HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 6, 2003Meddian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 59 of 94
Zaremba: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to continue to March 20th. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. We have got one final thing. Commissioners, are you ready to go ahead
or do we need a break? About a five minute break? Okay. We will take a short break
at this time.
(Recess.)
Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 03-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.37
Acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle
Engineers, Inc. - 360 East Montvue Drive:
Borup: Okay. We'd like to reconvene the meeting. Any of you that are still discussing
are welcome to do that out in the foyer. Okay. Public Hearing -- next item is Public
Hearing AZ 03-004, a request for annexation and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O
zones for Montvue Medical Clinic by Pinnacle Engineers at 360 East Montvue Drive.
We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed
annexation is for the 1.37 acre lot in the southeast corner of Montvue Subdivision, which
does abut the St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center property, as well as the Touchmark
property to the east. They would like to annex the next 1.36 acres to construct a
medical office building. They are requesting L-O zoning, which does match the
surrounding zoning, and also is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Here is a
copy -- an aerial photo that is a couple years old. You can see that -- the first couple of
phases of St. Luke's built. The most recent phase is not pictured here. This is the St.
Luke's Drive. This is Montvue Drive and the subject lot. You can see the existing
homes in Montvue Subdivision. I believe these are submitted as elevations of the type
of building they intend to construct. Those photos are too small to see, so I'm going to
skip them. And this is the proposed site plan. The site plan per se, is not up tonight for
approval, but they have submitted it, as we do request with all our annexations or
rezones, to show what the applicant intends to do with the property. The private road
connection that's shown does run from St. Luke's private drive to south Montvue. That
one piece of this is probably going to shape up to be the most significant issue of the
application tonight. It has a long and proud history of debate over whether it should be
public or private, some of which I will get into tonight and some of which I will save. The
primary access to the medical office is intended to be off of St. Luke's Drive. It would
not make much sense for this project to have its only access off of the existing access
that Montvue has, which is clear up here near the intersection with Franklin Road, which
is just barely off the map, and Eagle.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 60 of 94
Borup: I think that's an old plat. There is a frontage road now on those lots along -- is
that correct? Those lots along Eagle have been eliminated and a frontage road is in
there? It's still access off of Eagle.
Siddoway: Okay. Yeah. It's still shown this way on the current Ada County assessor's
data base.
Zaremba: It twists down and enters someplace around here, right?
Siddoway: Okay. So, the access still is off of Montvue. So, it may come off further
from the intersection. I believe it's noted in here 300 and some feet -- 320 feet south of
Franklin, about this point. I think it -- does it line up with this one across the street?
Yeah. So, the access comes in, wraps north, and, then, back in. Obviously, it wouldn't
make much sense for a doctor's office to go in at the far interior of the subdivision with
that as its only access, thus the point being that they intend for their primary access to
be from the St. Luke's side off of St. Luke's private drive. The applicant is involved in
negotiations between the Montvue Homeowners Association and St. Luke's to allow for
the new private road connection. Montvue is a public street, but St. Luke's Drive is a
private road, so they have got to get permission from St. Luke's to connect to that street.
The Comprehensive Plan does designate the property as commercial, as there was
much discussion about during the Comp Plan hearings. The things that I would point
out -- page three, item D, the second paragraph reiterates the one point of ingress and
egress, 320 feet south of Franklin off of Eagle Road. That is Montvue Subdivision's only
current access point. This proposed annexation would provide a secondary connection
to Eagle Road via St. Luke's Drive. The traffic light currently exists at the intersection of
St. Luke's Drive and Eagle Road. The ACHD report is referenced there. Pages three
through six of their report details quite a bit of the private drive history. I actually have a
staff report that goes even farther back in history from that, if those issues need to be
discussed. I did research on this issue back when the St. Luke's CUP was coming
through a few years ago. Item F on page four talks about a proposed private street
connecting to the public street and noting that it will create additional vehicle trips into
and out of the subdivision across the new private street. In the future it is intended that
the -- there will be another connection -- let me go back to that -- to Touchmark. You
can see the platted road line in here. It's currently not connected through Montvue to
the road in Montvue Subdivision. However, this road is being constructed by
Touchmark and stubbing to the property. Once that connection is made, it would allow
for some cut-through traffic to go through to the light at Eagle Road. But it's also
important to point out that that increase in traffic would not necessarily be a result of the
proposed use, but just a function of the road layout itself. Under additional
considerations on page six, the first one is the private road. The road driveway
connecting the subdivision -- between the subdivision and the hospital is proposed as a
private road and staff does not object to that. It's also proposed to have a sidewalk on
one side, as opposed to two sides, and staff is fine with that as well. We would require
that across-access agreement be recorded to allow vehicular traffic from the Montvue
Subdivision to use that connection to get out to the light. And the last item there under
conditional considerations is that access agreement. Currently, there is no agreement
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 61 of 94
between St. Luke's and Montvue to allow that access. There are ongoing negotiations,
but as of February 25th and March 6th, there is currently not a signed agreement.
Because it doesn't make sense to have this project without that access, we see that as
a critical part and if you look at the recommendation on page seven it states that the
staff does not feel comfortable with recommending approval if this access cannot be
agreed upon. Without an agreement in place, the only access is the one off of Eagle
Road. So the recommendation is to continue this Public Hearing until such an
agreement has been signed by both parties, either St. Luke's and the Montvue
Subdivision, or between St. Luke's and the applicant. That is our recommendation and I
will stand for any questions.
Centers: Mr. Chairman? What you're saying, Steve, is that this applicant -- and, of
course, they will probably address it -- doesn't have across-access agreement with St.
Luke's either?
Siddoway: Not with St. Luke's, no.
Centers: Which they would have to have --
Siddoway: And they are in negotiations for that.
Centers: What?
Siddoway: They are in negotiations for that, but it has not been finalized.
Centers: Right. Because the good access, of course, is St. Luke's Drive to the private
drive and no one would be cutting through Montvue if they had that right. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners?
Zaremba: But the upshot is that you would be connecting a public road, Montvue, with
a public road Eagle, by using two private roads under separate ownership, is that -
Siddoway: Yeah. I'm not sure that's an upside, but that's what would happen, yes.
Zaremba: Does ACHD even allow that, though?
Siddoway: Yeah. The ACHD staff report recommends that the connection be made a
private road.
Zaremba: Okay.
Centers: Well -- and to continue on, they don't necessarily push for the connection to
Montvue; correct? I think I read that.
Siddoway: I don't --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 62 of 94
Centers: Or the private drive to be connected to Montvue Drive. I think that's the name
of it.
Siddoway: It is.
Centers: I mean they haven't pushed for that.
Zaremba: But it should not be a through street, it should only access this one property.
Centers: Yeah. And they have -- of course, the applicant will address this, too, I hope,
that they are in favor of the private drive.
Siddoway: Yeah. I think the residents of Montvue want to have access. Their main
concern over the private drive, as I understand it -- not to presume to speak for them,
but they want to make sure they have access and that's their main issue.
Borup: But once this project goes in they would have access. My question would be,
can St. Luke's restrict the use of that road in any way once it's built?
Siddoway: That's what remains to be seen. That's why we recommend continuation
until we can see that agreement.
Borup: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Would the applicant like to make their
presentation?
Boyle: Planning Commission Members, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552
West Executive Drive in Boise. Tonight I'd like to, I guess, preface my remarks with the
indication that we have reviewed the staff report with respect to the annexation and
zoning request which is in front of you tonight for a Limited Office zone. Again, we are -
- tonight we are in front of you to propose annexation and zoning only. In going through
the staff report and looking at their findings, that this Commission reviews for the
approval of an annexation request, those are listed as items A through L in your staff
report, we believe that the project does comply with all of the required findings. I do
want to clarify a couple of points here and, again, as Steve touched on, probably the
issue that the neighbors here tonight are most interested in, and that's with regard to the
development -- the future development of this piece property and, ultimately, yeah, what
happens with traffic considerations around Montvue Subdivision. What I want to point
out here is that there was a site plan submitted to the staff a nd this was through --
working with the staff they indicated that we would be -- that we vvould be required to
submit that site plan in conjunction with the annexation and zoning request, thereby we
constructed a site plan that gives a conceptual idea of how this development may be
laid out. Now, with that said, there have been various discussions with ACHD, various
discussions with the city staff, some discussions with neighbors as well within Montvue
and the point that I want to clarify here is that with the development of this property in
the future, that these developers are certainly not committed to installing a private
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 63 of 94
roadway, they are interested in working with the Montvue residents and want to have a
project constructed here that will be beneficial to the Montvue residence that will also
work for St. Luke's and all the parties involved. Now, with that said, there are quite a
few neighbors here tonight and we have got the opportunity to talk about the project
briefly with them here tonight and on several other occasions and I certainly understand
their concerns. They have been working for an access to St. Luke's drive -- my
understanding is for quite some years and the negotiations are very close, is my
understanding, in coming to terms with St. Luke's and with all of the residents in
Montvue to provide an access roadway out to St. Luke's Drive that would allow some
relief from the residents of that subdivision to be able to get out onto Eagle Road. Now,
with that said, I did want to clarify that the applicant -- here, again, what we are looking
at tonight is strictly the annexation and zoning of the property. The site plan will go
through a separate process for approvals. Again, we do intend to work with the
neighbors and we will actually -- my understanding is that the purchasers of this
particular property are looking to close on the property here very.soon and they will also
be a party with the neighbors in the discussions with St. Luke's for the roadway. I just
bring that up, because I know the neighbors are concerned with a private drive
extending through this project. I can understand that concern due to the extensive time
that they have had to go through in their negotiations with St. Luke's to gain access to
St. Luke's Drive. So, again, we are certainly in agreement with the neighbors in desiring
an access to St. Luke's. Public road access would be certainly something that the
developers here would support. Our discussions with ACRD have been that ACRD
would not necessarily support a public road connection from Montvue and the
discussion, as one of the Commissioners indicated, was that, then, there would be a link
from a public road, being Eagle Road, onto the roads within Touchmark, which are
public roads. They would be linked by a private road. Now, as an interesting side note
to t hat, t hough, t he Touchmark d evelopment c urrently h as a p ublic road s ystem t hat
enters off of Franklin Road. That private road system ends in a cul-de-sac and off of
that cul-de-sac there is actually a private roadway that ties into St. Luke's Drive. So, if
I'm on Franklin Road, I can gain access to Eagle Road coming through Touchmark and
extending. So public road, linked by a private road, out to another public road. So,
ACHD has certainly allowed that access in the past. And in this instance, again,
ACHD's comments were strictly geared towards the annexation and zoning of the
property, which is, again, why we are here tonight. This annexation and zoning request
is in compliance with the land use map of the Comprehensive Plan, it's how the city
envisions this area to transition into a commercial and/or office area and I believe that
the Montvue residence -- and they can correct me if I'm wrong -- also envision this area
to transition into a commercial area eventually. And so we are coming in compliance
with those goals of the city to transition this. Now, the discussion tonight -- again, staff
is -- my understanding Meridian staff is supportive of the annexation and rezoning. We
don't believe that the city should necessarily become involved in the private agreement
between the Montvue residents and St. Luke's Hospital. What ,happens -- what is the
detriment to the city if this property is annexed and rezoned and access agreements
cannot be formalized for whatever reason, again, you would have a piece of property
that was within city limits, had a Limited Office zoning on it -- from a marketing
standpoint, it does have street frontage on Montvue. The question was, you know,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 64 of 94
traffic may eventually have to come through Montvue. Realistically speaking, that
project probably wouldn't go forward until the Touchmark connection entered Montvue,
which would be here. I mean there are various options for connection to allow this
property to develop in a way that wouldn't be adverse to the neighborhood. Again, other
options would be in the future, as this neighborhood transitions into commercial, then,
you know, obviously, the considerations for traffic and trips through. the neighborhood
would become more beneficial to developing that piece. But, again, tonight, as far as
the traffic considerations, ACHD has reviewed the annexation and zoning request, they
have approved the annexation and rezoning of the property, we, again, are in front of
you to also request your recommendation of approval on the annexation and zoning.
The site plan -- the area is proposed to be developed as a medical office. We have
provided a site plan at the staffs request that demonstrated the layout of the facility.
The roadway, again, is an issue that will be resolved among the parties involved, which
would be the Montvue residents and St. Luke's Drive, but, again, it is a private
agreement that is not necessarily a finding that we believe that the city should be
involved in reviewing an annexation and rezoning request only. With that said, I
believe that that is somewhat the main issue tonight. I'll stand for any questions. We
also have Joanne Butler here that would like to address the private road as well, as
soon as I wrap up my comments. Thank you.
Borup: Questions from the Commission? Mr. Boyle, on -- would your -- is it your
understanding, then, if this properly is annexed and zoned, that it would be able to get a
building permit without any other public hearings?
Boyle: The request tonight, again, is for the annexation and zoning. As far as the
interim process, again, we are -- we would be under the understanding that the process
that we would have to go through from our discussions with staff would be the zoning
certificate process. So, again, that's --
Borup: That would not be a Public Hearing.
Boyle: Correct. Correct. So, again, what we are requesting tonight is something that
the city envisioned, they envisioned this area to transition into commercial, and we
believe that the findings outlined in your requirements for the facts of approval for an
annexation are appropriate. And let me just preface that as well, as far as the hearing
on this. The development agreement is mentioned in the staff report. We are not
adverse to entering into a development agreement, we just do not feel that it's
appropriate to have the private agreement related to the access issue that's being
worked out among the Montvue residents and St. Luke's -- we don't believe that that is
an appropriate item to place in that development agreement. In other words, if this
Commission saw fit that the development agreement should contain language related to
the development of the property, restrictions that it be limited to medical office, the size
that we have proposed, et cetera, we are not adverse to those type of conditions, we
just feel that the private road, again, is not a request that we are necessarily --
Borup: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 65 of 94
Boyle: -- supporting at this time.
Borup: I think we understand that, but you're saying if -- if an agreement is not worked
out on a private road and this property would want to be developed as a Limited Office,
the access would be through Montvue Drive; is that correct?
Boyle: Potentially. And Joanne's indicating that she'd like to address that.
Borup: I think that would be good --
Boyle: For clarification.
Borup: Any other questions?
Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. I tend to agree with you, Mr. Boyle, and thanks for -- you
know, seeing the forest for the trees. We are just talking about annexation and zoning.
However -- and -- so you don't agree with number three, item number three, you don't
agree w ith a II t hat v erbiage. I don't n ecessarily a gree. B ut would y ou -- w ould y ou
agree to development agreement also stating that access shall not be available through
Montvue Subdivision? And, then, you can work on your agreements with St. Luke's,
just like everybody else?
Boyle: Joanne would like to address that as well, so I will --
Centers: Because, personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as you didn't
enter through Montvue Subdivision, even though I know that -- I recognize a number of
faces out there --they wanted that stamped as commercial on the Comprehensive Plan.
They didn't want L-O. We gave them commercial at their request and said, okay, you
want it, so be it. We wanted to go with L-O on the Comp Plan. But I don't think it's fair
to have a business access through a residential neighborhood. They are still using it for
residential use. Anyway, let's --
Borup: O kay. U nless t here i s a ny o ther q uestions for M r. B oyle, J oanne B utter w ill
discuss the road -- private road issue, but is there anything else? Okay. Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
Butler: Commissioners, Joanne Butler, 251 East Front Street representing the
applicant. And, Commissioner Borup, don't let fail to answer the question that you
raised. I did want to address the road issues, because some of these are legal issues
on access and just to make some clarifications -- and forgive us for being a little
redundant. We have not -- we wanted to convey our message a Iso not o my to the
Commissioners who are making the decision for recommendation tonight, but also to
our neighbors, because there has been -- this issue has been bandied about a lot and
we want to be very clear about it. What we really want to do here is separate the public
Meridian Planning 8 Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 66 of 94
from the private issues. This is a request for annexation and rezone. We are asking
you to make a recommendation to the City Council for that annexation and rezone. As
staff has pointed out, we meet each and every one of the conditions of Meridian's code
for both annexation and rezone. It is a very straight forward request in that regard. We
front onto a public road. That's Montvue. The number of trips per day that would come
onto Montvue are -- in noway bridge the capacity of the road. It is, again, a public road:
We do know it does go through a -- what is presently used in part as a subdivision, a
residential subdivision, by folks that have pressured successfully this city and the county
to adopt a comprehensive plan that indicates that this will transition to commercial and
office and so what we are asking for is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and in
accord with the wishes of this neighborhood group that you have been working with for
many years, as I understand it. Commissioner Centers is correct, we agreed with the
staff report, except for number three and number four. We do not agree --and we have
had conversations with the city attorney to this extent. With regard to a development
agreement, we are willing to abide by your development agreement that says that we
will make a written commitment concerning the use of the subject property and we will
tell the city very directly, we will use this as an office building. We only showed the road
on this plat -- on this piece of paper, because staff asked us to. This was pie in the sky.
This was not this is where we have to have the road. We are not asking for that. We
understand that the neighbors in Montvue and St. Luke's have been working together
diligently to provide access, possibly --only possibly, as we understand it, to this group.
That may not even happen. And I think the neighbors can address that for you as well.
If this road -- if there is not a private road here and that doesn't happen -- if St. Luke's
and the neighbors -- and we will step into the neighbor's shoes, because we are about
to close on this property and we signed closing documents today on our side and the
other side is signing next week, then, we will be stepping into the shoes of the
neighbors and we will be asking, along with them, to -- that there is a connection. But
we don't presume that that's going to happen. But we do front onto a public street. And
so, again, we take access onto Montvue, we comply with the conditions of ACHD and
this city, and we are asking for you to grant that. You're going to hear from many
tonight of the neighbors, maybe all of them, that if anything goes through here between
Montvue and St. Luke's, they would like to see it as a public road. From our
perspective, public-private -- we don't even know that the connection is going to be
anywhere near this piece of property. It's going to be somewhere in the area. We have
told the neighbors, through their attorney, that we will work with them in whatever way
that comes about in the future. But, again, that's private between us, them, and St.
Luke's. As we talked about with the city attorney today, it's not appropriate for the city
to do anything other than make the public decisions that it's being requested to make. It
may be that St. Luke's and the neighbors never reach agreement out there. We do
know -- and I think the neighbors will tell you tonight that they are likely to be signing an
agreement with weekend. I'll ask you, how many years have you been working in
connection with Montvue and this area? So, we are asking the city just to make the
public decisions and leave those private decisions to others. So, I think -- oh,
Commissioner Borup, to answer your question. Your question was. If we annex and
zone and give you this -- develop this office with a building permit without a Public
Hearing, that would be correct. We could. But we could never do the private road
Meridian Planning & Zoning -
March 6, 2003
Page 67 of 94
without a Public Hearing. So, if we went in there and developed an office building and
took our frontage onto Montvue, which is a possibility, that's what would happen, but --
Borup: That's the concern.
Butler: Well, but -- on Montvue, right. But if there were a public road -- a private road,
we would have to come back before this Commission. If this Commission is saying that
people can't take access onto a p ublic road, if they comply with the Comprehensive
Plan and they comply with all the zoning ordinance, I would very much question that
and I don't think that's what the Commission is meaning to say. I appreciate that this is
an area of transition, but it's an area of transition that the neighbors have asked for and
the city has sanctioned. It starts somewhere.
Borup: B ut w ould t he a pplicant b e c omfortable i f t his w as a nnexed a s a c onditional
use? I was just throwing that out there.
Butler: I would have to ask Commission Borup to help me a little bit to understand what
is meant by that. I would --
Borup: That it could not be developed without having a Public Hearing for a Conditional
Use Permit, even though it has the zoning.
Butler: That would be tantamount be giving away the right to build -- possibly to build
an .office building, because by doing it -- well, let's think this through. A conditional use
under the zoning ordinance is a use that is allowed, but, for some reason, the
Commission has -- would deem an office use to somehow impact the area. Well, you
have already decided that this should be office. In fact, I think it sounds like we are
carrying out what the Commission would rather have seen, which was L-0 versus
commercial. So, I'm not sure I'm following why a conditional use. I can see your idea of
wanting --
Borup: Because of the site design
Butler: But is it the use or the private road?
Borup: It's the private road, in my mind.
Butler: And so that's why I'm saying -- and I think that's -
Borup: But they go together. I don't know how you would separate them.
Butler: We are not doing the private road. And if we did do a -- if we ever proposed a
private road, we would have to come back for a Public Hearing.
Borup: So you're asking us to consider this as the only access, that of Montvue?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 8, 2003
Page 68 of 94
Butler: Correct. And the others are all --
Borup: Then, what this Commission needs to do is have the input from the neighbors,
probably, to make that --
Centers: Mr. Chairman? Your comment, Ms. Butler, on -- we have a public road and
we should grant -- access is demanded. Maybe not the correct word, but -- that's not in
the city. It's not a city public road.
Butler: No.
Centers: It's a county public road. You would be the only city p roperty serviced by
county public roads and asking the residents to allow it. I understand where you're
coming from. You make a very good point. You make a very good point. But, in effect,
it's not the city's public roads to allow it.
Butler: Commissioner Centers, it is -- this is -- it's a county wide highway. It serves all
the city, it serves the county, it is a county wide public road. I don't know exactly what
the neighbors are going to say. This is an office building, something that they have
been promoting in this area.
Centers: I agree.
Butler: And so I realize this is the first annexation and zoning of this area after many
years. You know, ACHD has clearly indicated by its review, if this is an office building
that clearly the roads can handle the capacity and so on. I think you're going to hear
from some of the neighbors that -- and as you heard from Mr. Boyle, there are
connections coming to Montvue as we speak from Touchmark and, presumably, we do
hope that there will eventually be access to the St. Luke's Drive, we just can't count on
that. So, I think, yes, you do need to take the testimony of the neighbors, but also look
at the expert testimony of Ada County Highway District, your traffic engineer that is
telling you what the impact on the roads would be. Andrf there are no more questions, I
will --
Rohm: I have a question.
Borup: Go ahead.
Rohm: Mr. Chairman. I wasn't on the Commission when St. Luke's went in and I'm still
curious why there is a private road there in the first place. Why was it not built as a
public road --don't go there? I mean I was --
Borup: That was before my time, too.
Rohm: Well --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 69 of 94
Butler: And, I'm sorry, I can't go there either, so I don't know.
Rohm: Well, it just seems like -- well, it just seems like that would have been a more
appropriate road in the first place, but --
Borup: It may have been. But, either way, that's passed and I don't know if we can do
anything about it.
Rohm: All right.
Borup: But that's a good question.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: I don't know if we want to go there or not, either, because we have no control
over that in any way, so --
Butler: But just to -- and I will reserve a couple of minutes for rebuttal, but we -- as we
talked about it with the city attorney, we are more than -- more than happy to do a
develop agreement with the city that commits to the use, so that the city is clear that
that use would go in and that we would -- if, for some reason, anybody was ever asking
for a private road that involved this property, we would, obviously, have to come back
for a Public Hearing, because, as staff has told me, that requires a Public Hearing. So I
think that would address, Commissioner Borup, your issue, instead of having to call it a
coriditional use, you would get practically the same result. But; believe me, we are not -
- we are just waiting on that.
Borup: Okay.
Butler: Thank you.
Borup: Were there any other questions? Okay
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I would ask -- I would appreciate if we had one spokesman for
everyone that signed up, but -- was that the plan?
Borup: There was two signed up, but I did want to mention that, too. This -- we are
ready to hear some input from the neighbors. But, as has been pointed out, the
application before us is annexation and zoning. But it's also been pointed out the city's
always requested a conceptual site plan, at least, to know how that property is
envisioned to be used. In my mind, I think it's hard to separate them. In some
situations I don't think it is. In other situation it is. They go hand in hand. I think this is
one of them that does. So, I think we would be interested -- we don't want to have a lot
of repetition and hear the same things over and I think we will control that accordingly,
but we would be interested in testimony at this time. Who would like to come forward
first?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 70 of 94
Griffith: Trishia Griffith, 3295 North Montvue. And I knew when you guys seen Montvue
on there, I knew you guys would shutter. Especially staff.
Borup: No. We have been waiting for something to happen here for years.
Griffith: Oh. Well, we thought we were going to get things taken care of. I would like to
see this just postponed for awhile until we do get our agreement. We are very close
coming to terms and we have worked long and hard on it with St. Luke's. If we did go
back to the public road issue on that, that would probably take a week to sit down with
us and go over everything, so we -- yes, we prefer not to do that. But right now I know
these developers are interested in buying their property, but it hasn't been closed yet
and, you know, as residents and with St. Luke's and Touchmark, I feel it's really
important that we do try to get something worked out, so maybe a lot things could be
abbreviated in the future. So, basically, what I'm hoping is that you guys would just,
please, postpone this for awhile, because I think it's a little bit premature, and let us try
to get some of these road issues and stuff worked out amongst ourselves and, then,
come back and, hopefully, we have everything worked out by then.
Borup: Okay. Any questions?
Zaremba: Can you, for me, hit some of the high points of your discussion with St.
Luke's about coming to an agreement?
Borup: And maybe where the hang-ups are.
Zaremba: Yeah. What's the problem?
Griffith: We were close, but my mom was terminally ill and she passed away last week
and so we had to postpone for several weeks.
Zaremba: Sorry to hear that.
Griffith: And since I'm the main person involved in this and working with the attorneys
and working with St. Luke's, I could not concentrate on this kind of stuff and it was -- has
nothing to do with the developers o r St. Luke's or the residents o r anybody, it's just
because I had a personal situation and I chose to be with my mom until the last minute,
so --
Borup: The location of the private -- the road that's proposed here, is that something
that --
Centers: Is it just going to be in this area? Anyplace in this area? Is that what you're
looking at?
Griffith: Well, you know, I'm not really sure how much terms Icould --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 71 of 94
Centers: Okay.
Griffith: -- release to you guys with this agreement yet, because we have a lot of
conditions. The residents and S t. L uke's h ave both given up quite a b it to come to
terms and --
Borup: See --and that's where I'm confused. I don't see why either party needs to give
up that much. I don't understand why there is such controversy on this. Especially if
this project went through, that private, they are going to build it. There is nothing that
either party has to do, other than agree.
Centers: Give up some land from --
Borup: They're not.
Centers: I think that's the big thing.
Borup: No, it isn't. This project right here takes care of the -- takes care of the road.
Zaremba: The only issue that I could see on the St. Luke's part is --
Borup: They are just going to --
Zaremba: -- it would add additional traffic, their maintenance cost goes up a little bit, or
they have to resurface it every four years, instead of every five years or something like
that.
Borup: Well -- but they are interested in a doctor's office right next to their hospital
Zaremba: Sure
Griffith: Right. And it took us over a year to go through mediation on this and we
covered every little aspect that we think we could agree on the terms and that and so;
you know, I think it would be best if we just postponed it for a little bit, so we can try to
get some of this covered and then --
Borup: See, I'm still back to my question. I don't see how there can be that many areas
that are in disagreement, unless someone's not being reasonable.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes, please.
Siddoway: If I can make just an interjection. It is a -- I would just recommend leaving
that agreement between the homeowners and St. Luke's. There is, obviously, some
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 72 of 94
points of contention, they may not be able to talk about it, it is important and I think that
we need to let it come to some resolution on the private side before making the public
decisions, but I don't know that I would push for too many details here until it -- and just
let them be worked out amongst private parties.
Griffith: Now, we are meeting Saturday, so, you know, if you could just give us a little bit
more time, then, a lot this stuff may be resolved.
Borup: Now, are you opposed to having access come through Montvue Drive?
Griffith: We want a public access to St. Luke's Drive.
Borup: No. I mean -- my question was are you opposed if the access to this property
was through the existing public streets?
Griffith: One thing I can say with the agreement, it's stated that the parties will agree
where the road is going to go and that has not been discussed yet.
Borup: Right. But that wasn't my question. My question was are you opposed to this
property being annexed if the only access was through the existing public roads through
Montvue?
Griffith: No. I know that our subdivision is going to develop. That's what we are
planning on. You know, trying to correct all these things for the future, we know that we
are not going to be around and we see that it will develop into some kind of commercial
office or whatever space. That's been our goal for quite awhile. It's just been a matter
of trying to get access to --
Centers: So, as a follow-up to that question -- and I was going to ask the same one.
Knowing that it's office -- doctor office type space, I'm sure that would be the use, and
limited traffic. The homeowners would not necessarily object or have a big objection to
them coming through their sub for access?
Griffith: Well, if that's the only access they have, then, they have no choice to do that.
Centers: Okay.
Borup: Okay. Anything else, Ms. Griffith?
Zaremba: I think the thrust of the question is - we have had other homeowners
associations come to us objecting to have any commercial activity, including child care,
in their subdivision and this is buried deep in your subdivision.
Centers: Excuse me. You don't know the history of this subdivision. They want
commercial. They want commercial.
Meddian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 73 of 94
Zaremba: So this would be the first step of transition
Griffith: Right. Right. You know, if it was like 50 years ago, it would be different, but
now, as much as things are developing around us, you know, it's -- you know where it's
headed to. Anybody could see that now. But 50 years ago we wouldn't have seen it.
Or even ten years, I guess. I don't need to go back that far.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to add some new light on
this? Come forward.
Kerns: Forrest Kerns. I live at 230 West Montvue Drive. Just a brief history for you.
When St. Luke's went in, ACHD did want a public road. We backed St. Luke's. We
shouldn't have. We do want a public access to connect with St. Luke's. We are at a
point of agreement with them. Part of the problem is where St. Luke's wants the access
to come through is exactly where they put -- where they are showing a private road. In
other words, they want it to come through -- if you could switch to that -- the aerial.
They want it to come through at their third row, which just barely shows right there.
They want it in line with that.
Borup: Which is, essentially, where this --
Kerns: Which is, essentially, where they want to put a private road, we would prefer to
see it public up to St. Luke's. Touchmark's road is built to the property line now. In fact,
there is a little road that we can get through there occasionally.
Rohm: Is that here?
Kerns: Yeah. And there is a little bit of road that we can drive through and connect
onto ours. So we don't get a lot of traffic through there, but some of us can get out that
way. Those lots do exist on the outside. They are owned by this -- this lady represents
the people over there that own them along Eagle. So those are there. The other
question I had is -- I was told by one of my neighbors that on their conceptual plan they
said they were abandoning the ditches. Now, my ditch that irrigates my property -- if
you will excuse me a minute.
Borup: Well, maybe to clarify that, they would not be able to abandon the ditches at this
point.
Kerns: My ditch runs here, here, here, here and, then, down into these. So, it crosses
right across this property. So, that was an issue.
Borup: They would be required to still have the same water delivery.
Kerns: Okay. Well, that's what I thought, but I just wanted to make a note of it.
Borup: They may be moving them or relocating them or something.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 74 of 94
Kerns: But, other than that, the road is the main issue and that is -- at the last point that
I heard that was where St. Luke's wanted the road to be, even though we would have
liked it a little closer to Eagle, so if there are no questions, I will sit down and let
someone else talk.
Borup: It sounds like your point was the location of the road as proposed on their site
plan would be acceptable, other than you would like to see a public road, rather than
private?
Kerns: Yes. And someone had to give up property for the road being the way for it to
be public and that was probably where it was being considered.
Borup: Now, this road that's being -- is that splitting the property line? I guess you're
the wrong person to ask that.
Kerns: Sort of and sort of not. No, I'm not, really, the wrong person to ask, because I'm
a licensed surveyor, I just happen to live in the subdivision and I know where most of
the property pins in the subdivision are, so - it does -- sort of splits onto the other lot
and sort of not. It could be built either way. So, if it went just directly across this lot, it
would be -actually, probably be fine. It would align close enough that --
Borup: Is this -Steve, is that the property line? Is that your understanding? This line
right here?
Kerns: A little bit -- I think the property line is a little farther to the west there. I think it's
over on their -- right in there. Where my ditch line comes down through. So, it's -- but
the main consideration with St. Luke's was that it lined up with their emergency exit over
there. In other words, my feeling was they wanted to be able to use the road, too. If
they couldn't get out their street, they wanted to go out the other way, so -- but it doesn't
have to line up exactly, from an engineering standpoint or a survey standpoint. It would
close enough. And I think that that's reasonably close to their access.
Borup: Thank you.
Centers: Mr. Kerns, what would you say about this comment. I'll read it to you. A lot of
times I don't read the full ACHD reports, because they get redundant and they are pretty
repetitive on the subdivisions there, but I'll read this: St. Luke's advised district staff, the
ACHD, and the ACHD commission, that St. Luke's would allow access to their driveway
from Montvue Subdivision for residential uses only and would provide up to 100,000 to
construct a connection. The residents of Montvue Sub declined this offer and attempted
convince both the City of Meridian and ACHD to require St. Luke's to allow unrestricted
access to the driveway.
Kerns: And that's basically what happened and since that point we have come to terms
fairly close with St. Luke's. They have returned back to the point of providing 100,000 to
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 75 of 94
help build the road, to last my knowledge, and we have said, okay, we will go for limited
access, but it's not just for -- it's my understanding it's not just for residential, it's for
future commercial, too.
Centers: Yeah. And I can understand that and -- but let's cut through to the chase
here. I think the reason you want this delayed is because this property sits right in the
area where you want the road to go through.
Kerns: I don't really care if it's delayed or not, as long as it's --that there is -- as long as
it's u nderstood that w ith -- I mean I d on't w ant to h ave t o fight w ith t he n ew o wners
about where -- about an easement across that piece of property, you know, when we
have already about got it settled.
Centers: And you feel as Mrs. Griffith feels, that if they come through the subdivision to
go to the doctor at this building --
Kerns: It doesn't bother me a bit.
Centers: So I don't know what we are talking about here.
Kerns: Okay.
Borup: Mrs. Griffith, let's see if there is anyone else that wants to come forward first.
No one else, then? Okay.
Griffith: Trishia Griffith. One thing I forgot to mention is that the staff report -- or I mean
the report from ACRD, we did not have an opportunity to comment. We weren't told of a
hearing. I don't think St. Luke's was privy to it. I don't know if Touchmark was either.
Touchmark apparently was not privy to ACHD comments. So I would like all of us to go
back and talk to ACHD and see if we can get this worked out with them, too. They
didn't give us any kind of notice, apparently. I don't know if they had a hearing or not.
Borup: Yes, they did. February 19th.
Griffith: And nobody was notified of it. Apparently, they didn't have a hearing. So I
think -- you know, I think they should have a hearing on something like this. At least to
get comments from our neighborhood, from St. Luke's, and from Touchmark, too.
Centers: I don't know for sure, I'm just guessing, but annexation and zoning only may
not require it.
Borup: Yeah. Maybe I read this wrong. It said it was heard.. It didn't say a Public
Hearing, b ut i t may h ave b een heard from staff t o t he c ommission, b ut i t w as h eard
before the commission.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 76 of 94
Centers: Because you don't have a specified use, it was just conceptual, to generate
traffic and that's what they usually look at, the traffic generation. So, I don't know, I'm
guessing. Maybe Steve knows.
Griffith: I just wanted to let you know that we didn't have a chance to comment.
Borup: Okay.
Griffith: Thanks.
Bensinger: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, my name is Ron
Bensinger, I reside at 3250 North Montvue. I think you can see it form the
representation of our neighborhood here. This is an issue that we are all very anxious
about. We have watched our property values decline and decline and decline. This
very issue is proof of the fact that our property is going to sell for commercial for more
than it is as residential. And access to our property -- good commercial access to our
property has been a real issue for us.
Borup: You say your property has declined?
Bensinger: That's correct. Tax assessments have declined as residential value.
Borup: And sales in the subdivision have reflected that?
Bensinger: Yes.
Borup: In the last two years?
Bensinger: That's documented. Yes.
Borup: Okay.
Bensinger: But we just -- we -- I, myself, would like to ask the wisdom of this
Commission just to not lock us into more private roads and limit our options, you know,
especially when we worked so hard for this agreement with St. Luke's. If you could just
consider that, that's all I want to say.
Borup: How about if that road was a public road?
Bensinger: We would all -- I can't speak for the whole -- for everybody, but I personally
-- we all want a public connection to the St. Luke's road and I don't think anybody has
any real problem with where that occurs along that road.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. I'm assuming that was -- concludes the public comments?
Does the applicant have final comments?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 77 of 94
Butler: Thank you. Just briefly, I do have a copy of the Ada County Highway District
notice provisions and I think that my understanding is what took place at ACHD is it was
placed on the consent agenda, as they typically do when it's just annexation and zoning,
and it wasn't taken off the consent agenda. I know that there were some neighbors at
that meeting and that's just the typical annexation and zoning procedure of ACHD, to
place it on the consent agenda, unless a particular commissioner takes it off just for
that. I think that's -- as you can hear from the neighbors, it's very clear that they are in
the midst of a very private agreement, so much so that they can't share it with this
Commission or anybody else here, and so all we are asking is in the light of public to
address us in this public request, acknowledging that we meet all of the conditions of
your ordinances and your Comprehensive Plan -- you have taken testimony where the
neighbors have clearly said that this particular public road, if no connection ever goes in
over in this area, that they are not opposed to that access. Clearly, it's up before you for
this public request and we can't imagine the city delaying its recommendation because
somebody is waiting on a separate private agreement that has not been with a request
before you and I do realize that we just respectfully disagree with staff on that on their
position on delaying any recommendation. Even if you deny us -- we are asking you for
your recommendation. If you do deny us, though, tonight, we are asking you to be very
clear to tell u s why we d on't meet your o rdinances or requirements a s we g o to the
Council. And if I can answer any questions, we appreciate the deliberations of the
Commission.
Borup: Questions from any Commissioners?
Butler: Oh, I'm sorry, Commission Borup, just one -- I just wanted to clarify something
that somebody said about the location on this. I told you earlier that this private road
that we showed in here was just merely because staff had asked us to show something:
We --our understanding is that St. Luke's and the neighbors, if there were a connection
right i n t his general v icinity, t hey would I ike u s t o l ine u p w ith t heir d riveway t o t heir
property. That makes perfect sense to us. The reason we could never show something
like that, even if we chose to, is because that would take into consideration somebody
else's property, which is not our property, which is why you see what you see there. But
even so, again, that's another reason why this road shown there is just pie in the sky
and it shouldn't even be considered, because it just has no basis in reality. And so we
will commit to that development agreement as to use, but wewill not commit to any
private agreement with roads.
Borup: I thought I asked that four times and you didn't want to come up then. Come on
up now. Come on up. And I do have a question for either you or one of the neighbors,
so you may be able to answer that.
Hoist: As you already know, this has been in controversy for some time. VNesley Hoist,
385 Montvue Drive. We are -- we asked for this to be a commercial zoning and here it's
before you to be changed to I-O. So we are still wanting it to be commercial and --
Borup: The commercial designation was on the Comp Plan
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 76 of 94
Holst: Yes.
Borup: And it can change.
Holst: Okay.
Borup: Is that correct? One step either way?
Holst: Sure.
Siddoway: Well, the one step is -- Mr. Chairman, is for the residential, but office zoning
in a commercially designated area of the Comprehensive Plan, are in compliance with
that designation.
Borup: Right. But -yes. Go ahead, sir.
Holst: But that's what we asked for and that's what we still feel that it should be.
Borup: So you're not visualizing medical office buildings there, then? Next to a
hospital?
Holst: No.
Borup: You'd rather see a --
Hoist: A commercial -
Borup: -- Wal-Mart or something?
Hoist: No, Not a Wal-Mart. There are agreements of such and there are agreements
that we are very near making this agreement to come to fruition. It's just the fact that it
has not been signed and they jumped ahead and tried to -- and we haven't got the
agreements yet and until we do, their project is not going to work either, because they
need entry into -- into St. Luke's private driveway. So, it's important we get this
agreement first and I have said this to the developers, that we need to hold off on this
and that's what we are asking for is to hold off for this rezone until we get the
agreements and, then, we can all work together on it. But right now we feel they are
working against us.
Borup: The developer?
Hoist: The developer.
Borup: Of this project?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 79 of 94
Hoist: Yes. Because we just don't trust their -- the way that they have gone about this
and so that's why we want you to delay this, so that we do get our agreements and,
then, they can come before you and we will come before you in a unified development
and as a Montvue Drive, if we are all together on it, but right now we are not together on
it with them.
Borup: And, Mr. Hoist, that brings up my question. Is if this project was approved, do
you feel that it would jeopardize your agreement with St. Luke's? Do you feel that that
would be a possibility of that not being approved, because this wasn't annexed?
Hoist: That's what I fear.
Borup: Okay.
Hoist: I would like to delay it, so --
Borup: Is there any reason that --any reason you fear that? I mean has St. Luke's said
anything that might indicate that or --
Hoist: No. St. Luke's -- we are working very well with St. Luke's.
Borup: Okay. That's what I mean. If this project was approved, is there a concern that
St. Luke's would not continue with the agreement that they are working with you on?
Hoist: I don't know for sure, because I can't speak for St. Luke's.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: If I can ask the question a different way, maybe, just for my own
understanding. If you had this agreement with St. Luke's -- if Montvue homeowners
association h ad this agreement w ith S t. Luke's i n hand, already d one and s igned b y
everybody, how would that change your relationship with this development -- with this
annexation request?
Hoist: Because, then, we can make a -- work with these folks. But right now we don't
have an agreement to work with them.
Borup: Work with them how?
Hoist: Where the --
Borup: Share the -- share the building of the public road?
Hoist: What we have always been trying to get is the right for entry and not for a
placement of where the entry is going to be. The developer would make that decision
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 80 of 94
when the time came. And so that's -- so that's all we want with St. Luke's is a right of
entry and --
Borup: Anywhere?
Holst: And we feel that if this project goes through, if the zoning is changed or if the
development occurs, then, we are jeopardizing our right.
Zaremba: Well, to exercise that right you're going to have to buy the strip of property
from somebody, either one of the homeowners or this new -- I mean how -- how are you
going to provide the space that the roadway has to go on?
Holst: That will be brought back to the zoning of this committee at that time.
Zaremba: Probably not us. ACHD, maybe, but you would have to replat somebody's lot
to leave a space for the road, right?
Borup: Or a larger development that would encompass several lots and the road would
be built at that time.
Holst: All we are asking for at this time is just postpone it.
Zaremba: And I'm trying to see what you gain by postponing it. If at some point you're
going to have to buy a piece of property to build a road on anyhow, you could approach
these people and say here is what we have to buy the strip that we want.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think what I read here is that -- depending on the
development of Montvue Subdivision as a commercial development, you would like to
have that developer be able to choose where the access would go.
Holst: That's correct
Centers: I thought so. And --
Borup: And guarantee that there can be access? I mean that's what the agreement --
Centers: Yeah. But that's none of our business, in my opinion. That's yours.
Zaremba: Well -- and that's potentially very far in the future.
Centers: That's right. It could be tomorrow, it could be ten years, and that's not our
business, you know, that's yours as the Montvue homeowners. But we have an
application before us that meets all the guidelines, you have said that you don't mind
them entering your sub, but you just want it delayed, so that. your negotiations can
continue. I don't think it's our business, personally.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 61 of 94
Borup: I realize hindsight is much better, but when that private road first went in the
subdivision supported a private road.
Centers: Well -- and the other point that I was going to make, you have been working
with St. Luke's for -- correct me if I'm wrong -- a minimum of four years. More like five?
Yeah. And, then, you know, how much time do you need? You said St. Luke's is very
easy to get along with and -- well, I thought I heard you say that.
Holst: I didn't say that. They have been very hard to get along with.
Centers: I won't argue with you. Anyway, thank you.
Borup: Well, Imight -- maybe just a quick question from Mrs. Griffith. That was the
same t hing. D o you feel I ike y our a greement w ith S t. Luke's i s in j eopardy i f t his i s
approved?
Griffith: I can't answer that, but I hope not. I hope things --
Borup: Is there any reason it should be?
Griffith: I can't think of anything right off.
Borup: I mean they haven't indicated any -- St. Luke's has not been tying anything else
into what your discussions with them have been? They haven't brought anything else
into the mix?
Griffith: No. We will know Saturday when we meet.
Mathes: I have a question. If they buy the property, don't they -- aren't they involved in
the negotiations, then, because they are part of the subdivision, then, if they buy the
property.
Griffith: They haven't closed yet. They haven't closed on it yet, so they are not the
owners yet.
Mathes: I thought it was signed.
Griffith: One side. Their side, but the other side hasn't.
Mathes: Okay.
Griffith: So they are not the owners yet.
Mathes: Right. But as soon as they are owners they can get in on the negotiations.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 62 of 94
Griffith: Right. Right. Yeah. That's -- you know, that's just amongst the property
owners, we are negotiating with St. Luke's.
Borup: Thank you. Did you have some pertinent information, sir?
Holt: Chairman Borup, my name is Jim Holt, I'm the director of architecture and
construction for St. Luke's.
Borup: Okay.
Holt: I was hoping to sit in the back row and be silent tonight, but maybe I can help a
little.
Borup: Good. We appreciate it.
Holt: We would I ike to respect the process we a re a ngaged i n with o ur f riends and
neighbors in Montvue. We are very optimistic. We are very close to coming to terms,
hopefully, here in a matter of a few days. However, if I might try and answer your
question, I don't believe that a decision on this application tonight has any bearing on
our negotiations and would affect anything we are trying to do here. Her other
statement tonight, there is a difference between the public process and this piece of
private property you have to deal with tonight and our private negotiations, our issues,
so I -- again, if that helps --
Borup: It helps mean awful lot.
Holt: Any impact on what happens tonight, our negotiations will continue to go forward,
and I believe that's independent of how you may choose to act on this application.
Borup: That's exactly the answer -- I mean that's exactly what I wanted to --
Zaremba: I appreciate that piece of information very much.
Borup: Any other questions while he's up here?
Holt: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Since we have had some additional public testimony, do the
applicants have anything else they want to --
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes. Anything else from staff? Yes, it looks like there is.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have got to vent a little bit of
frustration here. I'm going to throw a few things out here on the table for you to mull
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 83 of 94
over. When the application -- excuse me. Prior to the application when Mr. Boyle came
into our office and we had apre-application meeting, the item -- the issue of the private
road was presented to us. It was part of the plan. The application -- the formal
application was filed. Mr. Boyle's narrative in his application -- here is a paragraph: A
private roadway is proposed near the west boundary of the site.. The roadway is
proposed as a 29-foot street section with sidewalk along the east side only. Sidewalk is
not proposed on the west side in order to preserve a buffer of existing conifer trees.
The sidewalk will tie into the pathway along the north side of St. Luke's Drive. Further,
the sidewalk on only one side of the private roadway is similar to the street section of St.
Luke's Drive, which, as a path -- which has a pathway on the north side only. Parking
will not be allowed on either side of the private roadway. My point here is that this was
presented to us as this is an integral part of this application. It was never ever
presented to us as conceptual. Tonight is the first that your staff has learned that that
this is -- this road is a moving target. I would guess that ACHD, more than likely, has
the same type of application before them. I can't help but think that their decision might
have been different had they known the traffic, potentially, would not be using St. Luke's
Drive and that all traffic would funnel through the existing residential roadways to Eagle
Road, to an already very congested access point onto Eagle Road. So I just wanted to
make those points and let you kick it around.
Siddoway: Along the same vein, Mr. Chairman, if I might. The applicant has pointed
out that we have made the findings in -- that they -- that the application meets those
firdings, but, again, those findings were all made based on the assumption of that road
and they may be different with that removed. If you - if we -- if the road -- if we take the
site plan out of the picture and we just say should we annex this property with the only
access being what is described in the staff report as a difficult access off of Eagle Road,
that's not easily accessible to vehicles traveling south due to the high number of
vehicles stacked up at the Franklin and Eagle intersection and, additionally, is difficult to
make alert-hand turn out of the subdivision onto Eagle Road, I don't know that we
would be able to make all those findings. The findings that we made were based on the
assumption that that connection was a part of the application and I'm not sure that it
makes sense to annex that property with the current access.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant would like to respond.
Borup: I'm sorry. I was -- thank you.
Boyle: Thank you, Chairman Borup and Commissioners. Clint Boyle again. In
response to that, your -- Bruce is correct, there was a plan submitted, like we indicated
before, with a private road and some discussion on that in the narrative on the
application. However, what was left out of that picture was many discussions with
planning staff from the City of Meridian and ACHD before we ever submitted this
application, before we even had apre-application on this application, in which- it was
indicated from ACHD that they were adverse and would not accept a public road. Now,
to move this application forward with that said, on the other hand, we had that issue to
deal with where ACRD was saying they were not going to accept a public road
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 84 of 94
connection from Montvue and on the other side of that we had Meridian planning staff
saying that the annexation would not go forward and ultimately be approved by Council
unless we had a site plan associated with it. So, essentially, that left us in a position
that to get through your possession to annex and rezone we had to come up with a plan
that we could submit that showed a development on the site, showed the size of office,
the type of office, which we have indicated on there, the size., the type, a potential
layout, and that's how the conceptual plan came to --
Borup: But couldn't you have designed that with just access to Montvue only? Did you
say staff required you to have access to the private road?
Boyle: Staff did not require the access to the private road.
Borup: You could have designed it with Montvue access?
Boyle: We, potentially, could have designed it with just an access out to Montvue, that
is correct, but, again, at the time, the reason that the roadway was put in was because
we were aware that there were negotiations and we wanted to, essentially, present a
good faith showing to the neighborhood that, yes, you know, we were on board with
them i n w anting t o p rovide a n a ccess i nto the n eighborhood a nd i nto M ontvue. S o,
that's kind of the background behind that. I just want to clarify, because there was a lot
of discussion related to the road related to this site plan as well in -- preceding even the
pre-application meetings on this. ACHD is very well aware of what we are doing here. I
have had many discussions and I can name people down there if you'd like, with various
staff members at ACHD on this particular project on the access issues on the public
road connection and situation there, on their previous decisions with Touchmark. So,
with that said, again, the submittal of the site plan, again, was to facilitate Meridian's
process with the annexation and rezoning request. It was to indicate to the city the type
of development that was proposed on the site. The agreement, again, with St. Luke's
that the Montvue neighbors are working on, again, we wanted to just have a good faith
showing that we are willing to work with the neighbors on that connection. However, it
didn't seem to make much sense to us to show, essentially, a public road across our
site, again, when ACHD was saying they wouldn't accept that. We are certainly willing
to continue to work with the neighbors on that issue, in conjunction with them working
with ACHD on it. So, again, tonight we do have the annexation and zoning request in
front of you. The discussion has gone through ACRD and as far as the trips utilizing
this development, again, if even there were no development in the future -- excuse me -
- no agreement in the future between St. Luke's and the Montvue residents, there still is
another entry that will likely occur in the future into this project that will provide another
public road outlet. So, there are some options here. Again, we are requesting that this
Commission m ove this project forward. We believe that given ACHD's input o n t his
project, given their approval on the project, and given the findings, we do believe that
we comply with them. Staff has indicated potentially that they feel otherwise. However,
I will say that we have had extensive conversations with Meridian planning staff on
these issues, on the site plan, on the private road issue, and, again, this was a
facilitation movement on our part to be able to move through the annexation process.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 85 of 94
Certainly, the developers of the project would have much rather just came to you with a
blank piece of paper and just said we'd like to annex this piece of property and zone it L-
O at this time and move through the process just like that without spending any time
and the engineering cost putting together the site plan and the other issues involved
there. However, our understanding was that we needed to present something that
indicated to the Commission and Council what type of development we were proposing.
It would facilitate any potential development agreement related to the use of the
property by showing that site plan and thereby that's why it was submitted.
Rohm: I have a question. Staff indicated that the access road that they requested you
include in your plat helped them with their staff comments, so that there is access
across. If you don't have that road, then, your only access to that lot is through the
subdivision and they would have possibly changed their comments had you not put the
road there. So it seems to me that the two are intertwined, are they not?
Boyle: Well -okay. And if I could just address that briefly from the standpoint of the
staff? I have had discussions on the city staff, the planning staff that drafted this report,
so the staff members from the planning staff that have drafted this report, I had
discussions with that very issue and my indication was that there may not be an
agreement reached -- you know, we feel that from what I understood that the Montvue
residents and St. Luke's were close to reaching an agreement, but there may not. What
are the considerations involved if that agreement isn't reached? And we talked about a
bunch of different scenarios and what we are looking at is something that fits into the
Comprehensive Plan that city envisioned and we talked about that Montvue
Subdivision. And, obviously, the discussion with the Meridian staff member that wrote
the report was, yes, Montvue wants commercial there, we are going to see this
transition, we are going to have other access points available from Touchmark. We had
discussions about the potential connection to Touchmark. In fact, it's even referenced
in your staff report that their -- one of the comments they made was related to the
potential that there may be some cut-through traffic avoiding the intersection. So to say
that the staff didn't contemplate other connections, it was certainly a point of discussion
that I had with the maker of the report related to this project and that agreement with St.
Luke's. So I don't know -- at least my understanding was that it certainly isn't a surprise
that we are in here indicating that that agreement may or may not happen and that if it
doesn't, that we would potentially take an access route through the subdivision or out
through Touchmark from some other direction.
Rohm: Well, just from a logic perspective, it seems to me that without the private road
your only access is through the subdivision and there are, in fact, limitations of access
from the southern -- trying to come in from the south -- traveling south, because you
can't get across the traffic, because it's backed up all the way to the Chevron station.
So I -- you know. So, the upshot of the whole deal is staff would not be able to
recommend to us to annex at -- as that use without having another access point, which
would be the private road currently owned by St. Luke's. That seems like that's the
logic that was incorporated into their staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 86 of 94
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: If I might. Two comments. First, one question for Clint. Given your
discussions with ACHD and the meetings that you had there, do you believe that the --
that their report would include concerns that are not currently shown if the application
had been just a connection out to -- out to Eagle Road through Montvue?
Borup: Well, I'd like to address that, because that was a question I had also, if that's all
right. My reading of the ACHD report, that's the only access they refer to.
Siddoway: I know.
Borup: Just the one to Montvue --just the one to Eagle Road through Montvue. They
make no reference to the private road.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: But I can certainly understand Mr. Freckleton's frustration when that was the site
plan that was presented to you, and now you feel a little like a bait and switch.
Siddoway: If that's the case, that's fine, it's an honest question is to see if --
Borup: Right. We'll now let Mr. Boyle answer that, too. Or you had two questions. I'm
sorry.
Siddoway: Well, no. Do the first. Go ahead.
Boyle: And, again, for me to speculate on would ACHD have changed -- again, ACHD
reviewed it as an annexation rezoning request and their report and the way that I
remember it as well is along the lines of Commissioner Borup with the access out to
Montvue Drive being the only existing access and --
Centers: Well, could I jump in? How about if there were a development agreement that
specified prior to development ACHD's approval of the development and having access
only via Montvue, if that were the only access at the time? Because as we discussed
earlier, they don't know the use, so they are not able to judge traffic, so if you had a
development agreement that had to be approved for use by the ACRD and access only
through Montvue or Montvue, then, we'd see if they would approve it, in which I -- I don't
know if they would. I can't speak for them, but I --
Borup: Well, they know the use was intended as L-O.
Centers: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 87 of 94
Borup: But beyond that they don't.
Centers: But they didn't have specific --
Zaremba: I have two comments, actually, one a comment and one a question. The
first, I think it's essential to staff to ask for a site plan. There is no other way to support
what a zone should be unless we have some understanding of what's intended to go
into that zone, so I certainly support the need for that. We would want to see it. We
would not automatically rezone something without having a clue what was going to go
there. The second is a question. If this road were to happen as a private road, what do
you envision as the ownership of that road? Would the medical clinic own it, because it
runs across that piece of property, or would you envision selling it to the homeowners
association? Who is going to own --
Borup: The way the site plan is designed now, it would be owned by the medical clinic
that's on that property.
Zaremba: Is that something you're willing to do?
Boyle: Yeah. I will defer that one to Joanne. It's more of a legal question for her to
answer, if I might.
Zaremba: Okay.
Borup: Well, I think Mr. Siddoway had another question. Do you still have any other
questions, Steve?
Siddoway: Just more of a statement than a question. Clint's referenced several
meetings that he's had with planning staff, I'm assuming Dave McKinnon. I agree, they
have met pretty extensively on this and revised the staff report accordingly and what it
all comes down to -- and I believe Dave's feelings are clearly stated in the
recommendation, that says staff does not feel comfortable with recommending the
approval of this project if this access cannot be agreed upon. Without an agreement in
place, the only access to the subject property will be through Montvue Subdivision, a
single point of access on Eagle Road. If the property is developed without the access, it
would bring a high volume of traffic into a residential subdivision and create additional
congestion near the entrance of the subdivision. Therefore, staff recommends
continuing the Public Hearing until an agreement has been signed, etc. I think that's the
point that staff came to and I think that's all.
Borup: Okay.
Butler: Joanne Butler. I think Mr. Siddoway's comments underscore, again, the reason
why we separate private and public in these matters. Mr. -- I don't doubt that Mr.
McKinnon would have loved to encourage people to come to some private agreement
during this public process and although I appreciate that encouragement, I don't think
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 88 of 94
that that's a proper place for staff in this regard. Staff has said in their comments when
they originally introduced the staff report was if the only access were off of Montvue,
they wouldn't -- staff would not recommend approval. Not because ACHD denied
approval, because ACHD did consider just that single access, but because they would
prefer to see access down to St. Luke's. I don't blame them. I think we would, too. But
we just can't expect it, we just don't know. You have heard from the neighbors and their
comments on if the traffic comes through. So, clearly, ACHD and the people that are
immediately affected would see this as appropriate. I appreciate staffs attempt to
encourage that private agreement coming to fruition, but, again, I just want to say that
that just underscored the fact that that's why we separate the public from the private and
try not to merge them. I know it's difficult to do sometimes. So, with regard to -- let me
paraphrase the question. Would -- I think you were asking about the ownership.
Through the attorney of the neighbors, we tell the attomey that if this wound up being
private on our property and that their agreement showed it in this location, their
agreement being St. Luke's and the neighborhood as a whole, that we understood the
concerns of the neighborhood, the whole -- that they had been giveh with one private
only for a long period of time, our efforts would be to insure that access would be for the
area as a whole. We even asked the neighbors' attorney to feel free to draft that
easement agreement in a manner that comported with their St. Luke's agreement, so
that we could take a review of it. So I can only tell you in that private arena, which is not
here tonight, we have said that we would -- would do whatever it took to make sure that
that access for the neighborhood as a whole, if it should come to pass, that it wound up
in whole or in part on this property. I hope answered that.
Zaremba: Well, I'm guessing you're saying that the medical clinic would retain
ownership of that piece of property?
Butler: Yeah.
Zaremba: With an easement --
Butler: I mean -- which it doesn't mean that the neighbors as a whole might not form
themselves into a -- if it was private, form themselves into a maintenance entity to
maintain it and assess themselves so that they could maintain it. That certainly could
be on the table, surely.
Borup: Would the Commission like to have some discussion before we maybe
proceed?
Centers: I think I would propose to close the Public Hearing. I would make that motion.
Rohm: I will second that.
Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. Any discussion? All in favor?
Any opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 89 of 94
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: What issues do you think we are facing here? Just the road? Anything else?
There can't be very many other things on the annexation.
Zaremba: I think they have expressed willingness to work it out, I think, however it turns
out.
Centers: Mr. Chairman, I -- ACHD was okay with the Montvue sub entry
Borup: Yes. That's the way their report says
Centers: That's the way it reads. The homeowners are okay with it. I don't think it's
any our business on the agreement. If staff thought they were looking at a private road
and, then, it flopped on them, bait and switch, whatever you want to say, I can
understand their frustration there, but that really doesn't change the issue, because
ACHD is okay with Montvue and the homeowners are okay with Montvue and one
statement that I always read -- and I was looking for it. I know it's there. Maybe it's not
with annexation and zoning. I don't think it is. Will it be harmonious to the
neighborhood? The neighbors don't care. The neighbors are fine. So, staffs
comments wouldn't change there, you know. So, I guess what I'm saying is I'm okay
with it. But I do think this: I really think - I don't think that that developer, when he
builds that building, will build it knowing that he's going to access it through Montvue. I
think he's going to have an agreement signed with St. Luke's to access on their private
drive, because who in the heck would want to direct people to their office building going
through Montvue Sub? It's not going to happen. The guy that builds that is going to
have his agreement set to use St. Luke's Drive and I think there is probably going to be
a 30,000 square foot building going up there. Is that about -it's conceptual, but --
Borup: And you know it's going to have to have access to Montvue, because that's the
only --
Centers: Yeah. But I don't think he's going to build it until --
Borup: I agree. That was one of my comments, that it's in their best interest and --
Rohm: Yeah. That doesn't insure that the subdivision will ever gain access to St.
Luke's private drive, which may be essential --
Borup: Sure. Sure, it does. It may not assure they have public access, but they are
going to have access through this private road.
Rohm: I think the only thing that I'd like to say in rebut to what Commissioner Centers
was saying is staff would not have made their recommendation to move forward with
this had they --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 20D3
Page 90 of 94
Borup: They didn't.
Rohm: -- if the only access was through the subdivision and. it's only due to them
showing this private road that we are where we are right now in the first place. So,
there you have it.
Centers: Well -- and to -- as a come back to that, they had to have conceptual. They
put the private drive there. Staff knew that there was no agreement. And, you know,
staff knew the history on Montvue and an agreement would be hard to get, because.
Montvue residents were working on it themselves, but, hey, here is a conceptual private
road. They don't need that private road, this developer doesn't. All he needs is a cross-
access agreement with St. Luke's to use their private drive. That's all needs and he's
got good access; right? And I think that's what they are going to go after. And the
private drive would be up to the Montvue residents, which is where it should have been
to begin with. It's been there for five years.
Borup: Well, Mr. Centers, I -- you're saying he could build the project with just access
on the private drive only?
Centers: Couldn't he?
Borup: I don't think so. ACHD approved it with access to --
Centers: Well, it's going to have the other one, too.
Borup: And they said any change in the application would -- was there -- I'm not sure
which one of you -- Mr. Freckleton.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a couple of points. One,
staff did not instruct the applicant to put the private road on their plan. That's the way
the --
Centers: I didn't say they did.
Freckleton: It was brought up earlier.
Borup: Well, we had the impression it was encouraged.
Freckleton: That's the way that the plan was presented to us. I don't know what
discussions Clint has had with Dave McKinnon prior to our pre-app meeting. The pre-
app meeting was the first glance I had with this project and it was presented to us in that
meeting that here is their project, the road is an integral part of it, we are working with
St. Luke's to get the access point approved by them. That's the way it was presented to
us. The second point I wanted to make was just a question that -- I have read this
ACHD report and I don't see -- I don't see their approval of the access going solely out
through Montvue Subdivision. So, if you have got that, could you point it out to us?
Meddian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 91 of 94
Borup: Page three, number nine. Unless there is somewhere else? That's the only
one I saw.
Freckleton: Access to this site is currently provided.
Borup: Well, okay. I guess that's --that's talking about existing access.
Freckleton: That's the portion of the report where they are basically laying the facts on
the table for you for consideration.
Borup: Yeah. And in the other areas they don't address it at all. They talk about
private drives and Touchmark and everything else, but they don't ever tie this into that.
Freckleton: Exactly. That's why I questioned whether ACHD, drew the conclusion that
the road -- or the access for this commercial project was going to be solely taken
through the subdivision to Eagle Road. If this map that Pinnacle Engineers prepared for
the project was present to ACHD, they probably drew the same conclusion I did.
Centers: So, then, we get back to the one comment that I made. If we had a
development agreement on the approval of this annexation and zoning that included the
applicant's approval from ACHD on any development coming forward for access via
Montvue Sub only -- you follow what I'm saying?
Borup: You're saying --
Centers: They would have to go back to ACHD and say, hey, folks, we are going to
enter our project through the Montvue Sub only.
Borup: Only.
Centers: So our development agreement could say that, that they should get that
approval.
Borup: So, if they get this other access, then, they wouldn't need that approval.
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: Well, anytime -- if they submit a certificate of zoning compliance, it's going to
ACHD regardless of where the access is. So, ACHD will review it again through the
certificate of zoning compliance process, regardless of where the access is.
Centers: Before they build.
Siddoway: Before they get building permits.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 92 of 94
Centers: Yeah. Okay
Borup: Okay. Maybe one -- and Mr. Centers had brought up all the points that I had
written down, except for one, and that's -- St. Luke's has said that they will proceed and
continue good faith negotiations, that this would not have any affect either way. I know
previously I -- I don't believe we had a lot of detail. I know they had offered to provide
100,000 dollars for access into the subdivision, which, originally, the residents said they
just wanted access for themselves to get out to Eagle Road. That was what -- originally
what I had heard. Later, they change their mind and decided .they w anted unlimited
access for more than just private residences and I think that's where things fell apart
with St. Luke's. But beyond that I'm not sure of all the details. But they have said that
they would continue. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Mathes? Any input there?
Mathes: I figured just annexation and zoning --
Borup: Well, once it goes -- I mean once it's annexed and zoned, we don't see it again.
Centers: What I liked hearing, though, is ACHD -- it has to go back to them regardless.
I will make a motion. I don't know where everyone is going here; but I'll make a motion.
I would make a motion that we recommend approval for AZ 03-004, request for
annexation and zoning of 1.37 acres from R-1 to L-O zones for Montvue Medical Clinic
by Pinnacle Engineers, including all staff comments from their memo of March 6th --
and, specifically, the annexation and zoning conditions of approval. Strike item three
and replace it -- and I will take help on this. Replace it with the development agreement
shall address use of property only and include language similar to other development
agreements in an L-O zone. All other -- items one, two, and four would be included.
And number three amended as I just did. Are we okay with that?
Siddoway: Just so I understand for the recommendation, this is just on the annexation
and zoning and items one, two, and four are not changed. Item three regarding the
development agreement is modified to address use of the property only.
Centers: Right. And include language that you have used on similar agreements in an
L-O zone. And I'm thinking across the street.
Siddoway: Well, we usually tie them to a specific site plan, frankly. But I don't think you
want to go there. So, that's why I'm --
Centers: Right.
Siddoway: We usually do tie those developments to site plans.
Centers: Similar to a -- similar to the site plan offered, other than the private drive, then.
Okay?
Zaremba: I will second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
March 6, 2003
Page 93 of 94
Borup: Okay. Motion and second. Any discussion? Are there any questions on that
from the city attorney? Did that motion make sense? Okay. I asked if there was any
other discussion. I think I did. All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay. That will go forward to City Council. I assume the applicant realizes that
I'm sure staff will have the same objections at City Council.
Zaremba: But it may be resolved by then.
Borup: Well, yes, that would certainly help things for the applicant also if ii was resolved
by then. I think that would help your presentation.
Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-003 Request for a Conditional Use Permit
forTemporary building for Urgent Care, Occupational Medicine, and, and
Administrative Office of St. Alphonsus Temporary Facility by Rocky
Mountain Management and Development, LLC -east of North Eagle
Road and south of East Presidential Road:
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? I believe --
Borup: Commissioner Zaremba.
Zaremba: -- I noticed in our packet a request to withdraw Item 13.
Borup: The very first item in the packet. Yeah. That's my understanding.
Zaremba: In that case, we don't need to --
Centers: We can just throw that away, can't we, Mr. Chairman?
Borup: They didn't -- do we need to make a motion to that effect, counsel?
Holinka: Yeah. You probably better act on it just to --
Borup: Okay. Would someone like to maybe mention that and make a motion to accept
the withdrawal, I guess.
Zaremba: Well, is there anybody here to speak on that?
Borup: I don't -- do we have anybody here on this last issue? I don't think so.
Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move we accept the application's request to
withdraw CUP 03-003.