HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 01-21MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 21
1997
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert
D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.:
MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Charlie Rountree, Glenn Bentley:
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Tolsma:
OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Bill
Gordon, Jim Johnson, Billy Ray Strite, Carla Osborne, Pat Maloney, Ann Bowen, David
Swenson, Glenn & Tresha Griffiths, Dick Williams, Chuck Horel, Kathy Todd, Sheron
Christensen, Lonnie Bostrom, Gary Wier, John Jackson, Howard Foley, Dean Kidd,
Mark Bowen, Phil Barber, Steve Bradbury, Richard Mollerup, Wally Lovan, Mike
Bultner:
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JANUARY 3,1997:
Corrie: Are there any corrections or alterations to those minutes as printed? I will
entertain a motion to accept the minutes of January 3.
Rountree: So moved
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we accept the minutes of January 3, 1997 as
written, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 7,1997:
Corrie: Any corrections or alterations of those minutes? Hearing none I will entertain a
motion for their approval.
Bentley: So moved
Rountree: Second
Rountree: Motion made and seconded we approve the minutes of the Council held on
January 7, 1997, all those in favor? Opposed?
f�1019to] L[GY-11VVII: I OW -Al I\'[.1
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 2
ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17,1996: REQUEST
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C -G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite a member from the eagle
partners to start.
Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Billy Ray Strite again, I am here again
tonight as in the past representing Eagle Partners. I am here with the applicant in
support of this application. In my first and actually my last visit here unfortunately I
missed the proceedings of the 7t". Councilman Morrow responsibly requested deferral
of this item until such time as Ada County Highway District could in fact determine their
preference for alignment for what they referred to as the new road. The plan before you
tonight which is on my left, delineates the Highway District's road of choice. This
particular road alignment was approved on April 8, further, excuse me January 8,
further on January 15, Ada County Highway District submitted for and received access
approval from ITD for this access at the location shown on this document. The site as
you know fronts Eagle Road. It is situated in what Ada County Highway District in their
Commission meeting stated may well be the most important intersection in the State of
Idaho. It is at the intersection of the east west main link of the State of Idaho at 1-84 and
the north and south link, the main north and south link in the State of Idaho and
Highway 55. This site is adjacent to what roadways eventually will handle up to and
maybe greater than 40,000 cars a day. The reason we are here tonight is because the
visionaries who wrote your comp plan recognize this. Although they did not mention
Eagle Road in such in their policies and goals because of the fact in our opinion this
was part of the area of impact they did in fact under transportation goals, transportation
maps and most importantly in our opinion in their comprehensive designation of plan
mapping showed this particular area and specifically this site as a commercial site. I
think that it is well documented, Mr. Jackson has a site here, I think that from the
standpoint of the comprehensive plan it was always the intent that the intersection of
Interchanges along the 1-84 corridor would be considered for more intense uses.
Obviously if you were going to provide 40,000 cars a day going up and down Eagle
Road and going east and west on 1-84 the land uses are going to be subject to change.
That is why we are here before you tonight. We are confident that this particular plan
does in fact meet the intent of your comp plan as established in 1993. Knowing that
prior to that time the interchange was in fact constructed and although again this was in
the area of impact and not within the City they recognized the importance of this area in
the overall mapping. I think you will also find that in the designated map for land use all
the community and commercial nodal points are very consistent. Some of those now
are within the City have been developed, some of those are in the area of impact are
about to be developed. We believe this site to be one of those. We think further that
having dealt with Ada County Highway District numerous times, as a matter of fact I
was told tonight that they believe that tonight might be 16t" meeting that this particular
application has gone through. So, I apologize to the neighborhood and I apologize to
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 3
you folks. It is part of the process. The last Ada County Highway District Board meeting
as I has stated delineated this particular roadway as you see it today. This roadway did
in effect and perhaps it might be better stated in the conditional use, but I am going to
give you a briefing as to why we believe not only is the site adequate and probably
acceptable it does allow for and has allowed for all along the 30 foot of buffer that goes
from the east boundary of our parcel to the west boundary along the northern edge.
This is the south boundary if you will of the adjacent neighborhood. Further that road
configuration with its 125 foot interior radius has actually pushed our buildings if you will
to the extent where we now have 108 foot of setback from the northerly boundary for
the hotel, eliminating the car wash that you saw before you in the last go around and
that in effect is basically the only change that was made to the plan that was presented
to you the last time we were here. I think from the standpoint of the comprehensive plan
it is our contention that this in fact does meet the intent. We believe the site is of
adequate size, we believe that this site has the infrastructure to support the uses that
are proposed here. We are also convinced that we can keep the integrity of the
neighborhood by virtue of the open space in the land area provided in terms of
buffering. Now, if you will recall in the last time that we were together, one of the
comments made was the fact that our findings of fact specifically pages 27 and 28 were
left blank. I am sure that you have before you the Commissions minutes to that
particular session. But for clarity and hopefully continuance or lack of continuance of
another hearing perhaps it would be appropriate at this point to go ahead and
specifically discuss those items and see if we cannot wrap this up here this evening.
Again I refer you to the findings of fact, page 27, the first blank being item 17 C, we
would ask your concurrence in the following. The owner of the motel/hotel as
alternative to constructing the motel/hotel first could construct, blank, a) the proposed
30 foot landscape berm along the north property line as approved by staff along with
the first construction that takes place. Said berm prior to the issuance of an occupancy
permit shall be completed as well as the west boundary landscape strip of ten to 20 feet
as delineated on the plan. Item 17 D, the motel/hotel shall have no windows or doors
and I would strike second floor and add to floor and S so it would read doors or
windows on the floors which face the north which is consistent with our original
proposal. Item 17 E, We would ask and I think you will find this consistent with the
minutes of the proceeding Planning and Zoning Commission that the entrance to the
hotel be struck out or east end replaced with or east end. As you will see there our plan
has always delineated on the east end. We believe it to be the most appropriate
location (inaudible) the fact that it is parallel and directly accessible to Eagle Road. It
makes site planning a little less intrusive we hope to the neighbors because all of the
traffic would be going primarily east and west. Item 17 F, we would ask and I think this
is consistent again with the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the
motel be no more than three stories. Item 17 H, we would ask that you strike south and
insert west. We believe that the proposed as shown and has been shown all along
allows the least amount of intrusion into the adjoining neighborhoods. Again and this
will be probably handled better in the conditional use proceedings the speaker to this
particular facility is on the north side. It is buffered in our opinion by the motel itself. It
provides adequate stacking lanes that then approach the west and turn directly south.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 4
We believe it allows us the ability to then buffer to the west which ultimately as you can
see by the document to your right will be a roadway anyway. So w are providing
landscaping and could in fact if required provide a temporary fence. I would like to
suggest that we keep temporary in there until such time as the roadway is developed by
the adjacent parcel owner such that obviously we do not want a 6 foot high or whatever
height this Council determines directly adjacent to the ensuing street. Item 17 J, we
would ask that we strike the 18 foot sign height limit and insert it as approved by staff.
Item 17 L, I would think that it would be more appropriate since McDonald's and
Chevron are all in one and quite frankly are not necessarily delineated from within that
item 3 be deleted and item 2 we add and McDonald's because it is all in one sentence.
Item 17 O, we would like that written, and I think again, this appears to be consistent
with the notes that I took during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that the
setbacks will be as submitted by the applicant. One thing that I would suggest to you
tonight is that perhaps in addition to that and received by staff on January 17th. The
reason for that change is the fact that at the time the Planning and Zoning Commission
acted on this they had not in fact been privy to the final road delineation. Our road
configuration at that particular point in time had a 60 foot right of way tapering back to
50 feet along the east west corridor if you will. Today that is a 60 foot right of way from
east to west with 125 centerline radius so that the setback by merely moving the
building to the south if you will increases to 108 feet. I know you are going to hear a lot
of comments tonight. I just wanted to briefly bring us back up to date as what has been
happening in the past and why we believe that this particular application does in fact
meet the intent of the ordinance. We would ask that you approve not only those items
delineated in section of findings of fact page 27 and 28 but approve the annexation and
rezone as submitted. Thank you. I will entertain questions.
Corrie: Members of the Council do you have any questions? I would invite any other
member of the public that would like to testify at this time to step forward.
Ann Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bowen: When the Greenhill Neighborhood was planned and built Eagle Road was a
two lane highway and there was no access to the freeway at all. 20 years when this
neighborhood was being built no one could have imagined what you are talking about
now turning this into the busiest intersection of all of Idaho. We bought our home about
3 years ago and at that point in time there was an exit and entrance off onto Eagle
Road from the freeway. I remember our neighbors were fighting hard to try and get
somebody to give us a street light at the corner of both Autumn Way and Springwood
so that emergency vehicles, 911 kind of things, could even see our neighborhood to get
in. Greenhills is a nice neighborhood, there are big homes, they are on half acre and
acre lots. When we moved in we were told that all of the land behind us and I wish we
had a better view of that, but our homes are all here located right here and all of these
areas behind us, this is a 5 acre parcel, there is a 5 acre parcel here and each of these
have homes on them that go all the way down. Also the people that live there are in
homes with 5 acre lots and most of them own horses and things and it was agricultural
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 5
but it was changed to transitional use. The approval of a 24 hour a day operation like
this next to a neighborhood is not a transitional development. A three story hotel looking
down into my bedroom windows is not a transitional development. These three stories,
if you are standing up here on a three story motel not only could you see into the
windows, they are saying there are no windows to the north, well directly to the north
there are two houses, the Williams and the Truax's. They will be able to see out the
front of the building right into the Christianson's back yard and everybody down from my
home to Howard Foley's , Carla Osborne lives at the very end of our neighborhood.
They will be able to stand here and look into her front porch because they will be up so
high. So saying that there are no windows to the north isn't helpful to more than two
homes of the entire neighborhood. There are only two homes that will affect. The rest of
us will still have our privacy infringed upon. A 24 hour noisy McDonald's is not my idea
of transitional. A 24 hour gas station with traffic coming and going all hours of the night
is not my idea of a transitional development. Double fronting our lots which has just
happened with this new road is not a transitional development. Semi -trucks driving
through all hours of the night is not transitional. I would like for you all to note how
courteous it was of them to put the trash right here adjacent to the Truax's backyard,
they are not paying any attention to the neighbors at all or they wouldn't have a big
trash pick up right in their back yard. That is not my idea of transitional. Radios blasting
and doors opening and closing all hours of the night is not a transitional area for any
kind of neighborhood. Listening to loud speakers saying I will have a big mac and fries
at 2 a.m. isn't either. And yes we will be able to hear it, we can hear the Texaco now
and it is here and we are here. We can here all the things going on at the Texaco. So
for that to assume that we are not going to be able to hear the orders at McDonald's
they are absolutely wrong. And you all welcome to come to my house if you don't
believe me. My understanding about the road that ACHD is proposing is to provide an
access onto Eagle Road for the developments that they want to put in here. I was told
that they will probably make it so if you turn in onto Magic View right here people will not
be able to come out to Magic View and make a left hand turn. That will probably be
eliminated, so all major semi's and any kind of vehicles that goes in on Magic View will
have to come down this road right here facing their headlights towards all of our 2 story
bedroom windows to all of the homes that are here before they turn to exit out here. It is
not being very courteous to a neighborhood or even making it possible for us to have
any kind of peace and quiet. Since the Boise Towne Square Mall went in there has
been just a horrible mess of traffic down there. Part of that problem is because the mall
abutted up against the freeway and you can't exit four ways out of the mall. You can
only exit three different directions. I see the same problem happening here. We are
putting a big huge development up against a freeway. If you development all of this
land like they are saying they are going to, then eventually this road isn't going to hold
the traffic. Since it is the only way to get onto Eagle Road you are going to have to go
somewhere else with another road. So they are going to want to punch through into our
neighborhood and then everyone will exit through our neighborhood to get to Franklin
or they will punch through to Locust Grove making it so there are two accesses to get
into this area. That is a real concern to all of us. If no planning is done for future growth
then we are going to have a very congested area with this new proposed road. My fear
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 6
with that is I would like all of you to pay attention that we are not just making a decision
here about one five acre parcel there is a whole bunch of other property here that we
need to take into consideration. We need to look down the road at what is going to work
out best so that we are not back here with these same problems at the very next piece
of land that is developed. We want to be able to alleviate traffic and make it so that it
will work for everybody. What I see with this is that it will bring all of the traffic closer to
our neighborhood not farther away. It will make more noise and make it more difficult.
As to the motel, looking at this picture of a 3 story motel, just to put it in perspective,
there are three houses from here to here. This motel looks to me like it is the size of
three houses. Now how nice of a motel can this be if it is that small and it is crammed
into an area this small. Is it going to be like a Motel 6 and is that what we really want off
of one of our exits crammed in next to a McDonald's and a Chevron. I have a hard time
believing it can be a very nice motel that small. Eagle Partners, I already talked about
the problem with the windows facing to the north. A three story building is really
imposing on any kind of a neighborhood, it is just, two stories would be enough, but 3
stories is imposing to not just the homes that abut up against it, but to the houses 2 and
3 blocks over. Everyone will be able to, the motel will be able to see into those people's
yards. As to the Chevron, I asked each of last meeting if you would please drive by the
new Chevron on Fairview over by the Fred Meyers, just to get an idea of how bright
those lights are. I bet you were all surprised at how obnoxiously bright they were. It is
not the lights from the signs that are so bad, but it is the lights at the pump. The canopy
lights that shine down. They don't shine down so that people can see for their gas, they
shine out. That is a really offensive thing and I worry that if Chevron goes in those lights
are going to be facing every direction and just light up the whole place like it is day.
The safety issue is another thing I would like to bring up again. My children will no
longer be safe in their back yard. 30 feet is nothing, a 3 year can get across a 30 foot
berm with a four foot wall. There will be no safety at all. This development will
absolutely destroy the quality of life for those of us who live on Autumn Way. Without
question it will drop property values not just for those adjacent to this development but
for people in the whole neighborhood because that is how real estate works. I would
hope that the City of Meridian would consider the concerns of the homeowners when
they are looking at growth and development. Especially when it is a commercial
development wanting to come in on a residential area. These are serious quality of life
issues that we face when commercial development comes in like this. I would like to
ask the City of Meridian if they would please try to appreciate some of the concerns of
the homeowners. Because this is really going to affect our lives. This development
appears poorly planned to me, it is rushed, it is cramped, it is congested, and it is
obvious by the map that is the case. I don't believe it is compatible with what we would
define as transitional, nor do I think it is fair to put commercial properties right up next to
a home. I sense the dollar is weighing out against the quality of life here. Do we want
the rich corporations like McDonald's and Chevron to get richer while the rest of us lose
out so that they can continue to build their empires. I feel like a peon here compared to
the wealthy lawyers of Chevron and McDonald's that came last time. I don't have a
law degree, I don't have a degree in politics, I just know that I feel that this is wrong, this
is the wrong thing to do. For the neighbors, it is the wrong thing to do for the
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 7
neighborhood, there are other uses for this land that can be benefit both parties. I am
not a multi-million dollar company, but I deserve to feel safe in my own neighborhood.
deserve to be able to have a good night sleep at night in some place that is peaceful
and quiet. At some point we need to make a decision that the quality of life is more
important than money. Somebody must be sure that the growth is managed and
channeled so that we can assure quality of life throughout the process. Meridian has a
lot of growth to still come. You guys are just getting started, we are one of the fastest
growing states in America. We need to decide now if we are just going to let any big
huge corporation take over and do what they want or if we are going to try and protect
neighborhoods, plan down the road and make good decisions for everybody involved.
Please realize that you have the power to make the quality of life better for people if you
will plan this growth carefully. Please deny this proposal.
Corrie: Thank you Ann, does the Council have any questions of Ann? Anyone else
from the public that would like to issue testimony at this point?
Sheron Christensen, Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Christensen: I can't add much to what my neighbor Ann Bowen has said. I agree with
everything she said it affects me the same way it affects her. I don't know when our
subdivision was built, my house had two owners before I bought it eleven years ago this
week. When I bought my home Eagle Road was a two lane road, no off ramp from the
freeway. I bought that home in what I thought was one of the best subdivisions in
Meridian area. I felt that it was a neat little agricultural type town that has Dairy Days
still that caters to our type of living our type of birth. Currently, I am bordered on the
north by Autumn Way, Eagle Road since its expansion and since the light when in there
I can sit in my garden or weed in my garden and less than 100 feet away looking into
the eyes of people who are stopped at the red light. I think with a little study I could tell
whether they shaved this morning or not it is that close to my home. If this road goes in
on the south side then I will be bordered on three sides of my home by public roads.
The thing that concerns me most of all is security as well which has been mentioned to
the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Eagle Partners representative testified when
we suggested the possibility that there ought to be some other development there that
would be a daylight development instead of a 24 hour development. It was stated 6
times in his testimony that studies showed that their development would only have 65%
of the traffic that an office complex would have. That surprises me that a McDonald's
and a Chevron could get along with their investment with only 65% of the traffic that
would be expected to come to the doctors office or whoever might be located there.
When the road was first proposed I called the Highway Department and visited with
them a bit. I was told that usually when something like that happened and zoning
changed property values went up. I told him I was the first house and he said well it is
obvious that your property will go down instead of up. When I suggested how he would
feel if he was bordered on three sides by roads and a development like this next to his
place he said I would feel exactly the same way you do. I would fight it just like you do.
Now the concerns I have mostly is that every car that comes off Magic View and turns
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 8
into the gas pumps at that service station when it is built will shine in my house. Every
boom box that some teenager has at 12 o'clock when he comes to buy gas or a
McDonald hamburger will wake me up from where as close as I sleep there. Every
door that is slammed will be heard at my house besides the lights that will be shining in
my back yard. As has been said in other meetings I not only live I my house I live a bit
in the back yard once in awhile too. It is kind of nice to have a little bit of privacy there.
Any spills that are made be accidental or whatever will pollute the water that I drink
everyday. I agree with Ann, I would suggest that you deny this proposal. Thank you.
Corrie: Any questions from Council? Thank you very much, anyone else?
John Jackson, 3500 Commercial Court, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Jackson: First of all I would like to say that I am not here to oppose the use or new
competition I am here to oppose the road. We have had several stations built next to
our units before, there are several in the process now. I have never contested a new
competitor that is their right and I don't believe in that, I don't like it when it would
happen to me. I wouldn't be here tonight on this use except for the road. I want to
touch on the reason this road is so damaging to me and the reason I am so caught off
guard by it. During the course when we permitted our site Ada County Highway District
made written comments to our proposal, nothing was ever mentioned about this
proposed whatever you want to call it a J road with a J collector or whatever. There
was nothing ever mentioned. They are given the power to create new roads but they
are suppose to select and plan these rights of ways and they are required to comply
with the local planning act. This new arterial is not reflected on any map or any plan. It
is not on the Meridian comprehensive plan, it is no on their Destination 2015 plan, it is
not on the Destination 2010 plan. The Ada County long range highway and street map
or the transportation improvement program, it has never been contemplated until this
development was proposed. Six months after we opened our business this road was
proposed and nothing was ever said to me at all. We made a sizable investment in
good faith and six months later we find out we are going to be severely threatened tot
he extent as I will get into later that I think may make us non -economic. We are talking
a considerable traffic here. Our type of business is most high intense traffic generators
of all. We generate 5400 trips a day the applicant's estimate by ACHD is 5500 trips a
day, that is over 11,000 cars somewhere in that area right here. You have to be
convenient, if you are not convenient you are out of business. It is just a fact of life in
our business. If I could put up a map, if I didn't already misplace it. It is not a real
(inaudible) this is the Eagle Interchange this would be Eagle road, this is Franklin Road.
This is Magic View now, this is Autumn Way (Inaudible) another driveway here into that
subdivision (inaudible). This is the proposed new curbed road. Initially from ACHD
numbers will exceed 10,000 to 11,000 cars a day right off the bat with both of these
developments. There will be a proportion between the two but with this begin the
signalized route this would be where the majority of the traffic will go. Particularly when
you consider the fact that there are in their minutes, ACHD has said this will become a
no left turn road at Magic View. They also said at this meeting that the traffic could
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 9
easily access my site which is right here (inaudible). They are saying that cars can
come up and go to the light, go around this road, come back and go into my station just
as easily as they could go into this new (inaudible) or they could even go up do a U
turn, how many people are going to want to do a U turn on this road and come back
and enter my business. You can see, if this is going to be the major intersection where
the light is, this is where most of the traffic is going to go. As on this site you can see
they have got two drives allowed here, two down here. Customers are going to go up
here, they are not going to drive around them to come into me, they are going to drive
straight into them and come straight out. They have got positive access north and
south with two curb cuts on Eagle Road as well as their orientation for north and south
which is what they are directing traffic to do. So it is a far superior arrangement then
what I have. It will kill us, we will not be convenient any more. We will be history. We
have only been open barely a year now and we will be wiped out. I am not
exaggerating, I truly believe this because this is a convenience business and if you are
not convenient people fuel up and they go. They are not going to mess around with
that, they don't do it. Even in some of the minutes of the, well actually it was the
findings of fact and conclusions of law from the Meridian Planning and Zoning they say
customers undoubtedly will drive from my business here and go through these fueling
lands to get to this road because it is more convenient then driving around here. They
are going to drive through this, this could be potentially a high traffic place itself. These
could be roads, 10,000 people from here go through here, is this road even going to be
used or are they going to go this way. You have pedestrians, you have parking backing
out, it is crazy, I can't believe it. This road, ACHD projects as much as 20,000 cars a
day, that is nearly what Eagle Road is now. We are talking huge volume here, huge
volume and no planning. This kind of a tight radius with garbage trucks backing out into
20,000 cars a day on curve, what are we going to do down here. Are we going to have
a street light here or are we going to have stop signs. This whole thing is coming
together in such a hodge podge it is just. You can usually in a good design you can look
at things and see that it makes sense. You can see that this doesn't make sense.
ACHD was required, I was shocked to hear tonight to hear that this access has been
approved because ACHD was required by ITD to submit a traffic study which one had
never been done and I checked as of today and I was told that none had ever been
submitted. Further the ITD Board has to approve this access not staff and they are
meeting tomorrow and they haven't had a meeting since ACHD's meeting. So I don't
know how that is even possible. We were working very close with them on this and we
were supposed to be getting copies of everything, we had communication all the time
and I had no idea this road had been approved. Where is the study, these studies take
time. It is this sort of attitude where they are just trying to cram this road down our
throat in a very expeditious manner without any planning, without anybody having a
chance to review it is ridiculous. They are shaping the City of Meridian or forcing this
road down our throat and look at it. In the overall scheme of things I ask you does this
really make sense, should we make a quick decision on this like this on a 20,000 car
road count that before this development was proposed was not ever in any sort of plan,
no matter how far out you go. It was never ever there. How can I build a business and
operate and have this sort of threat, I can never it do it again. I don't understand it. I just
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 10
feel that this road is getting crammed down our throat and I would ask the City of
Meridian not to allow this to happen. It just doesn't make sense, it is going way too fast,
the study, planning all of things that are supposed to be required. I would like to read a
letter to you that I have. This is from the Idaho Transportation Board to the developer. It
states the Idaho Transportation Department has some concerns about this application
since Eagle Road is a controlled access facility. Not all requests for access are
approved. Approval of the access for the new street right of way is a Highway Board
decision. The request for access should be made as soon as possible to establish
whether or not access will be approved or the site will need access from Magic View
Drive only. This application will need to include a transportation impact study. Where is
it. I guess one last point I will make. Eagle Road being a controlled access facility,
there is a reason for that. It expedites the flow of traffic, and Eagle Road is a major road
and it is going to have a lot of traffic. If you look here we have, let me get by bearings
straight. We have currently one, two, three, four, five, six accesses off of Eagle Road
between Franklin and the Interchange. That is a lot of cross traffic. With one more that
would be seven, that is a huge amount of cross traffic. On the south side to Overland
Road there is zero access, it is a controlled access. They are not supposed to give
accesses out like everybody deserves one or needs one because of the interference it
creates to the north and south traffic. On the south side as I said there are zero and
now they are proposing to put another one seven is that good design, it that proper
planning? The neighborhoods and all the development here will come down to
Overland Road and access back. There isn't any of this cross traffic and yet we have
seven proposed now. I just ask that you deny this because of what it is going to do to
my business, the lack of planning, the way this thing is being forced down our throat
without any studies, any report. It is just unbelievable to me. Our business would
probably fail, I can't see how we can compete with the new business getting this sort of
an advantage over and existing business. I just don't think it would work for us.
Corrie: Thank you John, any questions?
Rountree: I have a question, just looking for an opinion, you have used the words that
this road, not necessarily this proposal but this road would wipe you out. Given your
knowledge of the industry wouldn't those same kinds of fears and same kinds of
disadvantages with this kind of traffic arrangement affect the service ability of the
Chevron the proposed Chevron site?
Jackson: No I don't feel so because they have access down here at the signal light.
They don't have to worry about left hand turns, they have it right there on their site, they
can turn in and come straight down their pumps are oriented that way. All of that traffic
is going to go north and south. It is an easy in and out, they can go in there and go out
here. Mine if you can't turn left you have to go down there drive by the competitor make
the loop come back on Magic View, get into our site and if you are going north bound
you have to retrack onto Magic View, turn left go down to the new collector follow it
around and get into the light. Both times you are going right past something more
convenient, why would you do that. We only have one access off of Magic View, we
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 11
have two accesses of Magic View but only one off of Eagle Road and that could be a
left turn only. We are severely handicapped.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor I only have one question, Mr. Jackson, you made comments
about this road. I assume that you were referring to Magic View rather than Eagle
Road.
Jackson: Which time? I have been talking about them all. I am not sure which point in
time, are you talking about now?
Crookston: No, this was when you first started out.
Jackson: Well when I am talking about this road and if I had a spiteful tone I would
undoubtedly be talking about this new J hooked collector.
Crookston: By what name?
Jackson: What is its name?
Crookston: I believe it is Magic View.
Jackson: No,
Rountree: It would be St. Luke's extended.
Corrie: I think Counselor when he was talking and making those comments he was
pointing to the J road that is on the west side and turns and goes next to Magic View or
Autumn.
Crookston: Is that correct?
Jackson: Yes sir
Crookston: Thank you
Jackson: 20,000 cars a day with that tight of turn that quick, it is unbelievable.
Corrie: Any other questions?
Morrow: I have a question, could you refresh, where is the 20,000 car count from,
ACHD has indicated that this site is 5500 per day in terms of their proposal and our
(inaudible) how do you get to the 20,000?
Jackson: That is what ACHD's staff report says as far as building of this area will be
20,000 cars. Currently with this new development there will be in their estimates over
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 12
11,000 cars initially in this area and what routes they are going to take I would say most
of them are going to take the light because it is easier to get in and out, particularly if
there are no left turns. But when there rest of the area develops their number of
estimates is 20,000 cars per day. And it is in their staff report.
Morrow: The only reference that I find in their staff report is the count on Eagle Road
which is 24,200 and I don't know.
Corrie: I think Mr. Morrow if I might on page 4, it says depending upon the final
allocation of land uses total trip generation at the Magic View intersection could reach
20,000 at full build out, it is right in the third paragraph. (End of Tape)
Jackson: (Inaudible) right off the bat and as it develops out they are saying it could go
to 20,000. That is nearly what Eagle Road is, we are talking a significant thing here.
This is a huge impact to throw in and force it. I am just amazed.
Carla Osborne, 373 Thornwood Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Osborne: I live in Greenhill Estates, I am the mother of four children ranging in ages
between four and twelve. My family and I choose to live in Greenhill because it has to
offer what we want. An acre of land in a mature established, quality neighborhood. It is
a safe environment surrounded by good neighbors, perfect for raising a family. A
neighborhood where my children aren't at risk when they jump on their bikes and go to
visit their friends down the street. Just to give you an idea of what I see when I look at
out my window every morning. I look out and I can see beautiful fields where horses run
freely, pheasants and geese which nest year round. The Five Mile Creek which runs
along a tree lined bank and we even have a raccoon who visits us late at night when
everything is still. Out my front window morning noon and night friendly neighbors wave
as they walk, run or bike with family members, friends or safely by themselves. I would
like to ask you, does this sound like a fairy tale? Well it isn't, this is a quality
neighborhood that any of you Council members would enjoy living in. I would like to
ask you to ask yourselves this question. If this development and those that will certainly
follow were proposed to be built in your backyard would you vote for it? If your answer
is no, we would expect the same consideration for our neighborhood. The Greenhill
association has thoroughly documented why this development should not be approved.
As homeowners with growing families we can't compete with big business and
corporate lawyers. Our only protection is you, the City Council. We depend on your the
City Council for the security and the safety of our neighborhood, the privacy of our
neighborhood and the continued quality of the life that we now enjoy. Through your
vote you will cause a great impact on the lives our families and our children. For better
for worse.
Corrie: Thank you Carla, any questions from Council? Anyone else?
Richard Williams, 3133 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 13
Williams: Thank you Mr. Mayor, thank you Councilmen, this has been a long, involved
affair and I hope to keep it brief as much as I can. I thank the staff for all of the help that
they have been to us over the last eight months also. The thing that I would like to get
into, very few things but we feel very appropriate. Number one, regardless of what
people say, regardless of what anybody thinks about this, this is a very, very intense
use of land, very intense. We feel it is very inappropriate, it is a seven day a week, 24
hours a day fully lighted combination uses running across the entire parcel. Fast food
will be a substantial use, not a mere side line. The major gas and fuel islands are
oriented north and south so that they shine directly when cars pull in they will shine
directly into bedroom windows all night long. It has been said that Eagle Road may
gradually go commercial but not all commercial use is equal. The zoning ordinances
that you have and other entities, Ada County, Boise City and Eagle will all have an
effect on this. In this area, under the request, a hotel is permitted use but the
convenience store and the gas station are only is not. It may be if the Council believes
that it would make a positive contribution and be permitted in the zone. It does not have
a right to be there. A denial of the right to place this very intense combination of uses
does not deny the owner the legal right to develop the land. We would like to make that
very clear. The comp plan and zoning ordinances both require that a proposed use
whether it is part of the available uses in a rezone or specific use permitted be
harmonious with existing uses and especially that the use be harmonious with the
existing adjacent residential neighborhoods. This does not. A 30 foot buffer, in football
is a first down. The Meridian comp plan does not by a specific language at all include
the Eagle Road Interchange as one of the areas where Freeway interchange oriented
uses are appropriate. Until the plan is amended approvals of rezone and CUP's are
contrary to the plan. Especially contrary to all of the plan policies relating to preserving
and protecting residential neighborhoods providing fair transitional uses from hard
commercial uses to established residential uses. Since zoning must follow the plan this
heavy concentration of very active trip generating 24 hour a day, seven day a week use
we feel really must be rejected. In light of that, we would ask and propose the following.
We would ask that the City Council open the comprehensive plan for amendment to the
plan area that would be located and bordered by the Interstate, Locust Grove, Franklin
and a portion east of Eagle Road. At present there is no planning by any entity in Ada
County that addresses this area. This is a significant area for the City of Meridian. We
would like to do this for a number of reasons. First of all it will hopefully prevent these
lengthy hearings and time consuming issues for both us and for yourselves and for your
staff. There has been no planning really done in this area. Yet you have hundreds of
acres there that are going to be up for some type of development review over the next
decade I am sure. We find that this project conflicts both with existing policies that the
City has adopted. Again, there is nothing in any plans, City, County to date that shows
that this area is anything but residential. The area that we are talking about where this
five acres is a platted subdivision. It was a platted subdivision with I believe R-5 zoning
until 1993 when it was changed to RT. We still haven't figured out how that was
changed. But it was not RT at the onset. Eagle Hills Subdivision or the Greenhills
Estates Subdivision, Montvue Subdivision and Magic View Subdivision are all in excess
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 14
of 20 years old. At that point in time Eagle Road was two lanes, there was not
interchange, there was no planning done out there at all in terms of anything except
residential. We did find it interesting that this type of development has been proposed
at Eagle Road and Chinden on the southeast and southwest corners. Two years ago
Boise City turned down a C Store for Stinker on that corner on the southeast corner of
Eagle Road and Chinden because of the same concerns that we are voicing today.
There is a proposal currently before the Boise City for the same type of development on
the southwest corner of Eagle and Chinden which abuts a brand new subdivision. The
City of Eagle has recommended to Boise City that it be denied because it is not
harmonious with the existing neighborhoods. So please take that into consideration.
This proposal does not fit in where it is. Again, if you open the comp plan for
amendment I am sure that there would be a number of people within our area, both
Montvue, Greenhills Estates and Magic View that would like to work with the City to
develop help develop, not develop because we can't develop it, to help develop and
overall plan for that entire area. One that would work for everybody, one that would be
beneficial for the City, one that would be compatible with the neighborhood. So we
offer that to you in some hopes that we can move things forward but again do it under
the guise of good planning. It was mentioned that this proposed street is 20,000 cars a
day. The noise there would exceed any highway standards for those noise level of
residential. Eagle Road already exceeds the noise, the decibel levels that are under
Federal law now. There are a couple of things that I would like to point out on the map
that we would like, if you are going to consider this in a positive note for the developer.
Mr. Jackson was required to put in a 35 foot landscape strip along Eagle Road. This
development is only required to put in 15 feet or his proposal is 15 feet. St. Luke's is at
least 35 feet and in some cases significantly more. We would ask that if this is
approved that to be compatible all along Eagle Road that this also be a 35 foot
landscape strip as was recommended by your Planning and Zoning Commission and by
Shari by your Planner and the correspondence that they had. That would be one thing.
The other thing is we would ask that the pumps be turned east and west so that the
head lights don't shine into our bedroom windows at 3 a.m. in the morning. They were
originally east and west and for some reason ACHD would like it north and south. We
would ask that you take control of it not ACHD. This is a new design, it is significantly
different, we do also find that if they do the 35 foot strip they don't have enough parking
spaces as per the ordinances. Which again shows that this is a very intense use of the
land. We feel that is wrong, they would lose a number of parking spaces and it would
be way below, we estimate about 30 parking spaces below the minimum required as
the plan is shown. Again, I won't get into this document again, but just that it is for the
record. I would also ask Shari, did you receive a letter from John McCreedy, we would
like to have that entered into the public record on both this public hearing and on the
other one if we could please. Montvue Subdivision is also opposed to this for the very
reasons. Again we realize that development is going to occur. We just feel and hope
that it is compatible and truly a transitional development not a high intense, 24 hour a
day, seven days a week, rain or shine in our back yards. That is all we are asking for
from this Council. Thank you
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 15
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Williams, any comments or questions of the Council? Anyone
else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time?
Chuck Horel, 3043 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Horel: Gentlemen, thank you for your time this evening, I just want to thank everybody
behind me who are not only here from Greenhill Estates but other subdivisions that are
genuinely concerned about the quality of life in Meridian. I got a letter that was written
by my best friend who is no longer with us, Rick (inaudible) he did some extensive
research, he was an environmental consultant when he was living. His research that he
did is very defined, I want to read part of this letter and also make some comments that
I feel are pertinent to go along with this. We are against the rezoning of the land south
of the subdivision as proposed by Eagle Partners and any subsequent application to
rezone from the present status in support of our opposition to commercial development
of the land. We would like to present information on two issues. One the potential
impact of any development on our subdivision and domestic water supply. And two the
potential increase in noise from any development that would add to the intolerable
levels of noise that exist at present. Relative to the first issue our subdivision has two
well heads in the far southeast lot of the subdivision. As proposed by or proposed for
the Chevron station by Eagle Partners a total of three gasoline storage tanks with
36,000 gallons storage capacity would be located within 400 feet of our well head. We
do not believe that this is acceptable at any level. In an effort to determine what an
acceptable distance is for our well head we use the State of Idaho well head protection
plan as a planning, safety and design mechanism or tool. As defined within the State
plan our wells were considered public, non -community, non -transient or a public water
system that is not a community system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same
individuals over six months of the year. Based on review of the drill logs for the two
wells, the basic one method or approach in the Idaho plan and a peak pumping rate of
100 gallons per minute we have determined that zone 1 A which is a sanitary setback
distance and zone 1 B which is a two year time of travel and zone 2 a five year time of
travel and zone 3 a 10 year time of travel. The setback distances for various
contaminants relative to our wells. Based on the State of Idaho endorsed well head
protection plan the zone 1 A distance is 50 feet, the zone 1 B distance is 6,600 feet. It
increases expedientially beyond that. Zone 2 and 3 distances preclude category 2
though 7 contaminants such as underground storage tanks for petroleum products.
Based on the recommendations of the State of Idaho and our support of the plan we
would ask the City Council to take two actions. Not allow Eagle Partners or any other
subsequent application for rezoning south of Greenhill Estates to encroach within the
State of Idaho endorsed zone distance of our wells. And two may the State of Idaho
well head protection plan a permanent addition to the Meridian comprehensive plan.
Relative to the second issues, our subdivision is a recipient of an abnormal amount of
traffic noise and that we are bounded on the south by Federal Interstate Highway 84,
on the East by State Highway 55 and on the north by County maintained Franklin Road.
Interstate is 65 miles per hour, The State Highway is 50 miles per hour, and Franklin
Road is 45 miles per hour. Present plans call for Eagle Road or Highway 55 to go to 7
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 16
lanes and Franklin road to go to five lanes in the future. Traffic noise from the
combination of the three roads reach intolerable levels regardless of the time of day.
Eagle Road was widened in the last six years in order to mesh with the 1-84 interchange
and relieve congestion, noise in down town Meridian. A critical review of the
environmental assessment developed for Highway 55 or Eagle Road expansion project
shows that the State of Idaho conducted noise tests that project noise levels with the
new highway in 20 years after the project was complete. Noise tests were conducted in
order to use federal funds for the project. In federal not to exceed noise standards were
provided, 67 to 70 decibels as criteria for the project and funding. State of Idaho noise
test showed that the project would exceed the criteria. In fact the criteria were exceeded
for a distance of 500 feet on both sides of the proposed highway in some situations.
None of the federally proposed mitigation measures such as the noise barrier, lower
speeds, exclusion of large trucks or other innovative measures were used by the State
as required by federal code relative to noise abatement. As such we have a diminished
quality of life in our neighborhood because of traffic noise that was transferred from
downtown Meridian and which exceeds the federal criteria for noise levels at present.
The City of Meridian's comprehensive plan states that the City will preserve the integrity
of the existing residential community. In addition the City of Meridian ordinance, #649,
section 8-1612 A, public disturbance noises, states that one it is unlawful for any person
to cause or for any person in possession of property to allow it to originate from the
property sound that is a public disturbance noise. Under part B, the creation of
frequent, repetitive or continuous sounds in connection with the starting, operation,
repair, rebuilding or testing of any motor vehicle, motorcycle, off highway vehicle or
internal combustion engine within a residential district so as to unreasonably disturb or
interfere with the peace, comfort, and repose of owners or possessors of real property.
Given the aforementioned ordinance we believe that any commercial development in
the lands immediately south of our subdivision will violate the ordinance and add to the
noise levels that at present exceed the Federal criteria for highway traffic noise. Based
on the statements made by the City of Meridian in the comprehensive plan and on the
letter of the law in the City noise ordinance we would ask that the City Council take two
actions. Not allow Eagle Partners or any subsequent applicant for rezoning south of
Greenhill Estates to add to the already very noisy neighborhood that we now have as a
result of possibly unlawful use of federal highway funds. And two incorporate the City of
Meridian noise ordinance into the City comprehensive plan in order to protect existing
residential areas. Regardless if they exist on City or County lands from excessive
levels of noise that would originate from development on City lands. One of the
comments made by Mr. Strite was Highway 55 is a main, is the main north south
highway in Idaho and we may be splitting hairs here but it is not, it is Highway 95.
Highway 55 is the scenic route. Enough said. Development is inevitable in our
community and we all know that. We feel that Meridian is a great place to live and we
also feel that there are alternatives to 24 hour services abutting residential properties.
There is another issue, with the drawing as proposed our well head as stated is on the
southeast corner of the lot, if I can show you (inaudible) lower right hand corner you
can see the star configuration and that is where the well head is. My understanding is
that any time you have an ingress egress from a major thoroughfare as you have an
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 17
ingress you have to have a deceleration lane. It doesn't' show one right now and yet
we know that it is going to have to be developed. Does this put our well head in
jeopardy, this is going to literally going to be within feet of our well head. Physically
what kind of jeopardy does that put that well head in. Semi comes off the road
accidentally and crashes into the well system, what happens. I can't tell you because I
don't know who is responsible. There are some real unanswered questions as far as
what we are looking at here. In the community water system of course serves all of the
Greenhill Estates. Gentlemen, I thank you for your time, if there are any questions?
Corrie: Thank you Chuck, I believe I saw a couple more hands.
Howard Foley, 2875 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Foley: I knew you would be disappointed if I didn't speak this evening, so here I am. I
want to cover an issue that I have talked with you about before and which I have
addressed in writing which has to do with the notice provisions required by City
ordinance. I know that some of those concerns that we have expressed before have
been corrected by the applicant. I want to review very quickly a couple of those items
and I want to address that issue. I want to address the issue of what type of a road is
proposed here and what it means to all of us not only the residents of Greenhills but the
City of Meridian. I want to talk quickly about some of the goals of the comprehensive
plan and I want to talk about the burden of persuasion and whose burden that is. Very
quickly as you are all aware at the Planning and Zoning level there is a requirement
within our ordinance that requires notification to be given by certified mail to any
affected individual within 300 feet of the proposed development. As we have pointed
out before in addition to that any individuals affected by the proposed development. We
have raised that issue at Planning and Zoning, we have raised that issue before. Our
ordinances requires that the Zoning Administrator address that issue when it becomes
apparent that more than the 3 or 4 houses that are within the 300 feet of this proposed
development are affected by it. The applicant themselves have conceded that more
than the three or four houses are affected by that. Certainly the number of people that
are here and have shown up to these meetings attest to the fact that more than 3 or 4
residents or homeowners who have received those certified mail certificates are
affected by this proposed development. It just seems abundantly obvious to me.
Additionally a burden under the ordinances placed on the Council and the Council is
required to give notice again to those people that live within the 300 feet of the project
and again to any people who are affected by it. You are to be advised by the Zoning
Administrator by our ordinances as to who those people are. We have heard from the
Applicant's attorney that if there are more than either 200 either residents or
homeowners who are affected then the ordinance provides that we can give notice
simply by publishing that in the paper. I would submit to you that the Zoning
Administrator simply has not advised anybody one way or the other about whether how
many people are affected, whether it is 200 or 300 or 900 or 500 or the 50 that are
sitting here or 60. That is as we lawyers would talk about that is a failure and it is a
failure You don't know, your zoning administrator hasn't made that determination one
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 18
way or another. I have never seen it in the record. We don't know how many people
are supposed to receive notice. The ordinances requires you as a Council once that
determination has been made to advise all of those people are who are affected by first
class mail, that has not been done. I think that is a defect in the notification. In addition
to that I want to talk about what that notification that the 3 or 4 of us in our subdivision
received. We received a notification that doesn't have a darn thing, (Inaudible) we didn't
get this. That was filed with the City on the 17t", today is the 215. And so I want to go
back and visit what I have talked about before what the purpose of notification is. It is
just simply plain fairness. Those people that are going to be affected by the decisions
that you are called upon to make should receive ample and fair notice. If you are
required to mail as the applicant is or as the City Council is to assure or the Planning
and Zoning Commission is required to do, notice, then you should mail notice of what is
going to come before the City Council. When some material enough as this type of
roadway is going to come before you is not part of that mailing procedure that goes out
15 days prior to the hearing then that notice is woefully deficient, it just simply is
deficient. This is not a minor deviation, and so I bring that to you attention. I bring it to
your attention not to be as I said before hypertechnical and those sort of things but just
to talk about what is fair and what is appropriate that is what the notice requirements
are. That has not been done, it simply has not been done by the applicant. We have
hearing after hearing, time after time, seen the applicant come in at the last minute, file
documents that are going to be presented before the administrative bodies. Nobody
else gets notification. I would be the first to admit we have a pretty good network in our
neighborhood, things get passed around, that is not the point, it simply is not the point.
Our ordinances require that the Zoning Administrator when it becomes apparent that
notification beyond the 3 or 4 houses within the 300 feet required make that
determination and require the notification be done. And advise you of the same so that
when you as a Council fulfill your statutory obligation that you send that notification you
have done in my opinion. I want to talk to you about the roadway. Councilman Morrow
asked and I want to address that directly, what is the source of the 20,000 trips per day.
It is in the minutes of the ACHD meeting on January 8, 1997. 1 would like permission
from the Council as I refer to these various documents to make, I have them in bulk I
would like to make specific copies of those and present them to you if I may. Is that
acceptable, can I submit them late, or I would be happy to hand you the packets. The
ACHD minutes of January 1997 estimate 20,000 trips per day down this roadway. They
state as Mr. Jackson has that at present there are 5500 trips being made. We all
understand that if nothing more happened with the Chevron station, what is happening
now with Jackson's and if we just simply double that we are going to have about 1100
trips per day. ACHD is telling you that there is going to be about 20,000. 1 would tell
you if you look at the Destination 2015 study on page 8-2 they will tell you that a
collector is defined by 7500 trips per day and no more. This roadway gentlemen is not
a collector. It is not a small roadway, this is an arterial, this is a big time arterial that is
being suggested and I would submit to you as being imposed on you if you accept this
plan with no planning. I would submit to you that this roadway does not exist in a
planned form in the Destination 2010 program or plan and the 2015 plan, in the Ada
County long range plan, the transportation improvement program, in the comprehensive
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 19
plan for the City of Meridian it just doesn't exist. This plan is suggesting to you that you
just carte blanche agree that we are going to have 20,000 trip per day roadway. And
frankly whether it has to do with coming down the back of my neighborhood or not may
not mean a lot, it means a lot to me. But to you as a City Council and a final arbitrator
of what kind of roadway system we are going to have in Meridian it should mean a lot.
It should mean a lot in the fact that in view of the fact that Franklin Road, the plan is to
extend that or expand that to a five lane road. It should mean a lot to you in view of an
application that has been made to the City of Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission in December for a light industrial development at the southwest corner of
Locust Grove and Franklin. I submit to you that if you just take this roadway and just
run it west that is the application down there for Light Industrial. So what are we doing,
are we going to now have 20,000 here or are we going to extend this roadway, is that
what we are going to do all the way down the boundary of our residences until we
(inaudible) Locust Grove. Are we going to do that or not or are we going to as it is
(inaudible) this is the westerly direction that will go to Locust Grove. (Inaudible) The
point is where is the planning in all of this? It is ACHD's idea as we understand it from
the applicant and everybody else that this new road be created. So where are we going
to go with it. Why are we creating it. Who is going to decide it and shouldn't we plan
just a little bit. This is not just a small two lane little road that we are going to run a few
cars up and down. I want to address a couple of things in terms of our comprehensive
plan. As been mentioned before Eagle Road I not included in that plan, it is just not
planned for and it is not part of a planned interchange. The planning is deficient, it is not
anybody's fault, the city is growing a great deal, it is hard to keep up we understand
that. But I guess we are asking you to think about these things before we just start
something without any planning and without any direction and not knowing where we
are going. Our comprehensive plan provides as a policy matter at section 5.7 and 1.4
that we are to do detailed marketing studies in any mixed use area, we haven't done
that. The comprehensive plan provides in the neighborhood identity goals statement at
section 6.5U that any land use planning reflect the character of existing neighborhoods.
I want to emphasize the fact that we are an existing neighborhood, this is the new
development that is coming in. It is not new versus new this new versus existing. Our
comprehensive plan at paragraph 6.6U provides that the neighborhood policy plans are
to preserve and improve existing neighborhoods. The goals of the comprehensive plan
at item 2 tell us that we are to ensure the growth and development occur in an orderly
fashion, this is not orderly. Item 8 to establish compatible use of land and page 21 of
the comprehensive plan that we are to arrange major land uses and preserve the
integrity and amenities of residential neighborhoods. That is part of our comprehensive
plan. This plan does not do that. The last thing I want to address is simply the burden
of persuasion. The City Attorney will certainly talk with you about that if you need to ask
questions, I suspect that you don't. The burden is on the applicant, the burden is on the
applicant to persuade you that and convince you that they have complied with the
comprehensive plan, that the zoning ordinances that exist in the City of Meridian have
been complied with. That the notice requirements have been complied with. And that
there is great logic in creating a 20,000 trip per day roadway when we don't know
ultimately where it is going to go and what it is going to connect into. You have in your
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 20
packets and evidence before you that part of where this roadway goes whichever
direction it goes to the west is going to go into the wetlands area. You are going to
have problems with the corp. of engineers and other things down there. That it is going
to affect Locust Grove Heights Subdivision. And it is going to affect other residential
areas. I would submit to you that the applicant simply has failed to carry that burden.
You shouldn't grant this application, it is certainly a disaster for our neighborhood, but I
suggest to you that it is a bigger disaster from a planning standpoint for the City of
Meridian. Thanks, can I get a ruling of whether I can submit these documents later or
do you want them now?
Corrie: I would say that you submit them now.
Crookston: Excuse me, what do you have with you now Howard?
Foley: I have copies of the ordinance, I have copies of the ACHD Destination 2015
plan, I have copies of the publication of the industrial use property. I have sort of a slug
of stuff.
Crookston: Is there a problem with you leaving that here and replacing it.
Foley: No
Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council I think it would be preferable for keeping of the
record that we have that and that the Council approve that it be replaced.
Corrie: I am sorry Counselor, that the Council approve what?
Crookston: That the Council approve that it may be replaced by Mr. Foley.
Foley: I would be happy to stand for question.
Corrie: Any questions? Anyone else from the public that hasn't testified?
David Swenson, 2503 Springwood, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Swenson: You have heard, this has been going on and on and on. I think all of us here
have spent night after night after night in either this meeting or that. ACHD or one
meeting after another. I think you have plenty of argument in front of you to make a
decision either way. There is plenty of justification could be found in the records of
these meetings to approve it or disapprove it. I think you have heard everything
previously that I would say in terms of argument against granting this kind of approval to
build this development. My concern is and I will be brief, it will just be a moment. I
would like to just address what is the underlying principle and philosophy that we
operate under here? I have driven, I grew up in San Jose and in San Jose when my
family moved there it was all orchards and vineyards. If you have been there lately I
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 21
don't even like to go back to it. I have lived in suburbs of Los Angeles, some of them
well planned, some of them not. You can tell which communities have a City Council
that cares about the community and which don't It stands out and it is a testament to
the City Council what the community looks like. My concern is what motivates this kind
of decision. You have heard everything and you have heard it again and again and
again and it has to be really boring to sit where you are sitting. We appreciate all that
you do we know that this is not an easy commitment in your lives. Politically the
people that have spoken tonight most of us are political rookies. We appreciate the
chance to participate in the process, but our feeling is that we have been kind of steam
rolled since this whole thing started. We are not as sophisticated as those who do this
day in and day out. I think the community doesn't want this. The people who live here
don't want this. I hope that is clear, this neighborhood is pretty united about this. We
don't feel like we have necessarily been very well listened to. I think we feel like there
are other options and we would encourage you to be patient and look at some of the
other options that will certainly come to you for development of this property. We know
it has to happen but we don't feel like this is a good choice. In fact we feel like it is
wrong. Just, I suppose I wouldn't have thought myself speaking on behalf of Jackson's
except that he was given approval to build a business and invested a considerable
amount of capital and then a year later we are looking at making changes here that just
doesn't seem fair. It doesn't seem right to what his business, and that is far enough
away from our neighborhood. We just think that we don't need to have another gear
jammer at this intersection. It is not necessary and this isn't a particularly good place.
don't think we are going to do anything for Meridian by approving this. I don't want to
take any more of your time but, whether it is 20,000 or 10,000 or 11,000 the community
here doesn't want it. I don't know what your compelling interest would be in approving
it. All of us are going to ask ourselves that question if it is approved. What are you
thinking of? If you do approve it we would like to hear what you are thinking of. It is
important to us (End of Tape)
Dean Kidd, 2127 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Kidd: Council members, Mr. Mayor, I have been a resident of the Greenhills Subdivision
now since 1988. Due to my line of work I haven't been able to have a lot of input into
the previous hearings and I am not fully knowledged on exactly the fine details. I can
tell you from just listening hear tonight with what I see with the plan and also previous
testimony there is something dramatically wrong with this plan. I guess the simplest way
to put it Council members is that you would have to live in the area to really understand
what I am talking about. Part of it is the traffic congestion created, now I was always
under the impression that someday I wanted to build a convenience store maybe as a
retirement or whatever. I guarantee the first place I would look would be on a corner.
Corners are always more amenable to the convenience fast in and fast out type of
service. The thing that I see wrong here is that anybody entering into the facility being
the existing Jackson's now or the proposed Chevron/motel/hotel is that they have got a
lane of traffic to cross. Right now they have got two lanes, we are proposing Eagle
Road being expanded and they would have that many more lanes. Understanding if
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 22
you were traveling north and you wanted to turn in off of Eagle Road you have all of
these lanes of traffic to cross over. We have got that right now with Jackson's. When it
was laid out and Jackson's was put in we have accepted that as homeowners and
residents in the area. But looking at the stop light that was put in afterwards to I guess
accommodate the hospital facility there is tremendous conflict. There was some very
poor planning put into the stop light afterwards. I feel that the stop light should have
been at Jackson's, you have a tough time getting in and out of Jackson's, it has
become a dangerous scenario and the stop light is only actually helping a few people
that turn in and out of St. Luke's. My whole point here is that everything that has been
said tonight, I don't want to go in and reiterate any of it, I agree with the fact that this is
a very poor plan and that there needs to be some very serious consideration on how
this land is to be used. With the proposed planning and the expansion of Eagle Road
we have got Franklin that has been mentioned, the traffic congestion is becoming
horrendous for those of us that have to drive it on a daily basis. Sometimes I will travel
it 3 and 4 times a day. It is becoming like a gauntlet when you are in line with people
going north bound headed home, going south bound headed home and I have this one
narrow lane to pull into and I have traffic that is going past me a zillion miles an hour it
seems like. Once that traffic light was put in my space was narrowed down to
approximately two car lengths and that is what (inaudible) waiting for the on bound
traffic to break so that I can cross and go into the housing development. It has become
a very dangerous situation. To tell you a little bit about how dangerous the community
is becoming there was a fatality this morning on Overland Road. There was a pair of
fatalities the night before last on Orchard. There was a back wreck here over
Christmas right at this intersection that we are speaking about. We are looking at it, it is
a fact that we are going to face. With proper planning and I am sure your good
judgment that we can make this, we can do the give and take to where the expansion
can take place and we can still have the quality of life that we have now. I thank you
very kindly and I would be more than happy to entertain any questions.
Corrie: Thank you Dean, any questions of Council?
Mark Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bowen: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I just want to make a few comments I
will be really brief. My overall concern is with the general lack of planning and generally
a frustration with the inability to deal with the area as a whole. I have had the
opportunity to read the traffic report from the adjacent site and have seen the numbers
bantered about by ACHD and ITD and other consultants in the area. The numbers are
talking about for traffic aside from the development here on the west side of Eagle
Road the numbers are huge, astronomical. We all recognize that and the complications
or difficulties presented by the numbers of trip generations by all of these possible
developments are daunting. The traffic issues are extremely complicated and to me in
dealing with this with a spot approach at a time, one parcel at a time is not getting at the
larger problem. We have a real potential to have worse congestion problem than they
have at the mall due to the difficulties presented by the proximity of these accesses to
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 23
Eagle Road combined with the number of trips generated on each of these possible
sites. You combine that with the fact that this particular proposal if you look at the site it
doesn't take much to look at it and realize that is an extremely congested site. As Dick
mentioned it is an intensive use. You look at the proximity of that hotel relative to the
new proposed roadway and if you talk about 20,000 trips generated on that new road
there I don't think a 60 foot right of way will suffice. And you look at the proximity of that
road relative to the hotel, relative to the 30 foot buffer where does it go, does it take
away from the buffer, does it move the hotel. There are just huge issues to deal with.
You combine the congestion of the site with the number of trips generated from the
west side and from Eagle Road and the possible developments south of the freeway
and we just ended up with a general congested area that we are dealing with on a spot
by spot basis as far as planning goes. I would like to see a way to get at the planning of
this area for all of those concerned. There are many of us that have huge concerns and
interests, the developer included quite frankly. St. Luke's, Montvue, Greenhill,
Jackson's, the developer here and future developers all have a general interest in
seeing that the proper thing is done here and I don't think that can be achieved on a
single spot by spot approval. I would request that you deny this proposal and somehow
we develop a way that we can get at planning of this area in general for all of those
concerned. Thank you.
Corrie: Any questions from Council? Anyone else from the public at this time?
Glenn Griffiths, 3195 North Montvue Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Griffiths: I am here tonight gentlemen of the Council to represent the residents of the
Montvue Park subdivision and to state our support of the Greenhill Estates subdivision
and their efforts to get this application turned down. We are in the view that is maybe
not directly influencing us immediately if this development is approved. In the future we
feel that it will affect us. I have a map here that is put out by ACHD staff report, you
probably all have one. It just goes to show how they view us already, it is not even an
update map of our subdivision it doesn't show how, a lot of these residents aren't even
here anymore. Half of this was wiped out when Eagle Road was widened, this is Eagle
Road right here. It doesn't even correctly show the access of our subdivision abutting
directly across from Springwood Drive which is one of the entrances into the Greenhill
Estates. This is the affected parcel here tonight, it is small, it is 5 acres. My view, this
kind of development does even fit on five acres. It is small, it will generate traffic, I have
a letter from our attorney representing our subdivision and we would like it to be
submitted into the record. I would generate the question why the road, my view is the
answer state that they want to utilize the stop light already at the entrance to St. Luke's
to benefit their business to possibly draw away business from Jackson's if possible, it
makes sense. Another possibility to us, once that road is in place why not turn St.
Luke's private drive into a main thoroughfare through there. It has already been
recommended by ACHD as something we have been before the City Council to oppose
and do not want to see it happen. To me the stop light should be moved down to Magic
View Drive, it makes more sense, you have a business there already. Like the
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 24
gentleman stated earlier it is a mess to get into that business. People already illegally
use the turn lane to drive down to the stop light when traffic is backed up. And it is only
going to get worse. We keep adding businesses to this community pretty soon traffic
won't even flow by there. That is all I have to say.
Corrie: Any questions? Thank you, anybody else from the public that wants to issue
testimony at this time? Seeing none a representative from the Eagle Partners want to
have a last crack at this before we move on.
Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, you have heard some pretty compelling
testimony here tonight and certainly I am not going to call it redundant we have heard it
before and I am sure we will probably hear again during the conditional use hearing.
Let me just emphasize I think on behalf of the applicant the roads seems to be the
biggest topic this evening. As you well know and as your staff well knows our
application was submitted without this roadway. This applicant was compelled to
provide the roadway by Ada County Highway District, it was their meeting with your staff
based upon your comprehensive plan that determined the need for this roadway. This
roadway is not a result of this application, it has nothing to do with this application quite
frankly at this point. It did at the beginning, it is what spurred all of this comment in the
beginning when it started. However, as I was told by Ada County Highway District and I
think you can find it on page I believe it is page 4 of the January 8t" approval, this
particular roadway is going to go in there whether this development is there or not. It is
there solely to provide you the ability to move traffic from the resulting acreage which in
the long term as determined by your comprehensive plan is going to be more intensely
developed. They are suggesting that they need an access to a signalized intersection
in an effort to exit traffic that is going to develop from those parcels that are west of this
site. This site today and I think you can find that again in Ada County Highway District's
original comments could stand on its own without that roadway. There is 5500 trips I
believe also that ACHD commented that some 40 to 45% of those are already on the
road. They are not new trips, they are there. So this roadway is going to be there
regardless and I can only state to you that the applicant has done what I believe is the
thing that based upon what he has had to deal with he has gone the extra mile. He
started out with a 5 acre site, he is down to 4.4 or 4.2 now, I haven't calculated nor has
the engineer. The resulting take by the curve in the road however we have gone from a
five acre site down to a 4.4 acre site in an effort to accommodate ITD and to
accommodate Ada County Highway District. And so I just wanted to emphasize
because the roadway has become such a large issue here and understandably we
certainly did not want it ourselves but I would like to suggest to you that this is an Ada
County Highway District issue and I think that your staff, Ada County Highway District
combined should have and could have and probably would be most appropriate to
have joined forces with Mr. Jackson, ourselves and the neighborhood in an attempt to
get that signal moved from its present location to Magic View. I will tell you I spoke to
Mr. Chuck Winder, the Department of Transportation head, Mr. Jackson did in fact
along with the neighbors take their proposal to the board. The board suggested that the
protocol was that they had to take it back to the District. The District makes
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 25
recommendations and it is then passed onto the board. Contrary to Mr. Jackson's
comments Ada County Highway District is a public entity, it is not required to one
provide a traffic study nor two ask for a board decision on access control and I think
that is something that was misstated and I am sure it is because he is unfamiliar with
the process. I spoke to Mr. David Schplitz of Ada County Highway District to ascertain
that myself. We are involved in a project down town Boise where we as the applicant
are required to petition ITD as a public entity that is not a requirement. As a private
enterprise as Mr. Jackson has already done it is required that they petition the board in
an effort to get an access control approved. So this whole road idea I would like to
suggest to you that if it were up to us the applicant we would like to go back to square
one and provide the buffering that we have always provided and eliminate the road, it
would be better for everyone. Only that is out of our control. That decision was made
on January 8th by the Board of ACHD Commissioners. We had no basically, very little
testimony quite frankly. The majority of the testimony came from the neighborhood and
Jackson's. But I think we were all in concert in suggesting that we did not want the road
one, two we wanted the signal relocated. Well obviously we failed in both cases. The
roadway is there and in my opinion as I have just assessed to you my discussions with
Mr. Winder there is a good chance that the traffic signal will remain exactly where it is.
So with that I will entertain any questions if I might, perhaps some of this stuff would
have come to light in the conditional use, that may in fact be more redundant yet. I will
answer any questions I can if you have such.
Morrow: I would like to pursue the road issue a little more to lay to rest the 20,000 traffic
count. I think that by virtue of ACHD's comments it is predicated upon the complete
development out of that entire five acre tract subdivision. I think the issue with ACHD is
that the development out of this particular parcel of property including all of the five acre
tracts would generate 20,000. 1 want you to and you seem to be more familiar with the
ITD process. We have in receipt a letter from St. Luke's that we received on the 20th of
December written by them on December 18th to the Idaho Transportation Department.
Not opposing the moving of the light if St. Luke's was made whole to where it lines up in
a reasonable manner. It seems to me that whether the numbers are 11,000 or 20,000
or something greater it makes more sense to have a straight away road approach. I
guess what I am asking you for is your comment as being involved in this how do we
whether it is this development or future development that is going to take place there
get to ACHD and ITD to have a sensible access to Eagle Road based on what you
have just talked about? It doesn't seem like any of the players are opposed to it but it
seems like the governmental entities ACHD and ITD are not getting us where we need
to be is my point, how do we get to that point based on your expertise?
Strite: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, I think that is a very astute question, quite
frankly I am not an engineer, I do however get involved in a number of these types of
projects which do include both ITD and ACHD, It would be my suggestion that if in fact
in concert with Mr. Jackson, the neighborhood and the applicant that perhaps the City
Council went back to Ada County Highway District, this would be my approach, and
start with the Board there. Suggesting quite frankly, I don't think I can question the
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 26
20,000 cars a day. I don't think anyone can. We know we have 75 acres of possible
development there without question. If that developed in nothing more than office for
instance under the mixed use policies here that is 75 times ten cars a day and it comes
out to an astronomical number but when you reduce it down to the intersection, Ada
County Highway District comes up with 20,000 additional new trips at that intersection
or at an intersection that is signalized and controlled. Now quite frankly I am of the
same opinion of you and believe it or not the neighbors and also St. Luke's. I think that
signal should have been placed at Magic View. The question was as I understood from
Ada County Highway District, Mr. Williams sat in on the meeting, we had Ada County
Highway District Commission member, one commission member, we had their full staff,
we had Greg Lannigan from ITD and I believe we had Larry Strough from ITD. The
question is more of a philosophical one, I think quite frankly it is not even philosophical
it may be more political as such. The thing that is holding this up from the Board's
perspective is that you have a group of engineers that are telling us that intersection of
Magic View is too close to ITD's intersection to allow a controlled access. And that is
their bottom line. I think you will find that consistent with Ada County Highway District's
notes. I am not a traffic engineer but I believe in reading the traffic studies that Mr.
Jackson commissioned it appeared to me that they made three very strong arguments
for moving that signal. Ada County Highway District and quite frankly as I understand it
and maybe Mr. Barber can help me with this I believe that did go on to District III, ITD,
they also had found faults in the traffic study. In my opinion it seemed more obvious
and perhaps unfortunately from the layman's standpoint the obvious is not always the
best solution. They told us in a meeting that the study that was provided by Mr. Jackson
was inaccurate and they wanted him to go back and re -work it. I cannot tell you where
that is tonight because I have not had the good fortune to talk to Mr. Barber relative to
where that issue is. I can tell you that Ada County Highway District Mr. Dave Schplitz,
traffic engineer there, told me as late as Monday morning in a meeting that we had
there that Mr. Barber has not resubmitted or submitted an application to District III for
moving the line. I am not sure of that, I would hope that Mr. Barber is still here, perhaps
he can answer it. But my opinion to try and shorten this whole thing is that I think it is
going to take this Council and some action by this Council relative to that road at a
higher level than Ada County Highway District and perhaps even District III.
Corrie: Any further questions? Thank you Mr. Strite. I may be politically wrong here but
I think Ada County Highway District has engineers and not planners on their staff if I am
not mistaken. I don't think they have planners at such, it is mostly engineers.
Rountree: They have both.
Corrie: Okay, Council, do you have any questions of staff or any comments before I
close the public hearing. At this point then I will close the public hearing, Council
questions or comments.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I had prepared comments for two meetings but we had decided to
hold off until we had ACHD's recommendation on the road. My observations, I have
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 27
some real problems with this road in itself. I think it is a bad idea, I also on the surface
have a problem with what Mr. Foley brought up about the noticing problems. But also
with reading the Comp plan, the comp plan refers to the entrances of the City should be
enhanced and protected. I feel that a row of gas stations and service stations does not
serve that need. Also in the comp plan it addresses the need for transition and buffering
with subdivisions and going from commercial to residential. I don't feel that a 24 hour
gas station and a 24 hour hotel and restaurant serves that purpose. As one of the
ladies spoke and I don't remember which one it was concerning the lighting problem on
the canopy. I had noticed that right after the Chevron opened over on Fairview, that
they had changed their lighting fixtures and it does indeed create quite a glare. If we
had some houses out there on Fairview I am sure we would be getting some calls at
City Hall. My own personal opinion, a better site for this project could be on the south
side of the interstate where it is wide open, there are no houses to contend with. Their
signage, I didn't have a problem with the signage that was brought. But I think on this
site they will have a problem with the signage when St. Luke's starts their expansion.
Because any westbound traffic once St. Luke's expands will not be able to see the
Chevron sitting back there. In my opinion I will not be supporting this project and I will
leave this to the rest of the Council for their comments.
Corrie: Council, other members comments?
Rountree: I just have a real brief comment and I think it probably was best said by an
individual tonight and all of the rest could have been unsaid, and that is this is not the
first and I would add to that not the last of the development that is going to be proposed
for this area. Given that I am not at this point inclined to support the application for
annexation to the City of Meridian. Though I recognize that will probably happen at
some point in time in the future or maybe now. That would be my inclination in the text
of the decision in the findings of fact on this project.
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Rountree, any other comments from the Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think I am going to make my comments primarily from a technical
standpoint. I know that there are those in this room that testified tonight that have
supported regional malls in this very location that were supporters of Eagle Road being
expanded, of the interchange being put in. Those were all things that were planned
some years ago for the growth of our City. With respect to this current application it
appears to me that we need as a City to look at all 75 acres. The concept and my
reason for questioning Mr. Strite with respect to ACHD and this road makes absolutely
no sense to me at all. The St. Luke's willing to be a party and moving the intersection
to another site. No matter what is planned for this ground and the fact that everybody
seems to be in agreement that this is the wrong site for an intersection seems to make
sense to me that this road proposal for this usage or any other usage is inadequate not
very well thought out on the part of ACHD. I recognize what it is they are going for I just
disagree with it. It makes sense to me that if you are going to develop ultimately a 75
acre site into a multitude of uses that you have one point of ingress and egress that is
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 28
of sufficient size that it can access a 7 lane road in a reasonable manner. To the west
the protection of a five lane road at Locust Grove and an overpass that ultimately goes
over the freeway would preclude pass through traffic in that one mile section. The
reality though is that 75 acres needs to be better planned and better thought out than
this proposal coming to us from ACHD. The other thing that I have a problem with is
that this proposal and somebody raised the point and this is a very valid point is that we
have a 35 foot landscape buffering already existing by virtue of the things that have
been approved. I want to see that continued, it makes a lot of sense from that
standpoint to continue that on through. This application does not in fact do that. That
may have been a casualty of the moving of the road system. It is apparent that neither
the applicant, the neighborhood or the City in my mind is in favor of the particular road
system through there. I guess the other issue from my standpoint and probably the
most persuasive outside of the road and the landscaping is that I am not personally
convinced that it is in the best interest of a subdivision to have a motel/hotel adjacent to
it. I think that there is a responsibility on the part of elected officials to do the very best
that they can in terms of preserving neighborhoods that are well developed and well
established. It seems to me that what needs to happen for this parcel of ground,
recognizing that there are several five acre tract owners that create the 75 acres is that
there needs to be a better division between whatever the use is going to be in this
ground and the existing neighborhood. At some point in the future if the neighborhood
opts to redevelop to something else that is a decision that the land owners and the
Council can make. From my perspective at this point for those three reasons, four
reasons I will not be supporting this design configuration for this development. The
findings of fact which we will ask for I think to be drawn new because of substantial
additional testimony in our next motion will reflect my opinion as that part of the findings
of fact. Having stated that, Mr. Mayor, I would like to move that we instruct the City
Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we instruct the City
Attorney to draw up new findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion?
All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Crookston: I think that the proposal by our normal proceedings we would have the
findings of fact and conclusions of law the new ones done at the first meeting of the
Council in February which is February 4t". With the nature of this application I would
like a little more time than that to prepare those findings.
Rountree: How much time do you want?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 29
Crookston: I think that this particular proposal has the possibility of further disputes,
think we need to make the findings as specific and concise and logical as I and my
associates can possibly do.
Corrie: Then you are requesting the 18th of February?
Crookston: I would request that.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of
fact and conclusions of law for the annexation and zoning request to C -G by Eagle
Partners LLC to be due no later than February 18, 1997.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to have have the new
findings of fact and conclusions of law on the request for annexation and zoning to C -G
by Eagle Partners LLC to be no later than February 18th, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 17,1996: REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C -STORE, MCDONALDS
WITH A DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC:
Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing for the conditional use permit, would
the representative from Eagle Partners please come up.
Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council in light of the last decision I think it would
be inappropriate and untimely for these people to spend the rest of the night going
through redundancies. So I think at this point we are prepared to take your decision for
the annexation which in my opinion renders the conditional use a moot point.
Crookston: Mr. Strite, I would comment that we have to prepare findings of fact and
conclusions of law. I understand why you are possibly making your statements about
that, but the Council at this juncture has not made a decision. That is just for the record.
Strite: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Crookston, I fully understand that. I have no further testimony.
Corrie: Thank you, Council any questions? Any further testimony from public on the
conditional use permit at this point?
Phil Barber, 877 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 30
Barber: I am Counsel for Jackson's, I would like simply that the record made in the
prior public hearing be used as the record on behalf of Jackson's for this public hearing.
Howard Foley, 2875 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Foley: I just ask that the Council incorporate the comments made on behalf of
Greenhills representatives also be incorporated into the record for the purpose of the
conditional use permit.
Corrie: Any further testimony from the public?
Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I have been informed that as suggested
we would like to have our testimony from the previous application be put in as testimony
for this conditional use.
Corrie: Thank you Mr. Strite, any further testimony? Seeing none I will close the public
hearing for the request for a conditional use permit. Council?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Do you want it for the 18th as well?
Morrow: Please
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree for new findings of fact
and conclusions of law for conditional use permit for the Chevron C -store, McDonalds
drive through and the hotel by Eagle Partners LLC for February 18th, any further
discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Williams: In light of my comments about if the Council decides to open the
comprehensive plan for amendment and the planning of that area, we of the Greenhill
Estates the areas around there would be most interested and obviously concerned
about that. And would volunteer our time, I would volunteer my self to be the contact
point for any committees that you would want, an ad-hoc committee for example that
you might desire to form to do that. Because obviously we have an interest also and
we would, our preference is to work with the City, we feel that would be the way to do it.
So, just as a matter of record I would like to make that offer.
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
ITEM #3: ORDINANCE #749 - CHERRY PLAZA ASSOCIATES/C-C:
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 31
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 6,
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone
from the public that would like to have Ordinance #749 read in its entirety? Seeing
none I will entertain a motion.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt Ordinance #749 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to adopt Ordinance #749
with suspension of the rules, any further discussion? Roll call vote
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
II 121 LTA EeLAWSJ :]971►1_L[y2 ff:jKimW-Al V LVA 11►[euto] 01*IIF_r92N0101W1%[61Gr9[MLF
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE VACATING THE SUBDIVISION OF FARMINGTON
ESTATES NO. 2 RECORDED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO ACCORDING TO THE
OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF IN BOOK 45 OF PLATS AT PAGES 3709 AND 3910
RECORDED DECEMBER 27, 1978 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 7868376 RECORDS
OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone
from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #750 read in its entirety? Seeing
none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #750.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance #750 with suspension of rules.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve
Ordinance #750 with suspension of rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Absent
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #751 - MERIDIAN LIBRARY REZONE/L-O:
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH
IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE SE '/4 OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 32
1, T.3N, R.1W, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. This is an ordinance with reference to the Meridian Free Library,
does anybody in the audience that would like to have the ordinance read in its entirety?
Hearing none I will entertain a motion.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt Ordinance #751 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we adopt Ordinance
#751 with suspension of rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: ORDINANCE #752 - EUGENE PETERS REZONE/C-C:
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING
THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH
IS DESCRIBED AS THE BEGINNING OF THE POINT WHICH LIES AT THE
CENTERLINE OF MERIDIAN STREET 1135.8 FEET SOUTH OF THE NE CORNER
OF SECTION 12, T.3N. R.1 W, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. This is the rezone ordinance of Eugene
Peters, is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #752 read
in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #752.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt Ordinance #752 with suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to adopt Ordinance #752
with suspension of rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 7, 1997: REQUEST
FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE
SUBDIVISION NO. 7 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: At this time I will ask the developer or his representative to come to the stand.
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6'" Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 33
Bradbury: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, we had delivered to you
on Friday a package of materials which the Council requested two weeks ago when this
matter was taken up. What you have and I assume that you all have something like
this, it starts out with something on my letterhead. What we have got and what we
submitted to you were the written comments, written responses excuse me to staff
comments and that is the first document you have there. Then behind that are the
restrictive covenants or proposed restrictive covenants which would be applicable to the
project. Then you have a map behind that showing the landscape buffered areas
around the exterior of the project. Then behind that you have got a letter and some
drainage facility design documents and drawings which were prepared by the consulting
engineer Keith Jacobs. He is here tonight and is available to answer any specific or
particular questions you may have about that. Behind that you will have a preliminary
landscape plan that is intended to give you an idea of what kind of open space is being
made available in the project. Then finally the last document is a typical street section
plan which shows the location and distance of parking which would be made available
for each of the various building lots on either sides of the streets. That was something
that Mr. Tolsma was concerned with and asked that we provide. We also, I guess you
folks can see that, there was also come concern expressed a couple of weeks ago
about out it is that people might take access down into this area that is set aside as a
recreational area. So Mr. Campbell had an artist create a rendering which would give
you a conceptual idea of what it is that we try to accomplish in putting a sidewalk in
which (End of Tape) in speaking with Mr. Jacobs this evening he did some rough
calculations and concluded that there is plenty of distance to put that sidewalk along
that slope and maintain a 12 to 1 slope which is what we understand to be the ADA
requirements. Rather than going in a lot of detail about all of the material that you have
in front of you and since the hour is a little bit late I am thinking that maybe the best
thing to do is for me to simply respond to any particular questions you may have. That
way you don't have to sit up there and listen to me talk about a bunch of things that
maybe aren't of particular interest. As I said Mr. Jacobs is here and if you have
particular questions that you would like to pose to him he can certainly respond. Thank
you.
Morrow: Gary, have you reviewed the documents that are in our packet from the 17th
with respect to grades and slopes. I think one of the issues in our last meeting was the
accessibility, this portion is being counted as green space as required for this use. The
question is how functional is the green space. There was also a question talking about
the possibility of the bottom of the pond or portions of it having year round water. There
was also some on site work done in determining some of the factors that you and I
discussed earlier this week. Can you bring us up to speed in terms of the green space
usable issue, the water issue and then the site work that was done earlier within the last
week to ten days and its purposes and results please?
Smith: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, I have reviewed the correspondence
that Steve Bradbury submitted to you that you have in your packet that is dated January
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 34
17t". I have made some comments on that information and I transmitted my comments
by telephone today to Mr. Bradbury. I have not seen the artist rendition of the common
area that is being presented to you tonight until tonight. So I don't know from an
engineering dimensional standards how that actually fits. It looks like it fits from the
artists rendition, but I haven't seen a plan of it drawn to scale. Concerning the storm
drain detention area that is proposed to be used for common area. The applicant's
engineer Keith Jacobs has submitted a plan to my department for removing ground
water and presenting a dry condition common area. I in turn reviewed that proposal and
sent comments back to Mr. Jacobs via facsimile today with some requests for some
additional information on the sizing of the subsurface drain system that was proposed.
The applicant's contractor did expose a subsurface perforated drainage pipe that was
installed parallel to Ten Mile Creek or excuse me parallel to Ten Mile Road extending
south from Nine Mile Drain when the property was starting to be developed. That drain
pipe that perforated drain pipe is in place and we have confirmed with the contractor
that it was enclosed or encased in drain 3/4 inch chip rock they call it which is used for
bedding and pipe zone back fill around sanitary sewers. So that it has some water
carrying capabilities from the ground to the perforated pipe. My assistant engineer did
confirm that the pipe is running water at this time into Nine Mile Drain. The applicant's
engineer is proposing that they tie the subsurface drain system into this perforated pipe
in order to evacuate the water from the detention pond common area into Nine Mile
Drain. Did I answer all of your questions Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: Well yes, a couple points of clarification. This detention pond, retention pond
is designed to handle the drainage from all 40 acres is that correct?
Smith: Yes
Morrow: And so that could be a substantial flowing of water. The other point, this is a
point of interest on my part is that if this is tied into the subsurface drain how does the
filtration process take place for surface contaminants and those kinds of things oils and
that type, can you explain how that process works?
Smith: The subsurface drain on this pond is for relief of ground water, not of the surface
run off water. Surface run off water will come into this detenion area via storm drain
pipes from the street system. The storm drain pipes from the street system will
discharge into a sand and grease trap ahead of this detention pond slash common
area. The water then will spill along the length of this pond from west to east toward
Ten Mile Drain. At the northeast corner of this pond slash common area is a box,
concrete structure that has an outlet pipe from it into Nine Mile Drain. There is a
screened inlet structure that will allow the water to flow at a pre -determined rate from
the detention pond slash common area into Nine Mile Drain. That, the flow rate has to
be equated to predevelopment discharge of storm water. So that the Nine Mile drain
does not receive more water in a development stage of this 40 acres than it received in
the pre -development of the farming stage of the 40 acres. The grass lining of the
detention pond will help filter out some of the contaminants of the storm water before it
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 35
enters Nine Mile Drain. That is a recommendation from Central District Health among
others. It is in some areas, I guess it is not actually, what they call a bioswale, but it
does have some of the characteristics of a bioswale.
Morrow: Final point would be what is the likelihood then with this design configuration
that the bottom of this retention common area is in fact usable and does not retain
water for great periods of time?
Smith: I think that, well, let me answer that two ways. During this time of the year it is
going to be wet, that is our wet season. During the summer months if the under drain
system is capable it will be dry. If the under drain system can carry off the ground water
that it needs to carry off the bottom would be dry for use by the residents if they are so
inclined. I believe that Keith Jacobs calculation showed a high water level in the pond
or in the detention area of an elevation of something like 50.3 1 believe and a pond
bottom of 46.0. So you have roughly the capability of 4 feet of water in that pond from
a designed storm off the 40 acres of streets. A portion of those streets draining into this
detention pond are public which would be the number five subdivision. The number 6
and number 7 subdivision are private streets. Al of that drains into this detention pond.
I have notified the Highway District that they in their agreement to maintain at least
heavy maintenance of this pond area that I was advising them that half of this drainage
is from private streets that they have no jurisdiction, over which they have no
jurisdiction. I am requesting that they confirm to me in writing that they understand and
that they will maintain by heavy maintenance this detention area, storm detention area.
If you had the design storm occur and you had that much water in this pond area
obviously it is not going to be usable. But theoretically over a period of time that water is
going to dissipate through that exit structure into Nine Mile Drain. That of course is the
total function of this retention pond. That is what it is there for, that is its primary
purpose in my opinion. It is a detention facility for storm water a head of Nine Mile
Drain. Its secondary use would be as a common area if you were so inclined.
Morrow: I am going to ask for an opinion now from you concerning what we have talked
about from a practical standpoint. Will it serve as a functioning common area?
Smith: Well, I don't know, I guess my opinion is that it is difficult for me to express an
opinion to say yes. And only because when I go out there and look at it I don't see it as
the applicant has presented it tonight in the artist's rendition. What I see is an
excavated hole in the dirt and those things change with the planting of grass, with the
planting of trees, with the construction of sidewalks. I don't know. My initial reaction is
that it is five feet deep and if you are down in there unless you are a 6 footer like myself
maybe you are not looking out. If it is big enough and you are down in there with a
picnic lunch maybe you don't need to be looking out and maybe it is not closed in. It is
a concept of the physical dimensions of the pond area, the length and width of it as
compared to the depth of it that have to be taken into account. It is obviously longer in
the east west direction than it is in the north south direction. I don't recall the
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 36
dimensions, the exact dimensions of it. So I guess my opinion right at this moment
Councilman is I am not really sure.
Morrow: Final question, how many others of that concept has the City of Meridian
approved? How many others of this kind of designs where it is a common area slash
detention pond as the City of Meridian approved?
Smith: Sportsman Point Subdivision is one that leaps to my mind. It is a larger area
than what this subdivision is proposing. It has a basketball court in the bottom of it, it
has a volley ball court in the bottom of it and it is not as deep as I recall. Sunnybrook
Subdivision years ago built a small private park on its north end, you may recall when
the property to the west of it was before you for approval as a preliminary there was a
lot consternation over that private park. That park area is actually a detention basin,
you really wouldn't know it by looking at it because of its size. By the time you get to
the north end of it there is a small outlet structure down there for storm drainage water.
I think the ponds, the detention areas that we have the most problem with are those
that are not designated as usable common areas. They were designated as detention
ponds and they were landscaped down to the water level. That water level seems to
always be there. You have one on the north end of the Meridian Ford complex and I
think when you access 1-84 on the on ramp off of Highway 69 you will always notice
water in that pond. It does not drain away. That is not, I guess it is not a particular
problem for that site because there aren't any homes around it. Although if that water is
still there this summer I would expect that it could be breeding some mosquitoes and
may cause some problems with people looking at new vehicles. The detention pond at
Los Alamitos has been a continuing sore spot. The detention pond at Chamberlain
Estates you recall of the foray that went on with that one. That one was, I don't know
that it was so much ground water problem but there was an inflow for adjacent irrigation
ditches that caused a great deal of problems with that one. I can't think of any other
installations off hand Councilman that I can refer you to.
Morrow: Thank you
Rountree: I have the same questions for Shari, have your concerns and issues been
addressed by the January 17th letter and I have another question relative to common
areas and PUD type activities.
Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, I believe they have addressed all of
the items expressed in our comments. A lot of comments were observations of the
initial concept. I am concerned about the use of the drainage pond as a common area
even though we met with Ada County Highway District and they indicated they had
approved several of these that worked as a park area, however we have not seen any
of them in Meridian. I don't know if that is because of the soil conditions or the ground
water. But we have yet to see one function as it was proposed to function.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 37
Rountree: Have you a number that would tell us what percent would be in common area
with this development that would exclude that portion that is being utilized solely for the
design storm event?
Stiles: I don't have those figures but I would think that the applicant's engineer could
provide us with those figures.
Corrie: Do you happen to have that Steve?
Bradbury: I can tell you the approximate square footage of, actually I think it is in this
letter. The approximate square footage of that lot, is that the question you are asking?
Rountree: No, the question is taking out that portion that is required to meet the design
storm event what is the percent of that remainder of open space?
Bradbury: I don't know that answer I am looking at the engineer to see if he gives me
any kind of an indication of whether he might know.
Rountree: He won't know. How about a percentage of that lot size that is dedicated for
(inaudible).
Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I think that pond area is about 18,000 square
feet. It is 203 foot east west and it has an irregular shape north south but I would guess
it is somewhere around 90 feet, maybe on the average north and south. So you are
about 18,000 square feet for that whole lot which is basically the pond. The bank of the
pond is very close to the boundary lines of that common lot, all the way around. It is my
understanding and Shari can correct me, that there is 10% required of common area for
a PUD. If this is 7.5 acres that would be .75 acres required of common area, which is
32,670 square feet. Mr. Bradbury responded in his comments in his January 17'" letter
that there is 9500 square feet of land dedicated to the City as a sewer easement along
the north boundary. I don't know if that is accessible as common area or not but there
is also, he said there is also 12,500 square feet of landscape buffer between Ten Mile
Road and we haven't calculated that either. But the combination of those two plus the
detention pond area exceeds the 10% requirement if there are 7.5 acres in this project.
Rountree: Do we have a definition of common area and does that include properties
that would be established for sewer easements or drainage facilities. Or is the sense
that the common areas are to be utilized by the community for more recreation and
open space experience?
Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, I don't remember exactly what the
common area description is, but it is to be determined suitable for use by the Planning
and Zoning Commission and the Council.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 38
Rountree: I would ask you the same question that Walt asked Gary, in your opinion is
the space that is being provided by this development suitable and usable?
Stiles: If the representations made as to how they plan to landscape it and how the
drainage facility will function are correct then I would say it is usable. I also may have
made, I don't know if it was an error, but I believe I have made the statement to the
applicant that we would consider the fire station dedication as part of their 10%.
Rountree: Thank you.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a follow up question for Mr. Smith, in my notes it said one of
the conditions we were short on this must have pressurized irrigation by 1997. Was
there guarantee anywhere in these documents that pressurized irrigation system would
be operational by the start of the 1997 irrigation season?
Smith: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, yes, let me find that, just a moment
please. The number 3 subdivision which has all of the off site improvements completed
is serviceable by this pump station along with the number 4, the number 5, the number
6 and the number 7, Englewood Creek Subdivision and Fire Light Estates Subdivision.
As I mentioned number 3 has been completed and the irrigation pipe has been
installed. The pump station according to the developer has been completed and is
ready to be tested. I asked Mr. Bradbury about the status of the pressurized irrigation
system that has been installed and the pump station with Nampa Meridian and their
acceptance of the system. He tells me that has been done. The application for the
number five subdivision is being process now by Nampa Meridian to add that to their
existing agreement to accept and maintain the system. So apparently the pipes are in
the ground, they have been pressure tested I believe, the pump station is complete,
and I don't believe it has been tested yet, but it needs to be. I think before any building
permits, I think that we had a deal worked out with the developer that before any
building permits were issued that the pressurized irrigation system would be functioning.
That agreement was amended slightly for the number three subdivision in that he had
some homes that needed an irrigation system. I allowed them to connect to the City
system so that they could put their sod in and maintain their landscaping with the
provision that once this pressurized system was activated they would disconnect from
the City system and the developer agreed to that condition.
Morrow: So then you feel that the necessary safe guards are in place for that system to
be activated April 15th, 1997?
Smith: Yes, if it is not Councilman there won't be any building permits in the number 5
and I think Mr. Campbell understands that.
Morrow: I have a follow up question for Shari, you indicated that part of the common
area ground was to be the fire station site, is that correct?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 39
Stiles: Yes I did
Morrow: We have the deed to that fire station site?
Stiles: We have it, it hasn't been executed yet, it will be upon the recording of number 5.
Morrow: So as it stands right now we couldn't build on that particular site with that
particular deed because it is not an executed deed is that correct?
Stiles: That is correct.
Morrow: Counselor, could you explain to us the process by which that deed would have
to be executed?
Crookston: The deed itself is executed, the problem with the deed is it describes a lot
and block. At this juncture there is no lot and block because the plat has not been
recorded. When the plat is recorded that legal description becomes valid and the deed
becomes valid to the City as an after acquired title. Right now we don't have anything,
when the plat is recorded we do.
Morrow: Thank you
Smith: Mr. Mayor, just a note of clarification the plat as it has been presented to you is
for the 40 acres. It includes subdivision no. 5, subdivision no. 6 and subdivision no. 7
except number 6 and number 7 are delineated on the plat as a large lot. The plats that
are coming in for 6 and 7 are resubdivisions of those two large lots. The fire station site
is designated as a lot on that plat. So when that plat is recorded it is a recordation of 40
acres not just the number 5, not just the residential section. The whole 40 acres is
called number 5 subdivision. Did, I guess maybe you already understood that but I just
wanted to clarify and make sure. One other item that I had and I talked to Mr. Bradbury
today. On this number 7 subdivision, at the last public hearing we talked pretty
specifically about 40 foot right of ways and in the same breath I think we talked about
the roadway being similar the same as the number 6 subdivision. When I was
researching the file after I received Mr. Bradbury's correspondence I found that the right
of ways in number 6 are 42 feet in width. So I think that needs to be clarified, it may
present a bit of a problem because of the setback variances that they have requested
with the additional two foot. If that is your desire it shortens up those setbacks from 18
foot as requested to 17 feet.
Morrow: If memory serves me did not Councilman Tolsma ask the question concerning
car overhang already at the 18 foot?
Smith: Yes
Corrie: Any other questions from Council?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 40
Bradbury: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of brief responses. To answer Councilman
Rountree's question, the total square footage of the lot which encompasses this
drainage pond common area is about 18,500 square feet, Keith Jacobs just did a quick
calculation and determined that the pond itself consumes about 48% of that lot. So you
just call it roughly half about 9,000 of the 18,000 square feet is the pond itself. The
other question that Councilman Rountree asked was whether or not there was a
definition of common area of open space that you should be relying on and in fact there
is. In your ordinance at section, I don't have a number here, in the definition section
whatever that number is, it reads this. Open space, common, any private open space
intended for use by occupants by use of a development. The space may include but is
not limited to recreation areas, landscape plazas, fountains, sitting areas, natural areas,
and it meant to provide an open atmosphere. Common private open space does not
include parking areas, vacant or undeveloped lots, or any other space which does not
contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development. Certainly we would contend that
is what we are attempting, that is what the applicant is attempting to accomplish here.
With respect to the fire station site, in any of the materials that I have submitted to you
with respect to the calculations of open space for number 7, we did not include the fire
station site, it is not in any of those calculations. So I think the numbers that we have
given you we are just talking about the space that is right there that acts and functions
as intended open space for the occupants of number 7. The right of way widths that
Mr. Smith has pointed out, he is correct, the number six subdivision did in fact have 42
foot right of way widths, that was something that I think changed during the process.
This one is designed for 40 foot right of way widths. One of the things that I guess we
need to ask is that two feet important enough to require that either the project be
redesigned in order to pick up those two feet or that an additional setback, additional
relief be given to setbacks whether it be in the front yards or the back yards where you
pick up those extra two feet. Given the fact that it is a private street number one, it is
going to enclosed behind a private security gate, number two and is going to be the
project intends to provide housing for older persons on the Fair Housing Act so we are
not expecting to see a great deal of traffic in and out, not a lot of young people driving
cars in and out. And in fact as I recall you have in your packages a review from the Fire
Chief who has indicated that he is satisfied with the roadways as proposed for a life
safety standpoint. If in fact you are more comfortable with 42 foot of right of way, it can
be accomplished. But it is going to require some revisions to the plat and some other
work to be done. If that is something that is important to you by all means please say
so and we will work with it. Were there other questions that somebody had that didn't
get answered? I think that is all the notes that I had on those issues. Thank you.
Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony on this conditional
use permit? Council, comments that you would like to make before I close the public
hearing? Hearing none I will close the public hearing.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, for the record I want to make a couple of comments in terms of
observation. I have some reservations about the project from the standpoint of the
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 41
proposed layout. We briefly discussed last time that we were here concept similar to
this that haven't worked for lack of market appeal. I guess that it seems to me that and
again that is a private sector thing it may or may not work depending on what the
marketing is. I am a little concerned about the repetitiveness of the elevations as they
were presented in the drawing to us last week. I think that for most of us you can go to
Five Mile between Franklin and Ustick and there are three or four streets in there
maybe that are 1000 foot long with culdesacs that have the basic same concept except
in a duplex format. They were built some ten or fifteen years ago and now they all look
bad, I mean really bad. So, it seems to me that from my perspective it is a word of
caution to the developer that this may or may not work very well and that there ought to
be an alternate plan for the utilization such as we have just done in terms of helping out
the people at La Playa who tried the same concept and had it fail miserably to some
degree. So, I for one have reservations about the concept, I would be a great fan and a
great supporter of it, hoping that it worked. I would like to see different elevations to
break up the sameness of it. It begins to some extent to look like a development of
duplexes or a development of military housing. I think that is a fair criticism from my
standpoint and that would conclude my comments. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Rountree: I have the same reservations tonight as I had the last time we saw this. I
guess, specifically and Walt said it better than I that it is the ticky tacky cookie cutter
house same house, same elevation 60 some times. I think the concept is good, I think
the, my preference would be to see a little more open space. We have concessions on
sidewalks, we have concessions on setback, we have concessions on side yards being
requested with this proposal. And to a degree I think we have a concession a little bit on
open space. All that aside I think a lot of that can be taken care of or could be taken
care of by looking at a concept that was not repetitive in nature. Break up some of
those street fronts and elevations. I support this high density kind of living, I think it is a
good thing but I am not sure that this is in my opinion a concept I want to see in this
neighborhood or in Meridian in general as far as architecture. Being as we have no
design review at this time we have to deal with those kinds of things.
Bentley: I have the same concerns, the repetitiveness of it. It sort of reminds me of
Sergeant City. I think that we can change the perspective of the buildings, the
elevations as stated and I still have a real concern over this pond situation. This is a
development for the elderly and I have some questions on the safety aspects of it. That
is all.
Corrie: Okay, has the Council decided what they are going to do, I think you have a
pretty good idea where the Council is coming from at this point.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings
of fact and conclusions for the request for a conditional use permit for the Lake at
Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 7 by Steiner Development.
Bentley: Second
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 42
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to instruct the City Attorney
to draw up the findings of fact and conclusions of law for conditional use permit for the
Lake at Cherry Lane No. 7 by Steiner Development, any further discussion? Hearing
none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 7, 1997: REQUEST
FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 7 BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing, Steve?
Steve Bradbury, 300 N. 6t" Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Bradbury: I don't have anything Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I would simply ask
that the comments from the previous public hearing be incorporated into the record for
this one and I would of course respond to any questions you may have that are
particular to the plat.
Corrie: Council, any particular questions? Anyone else from the public that would like
to enter testimony with reference to the preliminary plat? Hearing none I will close the
public hearing, Council, pleasure?
Crookston: There are no findings on this but we generally hold off making a decision.
Rountree: I would move Mr. Mayor that we table item 8, the request for preliminary plat
for Cherry Lane No. 7 until our next regularly scheduled meeting which is February 4.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Bentley to table the preliminary plat
until February 4, 1997, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
►TAIs] 19I 0KOYI1VV121OW-Al 1111110M.
ITEM #9: MARTY GOLDSMITH: DISCUSSION OF SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3:
Corrie: We have a request from Marty Goldsmith that we continue this discussion until
February 4, 1997.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we table until February 4 the discussion on Salmon Rapids
No. 3.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 43
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to postpone the
discussion on Salmon Rapids No. 3 by Marty Goldsmith until the February 4 meeting,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #10: ALBERTSONS INC.: DISCUSSION OF TEMPORARY OCCUPANCY
PERMIT:
Corrie: Is there a representative here from Albertson's that would like to come first?
Mollerup: My name is Richard Mollerup, I am the Counsel for Albertson's. I appeared
before you on September 3rd, at that time requesting approval of sewer easement (End
of Tape) it was the City's position that they couldn't accept the easements for the water
and sewer because of the size of the pipes. And suggested or requested that
Albertson's grants sewer and water easements directly to Mr. Lovan who is the property
owner of and adjacent and west of Albertson's project. I am here tonight to request and
excuse me at that hearing the Council made a motion that was passed that a 90 day
certificate of occupancy be issued for Albertson's store conditional upon reaching an
agreement on those easements. After some discussion about how that agreement
should be reached the motion included that it was Albertson's responsibility to be
reasonable in their negotiations and the 90 day certificate of occupancy could be
terminated only if this Council found that Albertson's had in fact been unreasonable.
That certificate of occupancy was issued on November 7 with the sole conditions that
the easement issues be resolved. I am here tonight to ask the Council to remove that
condition and issue a certificate of occupancy to Albertsons. I would like to briefly recap
where we are and how we got here without siting the entire history. Without belaboring
the point I think it is important that I note that it is Albertson's position and has always
been Albertson's position that the ordinances that have been sited as authority for
granting these easements don't apply in this instance. I submitted by fax today a
memorandum, I hope it was distributed to the City Council, has it been? So I am not
going to reiterate those arguments, the hour is kind of late. Since the September 3rd
meeting Albertson's redrafted the easement agreement and the late comer agreement
incorporated into one document. I have a copy of that document with me that I can
submit for the record if you would like. That was submitted to Mr. Howard Manwieler on
September 23rd and to date we have received no response from either Mr. Manweiler or
Mr. Lovan commenting on that document whether or not it was acceptable or if it was
not acceptable what provisions were unacceptable. I have written a follow up letter to
Mr. Manweiler and had had several brief discussions with him in person since he
happens to office in my building. Each discussion was only a comment that he had not
heard from his client. So we had no response, the 90 day certificate of occupancy now
expires on February 5. 1 would like to take a minute and let's discuss Albertson's
reasonableness. Bearing in mind that we don't believe the extension of the water lines
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 44
are necessary, Albertson's intention is to get along with the City of Meridian. They
installed the water line, they installed the sewer line, the actual cost of those lines the
additional cost to Albertsons was in the neighborhood of $8,500. In addition to that the
have paid my attorney fees and engineering costs for creating legal descriptions for
those easements of probably an estimated $3000 to $4000. The documents that we
submitted to the City Council appear to be acceptable to the City Council, they included
two easement agreements and a late comer agreement which is provided under your
City ordinances 5-214 B and 7-527 B. Both of those City ordinances provide that the
party constructing the water line or the sewer line as the case may be is entitled to
reimbursement of all or part of the construction cost from parties being benefited to who
have not otherwise contributed to the construction cost. There is a good argument was
entitled to be reimbursed the entire $8500 that it expended in order to construct these
lines because that went entirely to the benefit of the Lovan property. They have not
asked for that to be reimbursed, they have not asked for the attorney fees to be
reimbursed and they have not asked for the engineering fees to be reimbursed. They
have asked the normal reimbursement that they would get under the two Meridian City
ordinances based on the square footage percentage which amounts to about $3500
and have only asked for that at the time that the water and the sewer are hooked up to
the Lovan property which is consistent with the terms of the Late comer agreement.
The easements were carefully drafted to be the same terms and conditions that the City
found acceptable on September 3rd. The primary acceptation to this to the document
we sent to Mr. Lovan and the ones we submitted to the Council were the maintenance
provisions. The maintenance provisions under the easements offered to the City
required the City to be fully responsible at the City's cost for all maintenance and
repairs. Mr. Lovan is a private individual and not in the business of maintaining lines we
offer in the document we offered to Mr. Lovan the maintenance cost we are going to be
split on a square footage basis and he would be required to pay 17% of the
maintenance cost. Now bear in mind that is the maintenance cost on the sewer line and
the water line even though the water line where the easement is located serves no
property other than the Lovan property. The water going through that line serves
Albertson's property not at all, not for landscaping, not for any other purpose and
Albertson's still agreed to pay 83% of the maintenance. I don't know how Albertson's
could have been more reasonable. I don't know where to go to the City Council when I
can get no responses from Mr. Lovan or Mr. Lovan's attorney. I obviously have not
tried to contact Mr. Lovan because I have an ethical obligation to deal through his
Counsel. I would like to reiterate an exchange on September 3rd between Councilman
Morrow and myself. During the discussions of whether or not we would be reasonable
and what kind of input Mr. Lovan should have if we were going to be granting
easements to him. During that meeting I said, "I guess my only thought is that absent
the City ordinance of not having a 6 inch line for the City we would have more than
likely signed the easement here tonight and Mr. Lovan would have a six inch line with a
late comers agreement. We are willing to give him exactly that with shared
maintenance. I have not talked to Mr. Lovan, I have talked with his Counsel a couple of
times those conversations were very short and the time frame my client has not paid
anything." To which Mr. Morrow replied, "That may very well be Mr. Mollerup in my
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 45
opinion at least the effort needs to take place. Once the effort has taken place if there
is no willingness on the part of his part to participate than it very candidly our staff goes
back to the City and says this is where we are and there is no desire on Mr. Lovan's
part to negotiate and from that point we make a decision as a Council as to where we
go and we are off and gone. I submit to you that is where we are. The City through a
series of circumstances that I don't think anybody is at fault at is really placed in what I
see to be untenable position. You are asking Albertson's to grant a private easement to
a private individual using your governmental authority to do that and now having to
broker the agreement. I don't think that is a reasonable position to place the City in, I
don't think it is a tenable position to place the City in. At this time I would request that
the condition from the Certificate of Occupancy be removed and a permanent
certificate of occupancy be issued. I would be glad to answer any questions that I can.
Corrie: Council, any questions at this point?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess two things that I would like to ask of staff, Gary, bring us up
to speed where his position is in terms of these negotiations. Maybe a brief history of
how we got to this point by virtue of what the line was originally supposed to be.
Secondly I note that Mr. Lovan does have a letter in the City requesting a tabling, I do
note that he is here this evening and would like to have him address this issue also.
Smith: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, when the Albertson's store came in I
think that there was some, for building, I think there was some discussion at that time
about platting the property on which the store would be located on one lot and another
lot would be set aside for another use. I can't remember all of the things that transpired
but I know we had discussions toward the end of the plan review for the building of
constructing a sewer line across the Albertson's property to serve Lovan's. There was
because of the lateness of that request in accordance of where the plans were in the
review process, Albertson's rejected strenuously to that. I don't recall who was all I the
meeting but representatives of Albertson's were there, their construction manager, their
design chief, Mayor Corrie and myself and Bruce Freckleton and we agreed at that time
that the 8 inch line would not be necessary to be extended to Lovan's. I did, I believe
that is what happened, I don't know if Mayor Corrie and remember those circumstances
or consequences of that meeting or not. But subsequent to that it was determined that
there really needed to be a sewer and water line extended to Lovan's because they had
no access to sewer and water service other than digging up Cherry Lane Road which
was just recently paved and the Highway District was not going to allow that for five
years. So Albertson's did agree to extend service lines from what they had built for
their store to Lovan's property line, his east property line which would be Albertson's
west property line. They did do that, consequently, they constructed a 6 inch sewer to
their west property line they constructed an inch and a half water service to their west
property line which again is Lovan's east property line. I think the Council meeting Mr.
Mollerup refers to where I suggested that the City didn't need to be involved in the
easements for these lines because they were not city lines they were service lines
because of their size, their diameters. They were technically considered service lines
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 46
and we don't maintain service lines. On October 15th I received some documentation
that, well Mr. Lovan brought it into my office and left it with me that he had apparently
received from Albertson's. One was a grant of water and sanitary sewer easements and
maintenance agreement. Another agreement was a conditional declaration of
restrictions and grant of easements. I transmitted these documents to a copy to Wayne
Crookston and a copy to Walt Morrow on October 15th. Since that time I don't think I
have heard anything. I could be wrong but I don't have record.
Morrow: So there has been no further information coming to you concerning.
Smith: No, I haven't had anything since that document was brought to my office late in
the afternoon on October 15th, because I remember we were just shutting lights off or
getting close to it and Mr. Lovan brought them in. Then I just asked the question, I
guess it was last Council meeting what the status was because I really hadn't heard
anything. To the best of my memory the events that transpired at the beginning are the
best of my memory, Albertson's representatives are here tonight and they can add to or
delete there from.
Morrow: Quick question Gary, in terms of the original proposal that was presented to us
as a Council was a two lot subdivision or a 2 lot user, they had a site for an Albertson's
store, they had a site for a future store or a future expansion or a future user, was that
correct?
Smith: Yes
Morrow: And then based on our ordinances that were applicable to that particular
design they would be required to extend water and sewer to and through the parcel of
property to the next piece of property is that correct?
Smith: That is my interpretation yes.
Morrow: Have we ever had anything from Albertson's that indicated that they
abandoned the two lot application?
Smith: I don't believe I have seen anything in writing that it was abandoned, it just kind
of went away, it hasn't been pursued at this point. I don't know what the status of that
other piece is.
Morrow: So is it possible for that other piece to be a marketable piece of property and
an expansion occur on that property?
Smith: Well I would assume that if it was under the ownership of Albertsons and that
the property or the building was not sold to another party that the answer to your
questions is yes they could proceed with construction as long as it met the zoning
criteria and they obtain a building permit. If however they wanted to sell a piece of
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 47
ground for the construction of a building under ownership other than Albertson's then it
would need to be platted.
Morrow: Thank you, my next question would be for Mr. Lovan.
Mollerup: First of all Gary is right, the lines were put in, the size of the lines were put in
with City Approval, there was a meeting on May 9th regarding the City and there was a
field order on July 11th regarding the 1 '/2 inch water line. I don't mean to, I didn't mean
to discount the conditional declaration that we sent as well, but I want to be clear is we
have two issues here. We have a building of a store and (inaudible) and we have the
potential subdivision to sell off the westerly side of the property. Now as I understand it
those plans of Albertson's are now on hold. I am trying to get the certificate of
occupancy today, we did send the conditional declaration which establishes some use
restrictions and cross easement agreements to Mr. Lovan in the same package. The
letter did state that was a preliminary plat, that was a plat issue only, it didn't have
anything to do with the certificate of occupancy issues. The two were not connected.
We simply would like to, probably if we are going to make the deal with Mr. Lovan we
would just like to do all of it if in the event we are going to subdivide. But that is not an
issue of the certificate of occupancy. The Council made that very clear on September
3rd. It may be an issue and will be an issue both with the Council and Ada County
Highway District if we can proceed with the plat.
Morrow: I understand that Mr. Mollerup, the point of my question to Mr. Smith was
essentially Albertson's caused the problem, it is my understanding were these lines not
in the ground or under construction and that the six inch issue came from a mistake on
a plan review because the original submittal was an 8 inch issue and it was a to and
through issue and then there was a submittal of working documents by Albertson's
construction documents that called for a six inch line that got overlooked by our staff
and they were in fact under construction when the stop work order issues were put
forth. Does my memory serve me correctly in terms of some of that?
Smith: Councilman Morrow, I don't recall exactly what the status of construction was,
do recall that the six inch line was shown and during one our reviews we came back
with a request for an 8 inch line because of the extension west. I just don't recall where
one was in relation to the other and the actual construction that was going on out there
if it indeed started. I don't know that it even started, I think they had a schedule to start
that was one of the problems and were wrestling with this sewer line issue. That
precipitated this meeting that Mr. Mollerup referred to earlier that we sat down with the
Albertson's because they were quite upset that we were wanting to change things at
that late date in the game so to speak on the sewer line and it was going to mess up
their construction schedule and their opening of the store which was of a significance in
the Albertson's food chain number wise. I just don't recall the timing of the two.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 48
Morrow: Very fine, at any rate, there are two different issues here, one of them is we
need to deal with the occupancy certificate issue. I do want to hear from Mr. Lovan in
terms of his position then press on from there.
Mollerup: One comment though, the original specifications for the eight inch (inaudible)
Mr. Smith called for eight inch at the store and only a four inch over to Mr. Lovan's
property.
Smith: Yes that is correct.
Morrow: (Inaudible) at the eight inch deal it was a City
Smith: It would have been a city owned and maintained line as an 8 inch line and
Albertson's was having a problem with that having someone else involved in their
property with an easement. That could cause a problem with access to their store by
the people buying groceries which was understandable.
Lovan: I really did not come here prepared to do this. I did ask for a postponement
until next Council meeting. So I could have my counselor here. It is difficult for me also
to put everything together in the right sequence. In the P & Z zoning Mr. Smith told
Albertson's at that time that they would put in a sewer line to and through to Mr. Lovan.
I was also lead to believe that it would be maintained by the City. Right at this point I
would really and truly like to have this thing postponed until next week until the fourth of
February until I do have some legal counsel here. There have been many, many things
here that has happened. I personally have been doing business with Albertson's for
many years, my company does business with them. I have never had any problems
with them. The restrictive use permit, the restrictive use agreements that they sent to
me kind of floored me. It was also sent along with the agreement to go ahead and sign
and do all these other things as far as the sewer was concerned. Frankly I don't think it
was up to them to tell me what I could do with my property, who I could sell it to or
anything else. That is up to me and the agreement of the City Council. So with that I
would really and truly like to table this motion until the fourth of February and give my
Counsel a chance to look over and see what it is all about. I discovered this late this
afternoon, when I called in to see what the agenda was. I have been kind of expending
of it but I thought maybe I would be notified. Albertson's has never contacted me to talk
with me. I know I told Mr. Manweiler when I received the last document from them along
with the restrictive uses I said just go and ask them and tell them that I am ready to sign
those two papers and all they have to do is come and bring money. And that is
(inaudible)
Corrie: Come and bring money, you mean to buy your property?
Lovan: Yes then they can do anything they want to do with it.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, Shari has a comment over there.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 49
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is not related to the sewer easement, but it is related
to the occupancy. We have had a problem with the lights causing glare and spilling over
into the neighboring residential property. They have attempted to remedy that, but I still
think they have a ways to go. It may be changing the type of fixture they have in there
but it is very bright. I would equate it nearly to the Chevron on Fairview. The individual
that is having the particular concern has a two story home right on Cherry Lane and his
bedroom window is on the second story facing Cherry Lane. I know that they have
gone out with some light meters but I think anybody walking down the street can tell
that it is obviously spilling over into the residential properties and for that reason I have
not signed off on the final occupancy. So I would just like to make you aware of that. I
had asked the property owners to speak directly with Mr. Scott Edens of Albertson's,
Mr. Ken Shelton is the one that is continuing to call and his last indication is that he has
had several phone calls, messages left with him and had received no response. If you
drive out there or at night you might take a look at that. At this point I don't know what
the remedy is.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions for Mr. Lovan, thank you Shari. Your
attorney, neither you nor your attorney have met with the Albertson's counsel?
Lovan: He has met with him on two or three occasions so I have been told. I tried to get
a hold of this evening, in fact I did get a hold of him at his residency. He started to say
something and we were lost in the confusion. I don't know if he talked to you this last
week or not. He indicated that he had tried, like I said we got to talking (inaudible) and it
was never finished.
Morrow: I guess my question to you is that if there is a two week extension granted are
you prepared to come to resolution of this issue over the next two weeks?
Lovan: Yes, I do not expect to be treated any different than anyone else under these
same conditions. What I was told in the beginning is a lot different than the way it
finished up. I do kind of hate to be on the end of sewer line that belongs to somebody
else other than City. I don't know if that is major concern or not.
Morrow: Well I guess not being of legal counsel I think that is an issue for you and your
attorney to discuss and then discuss that with the Albertson's folk and come to some
sort of resolution where you both can survive.
Rountree: I have a couple of questions and I need to run this through. Your residence
and parcel are in the City limits?
Lovan: They are in the City limits they are zoned commercial.
Rountree: How long has that been in place Wally?
Lovan: For years and years, I don't know when it was first
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 50
Rountree: Back as far as the 70's?
Lovan: In the 70's I imagine. It was there when I bought the place.
Corrie: You say it is commercial.
Bentley: I have a question, how much land do you have there?
Lovan: There is about an acre and a half.
Bentley: My question, Gary, I guess you have to answer this, is what happens if he
subdivides, where does the sewer come from?
Smith: Councilman Bentley, right now the sewer would come from the service line that
is existing in Albertson's parking lot.
Bentley: If he were to subdivide it you would use that existing sewer with Albertson's
having control?
Smith: If he was going to subdivide as a residential?
Bentley: No, if he was going to subdivide as commercial or would we go out to Cherry
and tap in again?
Smith: Well there isn't anything in Cherry to tap into. You would have to extend the
sewer line from Ten Mile Road in Cherry Lane in order to get to his project or parcel
without using the service line that has been constructed across Albertson's property.
Bentley: But for say a site of his size with going commercial and I realize it depends on
what is there, would that line that is there now serve it a six inch line?
Smith: Yes, to give you an example I think a four inch line has a drainage capacity of
283 fixture units, single family has bout 21 to 30 fixture units. So it would be equivalent
on a four inch line equivalent to nine single family homes if you wanted to. I don't think
anybody wants to do that but an eight inch line conservatively you can connect 450
singly family homes to. There is a six inch line installed so the volume of the pipe is
proportionate to the diameter squared. So if you are working a 4 inch pipe with 16
versus the 6 inch pipe with 36 so a six inch pipe has more than twice the capacity of a
four inch pipe.
Bentley: Thank you
Corrie: Other comments or questions from the Council? When is your occupancy
permit up again?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 51
Mollerup: The occupancy permit was issued on November 7t" on my calculation that
would end on February 5. Can I respond for a moment to the request to table? I
understand that, it sounds like this is last minute and nobody is prepared. This is four
months, documents have been in Mr. Lovan's possession and Mr. Manweiler's
possession for four months. I have had one conversation in my office with Mr.
Manweiler except for asking for comments. That conversation was not (inaudible) to the
documents and offer to sell Mr. Lovan's property to Albertson's for $400,000. 1 had one
more phone conversation with him after that and a letter where we decline that.
Albertson's is not in the real estate development they are in the grocery business. It felt
a little bit about being extorted to be into the real estate business. I don't know what two
more weeks is going to accomplish other than I am going to probably have some
conversations with Howard Manweiler. But we have offered these same documents we
have offered the City. I really hesitate and I am afraid to have a City Council meeting on
the fourth when our certificate of occupancy runs out the fifth. I think we have been
fairly patient so far.
Morrow: I am sorry Mr. Mayor, Shari has a question or a comment. Your point in terms
of the lighting and the sign off on the occupancy is that what you were?
Stiles: Right
Mollerup: I read the occupancy as the easement being the only condition to it, am I
wrong with that?
Stiles: That is not correct, I have not signed off, I have only signed off on the temporary.
Mollerup: But the only condition on the temporary, typed on the temporary is the
easement.
Stiles: I have never seen your temporary certificate, I wasn't aware that you would get a
30 day temporary and then an additional 90 day temporary. I thought the total was for
90 days.
Mollerup: I am sure that Albertson's can deal with the lighting problem but I am not
sure, I have a copy of (inaudible)
Stiles: I can't say that I look at all of the final certificates of occupancy.
Mollerup: Don't misunderstand, my question is a procedural question, is that a
certificate of occupancy issue at this point or not? I don't think that it is.
Corrie: You are questioning about the lighting.
Stiles: Yes it is, it is a zoning issue that has not been resolved.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 52
Morrow: I think the issue with temporary occupancies is that in order to convert
temporary to permanent you have to satisfy all of the conditions of all of the approvals
in terms of the UBC, all of the staff conditions and all of the code conditions, electric, P
& Z, ACHD and so on and so forth. The temporary occupancy once it is converted has
to have the signature of all of those department heads or of all of those entities that
may be applicable in the project. If there is a condition that has not been satisfied and
you are operating on a temporary before you can get the signature of the P & Z
departments that condition has to be satisfied. In this case before Shari would convert
to permanent occupancy. Yes, there are a whole bunch of conditions that apply,
temporary simply allows a commercial entity to open and run while it is satisfying all of
the conditions to convert to permanent. So there could be beside the easement issue
there could be other issues out there that have not been resolved.
Mollerup: I just thought that all of the construction issues had been taken care of in the
first thirty days before the 90 day was issued.
Stiles: Is my signature on the 90 day certificate?
Mollerup: No, Gary's
Stiles: Under Planning and Zoning?
Mollerup: No, there is no signature under Planning and Zoning.
Corrie: It looks like we have got, evidently there are two things, one is the lighting we
need to take care of and the other is either getting the negotiations done at this point.
Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I would not want anybody to be misled in any fashion, when the
Mayor said only two issues. It is everything that is required for a permanent certificate of
occupancy that has to be met. I don't know what all of those are, but it is not
necessarily the two issues.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to respond, I think that there is some difference here
and I did read the document that Gary alludes to on October 15t", very candidly Mr.
Mollerup, Albertson's may not be in the real estate development business but by virtue
of what I remember about that document they are certainly in the real estate control
business. If I had been the owner of the parcel I would not have signed that document
and consented to those controls being exerted over my property. I would have pursued
negotiation to get to some reasonable point and then gotten the issue resolved. Now
obviously where we are at now those negotiations haven't gone on.
Mollerup: They haven't started even.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 53
Morrow: And I think that is a fair statement. What I am suggesting from my position on
the Council is that the next two weeks they had best get started and completed
because given the fact that all of the other conditions of the occupancy certificate have
been met and our staff's are willing to sign off on all of their spaces. If there is not a
conclusion between Mr. Lovan and Albertson's that is fair to both parties then at that
juncture we will deal with something else. My tendency or my belief is that we ought to
be getting (inaudible) and getting the thing resolved. But it has to be a fair resolution.
Mollerup: We agree it has to be a fair resolution, I take issue somewhat in your
comment on the restrictions. Those are fairly standard commercial restrictions. At the
time Howard made the offer to sell to us Howard made some comment about the
restrictions. My comment was tell me which ones you don't like we will work with you.
Never heard another word.
Morrow: What I am suggesting to you is that my advice to Mr. Lovan is that he had
better get to work with you.
Mollerup: I just don't want to be here and waiting for the other shoe to fall forever. Some
time we have to reach some closure on this issue.
Morrow: We are in agreement.
Baldner: I am a surplus property representative with Albertson's and I spoke with you
last time. I guess I am somewhat confused, we were here four months ago with this
same issue. And Councilman Morrow has asserted that it was Albertson's fault that this
line was the way it was. Frankly I guess we disagree with that, the City Engineer
specked that out to us we built what the City Engineer told us to built. If Mr. Lovan has
a problem with that then perhaps his issue is with the City. My concern then and my
concern now is that we have an investment of roughly $5 to $7 million there that is
dangling pending resolution of this issue. I stated that concern last time. I said
specifically I didn't want anyone holding us hostage. I was assured that would not
happen, I was told by Mr. Morrow, Mr. Rountree also interjected at that point and said
we certainly don't want someone to have the upper hand in these negotiations. And
specifically on the record that night it was reflected that if these easements were good
enough for the City they were good enough for Mr. Lovan. Frankly some of the Council
members didn't understand what there was to negotiate about. Nonetheless in the
spirit of cooperation we moved forward and attempted to negotiate with Mr. Lovan. I
spent $3000 in attorney fees on behalf of Albertson's trying to come to a resolution of
this issue. No answer except for if you don't like dealing with me buy my property for
$400,000. The issues with the conditional declaration, as we said the last time and it is
reflected on the record all relate specifically to an access easement, have nothing
whatsoever to do with the sewer and water easements. They are two separate issues,
the cover letter sent by my attorney reflected that. To argue now that is the reason to
hedge on one or the other issues is nonsensical. Frankly Albertson's has gone to a
great deal of time and expense over an issue which we certainly don't think we are at
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 54
fault. It is not necessarily an issue of fault but the City Engineer told us build the six inch
line and we built it. Once we built it we were told by the City six inch line is too small we
can't take it as a public easement to give it to Mr. Lovan. At no point have we raised
the issues of now we have an easement running across private property for which we
have never been paid. Furthermore it runs to the benefit of a third party private
individual. That has to at least approach the outer limits of the City's takings power and
at a minimum compensation would have to be paid. In short in the next two weeks my
$5 to $7 million investment dangles out there and there is no further direction. I think we
have shown evidence that when the City enters into the fracas with private parties and
since Albertson's doesn't get their CO until this issue is resolved then the gun is to our
head and that is where we still are. I guess specifically I am uncertain why the
representations that were made to us last time have not been honored. We offered him
the easement that we would have given to the City, no response was given. Mr. Lovan,
we can't deal with him personally he has an attorney. I am sorry that they don't
communicate one to the other what else can we do. To table this motion at this point is
just to give Mr. Lovan another two weeks to put the gun to our head. I think the issue
needs closure simply put. There are a lot of issues that we could raise to contest this
thing and frankly that is to the point it is getting. In the spirit of cooperation has to stop
at some point. How much more money do I have to spend, what do I have to give up.
Do I have to give him the sewer lines for free, do I have to pay him to take an easement
to run sewage across my property an easement for which no one has ever paid me.
What is the next step? That is the position of Albertson's, really, frankly I don't know
what else we can give and in the two week period all we are forced to do is knuckle
under and start writing checks. If that is the way we have to do business I think that is
unacceptable.
Corrie: Council, any comments?
Morrow: My comment would be, you and I have totally different, (inaudible) up to the
very beginning. Very candidly I felt that Albertson's was outside the bounds here.
think that the issue got started because of a technicality, there was a great effort made
on the part of the City. The extension, the temporary that we granted is until the 5th of
February. We don't need to deal with the issue as a Council until the Fourth of February
if we are going to do a Council measure. Very candidly from my personal standpoint I
am a stockholder in Albertson's I felt from the beginning when Gary Smith started
corresponding with me that Albertson's was outside the bounds of what had originally
been approved and had been intended to be approved by the City Council as it was
presented to us. I understand all of your arguments but I disagree with you. I think from
our perspective it is an issue here of trying to get to what is fair for Mr. Lovan. When we
address the issue in terms of easements in my mind the easements didn't include all
other conditions, it is a simply thing, take care of the easement in terms of the sewer
line, it doesn't have anything to do with all of these other issues. When Mr. Lovan
presented those documents to Gary and myself and I reviewed them my comment was
is that I wouldn't sign those either, I would agree to that. So as I recall in our last
presentation when you were before us there was never any discussion of a broad
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 55
amount of conditions. It was simply dealing with the easement to get the easement
issue resolved and then (End of Tape)
Baldner: (Inaudible) which is where those restrictions arise. Mr. Manweiler, Mr.
Lovan's attorney is fully apprised. The record reflects that we said here are your utility
easements and then the issue with the plat is the access and if we give the access we
want the restrictions. Two separate issues, this is the one that relates to our occupancy.
I appreciate the Council's desire to provide fairness to Mr. Lovan, I always think when
you have a large company dealing with a private individual I think the scales of justice
should perhaps tip in their favor. But who on the Council is going to speak what is fair
for Albertson's. Is it fair for Albertson's to only have the response come buy my
property for $400,000. That is not fair reasonable fair reasonable behavior. In terms of
the dealings that we have right now we have given him what we would have given you
and if that isn't enough I don't know what else is. The conditional declaration
respectfully is a completely separate issue that relates only to the plat that arises of an
ACHD condition. If there is an issue with those things they are completely separate they
have nothing to do with the utility easements. Mr. Manweiler is aware of that. I can't
speak to whether Mr. Lovan is because I don't know what the status of the
communications between the two was but they are separate. I guess I would again
interject who on the Council at some point is going to say we have gone far enough to
try and make sure the little guy has been taken care of. He has an attorney who simply
won't respond other than to communicate offers to sell.
Morrow: Well very candidly from my perspective until right now I have never heard of
these two separate issues. I think that in the fairness of the Counsel for Albertson's and
Mr. Lovan that Mr. Lovan and his attorney ought to in fact be here from the Council and
my standpoint I want to see it closed and closed right away and if that is February 4t"
then however the chips fall it falls on February 4t"
Baldner: I understand your position sir, I guess the point is in the next two weeks the
number of issues on which we will (inaudible) and I think that is untenable. So I guess I
understand your position, I guess I am frankly seeking to get a different opinion from
other members of the Council.
Rountree: My opinion on this is that Albertson's I believe has taken a good faith effort
and starting negotiations with Mr. Lovan. It doesn't appear as if there has been a good
faith response and I would expect that in the next two weeks and if it doesn't occur then
I would be inclined to say that the deal that was struck has been met. The issue to me
are the issues related to zoning requirements that have to be met and those apparently
have not all been resolved and that is an issue that I think you need to concentrate on.
Baldner: Absolutely, that is something that we have worked with, we have property
owners in the back that we have been addressing that issue with as well and Scott
Edens is here if you have any specific questions or staff. But I think just because of that
one condition out there that creates somewhat of a red herring and impetuous to allow
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 56
the issue to drag on I think that condition can simply be moved at this state. And frankly
if Mr. Lovan called us up tomorrow and said I will sign those easement agreements that
you would have given the City we will do it. Frankly he is going to sell this off for
commercial development at some point and there are perspective buyers out there that
have contacted us directly saying we will live with all of these restrictions, we will live the
sewer hook up. The only, there is no reason to assume that this is unacceptable or will
affect resale.
Bentley: I too agree with Charlie, I think the effort has been made and I think it needs to
be consummated within the next two weeks. If it is not then we will deal with it at the
hearing.
Baldner: I appreciate your time, are there any other questions?
Corrie: No, I just had one comment, I don't know how the vote would go, but my
comments to Mr. Lovan would be when you said give me the money and you can have
it I hope that is not cut in stone for you because if that is then you are not going to
negotiate anyway. So I don't think it is but the comment was made give me the money
and I will do it, so my suggestion would be to work with them in the two weeks that you
have got from what you are hearing here.
Lovan: (Inaudible) Albertson's did present me with those documents it just kind of
struck me wrong that they should not be telling me what I could do. I couldn't put a
pharmacy in there, I couldn't put a bakery in there, I couldn't put a child care or well
anything that had to do with the retail business. I couldn't put a doctor's office in there, I
couldn't put most any other thing you want to say that they were trying to restrict me to.
I don't know whether they were trying to use that as leverage to get me to sign the
other document it is quite obvious that I have to have the sewer. Like I say, I don't
really want the Council to treat me any different then they have not treated everyone
else. If it is going to cost me the $3000 why that is the way it is period. That is really
not an issue, it is an issue of fairness with me.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a comment here, I want everybody in this room to
understand that there is no difference between my position, Mr. Bentley's and Mr.
Rountree's position. I want this settled by the next time. Notwithstanding the
perceptions of what is right and what is wrong. I think the onus here is upon yourself
and your attorney to get it resolved over the next two weeks because very candidly at
the end of the two weeks at least as far as this issue is concerned notwithstanding the
other issues in terms of the occupancy certificate by virtue of P & Z and the other folks.
There will be a resolution from my perspective at the February 4t" meeting. If you and
your counsel have not made good faith effort you may not be very happy with the
resolution. So, that is where I am standing at this particular point in time, I don't think
that is any different than what Mr. Rountree and Mr. Bentley have stated. That should
be understood by Mr. Mollerup and the Albertson's folks, is that this issue is separate
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 57
from the other issues that Shari has talked about but this one will be resolved on the 4th
and the burden is upon you to get it resolved.
Lovan: My last comment to Mr. Manweiler and the Albertson's legal is right there in the
same building and it should be very easy for them to get together.
Corrie: We need to have a motion to continue this discussion to the February 4th
meeting.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue this discussion to the February 4th
meeting.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we continue this to the February 4th meeting,
all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
I��� IEe�ifii��]��_1:i�►�1�►�r:»l�]:iryl
Corrie: Chief?
Gordon: Just one issue, I was able to locate Mr. Tolsma, he hurt is leg today and that is
the reason he is not here.
Corrie: Shari?
Stiles: I have nothing.
Corrie: Mr. Smith?
Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members this won't take very long at all. I have two
items, one is our transportation task force committee met on January 8th and I have
some minutes from that meeting that I would like to pass out to you for your review. I
do have some additional information coming from APA on that light rail demonstration
project and as soon as I get that I will distribute that to you also. The second item I
have concerns Ashford Greens Subdivision No. 1 utility easements. I guess there was a
request to have those approved by the Council tonight. They are two easements forms
one for US West and the other is a general utility form being requested by Brighton
Corporation. My Assistant Engineer, Brad Watson, has reviewed the legal descriptions
that have been submitted and they are satisfactory. Wayne Crookston has looked at
the format and he has one recommendation for a change which we can have them
make and that is all. These are easements that are on the boundary of the golf course
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 58
holes adjacent to the public rights of way. They are easements that cross access legs
to the golf course holes from the public right of way.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the clerk to
attest the easements that Gary has presented subject to the corrections necessary.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion is made and seconded on the easement for the Mayor to sign and the
City Clerk to attest, any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of the
motion? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Smith: Mr. Mayor I will get the corrections made and get it to you and Will. Thank you
that is all I have.
Corrie: Mr. Johnson?
Johnson: I really don't have anything, I am prepared to comment on your nominee for
appointment to P & Z if you so desire this evening.
Corrie: Counselor?
Crookston: I have nothing tonight thank you.
Corrie: Mr. Morrow?
Morrow: In the interest of brevity, we'll review the minutes from the Transportation Task
Force at our Thursday night strategic planning meeting, that is what the notice is
Thursday night January 23rd at 6:30 p.m. Other than that, I did have a question on the
Dean Ehlert in terms of the place across the street but we can address that then too.
Corrie: Mr. Bentley?
Bentley: I have a few things here, I passed out a copy of the survey on the rec. center,
top line, go reading across left to right shows the yes's and what the response were to
the different questions. The next line down shows the no's. Roughly 83% are in favor
of it. I have talked to Mr. Rountree and the committee would like to continue and take a
look at financing and a more elaborate survey that would possibly be done through BSU
we are going to do some talking with them on that. Also, I don't know if anybody, Ron
is not here to ask him but we had discussed on the Fire Department issue about how to
charge on runs and stuff. We did get a hold of some copies of the Nampa budget and
how they put theirs together and they base theirs solely on population of the rural areas
to the City areas. I highlighted that in pink and they just (inaudible). Their feeling is that
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 59
there is really no way to sit and count on a fire run whether you have one truck, two
trucks, five people, six people or even on their emergency runs. So they just track all of
their stuff off a straight percentage off of population. I will pass that on for you to review.
That is all I have.
Corrie: Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: Parks and Recreation Commission met last evening, the highlight of the
meeting was the review of the bylaws with some minor corrections, I will present the by
laws to Counsel for quick over and then to the City Council for consideration and
adoption. We are taking itty bitty steps but making some progress of coordinating with
all of the public entities and trying to pull in some of the activity groups to identify
resources and resource needs and the group is working pretty well. They are working
well together, pretty good exchange of information and a hard working group.
Corrie: I have two things, one I won't be here Thursday night I will be in Salt Lake City,
so take minutes. The only other thing I had in your box was an interoffice memo, I said
that within ten days to make an appointment for the Planning and Zoning
Commissioners seat. I presented Mr. Hal Ford, I guess now would be an appropriate
time for you Jim to give me some feed back there.
Johnson: I met with Mr. Hal Ford this morning for the first time, I hadn't met him before.
And Actually talked to him on the phone and went to his place of business. He has a
small business in the Fred Meyer Plaza. We spoke for a while at that time, he was busy
so I left him a series of questions that I had prepared so I could have a written response
on why he wanted to serve and what his background had been in community service,
governmental contacts he had in the past. I went back this evening at 5:30 and we
talked for awhile, he hadn't completed the survey. He is an intelligent person that has
been in the area for a short time, two years, comes by way of Delaware, he was
transferred out here and the transfer deal didn't work out and he went to work for
another company and was terminated and started a small business just a short time
ago. He seems genuinely interested in serving in the community, his involvement at this
point is really with the Chamber of Commerce as a member (inaudible) and also a
member of the Shriners. I didn't have enough conversation with him to really get the
answers to the survey questions I wanted. Particularly in terms of time commitment
and his interest for wanting to serve. So until I get that I guess I will reserve final
judgment, but indications at this point are positive. With the exception of a short time in
the area and he does live in Meridian Greens and we already have one member of P &
Z living in that area, so we would be duplicating areas as far as residency goes.
Corrie: Thank you Jim.
Morrow: I have a question, the article in the paper last week how many responses have
we had for people interested in the position?
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 60
Corrie: We had three, two were in the building and construction industry and one is the
planner for the City of Boise.
Morrow: A planner for the City of Boise, but lives in Meridian?
Corrie: Correct.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I would like to make one comment, the individual
proposed has been in violation of the sign ordinance. He has got his A frame signs on
his berm out on Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove and despite continued request to
take them down he refuses to. So I just thought you might like to know that.
Corrie: Well you could have a motion to reject or a motion to continue this or whatever
you want to do. If you continue with Mr. Johnson's meeting with him a little bit more I
think it would be apropos.
Crookston: I don't know this individual and I am not commenting on this individual
whatsoever. This may not be a requirement now but at one time you had to live in the
area for five years before you could be appointed to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Corrie: I don't know, Jim could you help me with that.
Rountree: I think you are right, I think it is still in the ordinance.
Johnson: There is a residency requirement, I didn't think it was that long.
Corrie: (Inaudible) city limits or within the area of impact.
Crookston: It would have to be in the area within which the Planning and Zoning
Commission supervises.
Rountree: Well we can find that out.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we continue this issue until our meeting of
February 4, 1997.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue until the 4th of February, all those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: That is all I have.
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 61
Berg: I have just one, you noticed this Local Planning Act, anyone that is interested
please contact me tomorrow.
Morrow: What is it?
Berg: It is a Local Planning and Land Use Regulation workshop that we had similar to
last year.
Morrow: The one we went to?
Berg: Yes
Morrow: So we have to go again?
Berg: No, it is just available for you and there is further information what topics they
have that Shari received later today that I didn't have with mine. I am going to hit up a
couple of the new Planning and Zoning Commissioners and see if they are interested.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might, I did forget one issue, you and I did briefly discuss it. As
a part of this minutes from our Transportation Task Force, Gary was able to confirm
that Becky Peterson is no longer a resident of the City of Meridian. What Mayor Corrie
and I discussed was asking for a formal letter of resignation as our representative on
the Air Quality Board to be sent to us. And also it is appropriate that we give her a
plaque or something with the Council's permission after we receive that. Then we would
appoint and confirm a new representative.
Corrie: I have the letter now, I just don't have the letter for you group, on your task force
but I will get that. Anything further? I will entertain a motion to adjourn.
Rountree: So moved
Morrow: Second
Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:00 MIDNIGHT
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
Meridian City Council
January 21, 1997
Page 62
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK