we can do it relatively
quickly. Just note the number we'll go with that route please.
MacCoy: All right. That second was made yes. All in favor.
a
pcTilivED
Meridian, Idaho AUG 14 1998
August 8, 1998
CITY OF ivIERIDIAN
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho Ave.
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Regarding: Approval of plans for Proposed Family Center at Meridian to be located at the
intersection of Eagle/Fairview.
To: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission:
From a homeowner perspective, there are several observations and reservations
concerning the Proposed Family Center at Meridian.
1. Homeowners will need to use the same two primary streets as the new 800,000 sq. ft.
shopping mall traffic in order to get to and from our homes. During peak shopping
hours and the Christmas Rush, how will Emergency Services, school buses and
homeowners gain access to the residential area without delay?
2. There will be high potential for increased traffic in the residential area by mall
shoppers attempting shortcuts to avoid using the Eagle/Fairview corner or to get to
other sections of the mall.
3. The proposed Buffer Zone (20 feet with some trees) does not indicate the usage of
high berm areas similar to those used by other building projects in the immediate area
(example: new Blue Cross Building). Block wall fencing is not present either; only
wood fencing.
4. How will entrances to the residential area be separated from the shopping mall?
5. There will be a probable decline in value of homes already purchased and improved.
Homeowners have invested too much to become the back alley for one of the largest
shopping centers in Idaho.
6. If the shopping center was approved prior to the Residential Development, why did
the MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION approve the
Residential Development? Lack of PLANNING? Does this create the potential for a
protracted litigation process?
7. Why is another large shopping center necessary so close to Boise Towne Square? At
the very least, this new shopping center could be moved to a more appropriate
location.
0 •
8. The name being used to identify this large shopping center is called "The Family
Center of Meridian". It attempts to give the appearance of being family oriented
when in fact it will tend to drive families from its perimeter.
9. The new 800,000 sq. ft. shopping center plan is much larger than the low impact
Doctors and Dentists type of offices described earlier.
10. We feel that it is not appropriate to place large high traffic discount/membership type
stores at this location. Has a study been made to determine the amount of traffic
already present at this vicinity and the amount of traffic increase brought about by the
presence of a new large shopping center.
As each of you considers the appropriateness of the proposed Family Center at Meridian,
please picture your own backyard and how you would like one of Idaho's largest
shopping malls located at the end of your property.
Please give careful consideration to the type, size, quantity, and location of commercial
businesses to be allowed at the Eagle/Fairview location.
Thank you.
elyQ,
John & hyllis Hanson
Crossroads Subdivision
3791 E. Eisenhower Drive
Meridian, ID 83642
cc: Meridian City Council
Channel 7 News
GENERIC TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: S4e-1 Q PWZ- DATE:
FROM: toQ6- ZL g d E 12S
COMPANY: �o s S Ro A� -o w►C e w �v t 2 S s a
SUBJECT: $A X12 Af'f POkM l L Y CCni-r
CONTENTS: Slvr; lcTve-6- &AeQ
COMMENTS: �L0TgA) cvrLoPCMEWT- Pif'0127
(/6vW—t E ANO PESIp£Nf—) t6ik
c -o TN
SEP 0 4
CITY OF ME
i Q T io
P( -AA)
PRcPaSA L
SIGNATURE: C. 6 6° Yl q g q
-o I I S- S 3
7ED
1998
RIDIAN
R D
September 3, 1998 SEP 0 4 1998
(IT'l'Y OF :II;RIDiN
Planning and Zoning Commission
Atm.: Shari Stiles
200 E. Carlton, Suite 201
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Shari:
Enclosed are some ideas for the proposed buffer between the Family Center d the Crossroads
Subdivision. We have submitted a drawing of a barrier, which was done by local architect. This
is preferred by the majority of homeowners who have been involved in our h meowners'
meetings. There are also some other hand drawn ideas, which we submit to ou as secondary
options.
We are also including a copy of the ACHD traffic review of the Durkin's tr c study; in it we
have highlighted some of our greatest concerns, such as: the dates of, and lai k of a complete and
recent traffic count used to generate these figures.
Finally, we have submitted an idea to relocate some of the proposed buildin in the development
to help deal with the traffic flow issues. Also enclosed is a letter from Capit 1 Development
naming Lorell Rogers as the homeowners representative for residents of Cr sroads Subdivision.
If you have any questions, please call Lorell at 887-5378 or Alan Durrant at 66-0419 or 898-
0125. Thank you for your consideration.
SincerelyIro'a / �0
fug—
Lorell Rogers
Crossroads Homeowners' Representative
•
LDCAPITAL
DEVBLOPMENT, Inc.
August 25, 1998
Planning and Zoning
City of Meridian
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
To Whom It May Concern:
0
We have asked Lorell Rogers, a resident of Crossroads Subdivision, and
the Home Owners representative for matters pertaining to the commer
Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue in front of Crossroads Subdivision.
She has met and will continue to meet with the Home Owners and will
behalf.
subdivision
2304 North Cole Road, Sulte-A Boise, Idaho 83704
Office: (208) 377-3939 Fox: (208) 375-3271
REcE'vED
SEP 0 4 1998
CI`Y OF MERIDIAN
has accepted, to be
development along
speaking in their
1�1
8/20/98
Dear Neighbors:
I am writing to request your input for an idea regarding the proposed Fai
that would border our subdivision. Let me first say that I am firmly opp
the proposed shopping center and the traffic and other problems it will b
approved in its present dimension, I think this is an idea that may lesson
I would propose that the grocery store, intended for parcel 2, just north of ]
relocated to parcel 5, east of records drive. Further, that the entertainment
parcel 5 be relocated to parcel 1, south of Presidential drive, and finally the
superstore (Best Buy) and other stores from parcel 5 be relocated to parcel
E
a
g
1
e
Fairview
3 4 5
2
Presidential Crossroads Subdivision
1
The advantages I see for this idea are as follows:
• It will move one of the heaviest generators of traffic, the grocery store,
the project where the speed limit is lower and more entrances are availa
stoplight at Records Drive.
• The Grocery store would back up to homesthat are not yet occupied, so
move into those homes uninformed of the situation.
,-.FDSD
,SFP P< 1998
Center at Meridian
d to the magnitude of
;. However, if it is
impact.
• It may be possible (I do not know whether this is realistic) to move load]
grocery to the east side of the building at this location. Thus, future resit
disturbed by early morning traffic.
• The movie theater would require fewer deliveries (and no early morning
currently proposed for parcel 1.
• Any stores relocated to parcel 2 would certainly require fewer deliveries
deliveries) than the grocery store that is currently proposed for parcel 2.
• The grocery store is less likely to draw people traveling to the shopping
84 (people tend to buy groceries close to home). The movie theater and
complex are more likely to draw traffic from Interstate 84 and would fin
more suitable.
• The entertainment complex will generally generate heavy traffic only at
movies are starting or ending. It is these peaks of traffic that I consider
al drive, be
intended for
the electronics
or 5.
the Fairview side of
including a
resident should
docks for the
is would not be
ones) than the stores
(especially early
via Interstate
the new location
,fie intervals as
likely to
5
0
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DI
Planning and Development Division
Development Application Report
MCU -17-98 Meridian Family Center SEC Fairview .Avenue & Eagle Road
The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for an 848,000 -square foot retail shopping
center. The 74.74 -acre site is located on the southeast corner of Eagle Roa and Fairview
Avenue in Meridian. This development is estimated to generate 26,950 -ad itional vehicle trips
per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation anual and the
submitted traffic study.
The Commission previously reviewed and conceptually approved this prc
Crossroads Subdivision in 1995. In the original review, only the resident
approved. The District required a traffic analysis and conceptual review (
the commercial and residential components), because of the concern for ti
operations. The residential component was approved by the District and 1
final stages of construction. The current application is very similar to the
Staff is not able to discern any major difference between the original cont
proposal.
Roads impacted by this development: Eagle Road
Fairview Avenue
Pine Street
Records Drive
Presidential Drive
ACHD Commission Date - September,, 1998 - 12:00 p.
W
J- i
ASS
W
Z
0
SITE
:t as part of the
component was
he entire site (e.g.
Sic volumes and
subdivision is in the
iginal application.
t and this new
11
ISE
Facts and Findings:
A. General Information
Owner - Developers Diversified Realty Corporation
Applicant -Developers Diversified Realty Corporation care of the
I -L - Existing zoning
I -L - Requested zoning
74.74 - Acres
2 - Proposed building lots
0 - Proposed dwelling units
848,000 - Total square feet of proposed building
0 - Square feet of existing building
1,000± - Total lineal feet of proposed public streets
145- Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)
West Ada - Impact Fee Benefit Zone
Western Cities - Impact Fee Assessment District
Eagle Road (state Highway S )
Principal arterial
Traffic count 27,564 on 10097
2,600 -feet of frontage
140 -feet existing right-of-way (70 -feet from section line)
140 -feet required right-of-way (70 -feet from section line)
Eagle Road is improved with a 78 -foot street section with five travel
or sidewalk. Eagle Road is State Highway 55 and is under the jurisdi
Transportation Department (ITD)
Fairview Avenue
Principal arterial
Traffic count 21,900 on 10197
2,600 -feet of frontage
100 to 108 -feet existing right-of-way (50 to 54 -feet from section line)
108 -Feet required right-of-way (54 -feet from section line)
Fairview Avenue is improved with a 68 -foot street section with five
gutter or sidewalk.
Pine Street
Collector street with bike lane designation
No traffic count available (this roadway segment is not open)
650 -feet of frontage
0 -feet existing right-of-way
90 to 96 -feet required right-of-way (48 -feet from mid-section line)
Company Inc.
and no curb, gutter
of the Idaho
lanes and no curb,
MCU 179&.COM
Page 2
11
•
The right-of-way for this segment of Pine Street has not been dedicate
constructed. Construction of this segment of Pine Street between Eal
Road is included in the current Five Year Work Program, to be comp]
Continued and extensive development within the area may accelerate
Presidential Drive
Local commercial street with no bike lane designation
Traffic count 1,178 on 12/4196
700 -feet of frontage
69 -feet existing right-of-way (34.5 -feet from centerline)
69 -feet required right-of-way (34.5 -feet from centerline)
Presidential Drive is constructed as two 14 -foot roadways separated b
The roadway has curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the street.
was platted and constructed as part of the Crossroads subdivision.
Records Drive
Local commercial street with no bike lane designation
Traffic count "avamde
800 -feet of frontage
No existing right-of-way (34.5 -feet from centerline)
60 to 84 -feet required right-of-way (30 to 42 -feet from the future
Records Drive has not yet been constructed between Fairview Avenue
subdivision. A paved, but temporary access has been constructed as a
residential development. This access is temporary until the current ap
final segment.
nor has it been
Road and Cloverdale
ed in FY 2002.
e need for this facility.
a 14 -foot median island.
This roadway segment
ind the Crossroads
zcondary access to the
lication constructs the
B. Utility street cuts in new pavement less than five years old are not allo ved. unless approved in
writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (w th file numbers) for
details.
C. Eagle Road (State Highway 55) is under the jurisdiction of Idaho Tra isportation Department
(ITD). Application materials should be submitted to ITD for review aj kd requirements of that
Department and the applicant should submit to the District a letter fror i ITD regarding said
requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or
other required permits), whichever occurs first. The applicant may cotact District III Traffic
Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340.
D. Eagle ROW traffic vokwim have increased an average of 16% over th4 last seven yms. Traffic
has increased an average of 20°/. over the last four years. The APA m4del assumes a 4%
annual growth rate until the Year 2015. While it is unlikely that the/e growth rAW wiff be
maintained, there is some question about the accuracy of the 2015 traf4c forecast.
E. District staff requested an extensive traffic impact study summary far . project beosse. the
retail center is estimated to generate 30,000 daily vehicle trips, about the impact of the
MCU 1798.COM
Page 3
0
r�
u
development on traffic accessibility to Eagle. Road and Fairview A
the Eagle/Fairview intersection.
ACHD staff and the staff of the Idaho Transportation Department (IT;
DRAFT traffic analysis prepared by Dobie Engineering Inc. Both ago
lengthy review letters and requests for additional data. An addendum
applicant's consultant. Both ITD and ACHD staffs reviewed the add
mote in-depth analysis by a second set of review letters. A second ac
by the applicant's consultant. Following is a summary of the traffic,
Dobie Engineering and a list of recommendations.
Evaluation of the traffic analysis summary (Dobie Engineering) and
by staff provided the following information:
and the operation of
reviewed the submitted
ies responded with
is submitted by the
tum and requested
ndum was submitted
lysis submitted by
Held analysis
a.
The proposed project is estimated to generate 26,950 total dail
vehicle trips. However,
the actual additional traffic volume added to the street system i
approximately 24,000
to 21,000 daily vehicle trips because of passby trips already o
the adjacent roadways.
b.
The proposed project is estimated to generate 2,570 total peak
our vehicle trips.
However, will only add approximately 1,750 to 2, 420 peak h
Lir vehicle trips to the
external trip network because of passby trips already on the ad"
scent roadways.
C.
The anticipated 2,570 peak hour vehicle trips are the result a tri
rate of 3.03 peak hour
vehicle trips per 1,000 sq ft of floor area. This number is in coi
ripliance with the data
provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). D
strict staff completed
peak hour traffic counts at two smaller local shopping centers.
he observed numbers
matched the ITE data for a similar sized shopping center. Staff
therefore accepts the
submitted figures for peak hour trip generation.
d.
The project site was originally reviewed as a retail venter side 1
1995 as part of the
Crossroad Subdivision Traffic Analysis. The residential coin
hent of this site was
approved and is currently under construction. The current for
t trip generation from
the commercial component of this site is consistent with the
tions from the
original (1995) study.
e.
The submitted site plan shows several driveways on Pine Streel,
Eagle Road and
Fairview Avenue.
f.
Pine Street is a designated collector road. There is no right -of-
ay east of Eagle Road.
A portion of the Pine Street roadway has been constructed west
of Eagle Road. The
submitted traffic analysis assumed that the Pine/Eagle intersect
on will be signalized.
g.
Presidential Drive is a public street and designated as a local ro
id. The analysis
assumed that the Presidential/Eagle intersection will be STOP
ntrolled on the
Presidential Drive approach.
h.
Florence Street is a private driveway east of Eagle Road but is
public street designated
as a local road west of Eagle Road.
i.
Eagle Road is an access controlled roadway under the jurisdiction
of ITD. The two
access points were deeded to this parcel by ITD. The applicant
is proposing three
access points (including Pine Street). Presidential Drive is the
brily access point which
has been constructed at this time.
MCU 1798.COM
Page 4
Pine Street is a future public roadway. It is scheduled for cons ruction between Eagle
and Cloverdale Road in FY 2000. ACHD has already obtain
an access permit from
ITD to construct the Pine Street intersection with Eagle Road.
Records Drive is a currently private driveway but will be ded ic
ited as a public street
and designated as a local road with this application. The analy is assumed that the
Records/Fairview intersection will be signal controlled.
There are four other proposed driveways on Fairview Avenue.
The western -most
driveway (Driveway A on the attached map) is proposed for ri
ht-on/right-out
operation. The other three driveways meet District policy for I
Lill access operation.
Current District policy allows a maximum of three access poin
s for one frontage. Staff
supports a variance to allow the fourth driveway because of tht
great length of frontage
(one-half mile) and the high volume of traffic to be accommo
ated.
Both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are principal arterials.
s such, Level of Service
(LOS) E is an acceptable condition for the intersections on bot
roadways.
Both Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are five lane facilities
utting the project site.
There is an added northbound free right turn from Eagle Road
0 Fairview Avenue.
The Eagle Road Access Study (1997) recommends allowing oily
two access points to
Eagle Road between Pine Street and Fairview Avenue. These
wo access points would
be restricted to right-in/right-out operation as Eagle Road traffi
volumes ice.
These access points would be eliminated entirely in future sta
of the plan's
implementation.
The Eagle Road Access Study recommended a grade separated interchange for the
Eagle/Fairview intersection in a future development phase.
The current APA model assumes an average annual increase o only 4V*. Theabscrved
traffic increases have average 20% per year over the last four y
Ms.
The Eagle/Fairview intersection currently operates at LOS D.
The Eagle/Fairview intersection will operate at LOS F with the
existing geometry and
the `existing plus project" traffic volumes. The intersection c
be made to operate at
an acceptable LOS E condition with the provisions of dual left
urn lanes and free right
turn lanes on all approaches. This change will require moving
it least two signal poles
and adding pavement as well as restriping.
The Eagle/Pine intersection will operate at LOS E with the `ex
ting plus project" traffic
volumes. The intersection will require dual left tum lanes on a
I approaches.
The Fairview/Records intersection will operate at LOS E with
he `existing plus project"
traffic volumes. The intersection will require signalization and dual left turn lanes on all
approaches.
The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will
ate similar to right-
inhight-out facilities. Tire through traffic volumes on both
are so high that there
will be few opportunities for left -turns at any of the non -sign '
ed intersections.
The remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will o
ate at an acceptable
LOS E or better for outbound left turns and inbound left turns
if the signalized
intersections are constructed as shown above. The demand for eft turns at the
unsignalized intersections far exceeds the available capacity. T
iese intersections only
function acceptably because the excess traffic can be diverted tA,
a signalized
intersections at Pine Street and Records Drive. This condition
caused by'a
combination of high traffic volumes on the arterial streets and a
t the site driveways.
MCU 1798.COM
Page 5
• 0
Y_ Due to the high traffic volumes on both Eagle Road and Fairvie
remaining, unsignalized, full access site driveways will operate
or better for outbound right turns and inbound left turns if the s:
are constructed as shown above.
F. ACHD has contracted with EARTH -TECH Engineering Inc. to per
the development. This second consultant's review produced essenti
There were two noted points of difference however.
a. EARTH -TECH had a less optimistic view of the future traffic
They were less comfortable with APA's forecast of 4%a mual
traffic volumes to forecast Higher future volumes on Eagle Rol
assumption is that the roadway intersections are completely ov
from this project and the background traffic volumes.
Avenue, the
an acceptable LOS E
ialized intersections
a third party review of
he same information.
Imes on Eagle Road.
wth and used. recent
The result of this
►helmed with trafft
b. EARTH -TECH had a less optimistic view of the site's c traveling to the nearest
signalized intersections. They assumed that more drivers wool wait for traffic at the
nearer unsignalized intersections. The result of this assumptio is that the unsignalized
intersections will be completely overwhelmed with traffic frons this site.
G. The preceding analysis has identified that the following public street it
minimum modifications needed to accommodate the additional traffic +
and the normal growth of background traffic:
a.
Construct dual left turn lanes on all four approaches of the Eagl
b.
Modify the existing Eagle/T'airview intersection to add apedesi
C.
Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview Avenue/Records Driv4
d.
Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Fairview Avenue a
intersection.
e.
Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle Road/Pine Street intersec
f.
Construct dual southbound left tum lanes on Eagle Road at the
intersection.
g.
Construct dual westbound left turn lanes on Pine Avenue at the
h.
Construct Pine Avenue from Eagle Road east to the eastern pro
Two lanes are needed from the western driveway to the eastern
lanes are needed from the western driveway to the western pro;
i.
Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Eagle road a
j.
Construct deceleration lanes at all intersections on Fairview Av
vents arexhe
by this project
/Fairview intersection.
ian signal and phases.
intersection.
the Records Drive
Avenue
�e Road intersection.
line of this project.
erty line. Four
line.
ng the site.
abutting the site.
Depending upon the magnitude and direction of project development, ' may be possible to
implement the needed improvements in phases. All of these improverr encs may not be needed
at the start of development.
H. District policy requires the applicant to construct a five-foot sidewalk
abutting the entire site (approximately 2,600 -feet) prior to issuance o
District approval of a final plat, whichever occurs first.
Fairview Avenue
�y required permits or
MCU 1798.COM
Page 6
0 •
Construct pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to one half of a 81 -foot street section on
abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600 -feet). The applicant will not be compensated for this
construction.
J. District policy requires the applicant to construct a five-foot sidewalkbn Eagle Road abutting
the entire site (approximately 2,600 -feet). I
K. District policy requires the applicant to construct five-foot sidewalks(�Oth sides) on Records
Drive abutting the entire site (approximately 700 -feet). I
L. Dedicate 76 -feet of right-of-way for Records Drive from Fairview Av nue to a point 300 -feet
south of Fairview Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation f a final subdivision plat
or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit or other required
permits), whichever occurs first. The owner will not be compensated or this right-of-way
because Records Drive is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the
developers of abutting properties.
M. Dedicate 60 -feet of right-of-way for Records Drive from a point 300-
et south of Fairview
Avenue through the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivis
n plat or execution of a
warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required
ermits), whichever
occurs first. The owner will not be compensated for this right-of-way
ecause Records Drive is
a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the develop
of abutting properties.
N. ACHD's Park & Ride Division Staff have indicated the need for a par and ride location at the
applicant's site. The District requests that applicant grant the District easement for a 10 to
12 -space Park & Ride area at this site. Commuteride staff will contact the applicant to
coordinate the location of the Park & Ride area.
O. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommendthat Tenants occupying
the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transport ion Program for
employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee partic ation. Commuteride
staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the plicant. For more
information contact Pat Nelson at 387-6160 for further information.
P. In order to reduce trips to and from this development, it is recommend4 d that the tenants
occupying the proposed building(s) be required to participate in any Tisportation
Management Association (TMA) or Transportation Management Orga fization (TMO) that is
formed with a boundary that includes this site or is adjacent to this de lopment.
A Transportation Management Association (TMA) or Transportationanagement
Organization (TMO) is formed with a coordinator that works as a liais n between businesses
and private and public transportation providers to increase the use of a ernative transportation
and other trip reduction measures (shuttle buses, bus pass programs, v pools, car pools,
bicycle and walking enhancements).
An annual survey will be required of the TMA/TMO to monitor partic ation in alternative
transportation programs and forwarded to the ACHD Commuteride OfTice.
MCU 1798. COM
Page 7
Q. District policy states that direct access to arterials and collectors is normally restricted and that
the developer shall try to use combined access points. In accordance with District policy the
applicant should be required to provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the
east to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or
other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the
parcel to the east if they are the subject of a future development application.
R. In accordance with District policy, stub streets or driveways to the undeveloped parcels
abutting this site may be required upon review of a future application for this site.
S. As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways,
may be placed on future development of this parcel.
T. The District is concerned with internal site access and the poss%le traffic impacts on the
adjaeent residential subdivision. District gaff believes that an improved internal site circulation
system will minimize those impacts. The proposed system could include travel routes parallel
to Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue but should not be immediately in front of the stores.
U. The District completed an access control plan for the entire Eagle Road corridor in 1997. An
important recommendation of that study was the proposal for a grade separated interchange at
the Eagle/Fairview intersection. Although this project is anticipated beyond the 20 -year
planning period, the District plans to purchase the right-of-way now to ensure that the needed
land will be available when construction begins. Therefore, the applicant will be required to
dedicate sufficient land area to accommodate the proposed interchange design. The owner will
be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-way from
available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to
the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD
Ordinance #188. The owner may enter into a license agreement with the District to use the
surplus right-of-way until the District constructs the interchange.
V. The Existing transportation system will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic
generated by this proposed development only with the additional requirements outlined within
this report. The existing transportation system is not adequate for the anticipated traffic
volumes.
The following requirements are provided as conditions for approval:
Special Recommendation to Meridian City:
The applicant should be required to provide internal site circulation equivalent to a public street
system. This is necessary to ensure that intra -site circulation does not use the public street
system or circulate through the adjacent subdivision. The on-site system should roughly parallel
Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road but should not be located immediately in front of the stores.
Coordinate the internal roadway design with District staff.
MCU 1798.COM
Page 8
2. In order to reduce trips to and from this development it is recommended that tenants occupying
the proposed building be required to provide an Alternative Transportation Program for
employees and provide an annual report to ACHD on employee participation. Commuteride
staff will coordinate the Alternative Transportation Program with the applicant. For more
information contact Mrs. Pat Nelson at 387-6160.
In order to reduce trips to and from this development, the tenants occupying the proposed
building(s) should be required to participate in any Transportation Management Association
(TMA) or Transportation Management Organization (TMO) that is formed with a boundary
that includes this site or is adjacent to this development.
SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS TO ITD
The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to create dual left -turn
lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. These
improvements are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of
the site before the noted improvement is required.
2. The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to create dual left -turn
lanes on the two Eagle Road approaches of the Eagle/Pine intersection. These improvements
are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before
the noted improvement is required.
3. The applicant should be required to construct the needed improvements to modify the existing
Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches. These
improvements are not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of
the site before the noted improvement is required.
4. The applicant should be required to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on
Eagle Road.
5. The applicant should be required to construct a right turn lane on northbound Eagle Road at the
Fairview Avenue intersection.
6. Prohibit any driveway access to Eagle Road north of the Florence Street intersection. The
driveway will conflict with the operation of the free, northbound right -tum lane.
Site Specific Requirements:
Comply with requirements of ITD for Eagle Road (State Highway 55) frontage. Submit to the
District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat
or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact
District III Traffic Engineer Lance Johnson at 334-8340.
MCU1798.COM
Page 9
2. Dedicate 6 to 8 -feet of right-of-way from the centerline of Fairview Avenue (to total 59 -feet
from section line) abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or
execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits).
whichever occurs first. The owner will be compensated for all right-of-way dedicated as an
addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the
owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground.
in accordance with Section 15 of ACRD Ordinance # 188.
3. Dedicate 96 -feet of right-of-way (48 -feet from the centerline) of Pine Street abutting the parcel
by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to
issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner
will be compensated for 23 -feet right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-way
from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of
application to the impact fee administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section
15 of ACRD Ordinance # 188.
4. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way abutting Eagle Road for the future Eagle Road Interchange.
Coordinate the right-of-way requirements with District staff. The right-of-way is generally
described as being a minimum of 226 -feet wide (113 -feet east of centerline) from Fairview
Avenue south for 600 -feet. The right-of-way needs then taper to 146 -feet wide (73 -feet from
centerline to a point 1,400 -feet south of Fairview Avenue. The owner will be compensated for
all right-of-way dedicated as an addition to existing right-of-way from available impact fee
revenues in this benefit zone, if the owner submits a letter of application to the impact fee
administrator prior to breaking ground, in accordance with Section 15 of ACHD Ordinance
#188.
5. Dedicate 60 to 76 -feet of right-of-way (30 to 45 -feet from the centerline) of Records Drive
abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a
warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever
occurs first. The owner will not be compensated for this right-of-way because Records Drive is
a local street.
6. Construct the needed improvements to create dual left -tum lanes and a right -tum lane on the
two Fairview Avenue approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection. These improvements are
not needed immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the
noted improvement is required.
7. Construct the needed improvements to modify the existing Eagle/Fairview traffic signal to
provide pedestrian phasing on the four approaches.
8. Construct the needed improvements to create dual left -tum lanes on the eastern approaches of
the Eagle/Pine intersection.
9. Construct a five-foot sidewalk on Fairview Avenue abutting each development phase
(approximately 2,600 -feet total) prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
MCU 1798.COM
Page 10
10. Construct a five-foot sidewalk on Eagle Road abutting each development phase (approximately
2,600 -feet total) prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
11. Construct pavement widening on Fairview Avenue to one half of an 89 -foot street section on
abutting the parcel (approximately 2,600 -feet). The applicant will not be compensated for this
construction.
12. Construct a five-foot sidewalk on Pine Street each development phase (approximately 1,300 -
feet) prior to issuance of any required permits or District approval- of a final plat, whichever
occurs first.
13. The applicant should be required to construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on
Fairview Avenue. Coordinate the design and construction of the additional roadway
improvements with District staff. Coordinate the design with District staff.
14. Construct the four driveways on Fairview Avenue as proposed. The driveways should be
located as proposed: approximately 450 -feet, 1,020 -feet, 1,580 -feet, and 2,560 -feet east of
Eagle Road respectively.
a. The western driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway A) should be located 450 -feet
east of Eagle Road and constructed as a right-inhight-out driveway. The driveway
width should be limited to 30 -feet. The minimum throat length should be 100 -feet.
Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with
Fairview Avenue.
b. The second driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway B) should be located 1,020 -feet
east of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width
should be limited to 40 -feet. The minimum throat length should be 100 -feet. Install a
36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview
Avenue.
C. The third driveway on Fainview Avenue (Driveway C) should be located 1,580 -feet east
of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width should be
limited to 40 -feet. The minimum throat length should be 100 -feet. Install a 36" by 36"
high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue.
d. The fourth driveway on Fairview Avenue (Driveway D) should be located 2,560 -feet
east of Eagle Road and constructed as a full access driveway. The driveway width
should be limited to 40 -feet. The minimum throat length should be 100 -feet for
outbound traffic and a minimum of 50 -feet for inbound traffic. Install a 36" by 36"
high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Fairview Avenue.
15. Construct Records Drive as a 41 -foot street section from a point 300 -feet south of Fairview
Avenue and the existing stub street within the Crossroads subdivision.
16. Construct Records Drive as a 65 -foot street section from Fairview Avenue to a point 300 -feet
south of Fairview Avenue. Records Drive should be located approximately 2,100 -feet east of
MCU 1798.COM
Page l l
Eagle Road. Widen the approach to Fairview Avenue to provide two northbound left turn lanes
and one northbound through/right-turn lane. Two southbound lanes are needed from Fairview
Avenue to a point 300 -feet south of Fairview. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way for the noted
improvements.
17. Construct a traffic signal at the Fairview/Records intersection. The applicant will be
responsible for the entire cost of the signal installation. Coordinate the signal design with
District staff.
18. Construct a driveway on Eagle Road aligned with Florence Street and constructed as a full
access driveway. The driveway width should be limited to 40 -feet. The minimum throat length
should be 100 -feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's
intersection with Eagle Road. This driveway may be restricted to right-in/right-out movement
in the future.
19. Construct Pine Street as a 24 -foot street section from the project's eastern property line to a
point approximately 400 -feet east of Eagle Road. Widen the approach to Eagle Road to
provide two westbound left turn lanes, one westbound through lane and one westbound right -
turn lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff.
20. Construct a traffic signal at the Eagle/Pine intersection. The applicant will be responsible for
one-fourth of the cost of the signal installation. These improvements are not needed
immediately, it may be acceptable to begin partial operation of the site before the noted
improvement is required. Coordinate the signal design with District staff.
21. Reconstruct the western median in Presidential Drive to provide an eastbound left turn lane at
the entrance to the project site. Provide a minimum of 100 -feet of storage area for the new tum
lane. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff.
22. Reconstruct the westbound approach at the Eagle Road/Presidential Drive intersection to
provide two westbound travel lanes. Coordinate the roadway design with District staff.
23. Construct deceleration tapers at each of the driveways on Eagle Road. Coordinate the design►
with ITD staff.
24. Other than the access point(s) specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel
access to Pine Street, Fairview Avenue or Eagle Road is prohibited.
25. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 175 -feet south of Fairview
Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30 -feet. The minimum throat length should
be 50 -feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with
Records Drive.
26. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 300 -feet south of Fairview
Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30 -feet. The minimum throat length should
be 50 -feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with
Records Drive.
MCU 1798.COM
Page 1
27. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 500 -feet south of Fairview
Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30 -feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity
STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive.
28. Construct a full access driveway on Records Drive as proposed 800 -feet south of Fairview
Avenue. The driveway width should be limited to 30 -feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity
STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Records Drive.
29. Construct a full access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 340 -feet east of Eagle Road.
The driveway width should be limited to 30 -feet. The minimum throat length should be 50 -
feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with
Presidential Drive.
30. Construct a full access driveway on Presidential Drive as proposed 620 -feet east of Eagle Road.
The driveway width should be limited to 30 -feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign
at the driveway's intersection with Presidential Drive.
31. Construct a full access driveway on Pine Street as proposed 340 -feet east of Eagle Road. The
driveway width should be limited to 30 -feet. The minimum throat length should be 100 -feet.
Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at the driveway's intersection with Pine Street.
32. Construct a full access driveway on Pine Street as proposed 620 -feet east of Eagle Road. The
driveway width should be limited to 30 -feet. Install a 36" by 36" high intensity STOP sign at
the driveway's intersection with Pine Street.
Standard Requirements:
A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein
shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The renuest
shall s ifi _al y identify each r=uirement to he reconsidered and include a written explanation
of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity- The written
reQuest shall be submitted to the District no later than 9.00 a m on the day scheduled for
ACHD Commissionaction- Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the
Commission on the next available meeting agenda.
Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action
do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and
report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those
items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission.
2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action
shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within two weeks of the
action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall
specifically identify each requirement to he reconsidered and include written documentation of
data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its ari inal decision, The request
MCU 1798.COM
Page 13
for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the
Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified
of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard.
3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in
accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact
Fee Ordinance.
4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the. Ada County Highway District
Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services
procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein.
The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit
(or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes.
6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy.
7. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to
obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District.
8. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this
application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans.
or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in
interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject
property unless a waivex/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant
to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought.
Conclusion of Law:
1. ACHD requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an
undue burden on the existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity
impacted by the proposed development.
Should you have any questions or comments, please contact the Planning and Development
Division at 387-6170.
MCU 1798.COM
Page 14
.."���_ � -'_— a .€s x r...n.•«.an
3
�sasaass�a a`s31az
Ss a s as AS a
w
tp' _L17
17
jmE rAmsLY CENTER AT MERIDIAN. IDAHO
a
f:.Ee
i Inn.an
in
m
rm
.-y • 1 . . 11 Ih . arh a.aa.
qT�.�
LSE I1. . M. • • ... ..... '
.1
E
111 , 3
° N�,.Mgluu f..w•Ilg.•
► p••�i .�ualilil.:TG�.a�..t
•
--t•� rinn••rm•nt.11fuf4l.[1tlll!la1.NA �•� 1' 1 17�Tu [i7T.1—ii�1
M!.-29•[9 a
� �b.��� ,I.NI11. 11.,.1!1 ..1�-•.I�l1J!� �t---�
.' pTril7lmm 11 h i��lii
/ J h........ t V } 1- '1 11 1 '1 1� a..+ 111
•-,
-- -V
I
fis
--� I
rn
O
l
6.1
Q
z
IM
1
a
■a
_
-
7•
j+
}}
i•
t:
r1{r
ji
t
.
s•
S
jmE rAmsLY CENTER AT MERIDIAN. IDAHO
a
f:.Ee
i Inn.an
in
m
rm
.-y • 1 . . 11 Ih . arh a.aa.
qT�.�
LSE I1. . M. • • ... ..... '
.1
E
111 , 3
° N�,.Mgluu f..w•Ilg.•
► p••�i .�ualilil.:TG�.a�..t
•
--t•� rinn••rm•nt.11fuf4l.[1tlll!la1.NA �•� 1' 1 17�Tu [i7T.1—ii�1
M!.-29•[9 a
� �b.��� ,I.NI11. 11.,.1!1 ..1�-•.I�l1J!� �t---�
.' pTril7lmm 11 h i��lii
/ J h........ t V } 1- '1 11 1 '1 1� a..+ 111
•-,
-- -V
I
--� I
rn
O
D
Q
z
.O
jmE rAmsLY CENTER AT MERIDIAN. IDAHO
a
f:.Ee
i Inn.an
in
m
rm
.-y • 1 . . 11 Ih . arh a.aa.
qT�.�
LSE I1. . M. • • ... ..... '
.1
E
111 , 3
° N�,.Mgluu f..w•Ilg.•
► p••�i .�ualilil.:TG�.a�..t
•
--t•� rinn••rm•nt.11fuf4l.[1tlll!la1.NA �•� 1' 1 17�Tu [i7T.1—ii�1
M!.-29•[9 a
� �b.��� ,I.NI11. 11.,.1!1 ..1�-•.I�l1J!� �t---�
.' pTril7lmm 11 h i��lii
/ J h........ t V } 1- '1 11 1 '1 1� a..+ 111
•-,
-- -V
I
* Z
t �_
0
MkL,L'
� � S
0_IP
J � 3
Z
V1
0 0
RECEIVED
Meridian, Idaho AUG 14 1998
August 12, 1998
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 East Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
As a resident of the Crossroads Subdivision, I want to go on record
as opposing the proposed Regional Shopping Center to be constructed
at the corner of Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue. My wife and I
attended the hearing on this project and it is obvious to us that you
intend to approve this mall.
Notwithstanding the objections of the majority of my neighbors, if
you do approve this project for construction, please insist on the
following buffers to ease the impact on my neighborhood:
a. Construct a 10 foot high masonry wall directly behind their
buildings.
b. Construct a 20 foot wide, 4 foot high earthen berm, between
the masonry wall and our subdivision.
C. Insist that the landscaping of the berm includes, as a
minimum, 10 foot high pine trees, (Colorado blue spruce, Austrian
pines, etc.) spaced no more than 12 feet apart.
The rejection of the developer to constructing both an earthen berm
and a masonry wall as creating an echo really rings hollow. As
homeowners we are trying to insulate our homes from the noise and
distractions which this mall will inevitably create.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly rs,
Paul D. Servatius
3565 East Presidential Drive
Meridian, Idaho 83642
H (208)884-3495 W (208)422-5566
20 August 1998
Dana Kauffman
Olson & Associates
14 Twelfth Avenue South, Ste. 210
Nampa, lD 83651
RE: Cherry Lane Family Life Center
Dear Dana:
R-EcErVED
AUG 2 4 1998
pp
CITY OF MERIDIAN e
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA, IDAHO 83651-4395
FAX # 208-463-0092
Phones: Area Code 208
OFFICE: Nampa 466-7861
SHOP: Nampa 466-0663
The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District has reviewed the plans for the above mentioned project. All
run-off will be retained on site which meets the District's requirements. The irrigation structure box
has been cut to a lower height to match the grade of the driveway and a pressure lid was installed
which seems to be functioning correctly.
The District now has all license agreements necessary for the encroachments on both the Rutledge
Lateral as well as the Ninemile Drain, therefore, I don't feel any further review is required at this time
for this construction project.
Please feel free to contact me if you feel further discussion is required.
Sin rel ,
John P. Anderson, Water Superintendent
NA MPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
JPA: dln
cc: File
Each Director
Secretary -Treasurer
Asst. Secretary -Treasurer
Asst. Water Superintendent
Ride 4 - Gillmore
Engineer - Sharp
Attorney - Steenson
`0ty-taf ~ie'Ih . 'G. -so
APPROXIMATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER FLOW RIGHTS - 23,000
BOISE PROJECT RIGHTS - 40,000
0 0
RFcRrvED
3644 E Judicial Drive
Meridian, ID 83642
August 30, 1998
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
33 E Idaho Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Commissioners:
SEP 0 1 1998
CITY OF MERIDIAN
I am writing regarding the continued public hearing for the request for conditional use permit for
a regional shopping center by the Dakota Company for the property at the southeast corner of
Fairview and Eagle Rd. I am a homeowner the Crossroads subdivision that is adjacent to this
property. I have an idea that I would like to introduce that I believe may help alleviate some of
the traffic problems that will be created if this request for permit is granted.
Before detailing this idea, I wish to make it clear that I remain opposed to the request for permit.
As I have stated at the public hearing, my primary objection is the magnitude of the proposed
shopping center and the traffic problems it will create, particularly on Presidential Avenue, the
primary entrance to our subdivision. Further, I believe that the current proposal is inconsistent
with the Conditional use permit as a PUD - General, and that covenants on this property
promised in testimony before the commission that would have restricted this proposal were never
carried out.
Having said that, if there is still a possibility that the development may be approved in its
currently proposed dimension, I believe the following idea may lesson its impact:
I would propose that the grocery store, now intended for parcel 2, just north of Presidential drive,
be relocated to parcel 5, east of records drive. Further, that the entertainment complex intended
for parcel 5 be relocated to parcel 1, south of Presidential drive, and finally that the electronics
superstore (Best Buy) and other stores from parcel 1 be redistributed to parcels 2 and/or 5.
Figure 1 shows the parcels described. A more detailed map is also enclosed with this letter.
E
a
g
1
e
Fairview
3 4 5
2
Presidential Crossroads Subdivision
1
Figure 1. Simple map of the proposed development area
A
N
• 0
The advantages I see for this idea are as follows:
1. It will decrease peak traffic load on the overstressed Presidential Drive entrance off of Eagle
Road.
• It will move one of the heaviest generators of traffic, the grocery store, to the Fairview side of
the project where the speed limit is lower and more entrances are available, including a
stoplight at Records Drive.
• Peak traffic for grocery stores coincides with noontime and evening rush hour (plus Saturday
morning). Peak traffic for the entertainment complex is in the evening and on weekends
when traffic on Eagle road is at a lower volume.
• The current ACHD plan is to restrict and eventually close the intersection of Presidential at
Eagle Road as traffic becomes excessive. This idea may prevent or significantly delay the
loss of this important access point to Eagle Road.
2. It would result in a reduction of traffic crossing through the subdivision.
• The entertainment complex will generally generate heavy traffic only at specific intervals as
movies are starting or ending. These traffic peaks are more likely to generate traffic cutting
through the subdivision. In parcel 5, moviegoers can avoid two left turn lights by cutting
through the subdivision. When relocated to parcel 1, there is less motivation to cut through
to avoid 2 right hand turns. Also, a large percentage of moviegoers will be heading toward
Interstate 84. The parcel 1 location could reduce traffic at the Eagle/Fairview intersection.
• Any cross through traffic that is created by relocating the grocery store seems inherently less
threatening than that which would be created by the entertainment center complex (i.e. less
experienced drivers, driving at night, etc.).
3. It will reduce the noise to the existing residents.
• The Grocery store, when moved to parcel 5, would back up to home that are not yet occupied,
so no resident should move into those homes uninformed of the situation.
• It may be possible to move loading docks for the grocery to the east side of the building at
this location. Alternatively, it may be more feasible to move the building forward at this
location, providing a greater buffer, given the position of the proposed warehouse store.
Thus, future residents would not be disturbed by early morning traffic.
• As a stand-alone building, the movie theater could be move to a more central location the
parcel 1 to provide a buffer to late night noise.
• The movie theater would require fewer deliveries (and no early morning ones) than the stores
currently proposed for parcel 1.
• Any stores relocated to parcel 2 would certainly require fewer deliveries (especially early
deliveries) than the grocery store.
4. The new locations make good sense for business and traffic.
• 0
• There would be a safety benefit to the customers and employees of the grocery store due to
the lower speed limits on Fairview and easy access at the stoplight controlled intersection
given its high traffic levels at rush hour periods.
• The grocery store is less likely to draw people traveling to the shopping center via Interstate
84 (people tend to buy groceries close to home). The movie theater and entertainment
complex, on the other hand, are very likely to draw traffic from Interstate 84 and would find
the new location more suitable.
• Parcel 1 and parcel 5 vary in size by only about 10%, so the change should not be
unreasonable for the developer.
I have discussed this idea with residents of Crossroads Subdivision at two neighborhood
meetings, and I have distributed letters specifically describing this proposal to all homeowners
near the affected parcels. No one has objected to the proposal, provided there is adequate
buffering behind the movie theater and for future residents behind the grocery store, and most
have been quite enthusiastic.
I remain concerned about the future developments since any changes now are not likely to
restrict future uses and traffic pattern. However, I present this only as a minimally better
alternative. A far better solution would be one that reduces the overall density of retail space on
the property that reduces traffic needs and works in harmony with the adjacent residential
property. Thank you for your consideration
Sincerely,
Patrick Harper <�
cc: Dakota Development
Crossroads Neighborhood Association
1V
[R�tHUini a rr
���y� won I rrr r
r ..nl II . 11 rl 1
Was
n. r ur
^
'
n�I�•u�' 1�rr 7�r r�y
■
C
h
uq '
a
i
0
� Crlr..nnlrilnplrlllrpirllrrlQrllla111�
Uti.11 mw"In
'uu
�Lr.,r,. ,�TRTi rr rr,Tiiii-i-ill{
uu r r l I' .r a l' •
r I
c• u•,lT. IIITiiilTi"IRri:V1
:, u'U InnTd f
,
1 r rr Irr,1
C,.,„„�„rrnn..'rlrlr1,1111rrr,IN
*
`•.nm •r ...............t
-
,
u
'�`
t
-�= l _,rlllllrrnrrr..11rr�
J nn1
llr111N
,
^i
� �rlllllnrrrrll ltf
','r n'YII� I I IrIr1IIIIrI111N
� w C
-0
'
nj
•
OHV(31 'NVIQ183W ld Z131N30 kl1Wvj 3H1
>r
o
■
a
i
0
° / Z
0
°
*
B
C
A
�
o
LLJ
-0
'
L
o
O
f
>r
E
■
E
�
*
�
A
Y
�
.Q
i4
]o
J
1. O O p O O ° — ° ° °, O / O °
L-
1- i i �'1 L
! _
e C.•r„ ..rr 111,.1 rl Irrr tili7flCii �- =� �
1 1''WHO
rnn mmrnn n7 7 nS
III n. a M. I. I ur a r ^t '
1 1 E •>Q n m n unnr noun r` �' a
� 1! I ��rrmI. .... I. I
m�:'•nnvinnnnM IN ff 2R
ununnrrnnpunm..mm�nrrnnnlmr��
1.' r��______—__--____—_--__ i
G
a
em T
=a
..m
I
4
• •Ec-nrvq
D
ROBERT L. PHILLIPS SEP 0 2 1998
3437 E. Presidential Drive's �1'�ERIDIAN
Meridian, ID 83642
September 2, 1998
VIA Hand Delivery
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
c/o William Berg, City Clerk
33 E. Idaho Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Dear Commission:
I am drafting this letter to voice my concerns and to offer suggestions regarding the
proposed regional shopping center next to the Crossroads Subdivision. I raise these concerns in a
letter to make more efficient use of time at the next public hearing. In raising these concerns, 1
express only the ideas of myself and my family. The reason for this limitation is that I am a
practicing attorney, and I want the record to reflect that I do not have an attorney-client relationship
with either the Crossroads Homeowners Association or the residents of the Subdivision.
BACKGROUND
My family and I are very concerned about the intensity of the proposed regional shopping
center and its impact on our lifestyle and home value. Like many of our neighbors, we made
reasonable inquiry as to what would be built next to us before we moved into our home. This was
particularly important to us since we directly border on the vacant ground.
INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE MERIDIAN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT
ORDINANCES AND THE MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The proposed Regional Shopping Center is not consistent with the Meridian Zoning and
Development Ordinances and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for several reasons, including the
following:
1) A regional shopping center is too intense for the area, especially since it lacks sufficient
acreage. Additionally, the proper variances to allow a shopping center of this size have
not been duly obtained.
2) A regional shopping center adjacent to a residential subdivision is neither logical or
complimentary. A PD -G requires "a completely logical and complementary
conjunction of uses and functions." Meridian Zoning Ordinances, 2-403, page 20. If a
regional shopping center was logical and complementary, there would not be so many
residents coming to planning and zoning to voice concerns. Moreover, the intensity of
the proposed shopping center creates traffic, noise, lighting, and other serious
noncomplementary concerns to the residents.
3) The application asks for a conditional use permit for a regional shopping center. A
regional shopping center is a radical departure from the PD -G that was approved in
1991 and further conditioned in 1993. Such a use is not allowed on land that is zoned I-
L, with the PD -G as currently granted thereon.
4) The PD -G was granted on a larger parcel that includes the land described in the
application. However, the proper steps to transfer that PD -G to the applicant have not
been followed. Moreover, a transfer of the PD -G would likely require the applicant to
comply with the promises made by the former owner to restrict "color, height, types of
landscaping, lighting, hours of operation, etc. . . . [and which he called] light
commercial and office types uses." Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting, May 11,
1993, Page 23 (emphasis added).
Although there may be other noncompliance items, the above items illustrate the
application's inconsistencies with the ordinances and plans of Meridian.
LIGHT COMMERCIAL
At the last Planning and Zoning meeting, a question arose regarding the meaning of "light
commercial." The Meridian Ordinances contain several different types of commerical zones.
Although "light commercial" is not defined in the Meridian ordinances, Sections 2-408 gives
several examples of commercial zones that are less intense and more conducive to residential living
such as L -O and C -N. A Regional Shopping Center when compared with other commercial zones
in the ordinances is one of the most intense commercial uses. Although there could be some
debate, over what "light commercial" might mean, there is no way a Regional Shopping Center
could qualify under any reasonable definition.
SUGGESTIONS.
I do not envy the task of the Commission in addressing this matter. I believe the best
alternative is not to support this application as it is proposed. However, the Commission should
suggest that the applicant present a new proposal that is less intense and more consistent with the
city ordinances. Such a proposal, if planned correctly, may be able to comply with Meridian
ordinances and be complementary to the Crossroads Subdivision. I would like to work with the
applicant in the future to see if we can find common ground. In fact, I would include the following
2
suggests that may be helpful to the new proposal:
1) There should be proper screening between the commercial and residential
properties. This screening should be a berm with a split -face, appropriately colored,
brick wall on the top. The berm should be landscaped on both sides of the wall to
increase the density of the screening. The split -face brick and the landscaping will
help defuse the sound from the commercial uses. This screening should be about
sixty (60) feet in total length with only about fifteen (15) feet on the commercial
side, and the remainder between the wall and the residences. This will allow a
higher berm, and proper drainage. A pathway in between the residential and
commercial areas would provide a place for the customers and employees to relax
rather than in the common areas in the Crossroads Subdivision.
2) The shopping center should contain less retail square footage to reduce the intensity.
3) The pylon signs should be restricted in height in order to be more conducive to the
neighborhood.
4) The lighting on the residential side of any buildings should be covered to minimize
illumination on nearby residences.
5) Presidential Drive should be for residential use only, or in the alternative narrowed
in some manner to discourage traffic from entering the residential area.
6) Businesses should not be allowed outside speakers, amplified sounds, or search
lights for advertising and business purposes.
7) Trucks should be limited as to times of delivery and should not be allowed to run
their engines behind the residential properties.
8) Stores should be limited to certain hours of operation.
These are just a few suggests that you may wish to consider in trying to make the commercial and
residential uses more complementary. I am sure my neighbors will have several more suggestions
that should be included in the conditions for any conditional use permit granted in the future.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
CC: Larry Durkin (via U.S. Mail)
3
Sincerely,
i
Robert L. Phillips
• • REcEIVED
SEP - 41998
Berm, landscaping, and wail are the first phase of work. This CITY OF MERIDIAN
provides us with a buffer to the construction as well as a good
head start on the growth of the landscaping.
No delivery truck access to either Presidential Drive or Records
Drive.
25' site lighting poles. 100% downlight fixtures. Absolutely no
light encroachment by either site lighting or from service dock
lights into subdivision.
Screen walls around compactors, dumpsters, truckwells, receiving
docks, etc.
60' set back from subdivision. Net loss of 500 stalls. By code,
the development currently has an excess in parking of over 1500
stalls.
8' high berm with 8' high cmu block wall on top. Block wall to be
constructed from 8" split faced, integrally colored block, with
cast stone cap. Provide common brick pillars 20' o.c. with cast
stone cap as well. Provide non -obtrusive security lighting on
subdivsion side. Fixtures to be approved by Crossroads
Homeowners Association. Continue berm and block wall along
Presidential Drive (breaking at curb cuts). Wall to be 4'-0" at
this point.
Berm to be landscaped with mix of 3" caliper deciduous trees and
10' evergreens at minimum 12' o.c. Include 5 gallon shrubs and
ground cover required to control erosion.
Landscape the entrances to the subdivision so that they read as
"private". This will help to discourage cross traffic as well as still
providing the homeowners a sense of security and privacy.
Storm water retention plan for berm and throughout parking lot.
3" caliper tree in planter provided within 75' of every parking
stall. Therefore, every 15 stalls there will be a planter with
landscaping.
Exterior elevation design review by Crossroads Homeowners
Association. This will include the rear elevations as well.
A
•
�CENED
SEP - 1g98
Cl
4F �RIDI�
l
_ h
�1�`d 4Slntil ,
h
I
1
Guin-C
SUSAN S. EASTLAKE, President
GARY E. RICHARDSON, Vice President
SHERRY R. HUBER, Secretary
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Date: September 4, 1998
To: Meridian nnin and Zoning Commission
From: ar
e p=ent Supervisor
Subject: MCU -17-98 Meridian Family Center
Meeting Date: September 8, 1998
r RECEIVE])
SEP - 8 1998
CITY OF MERIDIAN
Fairview/Eagle
On behalf of the ACHD Commission and staff, this is to thank you for deferring action on this major
application at your last meeting and, unfortunately, to ask you to once again defer action on it until
you receive an official transmittal from the Highway District relaying the Commission's action. The
District sincerely appreciates the patience of the Planning and Zoning Commission in this regard.
I'm sure the Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes the far-reaching impacts of this proposal
and wants to avoid mistakes similar to those that occurred when the Boise Towne Square Mall was
approved several years ago. At that time, the District thought that we had sufficiently addressed
the impacts of the Mall and its surrounding spinoff, but as we all know now, such is not the case.
The proposed development before you is almost the same size as Boise Towne Square Mall when
it first opened. The resulting trip generation (about 20,000 new trips) will create a need for major
reconstruction of the nearby transportation system to serve the proposed development. This
application review is the only chance the Highway District has to recognize and mitigate the
impacts of this development.
As I discussed with you on August 11, the District has retained its own traffic consultant to review
the impacts and to help address them. We believe we have identified the impacts, but still have
not determined all the improvements needed to mitigate them. I am committed to having a staff
report complete by September 16 for the ACHD Commission with consideration by the Commission
to occur on September 23, 1998. 1 request the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission to defer
action on this application again until it is thoroughly reviewed by the Highway District and its full
impacts and ramifications can be dealt with and those findings conveyed to you.
I am transmitting this memo with the DRAFT staff report as it exists today to the ACHD
Commission so they can be as informed as possible about the development before they receive
the final staff report on September 16, 1998.
Thanks again for your patience and support.
ada county highway district
318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499
Phone (208) 387-6100 • FAX (208) 345-7650 • E-mail: tellus@achd.ada.id.us