1999 06-17MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING-JUNE 17, 1999
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Committee was called to order
at 6:00 P.M. by Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Tammy De Weerd, Byron
Smith, Bill Gigray, Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg
Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. This is a special meeting of the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission. Our second meeting for this month. Chairman
MacCoy is out of town this evening and has asked me to fill in for him. We have all the
other Commissioner’s here other than Commissioner MacCoy. I would like to proceed
with the agenda. Any additions or corrections from any of the Commissioners?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I would like to see added to the agenda discussion on two
ordinances. The sign ordinance and the landscape ordinance as well as the discussion
on the Chairmanship.
Borup: Okay. Let’s put that down as Item Number 8. First Item on the agenda—
Smith: Mr. Chairman. Sorry to interrupt . I have a question on the agenda here. We
have two public hearings requesting Comprehensive Plan amendments and earlier this
year we heard another applicant who asked for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
and as I recall, we denied it because we were updating our Comprehensive Plan this
year. I guess I am curious why we even have these on the agenda, because I can’t
see us approving Comprehensive Plan amendments on these issues—I mean I can see
us denying them for the same reason, and why we would even would have them on the
agenda.
Borup: I think because they were requested. My recollection on the previous denial
was twofold. One, because we were working on a redo of the Comp plan but also it
was more of a piecemeal request , which these may fall in the same category. Yes, Mr.
Gigray, do you have a comment?
Gigray: Just a point of information for the Chair and members of the Commission. My
advice to the Commission is that applicants may make applications for whatever they
wish to make application for, so long as it is a matter within the governance of the City
of Meridian, of which the Comprehensive Plan is one of them. They would have a
right to submit an application and then they have at the public hearing presenting
evidence, either for or against their particular proposal and then you have to make a
determination based on those hearings. If you were going to take the position that you
would not request or facilitate a request for amendment of Comprehensive Plan or any
other zoning ordinance, the proper procedure to follow would be to enact a moratorium
ordinance. There are provisions in the land use planning act to do that. There are
limitation, I believe, 180 days to do that and that has to be done by ordinance, so I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 2
assure that these are here before you based on application submitted to the Planning
and Zoning office, of which they duly process and put before you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chair?
Borup: Yes Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: Commissioner Smith. I recall there were circumstances that surrounded
that other application, in regards to the Eagle Corridor and that opening not to just that
piece of property. It was for the whole corridor.
Borup: That’s correct.
Smith: As memory serves correct, we can only make Comprehensive Plan amendment
a year?
Borup: Six months.
Smith: Every six months. Okay.
Borup: That’s not correct either?
Gigray: Mr. Chairman. There was a commission, as I recall a code section it is you can
only request an amendment once every six months. You can deny them on (inaudible).
It the statute just deals with when you recommend amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan. It’s once every six months.
Borup: Okay. I thought that was what Commissioner Smith was referring to. It can
only be changed once every six months.
Gigray: The statute reads kind of oddly. If you recommend –say like you did a denial,
the six months period doesn’t start to run. If you had recommended a approval of a
Comprehensive Plan, then the six months begins—
Borup: Right. That was my understanding too.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman: Mr. Gigray. Would that be one item or 10 at the same time?
It doesn’t matter.
Gigray: It references a change. So, if there is a change then it starts to run at that time.
We have not had that situation present itself in the statute just talks about a
recommendation for a change, so you would have to handle one item at a time. So the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 3
first one would start it running. Say you had two at the same time. That could pose a
problem.
Borup: So more than one item couldn’t be combined as a –
Gigray. No. If it’s one application for a Comprehensive Plan change, that’s one item.
But if you had developer A who requested a Comprehensive Plan, and you had
developer B who requested a Comprehensive Plan change, and developer A’s matter
was approved, because it was first on the agenda, then you would have a problem with
item B, if you recommended a change. That would all be handled, I’m sure in staffing if
that issue came up.
Borup: So we couldn’t approve several applications at the same meeting and have—
Gigray. Not if it involved a Comprehensive Plan change. If it is one application by one
developer, then I think you can do that.
Borup: So we couldn’t combine several applications into one recommendation?
Gigray: There is a possibility you could do that, but I think you would have to make
some procedural moves ahead of time and you’d have to get the (inaudible) and
agreement on the part of the application to do that.
Borup: Yes, Thank you. I had one other item I think we can handle that right now. The
applicant has requested Items 2 and 3 to be reversed—to hear 3 first and then 2. He
felt that would enable us to have a better understanding of Item 2 when we get to it. If
none of the Commissioner’s have any objections, I’d like to proceed in that order then.
Okay, I’d like to get back to Item Number 1.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I move that we approve the agenda with the mentioned
changes.
Smith: Second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Thank you. Item Number 1.
ITEM 1. DISCUSSION OF ANNEXATION APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY AT 4000
E. FAIRVIEW BY DAKOTA COMPANY:
Borup: Shari. Would you like to introduce.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 4
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. Prior to entering into Item Number 1. My employer is
currently constructing a large commercial project with in Phase 1 of the Family Center,
under the direction of Dakota Company. To avoid any appearance of a conflict of
interest, I request the Chair excuse me from agenda items 1,2 and 3.
Borup: Okay. Thank you commissioner. Duly noted. Commissioner Barbeiro as he
mentioned, will not be participating in the first 3 items. Miss Stiles.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. The memo that we have dated June 17, 1999,
that addresses the Comprehensive Plan amendment that Item Number 1 is our
comment on the discussion of the annexation application that we did not process. I’ll
just read it in the record. Although the applicant has also submitted a request for
annexation and zoning of the 12.3 acres, staff did not process the annexation and
zoning application as it is not in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. As
no action could be taken on the annexation request, other than a denial, staff felt the
time and energy expended would take away from valid requests.
Borup: Any questions on that from any of the Commissioners? We do have the
applicant here, so I think we---did you have any other comment on Item Number 3
before we—well do we have any other discussion on that then? Yes. Proceed.
Stiles: I don’t have anything in addition for Item Number 1.
Borup: Okay. Commissioners understand what she was trying to say there? Okay.
Did you have—Okay let’s open up the hearing for Item Number 3. Applicant is here.
You may proceed.
ITEM 3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND USE OF 12.3 ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL BY DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED REALTY CORP /
DAKOTA COMPANY—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW & EAST OF RECORDS AVE:
Durkin: Mr. Chairman. I am a little confused on one point. I thought that I would be
allowed to offer testimony as related to that discussion the first agenda item, so I would
just like to offer a couple comments on that.
Borup: Does that cover things that aren’t covered in the other two. I think that would be
appropriate. Proceed. Go ahead and say your name for the record.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 E. Park Center Blvd. Ste 100,
Boise, Idaho. I’d like to take a few minutes to give a overview of the three applications
that we’ve submitted tonight, if that’s all right. Then I am going to immediately address
some comments relating to the first agenda item. I think it will be more clear with what
we are trying to do if you give me a moment to do a broad overview. As you know, the
shopping center at Eagle & Fairview, is well under way. What we are trying to do
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 5
tonight is add 12 acres to the center. We are trying to rezone part of the center and
trying to annex the 12 acres that we will add to the shopping center. The process is
very complicated but yet our plans are quite simple. Unfortunately, with 3 applications
for the same use, there is a lot of redundancy at each application. If you have any
suggestions on how I can simplify it, I’d be happy to do so. Prior to starting I am going
to have some handouts for the commissioners that are identical replicas of the boards
that I will be showing tonight. You have them in front of you so that you can look at
them. I am going to tell you right now what the 4 sheets are and then, as we go
throughout the evening with the other agenda items, those same props will be used.
For the benefit of the public that is here tonight, I’m going to ask Tom Bowins from our
office to stand up and point to a few things on the board against the wall. That is the
sheet that you have. That is a larger scale of it, but you people in the public can see
possibly from where they are. I don’t know if that is visible enough. That first sheet is
the center, as we have approval now to build it. The bottom section, the future phase,
we didn’t draw in the building’s but we have now a condition use permit for that overall
center as it is displayed on that sheet. The second sheet is an enlargement of the
Comprehensive Plan map showing the property that we will talk about tonight
throughout (inaudible) applications. The third sheet is the combined property east of
Records Drive. The forth sheet is a drawing of how the center will look with the added
property when fully developed. Now I’d like to talk about the first agenda item. We
would like to have the annexation matter heard concurrently with the Comprehensive
Plan since the two are absolutely related. This is not a speculative venture for us. We
are asking for approximately 12 acres to be added to the center so that we can
accommodate a specific and a specific tenant. Throughout our applications, we will be
asking you to impose a requirement that we go through a development agreement on
the development of that additional 12 acres, as well as the other property that we will be
talking about tonight. I have photo copied page 78 from the latest issue of the Meridian
Ordinance book. I have highlight for your—just to point out to you Section 2.417. I
have highlighted a sentence in there. The sentence reads, “The application to amend
the Comprehensive Plan and the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area, must be
processes and granted either simultaneously or prior to the annexation application.” It
doesn’t state there that it has to be separated. It does give the option of doing it either
way. I did not highlight this section, but if you look at the very top of the page, the first
sentence reads, “If the annexation shall necessitate an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, the Commission shall advise the applicant to request a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment prior to further consideration of the annexation.” We
acknowledge that we’ve been notified that a Comprehensive Plan change is required,
and we are going through that process. But in the interest of consistency and simplicity,
and in an effort to give the public to comment on all three applications while they are
being processed, we would request that you hear them simultaneously since the
ordinance book gives you that right. That’s the full extent of the comments I have
regarding agenda Item Number 1.
Borup: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Would you like to
proceed to Item Number 3 than Mr. Dunkin? Okay, Item Number 3.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 6
ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND USE OF 12.3 ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL BY DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED REALTY
CORP/DAKOTA COMPANY—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW & EAST OF RECORDS AVE:
Borup: I need to open up the Public Hearing. I’d like to open the hearing on the item I
just read. Staff have you got any comments on this item you’d like to make.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. Nothing in addition to the comments we made
in our memo to you dated June 17th
.
Borup: Mr. Durkin. You may proceed.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 E. Park Center Blvd., Ste 100,
Boise, Idaho. I am the president and owner of Dakota Company Inc. A Boise based
development company. I am here tonight on behalf of the applicants, Developers
Diversified Realty Corp. I’d like to make a couple points for the record for interest of
clarity for this application and the others. When I use the term I or me, I am referring to
the applicant with their permission. One of the members of Developers Diversified is
here tonight. Next, we have or will be changing the name of the entire shopping center
in the very near future. From the Family Center, at Meridian to Meridian Crossroads.
So, throughout my testimony, when I use the terms The Family Center, Meridian
Crossroads or Crossroads, I am referring to the entire shopping center that you have
know through previous applications as The Family Center Meridian or the Family
Center. I just thought that would be an important point to clarify and get on the record.
In reading the Comprehensive Plan book, I could not find any guide lines or standards
for how and why and if you were to request a Comprehensive Plan chance. However, I
did find in the ordinance book, some general standards that would be applicable to
zoning amendments. They are pages 76 and 77 and items 1-12. I am not going to
read all 12 of them, but there are a couple that I’d like to bring to your attention. I took
those standards and tried to apply that test to our application tonight, since it was the
closest thing I could find in any of the book available from the city. We will talk about
some of these things throughout the presentation tonight, but you look at item number
6, will the proposed use be hazardous or disturbing to the existing or future neighboring
uses. W are going to talk about that tonight. Will the proposed use involve activities,
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons
property or the general welfare. We are going to talk about that tonight. Will the area
have vehicular approaches to the property item number 10. Will the access be
adequate is what they are saying there. And then item number 12 is the most
important. Is the proposed zoning amendment or in this case the proposed amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan in the best interest to the City of Meridian. I have some
things tonight that I am going to go over that I hope you agree that it is. I am going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 7
walk over to the large map and point out one thing and then I’ll come back to the
podium. Is this microphone live? Okay. Throughout my presentation tonight, I am
going to be referring to a parcel that we at Dakota Company and Developers
Diversified, refer to internally as parcel number 5. So I thought just for the public tonight
and for the Commissioners, if I refer to parcel number 5, I just thought I’d point this out
the map so you’d know what I am talking about. I want you to be aware that it isn’t a
separate parcel of property and it is another procedure that we have to go through.
This parcel is shaded gray area and including this white parcel is parcel number 5 of
our shopping center. I will refer to that sometimes tonight and this is the property that I
am talking about. For the public, I am talking about this piece of property right here.
Last year we began the city approval process for the development of the shopping
center as you’ve seen on our first board. This process turned into a 6 month process,
but we finally gained the approval and conditional use permit for the shopping center.
And, as you know, the shopping center is well under way. We are developing a
shopping center in a couple of different phases and again I am going to ask Tom to
stand up there and point those out to you. Right now we have construction under way
that runs from Presidential Drive to the intersection of Fairview and Eagle. Continues
east to the intersection of Records Drive and Fairview. From a site standpoint, that’s
what we call phase 1. Our building construction that is under way right now consists of
a Shopko Store that Tom is pointing out on the plan. We have submitted building
permits for the retail building some of the retail buildings along Eagle Road and from a
building stand point, that is going to be phase 2. Phase 3 would include the property
we are talking about tonight, both parcel number 5 and if we are successful in gaining
your approvals the added property. Thinking about the hearing process that we went
through, both at the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Council last time, rather
than rehash that, I kind of read through everything and went through our notes and I
think that it’s fair to summarize that there were two major concerns that we faced
meeting after meeting after meeting. The one was the potential noise problems for the
shopping center and the second was traffic congestion and can the area handle this
from a traffic standpoint. There are other concerns like architectural and internal
landscaping and internal traffic flow that we were able to handle. But I think that the two
big concerns that we spend a lot of time on were the noise and the traffic. As you know,
we conducted several traffic studies and concluded that the highway and streets were
suitable for the center. We gained all the necessary ACHD approvals and three
hearings that were held at ACHD. In addition, we agreed to add turn lanes, stop lights
and to set aside some land for future road widening and possibly even over passes.
We conducted a noise study, or I should say we hired an outside consultant company to
conduct a noise study. It is the first time I am aware of that ever being done for a
shopping center. We spent a lot of time adjusting the site plan and making other
modifications to insure that the noise from the operations of the center would not be a
problem. Our request tonight is to gain your approval for an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to allow the change from single family residential use to
commercial use for approximately 12 acres east of the land we own on the east side of
parcel number 5. So for everyone’s clarification Tom, could you point to that on the
Comprehensive Plan—that’s the area—and then on the other site plan against the wall.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 8
Why are we asking for this change? Do we really need more space? It is a pretty big
shopping center and we have a lot of building going on. Well let me answer these two
questions and then I will go into the viability of residential use for the property as it is
now designated. We are asking for this change in order to add a tenant to the shopping
center that from a size and scope standpoint, can not be accommodated elsewhere in
the center. This tenant will build a store that will bring many benefits to the center and
to the City of Meridian. Our application will meet or exceed the screening criteria that’s
now in place for the property. We’ll continue that same screening and buffering to the
added property. The landscaping plan for the added property will meet or exceed the
conditions now imposed on us with the conditional use permit that we have. The
change will result in the construction of a building that would not back up to residential
areas, but it would not back up to any future single family homes. What loading that
we will have will back up to a cemetery and will be well screened and buffered. On the
plan that we now have approved on parcel 5, we have approval for 100,000+ square
feet backing up to an existing single family residential area. The change that we’re
requesting would take away any buildings from backing up to that area and those
buildings would back up to a future street, the extension of Venture Street. On the east
side of that street is occupied cemetery. Remember the two concerns I talked about—
noise and traffic. From a noise standpoint, this is a drastic improvement. I want to talk
about the traffic. We have submitted a letter to ACHD that addresses the incremental
impact of this new store. The same traffic engineer that did the study for the entire
shopping center did a study of what would happen if we took 100,000 square feet that
we now have approved and added another 10,000 square feet. As you can see from
the letter, the incremental increase from a daily trip is fairly small and the peak hour
trips are fairly small. I can’t think of another area in the City of Meridian or vicinity
where you could do approximately 200,000 square feet of development with such a
small impact on the traffic. But what if you say no tonight? What if you delayed this?
Then what happened? Well this company will build a store somewhere else. Maybe in
Meridian, maybe on the west side of Boise. The people that are shopping at our
shopping center will continue to stop there, but they’ll leave our shopping center and go
somewhere else in the area, resulting in –another letter I am going to hand out to you.
We received a letter today from Ada County Highway District suggesting that the
building that we are proposing could generate as many as 10,000 vehicular trips a day.
So you have an opportunity to add this type of development and the benefits it brings to
the City of Meridian but not have 10,000 trips a day, or somewhere in that area, but a
significantly lower amount. We submitted the letter from Patrick Dolby to ACHD for their
review and late today they responded. I hand that letter out. They responded that they
had looked at our numbers and they now understood that it was part of this
development and that they did not feel a further traffic study was required and that they
agreed with our numbers. So should this be deferred for 18 or 24 months, we will
proceed with our development on parcel number 5 and this store will be built
somewhere else. Instead of a 100,000 square foot addition of space, you’ll have
200,000 square feet somewhere else. The traffic impact of that will be significant. The
property that we’re trying to have the designation changed for along with the cemetery
is designated as future single family residential. I think it is doubtful that the cemetery,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 9
which is occupied, will move. So, the city is left with a small strip of property that is
between a shopping center and a cemetery. From a traffic standpoint, should that land
be developed, you’ll have 50-60 homes built and their access would be onto Fairview
Avenue, onto Ventura Street and into an expanded section of Crossroads subdivision.
Our plan has all of the traffic controlled going into our parcel number 5 and out on
Fairview. There is no access into the Crossroads subdivision of any kind. There is no
access onto Venture Street from this development. We are handling the traffic in a way
that will be beneficial to the adjoining property owners. We are adding the benefit to
the city of revenues. We are adding a benefit to the adjoining property owners from a
noise standpoint. The center, which is under construction now, is being built to handle
this type of addition. The off site work or the work on the ACHD property, will be
completed by us well in advance of the development on parcel 5 or the added parcels.
Our improvements are widening Records Drive doing two left turn lanes, two right turn
lanes. There is deceleration lanes. That work is underway right now with a completion
scheduled in September. You know other areas face problems with traffic. As I read in
today’s paper, an ACHD in Meridian are challenged to meet the flow of cars because
the planning did not take into consideration the future traffic or future development of
some areas. In fact, today I read an article in the paper, I photocopied of anyone did
not have a chance to read it, but this is in the Statesman this morning and it basically
talked about the congestion around –I guess I want to say the proposed Winco Store
and the Home Depot area. The challenge there, can they widen the streets? Can they
made the development work. Well our project was planned for this to meet the traffic
today. To meet the traffic generated by the shopping center, and to meet the traffic well
into the future. Should expansion be necessary, we have set aside land on all of the
street frontages to make expansion of the streets easy and affordable. As the traffic
increases, it is doubtful that the land that we are talking about for the Comprehensive
Plan change will develop into single family. In short the designated use is not likely to
occur. Our plans will enhance the center, bring substantial revenues into the city, will
put no burdens on the roads, will put no burden on the schools or parks or utilities and
the addition of this property will enhance the layout of the shopping center as it is now
approved by the city. That concludes my prepared comments on the Comprehensive
Plan request and I am happy to answer any questions. I would like the opportunity to
have a rebuttal.
Borup: Of course. Any Commissioner?
Smith: Mr. Durkin. You stated that if this project doesn’t go here, it’s 100,000 square
feet, there will be 200,000 square feet build somewhere else. I am confused.
Durkin: Sure. I am going to walk over to the approved map. Commissioner Smith. If
you look at sheet number 1 – I don’t know if this is set up so you can see it. Okay. This
is an exact duplication of this. This is sheet number 1 in your packets and this
represents the property that we now have approved for a shopping center. On parcel
number 5, right in this area, we have the approval for approximately 130,000 square
feet of development, which will occur by us in one fashion or another. We have an
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 10
opportunity now to modify this. We have applications in front of you that would allow
that modification, that instead of building the development—the hundred and some
thousand square feet on parcel number 5, we would be adding land to east and doing
approximately 200,000 in this area. Most of this with the exception of the corner parcel
goes away. If we are delayed or denied, we’ll still build 130,000 square feet on this
property. The tenant that we are trying to accommodate will go some place else within
the immediate area and the result will be an increase of—you’ll have a 200,000 square
foot development in the area. I am not aware of a location in the City of Meridian that
can handle that, there may be. But to give you an idea of the size and the scope and
the impact of that type of development it would be quite similar to the Fred Meyer
project at Fairview and Locust Grove.
Smith: I guess my confusion—I find additional parcel was going to be 100,000 not
200,000 square feet. I think I already know the answer to this question, but I don’t
suppose you can tell us who this prospective tenant is or type of business.
Durkin: I am glad you asked that. I can tell you a lot about the prospective tenant. I
can’t tell you the name. I don’t mean to be coy, but in our business I can’t do that. I
have a confidentially agreement. I can’t disclose at this time but the name will become
apparent quite soon. The –we’ve had a number of calls from people in the Crossroads
Subdivision, and when I say a number I think four. In addition, we’ve had a couple
realtor calls asking about grocery stores---we need a grocery store, when you going to
have a grocery store—when you going to have a grocery store. The tenant that we are
proposing for this will have a grocery store. The development of this will probably result
in the relocation of the grocery store that we anticipated building on Eagle Road and
moving it over on to this parcel. It will bring a grocery store to serve this area. In
addition, they will offer department store services as well but the primary focus of their
store is food, grocery store related items.
Smith: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd, any questions?
De Weerd: Not at this point.
Borup: I take it that Macy’s is not in the picture at this time.
Durkin: They are still in the picture at this time.
Borup: They still are. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Do we have any one in the
audience that cares to comment on this application. If so, step right up.
Woodvine: My name is Woodvine. I live on the corner of Records and Florence Drive.
Borup: Your last name is Woodvine?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 11
Woodvine: Yes. With a V. I have no objection to any of this stuff. The only think I’ve
got to comment on is the water. If and when you give the clearance to go ahead on all
this stuff, would it be possible to have them line, that open ditch line, going east from
the (inaudible) station to where it bends and heads south because then it’s all concrete
and then when it turns back around then it’s open to Cloverdale and to the cemetery.
The fluctuation of water that they’re causing me it use to be that it did not matter. The
date on your water right if you were at the head of the ditch, that was the best water
right in the world. Well I haven’t been at that pump station and I spend about 18 hours
a day just cleaning my screen and getting it clean and then each one of the little ones.
It is all caused by the fluctuation of the water. They have been told on numerous
occasions that the drivers were blocking off the water and they are causing the
fluctuation in the water and then the stuff comes down and get—they’ve even had to
clean the station out down there and shut the whole project off. I was just wondering
that if you do approve this deal, if you could get them to put that liner in up to the other
concrete line where it turns south. That’s the only comment I’ve got, but I spend all my
time just cleaning my filters.
Borup: Mr. Woodvine. I had a question. You said at this point it is an open ditch from
what point to—
Woodvine: Pump station—
Borup: And where is the pump station located?
Woodvine: Right on Records. That supplies the whole—
Borup: Okay, right there on the corner. In fact they even have it on the site (inaudible).
And it is open there to the east –
Woodvine: East to where it turns south and then it’s concrete from there. And then
where it turns back again east, then and goes to Cloverdale and through the cemetery.
Borup: That ditch is on—in the Crossroads Subdivision. It’s on the Family Center side
then?
Woodvine: Well our fence says it is on the other side.
Borup: Okay, well—any other Commissioners have anything? Okay thank you.
Anyone else have any comment?
Courval: Robert Courval, 3653 E. Presidential Drive in Crossroads. I think what’s
happening is in order for Union Point to draw water out of the irrigation ditch, that they
back that up to create a head and when they release it, it picks up all the silt and carried
it into the pump station into our pump station, so every body get dirt into their sprinklers.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 12
It is a big problem, not just for Mr. Woodvine, but for a lot of folks. I live clear on the
other side of the subdivision. My neighbors have the same problem. I think that is the
current problem and it doesn’t and I don’t know what it has to do with their application,
but since it came up, I think that is the problem.
Borup: It is separate, but it’s also part of the whole project. Thank you. Anyone else?
Crawford: My name is Molly Crawford and I live at 1256 North Legislative Way. It’s
right on the corner—I think it’s lot. The water for me, again, is a big problem. I can’t run
my system more than 10 minutes on each zone with out cleaning my filters, my main
filters. It is just absolutely crazy. We spend –I don’t know—6 or 7 thousand dollars on
landscaping, and that is starting to die because we can’t water it unless we go out and
physically clean all the heads—the little sprinkler heads—as well as the main filter. I
have called, I don’t know how many times, the developer as well as the Nampa
Meridian Water District, and we get some results, but never long-lasting. When they
come out and clean the system out, it will be fine for a day and they after than it starts
to clog everything up again. That’s one of my main concerns as well as this new
development where it’s going to be, for us it going to be completely blocking our view. I
am absolutely against it. It sounds all well and good, but I just do not want it there.
What we have as far as project 5, that part is fine but the extension I am against. One
other thing that we are having problems with is the road on Records. I think it has
either 4 or 5 strips that are cut out and they fill them in and about 2 days later there are
big holes in there that you almost need a four wheel drive to get in and out of there. Or
front end alignments to be done on you vehicles. There are huge holes in there and
that needs to be better maintained—not you know—in 2 months or 2 weeks. It needs to
be done right away. That’s all.
Borup: Any questions?
De Weerd: Where is your lot?
Crawford: Let me step over here. This is Records, correct? I am right here. It is right
on the corner here.
END OF TAPE – SIDE 1
Crawford: This is our lot right here. There’s (inaudible) if they go on with this or if they
do put in another single family home, that I’m assuming will continue. This is my lot
right here. If they put this in that’s going to obstruct our view of Bogus as well,
depending on how tall this building is going to be, what’s it going to be and I am
absolutely against it.
Borup: So by moving the building here it would block this but it would open up all these
people. All your neighbors would have a better view. I understand what your saying.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 13
Crawford: They have a fence there too that ---
Borup: I understand. I was just pointing out that by moving it, it may block a few but it
opens up more than it is going to block.
Crawford: That depends on all the other people down that street. I don’t know if any
one else from that---but I’m against it.
Borup: I understand. Thank you.
Bear: Arnold Bear. 3576 Presidential. I too want to talk about the water. I was one of
the first homeowners in there, about four and a quarter years ago, and this is easily the
worst season we’ve had on pressurized irrigation. In talking with a couple of the guys
with the irrigation district that are classified as pressurized irrigation specialists, they tell
me the problem is the fluctuations in the ditch. What I don’t understand is why the
developer completely closed in the ditch from Record all the way out to Eagle Road
then down Eagle Road to where it crosses under Eagle to head over this way, and did
not do the last portion there, from Record east. There is in effect a junction box at the
property line at the east end of Crossroad Subdivision and that junction box sets just
outside the property line and at that box it empties out into an open ditch and flows
down along the property line to our pump station. If this were either lined or buried in
concrete culvert as they did the other half mile, I think our problem would be
substantially improved.
Borup: Okay. I am going to ask the applicant about that right now before we—Is it your
understanding –did they explain what was causing the fluctuation?
Bear: Yeah. They felt that the fluctuation up and down, up and down a couple times a
day keeps washing fresh dirt loose on the banks and we are sucking it into the system.
I would not want to go away for a week, let alone for 2 or 3 weeks in the middle of the
summer and have my sprinkler to come on a couple times a week and after the first
dose all the filters are plugged and there you go.
Borup: I’m still confused. Is the developer using water on developing the site?
Bear: Yeah.
Borup: Okay. So when they come in and fill their dump trucks it is causing fluctuation.
That’s what I thought someone mentioned earlier. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Bear. Have you had these problems in the past or has it just been this
year?
Bear: No. In years passed a few times when they were adding new sections in our
development, and some contractor dug in the wrong place and ruptured a line and then
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 14
introduced a bunch of crap into the system and then in a couple of days you had some
interesting stuff with you know coming through the line and your plugging up filters, but
in years past it was entirely possible you might go as much as a month or more. The
second summer I was there I did not clean my filters once during the season. Now your
very fortunate if you can go a week.
De Weerd: So you have noticed the changes just with-- as construction as been
around.
Bear: Yeah. This year is like no other. Substantially worse.
Borup: I would like to call ask Mr. Durkin to come on up and comment on this. Since
the water seems to be a big concern here although it may not be a direct bearing on
this application, but I think it is on the overall project.
Durkin: First of all, Tom Bowins is here. Tom is Vice President of Construction for our
company and to the best of our knowledge no one has called our office with this –it’s
the first that we’ve heard of it, so we’re both—the contractor may have heard of it, but
no call has come in to Dakota Company that we’re aware –it would go to one of us. A
couple comments regarding the piping. We are required to pipe—we are required to
enclose the ditch on the property that we are now developing—the first phase of the site
work. We are required to do so and we think it is a good idea to do so. So we are
enclosing that. That’s is our building permit for the first phase. We have not taken out
a building permit for the parcel that we refer to as parcel 5 and so we have not done
that yet. We suspect that the problem is occurring when the water trucks monitor to
keep the dust under control. When they fill up, it probably does have an impact on it. If
the Planning & Zoning Commission were to direct the city water department to allow us
to fill the trucks from a fire hydrant, I have the authority and the ability to make sure that
happens beginning tomorrow morning. If you don’t have that authority, my recourse—
the only think I can do is go to the city water department and ask them to do so. If they
have to take a week or two weeks to think about it and research it, under ordinance I
have to have dust control and I have two places to get the water—out of the Nampa
Irrigation ditch or the fire hydrants. I think that is a terrible problem. I have never heard
about it before. I just built a new home on the west side of the city and I’d be real upset
if this was happening to me. My immediate fix, if it is caused by us and if it is caused by
drawing water, I commit tonight we will draw our water from the hydrant first think in the
morning. It may take a direction from either you or from---
Borup: Do you any idea how many gallons a day –
Durkin: I have no idea. A lot. That is the only other place. If we don’t draw water
there, then we are going to have a dust problem and I don’t know—I can only promise
you that I will look into it. It is the first I’ve heard of it and I just don’t know what other
solution. I know it is a immediate solution. Maybe the people at that table would allow
us to draw from a hydrant.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 15
Borup: Let’s get a comment from Mr. Freckleton right now, rather than speculating.
Durkin: Maybe we could draw from a hydrant beginning in the morning and take a
week to look into the problem and see if we can come up with another fix, but we are
willing to do that if we have the approval.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission. This is a really bad time of
the year to be proposing something like that. We are headed into our peak season.
That’s a bad area to be drawing out of the city water. I guess what I would maybe
proposed is looking at an off site source. I know there is other locations around town
where Nampa Meridian will allow you to draw. That may be an alternative. You might
have to truck a little bit but ---
Borup: Does anyone know how much water is in the ditch in the south side of the
project.
Durkin: That is where the ditch is—on the southern edge of the property.
Freckleton: Are you talking about the big drain that goes through Keith?
(Inaudible audience conversation)
Durkin: Mr. Chairman. I make a commitment to (inaudible). I swear I have never heard
about this until this very moment. I can make a commitment tonight that I can look into
it immediately. It is at the top of my list.
Borup: I just thinking from the City’s standpoint this has been—from past reports—this
is an area getting marginal as far as water pressure. Isn’t this an area where you
designated future well site to service this pressure area.
Freckleton: Yes it is. We are in the process of building a new well up at Ustick and at
the Summerfield development, Locust Grove and Ustick area. That will be online later
this summer, but we also, somewhere in this vicinity down here, we are going to be
looking for a well site. I know Gary Smith has had some discussions, I believe with Tom
about maybe a portion of this project. Talking with Gary today we don’t know if that’s
the optimal you know the best spot for a well, so discussions are going on currently
about trying to get more supply in this area.
Borup: But that’s the concern, is to try to pull water from the system would effect
pressure in other areas.
Freckleton: Correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 16
Borup: Thank you. Any other comments. Is looking into talking with Nampa Meridian
to see about—the don’t know what the access would be to the ditch there. I am not
even sure what the name of it is, but the drainage there on the south---
Durkin: I commit to you tonight that not having anything to do with the application, I will
look into it immediately in the morning and I will report back to you. We will find a
solution to it. Another comment on that water issue. The first gentlemen or one of the
people who testified why is the other part open. It’s open because we haven’t gotten a
building permit. When we develop that we will have to close that. It will be enclosed.
Gigray: Mr. Chairman. Looking at a map that ditch that we are talking about that goes
further south is a Settler’s canal, not a Nampa Meridian canal.
Borup: Oh. Settler’s Irrigation District rather than Nampa Meridian. Don’t call the
wrong company. Okay, thank you. I wanted to get Mr. Durkin up. It looks like a lot of
the concerns are on the water situation, so I hope we have answered that. The
developer said he would look in—I think you realize the problem they’ve got. They are
caught between two situations. They are required to keep the dust down. I am sure
you’d want that too. And water needs to come from somewhere and it looks at this
point that it is not available from the city. We will do the best we can on that. Is there
anyone with a comment specifically on the application?
Woodvine: They’ve got manholes on that line, on that (inaudible) where all that water
goes—if they would stick that pump deal right down there—anywhere but where they’d
got it. There needs to be no fluctuation of water.
Borup: Cause it would be further down the line and would have a better head of
pressure.
Woodvine: Well sure. Why sure.
Borup: Your saying put it in after the station rather than before the pump station.
Woodvine. Anywhere from Records to the west and that would eliminate the problem.
Borup: Did you catch that Mr. Durkin. That’s probably the easier solution of all.
Durkin: I caught part of it. Tom Bowins is an engineer and he knows this stuff more
than I do. Tom can you walk over and point out roughly where that man hole is. We
have to get Nampa Meridian’s—first of all point where we are getting the water now.
Okay. And where is the manhole that you are talking about? That would not have an
effect on—it’s after the pump station. I can’t commit to you tonight because we have to
get Nampa Meridian’s permission to do so. We will seek that first thing in the morning,
but I can’t foresee any reason why we can’t do that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 17
Borup: It is still taking the same amount of water. I would think they would be happy.
They are the ones getting the calls now, sounds like, so I think they would be very
happy to eliminate that. That’s even closer than where your doing it so I think that
makes a lot of sense.
Durkin: In the early part of the testimony I gave my name and address. I would also
like to give my phone number. I’ve never had a call on this and I welcome them. It’s
area code 208/343-5223. We will look into the water and I will respond to you with a
memo tomorrow morning.
Borup: Thank you. Sounds like we may have the water thing solved. Anyone else
have anything other than water?
(inaudible): 1238 N. (inaudible) Way. We too are having a horrible problem. We can
not even water our yard with Nampa Irrigation..
Borup: I understand that—
Sandra: Okay, but I just wanted to tell this to him I have talked to Dutch many times
about our water problems, so they have been notified regarding their water. I don’t
know why this gentleman has not been told, but Dutch who is supposed to be the boss
out there has been notified and Nampa Irrigation has notified—
Borup: Is this the Dutch at Union Pointe?
Sandra: Yes.
Borup: That’s the contractor, different company, but they are working—
Sandra: They all know.
Borup: Thank you. Something other than water?
Brown: Kelly Brown, 3873 E. Eisenhower in Meridian. I actually have a question about
when the lights are going in—the street lights. Because Records and Presidential both
have been torn up quite a bit and with the gravel there it is hard to –you actually peel
out when your trying to get into traffic. We are causing some backups on Eagle when
we are trying to slow down because of the gravel. I am concerned when the actual
lights are going in at Records and what will eventually be Pine Street.
Borup: Your talking Records and Fairview.
Brown: Records and Fairview and what will be Pine and Eagle. Now I do understand—
I talked to Thomas Barbeiro a couple days ago and he said the temporary road in what
is the future phase on the map, from Presidential to what will be Pine, will be starting
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 18
construction next week, from what I understand. He did not know when the signal light
would be in there, so does anyone know?
Durkin: For the records we have had calls on Records Avenue, Presidential Avenue
and have responded to those. On Records and Fairview, Records Drive as you know it
today is going to be completely different. When it is built –right now it’s a 2 lane street
without sidewalks, curb or gutter. Records Drive will be complete changed to a wider
street with curb and gutter and sidewalk on both sides. The stop light at the intersection
will be completed I want to say September 1st
. September 1st
is the completion date.
The contracts are signed and executed. The design work is in for the stop light. That
design work has to go through a process. Records Drive from a conditions standpoint
will deteriorate a little bit, because it’s going to get torn out and replaced. Right now
there are some ruts through it and it will be the typical new road construction site. But
by September 1st
, Records Drive will be completed all the way to the intersection. The
intersection will be completed and the stop light will be hopefully operational. On
Presidential Drive there is no stop light. So every one knows, there is no stop light
going in at that location. We requested one go there. ACHD felt that that was too close
to the intersection of Fairview and their desire was to have one at Pine. Stop light will
go in at Pine once we meet, once we have a certain amount of development and I
believe the number is 450 thousand square feet of development in the shopping center.
There is some discussion about Pine Avenue and the new school and what’s going to
happen there. I don’t know what the outcome is. This is ACHD and Meridian School
District matter and the light, as a result of those discussions, may go in sooner. We
don’t have a scheduled date for the Pine stop light, but I imagine it’s going to be a
couple years away.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. (Inaudible) Comprehensive Plan amendment. Any other
testimony? Thank you. Mr. Durkin, would you like to summarize?
Durkin: Thank you. I’d like to make a couple comments. One to attorney Gigray’s
earlier remarks regarding the statute. I have testified here before. I am from a family of
attorney’s and I’ve been around this business all my life, although I’m not an attorney. I
have read that statute and it is worded in such a way that it challenges me. I know that
your experience is far greater in that area. I felt that the intent of that statute and what
they were saying wouldn’t limit you to one application. I noticed there is someone else
later on the agenda tonight. I don’t think they should turn around and go home if you
vote for an approval of this. I think that the action—my opinion the clocks starts when
the council acts and it would be that day. So it could be 5 or 6 or 7 items handled at the
council on one night and it would be no sooner than 6 months after that time. That is
just my opinion. It is a non legal opinion and I haven’t asked for a legal opinion. I don’t
think that the first one—luck of the draw—if your number one on the agenda, number 2
has to wait 6 months. I don’t believe that’s the case and I did read it a few times and it
is tricky. I don’t know if you have a response on the time. I think that the time starts
when the council acts, not when the P&Z acts.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 19
Gigray: Do you want me to respond Mr. Chairman?
Borup: Yes I would.
Gigray. As I recall the statute I think it refers to the Planning and Zoning Commission
and not the council.
Durkin: Is the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission complete prior to the
council’s vote on it?
Gigray: A recommendation of the council’s is a—of the commission is a
recommendation of the commission. It’s a body appointed by the city. It’s odd the way
that it’s worded. It really is more controlling on the actions of the commission rather
than the council.
Durkin: Well, since the action has to be heard at the Council under the ordinance here,
if there is a recommendation here tonight, it goes to a public hearing at the City
Council? At least that’s my understanding of the ordinance. If you were to say, I think
this is great, let’s go with it, we still have to go to the City Council for another public
hearing on the matter, and then they send it back to you for Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law after that. Then they vote again on the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, so I think it would be my—again I think it would go further than
tonight. My hope anyway. I think that I have tried to outline tonight a shorter format
than I done on other nights here on other subjects, but I tried to outline some of the
benefits of what we are asking. We asking for a Comprehensive Plan change that
would really enhance the layout of the shopping center. It enhances the City of
Meridian in many ways. Provides a grocery to this immediate area. We asking for it
because we can not accommodate it anywhere else on the site due to the depth of the
site. We feel that it is a great improvement from the noise and from an operation
standpoint. We feel that the access and control of the traffic will be better served by this
application than by the allowed use. We respectfully request that you look favorably on
this a recommend it be approved to the City Council.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Commissioner’s? Okay
Commissioner’s, I’m probably inclined to see if we have any discussion here before we
close the public hearing.
De Weerd: I would like to know if staff had any further comments.
Borup: Appears not. Any further comments from any of the Commissioners?
Commissioner Smith is getting ready to comment.
Smith: Sheri there was—I thought I read something that you had said you had
processed one of these applications yet. The application was complete but you did not
do anything because of something or rather. I can’t find it…
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 20
Stiles: Mr. Smith that was on the annexation—request for annexation and zoning on
the property that they’re requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment. First of all, the
application was not complete by the deadline date and second of all because it wasn’t
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, we did not feel it was appropriate to
process it even if it had been complete. And that is why it was Item Number 1 on the
agenda.
Borup: So the annexation (inaudible) is not on our agenda is what she is saying.
Because it would be a mute point without the Comprehensive Plan change.
Smith: So I guess my question is given the fact the application was not complete by the
deadline, what’s your recommendation then?
Stiles: You were asking about item number 1. I believe that item is—
Smith: That was just discussion of annexation application.
Stiles: Yeah. Your asking about the annexation application. That was not processed.
That was the application that was incomplete.
Smith: So we don’t have any of your comments—I mean you haven’t even looked at it
basically.
Stiles: No.
Smith: So, ordinarily something like this we would be your review, comments.
Stiles: For an annexation, yes. We are on number 3 now, right?
De Weerd: Request for Comprehensive Plan.
Borup: I think that was the applicants preference, but they both weren’t on the agenda.
De Weerd: So what is the procedure.
Borup: I think at this point I think that staff was assuming we’d proceed with the, correct
me if I’m wrong, proceeding with the Comprehensive Plan change and then go to the
annexation. The application has mentioned (inaudible) that the other option would be to
do them simultaneously. So it looks like you could go either way.
De Weerd: Which makes sense, but since we don’t have staff comments on it, we
could not do it simultaneously. Mr. Chairman. Perhaps Mr. Durkin could respond to
that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 21
Borup: To which? To which way he would like to proceed?
De Weerd: To what his intentions were.
Borup: Yeah. He can respond. My understanding from his previous testimony is that
his intention was to process them simultaneously. Is that correct?
Durkin: That’s correct. That was my opening---that was the discussion—item number 1
was just a discussion. I did not understand what a discussion was so—
Borup: It was not processed because it would be mute without the Comprehensive
Plan change.
Durkin: I think what we were requesting was either action on both items tonight, but we
think we have a complete application. We have a letter saying that it’s complete. But
maybe what would be in order would be a deferral to the next hearing to where you can
hear both of them.
Borup: That’s what I was just going to ask you what your preference would be. To act
on the Comprehensive Plan or wait until the annexation and act on them
simultaneously.
Durkin: My preference is to have it as an informative hearing for you and for the public
as we can. I think it can be most informative when we have staff comments on all three
matters since they are related.
Borup: Thank you.
Smith: Mr. Chairman. I believe staff had something they wanted to add.
Stiles: I guess I’d like to ask Mr. Durkin what letter he has that says the application is
complete. And the date of that.
Durkin: I have a letter dated 5/19/99 to Will Berg and Brittney Louie from Shari Stiles.
It says our department is holding the application which (in parentheses) which is
complete but have decided not to process it until instructed by the commission. It is
part of your staff report that you faxed to me today and Will Berg handed to me tonight.
It is unsigned Shari, so maybe someone typed it for you.
Stiles: Yes, that memo is not from me.
Durkin: In addition, I don’t have it with me, but we have a letter from the City saying
they have a completed application. I just don’t have it with me. I can provide it at the
next meeting. I did not know until right now that anything was incomplete.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 22
Stiles: The application would have had to been complete by the deadline date and if it
were complete on the 19th
, that wouldn’t have met our date. I also want to mention—
Borup: Had the application been reviewed and is complete at this point though, other
than the time?
Stiles: As far as I know, but it was not complete on the application deadline date. Also,
what we’ve been submitted from Mr. Durkin the page 78 from our ordinance. What he
has highlighted only applies to areas or property that is not within the Meridian urban
service planning area. This is already within the urban service planning area so this
not—does not apply to the application.
Borup: Is there anything specific that talks about the procedure –do we have anything
else that says one has to proceed first or is that one of those gray areas.
Stiles: Well it is a little vague. It talks about zoning amendments and –well, probably
on that same page at the top of that page 78, if the annexation shall necessitate an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Commission shall advise the application to
request a Comprehensive Plan amendment prior to further consideration of the
annexation. If the Commission and Council approve an annexation request, the
Commission and Council shall insure said annexation is in accordance with this
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. No action could have been taken on the
annexation in my opinion, until the it is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
De Weerd: So we can not do that simultaneously is what you are saying.
Stiles: I don’t believe you can. Maybe Mr. Gigray has some advice.
Borup: Well, any other thoughts? Looks like we can act on the Comprehensive Plan
request. We can delay –
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gigray. Do you have anything further to add.
Gigray: I want to clarify something in the record here since I am pitch-hitting tonight I
(inaudible) to be prepared for this meeting unlimited to getting some material and
walking in here. First of all, the Commission can recommend amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and it is limited to every six months and the statute does limit it to
the Commission, but it could do recommend amendments, and if it had a number of
amendments which it were going to recommend to the City Council, it could do that I
think, but it would have to hold them and make that recommendation come forward all
at the same time. So I would state, looking at the statute here, and we are talking about
67 6509, sub section D, that I think you could do. The findings that you have to make in
these instances are, one that it is correcting an error in the original Comprehensive
Plan, or there are substantial changes in the actual conditions in the area from the date
and time in which the original Comprehensive Plan came into effect, which I think is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 23
probably the (Inaudible) of the application here that you’ve listened to is the basis for it
rather than any claimed error in the original Comprehensive Plan. They may want to
correct that, but that’s what I am seeing in the presentation. So, it is of course, when
your dealing with annexation and zoning designation on annexation with a zoning
designation you have to find that the zoning designation is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan, and so if you process an annexation and zoning application and
you found it was not in the Comprehensive Plan, you would have to deny it. Whether or
not you can process them at the same time, the applicant is requesting that it be
done—I don’t know if there is anything that says that it can’t be done. The case law
that we’ve looked at dealing with this kinds of things—there was one involving the City
of Boise where they hadn’t annexed a piece of property and they were processing
another application at the same time and the court seemed to land on the issue that
the annexation final action on the annexation occurred before the other action occurred.
Of course, that would happen at the City Council level. The action on a Comprehensive
Plan amendment would have to be completed prior to the annexation and prior to the
zoning designation and the governing body of this unit is of course the City Council.
That could handle the timing. I know I would recommend the Comprehensive Plan
amendment would have to be in effect before the annexation and the zoning. I would
recommend it be held and handled in that order. If you have a series of Comprehensive
Planning amendments request that fall into this category, you probably would want to
recommend them all at one time. I think you could, looking at this and rereading it I
think it would be allowable.
Borup: And having a prior to can be two minutes prior to.
Gigray. Yeah, well it says the Commission may recommend amendments to the Plan,
and that’s plural, to the governing board not more frequently than 6 months and I
assume that you making a recommendation, that all is going to come out at one
meeting. That’s when you make your recommendations, so those recommendations
are made at that time.
Borup: Both annexation and zoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment could be on
the same agenda for City Council. I just need to make sure the Comprehensive Plan
was acted on first before the annexation.
Gigray: Right. And you would have to make—after you’ve listened to all the evidence
and listened to the record, you would have to make a finding that the application for the
zoning designation would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan as proposed
to be amended, which you recommended. But as the Planning and Zoning
Commission administrators stated, you’d have to have a completed application before
they can even put it on the agenda for consideration. If you wanted to hold these, there
are provisions in the code that allow you to hear more than one permit at a time, but
these aren’t permits. These are zoning designations requests and annexation and
Comprehensive Plans, so I think you could do that if you wanted to hold this. The
question that you have to answer is if there is any one here who is responded to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 24
notice and who wish to give testimony who might not otherwise be able to appear by
reason of the fact that you tabled it, I would suggest you call the calendar and open the
public hearing to allow them to provide that testimony so that—since it’s already been
noticed.
De Weerd: So we would continue the public hearing.
Gigray: Yes.
De Weerd: So we could continue the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and consider both the requests for annexation and rezone for the two other
applications then—all on the same agenda. Okay. Thank you.
Borup: If there’s no other discussion, we could use a motion. Earlier I thought we had
three choices. I can’t remember what the third was. The one would be to act on the
application the other would be to continue it.
De Weerd: I kind of like the thought of hearing it simultaneously so we can know what
is being proposed.
Borup: Would you like to make a motion to that effect?
Smith: I would also like to have staff report.
De Weerd: Yes, which would accompany the application. Okay.
Borup: Would staff like to comment on what date we could put that on the agenda
then?
De Weerd: Do you not have a completed application then for ---
Stiles: If Brad wrote that memo, it may have been completed by the 19th
. However, it
hasn’t been processed so August would be the earliest possible time it could be put on
the agenda.
Borup: Would that be the normal date for something received after the 19th
, you mean?
Stiles: Well, we had a deadline for the July meeting of the first work day in June.
Borup: Okay. Your saying the 19th
of June for the application?
Stiles: We haven’t processed anything on it so far. In order to get it in the paper and
get our notice out, we would have had to receive it by June 1st
. The next possible
deadline is –The next possible public hearing date would be August.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 25
Borup: August 10th
would be our next meeting. Okay. Is that the information you
need for a motion.
Smith: I hate to say this. I’d be willing to—since our agenda is full in July, I’d be willing
to entertain the possibility of having a special meeting in July to hear this.
Borup: This meeting started as a one agenda item a month ago. A one item agenda I
mean. So, several have been added to this which relieves the load we would have
otherwise. I tend to agree with what your saying there.
De Weerd: I would do it too.
Smith: With the contingency that nothing else be added on to the agenda! I’d go that
far.
Borup: Which adds more to the other meetings. How about nothing substantial.
Nothing time consuming. Something where no public shows up to testify.
Smith: Do we have to make a motion to a date certain or—
Gigray: I think you should make it for a date certain, because you have a public
hearing. You’ve got to make it for a date certain cause you have to give notice.
Smith: See, and our July meeting –our regularly schedule meeting is July 13th
.
Stiles: I think staff is saying it would have to be after the 23rd
.
De Weerd: so July 29th
? Does that work for the applicant too? It’s either that or august
10th
.
Borup: Will needs to check the calendar to see if there is any other conflict. Any other
discussion while we’re waiting? The 28th
or 29th
are both open dates on the city
calendar.
De Weerd: So the 29th
is fine? Is that what you said. The 29th
sounds fine if it works
for everyone else. Okay applicant?
Durkin: You said the 29th
. What was the other date? They are acceptable. For my
clarification your talking about all three agenda items?
Borup: Well that’s what we just going to talk about and it probably makes a lot of sense.
Durkin: I would be requesting that you do –take agenda item 2 and would that be
continued or deferred from tonight? Technically, how---
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 26
Borup: We could handle that.
De Weerd: And we can add a new agenda item then for the application that it is
attached to the Comprehensive Plan amendment .
Gigray: Your talking about the annexation item number 1 here. You would be granting
their motion to have it heard and then you would be directing that it be heard on the 29th
of July as a public hearing. But it will have to be noticed. Because no notice has gone
out on that one yet. Since no notice has gone out on that if you continue these three, I
would recommend you notice all three of them again, because it would be a safer play,
even though you can continue a hearing once you’ve opened it. You might as a
courtesy for those who have appeared considering this motion whether or not anyone
would object to the continuance with regard to the public hearing on item number 3.
There might be some one who appeared here pursuant to notice who might otherwise
be able to appear on the 29th
, you could open it and take their testimony.
Borup: We’ve done all the testimony on 3. But yes for number 2. I was planning on
that. I think the other question still may be –and I’m not sure Mr. Gigray if you need to
do some research—any comment on hearing all three of them at the same time.
Processing the annexation essentially the meeting with—
Gigray: You have the authority to do that. If somebody wants to come and make a
argument that they should be separated back out again they certainly could be
welcome to make that argument when you have the next public hearing. I think in
terms of efficiency it works a lot better because otherwise you go over the same
evidence 3 or 4 times.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Would we like to make a motion on item number 3?
De Weerd: Just one last question before I attempt a motion. Mr. Gigray would we need
to make a separate motion to hear the annexation application as well?
Gigray. I think you could combine the motion, but I do think you’ve got one item to deal
with and that is what if anyone is here on item ---
De Weerd: Okay, so I can combine for item number 3 and also the annexation in one
motion.
Borup: The annexation would not be a specific application, but just
SIDE 3
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we continue the public hearing for request
for comp plan amendment to change the land use for 12.3 acres from single family
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 27
residential to commercial to July 29th
and also in addition to have a public hearing to
hear the annexation request.
Borup: Do I hear a second?
Smith: I would second that motion with the amendment that outside of agenda items
that specifically relate to this project that no other items be placed on that agenda with
the possible exception of agenda item number six which is also a Comprehensive Plan
amendment public hearing. Commission De Weerd, I second her motion with that
amendment.
De Weerd: Can we restrict special meetings like that?
Gigray: Sure.
De Weerd: Okay, sure if that makes you feel good I’ll do it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 11.4 ACRES (FROM I-L TO
C-C) BY DEVELOPER DIVERSIFIED REALTY CORP / DAKOTA COMPANY—SOUTH
OF FAIRVIEW & EAST OF RECORDS AVE:
Borup: As the previous discussion mentioned, it would be our intention to hear this item
at the special meeting on the 29th
. That this is a noticed public hearing. So we’d like to
give anyone an opportunity to testify if they don’t feel that they could put their testimony
on record at the next meeting.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, should we note a time for that special meeting?
Borup: I think that would be a good idea.
De Weerd: 6:00?
Borup: Okay let’s add that to the next motion. Can we do that?
De Weerd: You bet.
Borup: I assume you are going to continue this. Do we have anyone from the public
who would like to testify on this item? Okay, I should have asked the applicant first, but
I was jumping ahead by what he – making an assumption by what he had stated earlier.
Is there anything you would like to add Mr. Durkin? Okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 28
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public hearing
on the request for rezone of 11.4 acres to our July 29th
meeting at 6:00.
Borup: Do I hear a second?
De Weerd: And it will be properly renoticed.
Borup: That goes without saying.
De Weerd: That’s for granted.
Borup: It’s got to. I’m sorry. This has already been noticed once, so I believe that was
Counsel’s suggestion that we do renotice it.
Gigray: Right because I think the Clerk is going to have to give notice of the matter that
isn’t set for public hearing which was annexation and zoning designation so I think it
would be easy just to include them all. I think you ought to do it.
Borup: Was that included in that motion?
Smith: It is now.
De Weerd: I second that.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, it will be quite expensive to renotice and republish all that. Is that
something that we can bill the applicant for?
De Weerd: I would think so.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION & ZONING OF 4.6 ACRES
BY TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH / K. D. ROOFING—NORTH OF
OVERLAND RD, SOUTH OF I-84 & EAST OF TEARE AVE:
Borup: Is the applicant here this evening? I’m sorry I don’t think I opened the
public hearing. I would like to do that right now open the public hearing on the
aforementioned application. You may proceed.
Aldridge: Thank you. Bob Aldridge –
Borup: Did staff have any comment before we proceed? I’m sorry.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 29
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, hopefully you have received our comments that
were dated today. We did get these to the applicant at the 11th
hour or the applicant’s
representative. I really don’t have any comment in addition to that. We do ask that our
comments be incorporated and those changes be made to the applications.
Borup: Thank you.
Aldridge: Bob Aldridge, 3300 Falcon Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I representative both the
church and Mr. Doty. This is relatively simple and I hope short. Our church has existing
property already within the city limits approximately 4.75 acres that lies up against the
freeway. This land represents about a 4 ½ acre piece that lies between that property on
out to Overland Road is part of three parcels that were owned by the Dodson family and
then after Mrs. Dodson’s death are now for sale. The two remaining lots of that to the
east of this according to Mr. Allison have been sold and will be commercially developed.
What we are proposing to do is use approximately the back three and half acres that
lies immediately adjacent to the existing church property initially just for grass area for
we’ll have a ball diamond on it and picnics and that sort of thing. Eventually will become
overflow church parking and perhaps some number of years down the road may even
become additional church building but quite a bit in the future. Because of the size of
the lot which we had to purchase in one piece, we have arranged with Mr. Doty who is a
member of our church to purchase the front one acre of this that immediately adjoins
Overland Road and turn that into a small office for its existing business which is a
roofing company. So we would have a couple of things that would happen and we’ve
discussed these with staff and they’ve incorporated to some extent in the terms and
conditions and we’re fully in agreement I think on them. Number one, there will be an
easement that comes across the one acre piece, a business piece, that comes out from
the back property. It comes out as far as necessary to hit the parking driveway area
and them comes out through the single cut. Because of the requirement that cuts line
up with other roads, there’s only one spot on this property where they can have the curb
cut across from the road cut on the subdivision across Overland Road to the south. So
we would have the easement out for that. That would be limited in scope mainly to
overflow on Sunday. As you may be aware, Teare Avenue gets somewhat backed up
after church services on Sunday. The rest of the time, there’s not a problem so that’s all
it would be used for. Staff has also requested that we give an easement out on
temporary basis to the property to the east if necessary for construction and so forth
and that’s no problem. Other than that, we have reviewed all of the requirements and
we have no problem with any of them. We’ve had extensive meetings with ACHD and
have no problems with anything that they have lined up. The only question I’d have for
Shari and that she answered for me when they talked in requirement number 8 about
adjacent residential use need to be screened from parking lot etc. My understanding of
what that means is that would screen along the westerly line between that property to
the west which is about a 4 ½ acre or so residential area, a single house. We would
screen along the existing building as the building permit was issued for that business
part and then at such time as the back part would be developed into parking lot or
anything higher, we would then screen at that point in time for that. That was my
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 30
understanding of and the answer to that we would have no objections to any of the
requirements. I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Borup: Commissioners, any questions?
De Weerd: I have none at this time.
Borup: There is not any information in our packets on the parking lot. Is that correct?
The church parking lot? The only thing that I’ve received is of the office building.
Aldridge: Yes, at this time we have no plans for parking lot. It’s just grass and we’ve
actually installed grass and have been watering it. The parking lot use will only be
down the road if we get to the point where the existing parking isn’t adequate. This was
purchased as a hedge. As you know that area is developing tremendously and we felt
we had to have some future expansion room and so we bought this even though we
don’t have the current needs. We recently expanded our parking considerably, went
through the process here and it’s adequate at this time.
Borup: And then you did state that all the other staff requirements are either met or will
be met and no concerns or problems on those other than item number 8?
Aldridge: Yes, that’s correct.
Borup: I’d like to get a response from Shari on that. What was your intention on the –
the applicant is assuming on screening the parking lot that that would take place when it
actually was a parking lot rather than a lawn area. Was that your intention?
Stiles: Yes, they’d have to come in to have the design review with our staff. If there are
any problems with it, we may refer it to you. But other than that, we wouldn’t expect it
to be used even on a temporary basis for parking for overflow days though.
Borup: Okay.
Aldridge: Yes, that’s very acceptable.
Borup: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone here that would
like to comment on this application? Yes, sir.
King: My name is Don King. I live at 1167 E. Shepherd right across the street where
they’re going to bring the parking lot. I hate to throw mud on the thing, but I think
there’s a lot of traffic out there and on Sunday there is a tremendous amount of traffic
on that road, and with a business coming in, it’s awfully hard to get out on my street to
get on to Overland Road. In fact the other day, Overland Road was backed up past my
street going to Meridian so I know it gets pretty bad. I would like to make one comment.
I don’t want to – I mean everybody should be able to use the property for what they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 31
bought it for as far as I’m concerned, but I would like to make one comment. Whoever
drew the map I’m not sure why they got everything on the north side of the interstate
when they got nothing on the south side of Overland and that’s where hundreds of cars
come out of every day out of that subdivision. I feel that they just kind of forgot us I
guess on there and that’s all my comment is. I’m just not in favor of it.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Any questions or comments from the
Commissioners? Hearing none, yes, we’d like to give the applicant a chance to have a
final response.
Aldridge: Yes, I would note that number one, this is not going to increase any traffic.
The church has the same traffic and as a matter of fact in the long run we’re hoping that
on Sunday that we can spread that between these two exits instead of a single. That’s
part of the bottle neck that is causing the problem. Number two the business isn’t open
on Sundays as part of the way we can use this as a good exit. So actually this is going
to spread use because our heavy usage he’s talking about is on Sunday when the
business is closed. Number two it’s a small roofing business office. It’s not what’s been
going out there coke plant etc. They’re not high volume. This is going to be a very low
usage in terms of traffic compared to any other use that would be there realistically.
Borup: Thank you. Seeing no other comments, I’d like to close the public hearing at
this time. Commissioners?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: What’s your pleasure? I should have made this comment when the applicant
was up, but this is something that can handled in staff review I think anyway. I did
notice that on the landscape plan it showed a tree that would need to be removed if
Overland was widened for future use, which seems –
Gigray: Mr. Chairman, if you want to get more information what you should do is
entertain a motion to reopen the public hearing to address that particular point.
Borup: I was just making a comment.
Gigray: I thought you were going to ask the –
Borup: No.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 32
Gigray: I’m sorry.
De Weerd: What was your comment?
Borup: The comment was just one of the trees crossed on the line, yeah but that’s
something that can be handled in staff review the landscaping design I think. It’s not
that critical of an item.
Smith: It’s actually more than one, but –
(Inaudible)
Borup: I’m sorry, I already close the public hearing. Do we have any other motions or
discussion?
De Weerd: No discussion.
Smith: I apologize, I didn’t hear the gentleman’s testimony, but it was primarily a traffic
concern nothing else?
Borup: Yes. Well that was my understanding that he was concerned about the traffic
that is generated.
Smith: Then Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to City
Council approval of this request for annexation and zoning 4.6 acres by Treasure Valley
Baptist Church and K.D. Roofing.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: I have a motion and a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CHURCH PARKING, RECREATIONAL USES AND CONTRACTOR’S BUSINESS BY
TREASURE VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH / K. D. ROOFING—NORTH OF OVERLAND
RD, SOUTH OF I-84 & EAST OF TEARE AVE:
Borup: We do have a condtional for item number five, which is a church parking,
recreational uses and contractor’s business by Treasure Valley Baptist Church and K.D.
Roofing. This same project that we just discussed on the annexation and zoning.
Shari, do you have any comments on this item other than what you’ve –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 33
Stiles: Just maybe to address your concern. One of our comments is that we did
request additional landscaping and that we would do a detailed landscape review for
approval to meet our needs.
Borup: I know you always handle that real thoroughly anyway. I’d like to open the
public hearing and ask the applicant to come forward.
Aldridge: Bob Aldridge, 3300 Falcon Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Same comments as
before. It’s the same situation. This just carries out the split in zoning. We only need
the lower zoning for the church now and in the future, but the office obviously requires
the L-O designation.
Borup: Would you like to incorporate your previous comments?
Aldridge: Yes, we’d like to do so.
Borup: Okay thank you.
De Weerd: And did you want to enter into your testimony your comment on the
landscaping?
Aldridge: Yes, mabye I can supplement it at this time. I think when the original plan
was drawn, whoever drew it, drew it with a 30 foot setback and it should probably be a
35 so we’ll work with Shari on making sure that all gets done properly, but it will be at 35
so everything should be out of all the potential future expansion areas of the road.
Borup: That’s what I was looking at. The design there showing possible future right-of-
way. Thank you.
Aldridge: That is one of the staff conditions so we would have to comply with that in any
event.
Borup: Thank you.
Barbeiro: I’d like to ask question of Mr. Aldridge please. Mr. Aldridge the request is for
in addition to recreational uses, could you define that?
Aldridge: Yeah, we were planning softball on it, soccer. I’m too old to play soccer, but
it’s that sort of thing and we have picnics out there. Actually the uses we used to do out
there now has become parking lot and got lost so we’re in the process of getting ready
to build, assuming this is approved, a little backstop and so forth in the one corner and
we have – if you want to come out July 4th
we’re having all day preaching conference
and picnic on the grounds, so it’s that kind of stuff, so you’re invited.
Barbeiro: That would the lawn area you have designated here.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 34
Aldridge: Yes, that’s approximately three and a half acres out of the four and a half
acres.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone from the public who would like to testify on this
application? Seeing none, --
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Smith: Second.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: The public hearing is closed.
De Weerd: I have no further comments.
Borup: Do we have a motion from anyone?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we recommend to City Council
approval of this request for conditional use permit and that as always we incorporate
staff comments as part of our recommendation although I neglected to say that on the
last one.
De Weerd: I would second that.
Borup: Thank you. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE LAND USE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE (RESIDENTIAL
& OFFICE BUILDINGS) BY J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC.—WEST OF EAGLE RD,
BETWEEN FAIRVIEW & USTICK:
Borup: Ms. Stiles, do we have any staff comment on this?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, other than the comments that you received, we
don’t have any comments. Well I guess I do have a comment. As a result of the two
Comprehensive Plan amendments, I received requests for three additional
Comprehensive Plan amendments and they all want to be considered at the same time.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 35
Referring to Mr. Gigray’s statement about acting on all of these amendments at the
same time, Boise City does accept Comprehensive Plan amendments. They do it in
February and then again in June. They hold up all of those amendments and then act
on them as a single public hearing, but just to let you know in the future, that’s
something that we might want to consider.
De Weerd: I think that’s an excellent suggestion.
Stiles: But we had numerous other requests for Comprehensive Plan changes that we
have put off just due to the fact that we’re trying to get some standards established and
to change our – update our Comprehensive Plan, and I still feel that’s appropriate prior
to taking action on any of these minutes.
Borup: Are any of the others in this geographical area?
Stiles: Yes, there are two in this general area, and then there’s numerous ones
throughout all of our impact area.
Borup: Thank you. In fact I would like to have at the end of the meeting maybe a
chance for just some discussion on how we may want to handle future amendments.
I’d like to open the public hearing at this time and invite the applicant to come forward.
Stearns: My name is Carl Stearns. I’m a land use planning consultant with JUB
Engineers at 250 Beechwood Avenue here in Boise. I’m representing the applicant who
is John Barnes of Property West, Inc. This isn’t JUB’s property as the agenda had
stated. I just wanted to make – first of all make a correction. The property is not 40
acres. That was a mistake made in our application. I apologize for that. The property
is actually 20 acres, a large portion of which has already been approved for an
elementary school with the school district and therefore the remaining property is
probably about 8 acres is what we’re basically talking about here tonight. The reasons
for the request is that particular area is changing rapidly as I’m sure you’ve all seen in
driving down that road, Eagle Road. Some of the changes in the vicinity that warrant
this request is first of all let me explain the request. The request is to have a mixed use
area adjacent area adjacent to the Carol Subdivision along Eagle Road. The portion for
commercial, we’re planning on professional offices, one story, similar to others that are
along Eagle Road as well as residential between that office and the elementary school.
The residential that’s being planned or have in the concept stage are like patio homes,
single story, common wall type buildings similar to like townhouses. That is what we’re
requesting. The reasons that warrant this request is number one you can see where
we’re proposing to put the offices is along Eagle Road which is a five lane road at the
time. There is currently a lot of traffic due to construction elsewhere between Meridian
and Boise, but it’s also that traffic is traveling at speeds in excess of 60 miles an hour
there. It’s very difficult to pull off of Leslie Road just to take a left or a right off that road.
There will be a collector road put in just to the south of the property that will access the
elementary school and the Kleiner property to the south. That collector road is planned.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 36
ACHD is planning a signal at that intersection. So we feel that that is another good
reason. We have opportunity here to allow for light commercial type development along
with mixed use, patio townhouse type homes. The current Comprehensive Plan does
not allow that. It only allows for single family residential, which we feel would not be
appropriate along the road of this capacity and speed in that area. The offices will act
as a buffer between the residential as well as a buffer between the school and the
residential. That is a technique that is often used in land use planning as far as master
planning for developments such as this or when creating or developing a zoning map.
We often try to buffer things with different uses and separating those uses and then
allowing for mixed use. The applicant is proposing a true mixed use development. This
area by having the school which is well located because of the residents in the area.
Many residents will be able to have their children walk to school as well as having office
and then the patio residential adjacent to that. It’s in the spirit of clustering development
with compatible uses is what we’re going to propose for this site. As far as the Comp
Plan goes, we took a look at the Comprehensive Plan to ensure that what we’re
requesting is in conformance with the goals and policies of that Comprehensive Plan
and some of those specifically were stated in our application didn’t look as if staff had
included those in their report. Under mixed planned use development areas under land
use is 1.8U, states to promote –
Borup: Excuse me sir, that is in our report.
Stearns: You have that?
Borup: But you can still proceed, but that is in our packet.
Stearns: Okay great, so we’re talking about development of high quality and
environmentally compatible residential areas with parks, schools. We believe that this
proposal is in compliance with that goal. We’re in the spirit of that. Also the support of
a variety of residential categories throughout the city. This is an opportunity to do so in
that case. Also to monitor and coordinate compatibility of land use and transportation
systems. Those are the ideas, our observations regarding Eagle Road and then
encourage the clustering of uses and controlled access points, which I spoke of
regarding the signaling as well as having professional offices, patio homes, the school
and the adjacent subdivision. Just to make a few general comments regarding the staff
report, let’s go through it fairly quickly with some of the ideas some of the things that we
would like to point out number three states about the sewer trunk line. Probably that
will be more relevant when this property actually comes before you for subdivision and
development. However the school is going to have sewer and the developer was the
owner of that property and sold that property to the school will have sewer access at the
site. Eagle Road designated as a limited access corridor. They will have one access.
Developer will not be proposing additional accesses along Eagle Road. I understand
the city entered into a contract to update the Comprehensive Plan, and it’s expected to
take approximately 12 to 18 months. I’m also in the business of creating helping cities
such as yourself to create Comprehensive Plans and that’s a pretty good estimate as
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 37
far as how long it takes. It typically does take 12 to 18 months depending on what
happens. It could take a little longer. What we’re stating here though is that we have
an opportunity to look at a specific area and update the Comprehensive Plan as it is
existing and as it’s being enforced right now. This is the plan that you have until it is
updated in the future. Typically during an overall Comprehensive Plan update, you
don’t often get the chance to take a look at specific areas. That is why statute allows
for the Comprehensive Plan to be updated, because there are things that are
overlooked in the overall picture. So what we’re asking you to do today is to take a look
at this specific area and see whether or not this is one area in which the
Comprehensive Plan should be changed to accommodate future growth with the plan.
So you have an opportunity to look at something in more detail than you may have the
opportunity to do over the next 12 to 18 months. Of course you get a bunch of these
applications in this area. That might not be the case either. Also the last comment
stating about Idaho State Code stating no changes can be recommended for another
six months. This is correct, however, I think that if the planning commission were to
make an action or recommendation based upon this request or any other
Comprehensive Plan request that were before you that I heard today and I’m certain
that you will have more, I don’t believe that that will have any effect on the update of the
Comprehensive Plan since we are talking about a 12 to 18 month window. So it won’t
hold up your plan updates. Unless there’s any questions, that concludes my
presentation.
Borup: Any questions of the Commissioners?
Barbeiro: In the Carol Subdivision single family homes, what are the current lot sizes in
that area?
Stearns: Let me ask the developer. About one acre.
Barbeiro: Okay so we have one acre and the new proposed residential would be an R-
4?
Stearns: What are you planning?
(Inaudible)
Stearns: Probably higher than R-4. (Inaudible) have John Barnes answer those
specific questions for you. Would that be okay?
Borup: Yes, let’s wait to see if anybody else has any questions for you before you –
anyone else or do you have some more?
Barbeiro: The elementary school that is laid out here that is the elementary school that
is to go to bid here in the next couple of weeks?
Stearns: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 38
Barbeiro: Okay. The office complex that you have proposed, do we have a vision of
what we intend to place in that office area?
Stearns: We do. I have some pictures of some of the ideas if that would be helpful to
you, but once again I would ask you to talk to the developer. I specifically have been
working with the developer on the policy and Comprehensive Plan change.
Barbeiro: Some of the specifics of the office area aren’t architectural but use.
Stearns: In use, like we stated in our application would be like dentist offices,
professional type offices, not retail. Retail would develop a lot more traffic and probably
and I don’t believe would be allowed by the Comprehensive Plan change that we’re
asking for so it would be professional type offices. Any of the Commissioners have any
questions?
De Weerd: Not at this point.
Stearns: Okay thank you. Would you like me to have John answer the specifics?
Borup: Yes, do you want to get your question answered now?
Barbeiro: Yes, please.
Borup: Can we have Mr. Barnes come on up?
Barnes: John Barnes, 1034 Justin Place, Meridian, Idaho.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro, would you like to maybe restate your questions for Mr. Barnes?
Barbeiro: Mr. Barnes, as we just stated earlier the Carol Subdivision includes lots and
homes on one acre plus lots. The proposed residential area that you have, are we to
understand that that will be perhaps an R-8?
Barnes: Yes. Yes, more of a higher density. We want to incorporate and we’ve got
permission with the school district to incorporate their playground area kind of a park to
serve as a community there and so we’d like kind of cottage homes. We would be
coming in with a full presentation of what we’re talking about, but it’s definitely a higher
density than your present R-4 zone, more a townhouse zero lot line type of
configuration.
Barbeiro: Okay so it would not stand alone homes or individual homes?
Barnes: They would probably not be attached. They would be detached, but probably
zero lot line with an offset of five to ten or –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 39
Borup: You’re talking zero lot line on one side.
Barnes: Yeah, zero lot line on the one side, then a setback off of that zero lot line
where the foundation starts so we’re not talking about a fully attached townhouse or
apartment complex, but they’ll be single family residences aimed at the professional or
the single person and like I say trying to tie into the community with the school using the
school’s playground area as recreation area.
Barbeiro: Then these would be intended to be owner occupied facilities?
Barnes: Yes, yes.
Barbeiro: I imagine that you have prepared some sketches as to how you would like to
do this. Can you tell me about how many residential units we might expect in this area?
Barnes: We haven’t got that exact number, but we’re only talking total of 8 acres in
totality there, so the residential we’re talking maybe four acres and somewhere in that
range of six or eight per acre. So that would put us somewhere around 32.
Barbeiro: The only entrance and access to this property would be through the road
between the elementary school and the office. The road that goes in between the
elementary school and the office into the residential area, would that be the primary
entrance into the elementary school?
Barnes: Yes.
Barbeiro: So we’re going to have a combination of residential, we’re going to have a
combination of bus traffic, parents coming in. I’ve not seen the plan for the elementary
school and do not know if we have a complete pass through into this future road
connection, but as it stands we are adding a tremendous amount of traffic with the
addition of 32 single family homes and the entrance and exit of school buses and
parents coming into to collect their children.
Barnes: Can I comment on that?
Barbeiro: Please do.
Barnes: If you look at your site plan there, you’ll see another entrance that goes back
to the west and there’s a parking lot, the west end that comes in from Packard
Subdivisions and most of the constituents, the parents, the families will live over in that
Packard Subdivision another subdivision directly west of the site there. That’s the
primary access for the parents will serve, come in and out of the school and they can
park and come in. The two of them are not connected on the site plan of the school.
Then the front entrance going out on Eagle Road like we said was a collector will have
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 40
a light at some point in the future as traffic calls for it. It would serve the bus traffic
basically only is all we’re talking about there. Then we come in – then off of that, that’s
a full public width street then we will come in and probably go up the cul-de-sac in that
residential area and come right back out, and serve as a rear entrance into the office
areas right there.
Barbeiro: The future road connection that is shown on your map is road to be built in
conjunction with the elementary school?
Barnes: Yes. The collector? Yes, the collector going out to Eagle Road?
Barbeiro: No, not the collector going out to Eagle Road. There’s the one that –
Barnes: On the west end, yes.
Barbeiro: Future road connection.
Barnes: Yeah, that’s going to be built when the school goes in.
Barbeiro: Okay so they are in conjunction with the school. Will the future road
connection as listed here and your collector road on to Eagle Road in time be
connected?
Barnes: Yes, it will. When the Kleiner property is developed, that 80 acres there.
Barbeiro: Prior to the Kleiner property being developed, without having seen the
elementary school, will traffic be allowed to pass through a parking lot in the elementary
school and exit out?
Barnes: You mean going west?
Barbeiro: From west to east.
Barnes: No, they can’t. Those parking lots are separated.
Barbeiro: Okay, thank you.
Barnes: On a school property.
Borup: Any further questions?
De Weerd: I have a question and I don’t know if it’s for the applicant or staff, but when
we have a Comp Plan like this, does ACHD see this request and have they made any
comment about additional traffic type of thing what this proposal would add traffic on to
Eagle Road?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 41
Barnes: I think we’d have to get into our formal presentation of exactly what we’re
going to do as far as the platting process and then they would be able to comment, but
we have gone over this with them because it’s been quite a diligent getting Idaho
Transportation Department, ACHD and everybody together on this school site. So they
know what we’re talking about doing there.
De Weerd: I know, I understand there is additional concern about putting more traffic
out at different points on to Eagle. That’s why I asked the question.
Stearns: Carl Stearns. They state that if the site were developed under current
residential and office zoning the trip generation would be estimated 1600 vehicle trips
per day. They state that the development as proposed is estimated to generate up to
1800 additional vehicle trips per day. So the difference there is about 200 trips per day.
I do have to state one thing, they do state that it’s a 40 acre site. They did outline the
site. I don’t know how they absolutely did that, but there’s not that much of a change.
We do have that. Shari sent that to us in the mail. I don’t know if that’s part of your
packet.
Borup: Did that answer your question Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: Yes, thank you.
Barbeiro: Don’t leave please. Again the residential is approximately 8 acres and the
area marked for office is about 6 to 8 acres.
Stearns: Yes. No, no. There is 8 total, about half in each. Let me give you this. This
is the legal drawings. It’s about 8 in total.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. Do we have anyone that
would like to testify on this application? None at all. I might mention we have received
2 letters from the public. Those are part of the record.
De Weerd: Three letters.
Borup: Pardon me. Three? There have been several letters and they are part of the
record. Okay. Staff have any final comments?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The only thing I would add to this, as far as that
access proposed to the school, the Council only approved that school with no access to
Eagle Road of any kind, except for the emergency vehicle access. The school district
will not be accessing the public street, unless the Council changes their decision.
Borup: So your saying that’s even less traffic on that street.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 42
Barbeiro: Shari if that’s the case and Council agreed to the elementary school without
access to Eagle Road, then the likelihood of a signal going in there is pretty slim.
Stiles: The signal is based on the Eagle Road corridor study that was done in
conjunction with Ada County Highway District and the Idaho Transportation
Department. It’s meant as an interim phasing of what they will do along Eagle Road.
They would put that---they proposed it at ½ mile sections to put another signal and
eventually, once the frontage road system is developed, possibly get rid of those
entirely.
Barbeiro: Okay. The way that it appeared to be presented I thought that if this was
going to be an access to the elementary school that a signal would be in conjunction
with the elementary school. That is not true.
Stiles: I don’t believe so, no.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: I’d be interested in any further comment Shari on the Eagle Road study. You
made mention of frontage roads, which is what I felt all along is very appropriate for that
area. Is that—I though they were still working on that study.
Stiles: It has been completed. They want to buy up the driveways that currently exist
there as they can and to minimize any of the driveways along Eagle Road. Of course,
they would still have to have access points to them and that’s why they would consider
having additional signals. But, they do plan a series of frontage roads all along Eagle
Road to make sure that every single parcel along that stretch doesn’t have access.
Both sides.
Borup: That’s something that ACHD would be commenting on as applications came in
for development.
Stiles: Yes
Borup: I am assuming one would need to accommodate that in their design plans.
Barbeiro: If that is the case that they intend to put frontage road along there, and I see
that we have homes beginning at Carroll Subdivision, and I believe that is Leslie Road,
the inclusion of an office here could preclude them from building a frontage road along
the west side of Eagle Road, and I am wondering if ACHD would or ITD a concern with
building an office in an area where they later expect to put in a frontage road.
Borup: That was my comment. I think the developer would need to accommodate that.
That’s why I would be interested, if that study is complete…this may warrant
presentation from ACHD at a future meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 43
Stiles: I can get you a copy. They have made a presentation to the City Council. It
wasn’t very detailed. I do have a copy in my office if anybody wants to take a look at it.
I think is would probably be difficult to establish a frontage road right at this location,
because they do propose to have access there at that half mile mark. How you would
get a frontage road through this and continue on through existing home sites would be
kind of hard to accommodate that unless they decided to redevelop.
Borup: I think that would be good information that we should have for—it may be 10 or
20 years before this area is developed. I don’t know that any of us will still be around,
but I think that would be important for future planning, so I would be interested in what
ACHD proposing and now is the time that we need to make accommodations for those.
Thank you. Did any other Commissioner’s have any questions, comments or
discussion probably is what we would be appropriate.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I guess that if we were to vote tonight to recommend approval of
this to City Council, we would therefore be able to cancel our special meeting. I guess,
the way I see it
END OF SIDE 3
Smith: there is two things that we can do. We can recommend denial or we can
continue this until our special meeting so we can act on this with the other
Comprehensive Plan amendment requests at the same time.
Borup: I would agree with that. I do have a question.
Smith: I don’t have a position on this as far as approval or denial at this time. I would
be leaning toward continuing it.
De Weerd: I would too Mr. Chairman. I guess I would like a little bit more information
from ACHD too. And I guess, I know I’m (inaudible) but I don’t understand why we look
at these things and we don’t have a plan to even help us know why we are what we are
changing a Comprehensive Plan for. Is that unusual that you would like to see a plan
for something like this? I –
Smith: I feel like it is, cause I keep asking for them and don’t ever see them. We could
as a condition of continuance or I guess we could suggest to the applicant to pull
together more information to help us understand what he is proposing to do here and
give us a better understanding of how this could dove tail in with any future plans that
ACHD and ITD have for frontage roads along this particular area of the Eagle Road
corridor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 44
Borup: The other comment I’d have on that is those are the items that come when we
are usually talking about annexation and rezone and or a plat. That’s when the detail
we can amend the Comprehensive Plan. They still need to come back for zoning.
De Weerd: I am not talking about rezoning about a plan either.
Borup: Well we don’t and we wouldn’t. That’s the time it could be turned down. The
Commission may decide that they want acre subdivision in there and put in 4 lots. That
wouldn’t negate what we did on this application. That’s the face in the future, but I think
a little more information probably would be pertinent, but that’s up to this commission.
That could be part of the motion is to maybe request some additional information.
Again without – I know from the applicant’s standpoint, I don’t know if they want to if it
makes sense to do a lot of expense on design and drawing when they’re not even sure
it’s even going to proceed.
Barbeiro: Apart from what’s been discussed here, I also see with the Kleiner property
to the south, I expect that very shortly with this proposition can you tell if the Kleiners
have proposed if they are want of the propositions for a change in the Comprehensive
Plan that are before you now?
Stiles: I haven’t seen any proposal from them, no.
Barbeiro: As we are going to likely table this to go to our special meeting on July 29th
,
excuse me continue it to our July 29th
meeting, I would appreciate it if the developer
were to have something of an outline showing how the elementary school would sit and
how that would be sitting with the rest of the – along with a quick outline of where the
houses sit in the Carol Subdivision so I had a nice view of how that would go. Is that
acceptable to the developer?
(Inaudible)
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: Okay, they said they could accommodate that.
Smith: I might add to that I am real concerned about the acre subdivision lots backing
up to a high density residential and office area and how those different zoning
designations would be buffered to not affect the – I mean Eagle Road has changed
significantly in the last 30 years that I’ve lived here, and this valley is going to continue
to grow, but these folks shouldn’t necessarily have to bear the brunt of bad design and
bad planning. It should be some thing the developer can show that he’s going to do
there for buffering. I would like to see that if –
De Weerd: Conceptually.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 45
Borup: Mr. Gigray has a comment.
Gigray: Point of information for the Commissioners while you’re asking for more
information. This particular application unlike the one you had earlier is a stand alone
request for an amendment to the Comp Plan and you would be in a difficult situation to
amend the Comp Plan or recommend an amendment to the Comp Plan on subject to
conditions. You can do that if it’s an annexation and zoning, because you have the right
to require them to enter into a development agreement as a condition of the zoning
designation or a rezone, but to have a conditional amendment to a Comprehensive
Plan is something we can’t do so I would just remind you the main focus on this is
should this area be re-designated on the Comprehensive Planning map as I understand
the application as a mixed use development as opposed to single family residential as
it’s presently designated. Getting more information about while they plan to develop it
may develop some history though for you when they come back in with a subsequent
zone, but I’m not aware of a vehicle that we can have a conditional amendment to a
Comp Plan. I just wanted to let you know that.
Barbeiro: I would not have requested a conditional amendment, but the outline would
have been nice and of course I’m certain that this Commission would not look kindly on
his bringing something completely different before us. The outline is an outline. It is not
intended to be an actuality.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Did staff have a comment they were trying to make there?
Stiles: That’s exactly what I was going to say.
Borup: Okay thank you. I have a question I would have was – I’m going to save this
until the end. That’s all I have.
Smith: I’m prepared to make a motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion
that we continue this item until our July 29th
meeting.
Barbeiro: I had a comment –
De Weerd: I would second that so you could have discussion.
Barbeiro: As we had a concern on the most recent meeting about notification of
residents within a certain area. Is the developer required to notify the residents within a
300 foot area of this request in registered letter?
Borup: My understanding on a Comp Plan change, they are not; is that correct?
Berg: Chairman Borup and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Attorney Gigray, if you can correct if I’m wrong, but under the statute on Comprehensive
Plan amendments, we are to do a public service announcement to newspapers, radio
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 46
stations, television stations. We’re not required the 300 feet radius for the property
owners for certified mail, not even in our own ordinances that require that. We try to get
it out to some concerned people, but we’re not required to.
Gigray: And you publish in the paper.
Berg: Yes, the public service announcement is published in our city newspaper.
Borup: Again the Comp Plan amendment would allow them to do anything there. Well
maybe I stated that incorrectly, but it would allow them to proceed with an application
and then that application would noticed and be the normal process that we usually go
through on the applications that we see every month.
Barbeiro: Then the question would go to the attorney. We can request anything without
making it a condition. Is that correct?
Gigray: Yes, as long as you give some clarification budget wise as to whom might pay
for it. You know you might – I mean if you direct the staff to do it, then they will do it.
There will be a cost factor here.
Barbeiro: Then the question we have the public hearing closed. I can’t asked the
developer –
Borup: I have not closed it yet. I’m sorry, no we have not closed it yet. It has not been
closed.
De Weerd: A motion has been made and seconded, but we have not voted on it.
Barbeiro: Then I would request that the developer – it’s not necessary to be registered
mail, but send out letters to what appears to be about 20 homeowners in this area that
we would be having a public meeting for a change in the Comprehensive Plan for this
area and perhaps even including a map of some sort. Would that be an acceptable
request? Thank you.
Borup: And the word did get around or we wouldn’t have received the letters. Do
people read the paper? Well usually more than that. I don’t know usually when one
neighbor finds out about it, it spreads fast. It’s been past experience here anyway.
Okay, we still have a motion on the floor.
De Weerd: I have no further comment.
Smith: None.
Borup: Okay all in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 47
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Again it was continued to July 29th
6:00 p.m. meeting. Commissioners, would
we like to take about a five minute break?
Barbeiro: Please.
Smith: Yes.
Borup: We will take a five minute break at this time and come back and address item
number seven.
(FIVE MINUTE RECESS)
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INCLUDES
SIGNAGE FOR CHEVRON C-STORE WITH GAS PUMPS & DETACHED CAR
WASH, MCDONALD’S WITH DRIVE-UP WINDOW (SAME BUILDING AS C-
STORE) & IDAHO UNITED CREDIT UNION BY EAGLE PARTNERS—NW
CORNER EAGLE ROAD & MAGIC VIEW DR:
Borup: Shari, do we have any staff comments on this? We got your staff
comments in our packet.
Stiles: Other than the comments in our memo dated June 14, 1999, I have nothing in
addition to that.
Borup: Okay thank you. Any questions from any of the commissioners for staff before
we open this hearing?
De Weerd: I have none.
Borup: We’d like to open the public hearing and invite the applicant up at this time.
Again this public hearing is pertaining to the matter of signage.
Spink: Commissioner Borup and Commissioners, my name is Mike Spink 607 N. 8th
Street in Boise. I am Counsel for the applicant and am here only to introduce the
people who will be making the presentation to you tonight. In the Comprehensive Plan,
this is a mixed use area and we believe that as a result, there will be a mixture of types
of signs that ultimately are developed and installed throughout this area, this mixed use
area. Your action tonight is to approve or disapprove the sign request based upon your
sign ordinance. The applicant needs to understand the standards that are being
applied as the commission takes a look at this. Craig Jamieson of Idaho Electric Sign
Company will be making the presentation as will George Kyler of McDonald’s, and I’ll
turn this over to Mr. Jamieson. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 48
Jamieson: Thank you Chairman Borup and members of the Commission. My name is
Craig Jamieson. I’m with Idaho Electric Signs, 6528 Supply Way located in Boise.
What I wanted to do with you folks tonight is kind of review the packet that I presented
to you that I think might answer some questions that are posed by the staff report.
Additionally we are giving you some examples of different signage that can currently be
found along the corridor and I think we’ll bring up some items that hopefully you might
consider when making your decision here. The first page that you see right there would
be the proposed high rise sign, which I think is probably generating the most
controversy here. I would like to point out and I think it must have been a typo. The
staff report shows this sign as being 670 square foot in size when actuality it’s 470
square foot. So there’s about 200 square foot difference there. The way I calculated
that square footage was basically drawing a box around the McDonald’s sign and then
also drawing a box around the Chevron sign. So we did want to clarify that if we could.
I think it’s also important to note that we need to take into consideration the type of
business that we are dealing with here. This is a freeway oriented business. When you
go up and down the interstate and certainly Meridian is no exception, you find that the
taller signs are there for places like hotels, places like gas stations and places like
restaurant food services, so it’s not really fair I think to make the comparison with
something like the credit union. You know the credit union is going to be a destination
place for the members that are going there. So typically they are going to ask for a
smaller sign. The engineering firm, Hubble Engineer, I understand that they are limiting
their sign to 10 foot, but once again it’s not a retail oriented establishment. We’re
seeking quite frankly with this type of business, there’s a lot of people that are going to
travel through the I-84 corridor that may not even be familiar with Meridian or the area
itself and they’re looking for a place to get a bite to eat. They’re looking for perhaps a
particular kind of gas. I happen to buy Chevron gas and I’ve been doing it for 20 years
and we’ve been working with Chevron for five, but that happens to be my gas
preference and I think most people seem to have a preference on the type of gas that
they get so it’s very important for our clients to be able to pull people off the interstate
so that they can come and utilize their services. I’ve also brought in a site plan here
that demonstrates the position of the sign, and I think this is also fairly important. If I
could step over here. At the same time I’d like to tell you how we did manage to choose
the position of the sign. The sign in question, the tall sign, is located here. This being
north on the site plan. It’s located on the back corner of the property here. There were
a few different reasons that this was done. One is it does present the farthest distance
that we could get basically from the residential areas to the north and we’ve got actually
a little over 600. So you’ve got like two football fields up to we’ve got a frontage here of
about 576 feet. 577 foot frontage to the centerline up here and I understand there’s
additional area back there. Another thing that I would like you to consider is this
actually shows the orientation of the sign. It’s not to scale, but it shows that the sign is
oriented to the east and to the west as opposed to the north and the south. So any light
that’s emitted from the sign is going to go east and is going to go west, not back up
north into the neighbors. Now depending on where the neighbors are located up here,
I’m not going to deny that they won’t be able to you know from the angle the face won’t
be visible, but it’s not like it’s being oriented directly here so you’re looking directly at the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 49
face. You do have kind of a little bit of a drawing inside your packet there that also
illustrates this. Finally we needed to be able to look at the sign positioning from the
standpoint of where it was going to be visible. You do have a couple of photographs
there within your packet that I tool today from the interstate. I’d identified here on an
arial map and this is an old map, so I don’t think it shows all the structure that has
apparently gone up in the meantime, but this would indicate the approximate location of
the sign in question. There was a picture taken here from just about getting off the off
ramp headed west on I-84 and of course the farther back we get, the more we conflict
with
’s Hospital and blocking out the sign visibility. This on the other hand going from the
east presents its own interesting problems in that the off ramp starts so far back and
you’ve got a pretty large set of trees that are in the way that once again obstructs the
sign. The problem is that if I’m looking for a Chevron station or if I’m looking for a
McDonald’s here, and I get off at Eagle Road, but I’ve got to go all the way down to
Cole Road and come back. Well I’m probably not going to do that. Frankly there’s
another Chevron at Cole and Overland, but at the same time our client here has missed
out that potential business. There’s also another McDonald’s here, but it’s quite a
distance to travel. Of course they might not realize there’s something down there if
they’re not familiar with the area and that puts a burden on that. I have taken these
pictures you see here where I’m actually physically moving towards the off ramp at that
time. The other thing that I would hope that you folks might want to consider is that
when I’m having 65-70 miles per hour and I’m in the fast lane, you know I don’t want to
have to make a real, real quick move over to the exit you know and creating a traffic
hazard here. So obviously from the standpoint of safety and from the standpoint of
moving traffic the farther away I can identify where I do wish to get off, the safer it
actually is. There were some other comments made in the staff report in regard to the
blue highway district signs the locate services and certainly they do serve a purpose. I
think that the unfortunate part where they do fall down is they’re pretty well low in height
and that does create a problem if I’m in the fast lane once again and I’ve got a semi
going beside me, they are once again totally obscured. I think the other problem that
sometimes happens is they don’t indicate distance as to where you know how far you’re
going to have to go to reach that particular destination and I could be wrong, but I don’t
believe there’s any indication of direction either, so they’re a welcome addition, but
certainly they don’t solve all the problems. I remember once when I was in Yakima and
I saw an information sign for a McDonald’s as a matter of fact and after I drove five
miles down into town, I never did find it, so it did manage to pull me off the interstate but
it didn’t get me much further than that. We actually in determining the placement of
these signs, we actually took out a truck, a boom truck, we raised a target up in the air,
we moved it around at different heights and at different locations in order to determine
what the best visibility was for this particular sign. Now I was not there at the
(inaudible). The representative from McDonald’s was so he would be better able to
address those issues but that was another method by which it was decided as far as
the placement of that particular sign. If I could continue on here through the packet,
there’s also an example of the sign that we’re asking for on Eagle Road itself, the lower
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 50
height sign. With the exception of the addition of the McDonald’s sign, this is actually
on the second page. With the exception of that addition, this would be the same sign
that you would find at the Chevron station that is located at Locust Grove and Fairview
if you wanted to put that into perspective something that you might be able to relate to a
little bit better. So we’ve got the pictures of the on and off – there was also some
question I think that was posed by staff as to you know there won’t be a sign along –
well actually it was mentioned I think from Boise through Meridian that will approach the
height of this sign and certainly it will be one of the taller signs. 100 foot, I think that
there’s probably one other 100 foot within the general area and that would be the
McDonald’s sign that is located at the Meridian off ramp and I know that to be 100 foot
because we installed that years ago, but there’s sure an awful lot of signs in the area
that would in my mind approach that particular height and in terms of square footage
would substantially exceed it. The first sign that you see, one of the Texaco signs and
frankly I don’t have a problem with any of these signs. I’m just showing some examples
here is located on Meridian south of I-84. I calculate that sign probably to be 60-70 foot
in overall height. I didn’t build it. So I’m giving a best guestimate from being in the
industry and it’s also important to point out that this sign does not have freeway
frontage either. My understanding is there’s some concern that if we have a sign or if
we have a business that does have freeway frontage then we’re willing to go that extra
mile and give them that extra height. We do not have that freeway frontage, yet we’re a
freeway oriented business. I think as I look through the signs that I see along the
interstate, it’s kind of funny the people that are right on the interstate where they have
the better visibility and they don’t have the things obstructing them have the taller signs.
Now we’re back and we’re still a freeway oriented business but we need the taller sign,
but because we’re not located directly on to the interstate we’re being disallowed that.
Next item, Roaring Springs Water Park, that just went up. That is 60 foot in overall
height and approximately 335 square foot of signage, and I know that to be a fact
because we did it. The Best Western sign, this is kind of interesting when I went over
there as you can see there’s a crane in the background here. One of our other people
on the roof here happened to stop by and talk with the sign company and apparently
that’s currently at about 60 foot overall height. It’s being moved closer to the interstate
and raised another 20 foot was what we were told so that will be at 80 foot overall
height. The next sign would the Central Valley Corporate Park sign. The blank panel
right below that will be the WinCo. I did not build this sign, however, I was asked to
submit a drawings for a proposed sign and was given some pretty specific information
as the sizes that were required so I will say that that sign is probably around 55 foot in
overall height. And somewhere between 600 and 700 square foot in sign space. I think
this sign also gives you a pretty good example of the difference between sign face and
mass. When I calculate out the square footage of a sign, I calculate out the sign space
itself only. So I’m counting the Home Depot’s square which is 14 by 14. I’m not
counting any of the cladding around it. I’m counting the entire upper panel for WinCo
and I’m counting the Central Valley identification there, but you know you’ve got a lot of
mass. It’s a good looking sign mind you. You know I think it’s a very good looking sign,
but you do have a lot of mass and I think that’s something else that perhaps you would
want to consider. Where you’ve got a sign that is basically going to be a straight pull
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 51
that will be at the bottom of the sign and it will kind of like step up. The smaller sizes
will be probably in the three to four foot range at the bottom. At the top of the sign if I’m
looking at the side of the sign, it’s probably going to be about four foot wide. So if I’m
looking straight on it I’m seeing the pole so we’re not dealing with a lot of mass that’s
going to obstruct also. Meridian Ford sign, that’s a pretty big sign. I would guess that
sign is in the 75-85 foot range, best guess. Shari’s sign probably a little bit smaller,
probably in the 45-50 foot although I’ve been maybe 50-60. There’s your Meridian
Road McDonald’s sign at 100 overall and finally the Texaco sign located next to the
development we’re talking about here. We were asked to bid on that sign, so taking
from what I was told that we were to bid, we’ve got an overall height of I show 77. I
can’t swear that’s what it was built at, but it looks pretty close to me and over 800
square foot of signage, so basically folks I think the reason that I brought this up is I
don’t think that the signage that we’re asking for when you take into consideration the
height, the square footage, the overall mass is anything that’s unusual for the area.
There’s other signs that are going up outside of the I-84 corridor that are still substantial
signs. The RC Willey sign will be going up next week. That sign is set actually to be
RC Willey is kind of sunk down in as you know, but the top of the sign will come to
about 35 foot above the road and the square footage on the sign is just a little under
300 square foot. Certainly there’s comparable signage within the area. That pretty
much concludes my presentation. Of course I’m more than happy to answer any
questions for you if I may.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Smith: Not at this time.
Borup: Thank you.
Kyler: Good evening, Chairman Borup, Commissioners, my name is George Kyler. I
work for McDonald’s restaurants at Lake Elswego, Oregon, and I wanted to talk to
some of the comments in the staff report. I will try not to repeat too many of the things
that Craig said. In item number three of the staff report when they were talking about
no pylon signs were observed approaching this height as Craig said, that’s true. I look
at signage as the need for visibility more than I do a sheer number. One size does not
fit all. If you are trying to get over a building of if your property has topographical issues
that you have to deal with or trees that are in the area, you need to work around those
to get visibility for your project and therefore I don’t know if you want to call it a hardship
or just situations that are different than every single time you build a sign. I think that
there’s no need to have signs taller than they need to be to be visible and if you’re
looking at something like the mass that Craig was talking about, mass makes a big
difference. I was talking to Bob Nahas and I said how did you get to the height of your
sign for the Home Depot and he said well that’s what we needed to have for Home
Depot to be visible off the interstate in their opinion and that’s the sign I requested. I
was the person who stopped in to see the sign company with the torches working on
the pole at the Best Western just this evening coming over here, and I stopped and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 52
talked to the sign gentleman who was working on it and I said what are you moving the
sign for? He says well things have been built and we wanted to move it over to the
interstate because we can see it from way down the road over here and it’s much more
visible and we’re going to go to 80 feet with it and I says well, did you have much
opposition on it? Oh, no we just applied for a permit and that’s what we got and that
was the same kind of response I got from Bob Nahas on the Home Depot. I have to
say the majority of the things that I see I just drove here from Idaho Falls and
sometimes people that don’t live here are more observant because everything is new to
them. A lot of times when you are going on your normal commute or do your normal
things, there are a lot of things that you just don’t observe that are in the market but
when you look up and down the whole corridor what you really see is restaurants,
motels, service stations as the predominant signage. Even sometimes like a Shilo Inn
that’s over here on Broadway and I-84, that building is so massive, they don’t need to
have more than the Shilo sign on their building and they are very visible or the Sleep
Inn or some of these other motels that are well located on the interstate. They’re
already up 30-40 feet in the air or the hospital. They don’t need to have high rise signs.
But something like a Wal-Mart, something like a Home Depot, those are traveler
services, they have adequate signage on their building face usually that are visible.
Something like Hubble Engineering that is a destination is not oriented to the traveler
services. The other signs I saw had to do with maybe RV’s or campgrounds or some
kind of a service industry for automotive off the interstate. So I think our use is
appropriate. When we were talking about this project in public meetings, we always
talked about the appropriateness of this development at the corner of a state and
federal highway with the necessity to be here and even though we’re not oriented to the
– I mean I shouldn’t say oriented, we are not bordered by the interstate. It’s definitely
an influence. This project was developed for I would say at least a year right here at
this level simply because of its close proximity to the interchange on and off ramps and
the potential of relocating the traffic light and ITD saying no, it’s too close to the ramps.
Well if we’re that close to the ramps, we obviously are heavily influenced by the
interstate activity that’s there. So I would like to stress the signage that we’re asking for
goes over the (inaudible) and at some point comes over the hospital for visibility both
east and west bound and if we go less than what we’re requesting, we really don’t have
the visibility certainly going westbound at all until you’re on the exit ramp and going
eastbound it’s pretty spotty among some very tall trees. Allow me to comment about
the logo boards that I wanted to make a comment on further. Our statistics and studies
have shown that when you can see the pylon sign for a business, you are much more
apt to get off the highway to use because a logo boards are very deceiving. When I first
got this territory seven years ago from McDonald’s to develop further, I went to
Mountain Home and there was a sign, “McDonald’s” you know to the left so I drive
down there and the road turns and twists and I got totally lost. I had no idea you had to
go under the railroad tracks to Air Base Road and there we are. So people have
learned through different experiences that if you don’t see that pylon sign, you just don’t
get off for that use because you have no idea where it is to Craig’s point, you get to the
end of the exit ramp you look left and right and you can’t see it. You have no idea
where to go what you do. This building is unique that we’re building. It’s probably the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 53
first in Idaho and Oregon and possibly Washington that is a new architecture and a new
type of development for McDonald’s where it is going to be jointly used with another
business, the Chevron gas station and that’s similar to what we have at the airport
except this is a full services, full menu, full seating capacity building for McDonald’s and
it’s not at the airport. When we did the sign tests, we went around with the franchising,
Dick Darbedy and with Steve Eddy from Chevron who each are going to own those
businesses and it was determined that this is what we need to get adequate signage
from the highway for their businesses to further succeed in this market. So I wanted to
request that we take a look and not get hung up over the footage of the sign, but more
the visibility of the sign. It isn’t overkill and I would say to you that it certainly is not.
Just because somebody has a 60 foot sign, it can certainly be a lot more visible than
somebody who has a 100 foot sign. So I would be glad to answer any questions for
you now or later.
Borup: Commissioners?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kyler, how is your story referring to your wild goose chase in
Mountain Home and the preceding gentleman’s statement about I believe it was Yakima
going on a wild goose chase for a Chevron relevant when you’re right just a few
hundred yards off the freeway? Why would a roadside sign not benefit you in that
situation?
Kyler: Well if you’re coming from the west, you’re getting off pretty far south of the
interchange.
Smith: But we’re not talking about a proximity as your stories – I think your stories are
totally irrelevant to this project here and the benefit of the roadside signs. It doesn’t
apply.
Kyler: Okay I may have not stated my point and I apologize if I didn’t, but the issue
really is without a visible pylon sign from the building, the facility would not get the same
business as just having a logo board serving the interstate was the point I was trying to
make.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? I can’t remember from
the introduction, was there one other from the applicant? Okay, again this is a public
hearing. Do we have anyone from the audience who would like to speak to this
application? Is so come forward please.
Williams: Good evening, my name is Richard Williams. I live at 3133 Autumn Way
behind these signs. If you would like to come over at 3:00 in the morning some night
and read the newspaper with me, my front yard, my back yard please feel free. I don’t
need lights. I have signs. I’ll try to keep it short. Most of you know me I’ve been here
up and down this thing for the last three years. I served on the city council for six years
and helped develop the Comprehensive Plan so I know what you’re going through.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 54
Two major items I would like to say. Number one, I’m sure you’re all familiar with the
term aethestics and what that means, and what it means to you and what it means to
me as a resident of Meridian. What does my city, your city, what do you want it to look
like? Do you want it to look like a fast food franchise haven? What do you want the
people who come to Meridian to stop at Meridian, what do you want them to think of this
city? The first thing they are going to think about is what are all those signs doing
there? They consistently about their presentations not about the freeway and then
they’ll talk about that they’re on a state highway and a federal highway. They’re on a
state highway on a collector street. They are a quarter of a mile from the interstate. If
they want to be on the interstate, as you well know, the land south of the interstate
which abuts the interstate between the interstate and Overland Road is for sale. So if
you want to be on the freeway, fine, get on the freeway but don’t let them tell you that
they’re a freeway oriented business when they are a quarter of a mile away. That’s
ridiculous. The previous testimonies over the last few years did not address these
types of signs. They addressed the smaller signs. The developer on the onset when
this was approved was to give signage requirements with a development agreement.
That was almost a year ago. Where was that signage – where was that in the
development agreement? It wasn’t even a part of it. Now they’re coming? Why now?
Borup: That’s precisely why because it wasn’t then.
Williams: It should have been in. That was one of your requirements. That was
specifically your requirement that it was part of the development agreement.
Borup: And if that would have happened, then we wouldn’t be having this meeting.
Williams: Why didn’t it happen? That’s my question. Another thing, I guess you all
realize that this whole issue is being litigated anyway and when that happens, we may
all be old and gray. If you talk to Mr. Jackson, he’s not real happy with his sign. He
doesn’t think it works. He thinks it’s too big. He thinks that it was a mistake that he put
it there. There on Eagle Road a monument sign on Eagle Road is going to see 30,000
cars a day and now they want to get greedy and grab everybody off the interstate with a
100 foot sign. I just find this ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. Again what do you want
the entrance to Meridian to look like? You’ve got a nice hospital over there. It’s going
to be a great facility when it’s built. It’s going to generate a lot of business and then you
want a big monument sign like this across the street from it. I don’t think this is what the
City of Meridian wants by any stretch of the imagination. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Williams? Thank you. Next, yes sir.
Hurl: Charles Hurl, 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian. Commissioners, thank you for your
time here. Two comments, the gentlemen keep in referring to the signs that are existing
right now as some quite large signs. 80 foot, 65 foot and whatever, none of them are
close to residential subdivisions. They’re all set back in front of businesses right along
the interstate and like Mr. Williams said what we’re trying to create here now is another
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 55
type of signage that’s away from the interstate doesn’t fly with the Comprehensive Plan.
Another comment made that if you’re doing 65 or 70 miles an hour as you come across
this interchange, the only way to see that is if the sign is up at 100 feet in the air. If
you’re doing 70 miles an hour, you’re violating the law. That’s my comments. Thank
you.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Go ahead just come right on up.
Foley: My name is Howard Foley and I reside at 2875 Autumn Way in Meridian. This
has been a long and arduous process for lots of us. But one of the things that I hear
the applicant arguing or saying to you is that they selected a piece of property in a
particular development and at the time that I’ve been at these meetings before what I
heard were monument signs and I expected a monument sign much like the Chevron
monument sign that exists now on Fairview Avenue. That’s what I thought they were
talking about. As a matter of fact this is a continued hearing. At the last hearing there
was some discussion by the representative of the applicant who would have you
believe that a monument sign is expandable, that there’s really no distinction between a
monument sign that’s maybe five feet in the air and one that’s 100 feet in the air and the
distinction between pylon signs and monument signs really is blurred. That’s what I
heard last time. When I was here before and also before the City Council, I heard that
the McDonald’s was going to be a limited McDonald’s and not a full service sit down
McDonald’s and I hear now that that is something different. Given all the continuing
changes and I appreciate Commissioner Borup’s question about should have been part
of the development agreement and why are we back here now and those sort of things.
I guess some of the sense from the neighborhood is we thought that was covered in the
beginning. We thought that was part of the conditional use permit process. We heard
from the applicant and the developer this was going to be a monument sign. We all
understood what a monument sign was. We know the difference between a
Thoroughbred and a Shetland pony and that’s what we thought we were dealing with
and now what I think we’re here is well gosh, now that we got the site and now we got
the approval from the city, we’ve now discovered guess what? That there’s actually a
hospital that’s pretty good size across from us and we didn’t think about that in the
beginning so now we want you to save our bacon and give us a sign that goes 100 feet
in the air and that was never discussed and it’s inappropriate backing on to a
neighborhood. It’s just totally inappropriate, and the fact that there’s some poplar trees
that makes their business where they selected it to go difficult to see when you’re
traveling at 65 miles an hour down a freeway, it really in my opinion it isn’t Planning and
Zoning’s problem. They selected this property. They told you when they came here
before that all they wanted was some monument signage. Some low monument
signage. They were going to get a lot of traffic up and down Eagle Road that was going
to service their businesses and that’s what they told you. Now they’ve come back and
say well gosh we want something different. Now what they want is a monstrosity sign
for those of us who happen to live there. We all share in the blessing of the Texaco
sign, which truly does illuminate us about 1000 feet away and it’s comprehensible to
me. I’m just when I hear people tell you well the sign only really goes east and west
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 56
and it won’t shed much light sort of down into the neighborhood. That’s nonsense folks
and it’s absolute nonsense and it’s just simply not true. The examples that the
applicant gives you in terms of Roaring Springs, Best Western and Central Valley and
those types of developments are in commercial developments. They don’t back on a
neighborhood. You did not hear from Mr. Kyler one word about a neighborhood. He
never said one word about a neighborhood in terms of all the things that you should
consider. What he said is and what the applicant has said is this will suit my need. I
picked the wrong site. It doesn’t have visible signage because of St. Luke’s which was
already pre-existing at the time I picked the site and now I want you to cut me some
slack and allow me a sign that is gosh 100 feet in the air, 470 square feet mass. It’s just
going to illuminate (End of Tape)
Foley: Where do we stop? Where do we stop being grotesque? Where do we have
some esthetics to the gateways to our city? Where do you come and help us as
neighbor? We were there first, before this development came. We are the ones that
should be given that initial consideration we think. The fact that they chose the site with
preexisting hospitals and poplar trees and set back a quarter of a mile from the freeway
is what they chose. I don’t think you ought to allow them, obviously I don’t, but you
shouldn’t allow this kind of signage. I am sure none of them would like that in their
backyard. I can assure you that we don’t want another one in our back yard. I heard
the goofy argument from them in the past that the higher it gets, the less offensive it is.
I can assure you that this is not the case either. We would strongly urge you to deny
this application.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Foley?
Barbeiro: Mr. Foley. I find it interesting you brought up the R.C. Willey sign and you
were aware that R.C. Willey did approach us in this same manner, seeking to have their
sign freeway visible.
Foley: I heard that yes. I am glad you didn’t. I hope you don’t with this one. I mean
everybody can’t have freeway visibility. You know the people who are going to build on
Ustick, can’t have freeway signage. They just can’t . You know we’ve got a huge
development going on Fairview. I mean there has to be some reasonable limitations.
You want to build on a freeway and be a freeway business, good for you.
Borup: Yes, next.
Nelson: Joan Nelson, 3019 Autumn Way. I am about 4 or 5 houses down, but I am a
resident of Meridian. I like the feel of Meridian. I’d like to see us do something with real
serious planning to give us a feel of Meridian. I know a place like Eagle that’s done
some real restrictive things, makes some businesses unhappy. I would like to see us
develop a real sense of Meridian as a nice place to live and not a truck stop.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 57
Borup: Anyone else? Would the applicant like to summarize or any other rebuttal
comments?
Spink: I would just say in summary and in response to the comments to the neighbors,
that in reviewing this application, the signs that have been proposed are consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and the zone that exists on the property where the signs are
going to be located. What your being asked to do tonight is to apply your sign
ordinance. So you need to look at your sign ordinance and apply it and do what it tells
that you can do. I think that it is appropriate for you to address the concerns of the
neighbors and to do that in the context of the planning that has all ready occurred on
this site. That’s all I have to say.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Barbeiro: I’m sorry your name again was…
Spink: Mike Spink.
Barbeiro: Mr. Spink the residents have (inaudible) me with an unspoken proposition
walking in their shoes. Mr. Spink, if you were a neighbor, and someone else were to put
a sign there, would you also be out here in this audience requesting that the sign be in
some matter restricted so that it’s not interrupting your daily living in your home.
Spink: I would ask, if I were in that position, and in fact in the course of getting ready
for this preceding, I did put myself in their position. I would absolutely, always feel free
to exercise my rights as these neighbors did when they opposed portions of this project
through its earlier stages when they filed the lawsuit against the City of Meridian. I think
that they are exercising their rights. I both respect that, and I respect the comments
and I think that anyone in an appointed position, such as yourself, who put yourself in
the awkward position of having to do things every time you sit down and meet as a
board, that you know your not going to please everybody. Then I think what you have
to do is to apply the standards. Look at the Comprehensive Plan that your bound by.
Look at the zone of the property. Look at the proximity of the neighborhood. Listen to
the comments made by the neighbors. Understand that the difference between the
Texaco, which is making a lot of light, and I don’t doubt that for a second—it has a
reader board. You’ve also been—you’ve heard testimony from a representative from
the sign company saying, it’s going to be incandescent light. It’s light that is going to
have a flat space that faces the neighborhood and then in fact it’s not going to be
oriented the same way as the Texaco. So you are looking at a different circumstance. I
think that you have to consider, as you look at the commercial zone and say, gee this
sign is next to a neighborhood. Well, this commercial zone is next to a neighborhood in
your Comprehensive Plan and in your zoning map, and you should consider the
comments of both the applicant and the neighbors. You should consider the proximity
of the sign. We’ve been talking about the sign and the comments of the neighbors as if
we’re a huge distance away from the freeway. It is not a huge distance. I mean we all
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 58
have taken that exit. When you go down the exit, what you see is, is that this property
is right there at the left edge of the hospital. I mean it’s right there. It’s a long time to
answer your question, but you asked me a loaded question so I’m giving you a full
answer. Yes, I think the neighbors should be here. Yes, I think the applicant should be
here. And yes, I think the Planning and Zoning Commission should listen to both of the
comments, look at the zoning ordinance, which I think creates a problem for the City of
Meridian, because it isn’t very specific frankly. Makes your job harder. I wish that
wasn’t the case, but it is the case. Because of that, I would ask that you go ahead and
make the decision on the application as it is submitted tonight. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I do have a couple of questions or comments. The signs
along Eagle Road top at 75 feet and that’s Jackson’s or Texaco’s. One mistake does
not mean we have to make more. Other heights you stated from the freeway are, like
what was mentioned in testimony, not along a residential. In your mind, one that can be
seen so well from the freeway at the distances that you choosing, do you think that’s
compatible with the residential area right next to it?
Spink:: I think that it’s consistent with your Comprehensive Plan and unfortunately for
you, it’s up to you to make that---I can’t tell you whether I think it is consistent or not.
Yes, I do. I think that is how the City of Meridian has planned for area.
De Weerd: So do you believe our Comprehensive Plan states in there that the city is
responsible for signage to be seen from certain distances or certain locations that that
is what our job is to give a business?
Spink: No. Not at all. I didn’t say that, I don’t believe.
De Weerd: Okay. You don’t think or..some of your testimony, it sounded like the
information signs on the freeway are not helpful in bringing businesses to your type of
business. And you don’t see those as being more effective than your sign highlighting
our skyline?
Spink: I did not make the comment, but I think I can respond to your question. I think
that every sign, from the perspective of a person who builds and operates a retail
business, in a retail zone, by any municipality wants to have the best signage for them.
And to the extent that the blue highway signs enhance their visibility. I am sure that
they appreciate it to the extent that their experience tells them that having these higher
signs, I don’t even know the name for them, is what actually what brings people off the
freeway and to the zoned location. It seems like if that’s been their historical business
experience, I can understand that, but only from the perspective of when I am driving in
an area that I am not familiar with if I am looking for a McDonalds or a Burger King or
an Exxon or a Texaco, if I am a specifically—driven by a particular brand then I’m
looking for as much information as I can get. I am not telling you that the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan or zoning ordinance or sign ordinance says that it is up to the City
of Meridian to enhance or maximum that situation. I am only suggesting that you need
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 59
to act practically—I think you need to balance the needs of both the surrounding
property, which may be in a different, and the needs of different people who are doing
what are appropriately zoned uses in this commercial zone. You have to look at both of
that and come to some kind of determination that is authorized by your zoning
ordinance—your sign ordinance, excuse me.
De Weerd: And how many of those sign examples, and probably you may not be the
one to ask, but are businesses located off the freeway—I mean not a freeway business.
Spink: Before he gets up here, I would say that from my prospective as an attorney,
there’s probably not a legal definition for a freeway business, and I would say that
somebody that’s got a business at the end of an off ramp is clearly a freeway business
and somebody who’s ¾ of a mile away on another arterial like R.C. Willey, probably is
not a freeway business, and somebody who’s not very far off the end of a freeway exit
like this particular applicant, I don’t know you would call them but I---did not answer your
questions and I’m waiting—
Borup: Was your question answered Commissioner?
De Weerd: No. But he’s directed for someone else have questions for him before the
other gentleman comes up. Did you Mr. Chairman.
Borup: I do. Both of you might stay here for a little bit then. Just real quickly on her
question.
Jameson: Craig Jameson, Idaho Electric Signs. I am looking at your packet here—
signs that would not have freeway frontage if I understood your question correctly. The
Texaco store at the Meridian exit south of I-84. There is a hotel in between the gas
station and the interstate.
De Weerd: How high is that?
Jameson: I did not build that sign. I am guessing it to be 60-70 foot in overall height.
That is just a guess—an educated guess. Shari’s Restaurant on Meridian Road –that is
also not freeway frontage. That’s probably somewhere between 45-50 foot overall
height I guess. The McDonalds on Meridian Road not freeway frontage. That is 100
foot overall height. In actually, the Texaco sign does not have freeway frontage. At
Eagle and I-84 there is a hotel being built in front of it. I think it’s a Holiday Inn Express.
De Weerd: And how high is that?
Jameson: Based on the fact that we were asked to bid on the sign, I showed our
specification as being 77 foot. I didn’t put it up. I hope that answers your question.
That would be the extent of the sign examples that we have there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 60
Borup: Maybe Mr. Jameson you may be the best one for a couple questions I had. The
McDonalds on East First, is that a comparable size for the proposed sign here?
Jameson: On East First. I believe that is the same size sign, same height.
Borup: I am talking about just the McDonalds logo itself.
Jameson: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Then the proposed one is also open between the arches?
Jameson: Yes it is.
Borup: I did not hear any discussion about what was felt would be a minimum size to
have any type of freeway recognition. Would you can to comment on that?
Jameson: Speaking strictly from the standpoint of a sign person…
Borup: I said minimum size as opposed to nothing at all.
Jameson: Well that’s although I appreciate your question Chairman Borup, that’s a
decision to be made by my clients and not by me. You know, I think that with the
distances that we are talking about—looking at from what I understand they identified in
the flagging, we need that type of height and we are dealing with an extensive distance.
Those are not what I consider very large signs particularly for that height of a sign to be
honest with you. You know, your talking a total of 2 businesses being identified with a
total of 470 square foot of signage, which is certainly not a lot especially when your
looking at single businesses who are also seeking to get that identification and they are
right next to the Interstate that have square footage that might be in access of that.
Signs do shrink as they go up, and they do shrink with distance. We are fortunate
enough where McDonalds and Chevron have identifiable logos but –
Borup: That’s my point. You really don’t answer my question.
Jameson: That’s probably true.
Borup: Thank you.
Jameson: I would like an opportunity to be back up later if –
Borup: Well, if we have any other questions, we certainly will.
Jameson: Well could I address the issues I wanted to bring up as part of the rebuttal
now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 61
Borup: Yes. Did anyone have any other questions before he does that?
De Weerd: I did have a question as far as---I don’t know it is the candlelight or the
illuminated, foot candles?
Jameson: I am always asked that question. That’s extremely difficult to determine.
The signs are illuminated typically with 800 millilamps which would be the same lamp
size that you would find along Fairview or what ever. It pretty much is a standard in the
industry. The unfortunate part about measuring the foot candles is that it’s a function of
from what distance am I going to measure it, what’s the daylight conditions. It’s also a
function of what the condition of the sign is. Like anything else, I am not a lighting
expert, but I can tell you that Florissant lamps diminish in output with age. I honestly
wish Commissioner that I could answer that question for you, but I can tell you that
we’re not using lamps anymore powerful than you would find on the road sides up and
down Fairview, for example.
De Weerd: One thing we did with R.C. Willey is because it does border a residential
area, quite similar to your circumstance, is they had a time frame that they turned those
lights off. That was between 11 and 4 or something like that.
Jameson: I appreciate your question. I think that would have to be answered by the
applicant themselves—either the McDonalds or the Chevron people. I believe the
Chevron is going to be 24 hours, whereas R.C. Willey would not be, but
Barbeiro: Commission De Weerd, as I recall it wasn’t required to be turned off but we
did require them to put a regulator on it that added about half power. During the
evening hours when business was not operational.
Jameson: That I could not tell you.
De Weerd: Do you remember Commissioner Borup? As far as the lighting of R.C.
Willey. We had a night time, time restriction or lighting issue.
Borup: That was my recollection. They said they could have a step down transformer
to reduce –I don’t remember the specifics on that. I don’t know if they game specifics.
They said they could reduce the luminance.
Barbeiro: I’d like to ask Shari if she recalls. Oh your going to hide from this one. Good.
Jameson: Our company is doing the sign. I was not the representative on that. I do
recall talk in the office about some sort of lighting restriction. I was under the
impression it was on a timer, but it could have been a step down system.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 62
Barbeiro: If you could bring that map up—you were the one that was going over the
map. If you could bring that up I wanted to ask a few questions. As you exit from the
east bound lanes to the south, from the intersection here of Eagle where Interstate 84
breaks off, could you see this McDonalds/Chevron sign—
Jameson: No that would be the Texaco sign. That would be the approximate position
of the sign that we are requesting.
Barbeiro: You have requested a 34 foot double phase internally luminous—
Jameson: Okay right there on the roadside. Could I see it from down there?
Barbeiro: Could you see that from here.
Jameson: Well it isn’t there now, so—I doubt it because now your going up and you’ve
got quite a crown going over the top of the interstate. I don’t see how you could.
Barbeiro: At about what height would the sign be necessary? And I realize this is
putting you in an awkward spot. Would you be able to see the Chevron and McDonalds
sign from this point? This point appears to be the least visible and the most prominent
point where you would want your sign to be seen once you’ve made a stop. I am kind
of setting you up here. It is my contention that a freeway sign, which says McDonalds,
Chevron, along with the Texaco Taco Bell sign, which will sit back at least one and one
half miles prior to the exit, would give you sufficient time to move to the right lane and
exit to find your Chevron and McDonalds. The contention the other gentleman made
with regards to Mountain Home and Yakima were that, once you exited the freeway you
could not find the restaurant. I would like to know that once you exit the freeway,
obviously from this point you will be able to see it off the west bound lanes exit. From
the south point, what would it take, and I think I would defeat their argument with regard
to Yakima and Mountain Home, if one to one and a half miles from the exit, you have
the freeway reader board and at this point, you could turn to the left and you could see
where McDonalds/Chevron is, how high would the sign be necessary to reach from this
point?
Jameson: Commission, at this point I could not tell you. What we would need to do is
we would need to go out there and physically flag the site. It is the only way, especially
when you dealing with that type of topography. The only way we can actually identify
the necessary heights is the way we identify the heights for the signs that we have
requested, and that’s why running a truck out there and raising up a target and being at
the south end at that exit and being to look over—so I honestly—I am not trying to avoid
your question, but I just have no idea. I guess since you brought up the issue coming
back to the information signs, I think there is a little bit of confusion as to what George
Kyler from McDonalds is saying here. It’s his experience and I think it’s my experience
also that I look for an actual sign. If I am looking for McDonalds or if I am looking for a
Chevron I looking for that actual sign. I mean sometimes I might see the freeway
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 63
information signs, sometimes I don’t. Frankly, I don’t pay much attention to them.
That’s me personally. But I think that there is also because they are relatively low, I’d
say the over all height of those is probably about 15 foot. You know there is also the
fact that they can be obscured by traffic that’s going by. So certainly I do think they
serve a purpose but speaking for myself and I am not speaking for anybody else, I look
for the sign. So you know I do understand your question in regard to the height of that
and I wish I could answer that question for you and I’d be glad to look at it.
Barbeiro: Would it be fair to say that you could probably put a sign lower than 100 feet
and still have that visibility. I imagine that when you did the study to figure out the
height you would like to have that somebody went over to the south side here –
Jameson: I was not there.
Barbeiro: Pretend.
Jameson: Pretend!! I think the assumption that is being made here is that I am getting
off the freeway so I can get to the bottom of the exit and I can look left and I can look
right and see the sign. On the other hand, if I don’t make the move to get off the
freeway and I’ve gone past it without seeing, then it doesn’t work.
Barbeiro: With regards to you and Mr. Kilar’s argument, it is apparent that the road sign
alone did entice them to get off the road in Yakima and get off the road in Mountain
Home without the need for the 100 foot sign. So we now have their own testimony that
these signs on the freeway are effective. So what we are trying to determine is, once
you’ve exited the freeway, how quickly and easily can you find the destination that they
have established as an effective time to find it?
Kyler: Can I answer that? This is George Kyler from McDonalds. I turned off the road
twice. The first time and the last time because if you can’t find it conveniently, your not
going. True story. Driving here today, I was running low on gas in the car, I passed by
Glenns Ferry and there was logo sign there, I looked around—there was no high rise
visible for where a gas station was and I went by Glenns Ferry. And then I went by
Hammit, which had a blue sign and had no visible sign for a gas station either. I got so
nervous I turned off the aid conditioner to make it to Mountain Home where I ran into
the Chevron station the first place I could find. Seriously, It will bring some people off
the road if they know where they are going anyway, but if it’s not convenient and it’s not
visible, it’s just—if your in a motorhome or your in a car or your going down the road
and you have no idea where this exit is..how easy the on off is or anything else, but if
you can see it, it’s used. So that was the point I was trying to make with the Mountain
Home example and that’s an honest answer. I think we are asking what’s typical
signage for our industry and that would be visibility from the highway. We never looked,
and I was there for the sign flagging and Craig wasn’t, so I’ll answer the question about
the south interchange. Obviously, we exited there because we drove both directions to
get some facts on how high we needed the sign. We never could see it from the south
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 64
because we were looking at the end of the sign cause it oriented to the freeway. If we
were to change that sign, it’s oriented to the neighbors. That sign has the same
illumination, correct me if I’m wrong, is the other sign in Meridian on Fairview—it’s the
same sign.
Jameson: I believe what the Commissioner is referring to thought, if I understood your
question correctly sir, is he’s wondering about the smaller sign.
Kilar: Oh the smaller sign couldn’t be.
Jameson: On Eagle Road. How tall would that sign have to be to be visible from the
exit. Did I understand you correctly?
Barbeiro: It was a question in regards to both signs, but know that –
Kilar: If I was a neighbor I would want the sign to be 300 feet in the air because they
would never see it. The illumination is the same, so the further away that sign is, both
up in the air and away from their homes, the less light they could possibly see.
Smith: Well if the neighbors can’t see it than either can your freeway customers I
guess. If you drove all the way from Glenns Ferry to Mountain Home you weren’t that
low on gas.
Borup: The last person speaking was George Kyler. Did you have any other rebuttal
comments?
Kilar: I did have one other comment. We always had a full service sit down McDonalds
proposed for here in terms of our site plan that was submitted. We never had a limited
menu, smaller facility ever requested. I know that Steve Eddy on several occasions
made comments about signage and he was talking about airport/Chevron/McDonalds
type signage. And that’s in public records and that’s on the tape someplace. It was
never discussed as short little monument signs and Craig can discuss what a
monument is versus a pylon, that’s his business. But I remember quite distinctly talking
about Chevron/McDonalds sign at Airport Way. It would by that type of signage in
terms of freeway oriented visible signage.
De Weerd: Just a moment Mr. Chairman. Just a comment. I am a consumer and my
kids are and we do look for the highway information signs and maybe we are one of
those who blindly turn when we see that thing on the information sign, but that’s always
been good enough for me. I don’t know. Maybe I am unusual, but I fit in the same
category as these other two or even yourself, so I do look at those. I think a lot of
people do otherwise those signs wouldn’t be littering our freeways and highways, if they
did not serve a purpose.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 65
Borup: I’d say, I’d look for those too. We watch them. The other thing when I see an
exit I want to see that there’s some businesses close to the freeway, not 2 miles away.
So if I see one of those I see there is some business there. I don’t worry about what the
signs are or whatever is on the blue signs is going to be in that general area, as long as
there is some business visible. Mr. Jameson, do you have some conclusion comments
you want to make?
Jameson: Yes Mr. Chairman. I just had a couple of real brief comments. I’ve heard
this come up time and time again how these signs were never discussed until this time.
For the record, this was well over a year ago. Maybe closer to two years ago. I believe
it was in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I did make a presentation on
freeway signage. I can’t give you a date but I do have witnesses that were here. So I
can’t speak to any other meeting that you may have had where quote unquote
monument type signage has been discussed. I can tell you this was back when the
hotel was part of the project as opposed to the credit union. We brought in a sign that
was –I can’t tell you for sure the height. I think the height may have been a little bit
less. I think it may have been 75 to 80 foot. The sign configuration was what I would
call a over under, where you got the Chevron/McDonalds on top and the other one
below instead of side by side. I was here. I made the presentation, so you know, I’d
just like you to know that as far as I’ve know when I’ve been working with Chevron and
McDonalds, that has always been the type of signage that they wanted. What ever
happened at other meetings, that was the only meeting I have ever been to in regard to
this particular issue.
Borup: Mr. Jameson. You said that was back when (inaudible) hotel in the discussion.
That would be (inaudible).
Jameson: I can’t tell you what—I looked through my calendar for a date. Frankly, I
never though this project would come together. I guess the last think that I would like to
say is that I would really, really, really encourage you folks to develop what I would call
a true sign ordinance. I have written to the Mayor. I’ve made offers to Shari to assist. I
was on the committee that helped design Boise sign ordinance, but because you have
no sign ordinance per say , you have problems like this and it creates problems for
everybody in that I have clients that come to me and say Craig what kind of signage
can I get in Meridian? I look at the sign code and say well it doesn’t specify height, it
doesn’t specify square footage, it doesn’t specify how you calculate out any of this.
Gee, sometimes you get this and sometimes you get that…
De Weerd: Sir, if it makes you feel better, Item number 8, which we added at the
beginning of the meeting, is to discuss ordinances and sign and landscape are those
two ordinances.
Jameson: It would make everyone’s life a little easier.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 66
Borup: The other situation that we have here is a little different. This was a condition
use on the whole project. The sign probably would have been reviewed even with a
sign ordinance. Thank you.
Smith: Before you step down Mr. Jameson, I have a letter here on your letterhead,
dated May 5. It is not signed. Is that your letter? May 5th
RE: Request a CU
Modification.
Jameson: That was a draft letter.
Smith: It is the only one we had in our packets. That was my question.
Jameson: Just looking at it I can see it’s been scratched on. I do have a copy of that. I
didn’t realize it had been submitted. I didn’t submit the application.
Smith: Since it was part of our packet, there are a couple statements in here that I do
want bring up here in public hearing. It is a statement—there was a non public hearing
that we were never notified of and apparently a motion was carried to submit for
modification to our CU permit. I believe prior testimony stated and that is what
happened was that signage was supposed to be reviewed as part of the original
development agreement and it was the applicant who failed to supply that information to
this Commission. There was never a non public hearing held on this project or any
other project. Our lawyer’s would lynch us if we ever did anything like that. I just
wanted to clarify that issue.
Jameson: I hope you’ll give me an opportunity to respond.
Smith: this is just a statement. Second of all, going on to the next paragraph it states,
as it seems to be no concern in regard to wall sidings proposed, we would simply like to
address free standing signage requested. Mr. Jameson, can you tell me maybe who or
whom may have indicated to you or the applicant there is no concern as to the wall
signage proposed.
Jameson: Commission Smith. That is an assumption on my part based on all the
issues that have been brought up. I’ve never heard any issues regarding wall signage.
Smith: I can tell you that personally I am concerned about the wall signage and I would
expect it to be submitted as a part of this signage package and it was sometime back
but I don’t believe—do other Commissioner's still have that information?
Borup: Wasn’t that part of the elevation –
Smith: It was part of the original signage package that was submitted a few months
ago.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 67
Borup: I thought wall signage was on the elevations on the building.
Jameson: You folks should have all that. We have submitted it completely.
Smith: I have it, but I don’t know—because we have not addressed it at all.
Borup: Commissioner’s did you have any concerns on the way it was submitted. Or just
a statement that there was no concern.
Smith: this is all needs to be evaluated holistically and not (inaudible). I guess I don’t
know if any member of this Commission was on Planning and Zoning when that Texaco
sign went through. I know I was not. I think it was very unfortunate that sign was built.
Borup: No one was.
Smith: I don’t think that we should be using as a measuring stick to approve new
projects here. I think a monument type signage along Eagle would be very appropriate.
I have seen absolutely no reason that you would need a 100 high sign and another 37
foot high sign with 370 square foot signage face to draw business into Chevron and
McDonalds there off of Eagle Road. There has been a number of references to our
Comprehensive Plan which really doesn’t address signage specifically but it does
address entry way corridors of which this Eagle Road is a entry way corridor. Quote,
“Entry way corridors are communities front door. It is acknowledged that the corridors
trees or lack there of, commercial signage and site care to provide the first and often
time most lasting impression of the entire community.” Then there was some reference
to signage ordinance. And really it is pretty vague and pretty poor, but there is one
specific requirement in her regarding signs –Section 2-415, Section B. Any sign or sign
structure located on a commercially zoned lot which is adjacent to a residentially zoned
lot, shall be set back so as to meet the side, rear, and front yard set back requirements
of said adjoining residential district. If such residential set back requirements exceed
those of the commercial district. This freeway sign is right on the property line and it
doesn’t meet any set back requirements. As far as the one thing is in our signage
ordinance that is proposal doesn’t satisfy that, unless I am misinterpreting our
ordinance.
Jameson: Well, it’s your ordinance. I rather respond to comments that have been
made in regard to process (audible) so are there any other questions? Thank you.
Borup: Commissions. Discussion?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. I do not remember the name of the man who invited me over
to his house at 3 o’clock in the morning to read a newspaper. Is he still here with us.
The next door neighbor would work really, really well. Would you come up. I wanted to
ask a question. Any of the neighbors.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 68
Christensen: S.G. Christensen, 3157 Autumn Way. I live in the first house. It’s my
house that their lights when they come in to gas up will shine in my bedroom window
and it'’ my window they will look out and see a 100 foot sign.
Barbeiro: And your so happy.
Christensen: It thrills me to death.
Barbeiro: Mr. Christensen. I’d like to get a feel for the problems you have in your yard
specifically with the lights. There 3 different lights going on at Texaco right now. We
have the 80 foot illuminated sign. A part from that we have the reader board, which is
infinitely brighter that the illuminated sign along with flashing lights, and we have the
lights from the Texaco itself under the awning and for the business. I enjoyed the story
about the 3 am reading my newspaper there in New York. I’d like to get an idea of—
there are times the reader board Texaco is not working, which I am sure makes you all
very happy. Can you tell me the differences in the lighting in your property at night
when the reader board is not operable versus times when it is operable.
Christensen: To answer your question, I have a bunch of trees that the developer refers
to as junk, between my property and theirs. They are (inaudible). I have let them grow
wild. They are quite tall. As a result of that, I do not see the reader board from any
place except right at my patio door. The lights I see are the--—at lights my backyard.
Reflections from that and the hospital lights, but if they put 100 foot sign, it will be above
my trees and I’ll certainly see their light.
Barbeiro: Okay, you don’t see the sign itself, but the reader board as it flashes on and
off. Can you tell me how that effects the back of your—especially in winter when there
is no leaves on your trees.
Christensen: Yeah. It lights it up.
Barbeiro: When the light is not on. When it is not operable, the reader board operable
compared to when the reader board is operable.
Christensen: I have not compared that. I can not answer that.
Barbeiro: Having driven down the freeway, that reader board hurts my eyes at times.
The illuminated Texaco/Taco Bell light does not hurt my eyes. I am put in a position
here where I don’t know that a 100 foot florescent sign on the McDonalds side is going
to add to the illumination when we have this reader board that again hurts my eyes
when I drive past it. Given the option I am sure that all of you would rather have two
McDonalds signs and no reader board than the reader board at all. I am still having a
hard time since you live so close, getting a vision of how much additional light a 100
foot sign will add to your property.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 69
Christensen: I don’t know. But I do know that when I look out my bedroom window I do
not see the reader board at 12 o’clock at night. When I look out of my bedroom
window, I will certainly see a 100 foot McDonalds sign at night.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions.
Barbeiro: I would welcome more input from the neighbors. Please do.
Foley: Howard Foley. From Mr. Christensen’s property I am probably 8 or 10 houses
away to the west.
Barbeiro: Do you understand what I am trying to do with the comparison’s of the reader
board on and off? We still have the illuminated Texaco sign whether the reader board is
on or off. I want to get a vision on the assumption the reader board is off, how much
additional light would come from a McDonalds/Chevron sign. Which as it appears to
me here is still considerable less in math than is the combination Texaco/Taco Bell sign.
Foley: The reader board in my property is always off because I have a separate stand
alone garage or shed that given the angle or whatever interrupts the reader board
which is lower than the Texaco sign. What I see is the Texaco sign, which is bright and
the think that occurred to me is you asked a question particularly in the winter when you
get a little snow and it illuminate everything. It gets extremely bright in my backyard 8-
10 houses away. I can’t help but think that when you add more light to the area that is
all ready well lit that it is just going to be more intrusive.
Barbeiro: With regards to perhaps an exaggeration that I think it was Mr. Williams said,
could you go into your yard now at 3 o’clock in the morning and read a newspaper.
Foley: No. I could in the winter.
Barbeiro: When the leaves are gone and the snow is out. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Foley. I’ve got some general questions that—I’m not going to do this, but I’d
be interested in comments from every neighbor here—I think I’d like to address these to
you. Some of that—we are looking at three separate signs here in this application.
One is the freeway 100 foot pylon sign. The other is a sign on Eagle Road of about 34
feet and the third is a monument sign at the credit union. I don’t know that anyone’s
addresses the pylon sign on Eagle Road. Would you care to comment on that?
END OF SIDE 5
Foley: If I had to choose between one or the other?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 70
Borup: Which one you’d rather see gone and which one there. And then another
comment just to think about and I’ve of course I’ve been thinking about this since we’ve
know it’s coming up but my observation of the McDonalds sign on East First and
Meridian Road which ever you call it—driving down the road you see it. It definitely is a
freeway sign. That’s where I notice it from when I’m driving down that whole half mile
section. Unless you make a conscious effort to look up there, it is up high enough that
it’s not really noticeable. Back to the comment maybe between the two signs or if as a
general concession that this business does not require any type of freeway signage at
all or something smaller than what’s proposed or maybe a feel—I don’t think you can
speak for the whole neighborhood, but I think you would be a good representation.
Foley: A concern about lynching came up a little earlier, so I am about that. I don’t
think anybody has a concern about the credit union monument sign as I understand
monument signs. At least my personal opinion is and I don’t think anybody has concern
about that. My understanding and what I recollect the discussion was as this process
when along and the example that was used was Mr. Eddie’s Chevron on Fairview
Avenue. That’s what I recall and that’s the signage that I recall which is also a low
monument type of sign. That’s what I think what we all were expecting. Our
experience has been and maybe really the answer to the question is, goes back to the
candle power or whatever the issue is. How much intensity and light are these signs
going to generate. That’s maybe the real issue. I can certainly tell you that the
experience that I got with the Texaco sign when that baby went off and we’re not within
300 feet of it so we were never advised of it. It just kind of went on one winter. It was it
just illuminated everything. It’s intense. That’s our biggest concern.
Borup: I think we all agree with you on that.
Foley: Yeah. And if we are about to duplicate that in any manor at all, that’s the
biggest concern to us. I can’t, I am not an expert, I don’t know but a 37 foot sign is
really going to put more illumination on Mr. Christensen backyard. Obviously, we are
opposed to it. If a 300 foot sign as opposed to a 100 foot sign put less illumination,
we’re for a 300 foot sign. We’d like a 500 foot sign. Whatever we could get. But that is
our concern. I am not an expert. I don’t know. I know what the Texaco sign does.,
without the reader board 10 houses away and all our lots are half acre lots. They are
good size lots. We’re not, this isn’t one right after the other. So I am some distance
from him. That’s my concern.
Borup: Okay. Anything for Mr. Foley?
Smith: You know the taller you go the bigger you got to be. The higher up you are the
less you see it.
Foley: It seems to me that one of the issues, and I appreciate none of you asking me,
but I’ll just charge on here—maybe I’ve got an open door. One of the issues is that
when your driving down the freeway you want to see some sort of an information sign
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 71
and in fact there will be some goods or services there if you get off the freeway. We all
have had that experience. I understand that augment. You can get off and wander
around—I’ve done that in Oregon and end up in Antelope, OR. I never did find a gas
station and I’ve not been back to Antelope, but I can tell you right now that the real
issue is, without this sign as proposed, nobody will know that there are good and
services there. That’s not true. I can tell you that they will know that there is Texaco
services and there is Taco Bell services there. That’s not going to dissuade any body
from getting off that freeway and knowing there are services there. Whether they are
going to the south or the north. Once they get off, they will have a choice, which is
Chevron or Texaco. That is really the biggest concern. That concern is alleviated by
that Texaco sign and the Taco Bell sign. I don’t understand why it is then if you know, I
don’t know, I’m not, I don’t just only buy one brand of gas. I sorta think gas is gas. I
thin the real effort here is to have a sign that’s as big, and tall, and bright and well lit as
the Texaco sign. It is a competition issue which affects us adversely. Thanks.
Borup: Thank you. Yes. We’ve got somebody new here.
Eddie: Somebody new…My name is Steve Eddie. I am the owner/operator of the
Chevron partners facility and I would like to say a few things. This has been going on
for 3 years and we feel we have tried to work with the subdivision. We’ve tried to build
a first class facility. We’ve tried to buffer them very well for the type of uses that we
think will be along Eagle Road. Our other facility is in Meridian. We own both of them.
We think we landscape them well. We try to portray a good image to the city. The
other facilities we have in Boise, we do the same thing. The sign that we have always
proposed on Eagle Road is just like the one on East First Street or Locust Grove and
Fairview, which is not a monument sign. They are both pylon signs. They are both
between 30-34 feet high. I think Howard is right. That is what we have always
proposed, but they are not a monument sign. The only difference would be is
McDonalds would be added to the other side of the pole. The other thing that I think we
would propose is McDonalds would not be open all night. We would be the ones open
all night. We would live with a timer situation with a 100 foot high rise between the
hours of 11 and 4 which R.C. Willey did the same thing. That would not bother me at all
because between 11 and 4 your maybe driving the less desirables off the freeways
anyway and that doesn’t detour me at all that is something I think would make them feel
better. We try to run a first class facility and always keep a clean, nice, well lit place.
We want nice people there. The only other thing I’d like to say. Chevron..there is a
difference in gas. Our business is 50 per cent driven by Chevron credit card holders.
They are very loyal to our brand. They look for our brand and they look for the nice
places. Thank you very much. That’s it unless you have any questions.
Borup: Commissioner’s.
Smith: Yeah I do. There’s a…outside of the car wash sign and fueling canopy signage
there is no other signage included in the proposal other than the stuff that we’ve been
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 72
talking about tonight –the pylon signs? So am I to assume that your not proposing any
signage on the building?
Eddie: No I think we are proposing signage on the building and I believe that the
signage on the building is all on the prints that are submitted to Meridian that are and
would be part of the development agreement.
Borup: It does make mention of them on this. I doesn’t show them, but—
Smith: Yeah, I just didn’t see---right.
Eddie: Another thing I’d like to say about the signs is those sign would have totally
been submitted with the package. There was some confusion and we were told that the
signs were to be handled separately. We don’t want to bring damage any more than
you people do or the subdivision does. We would just preferred to have it all on one
development agreement, but we were told, maybe we were mistaken, it was to be a
separate sign application.
Smith: Well, we’re here now so…
Eddie: Right.
Smith: You know one sign on this proposal that nobody’s talked about is the credit
union sign and that is because it is a well designed sign. I’d like to see—I don’t know—I
am torn on your freeway sign. I don’t think that we are responsible making sure you
have visibility over trees and the hospital. I don’t know what the right size and height is.
I would be inclined to look at something on the height of the Jackson store. And again,
I hate to use that example because it’s such a poor solution to drawing in business. I
really can see a monument on Eagle being plenty adequate. People that drive that
Eagle Road corridor there, and I use to be one of them, drove it every single day where
all the goods and services are there and if your objective is to pull people in that don’t
know where your at, your going to be pulling those people in off the freeway, for the
most part. That’s all I am going to say.
Eddie: One thing on that is our business is one of the only businesses in the world
where we have to post our prices on the street everyday. Except interstate people, they
maybe don’t shop as much, but we don’t price to gouge interstate traffic. We have to be
competitive. The monument sign limits the size of the number and they are hard to see.
Smith: Understand.
Borup: Mr. Eddie, do you feel the sign has been a detriment to you on your other stone
on Eagle Road?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 73
Eddie: We don’t have another one on Eagle Road. On East First and Meridian…Yes it
has. It’s been very detrimental.
Borup: That’s not yours then. I’m sorry. There is another Chevron on Eagle Road.
Eddie: Downtown Eagle. Again..we are talking freeway versus—
Borup: That’s not yours?
Eddie: No.
Borup: I am talking about the sign on Eagle Road.
Barbeiro: Eagle Road and State Street?
Eddie: Eagle Road and the new bypass. That’s not our facility.
Borup: No, but that’s a freeway sign. It’s a monument sign, it not a pylon sign.
Smith: And as Mr. Eddie testified, Chevron customers are loyal. I use to buy a lot of
gas from Chevron and I still do. I go in because I believe there is a difference in gas
and I don’t care if it’s a cent or two more than the one next door. I am not shopping
price when I go to Chevron.
Eddie: We appreciate that and a lot of our customers are that way. We can’t rely on
only that customer all the time, we have to entice new ones.
Borup: Some one like me, when I pull off for gas I pull up there and there is 2 gas
stations. I go to the one that there’s room to pull in at the pump, rather than waiting in
line.
Barbeiro: Mr. Eddie I want to express—first off the great deal of respect I have for you
and I want to hold this up so you can give me the same respect that I give you. First
let’s comment on the stores I have seen. I’ve worked on some of the blueprints of
some of your stores. They are clean, well lit. They are very, very safety conscience for
the customer and especially for your employees. I do want to acknowledge that and
compliment you on that. When you decided on this lot, could you tell me what your
study said your combination of local traffic dollars versus freeway traffic dollars.
Eddie: We did not do a study on that.
Barbeiro: Okay. It would be safe for me to assume that you did a combination thinking
that it would be in your best interest to be on the north side of the freeway versus the
south side of the freeway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 74
Eddie: Yes.
Barbeiro: The north side of the freeway being that is where the vast majority of the
traffic is going. You are right next to an established gas station and very similar to what
Shopko and Target does, they look where WalMart goes and they put one real close to
a WalMart. So it is fortunate that you kind of feed off of that. That in combination with
the medical office and the hospital, the influx of children that go in there. You did think
this out very well in your placement, except for the placement of how you would set up
the signs and get the vision off of the freeway. I know that you sympathize and
empathize the concerns of the residents and I would image if the position were opposite
you would probably be one of them standing here going, goodness I really don’t want to
read my newspaper at 3 a.m. in my back yard. I am looking for an opportunity here to
give you the freeway exposure without the added illumination in these folks yards. You
have asked for the sign to be on the west side of the property, which would be the
southwest side of the property, is that correct?
Eddie: Yes, the southwest. Which we felt was the furthest from the neighbors. The
people to the west of us, that property has been sold—5 acres—I don’t know if there
has been a plan for development yet, and that corner is the furthest from the neighbors.
Barbeiro: I’m having a hard time visualizing the hole here. Would there be any
advantage to moving the sign right on to Eagle Road?
Eddie: If that was allowed. If we moved it to the front corner, there would not be an
advantage, I don’t think or a big disadvantage to move to the front corner. Our only
problem would be the high rise type sign—we need the high rise type sign to address
the freeway and to address our customer. We still have to have some kind of sign to
address the price of fuel and like what we have on East First Street and Locust Grove.
We still need if your going to address both you need still to have 2 signs. You can’t put
the price 100 feet in the air—70 feet in the air and be able to change the price.
Barbeiro: Oh no. Your not going to put the price sign 100 feet in the air. But it is the
100 foot pylon sign—I would like to know if there would be any advantage from your
vision of the neighborhood moving that sign toward Eagle Road and away from the lot
line here in the back. And again it comes down to not knowing where the neighbors
are. Tell me are there—there homes that sit back here.
Eddie: There is a home right here that has been sold and he is not in protest of this
situation.
Borup: Commissioner. Looking at the distance on the map from the homes moving it a
couple 100 feet looks like it would not make a difference.
Barbeiro: That was an error on my part thinking that the residents were to the west and
they are not they are to the north of the gas station.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 75
Eddie: With the sign that we have proposed with just (inaudible) illuminated light, they
will not read the newspaper off of our sign and again we do agree if we get that height,
we will shut the sign off between the hours between 11 to 4.
Barbeiro: You would shut off the McDonalds sign?
Eddie: The Chevron sign. The McDonalds in the Chevron. McDonalds will be closed.
The McDonalds will run its typical hours of a typical McDonalds in town. The Chevron
will more than likely be open all night.
Borup: So your talking about shutting off the whole sign?
Eddie: The whole sign, if we could be the 100 foot height we would shut the sign off
between 11 p.m. and 4 a.m.
Borup: Have you thought of anything higher then that or is that practical.
Eddie: I don’t think any higher is really practical.
Borup: I mean practical from a construction standpoint? Can they do it?
Eddie: You’d have to ask the sign man.
Borup: Were you finished Commissioner Barbeiro? You had stated that your intentions
on some of the previous applications was to always have a freeway sign.
Eddie: It was always the intent. When we met prior at least 2 or 3 times, we have
always referred to a sign like the Airport Chevron, which has a Chevron/McDonalds
stacked on top of each other.
Borup: That was a 100, 80, 75 foot—
Eddie: 65 to 70 feet I believe. Then it has a sign out on the frontage street like this one
is proposed to post the price of gasoline.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions before Mr. Eddie sits down?
Smith: Is there a reason why your not looking at a stacked sign again, as opposed to a
side by side.
Eddie: When we did the flagging it took that to visibly see it with St. Lukes addition.
When we started this project, St. Lukes had made their addition plans. With the
addition plans it took that to be able to see it from..heading westbound from both sides.
That’s why we changed it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 76
Smith: Okay.
Borup: Any discussion? I think there are a couple neighbors that maybe would like to
add some final things. I still would be interested in some comments especially after
some statements of having the sign off. I think the other thing may be a concern is or a
interest anyway is..we are not going to get that answer, buts that’s the illumination that
would generate from this sign. I don’t know if we can do much better than going down
the street here and looking at the existing McDonalds one. Do you have comments sir?
Horal: Chuck Horal. Commissioner Borup. Your comment about coming down 1st
Street and looking up and not seeing the McDonalds sign any more—I think that’s a
familiarity of not seeing the forest through the trees.
Borup: That may be. I am trying to look---
Horal: Your not paying attention to looking at the signs when your driving. When your
stationery, i.e. in our backyards, whatever, I think you would become ultimately much
more aware of that, simply because your not paying attention to the rules of the road.
As far as the illumination goes, that’s really a hard question to answer. The hours, 11 to
4, these are very arbitrary—why not 5—what’s wrong—4 is pretty early. I don’t know
but I think the reader board at Jackson’s is off for a specified amount of time. They shut
their reader board off. I know Meridian Ford shuts their reader board off. I don’t know
the times.
Borup: I think we’re talking two vastly different signs between reader board. You
recognize that?
Horal: Right, right. But I mean illumination is illumination. I mean, granted I know
Illumination from the reader board is one thing, so many candle power generated from
that as far as the incandescent light goes, but again, this is an unanswered question.
We don’t know how much illumination there is. The time frame, again is very arbitrary.
You don’t notice these things again when you riding. Your paying more attention
looking for specific things when you driving as compared to when you living underneath
the light. Anyway, the—I guess that is about all I have to say.
Borup: Any comment on the comparison between the two signs? Maybe not
comparison, but so far the testimony seems to be on the 100 foot freeway sign. We
haven’t heard any comments on the Meridian rather Eagle road.
Horal: Where we live if you triangulate this whole thing out and one of the reasons Mr.
Christensen can’t see the reader board is because he lives to parallel with it. We were
removed down like five watts from the end of the street and so when that reader board
is on the way that the sign is faced east/west that becomes much more apparent. The
same thing probably would apply with the McDonalds/Chevron sign. If your right in line
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 77
with it, you can’t see it. But once you start being removed from it, then all of a sudden it
becomes much more than a profile. So the 100 foot sign as far as I’m concerned is
kind of unacceptable. I am sorry they put up St. Lukes there, but that’s not my problem
and you know—
Borup: So would you be saying a taller sign, lower sign or no sign at all?
Horal: Well, I know from the get-go we had talked about monument signs and my
interpretation of that was a lower sign.
Borup: Yes, on Eagle Road, I think that was in discussion. But as far as a freeway
sign you – Your saying you’d like to see no sign at all.
Horal: No freeway sign. Right. No 100 foot sign. I think they are pretty atrocious
looking even as we come into Meridian and we look around and you drive up and there
it is. I always thought the directions to get to Meridian was look for the yellow water
tower and that was a pretty neat deal. Now it’s –
Borup: Thank you. That’s what our kids always use to look for coming home from a trip
was the water tower.
Smith: Mr. Chairman. We’ve been on this item an incredibly long time and I’m—well
just wait a minute. On this site plan that was submitted, there is a note that says an
additional standard sign package by McDonalds Corp—There are all kinds of signs
noted on the building that we don’t have elevations of. We don’t have a complete
package here to review all the signage on this. We are reviewing it piecemeal and I am
inclined to say we need a complete package here before we can make a vote on this
thing. Otherwise, we’re just not doing what we’re supposed to be doing here. I mean,
we are supposed to look at all the signage not just pieces and parts and what the
applicant thinks is appropriate for us to see and them making their own judgement on
what we don’t need to see.
Borup: I think maybe we need to get a comment from staff on that. Sounds like that all
was submitted and I assumed that the free standing signs was—Sheri would you like to
comment on that?
Stiles: As far as I recall, I think with the elevations of the buildings they did show the
signage and that you have seen those.
Borup: And did signs stay consistent –I mean is what proposed now say consistent
with what was submitted at that time.
Stiles: With what they submitted now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 78
Borup: Yeah, the signage on the buildings. Did that stay consistent between the—
we’ve had a good period of time between the two.
Smith: We have two new Commissioners who weren’t here when we went over this
before.
De Weerd: But they were approved with the site plan, right?
Stiles: I believe they were shown with the elevations of the buildings they showed it.
De Weerd: Okay. So they were approved at that time—the signs on the building.
Borup: what I am trying to get is was that why just the 3 signs was included in the
packet. You felt the others had been previously approved and that was what we were
to concern ourselves with. That’s why I asked that.
Stiles: Yes.
Smith: Well, I’ll—it’s getting late.
Borup: What was your question?
Kyler: George Kyler. I just wanted to make the statement that the illumination for these
signs would not exceed the illumination of our existing signs that we have on the 100
foot high rise sign in Meridian. There was some questions on what the candle power is,
etc. It’s the same sign and I can make the statement that the illumination certainly
would not exceed that existing sign there. Just to clarify.
Borup: Do you have any idea—you stated that there is a 800 mililamp bulbs going in?
Kyler: I have no idea. All I know is that it’s the same.
Borup: The same. Thank you.
Kyler: What you see there is what we are proposing.
Trex: Rod Trex. 3091 Autumnway. I just wanted to address your questions about
some of the different choices on the lower elevation. I live right next door to Mr.
Williams so I think I can answer the questions. As far as the monument type signs, I
don’t thing there is going to be, from our point of view, there’s no interference and no
problem with that. All of us have put up shrubs and trees and fences and so on to block
that off. With the proposed, there was also the agreement for some brims and the fact
that the credit union is between us and the Chevron station. I don’t think a monument
sign is going to pose any problem except for Sharon. He’s going to be out in the direct
hit of that. For a board on Eagle Road, there would be a visible on Eagle Road from the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 79
north or the south. With the Texaco station we do get considerable glare from the top of
it. I made comment at one of the previous hearings about using our pool and having it
lit by the Texaco star. I see a little blue light coming into effect with it now. It’s too bad
that the reader board is on the Texaco and that’s kind of –I would consider that an unfair
advantage for the freeway part of the traffic, although living there and wanting to read
the sign I can’t see what the current price of tacos are off that reader board anyway, so
I’m not sure what good it does. It is nothing but a bother to us and you definitely can
read quite easily from our deck anytime at night when that sign is on. I was unaware
that that sign was turned off. I think it kind of burns into your retina after a while and
hangs in there. But a board on the—addressing Eagle Road – of 35 feet, I don’t think it
is going to be any worse than what the Texaco has presented. I don’t know that it is
going to be any better either, but with the birm and some of that, the lower white light
which is what’s going to be the most piercing, will be somewhat sheltered. The blue
sign, the yellow may come through more intensely, but the blue and red aren’t going to
cause any problems or not as many problems. Let’s put it that way. I do want to
digress just one bed and point toward the planning and zoning part of it in the future.
St. Lukes still has phase three ready to come online, which is going to add another
building. The next business that puts in may require even a larger sign to reach over
the top of it. They to back up you have requests before you I think that are in pending
mode at the moment, for another 80 forty acre housing developments off to the west.
There going to be impacted by this as well from a freeway sign. So, I think those ought
to be considered as well. I would encourage you to go back and listen to the testimony
that was present on what we understood or what we heard presented in terms of
monuments and pylons and towers. Although, being a ham radio operator I wouldn’t
mind having an antenna hooked to the top of that. Any questions?
De Weerd: Did you address the issue if they turn the sign off from 11 to 4?
Trex: Well, I am probably the wrong guy to ask that question. My wife is a rather night
owl, so it would probably help her, but I’m—lights are out for me at 10 so it don’t help
me at all.
Borup: Thank you.
Kyler: McDonalds signs will be off when we are not open for business, whether it’s a
building sign, a sign on Eagle Road, the high rise sign. We shut down all the yellow
signs –all the McDonalds oriented signs just for clarification. I don’t know what time it
is. Typically it’s 11 during the winter months and midnight on the summer months on
weekends and I think it’s mostly 10 or 11 o’clock. 10 o’clock on weekdays in the winter
and 11 in the summer—but I’m not sure –I’m not the operator of the restaurant. They
know what their hours are, but we don'’ have all night service. Typically I think we shut
down around 10 during the week nights and 11 on weekends. I don’t want to commit to
you that’s the number because I don’t operate it. I am just telling when we are open our
signs are lit, when we’re closed at night they’ll be shut down.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 80
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners. Any comments. I think this is warranted to some
discussion from the Commissioners. Question be wanting to keep the public hearing
open or---Yes Mr. Gigray.
Gigray: Just a point of information Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission.
One of the things I would encourage you to do is stay focused with regard to the issues
on this and what we’re seeking is a modification of a conditional use permit in regards
to the 3 signs that I believe that they have proposed. I believe that this brings your
decision making in this as a condition use permit as you would under an original
conditional use permit. One, you want to consider whether or not the application is
consistent with your Comprehensive Plan so that’s relevant, and I think you’ve heard
testimony about that this evening. There is some information and I believe that the fact
that is was received from staff on the Comprehensive Plan provisions and secondly, you
have to determine whether or not this conditional use permit effect upon neighboring
properties and other development and then you can impose conditions on this to
minimize the impact on the development on neighboring properties and control it’s
development and so on—the usual kinds of criteria you have with conditional use permit
applications and if you feel that there is a need to provide more information, studies or
whatever, you can continue it to get more information if you feel like you don’t have
enough to make a decision. If you find that portions of it are uncontested, you might
make partial decisions and keep others open, but I think those are all options available
to you in this matter.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Does staff have any further comments?
Borup: I wouldn’t mind hearing generally from the Commissioners on—maybe feelings
up for discussion at least.
Barbeiro: If you want to start off on the idea of discussion want to start from a business
standpoint and Mr. Eddie. He has (inaudible) to put a business in a place where a
business would be operable and to his advantage in many, many ways. With regards to
St. Lukes hospital. St. Lukes hospital phase 2 and phase 3 were all a part of and were
planned when the original building was put up. So, a little iffy on the we kind of did not
know about phase 2. It’s not unreasonable for Mr. Eddie to presume that he could put
up such a sign in this position, but keeping in mind, the Texaco sign was there. Let’s
make no mistake, the Texaco sign is a disaster. I really don’t want to be in my pool lit
by the star of the Texaco sign. Because the Texaco sign went up and I tend to
acknowledge that that was an error, there is the concern that it presents some sort of
precedent, and again because the Texaco sign was there, Mr. Eddie has every reason
to believe that he could have a sign, knowing that you could not have a reader board of
course, a sign that would be comparable. Yet again, we are in a position that we have
residents there and that all the other signs along the freeway, for instance Roaring
Springs and Meridian Ford and the other McDonalds signs, do not have a detrimental
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 81
effect to a residential neighborhood. If I had my druthers, I would require that Texaco
turn off their reader board at a reasonable hour during the night and that they do
something similar to what we requested of R.C. Willey that they do a step down—where
they tone down the lights at certain hours. You could, since you plan on turning off the
McDonalds sign, I assume probably turning off the Chevron light later in the evening
also. There would be the option of doing a step down and then a turn off or a step
down during the evenings or late or night. Once you get to about 10 o’clock at night,
the place is dark enough to where I think a step down or a super bright light your still
going to see it. Your still going to acknowledge it. Certainly your going to have a reader
board flashing you in the face, to the right your going to say OH, there is the Chevron.
There’s the McDonalds. What I am left to ask, and I think Mr. Jameson would be the
best one to answer this is, could we do a step down, and would the owner be willing to
do a step down from maybe 10 o’clock at night till 6 o’clock in the morning, or sun rise if
it were earlier than that. And would the addition of some sort of a I don’t want to say a
plate, but maybe a 4 foot on either side of that, some sort of a block 4 foot on either
side of the Chevron and 4 foot on either side of the McDonalds sign would be of any
assistance to the neighbors in the illumination of it. If I could ask Mr. Jameson to come
up and respond to those two things.
De Weerd: Excuse me. Before we ask anyone to come up, are you saying that you
agree with the 100 foot sign then.
Barbeiro: I’d like to know what options are available within that 100 foot sign so that I
can have another option in front of me for a condition in the case that we should—
De Weerd: Your not concerned that this would set a precedent for any future
development in that same area.
Barbeiro: Oh, I agree that is it going to set a precedent, but I want to get a vision of
what we can do first to help the neighbors in not adding more light to them.---
De Weerd: But if we have ten 100 foot signs that all dim down at a certain time, there is
still going to be a lot of light if you add that many signs in there. That’s my point.
Borup: My feeling is that someday there is going to be a development further to the
west, but I don’t think that is going to be freeway oriented businesses. The further you
get down Magic View, the more-less practical it gets.
De Weerd: That’s an assumption though. Is that an assumption that we want to set.
Borup: It has been set. It was probably set when the project was originally approved.
When you approve a gas station, it is logical to assume that they are going to have
signage.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 82
De Weerd: So when you approved it, did you have that assumption—since I wasn’t
here.
Borup: I did. We did not have specific details, but I assumed that there was going to be
some type of signage. I mean, freeway visible signage.
Barbeiro: When we talk about the freeway visible sign, I want to know a couple of
things here Commissioner De Weerd. We have the option of not approving, Mr. Gigray,
correct me if I am wrong. We have the option of not approving a freeway sign at all?
We have the option of approving a freeway sign that is lower than 100 foot. We have
the option of requiring them to turn it off or do a step down and---
Borup: We can make any conditions we want, but then it would be up to the applicant
to say yeah that works for me or no it doesn’t.
De Weerd: Whatever we do, it has to be specifics so they know what we want.
Borup: Yes.
Barbeiro: What I am trying to get at is, on the assumption that a freeway sign is going
to go up, the very best option for the residents if a freeway sign were to go up, would be
a step down sign and then turned off at certain hours, and then a 100 foot sign. The
lower the sign is, the closer the illumination will be to your property. I am left to wonder
if that 30 foot difference is 70 foot versus 100 foot is really going to make the difference
whether you can read the fine print or not. Going back, I don’t think it is unreasonable
for Mr. Eddie to assume that he can do that. I don’t think it is unreasonable for the
residents to have never in their wildest dreams assume that we’re going to have a
highly illuminated sign right out of our backyard. If your looking for a solution, I don’t
have it here.
Borup: Okay. I think you have raised some good points that we need to consider.
Smith: I am only definitive on one point and that is, I think the Eagle Road sign needs
to be a monument sign and the freeway sign –I’m not going to say I like it, cause I don’t.
I don’t know that it needs to be 100 foot, but I think there are some things that can be
taken that I could live with the consciousness of how it effects the neighbors. I don’t
have anything to add. This thing’s been getting beat to death like a---I don’t know how
much more we can talk about the same thing.
Borup: Any comment on Thomas’s comment on the screening.
Smith: I think the screening would make it even more visible.
Borup: To the neighborhood?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 83
Smith: To everybody. Not to say that is wouldn’t help maybe deflect the light at night,
but during the day, I think it would be pretty unsightly.
Borup: We never did get an answer as far the size of the overall sign either. I don’t
know if that’s an option. Perhaps we need to –
Smith: It’s 470 square feet now.
Borup: Well yeah. The McDonalds sign is over 16 feet wide and Chevron is almost 12
on the width. 15 and 12 on the height. The question I had earlier is can a smaller size
sign accomplish the same thing as far as recognition. In my mind it would depend on
the sign. These are two highly recognizable logos. You don’t have to read the letters to
know what they are.
Smith: No. Especially not the golden arches.
Borup: Yeah. And the Chevron too.
Smith: The Chevron building are very distinct and colorful.
Borup: So both of them people can glance at them and know what they are with out
having to read. I think reduced illumination would accomplish the same thing. In my
mind at least. Commissioner De Weerd: Did you have any comments or anything to
add?
De Weerd: You want me to summarize or—I don’t have anything new to say.
Borup: Okay. Then what you’ve already said. Any comments on the other 2
Commissioners? Specifically, so far, it’s been mentioned a step down lighting and a
monument sign on Eagle Road.
De Weerd: I didn’t have a problem with their sign on Eagle Road.
Borup: Even the 34 foot as a gateway sign—gateway to our city type sign.
De Weerd: Next to Jackson’s?
Smith: Use Jackson’s as a guideline as to what these signs should look like. Look at
St. Lukes sign. Look at good signage not just gross, ugly—
De Weerd: I did not find it gross or ugly.
Borup: Okay, Counselor did you have comment?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 84
Gigray: Just a point of procedure Mr. Chairman. I think the first thing you’ll need to
decide right now is whether or not you want to keep this public hearing open or whether
you want to close it and go on to deliberation. I think that the discussion as to whether
any of the Commissioners might need more information is certainly relevant and that’s
probably what you doing here.
Borup: Well that’s why I have kept the public hearing open incase we wanted to get
anymore information and at this point is there anything else that any of the
Commissioners would like from any of the previous testimony?
De Weerd: Only regarding illumination and reflection. If it really goes higher does it
really mean it’s less light that effects the residential neighborhood.
Borup: That real technical stuff as far as distance, but I would like Mr. Eddie to respond
to maybe some of Commissioner Barbeiro’s comments and would you like also.
Specifically on the idea –you already said that you would have a timer and have it shut
off. The other thing we talked about was step down lighting, maybe a comment on size
also.
Eddie: Okay. I’ll comment on all three. The step down lighting would not be a
problem. We could do that. The shielding is a good idea on the one side of the
neighbor’s, but I agree with Byron. I would be an eyesore because if you have a sign
that’s maybe 2 foot wide or 3 foot wide up there, then you add (inaudible) then you have
a 10 foot eyesore up there that looks like it doesn’t belong. I agreed with you that it
wouldn’t maybe work and then I agree with him that it won’t. What was the other
question you had.
Borup: Size. Can we accomplish the same thing---with a smaller size
END OF SIDE 6
Eddie: As far as the size is concerned, we’ve already stepped the size down one size.
Chevron makes their signs with the emblem embossed in. There is one sign company
in the U.S. that makes them. There is a C200 which is what they are port has, that’s
what they call it. It’s about 250 square feet. We’ve already stepped this down to a
C140, which they say (inaudible) to see at the right levels it should take a C200, but we
have stepped it down all ready. I think McDonalds was stepped down accordingly to
ours.
Borup: Okay. That answers that. Any other questions for Mr. Eddie? I do have one
and I apologize. It’s not related to the signs but there has been a lot of testimony on
lighting from the neighbors, and that is the canopy lighting. Did you chance the lighting
on the Fairview, from what it originally was?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 85
Eddie: Yes. Fairview and Locust Grove. We were one of the early ones to adopt this
new fixture. We put too many of them up. I’ve said that under oath before. It’s too
bright, but we did put baskets in every one. We have agreed on this canopy to use
recessed lights which are mounted up inside the canopy. They don’t have the side light
you see at Locust Grove.
Borup: Okay. I think that was –maybe enough trees and screening it wouldn’t effect
them but the lighting off the canopy off of Locust Grove is much more than the Jackson
sign.
Eddie: Right and the reason we really want a pylon sign on Eagle Road is with the
amount of trees we are planting and I think Sheri can vouch, Jackson might have 4 or 5,
6 trees planted along Eagle Road. I think we are putting up about 30 trees along Eagle
Road and a pylon sign will not be seen with the amount of landscaping we are doing. Or
monument sign will not be seen.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: If I may continue, I don’t have a problem with the two signs. The pylon,
especially if we have to have that in order to have more attractive landscaping. I am all
for it. I do have concerns about if we need a freeway sign and I guess the answers I
would like to see if it can’t been directly responded to tonight would be more on the
illumination, how reflects off into the neighbors. The benefits of softer lighting—if it can
still be seen from the targets they are trying to be used for but less direct on the
neighbors themselves. I think there is a lot of questions still left unanswered as far as
on the foot candles, how high that needs to be. What it needs to be stepped down to.
When it could be turned off and those kind of issues. I am a Chevron customer. I look
for those on the freeway. I think if someone is pulling up just to get gas, they are going
to see Jackson’s and if they are Chevron, they will see Chevron once they get off. I
just—is there really an added benefit to the tall signs that’s going to have a great impact
on the neighboring residential areas around there. I guess the question I would like to
have answered is all on illumination and how high it’s going to be and what effect that
means to the residents—even if you step it down or turn it off, there is still going to be
darkness their going to have to deal with the light in their backyards.
Borup: What was that last statement? I did not understand that you said even if they
turn it off there is going to light in their backyard. Because of Jackson’s? Is that what
you meant?
De Weerd: No. I mean there is different periods in the seasons. In the winter it is
longer and you have more reflection and in the summer it’s not really going to matter.
At 11 you have light from the sign for an hour and it’s on before the sun comes up
anyway.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 86
Eddie: We have 2 high-rise signs at 2 locations today and you can stand under them,
and we have done it ourselves, there is no light. When you get 100 feet in the air, and
that sign is going out, there is no light hitting directly below those signs.
De Weerd: But that’s under it.
Eddie: right. I don’t think—if you go up to the airport today and look across the street
cause it’s sitting at an angle, there is a dark parking lot there along the interstate. There
is no light on that. The canopy lights like at Locust Grove we have those at airport too.
They are throwing light over that way, but the sign 100 foot in the air with just tube
lighting inside it, you can see the light up there, you don’t have a lot of overflow from the
light.
De Weerd: But Jackson’s is 75 and they can see—
Eddie: That’s the (inaudible) and tubes that are exposed. Those tubes are out there
exposed where –like your bulbs right there. They are not behind a face plate of a
Chevron emblem or a McDonalds emblem and they are blinking all night long.
Barbeiro: Mr. Eddie, I don’t know if you were here when we had this discussion. That
was the one thing that I presented to the neighbors and wanted to get a feel for was
that when the reader board is turned off, they still have a tremendous amount of light in
their backyard and that was one of the things we tried to establish here. So regardless
of the
Eddie: The only thing with that is, I’ve never seen that reader board turned off and I
think one of the neighborhood people said the same thing. I am out a lot late at night.
We go to our store—I have never seen that reader board off.
Barbeiro: I watched it once when it was just the one light it just kept going across. That
happened for a couple days.
Eddie: I think another thing that has been over looked on one part is the landscaping
along Eagle Road and then the landscaping along the birm behind the neighbors
homes that are at least adjacent of our property—it is a forest of trees. The credit union
building between us that we have another landscaped strip between the Chevron and
the McDonalds and the credit union that is a forest of trees. Those will help.
Barbeiro: When I think of Mr. Christensen who lives 8 houses back..I’m sorry, who was
the gentleman---Mr. Foley lives 8 houses back. Certainly he has a number of houses
and trees and all and he’s still bathing at the pool by the Texaco star.
Eddie: Well I would agree with you, but that the beacon light. That’s the flashing
reader board all night long. I don’t think it is the Texaco sign itself. He’s got the canopy
lights like we’ve got at Locust Grove.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 87
De Weerd: Does the color of the signs have any –
Eddie: Oh sure. Red and yellow—especially yellow. Like one of you guys said is going
to throw more light blue and red –the Chevron blue and red is a lot darker. We can all
go look at the airport station and look at the sign there, which is larger, but that is a
demonstration of what the light will look like. I think all the neighborhood will see with
our high rise sign, if you look 100 feet in the air your going to see the sign up there but I
don’t think you’ll see any overflow from the sign in anybody’s backyard.
Smith: Maybe we need a motion to continue this until we have time to do some more
search and maybe the applicant can pull together some more information for you on
illumination.
Borup: That’s what I was going to say. I think we need to give some specific questions
and maybe one I would have is how many bulbs are in the Texaco sign? If they all are
800 mililamp..how many are there, how many is going to be in this. There is a real
comparison or a foot kennel measurement 600 feet away…I don’t know. In my mind I
don’t think---not enough to measure on a sign like this. You can go to another site and
turn the sign off and do another measurement. If the instruments are that accurate,
which I don’t know. Yes Counselor.
Gigray. Mr. Chairman, if you feel, or the Commission feels that is has insufficient
information for which is could approve on of the signs or any of them, I think you can
and you do the authority to request the applicant to come forward with additional
evidence with regards to specific questions on illumination. I can imagine there are
experts who have general knowledge about illumination principals and the existance of
that illumination and certain conditions and what standard test results have been. They
are not going to be able to test this particular site, but they provide you with that kind of
information or they could come back at another time and say we can’t fine this type of
evidence—it doesn’t exist. I would not recommend that you go out and do site visits
without announcing a head of time where your going to do it, who’s going to be present.
What the circumstance are and that you record the information that goes on there
because we have Idaho Supreme Court cases on that and I would not recommend that
you do that without setting those guidelines a head of time as a group.
Borup: Well I know they do have—they have the information on noise reduction the
further it gets away from the source. That’s in manuals. I don’t know why the same
thing would not be available on lighting.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. What I am kinda amused with is this Chevron, Steve Eddie
mutual admiration society that we have here. We all like Chevron gas.
Borup: I have not stated my opinion on Chevron gas.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 88
Barbeiro: And for the record you will remain neutral on the chance the Texaco guy
comes in tomorrow. I do not believe that with the turning off the sign and step down
signage at hours to be discussed, that there is going to be a great deal of additional
light that is going to go into the neighbor’s yards. I am left with now the concern of, do I
want my town, Meridian, to have a number of 100 foot signs now that we sit here having
never been presented with the Texaco sign, we are now presented with a sign and as a
group will make a precedent. I really don’t know that I want a 100 foot sign, and
another one, and another one in Meridian. That, right now is, I am satisfied the idea of
turning off and step down of the lights and the amount of light may not add a great deal
more to what the Texaco is. I am now left with the decision or the belief that I have
enough information regard (inaudible) to decide on that. The question is do we want
100 foot signs in Meridian?
Borup: Do any other Commissioner’s feel we need more information?
De Weerd: No. I would agree with Commissioner Barbeiro. That the step down or the
turn off would certainly help the neighbors and you’ve pin pointed my concern. The 100
foot sign and does that and is that what we want in our gateway and we can only look
forward and at the present and we can' t look at what’s’ been done in the past. And
that’s the same question I would have.
Smith: I also don’t feel that we need anymore information. I will go a step farther to say
that not only do not want a 100 foot sign in our gateway, we don’t want a 34 foot high
sign in our gateway. That one is more offensive to me than the 100 foot sign. I think we
need to do something here. In a few minutes here I’m going to have to excuse myself
because I have to go to work tomorrow and I have an early meeting. I’m not going to
be here when you guys get to vote on it, if we don’t vote on it pretty dam quick.
Borup: Commissioner Smith do you have any concern on the and that was my feeling
too, a monument sign would be appropriate for there until the comment about
landscaping came up.
Smith: I think you could still heavily landscape that area if it is well designed and that ‘s
the key point. Good design, not just plunking the trees down, I think you can place
those trees out there and still have a visible monument sign. A good landscape
designer architect could do it.
De Weerd: I think he has already shown that he has good landscape design on his two
other Chevron stores. I don’t think that is a issue at all. I would be willing to give him
that sign because of that.
Borup: There is an option of a taller monument sign. Something—I don’t know what
the maximum size the monument sign becomes something else—maximum height. I
don’t know. The Home Depot sign isn’t too far away from a monument sign.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 89
De Weerd: Yeah and how tall is that?
Borup: when you get a solid monument sign there’s got to be a height limit to where
your defeating what your trying to accomplish. It’s got some open space under it but it’s
massive. There is nothing—it is all by itself.
De Weerd: It’s right there in the gateway to (inaudible).
Smith: It is a well designed sign. It’s very well proportioned. It may be massive but it’s
also right next to a freeway off ramp not next to a residential neighborhood.
De Weerd: I did not hear the residents talk about this sign though.
Smith: I am. I have a vote.
Borup: I don’t want to completely overlook staff comments. Are we ready to close this
hearing. We decided that we don’t feel that additional information is beneficial, I think.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion we close this public hearing.
De Weerd: I’d second that.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: The ayes have it. Now we need to say where to go from here.
De Weerd: Well, do we want to vote per sign?
Borup: I think Counsel said that was one of our options.
Smith: Let’s start with a no-brainer and do the credit union sign so I can at least feel
like we are making some headway here.
De Weerd: I would move that we approve the Idaho United Credit Union sign as
proposed.
Smith: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 90
Borup: That was the easy one. We need to clarify that motion. Any one want to take a
stab at one of the others?
De Weerd: I would move that we recommend approval for the 34 foot Chevron pylon
sign and McDonalds sign.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add an amendment to Commissioner De Weerd
that the 34 foot sign also be subject to a step down lighting between the hours of 10
p.m. and 6 a.m. if the sign is not completed turned off after discretion of the owner. If
that is acceptable to Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: Well we already heard that the McDonalds signs are turned off when they’re
not in operation, but I think the Chevron is 24 hours. I can’t see why they would want
their street sign turned off.
Barbeiro: In that case, then I request that you add to your approval to the City Council
that the Chevron sign be a step down voltage from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
De Weerd: Okay, what he said.
Barbeiro: In addition to staff comments.
De Weerd: Well, in addition to most staff comments because (inaudible).
Borup: We have a motion, no second yet.
Barbeiro: Second.
Borup: Any discussion.
Barbeiro: Commission Smith I imagine you have something to say on this?
Smith: I have already said it. Let’s go.
Borup: All in favor?
Borup: Opposed?
Smith: Nay
MOTION CARRIED: 2 AYES 1 NAY
Borup: Okay. The recommendation to approve the pylon sign on Eagle Road has
passed 2 to 1. One more.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 91
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I recommend denial of the 100 foot highway sign as
proposed.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Okay, we have a motion and a second to recommend (inaudible) 100 foot
freeway sign. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Three ayes. Okay.
Barbeiro Mr. Chairman, I move we close our meeting for today.
Borup: We have a couple more agenda items, we are completed with Item 7.
(Inaudible discussion)
Smith: Commissioner De Weerd just to be up front as far as signage and landscape
ordinance. I do have the material on the signage other jurisdiction signage ordinances.
I have not had a chance to review it. I have also not had a change to review the
landscape information that has come across so if those are the—if that is the subject
matter you wish to talk to, I am not going to be able to add to the conversation and—
De Weerd: No. the only thing that I wanted to bring up is we really need to get the feed
back on the landscape ordinance so we can start getting it out to the people we have
identified to review the draft. We certainly would like your comments and feedback
before we do that if there’s anything glaring, we really need to address that before we
send that out.
Borup: Was there still a discussion to do a preliminary draft? That’s redundant.
De Weerd: We have done the drafts.
Borup: To do –as a total? We received it one section at a time.
De Weerd: That’s how it is. We need to start going through it and seeing where there
is redundancy and over lap. It is more the concept and more the idea that we would
like your feed back on. If we are on target, off target, that sort of thing.
Borup: I think that is the main thing we wanted to, just as a reminder,
De Weerd: Regarding the sign ordinance I would like to have some kind of commitment
as far as a workshop or some date specific that we can start work on the sign
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 92
ordinance, because I really do not want to spend my nights on R.C. Willey and Chevron
and McDonalds sign for the next while either.
Smith: It took 2 ½ hours.
De Weerd: Well I don’t want to spend 2 ½ hours on a sign.
Smith: Well Malcolm has gathered a great deal of information on signage ordinance
from other jurisdictions. Unfortunately, I have been extremely busy and have not had a
chance to look at it.
De Weerd: We could have spend 2 ½ hours looking at that instead of this.
Borup: I glanced at it again. There is a lot of information there. It looks really boring.
There is another alternative. I don’t know that we need to sit down and write the
ordinance. That is something staff can do—write up a draft ordinance and I know from
past similar type things that it is more productive for staff to put something together and
then have the Commission or whatever group to review that and make revisions. It is a
lot easier to have something that is already written and revise it than start from scratch.
Or even take these other cities and try to put it together.
De Weerd: Then that’s what we need to direct staff to do.
Stiles: It would be nice if we had a little bit of direction first before—with the other fiasco
that we had when we tried to get a zoning amendment and it’s just dead. Still nothing
has been done on that.
Borup: Maybe narrow it down to a couple of cities that we thought looked like their
practical and go from there. Counselor has a suggestion, hopefully.
Gigray: I agree with the Planning and Zoning Administrator. I think she’s going to
need—staff will need some direction in which your view is as in the best interest of the
City. I heard some comments to night I mean that I think are relevant. Do you want 100
foot signs popping up all over the place cause you’ve got a lot of this City that is going
to butt against the freeway and your going to have a lot of interest in that. You’ve got
Fairview and you’ve got other places that are going to be high demand for signage and
you know do you want to look more for monument type situations and landscape or do
you want Las Vegas glitter or you know I think you can do what you think what is in the
best interest of the City and it makes a difference in how you kinda put the ordinance
together as to you know I don’t think you want to get down to the detail, I agree. But it’s
just kinda overview.
Borup: That makes sense. Shari so your recommendation would be we maybe need to
have a workshop to get some general directions first and then—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 93
Stiles: That would be nice. What I envision is probably a little almost different overlays,
one for actual freeway frontage and maybe another one for areas like Fairview
something else maybe for Old Town.
Borup: I’d like to see a workshop then with you starting out giving an overview of what
you’d like to see and then we can do some comments that we need to---
De Weerd: If we are all ready setting a 6 o’clock meeting on the 29th
, perhaps we can
dove tail this with that and have a workshop immediately afterwards. I guess I---
Borup: Assuming it doesn’t last this late.
De Weerd: I am really optimistic that it’s not going to be this late.
Smith: That was one of the reasons why I put that contingency on it so we---
De Weerd: Yeah, and we won’t. We already know what we have and you know I rather
just get started on it. I really don’t want this to happen.
Borup: I don’t think—we’ve been talking about this for how long. We can’t keep putting
it off.
Smith: Shari, did Malcolm share with you the signage ordinances that he shared with
the rest of the Commission?
Stiles: Yes he did.
De Weerd: Have you read them?
Stiles: No.
Borup: They are long and boring.
Smith: Go through them---really seriously. Just the outline. Does this include all the
things that I think—don’t get knit picky and all the specific language. Just look at the
outline of what they do talk about like your talking about the freeway overlay zones, so
forth. There maybe some that don’t have things that you think we need to have and
there may be some that have things that you didn’t even think about. That would be a
good place to start. We need to put an outline together.
Stiles: I probably have another 20 ordinances besides what he gave you.
De Weerd: Perhaps Shari if you could put together on feedback specifically or general
that you want to have at this workshop. If you can give us an outline of the questions
your going to want to have answered. That way we can come prepared with our own
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 94
thoughts. We can do some readings. We can pull out things that we like and maybe be
able to do some really good work at that workshop.
Stiles: I am not sure how much I am able to get done by next month. With the work
load we’ve got now.
De Weerd: Well, what ever you can. What ever you can. It’s a great start.
Borup: And if anyone here has time I think that would be a good way to start with an
outline. Just as we’ve done here, with the sections and that is enough to start with.
De Weerd: The last issue I have is last year at a work shop we did talk about having an
annual one year term for the chairmanship and I don’t remember if it was for a year or 2
years. If there was—
Smith: What I recall Tammy was Malcolm presented some written information. I don’t
remember what the source of the information was other than Malcolm, but it discussed
the terms of the Chair and then Chairmanships of different—or responsibilities of each
of the Planning and Zoning Commission members to what that—the bylaws were never
voted on and never adopted, but the discussion that I remember have was myself I
know and I think you as well and Commissioner Nelson—I don’t remember what
Commissioner Borup had expressed an interest in, but we had indicated a preference
for a one year term—that was as far as it got. Nothing was ever voted on, so that as far
as I can see it is still hanging out there and this Commission needs to make a decision
on it.
Borup: My recollection was an annual vote.
Smith: That’s was what I thought the preference was but I don’t remember that we
ever came to a vote.
Borup: I thought we did, but it also stated that the terms didn’t have to rotate, but that
there would be—that was the intention to give everyone a chance, but we did not want
to impose something on future Commissioners where they felt the necessity to rotate
and the same person could be voted in again.
De Weerd: Could I propose that we put this on the agenda next month when Chairman
Mac Coy is here so that we could discuss it and then we can further recommend
something at the workshop but just get something firm and vote on it and—
Borup: I don’t know if we need to discuss it unless we feel it wasn’t adequately handled
a year ago. Was it a year ago, does anybody know.
Smith: That’s what I was just going to ask was when—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 95
Borup: Was it last June, May?
De Weerd: I believe it was right after I started because they wanted me to vote on a
chairman the very first meeting and I did not feel comfortable about that.
Borup: When was your first meeting?
De Weerd: It was the first meeting in June.
Smith: We are at a year.
Borup: And we can check the minutes real easy on that. I’ve got them all. I’m not very
organized, but I’ve got them all on a shelf.
De Weerd: So if we can have that on the agenda in July.
Borup: Okay.
De Weerd I would move that we adjourn.
Smith: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:40
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
____________________________________Date__________
KEITH BORUP, ACTING CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 96
_________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CITY CLERK