HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 11-19MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 19, 1996
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor
Robert D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Tolsma, Charlie Rountree, Glenn Bentley, Walt
Morrow:
OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Will Berg, Shari Stiles, Bruce
Freckleton, Bill Gordon, Wayne Forrey, Joann and Don Mazzi, Monica Johnson,
Erika Newberry, Rick Seger, Rose Maloney, Pat Maloney, David Turnbull, John
Anderson, Charles Eddy, Doug Tamura, Robert Morrison, Billy Ray Strite, Craig
Jamison, George Kyler, Richard Williams, Howard Foley, Kent Brown, Ann
Bowen, Chuck Horel, Dick Moore, Dennis Nielson, Brian Diamond, Rod Truax,
Steve Brown:
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 6,1996:
Corrie: What do you wish to do with the minutes?
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I make a motion we accept the minutes of the previous
meeting as written.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we accept the
minutes and approve them as written, any further discussion? All those in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #1: TABLED AUGUST 20,1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD
GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Corrie: Council, you have a request by Mr. David Turnbull that he would like to
have that delayed for another 3 months to wait for the meeting I guess with some
of the Council members and also Nampa Meridian Irrigation. What is your
pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table the Ashford Greens Variance
request for 3 months from the second meeting in November which would make it
second meeting in February, do we have a date on that? February 18 please.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we table the
variance request for Ashford Greens until February 18, any further discussion?
All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, as a point of update the (inaudible) first meeting this coming
Monday, that is contingent upon being able to get those that are interested in
working on that committee all together.
Corrie: Are you working on that committee, you are heading it (inaudible)
ITEM #2: TABLED OCTOBER 15,1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE
AND KAREN FORREY:
Corrie: I believe Council that we requested that the Attorney give us an opinion
as far as can the City place a condition upon a planned unit development general
that no residential use shall be allowed. You all have the memorandum from the
City Attorney on that opinion. Any questions of the attorney?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I have some questions of the attorney. I have read your
analysis of the situation; I guess my questions are with respect to the last
paragraph it says that it is my opinion that conditions may be placed on the
conditional use of a planned unit development general. They cannot be used to
restrict use of the property (inaudible) in this case if noise from other light
industrial uses is or could be of concern sound barriers could be required. The
difficulty however is that the City does not know what other possible light
industrial uses might be. I guess my question there is that how does other
possible light industrial uses impact a residential use from the standpoint if we
are going to grant a residential use as part of this application then it is safe to
assume that common sense would (inaudible) light industrial zone would have
every kind of light industrial activity and those associated noises going with it. It
seems to me that if that is the case then the sound barrier might require a
(inaudible) mitigate normal sounds and activities from the light industrial area
that totally surrounds this project.
Crookston: Knowing that you are trying to protect a residential development from
unknown light industrial uses that is a much easier problem to resolve as far as
what needs to be down as far as let's say sound as I mentioned in the opinion so
you could require that substantial sound barriers be done. Because you know
what use you are trying to protect at first impact from, the hard part is you don't
know what light industrial uses are going to be there but I think you consume, it is
very difficult to assume what uses could be there. There are many light industrial
uses; some that produce a fair amount of sound and some that do not under our
zoning ordinance. But you can place conditions that some type of sound barrier
be constructed. It is hard to say what is necessary, but you do know that you are
trying to protect a residential use from the impacts. So, you have to assume that
you have to be, I would assume that you have to presume that you are protecting
a residential area from noises from light industrial uses that may be of significant
impact. It is different then trying to figure it out when you say that you are only
protecting a commercial use from which I don't think you have to be as protective
of. It is really not an easy question because you don't know what uses are going
to be there.
Morrow: Well it seems to me that from my perspective is that you have land that
is zoned and annexed as light industrial it is a safe assumption that you are going
to have a broad array of uses in a light industrial zone. Within the context of this
application we have a situation where there is an attempt to put a senior citizens
residential facility surrounded by some commercial and then the immediate area
around it is light industrial. You have existing now Builders Masonry Products
and it appears to me that probably the reality is that there is a flaw in our zoning
and development ordinance that allows any type of a residential uses within a
industrial, light industrial area. It seems to me that if we are going to press
forward with this then that the burden of protection be placed upon the residential
uses so that 15 years from now or ten years from now or five years from now we
don't have senior citizens coming in complaining about surrounding industrial
noises and get into a situation with a council at that time and the legal folk can't
resolve the situation because we made a bad decision. Even though it is a legal
one it is a bad common sense decision in terms of residential within a light
industrial zone. So from my perspective if in fact that is going to take place then
the burden of protection belongs with the residential and not future light industrial
users. What you are indicating is that we can require sound mitigation barriers
that protects the residential portion from the light industrial remainder of ground,
is that correct?
Crookston: That is correct.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a same question in the same regards, let's change the
situation and say Mr. Forrey isn't building his project there. And somebody with
light industrial comes in and wants to build on the same lot; you have the same
noise problem that is being imposed on the current homeowners there on the
adjacent lots. Are we going to tell the homeowners there that they have to put up
the sound wall there?
Morrow: Actually Mr. Bentley the ordinance is very clear that the requirement of
the sound protection would be the light industrial person to protect the existing
neighborhood. So in that situation the burden would be on the light industrial user
to provide that mitigation to an existing residential area. The two are really
apples and oranges. We are talking about an existing neighborhood with zoned
ground and in application they would have a requirement to do the buffering and
landscape buffering on the property line. So that is as I see it.
Corrie: Has Council read the memo from Mr. Forrey of the meeting I had with
Mark Smith of Builders Masonry Company and Karen and Wayne Forrey in
relationship to the questions that was raised by Builders Masonry. Where Mark
Smith has agreed that they would like to have them as neighbors just some of
the conditions they asked that the 8 foot fence along the south property line be
the first phase and limited residential to the front 630 feet on Pine Avenue and
then of course I think Mr. Tolsma made a comment about the acknowledgement
of accepting the complaining of others that they won't be complaining about the
industrial was addressed. Have you had a chance to read that?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor if I might address item 2 in that letter, it says that (inaudible)
construct an 8 foot high wood fence along the south property line adjacent to the
railroad right of way as part of the first phase development. Very candidly wood
fences have a real short term life span in terms of this type of project. This may
be a sound wall mitigation taking a lead from ITD and ACHD (inaudible) that type
of sound wall ought to be a block wall and landscape area so that it has a
permanence equivalent to that of the life span of the building of the project.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would agree with Mr. Morrow's expectation in terms of
the type of wall and landscaping. But you have to keep in mind that you get 100
feet plus or minus a few feet from the noise source. Unless you encase that
noise source or the receiver any barrier is going to be ineffective. I think we are
not looking at this in terms of noise protection on the exterior realistically in this
situation. I don't think it can be done, what could be done is insulation of the
buildings, triple pane glass and that sort of thing to make sure that any high
pitched or noise of such frequency that would be disturbing on an interior would
be taken care of with construction materials. From and exterior point of view
there is really nothing you can do. To point that out Hoff's cyclone facilities off of
Franklin, that would be very difficult to baffle that noise and barrier that noise
from the neighborhoods.
Morrow: That is true (inaudible)
Rountree: That type of noise would be mitigated for some 100 feet behind the
wall but beyond that you are not going to perceive a measurable difference in the
noise level.
Corrie: Council there is also a buffer of professional clinic buildings, parking lot
and trees that is involved in there too which is considerably, I don't know how far
that is. Wayne would you do me a favor, I am not very good at looking at maps
here, what is the distance from the corner that you are talking about and then to
the fence and any other buildings?
Forrey: I believe Mayor it is approximately 570 feet of additional buffer between
the south end of the property, about 570 feet north would be the office ware
house buildings, the green house facility and the professional office, plus all of
the landscaping. So there is that much buffer from the south property line and
then it is another 200 feet beyond the south property line to Builders Masonry. I
might add Builders Masonry is happy with the 8 foot wood fence. It would be, our
maintenance program is ongoing. I know wood has a shorter life span than block
but our maintenance program would be for perpetual maintenance and
replacement.
Rountree: Remember that would require a variance.
Forrey: The 8 foot fence, in an industrial zone an 8 foot fence is allowed.
Rountree: Okay, then we won't have to see it.
Corrie: Thank you Wayne, any further discussion or questions?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, given the fact that we are in this situation because of what
apparently is a flaw in our ordinance I am not particular keen on the idea of the
residence in this land use area but there doesn't appear that there is much we
can about this application. I would certainly hope that we would take a quick look
at that in our ordinance and remedy that in the future. Given that I would make a
motion that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were
prepared for planning and zoning for this proposal.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Meridian Planning and zoning, any further discussion?
Roll Call Vote
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - No, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - No, Tolsma - Yea,
Corrie - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: 2 No, 2 Yea, Tie Breaker - Yea
Corrie: The recommendation?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that the City of Meridian City Council approve the
conditional use request by the applicant for the property described in the
application set forth in the findings of fact and conclusion.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the recommendation, any
further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: 1 No, 3 Yea
Morrow: Point of question, I would assume by the motion then the Council has
not chosen to have any mitigation in terms of adopting the letters or that kind of
thing?
Corrie: Counselor?
Rountree: I believe a considerable amount of that is in the findings, but
specifically to that letter
Crookston: The findings have already been approved, you an reopen it and
request that letter or those letters be included in the findings and adopted within
those findings.
Rountree: Just by motion without
Crookston: You would have to bring it back up.
Rountree: Well I can't bring it back up because I voted against the findings, but I
don't have an objection to it being brought back up.
Corrie: You can bring it back up and we can vote to put the comment of Mr.
Forrey into the
Bentley: So moved, I make a motion we bring that back.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Tolsma that we incorporate
the three conditions (inaudible) Masonry company to be put in the findings of fact
and conclusions, any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #3: TABLED NOVEMBER 6,1996: FINAL PLAT FOR BEDFORD
PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, questions in our packet, the only information we had was a
letter dated November 1 from Shari talking about Bruce Freckleton and she had
met with David Turnbull and Mike Tanner on October 16 to discuss our
comments and concerns regarding the above referenced plat. The main issues
are the pedestrian pathway, Nampa Meridian Irrigation (inaudible) nor have we
received a revised plat. I would ask Shari to bring us up to date and Bruce up to
date with where that is.
Stiles: Mayor and Council and Councilman Morrow we did receive response to
our comments, also in your packet you should have a proposed sketch for the
pedestrian pathway.
Morrow: Is that the one that is dated today that was in our box tonight?
Stiles: Yes, that is what they are proposing to do. They are showing the pathway
on Finch Creek property. While it would not be the preferred pathway it is at
least something. John Anderson from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District was in
here, I don't know if he would be able to comment on it. The major problem that
have with that proposed layout is the 90 degree turns, people maneuvering
bicycles perhaps. I wouldn't have any problem if Council approves of that layout
as shown as long as it is conditioned on all staff and agency comments, Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District approval and the property owner approval. I have no
indication from the owner of that parcel that they would allow that walkway to be
part of their lot.
Morrow: Bruce, issues that you had?
Freckleton: Councilman Morrow, I believe that the rest of the questions that we
did have were answered with the written response. So this I believe is the only
hang up we have.
Morrow: The pathway?
Freckleton: Yes
Morrow: And the issue there is the owners permission in the Finch Creek area?
Freckleton: Yes that is true, Finch Creek Subdivision is a recorded subdivision
on record. There is a house under construction right now on the lot that this
pathway would cross.
Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, can we have a response to those comments by
Mr. Turnbull who is a developer of Bedford Place please? Turnbull: Mr.
Mayor, members of the Council my name is David Turnbull, we did meet with
Shari and Bruce back in the latter part of October and discussed some remedies.
I guess when we went through the revised preliminary plat of Bedford Place
Subdivision it wasn't brought to our attention that there was a pathway stubbing
in from the Finch Creek Subdivision. In either the case the pathway that was
proposed in our revised and approved preliminary plat versus the one that we
have here now, neither one of them exactly lined up with that pathway. So we
have gone back to the Borup's who are the developers of the Finch Creek
Subdivision as well as the people to whom they sold the lot which is under
construction now. Suggested some revisions which we met with Shari and Bruce
about and they were all in favor of those revisions. It does make a lot of sense for
the neighbor in that the wide arc swing of the Finch Lateral is straightened out
they are able to reclaim more of their back yard. So there would be less of a no
man's land back there that is really not usable to anyone. They were interested
in having this revision made. Also, the place where the path does jog actually
covers and easement or at least it is an outlet for the storm drainage for the
Finch Creek subdivision. So it goes right over that underground piping and
seems to make sense to everybody involved. So if you have any other concerns
or questions about it I would be glad to answer it. I would note that Shari I think
still has an interest in continuing that pathway along the Finch Creek lateral. I
don't know if that would ever come to pass but if it did then this would probably
make an excellent connection in that respect since it straightens that area out as
well. With that I will answer any questions you may have.
Rountree: You indicated that you had discussed this with the property owner?
Turnbull: Yes with both John Anderson of Nampa Meridian and the adjacent
property owners. I talked with Shari this morning she wanted to receive some
sort of written confirmation and I said we are happy to provide that and it would
be acceptable to us to have the approval of this final plat conditioned upon us
providing those kind of license agreements and written confirmation from the
adjacent property owner. Is that correct Shari?
Stiles: Yes, and I wanted to make sure that if this doesn't work out that Mr.
Turnbull you are aware that you may be providing that through that present lot
that you show there.
Turnbull: It may have to come back but we have had those discussions with the
adjacent property owners and Nampa Meridian, I think everything is in order. So
we will go ahead if this final plat is approved and get that written confirmation and
provide it to Shari.
Corrie: David, that fence over the Nampa Meridian Irrigation easement, that has
been okayed by them?
Turnbull: Yes I believe so.
Corrie: So you have that in writing as well?
Turnbull: There is a license agreement already in place regarding that fence.
Corrie: Any further questions?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I noticed that John Anderson is here now, can we have his
comments with respect to that issue in terms of Shari's request?
Anderson: I was outside, on Bedford regarding the entrance and exit?
Stiles: Mr. Turnbull just indicated that he had a license agreement in place for
that fencing as it is shown on his proposal?
Anderson: That is true, I don't believe that is (inaudible) we have all the details
worked out where I am satisfied that (inaudible). Once the Board signs it I can't
second guess them I can't see any reason why they won't sign that, probably at
their next meeting.
Stiles: So John that pathway will not just run straight into that inlet structure?
Anderson: No, the plan is to run the, where the inlet structure is now is to box
that all in and run the pipe line on the Finch Lateral south slough up another 50
feet. It will go behind a fence in the gate so nobody will run into that. It shouldn't
be a problem.
Stiles: So you are satisfied safety will be met there.
Anderson: If it is all done yes, if it is done just like the plan says.
Morrow: Thank you Mr. Mayor, thank you John.
Corrie: Any further comments from Council? Entertain a motion on the final
plat.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Bedford Place
Subdivision No. 3 subject to written confirmation (inaudible) Mr. Anderson has
alluded to and other staff conditions and requirements as required by our staff
and ACHD and other staff.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that the final plat
for Bedford Place Subdivision No. 3 be approved subject to the conditions of the
motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: TABLED NOVEMBER 6,1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR
A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY
CO.:
Corrie: Council do you have that in front of you?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor if we could, City Attorney Crookston handed us a revised
findings upon coming to the meeting tonight, could you have him briefly or could
we have him briefly explain the difference between that and the findings we had
prior to this?
Corrie: Mr. Crookston?
Crookston: Certainly, Mr. Mayor and Council, these, the difference between what
you had previously had is that this relates, the changes relate to basically an
agreement that has been proposed to the Council in my discussions with the
applicants Counsel John McCreedy and myself and Gary Smith who I informed
of the representations that had been made by Mr. McCreedy. It relates to the
sewer line coming across the freeway. That it was agreed subject to the Council's
approval of course that there would be no requirement immediately that the
sewer line be placed at this time. That they would connect to the existing sewer
connection that is in the playground on lots 2 and 3. CESCO proposed to
develop on lot one that they would have five years to try and do that. If they
connected, if someone came across let's say just another third party or a 6, 7, 8
or 20th party decided to combine and get that sewer line across the freeway that
they would connect to that line as soon as it came to them. If however that sewer
line was not constructed by someone else in five years CESCO has indicated
that they would place that line, put the line in. I have told them that it is an 18 inch
line underneath the freeway then goes to a 15 inch line from the point where it
ends on the south side of the freeway to where it connects to Overland Road.
Then it would be a ten inch line going west on Overland Road so they are
informed of that. They have basically entered into an agreement that is certainly
subject to the Council's approval. With that connection to the existing sewer line
in the Playground that they could operate for up to five years after the time that
they obtain their building permit. So it likely is longer than 5 years from today or
whenever the proposal is agreed upon. We are still working out the development
agreement. Mr. McCreedy and I have discussed it somewhat. So there are still
some questions some minor questions that still need to be (inaudible) and
agreed upon. Ultimately we would come back with the development agreement
and ask the Council to approve that assuming that CESCO also signed that
development agreement. The real difference is in that the original findings said
that CESCO had to put the sewer line across the freeway from north to south and
take it to their property.
Morrow: Thank you, I have no further questions.
Corrie: Any further questions of Council?
Rountree: I believe one thing we talked about on this was that at the end of that
time period as it was established that there may be an option to extend that as
opposed to being a drop dead kind of clause. I don't have any problem with the
way this is written, but I believe that was discussed with CESCO when they were
here last.
Crookston: I am sorry I am not understanding you.
Rountree: Well in the end, in this case five years it says they will build the sewer
line. I believe when we discussed it it was at the end of whatever time period we
prescribed then there may be an allowance for that to be extended.
Crookston: You are right Mr. Rountree, that was discussed, the five years came
out basically as a proposal if I recall correctly in our discussion. I met with Mr.
McCreedy and two representatives of CESCO on a week ago today and we
discussed it and the five year period came out in that discussion, but you are
correct.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the revised findings of fact as
given to us today 11-19-96 for the CESCO Contractors Equipment Supply
Company.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we accept the
adopted revised findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion?
Crookston: I just have a point, as I am sure you noticed these findings I delivered
tonight do adopt the Planning and Zoning Commissions findings, so these are
not the only thing you are dealing with.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council of the City of Meridian hereby
decides that the conditional use permit for the property set forth in the application
should be approved under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Those of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. If
the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions and those
of the Commission and is not agreeable into entering in a new and amended
development agreement the conditional use permit shall not be approved.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision, any further discussion? All
those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: TABLED NOVEMBER 6,1996: REQUEST APPROVAL FOR
PROPOSED MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH:
Corrie: Is there anybody here from the Presbyterian Church tonight?
Berg: I had a conversation with Paul Hoffman and he verbally requested that this
be dropped from the agenda. They are seeking several options one of them
including an annexation route. But at this time he doesn't feel there are any more
things he needs to address the Council with. He didn't have time to give me a
letter, fax me a letter today but he said he would follow up with that so it doesn't
drag on. He requested that it be withdrawn from the agenda.
Morrow: I guess my question would be is what else could we do for those folk.
We have had a preliminary discussion with them as to what the requirements
would be and so on and so forth. I would suggest that we or would move that we
drop the item from the agenda and subject that motion to receipt of a letter from
Mr. Hoffman requesting us to do so.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to drop the request
of approval from the agenda and request a letter from the representative that the
Presbyterian Church is requesting to do so, any further discussion?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, as a point of guidance or direction to staff, I would
suggest that the City of Meridian through staff track this application. If it ends up
in Ada County Planning and Zoning and Ada County's action and (inaudible) city
requirements are incorporated in their plan.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think I would like to amend the motion to incorporate Mr.
Rountree's statement. Would that be agreeable to the second?
Bentley: Yes Corrie: Okay, the motion has been amended to incorporate Mr.
Rountree's comments to staff, (Inaudible) any other discussion? All those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: FINAL PLAT: BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS BY BOISE
VALLEY CONSTRUCTION:
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, is there someone here representing Bridgewood
Condominiums?
Eddy: Charles Eddy with Pacific Land Surveyors.
Morrow: Mr. Eddy, I have a question, in our packet there is a letter dated
November 15 from Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles with comments regarding
the final plat, are you in receipt of that letter?
Eddy: Yes, we received the letter and responded November 18 to Shari.
Morrow: You are in agreement with all of the comments and conditions that were
addressed by both Shari and Bruce?
Eddy: Yes we are (End of Tape)
Corrie: I guess I have one for the Counselor, have you read the CC&R's yet or
did you just get them, Mr. Crookston?
Crookston: Quite frankly I haven't seen them but I probably have them.
Corrie: Any further questions for Mr. Eddy?
Rountree: I have a question for staff? (Inaudible) response to the November 18
letter, are the responses satisfactory?
Freckleton: Yes Councilman Rountree, I don't have any problem with the
response, the only thing I wanted to make sure of was that legal counsel has a
chance to review the declarations. i
Rountree: Shari, do you have any additional comments?
Corrie: Other questions or comments of Council? Hearing none I will entertain
a motion on the final plat.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Bridgewood
Condominiums by Boise Valley Construction subject to the review and
acceptance by City Attorney Crookston of the proposed covenants, conditions
and restrictions.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the final plat of Bridgewood
Condominiums with approval of the motion, any further discussion? All those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
TO C -G AND I -L BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite a representative for
the annexation to come forward. Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street, Boise, was
sworn by the City Attorney.
Tamura: We recently purchased the Madden property located at the corner of
Locust Grove and Franklin. What we are doing is requesting an annexation and
rezone of the 38 acre parcel. Currently the, which is this parcel right here,
Franklin is right here, Locust Grove is right here. To the west is Builders
Masonry, to the north is a newly subdivided light industrial, Layne Industrial is
right here and there is another industrial park that is located right here. What our
concept is to develop a four phase light industrial commercial planned unit
development. So the four phases would be here, the commercial here and again
light industrial up here. Our intent is to go ahead and develop a planned unit
development where we have control over all of the light industrial buildings. What
we did is over the last 3 months we worked real closely with the Ada County
Highway District on platting out the future of the roads for this parcel. The
section line falls right through the middle of the parcel and it is the Highway
District's policy to develop major arterials on each one of the mile section lines.
So their intent is to go ahead and relocate the existing Locust Grove to the center
of this property. We have agreed to work with them on a dedication of a 96 foot
right of way for a 5 lane facility there. We are going to dedicate another
additional 5 feet off of Franklin road to provide the right of way for a 5 lane facility
there. Part of that will be a lighted intersection at Franklin and Locust Grove. In
the future in the ten year plan with the State Highway Department there will
potentially be another bridge that will be located over the top of the freeway that
will extend Locust Grove over the freeway. The other thing that the Highway
District wanted to include was the extension of Lanark Street where it will tie in
and dead end into Locust Grove. So Lanark will extend from Locust Grove at
some point in time clean over to Eagle Road. At the time that happens what they
also would like to do would be to vacate the northern part of the existing Locust
Grove street because I guess under the conditions that they have the rail road
they can only have one rail road crossing within a certain distance. So the main
rail road crossing will fall on the section line here. We are here mainly to answer
any questions.
Rountree: No residential
Tamura: In discussing with the Highway District I think what they are saying is
that Franklin Road at some point in time is going to become a secondary
Fairview Avenue as far as the amount of traffic capacity that it could potentially
carry. With the extension of Locust Grove that is going to be a full five lane
facility. So we could see that in the future this intersection could potentially be
like what Locust Grove and Fairview is now. I think it is our belief that what we
would like to do is move real slowly, be sensitive to the existing land uses around
the area but take our time and make sure what we develop is something that is
going to be done right. We could see with the Eagle corridor development, the
amount of traffic that is going to flow into Meridian and especially down the
Franklin Road corridor that we would like to make sure and plan this right. Our
intent is to do this first but then do each phase in a conditional use so that
Council and Planning and Zoning has their input as far as what we do. Even
though we are showing a concept here it is really not cast in stone until we have
further development as far as what road and the area (inaudible).
Rountree: I know one shouldn't speculate but can you give me an idea of what
we are talking about in terms of build out and potentially for the extension or
relocation of Locust Grove?
Tamura: In talking with the Highway District, I believe we are in the second year
of their five year plan. Right now I know that Franklin Road is a fairly high priority
road but at the same time it is an unfunded section of that Five year plan. So in
both Franklin Road and Locust Grove is in that five year plan so we are
assuming that it potentially could be built in the next four years. So it would be
the six year of the five year plan
Rountree: How about the timing for your development?i
Tamura: Our intent is to go ahead and start phase one this next spring to do that
portion of it and then see what the market bears. I guess as far as the phasing
we could see that potentially this would be the first phase, we could see that
maybe this potentially would be the second phase. We would like to do some
kind of office building on this facility. When that tenant comes along then we will
resubmit a plan for what this quadrant will look like. Then once, we probably
won't do anything on the commercial part of it until all of the roads are completed.
Morrow: Mr. Tamura, you have reviewed staff comments and preliminary
findings and those issues, do you have any problems with any of those things?
Tamura: Councilman Morrow, the only thing that I talked to Shari about is the
potential that we may come back at a later date to fence the ditch in lieu of
piping. I was talking to Mr. Anderson, I think that is something that we need to
price out the cost difference if we were able to use that right of way or whatever.
Other than that we concur with the findings of fact and conclusions.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this
public hearing? Robert Morrison, 3841 Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the
City Attorney.
Morrison: I am opposing the annexation of this property due to the fact that I
have gone through the City and tried to find out why Meridian has such a
variation in their water pressures and the availability of water. I have had the City
come out and put graphs on house which was well below the State standards
that they require for fluctuation of the water. I contacted Mr. Rountree and he
looked at them also. They said that they were going to add a new well at Ten
Mile and Cherry Lane and then they wanted to put a grasp on another house,
which they put on 1980 Incline. The fluctuation after that new well I am assuming
they put on was so great we still could not operate our sprinkler systems and Bud
Milner's toilets wouldn't even operate. With any additions of subdivisions or
building permits until this water situation is cured I think I would like to ask Mr.
Crookston can the City Council even legally put any more houses on the line if
we don't meet State standards. And you gentlemen I don't know if you have
looked at them but the graphs are in the City Engineer's office and I had them put
another test on house after all the water usage was stopped. From the summer
watering and stuff. There was only a variance of about say 12 to 18 pounds of
variation after the use had stopped. I asked him at that time wasn't there too
many houses on the City of Meridian's water system. He said I don't know I will
have to make a study. I don't know I would appreciate it if you gentlemen would
go in and take a look at those graphs before you approve any more of these
things because Meridian is going to grow and should grow. But we should take
care of the people that are here and the tract that I live in some of you people up
there know this tract has been in service for some fourteen to eighteen years. We
shouldn't be doing without water or be able to operate our equipment because of
the fact that Meridian can't keep up with their water supply. Thank you.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor I have a question for him, is that subdivision on pressurized
irrigation?
Morrison: No, yes, no, it is on pressurized irrigation but it is by the City.
Bentley: It is on City water.
Morrison: It is on City water.
Bentley: Isn't there a requirement for that area to be on pressurized irrigation
from the irrigation district?
Corrie: (Inaudible) Anyone else from the public that would like to issue
testimony? John Anderson, 120 North Locust Grove, Meridian, was sworn by
the City Attorney.
Anderson: I live at 120 North Locust Grove Road which is located on the east
side of Mr. Tamura's project. The plans that I got sent to me in the mail indicated
that they were going to put a tree or buffer zone completely around all of the
whole project. I find it quite funny I am the only residence and right in front of my
property they skipped that, I had a lot of concern with that. Mr. Tamura walked
out there (inaudible) he said that wouldn't be a problem but I am still concerned
about that. The irrigation water that comes through the Tamura property or the
Madden property is a main line that comes out that Nampa Meridian's Barker
lateral, I am real concerned that be taken care of and addressed right from the
start. If they have problems down in there during construction we can't shut that
off probably in less than 2 to 3 hours. So it needs to be addressed, I would be
more than happy personally or occupationally it is not a district facility but I use it
myself and that needs to remain open the whole way through construction time.
It sounded like he addressed the concern with light since that is in the plan, I
won't go over that. I covered that in my letter here. I was curious about the type
of buildings that you guys are going to allow in there. Since we do have a
residence there is this going to be a McDonalds neon light type of businesses or
is it going to be 9 to 5 kind of things. I have a real concern with that, I don't want
a lot of flashing lights in my bedroom windows all night and I was hoping the City
Council would be understanding to that or at least they could address that. Can
anyone answer that? (Inaudible) will I have an opportunity in the future to
comment on that?
Corrie: Yes you will, and we have a room full of them here too.
Anderson: The construction time, that was another concern that we had. I don't
know if the City Council places any kind of time frame on them but we all get
home from work, I would like to see something along the from 10:00 o'clock at
night until 6 in the morning that they not be allowed to do construction. Once
again for my family's sake so we can sleep at night. I am not opposed to this
project. I guess that is all I have to say and thank you for the opportunity to talk.
Corrie: John there are ordinances and things that we can rely upon too.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, just in response to some comments that John made, or a
question to him. A lot of the comments and issues you raise are issues that will
be dealt with in the next hearing that we will open for conditional use. My
question to you do you want your testimony presented here applicable there as
well?
Anderson: Yes sure, I don't want to miss anything. Do I need to come and speak
at the next one also?
Rountree: It will be in about five minutes. One other point is this project is being
proposed with requiring conditional use permits for any activity or any
development that would occur on a parcel which themselves would be subject to
a public process. This won't be the last time.
Corrie: Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony on this
annexation request? Council, questions? I guess I have one, City Engineer I
guess Bruce, do we still have a problem with that legal description on item one of
annexation and zoning?
Freckleton: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, our original review in June
this year we reviewed the legal descriptions that were submitted for annexation
they did not include half right of way of Franklin Road or right of way of the Union
Pacific Railroad. We have been requiring that and that was the just of my
comment. We need to get new legal descriptions prepared for each zone that
include those right of ways. Typically what we have been doing is annexing two
center lines so that the parcel on the other side of the street we butt up at the
center line.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, hearing that I have a question for Counselor, is it appropriate
to adopt P & Z's findings of fact and conclusions given the fact that we don't have
a correct legal description or do we need to table pending (inaudible).
Crookston: It would be appropriate to table until we get an appropriate legal
description. The legal description is not a particular problem because we are
talking about rail road right of way and the Ada County Highway District right of
way which we can get permission from but we do need their consent. If they
didn't want to give their consent we could annex it anyway. For the City's
procedure we generally have always required that they consent to that.
Rountree: And also include a revision to the findings if that is the case to include
Mr. Anderson's testimony.
Crookston: If you desire to have the findings change with regard to Mr.
Anderson's testimony we can do that.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move to table the request for annexation and zoning
to C -G and light industrial by Doug Tamura and Arthur Berry pending the receipt
of a proper legal description. Also to instruct the City Attorney to incorporate
within the findings of fact and conclusions the testimony tonight by Mr. Morrison
and Mr. Anderson.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: The motion is to table to the third of December pending receipt of the
legal descriptions and incorporate into the findings of fact, any further
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: So I will continue the public hearing until December third, correct me if I
am wrong Counselor but I am going to close the public hearing so that you can
do the findings of fact amended?
Crookston: That is fine.
Corrie: I will close the public hearing on the annexation and zoning.
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY DOUG
TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing now for request for conditional use permit
for the Commercial Planned Unit Development by Doug Tamura and Arthur Berry
and invite Doug if you would like to come up again on that.
Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Tamura: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council what we are applying for is a
conditional use on our first phase of our annexation and rezone. What we are
proposing to do is to building three 20,000 foot tilt up concrete warehouse
buildings. With the configuration of our property and with the future road
potential what our thought is that at the point in time that we build them this next
year that it will be used as more light industrial warehousing but we are designing
them so that they will have a show front entity to it that we could see where they
will convert into more of a retail element four or five years down the road as
Locust Grove is developed. So more or less this is our concept is to do a real
clean concrete tilt up color coordinated project. Our intent is that as we develop
all of this light industrial property that all of the buildings will be all coordinated as
far as type of construction design concept and landscaping. We pretty much
concur with staff's findings of fact and conclusions of law and requirements for
development. Any questions?
Corrie: Thank you, any body else from the public that would like to issue
testimony on the conditional use permit?
Robert Morrison, 3841 Woodmont Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City
Attorney.
Morrison: This man thinks I am going to be mad at him because I am going to
oppose everything he puts up and I think he should be able to come in. But I
have owned property in the Sunburst Subdivision which has a pressurized
irrigation system which I think is a good deal and it was turned over to the
homeowners association and absolutely no information was given on how to
operate or where it was or what it done. I tried to go through the business hours
of the City to find out this. I went to Mr. Corrie twice and have gotten nothing
back on it. So they elected me as one of the members of the water board of the
subdivision. So we started searching it out and (inaudible) buy the developers
and made sure that the City (inaudible) where the pressurized irrigation systems
are and how they are operated, how to turn them on and turn them off. Which
wasn't able to get any information from the City whatsoever and yet the City
mandates that we must have them and must have it and the public isn't given any
information of how to find it operate it and this condition we finally found the man
to put the system in and ask him about repairing it and he refused because he
said the equipment was so bad in five years that it wasn't worth repacking. And
yet when I have been out here in the audience watching what is the difference
between the public irrigation system and the golf course irrigation where there is
stainless steel out risers and stuff. What I understand Mr. Morrow saying was
going in, the way I see it is the public is paying for it out of their sewer fund and
has to take the gap for years to come until it is paid back. But yet when the area
I bought a house in the gentlemen says you think this part of the system is bad
go look at the last one put in. I am fortunate enough that I bought in that last one.
It has a flexible white pipe that I had never seen with a white ball cock on a
pressurized system. Is this standard for the City of Meridian? How do we get
some of this stuff taken care of?
Corrie: Okay, Mr. Morrison, I appreciate your comments and we will take them
under advisement but what does this have to do with the conditional use permit
for this commercial?
Morrison: Because they have other people come in and buy and stuff so that they
can use his stuff they are not getting the cooperation of the City Council to see
that they are taken care of before all of this other stuff is taken into consideration.
I am trying to stay within my three minutes limit and I see I have two more
chances that I can get up here before the night is over. Thank you gentlemen.
Corrie: Thank you, any other testimony from the public on this conditional use
permit. Hearing none, Council? Hearing none I will close the public hearing.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, this would also need to be tabled to December 3, we can
take no action on a conditional use permit until an annexation has occurred. So I
would move that we table until December 3, request for the conditional use
permit for a commercial planned unit development by Doug Tamura and Arthur
Berry.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table the conditional use permit for
a commercial planned unit until December 3, any further discussion? All those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we take a five minute recess.
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
TO C -G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from Eagle
Partners LLC to begin the public hearing. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street,
Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.)
Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I am here tonight along with the
applicant user the Eagle Partners in support of this application. We also have
amongst us a couple of people that I would like to have testifying here at a later
date. Obviously you are going to hear a tremendous amount of testimony tonight.
What I would like to do is semi -orchestrate our side of the testimony and make it
very brief. We come to you this evening with what we believe to be positive
findings of fact solely in support of this application. I think one of the things that
is interesting throughout this entire process we started this in May as you
probably well know. The latest being the Ada County Highway District deferral
until December 4 1 believe for what reason I am not exactly sure. However I think
what I would like to concentrate on to make this brief is the items that were really
in the findings of fact that we were questioning and as you know in a letter
presented to Council here last week regarding the Eagle Road landscape buffer,
the signage, the drive thru window, and the masonry wall. I would also like to
discuss if you will give me a few minutes and perhaps more appropriate during
the conditional use hearing that traffic study we have received and the proposed
road on the north boundary of this site. Discussing the signage here tonight will
be Craig Jamison of Idaho Electric Signs. The drive thru window we have George
Kyler from McDonald's and Eagle Partners counsel is here Steven Brown. I think
from my standpoint if I might in support of these exhibits on the wall it might be
easier if I hand these out if I might. All of these documents have been as I
understand it given to the neighborhood and also to Mr. Jackson. These were
also made part of public record at the Ada County Highway District
Commissioners meeting last week. I think where I would like to start if I might on
the items that we feel most important relative to your findings of fact is the
landscape buffering along Eagle Road. We have proposed along Eagle Road a
fifteen foot landscape strip with a berming height of over 3 feet. We believe that
in our mind the idea of beautifying the entry way if you will to the gate way to the
City is better done by raising the berm which would then be a deterrent to looking
into the asphalt areas and automobiles being parked there. As opposed to
perhaps having the 30 feet of non -undulating landscaping which in effect
certainly is a beautification technique, however in our opinion does not
accomplish what I believe the intent of the staff is in the extent of the ordinance
which is to buffer those automobiles and that asphalt that sits behind the berm.
The second item that I think I would like to discuss if I might is the masonry wall.
It was reference made to providing a full I believe it was a 6 foot high masonry
wall along the west boundary and along the north boundary. Quite frankly in your
own comprehensive plan this site and the site adjacent are designated
commercial uses. Further these sites to the west and the site to the north is in
what your own ordinance refers to as a mixed use area. I think it would be
shameful to go in there and build a 6 foot high block wall along the west
boundary prohibiting us is you will to jointly use the westerly sites in a future
development that may in effect allow for less access points and have good
access within the sites as well as this wall along the North boundary if in fact the
neighbors would prefer a wall as opposed the four foot berm that we are
providing at 30 foot of width. I think that the applicant would be well served and
certainly would entertain having that wall along the north boundary. However I
would question the wisdom of putting in a block wall again along the west side. I
think temporarily we have no problem with putting in a fence of some sort. I think
the idea, at least as I understand it from staff and as we would normally consider
it as an effort to buffer this from those parcels to the west. We are providing 10
foot of landscaping it would appear to me that with that 10 foot of landscaping a 6
foot high wood fence may be appropriate that in the later dates when and if this
site to the west develops and we have common access agreements which is
another requirement of Ada County Highway District that perhaps that wall would
then be pulled down and used again with the extent of additional landscaping
provided by the westerly property owner in an effort to create a little cleaner, a
little softer buffering. I think also the idea of providing that fence along the west
and the north is an effort to try and mitigate if you will the noise, the light, the
sound that may be coming off onto adjacent properties. We believe that this
particular use which is a low intense use motel in itself along with some 125 foot
of setback on the north boundary that in itself creates the open space that is
referred to in your ordinance as an ideal way to buffer neighboring properties. I
think that the last think that I would like to bring up before I ask Craig to talk
about the signage is perhaps the buffering technique to the north. This particular
30 foot of buffering we have determined that either way we go with this parcel if
we have the road where we don't have the roadway we still have the ability to
provide the 30 foot of landscaping. We are suggesting that with plans we have
submitted that whether or not that roadway is in effect constructed our project
can go forward as designed and as shown on the site plans without further
disruption. The particular road in question and I am not sure if any of you have
had the opportunity to read this traffic report, but the traffic study is suggesting
that the better alternative out of three would be not having that road there and
actually moving the traffic light from its present location to Magic View if in fact
that is the case our secondary plan is identical to the first only in that the access
road has been replaced by a driveway and additional landscaping. I think what I
would like to do if it is appropriate (inaudible) back at the conditional use stage
and I am almost more certain that I will be back here in rebuttal so I would
suggest if you have any questions of me I would be happy to answer them and if
not I will turn it over to Craig Jamison regarding the signage and then ultimately
we would like to have a McDonald's representative discuss the drive thru window
and its location as it is noted in your findings of fact.
Corrie: Any questions from Council at this time? Craig Jamison, 6528
Supply Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Jamison: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, I appreciate the opportunity to
come before you. Once again my name is Craig Jamison I am with Idaho
Electric Signs. I guess the good news is this is the last item on the agenda, the
bad news is we still have a big crowd here and I don't recognize a lot of the
people so I am sure they are not here to testify in favor of the project. I have
been asked to address some of the signage issues that pertain to this project. To
be perfectly honest with you I am not really familiar with the overall background
of this project. I understand there is some concern about the signage as there is
concern about signage in just about every city we deal with. I am sure you would
understand that being in the industry that we are in we are very cognizant of
people's concerns about these things and know that there has been some
changing attitudes particularly in the City of Meridian that has been getting a lot
of press lately. It is my understanding that the recommendation of the staff are
that the signage be limited the free standing signage be limited to an overall
height of 18 foot. Now where that comes from I am really not sure if that is an
arbitrary number. From what I can understand in terms of reading the paper and
in terms of discussing this item with a number of people that I am dealing with
there is some concern that is probably directly related to the sign that is currently
existing directly south of the proposed project. I think if you look over at the
drawing that I have over here I have got a, I don't claim this to be an exact
rendering but a fairly accurate rendering of the sign in question. So what I think I
would like to do is I would like to perhaps draw some comparisons between what
the McDonald Chevron project is asking for in terms of signage and what is
currently existing there. Which I think probably has a lot of people concerned.
Frankly it is the existing sign at the Texaco station is a substantial sign. I would
classify it as a truck stop type sign. It is bright and it flashes and it blinks and it is
absolutely nothing I believe that can be compared with what we are trying to
propose here. I think first of all I did take an opportunity and if I could I would like
to present these to the Council. I have some photographs here of the signs in
question and then also other signs that can be found in Meridian and along the
interstate which to the best of my knowledge have never generated any type of
concern. If I could I would like to pass these out, (inaudible) I don't know whether
or not that has brought up any concern. The existing Texaco sign, the JB's sign,
a KFC sign, here is the Best Western sign that went up in the last couple of
years, a Shari's sign that also went up in the last couple of years and a
McDonalds sign. I think if I could Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I think
the difference is that we are talking about signs here on the later examples that I
have given they are freeway oriented signs designed to attract traffic on the
interstate, but at the same time to my knowledge have not generated any
controversy because they are not flashing, they are not bright, they are not really
what I would call an obnoxious kind of sign. I think that is the same type of sign
that McDonalds and Chevron is trying to present for this particular project. If you
look at the comparison between the two signs and I would like to state that this is
not being submitted as a signage application. So this is a proposed sign that
would be along the lines of what they would ask for if we get to that point that we
are allowed. Both signs being equal in height the Chevron and McDonald's sign
is roughly equivalent in square foot to the two lower panels on the existing
Texaco sign. We are talking in the rendition that I have here depending on how
you were to calculate the square footage. We are talking of a total of about 302
square foot on the proposed sign versus 784 square foot on the sign located
next door to it. As I say the Chevron and McDonalds would be roughly
equivalent to the (inaudible) down there. That is a big message center and that
is I am sure at least 50 watt bulbs that are glaring and flashing and attracting a lot
of attention. You don't see that in the sign that is being proposed by Chevron and
McDonalds. That sign in itself the message center is taking up over 30% of the
overall sign. I think we are dealing with a much smaller sign, we are dealing with
a much more subdued sign, a sign that is designed for identification off that
interstate. The folks from Chevron and McDonald's have chosen the site
specifically, I know I take Eagle Road coming home from work every night.
There is a lot of traffic on Eagle but certainly they want to reach the traffic on the
interstate. There is a lot of pride and loyalty that is involved here. I happen to
carry a Chevron card I have carried one for years, I happen to prefer Chevron
gas. I am sure Texaco gas is just as good. But in my mind it is isn't but they
need for that type of identification the same reason McDonald's needs that for
that type of identification. I think getting a sign to that height actually if you look
at the way the interstate is laid out one of the concerns about signs has always
been well does it create a traffic hazard or doesn't it create a traffic hazard. We
want to let people know as soon as possible before they get to the off ramp that
this is where they can go to get Chevron gas, this is where they can go to get
McDonald's food. That way they are not waiting until the last minute if they do
see it with a lower type of sign making a wild cross across the interstate trying to
get to that exit. So in actuality the height (End of Tape) I think you would find it to
be a much more subdued sign, you would find it to be in line with the signs that
have already been approved most notably along the Meridian exit which as I say
to the best of my knowledge have not generated any public concern. But
certainly to compare it I think it is being unfairly compared to the existing sign that
is going to be immediately south of it. I really don't think that is a fair comparison
I think what we would ask is that the conditions of the conditional use permit be
adjusted to reflect that the sign would certainly have to go through the application
procedure would certainly have to be reviewed by staff but we would ask that it
be limited to no more in height than the existing Texaco sign which is necessary
for the identification. We would ask for no more square footage than an absolute
maximum of 500 square foot. Which although there are no plans for it at this time
would allow for the hotel that is going in there. Frankly have no idea what they
are going to want, but still a 500 square foot would be at least a 1/3 less in size
than the existing Texaco sign. We would also agree that no electronic message
center could be incorporated into the sign. With that I conclude my testimony and
would be glad to answer any questions.
Corrie: Council any questions? Thank you George Kyler, 5000 SW Lake
Meadows Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kyler: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I was at almost all of the prior hearings
to this and I was in amazement when I read the facts and findings that we
couldn't have a drive thru window on the south side of our building because to
me it was never discussed or I never heard it discussed. If you take a look at the
floor plan of our building which I have set up here to your left (inaudible) we have
pump islands at Eagle Road (inaudible) the facts and conclusions that were
found was that we could only have a drive thru window on the south. When you
take a look at what staff had approved for us was that we have an order point on
the north end of the building on the back and then optional another location at the
curve for a pay point and then a presenters window on the west side of the
building. This being the south side of our building is really one of the front doors
of our building this being the other front door for the Chevron customers
(inaudible). This is the location here for the pay point for the convenience store,
this is all the convenience store in blue with their coolers for pop and etc in the
back. Common rest rooms for both facilities and in our restaurant you kind of
assemble the order in the rear, you get all the raw product and store it here, you
cook it in the kitchen and as it moves up the line you end up with a front counter.
Either you had it over the front counter or out the window. So we just don't have
an opportunity here to relay out the whole building and flip it around somehow in
terms of traffic flow and the way that the building is designed in order to comply
with that. I have no idea where discussion of that came from. It is in the facts
and findings that we only have it on the south side. So I will be glad to answer
any questions you might have regarding the positioning of our building.
Corrie: Council?
Rountree: I guess my only question is what is the location of the window have to
do with whether the City is going to annex this property as commercial?
Kyler: It was in the findings and conclusions was it not, I agree with you. To my
understanding there was some discussion about putting some restrictions on the
annexation that were in addition to a pure annexation of the zoning. And it was
approved for the annexation with this stipulation in there, that was my
understanding but I could be mistaken. Maybe this is better served in the
conditional use hearing of it.
Corrie: Is there any further testimony that you need? (Inaudible)
Corrie: I will open the testimony for the public, I believe Dick you asked that you
could start first with our conversation. Richard Williams, 3133 Autumn Way,
Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Williams: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council in order to expedite the
testimony here today I would like to first, I have been designated the
representative for the people of Greenhill Estates No. 1, 2 and 3 and will be
talking for them today. If those people that are here for the Greenhills if they
would stand up and wave to the Council and give them a big friendly smile.
Thank you , as you can see there are a number of concerned citizens here. As
you are well aware I was a City Council on the Council and sat on the other side
of this table for 6 years. I was the President of the Council that drafted the
original comprehensive plan for the City of Meridian. So I understand what you
gentlemen are going through. I would like to be able to call a number of people
and then testify after them. We are going to try and keep it short and factual to a
point and (inaudible). The first gentleman I would like to call is Howard Foley who
is a member of the Greenhills Estates subdivision. Just as a matter of record
everyone that will be testifying on behalf of this development is a resident of the
Greenhills Estate subdivision, we have no hired guns, no people on our payroll.
We have no payroll. Howard Foley, 2875 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn
by the City Attorney.
Foley: I delivered a letter to the Council and Mayor earlier today outlining some
concerns that we have that I guess we cast as procedural concerns and
notification concerns. First and foremost we have identified what we think are
concerns with the notification procedure process. As a matter of history the
Eagle Partners Limited filed an initial application and then they withdrew it. They
filed a subsequent application and with that they have failed as we noted in the
letter to pay the necessary fees that are required both for zoning, zoning and
annexation and conditional use. We think those are flaws and we think unless
they pay those fees like everyone else is required to pay those fees, they have
not complied with the procedural due process requirements. Secondly we have
noted that there are flaws with the notification process, we have noted
specifically for you that again with the withdrawal of the first notification that the
City ordinances are specifically require and require the posting and notification to
all interested properties. That posting and notification has not occurred. We think
that makes it fatally flaws procedurally for you to move ahead. Secondly we have
noted that the Planning and Zoning process and we note again here this evening
that the ordinance indicates that notice certainly should be given and required to
everyone within a 300 foot radius of the affected property. Then in addition to
that the Zoning Administrator is required to give notification to those people who
are impacted by the decision that you are asked to make. Certainly by the
representation here this thing we have had meetings with the developer also who
has conceded and acknowledges that the decision you are asked to make here
this evening will impact all of us that live in the subdivision. Despite our request
that official notification be given to people who are impacted as required by the
ordinance. We specified the specific portion of that ordinance. None of that has
been done. Your Counsel certainly can better address this to you than I can. I
would certainly suggest to you and warn that if you don't comply with the
procedural due process if you don't give us the notice that we are entitled to then
any proceeding from this point on is procedurally and in terms of due process
flawed. We think at this juncture you should take a look at the issues that we
have raised regarding those things. If you determine in fact as we have raised
those issues that appropriate notice, appropriate fees, appropriate compliance
with the ordinances of the City of Meridian have not been complied with by the
gentlemen who have addressed you earlier from Boise and Lake Oswego and
other places then they should be required to do so, everybody has to do that, that
is only fair that is part of due process. We think you ought to take a few minutes
and discuss whether the issues we have raised in terms of those items are
appropriate for reconsideration if due process and the notification requirements
of the ordinance have not been followed then perhaps the matter ought to be
sent back to Planning and Zoning and the requirements followed. So that
everything is done legally and appropriately. If you decide that the issues we
have raised are not appropriate then we are prepared to proceed ahead and
raise those issues someplace else.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, Howard, even though you presented yourself not as a
lawyer in your letter it is on your letter and I am going to ask these as if you are a
lawyer. I know you are but you said you are not representing yourself.
Foley: I don't represent in a professional (inaudible)
Rountree: But in your interpretation of the notification process you indicated
specifically the 300 foot radius notification and I don't know that you mentioned
how that notification is occur and whether or not that did happen. And then you
also mentioned that notices also to be provided to individuals that are impacted
or affected by the project. What is your interpretation of how that notification is to
occur?
Foley: The notification as I understand it in City Ordinance 2-7416 E, indicates
and I will read that, the applicant shall provide the City Clerk with the names and
addresses of property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the
land being considered. That is the first requirement. And any additional area that
might be impacted by this said application. That is what it says. When we were
at Planning and Zoning we raised that issue, we said that notification has not
been done. Mechanically the way that is done is by certified mail. There is also
required that a notarized affidavit be filed with the City indicating that has been
done. My understanding is there has been a signed statement filed that is not
notarized. Those are technical issues I guess, but the issue we raised with
Planning and Zoning was that there are just more than 3 or 4 homes that border
this project that certainly without any question we have met with Mr. Devon who
happens to live in Greenhills who is one of the Eagle Partners early on and he
said well sure I understand that everybody is affected by this that lives here.
Even the developer recognizes that we are all impacted by this. But having
raised that issue it is not addressed in the findings of fact and conclusions of law
and it has never been done. People are not notified, we heard this evening that
one of the documents was passed out here and the statement was made that we
assume that everybody who is affected has received it. I haven't received it, I
haven't seen that particular document. So I think what is going on is the people
who are within 300 feet are getting notified but nobody else is. I think that is a
procedural flaw. We have heard some discussion if I can elaborate on that about
signage and those sort of things and I certainly agree with the gentleman that
expressed that. When Meridian Ford put up their sign they are not putting it in the
backyard of a residential area. When we are putting up the kind of signs that he
is talking about at Jacksons and now where we are going to double the
illumination or triple the illumination that is coming out of these signs. I can
assure you if you live down there and if you have a back yard we are affected by
that. If you look at the roadway that is proposed it is going to double front us and
go right down our back yards, we are affected by that. So it is nonsense to say
that this is hypertechnical it is not. The notification requirements have not been
complied with and we have requested it from day one with Planning and Zoning
and they didn't choose to enforce that provision of your ordinance.
Rountree: Thank you Kent Brown, 3161 Springwood Drive, Meridian, was
sworn by the City Attorney.
Brown: I live in the Greenhills subdivision also, as a profession I work for Boise
City in subdivision planning. I work with annexations and rezones quite often as a
part of my job. One of the things that as in looking at this that when I bought in
the subdivision I had the opportunity to look all over Boise and finally determined
to live in Meridian. I grew up here and played football and went to Meridian High
School and wanted the same experiences for my kids so I moved back. When I
picked the subdivision I picked I picked it because I figured the City would buffer
us with the kind of development that would go in. The statement that commercial
is the zone that is supposed to go there I guess I don't believe that and reading
the comprehensive plan I didn't see that. I know Billy is doing a different
interpretation and he is probably a better (inaudible) comprehensive plan than I
am. I am used to looking at Boise's. But I know that in your zoning ordinance it
speaks that an L -O zone is a lot better zone for a transition to residential
development. In speaking to that is what the residents of the Greenhills
subdivision have always recognized. We recognize that there is going to be
development on that ground. Taking into consideration that the other hospitals
that are in this valley has one and St. AI's there are numerous medical and other
facilities that want to locate near those hospitals to the point of buying up some
residential properties because they have grown. St. Luke's has made big
changes in downtown Boise and have altered a lot of areas so they can increase
their expansion. In doing that expansion they have had to have some residential
things but as a part of doing this to begin with it makes good planning sense and
common sense if you will that you don't do this as a commercial zone right now
because there are going to be other businesses that are going to want to put
medical facilities there. Reading your zoning ordinance facilities such as medical
laboratories and research laboratories would not be allowed within a commercial
zone. Now unless this is just going to be a spot zone that you are only going to
put in this one location then you are kind of setting yourself up here that you are
going to have a little bit of commercial right in this one location and I would
imagine the rest of that property and those five acre parcels are going to break
down. The location of a hotel when we met in the planning and zoning hearing
one of the commissioners said that a hotel was a, and Billy said it tonight that it is
a good buffer for the residential because it doesn't have a lot of traffic. I imagine
that your police chief and everyone else can tell you that the traffic that comes,
comes late at night to the existing hotels and motels that you have in the City.
The calls that they get come at two or three o'clock in the morning responding to
the problems that they have at the facilities that you currently have. I guess my
question is is this good planning? I can see why they want the commercial zone
they are allowed the uses other than the hotel in the LOD zone or the LO zone
but they are required to have greater setbacks, they are required to have shorter
buildings and they are required to not use up so much of the percentage of the
facility or the development site as a part of your zoning ordinance. What we
would like to see is that as this develops it goes to an LO zone, you have doctors
and other professionals use this facility next to where St. Luke's is. Thereby
meeting one of your comprehensive plan goals of having an upper middle
income employment. In the comment that Billy made about reducing the
landscaping along the Eagle Road corridor, Boise city has set as a standard that
30 foot is a minimum. When I asked the engineer's where they came up with that
minimum it had to do with the height of the berm and creating the slope and that
you need the 30 feet and that is how they determine the 30 feet was that to get
the height in the berm and get the slope the 2 to 1 slope that you had to have the
30 foot of distance. Speaking to the gentleman that spoke about the sign I was
thinking about that tonight as I was driving home and realizing that St. Luke's is
going to add on, they have only done their first phase they add on their next quad
which would be to the south of their current facility there is no way even if a
Texaco sign went in at the same height and brightness or whatever would it be
seen from the freeway of any west bound traffic. At its location it definitely
wouldn't stop anybody that is coming from the east bound because they have
already passed that facility unless it is as bright and as big as the Texaco sign
from the east bound traffic. I imagine that the hotel is going to have to have a
similar type of sign so that it can be seen so that it can have that kind of traffic. I
think that these facilities can be put in this area but they need to be closer to the
freeway. A hotel could go in this location as long as it was closer to the freeway
where people could see it, he could put up his sign that would be of a size and be
seen and they could come in off of Magic View or wherever the stop light ends up
going depending on what the highway district and the State Transportation
Department come up with. That is all I have unless you have any questions.
Corrie: Council any questions? Thank you Ken for you presentation, (inaudible)
Ann Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bowen: I have been asked to speak today on behalf of all of the mothers and
fathers in the Greenhill neighborhood. I would like to start by telling you a little bit
about our subdivision. It is a neighborhood with nice beautiful homes, we all are
on acre and half acre lots. We have beautifully landscaped yards and most of
them are kept up and well groomed. It is a very family oriented neighborhood.
There are lots of professionals who live there and lots of employed people who
are hard working tax payers. It is the kind of neighborhood that any City would
want to have in their, would be very proud to have. I would like to address three
major areas of concern tonight that all of us have had. The first is I have a two
story home that is backed up to this proposed site, the Texaco which is actually
further away from where the Chevron is going to be when it went in it has radio
speakers out at the gas pumps. Not only can I hear the constant beat of the base
but I can pick up words to the songs sometimes at night because it is so loud. All
of the bedrooms along most of our properties face that direction and because we
are two stories up we get all of the sound our direction. If we put something in
even closer we are going to hear every car door slam, we are going to hear every
teenager with their radios blasting. We are going to hear people talking, this is
going to go on 24 hours a day. Not to mention the big semi trucks that come in
and idle their engines for about a half hour and kind of shake and rattle your
house. It is really crucial to me that I get my sleep or I get really ornery which
probably all of you have experienced. If this development goes in it is going to
make that real difficult for us. My second concern is with the lights, when the
Texaco opens I sat down at my kitchen table one night after work it was about
midnight, I had all the lights off in my house and I could absolutely fine to read
the newspaper because the lights were so bright. I went out to let my dog out
and as I opened the door I get hit with this search light in my eyes that is so
bright I can't even tell where my dog went. I can't see my backyard, I can't see
the grass. I am totally blinded by how bright these lights are. If you want, really
want you to believe this, I would like you tonight when you drive home from here
to go by Fairview to the new Chevron that they have opened up by the Fred
Meyer in Meridian. Park your car just across the street and look over at that and
think what if this was my front room. What if was my back yard, what if you are a
1/2 mile away. They are bright, obnoxious lights and it makes it very difficult to
sleep, it makes it difficult to function in a home with that much light. Also the
other problem that I see is all the cars that come into this area are going to turn
and head towards our houses, so we are going to get headlights going in our
windows all night long. The third issue that I would like to cover is that of
security. I would like to be able to assume that my children can play in our back
yard and be safe. I think that is a fair request of a homeowner in Idaho. With the
24 hour a day traffic that this development is going to generate I am not
comfortable with the kind of element that it is going to bring in, that adjacent to
where my kids are going to be playing. I would also like to be able to entertain in
my backyard, but I don't know how I would do that with a 3 story hotel and people
waving down at us. It is impossible, a 3 foot fence a 20 foot fence nothing will
help if you have a 3 story hotel in your backyard. Our privacy will be gone so will
all the neighbors because you will be able to see from that hotel clear across to
everyone else. I know that the development of the property is inevitable, we all
know that. I have come to grips with the fact that I can no longer look out my
windows at the horses that are grazing in the beautiful fields. But we as a
neighborhood deserve the right to be able to have a buffer for our neighborhood
and to not have a 24 hour noisy, bright, active development such as this. Nobody
would want this in their backyard, nobody. I am opposed to this project, I
respectfully ask the City Council to support our neighborhood and deny this
proposal and in the future to support the type of development, which would be
compatible with our neighborhood or any neighborhood. Thank you
Rountree: A couple points you made I just want for clarification. You talked
about the privacy issue and the height of structures in that particular area be it
this development or whatever. What would be a reasonable compromise?
Bowen: To have something go in that closes at 5 at night or at the latest 9, any
kind of development that is not open 24 hours a day causing noise.
Rountree: How about height?
Bowen: How about height, (inaudible) I think 2 stories maximum that would be
equal with our homes that are two stories.
Rountree: And this next one is kind of on the light side, you indicated that your
neighborhood would be a neighborhood that the City would be proud to be part of
the City, then I think the City would be proud that you are a part of us, is that in
the future?
Bowen: Yes it is, I have to say it is really strange to live in Meridian, Idaho, to
have a Meridian address to not get to go to the Ada, I am actually in Ada County.
So if I need the police I cannot call Meridian's police I have to call Ada County's
police, but if I want to go to Ada County's library I can't go there unless I want to
pay $40 a year. I have to go to Meridian's library. I have a Meridian zip code and
it is really confusing for all of us. So that whole issue is kind of vague it is an
Idaho phenomenon, I have had that happen in other places that we have lived
here.
Rountree: Possibly something that your homeowners association could bring to
the City at some point in time in the future.
Bowen: I would also like to say if we can't protect our neighborhood nobody in
Meridian is going to be safe. Chuck Horel, 3043 Autumn Way, Meridian, was
sworn by the City Attorney.
Horel: Gentlemen, I appreciate the time you are allowing us up here tonight. I am
going to try and make this as brief as possible. First off I have a letter from the
City of Meridian, the Hub of Treasure Valley, a good place to live. This is just a
personal comment, that is really wrong, this is a great place to live. All I can say
is if a development like this is allowed to buffer residential properties as know
them then that becomes a true statement then Meridian is only a good maybe
even a lesser place to live. Because that does nothing but degrade our
neighborhood. Anyway, getting on to the crux of the matter here, in the
comprehensive plan of 1993 there are some statements in here regarding natural
resources. Part of it is water quality policies and hazardous areas. As stated on
pages 31 and 33 of the policy 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1 these particular things address
water, management of drainage ways and protecting creeks and drains and they
protect the beauty and recreational trail opportunities of all Meridian waterways.
In conjunction with the comprehensive plan on it I hope that you all have a copy
that Howard gave to you which includes the Idaho Wellhead protection plan. If
you would submit this into the record please, this is a copy that was really hard to
come by from the Department of Environmental Quality. Part of that protection
plan states that this plan describes how Idaho will meet requirements of the well
head protection program as established by the safe drinking water act
amendments of 1986, Section 1428 in the requirements of the Idaho
Groundwater Quality plan relative to the Wellhead Protection plan. Guidance will
be developed from the policies of this plan which will assist local governments
and water purveyors in implementing local well head protection programs. You
may or may not know that the Greenhill Estates is on our own water system so
we therefore become purveyors of water. With this development being so close
to our well head I think this is a legitimate concern that there in the future could
become situation which would arise which could compromise that well head. I
guess the question that I would pose to you is that if someone becomes ill or
incapacitated due to the source of the contamination or water supply we will
ultimately step up to the table and accept responsibility for that. The
homeowners of Greenhill Estates which there are which that well supplies are
roughly 50 households. In the wellhead protection plan it calls for delineation of
the sites around the wellheads and it gives timetables as far as what how far
contaminates can go in those delineation areas. Again I am not going to get into
this, I will leave that for you to peruse at some more opportune time. Anyway,
that basically is what we are seeing is that we know that you ultimately are
concerned because you have addressed some of that in the comprehensive
plan. We hope that you would take into consideration the well head protection
plan that the Idaho Department of Environmental quality endorses and again I
would like to reiterate we would like to keep Meridian a great place to live. Thank
you for your time.
Corrie: Any questions? Thank you
Williams: I am the last speaker for the group, I would like to make testimony in
regards to two areas. First of all I would like to address the comments by the
developer, item one, the only item that has ever been given to the neighborhood
that I am aware of that I received was the 8 1/2 by 11 landscape plan that even
with my magnifying glass there was no way I could read and that was delivered
to me last Thursday. The masonry wall that they are talking about is a new item.
This in my recollection and notes has not been previously discussed and I
question how a 6 foot high wall will mitigate a 40 foot high lights and parking
lights and lights of a sign with the neighborhood. I disagree with Billy Ray Strite
it is not a commercial in the plan only in the map, there is one of six elements
that are necessary in the comprehensive plan, Eagle Road only addresses, the
map is the only thing in the comprehensive plan that addresses Eagle Road at
all. He has talked about a driveway if the road on the north end is not approved
where the current stoplight is, we wonder if ACHD will allow another
ingress/egress on that. In fact ACHD has totally table this project until December
4 at which time they possibly will make a decision and a recommendation to this
board as to what their site plan in terms of the roadway will be. I don't know how
anything can be approved without a site plan approval by ACHD at this point in
time. The sign has already been addressed, I know you had the Texaco sign in, I
also know that Mr. Jackson from what I have talked to him is not happy with the
sign because the only place you can see it is after on west bound after you have
crossed Cloverdale Road. I guess my question is if you make one mistake why
turn around and make another mistake and put more signs up. If you are
traveling east bound on 1-84 unless you are specifically looking for that sign you
can't see it. If you set one further back I don't know how these people are going
to try and address freeway traffic. I just find that incredulous. This is not along
the interstate as they referenced other signs. This is along residential property
that they want to put these signs up. This property does sit substantially back
from the freeway. And the other thing is are you going to let a forest of signs
grow up on Eagle Road, we can't log those signs but we can sure take a look and
see a lot of signs. The signs now in Meridian I am sure a lot of people would not
like to see those the way they have been set up because they are an eyesore.
Gentlemen the next part I would like to go through are strictly factual concerns
that we have about this proposal. Factual concerns about the findings of fact and
conclusions of law, factual concerns about the Comprehensive Plan, factual
concerns about the zoning ordinances. If you have in front of you a
comprehensive plan I would like to go through some of the comprehensive plan
on a page by page basis. This may be boring but we need this to get it in the
record. Page four of the comprehensive plan item B4, mixed use, how does this
project meet the following statements. How and where does it get extended to
Eagle Road. Again nowhere in these items (inaudible) nowhere at all does this
get, is Eagle Road even mentioned in the comprehensive plan other than the
map. Page 18 of the comprehensive plan it says development interchange and
lists six interchanges. Eagle Road is not listed in your comprehensive at all.
Page 27 mixed use areas adjacent to 1-84, again nothing is addressed at all to
Eagle Road. On page 3 of the conditional use permit findings of fact and
conclusions of law and what we would like to do we will make, we would like all
of this incorporated into both public hearings if we could Mr. Mayor rather than to
be repetitive. Make it just one fell swoop if that meets with your approval. Page
three, B1, it seems as though Planning and Zoning added to the comprehensive
plan, there is a different text referenced in the comprehensive plan under section
B1 that they added and Eagle Road that term does not exist in your
comprehensive plan. In your annexation and zoning findings of fact and
conclusions of law the comprehensive plan states the commercial use is in fact
the best use for such parcels. Also note the plan notes mixed use that this does
not meet the intent of the updated comprehensive plan and is not designated
commercial, this is page 8 and 9 item 17 of the findings of fact and conclusions of
law for the annexation. Page 10, item F, the applicant's attorney referenced to
interchange areas but the comprehensive plan again specifically omits Eagle
Road and 1-84 in that reference, in that section. Again in the findings of fact and
conclusions of law on page 14, B1, P & Z added the words and Eagle Road
which again do not exist in the comprehensive plan. Page 26 of the findings of
fact and conclusions of law for the annexation, item 15.14, requires a
development agreement addressing the concerns of the property owners of
Greenhill Estates and Magic View Subdivision, this has not happened. Page 27,
29, incomplete conditions of annexation and there are I think 3 or 4 blank lines in
there that were never filled in. Yesterday we had people meet with the staff and
review the file and after reviewing the file staff noted that the findings of fact and
conclusions of law were not accurate nor was the file complete as of the minutes
of 10-8-96 of P & Z were not included nor were the findings of fact and
conclusions of law updated to indicate the changes made during the meeting of
the 8th which substantially changed the need for the hotel to be built first and
minimize the landscaping. However they did note that the required setback from
the north is 95 feet whether or not the road stays in the location to the north or is
moved south. We would, we are still under discussion with ACHD about that and
they have not come up with any recommendation. Back to the comprehensive
plan, page 10, the policies, the comprehensive plan should be adopted,
maintained and updated on an annual basis. We asked has this been done.
Page 18, item 1.4A, details design studies to address development criteria we
don't believe that has been done on this annexation. 1.413 on the same page,
economic feasibility studies to include analysis of economic needs and problems.
We don't believe that was done. Page 19, item 1.8 of the comprehensive plan, it
says that you must establish a development review process which will foster
compatible land use and design with contiguous developments. We don't think
this has been done. Page 28, mixed use policies, detail market studies should
be undertaken, we are not, we are concerned that hasn't been done. (End of
Tape) Page 74, item 65U, establish land use designs which reflect the character
of existing neighborhoods, this does not comply with that part of the plan at all.
6.6U, adopt and implement neighborhood policy plans to preserve and or
improve existing neighborhoods. We feel that this is quite the opposite of what
this is going through. Item 1.3 on page 80, require that the Planning Commission
budget include detail review of comprehensive plan at least once a year. We feel
at this point that the fact that this proposal is only addressed in one of 6 elements
that are the key in your plan would necessitate that the comprehensive plan be
open for review and update in order to have this or any other development in this
area comply with your comprehensive plan. WE do not believe that at this point
it does. WE look back to the comprehensive plan and the use of the term plan
versus map, you want high quality development, enhance the quality of life of all
residents. As Chuck said it is a great place to live, I have lived here 27 years, I
know Ron Tolsma was in that picture back there which is good because he is a
person that is here, he has lived here his whole life and he is concerned about
what is happening in Meridian. It is a great place to live and I don't think Ron or I
or anybody else would be here if it wasn't a great place to live. Again we want to
look at the past, the present and the future trends. We want to maintain current
housing, the quality of life and in an orderly fashion to establish compatibility.
Existing conditions of the plan say one of the reasons is the recognized quality of
life within the community there are unique neighborhoods. We feel that this is a
planned mixed use area and it should be designated that. We feel that whatever
decision the City makes regarding this land is going to impact the long term
growth of that area and how you do it. We would ask that this development
either be tabled or denied and that the City undertake some type of review of this
whole area to ascertain what should be developed to update your comprehensive
plan to include the Meridian 1-84 interchange which it does not address now.
There is nothing in here that addresses other than a circle on a map. So you
only have one of six elements that you are dealing with. We don't feel that is
compatible with this development. I probably have six or seven more pages,
these are major points that we are concerned about. These don't address the
secondary issues within the plan that we are concerned about. But we do feel
that this is an improper use of the land, it does not comply with the
comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan doesn't address it. There are
words added in the findings of fact that don't exist in the comprehensive plan. If
you read this find your references to Eagle Road, there ain't any folks. Again we
are not against develop, we are more than willing as a group willing to sit down
and spend time and effort to work with the City to develop a plan for this area
because this plan is going to affect how people see Meridian from the east..
What is your entrance going to look like to the City. I thank you for your time, if
you have any questions I would hopefully try to address them.
Corrie: Council any questions?
Rountree: Does that represent the groups testimony?
Williams: Yes it does and I would like to incorporate it in both public hearings if
we could Mr. Mayor.
Rountree: I just say thank you for your organization and conduct, we
appreciate.
Williams: You're welcome, I have been both sides, we would like this brochure
that we have prepared entered into the record Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: I too would like to thank the audience, there may be some others that
want to testify but we are really very happy to have you citizens of Meridian and
very well conducted group here tonight. I was a little bit worried like I said to this
Council I thought the Chief of police was going to have to protect us. You folks
have been very commendable. Is there anybody else from the public who would
like to issue testimony at this time?
Dick Moore, 3050 Magic View Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Moore: As I said I live at 3050 Magic View Drive which happens to be the
property just west of the property we are talking about. I have been out there
about 24 years, we talk about this being the eastern edge of Meridian. Before I
ever moved out there I was told by the State Highway Department that Eagle
Road had been surveyed as a main north south. In other words it is going to
bypass Marsing go right straight through on Eagle Road, same thing to the north
some day. So I think we have forewarning that something was going to happen
there sometime. I have no other comments, I am just saying that I think I had
forewarning 24 years ago. So we have had some warning.
Rick Seager, 2951 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Seager: Which is just down the street from the property that we are talking
about. First off I want to echo some of the sentiments. I have not received
anything as far as notification and I did sign and send a letter along with the rest
of the residents in the area requesting notification. Particularly concerning the
fact that this is being built right on top of our well. Under any interpretation I feel
like I am impacted by this. Especially given the fact that these lights are going to
be in my backyard as well. In addition to that I have got literally hundreds of
questions about this whole exercise and what it will mean to us. I don't want to go
through all of that tonight but a few basic ones that none of the plans that I have
seen show me where that garbage bin is going to be located outside of
McDonalds, where they garbage is going to be located outside of the hotel and
with prevailing winds and things that anybody knows those are going to stink. We
have used the words over and over again that this is a buffer and I am all for a
buffer but this is clearly not the buffer that we are talking about. I would like to
know how many gas tank trucks, semis are going to be coming through here with
diesel trying to make the turn into this literally right on top of our well or right next
to it with the adjoining lot. I would like to know how many of those trucks are
going to be making that turn. That is a basic one given the number of accidents
that happen. I think the record of Chevron ought to be examined. I understand
just down the street in Eagle off of Eagle Road one of the Chevron gas tanks
developed a leak, fortunately no well was nearby. I don't know if this is going to
be any different, I don't know how, I don't know what is being put in place to
prevent that from happening in the future. So I have a lot of questions around
that, I think McDonalds and their plan. I think everybody is pretty familiar that it
has been in the Wall Street Journal multiple times now their strategy of putting
McDonalds everywhere they can. I don't know how many are going to go into
Meridian or how many you are going to let go into Meridian. The basic point, the
most important point I wanted to make is that there is, this isn't a buffer. I think
that the eagle properties and the team that has put this together made a real fatal
mistake. If we all recognize that they keep calling this a buffer and disguising it in
any kind of wrapping they put around it is exactly the opposite of a buffer. The
reason I say it is the opposite of a buffer is the worst that can go in. From a
mother's point of view and you said things just as excellently as anybody could
say them but at 2:00 in the morning when I hear a door slamming and I hear
things happening a buffer to me would indicate that in a residential area I should
be alarmed. If I hear something going on outside my door I should be alarmed in
a residential area. A buffer should prevent the 24 hour kinds of activities that are
going to be happening with this kind of a facility. Hotels inherently are where you
read about every time there is a shooting, every time the police are called out I
would like to know how often is that to a hotel, how often is it to a quick stop
facility like is being put there. The majority of the time it is and the majority of the
time it is late at night. I am sorry you cannot have that in our back yards and tell
me that is a buffer. I have a real problem with that. In the spirit of keeping things
and upbeat and optimistic I want to say I think there is a win win here. There are
110 acres in this facility and there is no doubt that wherever they put McDonalds
they are successful, they have said that in all the articles that have been written.
Every time they put them up they are successful. And they are going to put up 15
of them in the City if you let them, that has been their plan. Why can't we instruct
them to pick out of the 110 acres that are there why are these four acres right
next to our houses the ones that are most important. There are a lot of questions
that I have and I think all of us do. And back to the original notification issue I
would love to be notified and have a chance to hear out the discussion. If it takes
all night, if this is the only forum we have then maybe that is what we should use.
But as far as the notification I would like to back this whole thing up and let us
have a chance to sit down with the developers and spend more time coming up
with a solution that works for all of us. I will make one more comment again back
to the win win solution, let's look for a buffering such as doctors offices, such as
something that is a one story facility that can be hidden by a fence or a berm that
separates us. All of that 110 acres in there is going to end up all right along the
highway. It is going to end up being prime property for commercial development.
The City of Meridian is going to get the revenues out of that, it doesn't have to be
in this particular light. Just coming back this weekend from a business trip to
California, I went through multiple neighborhoods with this fresh on my mind
looking at how within all the different cities that are just hodgepodge together in
the Silicon Valley area how did they manage their growth and what did they do.
You can see just inherent differences when you drive from one section to another
those that did a good job of buffering it is obvious. They kept their signs low,
they actually you could see things move down as you get to residential areas.
The properties in those areas have sky rocketed yet those properties in the areas
that no care was taken those properties are not desirable. Anybody moving into
those areas doesn't want to live in there. You don't want to live with a McDonalds
and a hotel in your backyard. So I would argue that the best thing for Meridian is
a true buffer, the best thing for our developers is to be closer to the highway, not
next door to us where they are going to have a resentful group of people next
door to them. And they are going to see property values decrease. They are not
going to see the whole Meridian area be the kind of Mecca and magnet that they
want it to be either. Everybody would benefit from a clear buffer. And so
appreciate you taking the time to hear me out and I am sorry for rambling a little
bit. It is an urgent issue to all of us.
Corrie: Any questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to issue
testimony?
Dennis Edson, 376 Ravenswood, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Edson: Again, I would like to stress that in this area we really need a buffer zone
rather than a commercial type of application that is going in there. We realize the
development does need to be made in this area it would be good for us and it
would be good for the city. But if it was something more in the order of an LO
zoning that would provide for doctors offices and professional offices in that area.
That would be a help the neighbors they would have medical facilities that would
be close by. They would have lab and Xray facilities that would be next to the St.
Lukes facility that would be convenient for everybody. Why do we need another
gas station on the same side of the road. If we are intent on putting another gas
station in there why shouldn't it be on the other side of Eagle where it serves the
north bound traffic, why do we need two gas stations serving south bound traffic.
Why do we need a McDonalds two minutes down the freeway there is a full size
McDonalds that can serve everybody a lot better. Why do we need another
motel, two minutes down the freeway there are two motels there already in a very
commercialized area that the Meridian exit. It would seem to me that something
more on the local office where it would provide a true buffering between the
commercial areas and the residential areas would be much more desirable.
Thank you
Brian Diamond, 3134 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Diamond: I am here tonight to represent a special interest and I am holding him,
he is very special to me and I think the decision that is made regarding this
development will affect his life as he grows up living so close to it. I think you
have seen from the response of the very eloquent people tonight that we are not
a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics. We basically have accepted the fact that there will
be development there. All that I would ask, and I think most people here would
agree with me, is that it be an LO type of development rather than the one that is
there. That is all I have to say.
Corrie: Any further testimony from the public?
Rod Truax, 3091 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Truax: If I might reference this drawing over here for you, (inaudible) water
quality as well. If I might point out, this is the lot where I live right here and I have
a (inaudible) this last summer we would go swimming there quite often under the
stars, the Texaco star. I don't (inaudible) Chevron shield either. I enjoy the
privacy that I have had and I feel that this (inaudible) everything that is going to
be there is inappropriate especially with my water quality concerns here in my
backyard. With that I have other concerns regarding this roadway (inaudible). If
there are any tankers hauling gas (inaudible) it is going to develop cracks in my
pool and destroy my pool eventually because of the road traffic there. Those are
concerns that I have as a personal property owner right there in that residential
area. (Inaudible) this is where our well is located just right in that junction right
there. (Inaudible) almost in line with this arrow (inaudible). I might also point out
that half of this area here is also irrigation easement already. So (inaudible) any
questions?
Corrie: Any questions?
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I have a question, you mentioned the irrigation easement
and question or information has not been provided. Do the homeowners in your
area utilize that irrigation water?
Truax: We pay rights on that but I don't know of anybody in the area that actually
uses it. It is (inaudible)
Rountree: Apparently some do for the record.
Corrie: Any other testimony? Hearing none, anybody from the Chevron for
rebuttal?
Steve Brown, 707 N. 8th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Brown: I start with two strikes against me, one is I am an attorney which is a
career choice that I regret but I just turned 50 and it is too late to change. The
other strike against me is that I am from Boise and that can be witnessed by one
of your members who was in my graduating class in high school, I won't name
him because I don't want to throw a dark cloud over his political career here in
Meridian. I will say that my Grandmother did graduate from Boise high school in
1912 also so I don't feel like a complete carpetbagger here in our valley.
Crookston: As I recall you did go to the University of Idaho law school.
Brown: That is true, I went out of state to (inaudible). I wanted to address a
couple of points that Mr. Foley made, and particularly with regard to the posting
of notice, it is up to Council to determine whether those notice requirements were
complied with but we believe that they were. First of all the requirement in the
zoning ordinance is that notice go out to people by certified mail to people within
300 feet unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination
that additional notice is warranted. What occurred here kind of at the last minute
or close to the time that we were under the deadline for posting notice Mr. Foley
did deposit a letter with the City which is on file requesting that notice be to
several additional subdivisions that weren't within 300 feet. I believe in fact, I am
sure that Mr. Johnson took this up with the staff and the decision was made not
to post the additional notice. I would also point out that if we conceive that an
annexation and a rezone does affect a large number of people there is another
provision of the ordinance that Mr. Foley did not mention and that is the provision
immediately following the 15 day mailing of notice within 300 feet. What it says is
when notice is required to 200 or more property owners or residents then in lieu
of mailing notification notice of the proceeding and hearing required may be
given by publishing the notice for two consecutive weeks in the official
newspaper of the City of Meridian provided the second notice appears ten days
prior to the public hearing. Now my understanding is that there was notice of the
initial public hearing published in compliance with this statute. I would expect
Council could check that but if we can see that this could affect more than just
people within 300 feet then that part of the notice requirement has been complied
with. Now as to the posting requirement there is a requirement that the applicant
go out and post the property at least 7 days prior to the hearing, this was done.
There was an individual who was employed by BRS architects named Drew
Ebright who posted the property. There are photographs of him standing there
posting the property because the questions comes up did this actually occur. It
did occur in compliance with the ordinance. What is lacking however is his
affidavit or his statement notarized to the effect that posting took place. We would
request leave from this Commission to supplement the record with Mr. Ebright's
statement under oath that he did the posting and we will submit photographs of
him actually doing that. We can certainly get that in this week and we would
expect any decision made tonight to be subject to the requirement that
technicality be fulfilled. The other thing in Mr. Foley's letter and this is my reading
of the ordinance I am sure I am not as familiar with it as the counsel for the City
is but the way I read it is once it is transmitted to Council I am looking at Section
2-416 F1 of the ordinance. It requires that the Council conduct at least one public
hearing following the notice requirements which are described back in the section
involving publication and or mail to people within 300 feet. I don't think there is
any requirement in the ordinance that the applicant has to go back out and repost
the property. So I would submit that to the Council and to the counsel. In our view
the notice requirements have been complied with. There is a question about
whether the fees were paid. What happened on this application was that I believe
it was in May the application was originally submitted and there was an objection
from ACHD staff because they said they might want to put a road or they were
going to recommend this road be put in along the northern part of the property
from Eagle Road between this property and the subdivision and it was based on
the recommendation of staff that the applicant reconfigure the site plan and
resubmitted it. There was a month delay in the process as a result of that. I don't
think there is any requirement that type of a circumstance requires a repayment
of a fee. If it does that fee will gladly be submitted to the City of Meridian. But we
were certainly never notified of any need to pay an additional fee for this
redrawing of the site plan. There has been a comment about the findings from
the Planning and Zoning Commission were inadequate because there were
blanks. And although there was discussion at the meeting as to how these were
to be filled in the motion that was made didn't actually incorporate into it the
conclusions that were reached in the discussion as to the amount of the setback
and the height and some of the other things that were involved. The point I want
to make is that under the ordinance it is the job of Planning and Zoning
Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on questions of
annexation and zoning. I think that this body has certainly within it the authority
to fill in anything that are not appropriately recommended. In other words it is just
a recommendation to you, you can take it or leave it. You certainly have the
authority if something is left blank to do what you want because you weren't
required to follow their recommendation in the first place. That is why we have a
new hearing here and in effect we start all over. This is not like an appeal of a
court decision where you have to remand it back to the planning and Zoning
Commission. So I don't think that should be a problem. The question of is there
a site specific plan here. Our position is as it has been before ACHD that we
have already modified the site plan to take into account the possibility of a road
along the northern part of this property. Whether that road goes in or not is not
going to have any bearing on this subdivision. If the road goes in we have made
provision, excuse me let me back us. What I mean to say is this, it will not have
any bearing on where the site plan, how the site plan is configured on this
application. The roadway will certainly have impact on the subdivision and ACHD
is going to put that in whether this application or some other application is finally
approved by the City of Meridian. But the applicant in this case has done a good
job of buffering, whether the road goes in or not. If the road does not go in the
property that would have been used for the road will simply be utilized for
additional buffering, perhaps some additional parking but it would make it a better
project. That is not within our control, that is ACHD who is going to make that
decision. But the project is presented in a manner that regardless of what the
decision turns out from ACHD the project can move forward in terms of approval
and of course it will have to be subject to whatever ACHD requirements that are
made when they make their decision as to whether the roads going in and what
ITD decides whether to locate the signal. My final point is as to the
comprehensive plan, there has been a lot of discussion about the comprehensive
plan what it says, what it doesn't say, there are a lot of aspects to this
comprehensive plan to support this development. I think one of the main ones is
the general policy in the plan that there will be mixed used and commercial
activities around and along 1-84. Eagle Road does appear in the comprehensive
plan on page 43, there is a definition of arterials and it describes Eagle Road
north of Overland as one of the major arterials even though it is not in the City.
What that says is that arterials carry a certain traffic volume and they are not
intended as residential streets. So this, there are residences adjacent to this
street but in terms of the comprehensive plan and the State transportation plan
this is a major arterial. The comprehensive plan map does clearly identify this
area around the intersection of 1-84 and Eagle Road as a commercial area. It is
specifically indicated on the map which includes this property. It does sweep over
the existing housing which is a mistake, obviously that is not going to be
commercial. But what the comprehensive plan says about the map is says that
the proposed land use delineations for the impact area are shown on the
comprehensive plan map. One of the things is that mixed use plans mix uses
along 1-84 which are attractive and compatible with high volume traffic corridors
should be on that map. It states that the map represents a long range vision of
community development in generalized areas. The map represents a
compilation of input and ideas expressed by citizens, community groups and
local leaders. So I think it is the policy under the comprehensive plan that this
area be considered for commercial development with proper zoning and
screening and buffering. There are a lot of aspects of the plan that I won't even
go into that talk about economic development. Finding jobs in Meridian so that
the services can be supported with a more substantial tax base. This project
would lend itself to that, this project, the application got underway in May. These
people who are local people who are investors and trying to move this project
forward would of course like a decision because the clock is running on the
interest and we do appreciate your consideration. Are there any questions?
Corrie: Any further comments from the developers?
Kyler: George Kyler, there have been a lot of comments made about how many
McDonalds we are going to have in town and we already have a full service one
down the road etc. When you have a State Highway and a Federal highway
coming together with the kind of traffic volume that it has you have a hospital
next door with 40 some acres that is going to develop into office buildings of their
own as well additional expansion of space. And there is a focal point there and it
makes sense for a McDonalds to be there because of what is there already. This
will be a full service McDonalds, this will be the same size McDonalds as there
are in other locations with the full menu. I don't plan on any other McDonalds in
the City of Meridian. I have looked in a lot of different locations and I am
responsible for the one that was just built on Fairview in front of Fred Meyer. I
just want to make that clear it is it not our intent to blanket the City with
McDonalds. I kind of was taken back when we were in front of P & Z because
one of the people said how many minimum wage jobs are we going to create in
this town. I kind of took offense to that and so I went to the McDonalds on the
interstate down the road and I decided I was going to take a look at what we
have as far as an employment base there. With an average salary of $8.26 with
over 60 employees there 75% of which come from the City. I looked at how many
minorities, how many women, how many physically challenged people we have
that we employ. I look at the programs we have for how many high school kids
we employ giving out bonuses for good grades etc. I am not sure that it is
anybody's job it is to figure out what business goes in there as well as it is to
figure out is it an appropriate place for type of business. I believe our site plan is
accurate as to what Steve was saying. There was some comments made about
we can't look at this any further because we haven't got an accurate site plan.
And Steve's point I don't see these building shifting around. I think that they have
placed properly on the site based upon input from a lot of different people
including ACHD. So regardless of what ACHD does with the main access we
don't cater to truck drivers at McDonalds. This parking lot doesn't have any space
for people to pull on the property with trailers and trucks and semis. I don't
believe that, I can't speak for Chevron, but I don't believe I saw diesel pumps and
diesel tanks in the ground for trucks. The turning radiuses aren't set up for other
than delivery trucks coming in. The way McDonald's delivers we have, you
probably rarely see a truck in front of McDonalds. They come during the hours
we are open and there is one semi that has frozen food, refrigerated food and
our paper products on the same truck. It is all off loaded at the same time. So
we don't have trucks coming on the site at all hours day and night idling there all
night long as some of the comments were made. You don't see that at
McDonalds, nor do you see that a Chevron. So I just want to make that point to
you. If there are any other questions I would love to answer them for you.
Corrie: Thank you, I guess Billy Ray, there is one left, do you have any
comments you want to make?
Jamison: Craig Jamison, thanks for giving us the opportunity to get back here.
First of all I would also like to thank all the folks in the audience that were kind
enough to refer to me as a gentleman when they were speaking about me. I don't
get that kind of respect at Boise so that is pretty exciting for me. It seems like a
good group and I think this isn't a mean spirited kind of thing. I want you to know
that I think everybody shares a lot of the same concerns. I particularly liked the
gentleman's comment about swimming under the Texaco star. In actuality I think
you are swimming under about 450 stars and sometimes they say liter of coke for
.99 and sometimes they say unleaded gas for 1.59. That is really
I think the big difference in the two signs we are proposing here. I think there is
a perception that the sign we are proposing needs to be just as big and just as
bright as the one that is immediately south of it. That is the big difference, we are
looking at without the message center you have got approximately 450 lamps, 50
watt flood lamps. That is where a tremendous amount of the brightness on that
sign is coming from. This sign, I just ask that people when they sit back and
compare it to other signs that you will see not only along the interstate but all
through the City these signs are being illuminated by 800 (inaudible) florescent
lamps. If you go up and down the streets even in Meridian and you look at wall
signs canister type signs that are on the walls that light up those are illuminated
with exactly the same lamps that are going to be in the sign that is proposed. So
really we are not out to get a sign that is as big as or as bright as, we don't need
one we just need the identification. We don't have to be concerned with
conveying a full message across to people. People recognize a Chevron logo,
people recognize a McDonalds logo. That is all we are really trying to
accomplish. Thank you very much.
Strite: Billy Ray Strite, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council once again
we have all been here rather late. I think that I do have one thing that Mr.
Williams and I would agree on and I think in talking with our group I think it would
be best served for everyone here that both these applications be heard at the
same time if that is the choice of the Council. Certainly we agree with Mr.
Williams in that endeavor. I think we appreciate the opportunity of being here, I
think that both parties came here in good spirit and certainly with good intent. I
guess I will close my testimony by saying that both your staff here and the
Planning and Zoning Commission through their findings of fact did in fact believe
that this application does meet the comprehensive plan. We have a site on the
corner of a major state highway and a major federal highway. It is going to have
40,000 cars a day going up and down it. I guess in my own question to the
Council and maybe to the residents what in fact could go here. We understand
that the offices is what the neighbors would prefer but I can assure you that most
offices can't survive under 40,000 cars a day, probably would not survive and
quite frankly my understanding is that St. Luke's has an additional 40 acres on
their site which is zoned appropriately. I would suggest to you that would
probably tell me that the office market very well may be saturated. So with that I
would close my comments and once again I appreciate the opportunity. If there
are any questions I would be happy to answer them.
Corrie: Questions of the Council? Thank you, Council discussion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, from my perspective I think there are several issues here
that have been raised this evening that need further exploration. I do think that
one of the key ingredients to this is the input from ACHD, it is my understanding
that their hearing will be on the 4th of December. It would seem to me that it
would be appropriate for us to continue the public hearing that we are working
with tonight until our meeting the 17th of December so that we can incorporate in
the findings of fact and conclusions the results of ACHD's study. I do also think
that from our staff's standpoint that we need to research the issues of notification
so that we can be assured in our minds what notification requirements (inaudible)
the issues that Mr. Brown raises and that Mr. Foley raises are both valid issues
but we need to determine where that lies. It also seems to me that we need to
further explore some of the issues that were raised with the comprehensive plan
with both Mr. Williams and by Mr. Brown. So I think from my perspective what I
would like to see is that we continue this public hearing to get the benefit of the
input to resolve some of those issues between now and our meeting on the 17th.
Corrie: Other comments from the Council?
Tolsma: I tend to agree with Walt (inaudible) there is a lot of testimony here
tonight, there is a lot of conflicting testimony. I think there needs to be some
research done on the notifications and some of the legal technicalities that have
been brought up tonight and (inaudible).
Rountree: I would guess anytime we get two legal interpretations at a hearing
we probably ought to get a third. So with that I concur with Walt's comments. I
think what this is going to lead to is the preparation of a new findings of fact and
conclusions at a minimum. Is that where you are headed?
Morrow: I agree, yes we need new findings of fact and conclusions but prior to
getting those we need the resolution of the issue that we are discussing thus far.
So I would see us having the benefit of that input altogether by the 17th and then
on the 17th at the juncture being the public hearing is still in effect that we
discuss those issues and at that time if we are all comfortable with the issues
then we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings and conclusions.
Bentley: I too agree there are many unanswered questions here and the ACHD
issue is pretty important to have. I too would favor continuing the public hearing
until we have the issues resolved.
Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I have one more comment (inaudible) that is not my picture
up there Mr. Williams it is my grandfather.
Corrie: I will then entertain a motion then for the continuance of the public
hearing in reference to the annexation and zoning. Since we do have another
week and incorporate the same thing in the next (inaudible).
Morrow: So moved
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we continue the
public hearing to December 17 on the request for annexation and zoning to C -G
by Eagle Partners LLC, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C -STORE, MCDONALDS WITH DRIVE THRU,
AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC:
Corrie: I will now open the public hearing and invite the public and others to
testify. The way it sounded you wanted to coordinate all those in the same thing.
So is there anybody who would like to make further testimony tonight? I will
entertain a motion Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor my motion would be the same to continue the public hearing
and thank the public for not offering repetitive testimony we would continue that
public hearing also to December 17.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the
public hearing for the request for conditional use permit until December 17, any
further discussion?
Bentley: I would just like to thank the (End of Tape)
Williams: Mr. Mayor, what I do have a question is if in the attorney's review of this
and the items that we brought up we would like to know what the procedure
would be to open the comprehensive plan for amendment regarding the Eagle
Road interchange, 1-84 Eagle Road in that whole area to address that on a more
specific basis then the plan currently addresses it.
Corrie: If I could have your attention for just a second, Dick has a proposal he
would like the Council to look at. So if I could have you quiet for just a second,
Dick would you redo that I am sorry.
Williams: What we would like to, if the City Attorney finds that there are concerns
about the Eagle Road interchange and 1-84 and how it relates to the
comprehensive plan. If we could somehow work with the Council to develop
some type of plan for that area that we don't go through this on a continual basis.
Like I said before we would be glad to do that and if the Council would so be
interested I am sure that we would be than happy to work with them and the
Planning and Zoning Commission to do that. Because we do not feel as we
stated that this area is addressed very succinctly within the plan. It is an area of
potential growth that we would like to see addressed.
Corrie: Thank you Dick, I am going to have a five minute recess and then we
will get into department reports. Thank you again folks for coming, we will see
you December 17th.
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #11: DEPARTMENT REPORTS:
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council when Morning Glory Subdivision No. 2 was
approved one of my comments was that a 20 foot planting strip should be
provided along the rail road corridor that is what our ordinance calls for. Mr.
Hunnemiler has since installed a fence along the property line boundary along
the rail road corridor which would be, you can see where it says Union Pacific
Railroad. I don't particularly have a problem with that as he would have an
access problem getting to that to maintain it. I just wanted to make sure that the
Council agrees that it is okay that he incorporates that 20 foot planting strip as
part of his lots. They will have the 20 foot berm easement plus a 10 foot utility
easement however he has not done any planting in that.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor question, I thought a 20 foot planting strip would be, we have
been consistent in the past is that not owned by the homeowners association?
Stiles: Yes
Morrow: And it is owned in this case by the homeowners association?
Stiles: No
Morrow: Why?
Stiles: He has not shown it as a common lot on his plat and he has fenced it
completely in.
Morrow: What do you mean by fenced completely in, that is the fence that I see
that is along on the rail road tracks which will be short lived because the rail road
tracks burn fairly frequently so it will be good bye fence. But that is an editorial
comment. So, where is the planting strip in relationship to the fence that is
there?
Stiles: Inside the fence to the north of the fence.
Morrow: And it is not a common lot?
Stiles: No it is not.
Morrow: So the reality of that is, is that it isn't going to get landscaped by the
developer of the subdivision homeowners association, it will be grass or
whatever by each individual lot owner, is that what you are telling me?
Stiles: Yes, that is what he is proposing.
Morrow: Well for the sake of consistently did we not approve this as being a
common lot?
Stiles: I believe I requested that it be a common lot of 20 foot planting strip to be
maintained by the homeowners association.
Morrow: And was not the approval of this subdivision subject to staff conditions?
Stiles: If you will excuse me a minute I will get exactly what my comment was on
that. What my comment was, was that the 20 foot planting strip along the rail
road corridor should be designated as a common area. The planting strip is
required per ordinance section 11-9-605 G.
Morrow: And so what not the motion to approve this incorporating the staff
conditions?
Stiles: Yes, and Mr. Hunemiller testified at the meeting that he had no problem
with any of the comments.
Morrow: So are you here for a little reinforcement is that we are talking about?
Stiles: One way or the other, I can see his side.
Morrow: The other side of the coin is Shari a deal is a deal. If he wanted to put
the fence and do something different he should have been here for a variance.
Or to ask to have it revisited at the very least to change the conditions.
Bentley: It sounds like a job for the code man.
Stiles: Well his plat hasn't been signed yet so he won't be getting any buildings
permits. Or he can come in and try to get a variance.
Bentley: By the way Mr. Hunemiller is (inaudible)
Morrow: I guess the issue in my mind is everybody knew up front and that is part
of the public hearing process and that is part of the public process. If you are
going to go through that process then you kind of know what the ground rules
are. Don't come after the fact and say gee I built my fence now I want off the
hook. I am not real sympathetic to this change. And so I guess from my
perspective I am in agreement with the guys, don't sign the plat and the deal was
the deal.
Stiles: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. We do have a problem with some
people that like to do things and get approval after the fact.
Corrie: I think we established that as a protocol for the Council I think they
won't stop doing that, I hear the Council pretty well agreed on that. I am glad to
see that.
Morrow: I think Bob very candidly from my piece is that I am consistent I have
always said a deal is a deal.
Corrie: I agree
Bentley: Then why are we here, if they are going to do what they want.
Morrow: Well that is a good point
Stiles: His argument was that he just lined the fence up with Merrywood
Subdivision. I would like to see if we ever do have a rail system that we are not
dealing with the same thing that is staring at a bunch of wood fences along the
way.
Bentley: (Inaudible)
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: The next item is a request I received today about the Highlands Ranch
Subdivision. What they would like to do is withdraw both applications their
annexation is currently tabled at City Council. What I have advised them is
probably the best and the cleanest thing they can do is to start completely over.
They are requesting some consideration on the fees. I don't know if that is up to
Council or if it is even possible to not charge the fees again. But I (inaudible) I
would ask. They have paid twice so far.
Morrow: Could you refresh my memory, it has been so long since we did a
Highlands Ranch deal, refresh my memory where we are really at. They had an
original application that essentially came to the Council and was denied. Then
they came
Stiles: Yes, that had the LO portion in it.
Morrow: Yes and it had a lot of small lots and so on and so forth and that was a
year ago or more.
Stiles: Probably two
Morrow: Okay, and it was denied. Then from the Council's perspective we have
not seen anything since then.
Stiles: Not a preliminary plat because
Morrow: I mean for anything have we? (Inaudible)
Johnson: (Inaudible)
Corrie: I would like to see if the Council had that in writing
Stiles: They would
Corrie: I think at that time the Council could make the decision if they wanted.
Morrow: I think from my perspective they have to make a pretty decent argument
for that. It has been so long that I am not familiar with, I couldn't honestly tell you
that I could refund funds or fees or not. Because it has been a long time and I
don't know what has transpired in the interim.
Stiles: So you would like them to make an official request to the Council?
Morrow: I think so and support the request with some facts.
Rountree: My position on the thing is that their request to drop consideration
should go to Planning and Zoning since that is where it is tabled.
Stiles: The annexation and zoning is still at Council.
Rountree: It is still here, so they have two things that they need to clean up.
Morrow: Let me ask you this how can it be on table at Council when we have not
had any motions to table in over a year.
Rountree: I haven't seen it on an agenda forever.
Stiles: It was probably six months ago tabled for six months.
Rountree: Does anybody have a record of that. Well I think both things need to
be cleaned up. As far as the softening or reducing or whatever on the fees, staff
time is staff time and City's efforts is City's efforts has been the same on both of
those applications. It doesn't appear to me that they have the clue either time.
So I don't know why we should relax any fees for them.
Bentley: I don't see any reason for any freebies.
Berg: Shari, just a question are they going to come in with the same land area
for this application?
Stiles: They will probably come in with only the area west of the Ridenbaugh.
Berg: So it is quite a bit less than what their original plan was for annexation.
Stiles: It would be less, they still control land to the east so they would come in at
a future date.
Berg: But their initial application is quite a bit less than what they did before.
Rountree: Well they could write all they wanted, as far as I am concerned but I
don't think I could be convinced that we need to reduce their fees or eliminate
their fees for a new application. That is my position.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Bentley: They ought to be able to get done quicker.
Morrow: My only interest in seeing a presentation by them Charlie would be that
if they felt somewhere along the line that out staff had made a mistake (inaudible)
undue duress in terms of the fees.
Rountree: That is part of the due process.)
1N • • . GR%1[ 11m, .W,MM iZiVIINFiiNFIZiIT-�.Ti[ l
Rountree: I have no problem with them presenting that to us but my position is
(inaudible)
Corrie: Okay, have them come make their case.
Stiles: Okay, the final issue the Meridian Senior center, I got one bid for the fire
alarm and sprinkler project. It was for $60,4073.15 which was about $10,000
over budget. We have met with the seniors and with the Granel and they have
agreed to cut some costs. I would like the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign
a contract that would be for $55,8073.15. The seniors have agreed to come up
with the difference. (Inaudible) $52,000. There is a possibility that number could
be reduced by $2250 but I am still waiting for clarification from the State Fire
Marshall and our Building Inspector on two items.
Rountree: What was our estimate and why the difference?
Stiles: Our estimate was based on some bids we got, that the seniors got prior to
applying for the application two years. They came in anywhere from $35,000 to
$45,000 so we thought we had a little cushion in there. Maybe if we had some
competition or more competition it might have been less. The (Inaudible) just
drive them up, they said it was virtually twice what it would cost them otherwise
just because of those wage rates.
Morrow: Shari, let me ask you this, how was the bid process done? How was
the solicitation of bids done?
Stiles: I faxed the advertisement for bids to five different companies, it appeared
in Intermountain Contractor Associated General Contractor was advertised in the
local paper here.
Morrow: And you got one bid?
Stiles: One bid
Rountree: I need some clarification why Davis Bacon, where is the federal
involvement in this thing?
Stiles: It is a community development block grant.
Rountree: It is the block grant, it is based on the block grant. (Inaudible) we
cosponsor?
Stiles: Yes, we got an award of $52,000, the seniors have already spent a
considerable amount of money they thought they were going to get their little
storage shed built for $1500 to $2000 and it ended up to be about $15,000 to
$16,000 and that wasn't Davis Bacon.
Morrow: The point is that any time you take a grant it has so many strings with it
by the time you are all said and done there is not a grant around worth taking.
Rountree: So what you are saying is the seniors they do have the resources to
make the difference between the grant and the bid?
Stiles: Yes, and they have committed to that, we have met with their board and
they have committed up to $10,000.
Morrow: (Inaudible)
Stiles: That the seniors are covering.
Morrow: (Inaudible) so it is (inaudible)
Stiles: And they will actually be covering more than that because there is another
$2000 access door and ramp that they are going to cover themselves.
Berg: So there is no money out of our pocket?
Stiles: Just my time. (Inaudible)
Stiles: I have so much time into it now that it is downhill from here.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Rountree: Is there any hope that if it were rebid that we would get a lower bid,
does it matter that its the time of year that everybody is busy.
Stiles: I think it is partly the time of year, I don't know that it would be
substantially different. The seniors have been very patient with me so far and
just want to get it over with.
Rountree: What are the limits of the block grant, does it have a time line
attached to it?
Stiles: It does and I have already revised that once to reflect this.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: There were no drawings, the seniors had an architect on line that was
going to donate his services and two days before the application was submitted
dropped out and that is part of the reason it has taken so long is I had to come up
with all of the contract documents and bid documents myself.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: There are no drawings, those are all going to be shop drawings that are
prepared by the successful bidder.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: We had a pre-bid conference where they came in and inspected and
measured and looked at what they were getting into so they could visit the crawl
spaces.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: Uniform fire code
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: The system will have to meet the Uniform Fire Code.
Morrow: (Inaudible)
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: If we did it we would have to reopen the bid and start over.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: They do have to install a dry system all up in the upper area.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: I don't know what is up there. i
Morrow: (Inaudible) Stiles: It also includes their alarm system which they had
to subcontract to someone else. It is going to take connecting to the existing
water, ten inch water main I think that is in Broadway while cutting and patching. I
didn't want, I made the bid real general because I did not want somebody coming
in and lowballing it and then adding on for change orders because we just
couldn't take that. So no exclusions were permitted as part of the bid and I think
that is another reason why it was so high.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Stiles: Is he a public works contractor? (Inaudible)
Rountree: I am uncomfortable with some of the aspects of this, what are we
going to gain by waiting, the resources are there and the grant is there to pay for
it.
Morrow: I guess from my perspective is that I am disappointed in the industry that
(inaudible) really aggressive and competitive. Historically on (inaudible) for
whatever reasons (Inaudible). Given the Davis Bacon issue (inaudible) I guess
this is one of those things (inaudible) although I am uncomfortable (inaudible)
Berg: (Inaudible)
Stiles: It has to be a legitimate bidder.
Morrow: She did everything right she did everything the way she is supposed to
do it there is just nothing we can do about it. It is either we accept it the way it is
done or we ask for a total rebid. That is the only way you can do these kinds of
things with governmental bidding stuff.
Rountree: Well just to get this off dead center I will make a motion that we
accept the bid and direct Shari to proceed on with it.
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we go ahead
and have Shari consummate the program, any further discussion?
Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, Mr. Rountree does your motion include the
authorizing the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest?
Rountree: Yes
Morrow: I will recognize that as my second then.
Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Bruce?
Freckleton: Nothing
Corrie: Chief?
Gordon: (Inaudible)
Berg: He is taking it pretty slow though because they were telling me that healing
process takes about 2000 calories for this type of would to heal up so he is
always eating and always tired because he can't keep his body generated in the
usage in the calories but he is doing fine, he is the same Terry.
Corrie: Counselor
Crookston: Yes I have, I need to talk to the Council probably in an executive
session it would be preferable to me to do it as soon as possible about the hiring
of some people and office space.
Morrow: Would you rather do it now?
Crookston: No, I would rather do it tomorrow or the next day.
Morrow: (Inaudible)
Berg: (Inaudible)
Morrow: We could do it at our strategic planning meeting and have the executive
session at (inaudible)
Crookston: That is fine
Rountree: Let's do that
Crookston: Next Tuesday would be better, I just found this out this afternoon. I
haven't
Corrie: I will have some information for you too that (inaudible) Anything else?
Crookston: No
Corrie: Mr. Morrow,
Morrow: Really nothing, the agenda for the strategic planning meeting will be the
same as the one in October that got cancelled. With the exception of the Idaho
Power guy
Corrie: And I won't be here
Morrow: That is right, but we will cover that same list of stuff, the Idaho Power
fellow won't be here and Bob won't be here.
Corrie: I have a meeting with him in the morning and I will give you an update
on what he has.
Morrow: That is all Mr. Mayor.
Bentley: I have a whole list of things. I had spoken to a couple of you
concerning procedures on some of these problems we are having with
conditional use and development agreements with people violating them. I
talked to some of the City Council from Boise and talked to their code
enforcement officer and he sent me some information. He sent me a procedure
that he said they use over there that works rather well. They notify the people
when they have made, a code officer does when there has been a violation.
They give them 10 days to correct it, if they don't correct it then they take and
start a revocation hearing on their permits. Then after they have revoked their
permits then they turn around and turn it over to the attorney to file in court and
they said it gives you an extra step in showing the courts that people have failed
to comply and then secondly their permits have been pulled and they are running
without permits. They said they had pretty good luck with keeping with getting
things settled before they reach the hearing stage. So that might be something
you want to consider.
Morrow: Well I think Glenn that is really the track that we are on with, that is the
point of getting the zoning compliance officer was to do that very thing. The
issue was is to, the next step in our process is to get to the point (inaudible) we
don't have that (inaudible) and have had that, it is not true, they had (inaudible)
but they empowered them to citation
(inaudible).
Bentley: Doesn't ours have the power to cite?
Corrie: (Inaudible)
Morrow: I don't know that we have addressed that by, we have to address that by
ordinance what he can and cannot site. Obviously he can site (inaudible) a
couple of other things he can site (inaudible) the answer is now we can't write a
citation for a conditional use violation because we haven't by ordinance given
that position that power. So we need to do some stuff to get there, but that is
(Inaudible)
Bentley: Secondly we got the approval of US West on the tower so we are
proceeding with working on that for the repeater for dispatch. We are 200 feet
up, AT&T excuse me. That is all I have.
Corrie: Charlie?
Rountree: I had a session Saturday with citizens, Planning and Zoning, Mr.
Borup, myself, Mayor and girl scouts and Dee Hanson on the pocket park. You
have a revised concept that was passed out this evening. Keith and I went over
and marked out the pocket park area, drove some fence posts. There is some
asphalt that we didn't know was there. We put a police line tape so people could
understand how big it was. We got some guidance to the girl scout groups who
are going to do some leg work on donations and historical interpretation and
those kinds of things. So we are kind of going on that.
Morrow: My question, did Gary get the survey and that so we know where the
exact pins are?
Rountree: It is surveyed, the pins are in.
Morrow: Good deal
Rountree: I don't think I will ever again jump at somebody's offer for something
that sounds like a good deal. I have been working on this St. Luke's area for
gosh 8 months. We have received a draft copy of a lease from St. Luke's and
mentioned that previously that it had language in it that wasn't satisfactory in
terms of some of the language in the lease tended to favor CYSA the soccer
group. It kind of gave them some opportunity to tell us how we were going to
have them be part of the activities out there. I have discussed that with Wayne, I
discussed it with the CYSA people. They have submitted to me another proposal
the CYSA group and it is even more along the lines that they want to have a fair
amount of control to including such language in there suggested a proposal that
only St. Luke's may remove one of these parties rights to use the facilities and
that is in reference to CYSA or the City of Meridian. I don't find the language in
either one of these acceptable. I have been holding off making contact with
CYSA until I got some general guidance from this group some shaking of heads
that is appropriate. What I want to do is sit down with Wayne, take the
reasonable language that is in both of these, craft another lease, submit it to St.
Luke's and say this is our bottom line. We are willing to negotiate with these
youth groups to use the facility. But we are not willing to have them in our lease.
Morrow: I have to tell you that when we are using tax payer bucks there is no
preferential treatment of any group for any reason. (Inaudible) lease from St.
Lukes (inaudible) in my opinion the lease is between the City of Meridian and St.
Luke's and it does not specify any user groups having any kind of preferential
treatment in any way shape or form. Be that Capital Youth Soccer, PAL or
anybody else (inaudible).
Rountree: Anybody else? I will convey that message again and continuously to
them. Hopefully Wayne and I can get something worked out and back to them
that is agreeable. If it is not CYSA may be the proud owners of a $10,000
maintenance bill, I don't think they want to be in that position but they won't to
seem to want to give up much either.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
(Inaudible)
Tolsma: Well that was the problem we had when we went and they wanted to
build all those facilities down there and control was we had the Federal Park
Administration that issued the grant for it. We had to conform to an open park
and the way we did that is (inaudible) and I think BSU was even using down
there part time. We showed we could utilize the field with these three taxpayer
entities. That way we got their approval to let American legion to construct the
facility. (Inaudible)
Rountree: Anyway that is all I had, I will continue on with this and hopefully we
can get it resolved. Wayne I need to get some time with you to do this. That is
all I have.
Corrie: I have two things, one as you know Mayor Brent Coles is leaving
Thursday for Germany and there are two of them that are going and I am
wondering (inaudible) Overwhelming votes at the people I ask about the people
with the meeting with the Planning and Zoning and the City Council for the
meeting and everybody wants it December 18 for the City Council and Planning
and Zoning members (inaudible) A majority of the people wanted it the 18th. I
don't have anything else (inaudible) I will entertain a motion for adjournment.
Bentley: So moved
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:33 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)