1999 07-29MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
JULY 29, 1999
The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 6:12 p.m. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Tammy De
Weerd.
OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Steve Rutherford,
Will Berg.
MacCoy: It is twelve minutes after the hour of six, which is a early start for us. We
normally start at 7 o’clock, but because of the documentation we have here we decided
to do it at six this evening. All the Commissioner’s are here this evening and the staff is
in place. There is not other special note that I have. We will move right along to the
first item agenda.
ITEM NUMBER 1: CONTINUED 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 ROAD BETWEEN FAIRVIEW & USTICK:
MacCoy: At this moment, I’d like to have the –open the public hearing—continue the
public hearing right now and staff any comments at this point.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner’s you have the memo dated today. The main
issue is that we have numerous applications that have been received. More are coming
in weekly. A couple of them the Council in my discussions with a couple of the
members have indicated a desire to have those acted on by the Commission and do to
the fact that we can only –that the Commission can only make recommendations every
six months, that’s why we have asked for a cut off date of August 16th
for final receive of
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and that a special meeting be set up for the last
week of September to consider all of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments at the
same time.
MacCoy: Okay. Thank you very much. Is the applicant from JUB Engineering here this
evening. All right. Will you come forward.
Taylor: Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I am Nancy
Taylor. I am a planner with JUB Engineers. 250 South Beechwood, Boise, 83705. We
are here this evening to continue the hearing on the suggested request for the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In light of staff’s report, preferring to wait until
September, we are in agreement with that if that will occur in September, we are
certainly willing to wait a month or two to entail a thorough study of the requests for
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 2
MacCoy: I’m glad to hear you make a statement that way. Maybe you know or don’t
know we are launching into right away this month, July, we did the proper paperwork
are we are going to be looking at our new Comprehensive Plan for the coming year or
in fact for years to come. You can understand that everybody’s getting on the band
wagon right now to make changes. It makes it really difficult so what you heard from
our staff just now is in accordance with our planning of this thing. Anything else you
wanted to say?
Taylor: I don’t believe so. We’d like to work with you on this so of course we will meet
your schedule and if it is September, we’re glad to wait until that time to discuss it
further.
MacCoy: Okay. Just before you leave the podium, Commissioner’s do any of you want
to make questions to her. Thank you very much.
Taylor: Thank you.
MacCoy: All right Commissioner’s. This is a different ball game.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I guess at this point we probably should discuss a date that
we will listen to all the Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests.
MacCoy: Well Shari just made a statement…did you hear her about the dates.
De Weerd: Yeah. But we should set it.
MacCoy: All right. She has made the suggestion so I guess you can put that into a
vote.
De Weerd: Oh I have 4 different dates here –which date did you prefer? The 29th
or
30th
, correct? That is a Wednesday and a Thursday.
MacCoy: Shari do you have any comment right now? Okay. All right, go ahead.
De Weerd: I guess the other Commissioner’s –do you have any conflicts with –
Barbeiro: Thursday is my preference.
Borup: I’m fine with either date.
De Weerd: So, do we want to go ahead and set September 30th
? I am not making a
motion.
MacCoy: She’s not making a motion, she making a date—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 3
De Weerd: I want to make sure before anyone leaves this room they know what date
we’re extending this to and time.
MacCoy: Okay you can this about that for a few moments here because this is a
continued public hearing. Is anyone hear like to make a statement for the project at this
time, it will be taped and recorded as such, so weather you make it back again or not, at
least your remarks is recorded.
Kane: My name is Ray Kane. I live at 3047 E. Leslie Drive, which borders the very
back of this project. My question is, when we come up on the 30th
, if that is the date
you all set, is that going to encompass all of the changes that you want to do for the
entire City of Meridian. So this thing could be a marathon event or is it just going to be
this—this would be one of X number?
MacCoy: X number, yeah.
De Weerd: Shari, could you give us an idea of how many applications or how many
requests there will be.
(Inaudible)
Kane: I’ve sat in some of these where it’s been 12 o’clock (inaudible).
MacCoy: We would---if there is 7 or what ever, we’ll take the number we think we can
get through in reasonable time—I’m looking at 10:30. I don’t like to be here till midnight
either.
De Weerd: There is no guarantees.
Kane: I thought this was going to be for all of Meridian.
De Weerd: No, it going to be just for the applications that are received. I think a
number have been received to this point.
Stiles: We will hold it open for additional applications to be submitted until August 16th
.
Right now, it looks like it’s going to be 8-10 applications.
Kane: that’s great. I just wanted to have a feel for (inaudible) marathon event and I
need to get to bed early tonight.
De Weerd: Well, we can almost say that these two would be in the order that we have it
now.
MacCoy: A continued public hearing is heard first.
Kane: It would be close to the front? That’s all I have. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 4
MacCoy: Thank you.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 E. Park Center Blvd., Boise, ID.
While I am not familiar with this project, I’m just wondering if the action your taking on
this first item on the agenda will have any impact on the other agenda items tonight.
MacCoy: Well, we’ll wait and see, I’m afraid Larry.
Durkin: Cause, if you do a motion here can you will it still be beneficial to listen to the
other applications or maybe would you consider waiting until the end of the evening to
do a motion on all of them?
MacCoy: Well we’re not going –they are all ready—this one here, number one is going
to be postponed. They’ve agreed to that. That one goes down and we’ll finish that one
here in a few moments.
De Weerd: Mr. Durkin, I guess that my understanding of this is that any change to the
Comprehensive Plan has to be done in one movement. Otherwise, you have to wait for
6 months. If we pass or if we act on these two amendments changes for the
Comprehensive Plan tonight, that sets forth the 6 month time period. So, that would
mean the other applications that we have next month and also in September, could not
even be considered for another 6 months.
Durkin: In all due respect, my request though—I think this is out of line for me to do
this, because this isn’t my application, but I think it is important. When you take this
action now, it going to effect everyone else who is waiting without you hearing the
benefit of the other arguments for the evening. This is a special hearing that was called
for one of our applications—3 of our appellations.
MacCoy: We have not come to your yet though on this and we’re just dealing strictly
with item one right now and you asked to make a statement, but we’re not going to
address your yet, per say and what you heard from Shari and staff and from our
Commissioner De Weerd, is what we are faced with tonight. We are working with state
law in this. This is not a Meridian law.
Durkin: I guess that I would just request that you consider leaving it open.
MacCoy: Okay, you’ll get a chance to get you say here in a minute. Is there anyone
hear with JUB who would like to make a comment before we move on with this?
Taylor: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. If you are going to take testimony
tonight we would certainly like to enter into the record some of the information that you
requested from the last meeting. So, we have that with us and—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 5
MacCoy: (Inaudible) a continued public hearing. Your on the docket right now. It’s
your place to speak where you want.
Taylor: Very good. We will do that and enter it into the record. Let me get some
exhibits here. At your last meeting you requested some additional information on this
project which is as you might recall, south of Ustick and north of Fairview on the west
side of the street. It’s about the entire property is about 8 acres that we’re requested
the mixed use for. It actually is a 20 acre site, but 12 of that has been all ready the
school district is all ready getting ready to construct a elementary school on that site, so
this only pertains to 8 acres. On that that 8 acres, we have requested a chance from
the Comprehensive Plan from residential to mixed use. I believe, looking at the record
from you last meeting, you requested several things. One a site plan. We have that
tonight to share with you. And we superimposed some residential and office building on
that. The other thing we held a neighborhood meeting and we notified the
neighborhood of this meeting tonight. So, I am sure that we have other people here to
speak, so I’d like to just show you this exhibit of how it might look with a mix of
residential and professional offices. This is the vacant site looking to the southwest.
This was actually taken from a balloon a tethered balloon and this is Eagle Road.
Can everyone see?
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: There is an easel down there. Might be easier that way.
Taylor: Thank you. This is looking to the southwest, this is Leslie Road right here. This
is Eagle Road. This is the 8 acre site and the school district owes the remaining 12.
The Kleiner property is to the south and runs all the way to Fairview. What we are
proposing is a mix of professional offices, as I mentioned and residential. So, what we
did is super impose just an idea of what could occur on that site. Here is some
professional offices out in front and some residential, some single family residential
showing here in the back of the site. The school actually wraps around here on the 20
acre site. Here is the same site but with landscaping and some buffer from the adjacent
subdivision. So just to give an idea, this is not a plat, this is not a pud at this point. It is
just an idea of what could occur with some mixed residential and professional offices.
These are one story professional offices along Eagle Road.
MacCoy: Thank you.
Taylor: We had a good neighborhood meeting. We had about 12 to 15 people join us
on July 29th
at the home of John Barnes who owns the property with Properties West.
We had a number of comments and questions asked. We thought the reception was
excellent. There was come of the concerns for the size of the lots for the residential
areas, and we agreed. Generally, the reception, and you have some of the neighbors
here to speak, regarding the professional offices was very well received. So, we just
discussed that we were requesting this mixed use and that they would have ample time
to actually comment on the plan when and if this proceeds. We felt that that was a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 6
good meeting. We got excellent turnout from the neighborhood and we wanted to
share that with you. We also did notify the neighborhood of the meeting tonight, as you
requested, so I am happy to answer any questions, but I do think that we have
proposed a project and land uses that seem fitting and probably acceptable to the
neighborhood.
MacCoy: You mentioned your meeting with the public was July 29th
?
Taylor: Excuse me. Let’s see, it must have been---it was a week ago tonight. What
would that have been. July 22nd
.
MacCoy: Further correction for the record, that’s all. Cause tonight’s the 29th
. Any
questions for her? Thank you. We will call forward other people from you--. Is there
anyone here that would like to speak in favor of this project at this moment? You want
to come back up again sir.
Kane: I was prepared to wait until September. I live up here just 2 houses, so I am the
third house in on Leslie Drive. We basically don’t have a problem with what’s been
designed here. It looks nice. The thing that I am concerned about it is $120,000
houses as a CAP, and that is what was explained the other evening. When our house
are being taxed anyway, upwards to $250,000. That’s a concern to me as my property
value and the property value of the people who live adjacent to me. Abutting to
$120,000 houses right behind us. Basically right now, knowing no more than I know
about this, that’s my primary concern. That is the primary concern I think of our
adjacent neighbors. The site looks good. The landscaping looks good. We know John
does good work. He has in the past. The concern is in this day and age, a $120,000
house is rather at the low end of the spectrum and abutting right to us, at what we are
being taxed at anyway, we have some concerns with that.
MacCoy: I suppose you have made those concerns known to JUB?
Kane: Oh yes we have at the town meeting the other night.
MacCoy: We all look at our land value.
Kane: Basically, that is only thing---we know it’s going to be developed. It’s an
inevitable, but we would just like to have it developed in a way that it’s in concert with
our land. Originally when this was bought, it was explained to us that it was all going to
be one acre lots. There would be 15 to 16 one acre lots. Then it changed and went to
half acre lots. You can see the evolution as to where we’ve come. There has been
quite a change from what we were originally told what was going to happen on that 20
acres.
MacCoy: This information of one acre lots, was that by real estate people?
Kane: That was by Mr. Barnes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 7
MacCoy: Oh I see, okay.
Kane: I assume that is real estate people. How ever you want to look at it. That’s the
way its evolved to this point.
MacCoy: All right, thank you. Is there any other person who would like to make a
statement in favor of the project.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I had some questions for the previous.
Kane: One moment sir. Would you come back up forward here.
Borup: You’ve all ready said that you felt good about the office building parts. A couple
more questions on the housing. You said $120,000 CAP. Did you mean CAP or floor?
Kane: I was told that these houses would be, as I understood at the meeting the other
night, $120,000 was the maximum.
Borup: They wouldn’t allow any body to build on more than that?
Kane: Well, what was said was, this was what—
Borup: That was the price that they were looking at. Okay. Would –what do you feel
you and your neighbors would feel more comfortable with having in that location, other
than one acre lots, which I think you can maybe see their problem there. That’s not an
area for that type. What’s the other options is what maybe I am looking at.
Kane: I think some of the other options would be $150,000 and up. I think that puts us
into young, professional people who want to come in and get started and take care of
things. They would be in concern with the neighborhood. The school district could buy
the rest of it, up to the commercial end of it. Maybe a park. There is a lot of things
there that could be looked at.
Borup: Would you rather have home there as opposed to more office?
Kane: Me personally. As long as they were very well done, professionally done.
Landscaped well and they were professional type office buildings that would be
occupied during the day and for all practical purposes closed in the evening, I would not
have a problem with that, myself. I can’t speak for anybody else.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Thank you. Yes sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 8
North: My name is Billy North. I live on Leslie Drive also, 2972 Leslie Drive on the
other side of the street, down a little bit –5th
house in on the right actually. The
comments that I would like to make I guess parallel the ones all ready made. I’m
nervous about that property being mixed use. I guess I am against mixed use in the
sense that it would provide some office and some small houses doesn’t seem like the
proper solution for that property. It needs to either all be bigger houses with a giant
birm along there, which is what many or most of the house subdivision’s now that are
being built along Eagle Road because of the busy nature of Eagle Road they have a 25
birm that they put along there to do sound abatement and then add some houses in
back of it which seems to be feasible as long as you’ve put up a big birm to stop the
sound. It has nice and easy access to the freeway, which a lot of people do like. I
would be against mixed use for that purpose, for that reason. I was not able to attend
the meeting that was held earlier. I was out of town for the meeting that was held in our
neighborhood. I have not seen all of the plans that were actually given for it, but unless
the plans included –to me the minimum is that the plans include a giant birm that goes
along there so that it would attract people to live there that are willing to live with and
build a little more expensive home and put all homes in there I think along the range
that we have all ready talked about--$150,000 up and not have office buildings. If there
are office buildings there it is guaranteed that no one will build $150,000 up house. I
am against mixed use and for $150,000 houses on a little larger than normal lot and a
giant birm.
MacCoy: Okay. Any questions?
Barbeiro: Mr. North, right? I’m a little perplexed with the pattern here that they prefer
not having residents behind them. It (inaudible) that you would prefer to have a
residence next to you as opposed to a currently cultivated field. You don’t have
problems with dust and standing water and the cultivation at all hours of the evening, so
I hardly think $120,000 home falls into the skid row category. I don’t think that the
difference between a $150,000 home and a $120,000 home is such that it is going to
change the quality of people who are moving into those homes.
North: It may not change it all that much, but I do believe that if it is left mixed use, that
is for me personally I would prefer a field. I know that’s impossible. I have a field in
back of my house and I love it that way and we just as soon as it stays that way the rest
of eternity. That is not likely to happen. As soon as there’s sewer in there, I am going
to have houses in back of me too and I’ll be up here saying the exact same thing again.
I believe that the ---we would have a more continuous type of use of that area if it were
in fact houses that were of a little bit more expensive nature rather than—there is a fair
amount of difference if you say that the most expensive is $125 down that is down to a
$80,000 house or something which is getting close to skid row. I mean it is a fair
amount of money but in these days, $80,000 does not buy much of a house whereas, if
you say $150 to $200,000 house that’s getting to be people who will take care of their
homes and keep the property values high.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 9
Barbeiro: So it is fair to say that your looking to how the precedent will be set in the
new development.
North: Yes. I don’t want a $80,000 house behind me.
MacCoy: Okay. We are still on the side, the fence side it looks to me like, but anybody
who is in favor of this would they have any comment to make at this point before we
move on to the other side of the fence and those who are totally against this. Okay,
we’ll move to the other side of the fence. Is there anybody who would like to speak on
the fact that they don’t like this at all. Do you want to come forward.
Boyle: I’m Moreen Boyle. I live next to Mr. Kane with my husband Louis Serino. The
Carol Subdivision was built 1976. It has big lots, big houses. Some of the houses have
been on the market for close to $400,000. It’s a quiet neighborhood. We don’t have
sewers. We don’t have outdoor lights. We provide our own electricity for safety
reasons at night. I kind of think that we’re looking at changing the whole subdivision by
putting next to it, something that isn’t even being built adjacent to it in the Packard
Subdivision or behind it in the other subdivision. All of a sudden, this becomes a core
of change and it’s going to make a big difference to all of use. I am not in favor of it at
all. This is not what Mr. Barnes described to us some time ago. It has evolved to
something quite different.
MacCoy: Any questions for her?
Barbeiro: Mrs. Boyle?
Boyle: Miss Boyle.
Barbeiro: Excuse me, Miss Boyle. Could you tell me where you live in—
Boyle: We live next to the house that’s pictured, going up the street.
Barbeiro: The second home on Leslie Drive.
Boyle: Yes. As Mr. North said, we are surrounded by lots of fields and wide open
spaces. There isn’t any other office space. There isn’t any other connection to what’s
being placed there any place in the surrounding. The subdivision’s further away from
us still maintain a higher home value and sale value.
MacCoy: Thank you very much for your comments. Yes sir.
Sercino: I am Louis Sercino, Moreen Boyle’s husband. I live in the same house.
Basically I can’t come out and say I am totally opposed to the whole project, but the
concerns that I’ve got (inaudible) a new concept in the development of the property, first
of all, in the way of office building. In my mind—I was out of town when Mr. Barnes had
the meeting. That’s why I missed it and kind of coming in here rather ignorant. The
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 10
question that I have or the concerns that I have in regard to office buildings are in the
area of whether or not they are going to be 24 hours a day use. Whether there is going
to be security. We are talking about tarmac and parking lots with light on them. Of
course that is going to have an effect on the quality of our life. When you talk about
your kind of ---whether we would rather have a field in the back versus office buildings
or $125,000 houses, we have pheasants and quail back there now and certainly I would
prefer that but that is being unrealistic. Again, the concern I’ve got is that—my
understanding is that the low income housing is probably going to be developed by Mr.
Barnes as part of the development. Isn’t that true. Isn’t that part of the plan? Does
anybody know? Because you know, as far as this is a nut of a one nut development
work. He going to develop the office buildings all in one shot. This is the case of the
office buildings being built and some realtor coming in and selling lots for people to buy
houses. What’s going to happen is these homes are going to be built as part of the
development and the concern that I got, a long with everyone else, is that they are not
commensurate with the homes in the area. They are going to water down the value of
the properties and in fact –at that level, not to say anything about people that buy
$125,000 houses, but it is going to have an effect on the quality of life as well. In
general, I guess what I am saying is that I’ve got some major concerns about
quantifying the office buildings. What they are going to be. Whether they are going to
be condition use and so on and so forth, as well as the homes. There is just a lot of
unanswered questions in my mind before I can even consider an intelligent decision
one way or another.
MacCoy: Before you leave, (inaudible) land out back.
Sercino: I’m sorry. What did you say?
MacCoy: I said since your homeowner’s yourself and others like the land out behind
your place with the pheasants, and I don’t blame you one bit, have you ever thought
about, you know, putting together a package plan and buying that land so you would
have it for future.
Sercino: We wish we had bought it when it came up for sale in the first place.
MacCoy: I bet you do. That’s one of the things we keep looking at. We hear this
comment all the time.
Sercino. That’s an idea. Maybe we ought to –we had a homeowners association at
one time. I think the remnants of it are still there. I am not sure we can get everybody
together to look at that possibility and in fact whether or not Mr. Burnes would even be
interested. Obviously, he did not buy the property for –to be a nice guy. He bought it to
make money. No one can blame him for that.
MacCoy: Just a suggestion. Any other comments or questions. Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 11
Kane: This will be my last comment for tonight. To go along with what Mr. (inaudible)
said on his (inaudible) As we all know Eagle Road has become a major thoroughfare.
At best, it is uncontrolled. Speed limits there running any where from 65 to 70, even
though it is post 55. Trucks use it. It is a constant stream of truck so anybody that’s
been out there knows that. There’s no signs that prohibit compression brakes, so right
now you hear compression brakes as they are putting them on coming in Fairview. As
part of this development as we discussed the other evening at Mr. Barnes house, it’s a
proposed stop light right out here approximately as I understood it to a road that is yet
to be shown on here directly, but I think it is right along here that goes into the school.
We would have an additional stop light put here. That means that all these truck traffic
and the rest of it again will be stopping in this area here. It’s bad now. It would become
probably unbearable to most of us. The idea of a birm along here is obviously very
much in tune with what we feel, but if we are going to continue to develop the way the
Californians are developing, and that seem to be the way we’re going, if you go to
California you will find that there are block walls, 10 feet high or there about, that go
down in front of all the subdivisions, new developments that counter act this noise to a
great deal. If we are going to keep going this way, then maybe we ought to look at the
noise abatement as a major portion of any further development along Eagle Road, at
least. Anybody who wants to come out in my backyard any night of the week now,
versus when I bought the place in 1988, is welcome to come listen. I understand that
it’s progress. There is not much we can do about that, but I would like to see some
thought given to anything that we can do to knock that noise level down. Certainly a
stop light here in conjunction with everything else is going to exasperate the problem
immensely.
MacCoy: Thank you. I am sure you realize, since you bought in 1988 that Eagle at that
time was a two lane road and of course it is a major north south—
Kane: Fifty-seven years I have lived here, so I remember Eagle Road when it was not
much of anything.
MacCoy: I will tell you this, that there is—a number of meetings I have been in the last
year and a half, two years, which is a real concern of ACHD operation, of how do you
control the noise. They have taken basically a country road and turned it into a main
thoroughfare or freeway. You mentioned LA and other cities are the same and San
Francisco, and there are all types of things that are being used today. I’ll say this for
ACHD, they are looking a lot of these (inaudible) what do we want in our community,
because we know we’ve got a problem. Just some information for you.
Kane: I appreciate that. Like I say, the truck are probably the biggest problem and
when you throw a stop light right in front of us, that is going to make it that much worse.
Not to count getting in and out of our lane, our drive. Could be better. Could be worse.
I don’t know. Right now it’s peaks and valleys and we accept it, but we just would like to
have you all try to help us maximize the effort to curtail.
MacCoy: We’re concerned. Very good sir.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 12
Barbeiro: I have a question for staff. Shari, if I’m not mistaken, the stop light that is to
go there as the new road comes in is planned at a future date regardless of Mr. Barnes
development.
Stiles: According to the Eagle Road corridor study. The way I interpret that study is
yes, it is proposed that the road will be there and however they are going to phase that,
I don’t know. There is a light proposed there. It would be regardless of what John does
with his property.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. While Shari’s all ready addressing us, could you comment on
the aspect of the zoning. Mixed use—was that the only viable option for zoning for that
area, or what other options could there have been.
Stiles: They’re not proposing a zoning of mixed use. They want to designation in the
Comprehensive Plan of mixed planned use development, which would allow a variety of
uses. The only other designations on the Comprehensive Plan map now would be
single family residential, agricultural, mixed residential or light or general industrial—or
commercial.
Borup: Could there been a request for Comprehensive Plan change and annexation
and zoning to strictly LO?
Stiles: They could, just because the Council or the Commission would recommend
mixed plan use development. We have had single use developments come in under
that mixed plan use, but they had to come in under the conditional use permit process.
When they came back before you for annexation and zoning, sure you could restrict it
to LO.
Borup: I’m just wondering some of the comments opposes the mixed use which would
mean all residential or all office. Probably residential along Eagle Road, a state
highway, is not real desirable—at least not if you’re the one living there. Thank you.
MacCoy: Any other comments? Moving on, any one else want to make a comment.
Serino: One quick clarification. What I was (inaudible) to as well as what my neighbor
Ray brought up. The traffic flow and traffic pattern is a major concern since they
widened Eagle Road. I think it would behoove anyone or all of you to try to egress from
Leslie Drive a any point of time during the day, to get a better understanding of what I
am driving at. Your literally taking you life in your hands trying to get out on Eagle Road
on any direction. The speed limit there is 55 mph but no one follows it. There are
looking at 65 or 70 mph. These people are going by and it’s just an accident waiting to
happen. The proposed traffic light at the very end, I am assuming, or the most
southerly part of the development, still in effect would cause, in my mind, a gridlock of
cars to back up at some point of time where we would not be able to get out of the
subdivision at all. Now originally this piece of property after Mr. Barnes bought it, was
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 13
proposed, if I remember right somewhere around 12 or 15 homes with a very large birm
to cut down on traffic noise and so on. That’s been changed and it seems like this
proposal keeps getting extended and watered down in stages. Again, I think the
biggest concern, one of the biggest concerns (inaudible) office buildings and mixed use
is the traffic pattern. It needs to have a hard look taken at.
MacCoy: Thank you. Anyone else.
Boyle: I’m Moreen Boyle. I am sorry this is not a round table because as people talk
you think about other things. You talked about housing along Eagle and it being kind of
negative. If you go down pass Ustick, there are some of the newest and largest
subdivision being build all along Eagle Road. For us to cross Ustick, and suddenly
Eagle Road has a different land use and public use doesn’t make sense to me. That’s
number one. Number two, it doesn’t make sense to me to build a school and then have
it surrounded with buildings being used for offices. Why then are we having a school in
a office area? There are not any other schools that I can think of around the western
part of the city that have office buildings near by. We even had a big controversy just a
year or two ago when Albertson’s wanted to build down on McMillan because they did
not want to have a store across from a school. Why are we allowing office buildings? I
don’t understand that and who will manage those office buildings as my husband
asked—what kind of deliveries? Who is going to be around at night? Are we going to
listen to the machines clean up their parking lot after midnight? Are we going to see
dumpsters out behind these buildings? I don’t understand why they would build that
next to a school or even nearby in the same neighborhood. The whole thing doesn’t
make sense to me.
MacCoy: Good points. Thank you. Anyone else? Got one back in the back. All right.
Bentley: My name is Connie Bentley and I live 3154 Leslie Drive. I probably talk louder
because I live on Eagle Road. This thing isn’t even on. That’s tricky guys. Thank you.
I live right across the street. First of all, looking at this I’d like to know where the balloon
was tethered because it completely missed my property. I was the original house in that
area. I also am a single parent and if you probably ask these people who have driven
by my house and probably thought boy I wish they’d move out and get someone else in
because I have taken a lot of time to build up my property. Now I can’t go out because I
can’t hear. Because of the noise I don’t go out and have barbecues and I don’t go out
and do that because and now your telling me there is going to be a light there…I’m
going to have these things stopped by my house? I am upset. First of all, Mr. Barnes
never invited me to his meeting, so this is the first time I heard about it. I got a letter
this last week. The state would not put the birm because them said that was not in the
project. We have a little thin fence. I use to have trees and everything that were there
that kind of kept out the sound, unless there was a fatal accident on the corner, and
now is kind of seems like I going to have more fatal accidents. I am serious about that
because you can’t get out on that road. Whoever…if you guys are kind of looking out
for us and this is going to be us and are you guys going to be charging us for sewer? Is
that going to happen next? To me it’s like you have a whole lot of things that are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 14
coming up that I have a lot of questions about and I never even knew that this was
happening and I’ve been in a lot of contact with the state because of selling off my
property there. That’s my concern. I don’t even know if you heard what my concerns
are, but I’ve got a lot of them
MacCoy: I think we heard you there. Any questions for her before she leaves.
Barbeiro: I have a question for you. I use to escort some of the special ed kids to your
class. There seems to be a great deal of concern about the traffic on Eagle Road.
Here is your opportunity to speak for your neighborhood. How do you believe the traffic
would be increased or decreased by this development, regardless of the fact that a stop
light is planned there without regard to this development.
Bentley: I really don’t have any idea about that. I just know by living there, I know what
it is now. The traffic light I have never heard about. I don’t understand that their saying
that your going to go 55 miles from an hour from Ustick to the next stop light. And then
your going to go 55—they are going to change all that I guess, in stead of –is that what
your telling me.
Barbeiro: The question is there’s so much discussion about the traffic on Eagle Road.
It is my belief that regardless whether this development goes ahead or not, the traffic
will remain a problem and this development will not add an significant amount to the
traffic, as well as the stop light will go in, in time, whether this development goes in or
not. So, speaking specifically to this development, I don’t imagine that you or any of
your neighbors would like to have a 10 foot concrete wall put up along side Eagle Road.
Bentley: But, beside my house? You offering
END OF SIDE ONE
Bentley: I would take it, yes I would. Because your not there. You don’t know. I would
take a birm and a wall. I also would take it that you would slow down the traffic to—like
to 35 or 30 like on Ustick now that they have it by their subdivisions. And then I would
also look at that you would limit truck use and the weights of trucks. I don’t think you
will able to do that. Now your saying there is going to be some kind of business there
behind my house in that area and now---the traffic. I can’t have my windows open and
at least later at night it kind of slows down. Now there is going to be business going on
there. I see that that’s a big impact. When I got my not, I did not know it was a
continued—I don’t even know—I am shocked actually. When I came, I though it was
the beginning of it. That is why I wanted to be here and be a part of it because I really
care about my community. I see the things that we really hold dear is being taken away.
Barbeiro: I all most want to elaborate on that but I know better.
Bentley: Okay. I do you know. I think the things—especially these other people way
more than myself because I felt really blessed to be able to buy my house when I did.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 15
So, I look at that. I know the feeling I have about improvements in my home and how
important that way and I know that just recently when I was looking at value of my
home. They compare it to things within ½ mile. They are going to use that property. If
you put $120,000 homes, they’re going to use that to compare my property. That is
going to lower my property even more. I’ve already lost a lot because of the sound and
because of smog—that is way up there compared to what it use to be. There has been
a lot of things that have happened. I realize that. I mean my –I felt blessed to be where
I am. These other people had money and chose to be in that area because they liked
the quality of living that they were able to have. That is being taken away from them.
There is no one there---there should be a requirement to have those birms. That helps
with, not only the sound, but it helps with pollution part. I do what I could. I went to all
those committees and tried to fight for that. I had no money to do anything. I needed
that guy down there. Rossman. Where were you sir?
Rossman: I wouldn’t have been any help.
MacCoy: As your going away just this days or yesterdays Valley News has carried an
article which will continue to be running. We are getting ready to do our
Comprehensive Plan work and we are asking the citizens to come out and join our
committees to say things like yourself. One of our problems is that we don’t have birms
and what have you. Our Comprehensive Plan is pretty thin when it comes to things like
this. We didn’t, years ago, expect what we got today. There is nothing in there that
really protects any of us. One last remark on the traffic signal that keeps coming up,
that was in the discussion some months ago when the school came in. That was part
of the school being granted that position. They had to have a traffic light so ACHD gave
them that light. All right, is there anyone else. Either side of the fence right now? If not
would JUB make a closing comment for your material
Taylor: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, some of the comments I have
heard before. Some of the people I know we have not seen before. I appreciate their
comments. One of the things that we are looking at here is not a rezone but just a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. We are looking at mixed use. We really haven’t
determined what those mixed uses precisely will be. I don’t anyone has talked about
low income house, for instance. That was never discussed. Maybe we were talking
about lower priced housing, but never low income housing. We talked about office
buildings. The reason we did that was to provide a noise barrier along Eagle Road for
exactly the reason that’s been discussed this evening. Also, we are familiar with office
buildings that have co-existed next to residential areas and an excellent use next to
residential. People work 8 to 5 at office buildings. They are landscaped and they go
home and they are not there on the weekends. They do work well with residential
areas. I am talking about professional offices. One of the things we were even thinking
about perhaps was having a daycare center next to the school so that it would be
something compatible with the school that had been suggested. So there was a
method and reason for this proposal to have the offices next to Eagle and then have
housing next to the school. Especially, housing next to the school. We thought would
be a great opportunity. We also know that there is going to be a signal for the school to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 16
access Eagle Road and that is because it’s on the half section and ITD, I don’t want to
speak for ITD, but I know they have already agreed that that is where a signal is going
to go and they are going to try to put frontage roads, especially when the Kleiner
Property develops, they know they can except a lot of development. That is shown as
mixed use, if I’m not mistaken in the Comprehensive Plan—at least part of it is. Part of
the area around Ustick and Eagle Road, I believe also. At any rate, this proposal was
to be a good neighbor proposal and have the offices and some residential—the
elementary school is a given at this point. It’s going in. We would—the reason we only
came in for a Comprehensive Plan amendment was to work with the neighborhood in
developing a planned development. That’s exactly the reason we really were reluctant
to show any homes or size of professional offices at this point. We did that just to
satisfy your request, but there is a lot of work left to be done on the development. We
have heard the comments tonight. Mr. Barnes had to leave, but I took notes and we’ll
be back for further discussions on the site. Thank you.
MacCoy: All right. Thank you very much. All right Commissioners.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be only fair to continue this until after Item 4
so we can hear the next items without effecting this application.
Borup: Is that a motion?
De Weerd: That could be a motion. That is a motion.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All right. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 2. CONTINUED 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 AND EAST OF RECORDS:
MacCoy: On to Item 2. Staff.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. Before we enter into in to the continuance of the hearing, in
keeping with the announcement I made at the opening of this public hearing, my
employer is currently constructing a project, administered by Dakota Co. and owned
Diversified Developers Real Estate and I wish to refer my potential for a conflict of
interest and request permission to sit out this hearing.
MacCoy: All right. Just one moment. Attorney?
Rossman: I would certainly concur with Mr. Barbeiro’s statement. There certainly
obvious appearance of conflict of interest, so he should sit out of this hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 17
MacCoy: Thank you. All right Shari. One moment before we get started. We lost our
staffer here. He is trying to reclaim our documents.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Maybe—I think we did have an introduction last time from staff
and she already gave her introduction at the beginning.
MacCoy: I realize that, but I wanted the people here are different, maybe I think they
ought to hear even if it’s a repeat. If we get her back. I don’t know. Well, I don’t see
her moving this direction. Let’s move to the applicant. Your on.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. I am the president of Dakota Co., Boise, ID. My
address is 380 East Park Center Blvd., Ste. 100. I am here tonight on behalf of the
applicant, Developer’s Diversified Realty Company. We are also the owners and
developers of the entire project. Mr. Chairman, you were not at the last meeting where I
made this presentation.
MacCoy: No, but I have read the material that was printed out. You are right.. I was
not here. Commissioner Borup sat as chair that night.
Durkin: I also noticed a few people in the audience who weren’t here last time. The
last time I made a fairly lengthy presentation, which I am not suggesting that I do
tonight. I’d like to take a walk through the plan and familiarize you and the audience
what we are trying to do. Before I do that, I wanted to just ask your direction. Would
you like to handle all three of these application individually, or should we try to combine
it to one presentation, or how would you prefer?
MacCoy: One moment. I’ve all ready talked to our attorney’s and they have a
procedure where we should follow. Eric you want to spell that out.
Rossman: Well, when we talked earlier about procedures to follow, I was referring more
to agenda items 3 and 4. The continued public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and the annexation and zoning of the 13.09 acres. Shari’s comments I
think are more appropriate in regard to Item 2.
MacCoy: Well she’s not here right now so. I would say then, go ahead and make your
presentation in the shortened form then.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman the last time I made little or any presentation regarding what I
think is agenda item number 2, because there was not—I beg your pardon. I am
confused on that. I will talk about—first I will take a walk through the plan and then I’ll
come back one at a time with each individual item. The first items we want to talk about
tonight is what we refer to internally as lot 5. This is Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road,
Highway 55. As you know we are developing a shopping center in this area. This is
the property where we have a conditional use for development. To give you bearings,
this is the area where the Shopko store is now under construction. This plan that I am
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 18
showing you represents the very first, it is in fact the very first plan that we ever
submitted to the city for the development. There were some significant changes. While
this is the Shopko area, I am going to focus a lot on this area. This is the application
that we are talking about. It’s this part of the property. Through the roughly 6 months
hearing process with the city for this conditional use for the development of the center,
through a series of meetings with the residents of Crossroads Subdivision, we gained a
conditional use permit. We also have a conditional use permit for this area, but we are
not showing any development. We have a conditional use permit for this phase,
between Records Drive and Presidential Drive. That is what you see when you drive by
the area now. That is what is under construction and being paved. We have installed
Records Drive. It’s been paved, I think this week or maybe last week. This week.
There is a stop light that will be installed at the intersection at Records Drive. That work
is being done right now. We now have approval to build about 100,000 square feet of
retail development on this parcel. What we are doing, what our desire is to take this
development and with the similar landscaping, the similar screening and buffering both
from Fairview and from the residential area. Instead of building buildings backing up to
this residential area, we want to increase the area of the birm to 35 feet from the 20 foot
that we are building here. We’ve also increased it on Fairview, and turn this into a
parking area and add the property to the east. So if you compare to this site here, there
is vacant property that goes between our approved area and the cemetery. We would
then build a building, it’s not a speculative venture. We do have a tenant for this
location and it’s a tenant that will blend in with the shopping center quite well. It’s a
single use. This would be the parking area for it. What we are asking for is a rezone
for what we call lot 5, so that that zoning would match the zoning that we are requesting
on the parcel that will be going through the Comprehensive Plan change tonight and the
annexation procedure tonight. The request for the rezone of lot 5 would change the
zoning from industrial zoning with a conditional use permit to a commercial zoning that
we have offered in our application and in the record at the last hearing. We would like
the condition that we have to go through the conditional use process for that or a
development agreement, which ever the city would prefer. The staff comments that
were just handed to me tonight –one of the things that they say this 11.4 acres was
previously shown as a theatre. We do have a conditional use permit for the property—
now I brought a copy with me tonight incase any of you don’t happen to have one
handy to look at. It doesn’t mention a theatre. A theatre is discussed from time to time
as a potential tenant for that area or for the southern area of the development. The
conditional use permit states that it will be developed in a manner that blends and
coordinates with the rest of the development. What we are requesting tonight would
certainly do that. The small piece of land that we are changing, we would be taking 100
thousand square feet of development from an area, and it would be left with about 8
thousand square feet of development on it. The rest would be parking lot, landscaping,
etc. Our application and our request would be that the landscaping be the same
magnitude that the rest of the Family Center is now. There would be no reduction in
landscaping, screening. No other changes. We feel that the traffic study that we have
submitted to the city and to ACHD is beneficial that ACHD is supportive of it and we
respectively request you approval on this rezone. The staff comments that it would be
an illegal subdivision are not quite accurate, although staff may not be aware that with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 19
Records Drive use to be a private road that was an easement for that subdivision. As
you may know, if you’ve visited the area, it’s been torn up and rebuilt in accordance with
the Ada County Highway District standards and it has been deeded to the highway
district and it’s now a public road which automatically turns lot 5 into a legal split. There
were no shenanigans to get to that. That was clearly on the record throughout our
entire process. The last go around that that would occur. Staffs comments though
about platting, there will be a lengthy public hearing as we go forward on the conditional
use process for this property. There will be some platting cause we will be combining 2
separate parcels. There will be further hearings. That is normally done –it’s either
made a condition of a rezone, but it normally we have to go through the rezone first. It
would be inappropriate for us to be or go through the platting process or go through the
conditional use process without (inaudible) that rezone. The staffs comments that no
plans have been shown for the development of property—I don’t know what to say. A
little history, May 3rd
1999 we submitted complete applications for a Comprehensive
Plan change for an annexation of a piece of property and for a rezone of this property.
At our last hearing, about a month ago, the staff had not done report for one of the
components. As a matter of fact, the plans that you see tonight were submitted to the
city on May 3rd
and that’s the extent of our plans. It would be abnormal for us to
prepare full construction drawings or further plans at this point since we are requesting
to go through the conditional use process. The staff comments that this change would
require would be a material change to our existing conditional use permit, I don’t think is
appropriate since we have requested in our application and at the last public hearing
that that condition be imposed on this property. So while in fact there could be a
modification from our conditional use permit that we hold for the entire family center,
that does not relieve us of any burden on this property while we go through the process
on the condition use or the development agreement. I just don’t agree with that. It
would be inappropriate in fact for us to go through the conditional use permit change so
that we could get a conditional use permit for a parking lot if we did not enjoy the zoning
and the other matters. I think staffs comments would be putting the cart before the
horse on this development. I’ll happily answer any questions that you may have related
to that portion. For those of you that were here for the last public hearing there were
extensive comments about the water for the subdivision. While I think we have sent the
memo to some of you telling you what we have done to correct that problem we have –
we feel that that matter has been resolved. We are now taking the water for the
watering of the project about 700 yards down stream from where the water from the
subdivision comes off of the drainage ditch. Those of you who know what I’m talking
about, know what I’m talking about. That matter has been corrected. There has been a
lot of discussion about the block wall. You may recall when we went through the
original conditional use process for this there was a lot of discussion about a block
wall—where it should be put and how high it should be. The decision of where it should
be located and the design was reached with a committee of homeowners association
people, city people and the land group. The wall has been installed and the neighbors
quickly recognized and we quickly agree with them that the wall since installed needs
some modifications, so we have met with many of the neighbors out there. Tom Bowins
from our office has talked with them and tried to figure out certain solutions and we are
requesting the city allow us to modify the wall to make it taller in some areas—taller all
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 20
the way around I think and taller still in some areas to at least try to have the wall do
some of what people had hoped it would do in the beginning. The wall plan would
continue here and all the way around the future development of the project both on the
south and on the east new phase. That is the extent of my comments regarding the
rezone of lot 5 and I’ll happily answer any questions that you have.
MacCoy: Shari you missed the opening comments here and part of the comments
here. Your statement here for this item, do you want to make any comments about that
at this moment?
Stiles: Well, since I did not hear the comments, I know that they did talk something
about this recorded right of way dedication makes this a legal lot. It doesn’t. It’s still
considered one piece of property. We do allow right of way dedication without going
through a subdivision, but however we still consider the property one piece of property.
In the records I have today, this property is now split into five pieces. I still stand by my
comments of today. It is a significant change. It was represented to be a theatre. The
site plan is a significant portion of that conditional use permit and this would be a
significant change to that originally approved plan.
MacCoy: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners.
Borup: Shari, you feel decreasing the building square footage and increasing the
parking lot size is a significant change?
Stiles: Yes. And the use of the property, yes.
Borup: Well, I agree I think in the testimony there was a discussion about a theatre, but
I don’t know that that was how is was specifically approved, was it?
Stiles: This site plan that you see is what was approved.
Borup: With those buildings in that location.
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: I am a little confused on the lot split situation. Your saying right now there is 5
legal lots.
Stiles: There is not 5 legal lot—
Borup: Five lots, I mean. Five platted lots.
Stiles: They’re not platted.
(Inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 21
Stiles: As far as I know. Apparently somebody has recorded a record of survey for the
property and split it into pieces.
Durkin: The parcel until the last few weeks with the registered deed is actually two
parcels. This street Presidential divided—this is parcel one and this is parcel two. Now
with the installation and dedication of this street, it is a 3 parcel. It’s one—this right here
is number one, that was created with the installation of Presidential Drive. This is parcel
2 and this is parcel 3. Shari might not agree with me and I might not agree with Shari,
but the statues and the county—their procedures and policies are that when it is divided
by a public street it is a lot. The point is there is no platting or subdivision process that
we are able to go through to make it more of a lot than it is. It’s a lot. There is a
procedure that we’ll be going through to combine this lot with this lot, but there is no
further process for us to go through to make this—to separate this from this parcel
because that has all ready occurred. When you buy a piece of property and split it off
with the subdivision and other things that have occurred in the past but since –which I
don’t know about—she may have a list of other parcels but this is actually two parcels.
One, two and now with the dedication of that street it is three parcels.
Borup: Thank you. (Inaudible) Shari, what should they have done then you are
saying?
Stiles: They should have platted the subdivision as a subdivision. Mr. Durkin referred
to a lot 5 when he talked about this project. It is in 5 pieces now. It’s not in three.
Durkin: Actually it’s internal reference that we have for the land. We might be
confusing an informal internal reference with the legal reference. The test of my
remarks last week, if you listen to the tape or review it, I did cover that extensively last
month. I told you that we refer to this internally as lot 5, but I made it very clear on the
record that there was no legal lot. There was no legal lot 5, it is just an internal
reference. We’ve done that with homeowners association meetings and you know
many public hearings over the month. I made it real clear on the record that while we
refer to it as lot 5 it is now (inaudible).
Borup: I remember that. Shari if should have been a subdivision, shouldn’t they have
come up 6 months ago.
Stiles: If the property were split, yes it should have.
Borup: You split by having a road go through you mean.
Stiles: Well it’s not just the road. What he refers to is the second parcel is 3 parcels on
Ada County Assessor records.
Borup: And it didn’t use to be 3 parcels?
Stiles: No. It was one piece.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 22
Durkin: I might make a suggestion that is would be very common to go through a
rezone and have a condition of that rezone be to satisfy the platting requirements. I
don’t thing we are going to get there tonight, but if you are satisfied with the other
matters relating to the rezone, you could certainly make that a requirement. Prior to the
rezoning taking place, we have to satisfy Shari Stiles, City of Meridian Attorney that the
platting is in order. I represent to you tonight that it is. Shari is saying that it isn’t. I
don’t have proof on a piece of paper to show you that –
Borup: Are there 3 separate tax parcels.
Durkin: There may be numerous tax parcels—parcel numbers from a tax standpoint,
but it is not legal lot issue. For example, the Shopko will be assigned a separate parcel
number so that they will receive a tax bill directly. It is not a lot split. That’s a matter
that they work through with –
Borup: A lot of commercial properties are made up of a lot of different parcels.
Dunkin: It isn’t a lot. What Shari is talking about that it is an illegal lot, it isn’t. It is a
legal lot and nothing was done in any matter that was inappropriate to get to where we
are today, nor was it at all secretive. I encourage you to review the conditional use
permit. There is not the theatre in here. In addition, I am asking you in the rezone to
make the requirement of us to go through revised conditional use processing. If I were
to go through the conditional use process and have our conditional use changed and
then come back to you and ask for a rezoning, that would be backward, so we are
trying to do it frontward and for some reason from May until today, that is how long it
took for me to get a one paragraph staff report that is just flawed and I am trying to do it
the right way and keep you informed and keep the city informed. That is my comment.
Borup: I did not have anything else, Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: All right. Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: I just have one question for Mr. Durkin. You referred to the wall and the wall
needing to be higher behind the Shopko and that sort of thing. What’s –why was that
and how high is the wall going to be in this proposed change that your doing?
Rossman: May I ask one question Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: Yes you may.
Rossman: My question is does the modification, the proposed modification of the wall,
the sound barrier wall, does that have anything to do with the application for rezone at
this particular parcel.
MacCoy: I don’t see that at all.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 23
Rossman: Is that an issue for this hearing?
MacCoy: No. I think what she is asking since we were all involved in that wall.
Rossman: He brought it up. That’s true. In Tammy’s defense he did bring it up. I am
just wondering if we are wasting our time by making it an issue at this public hearing.
MacCoy: I don’t think it is an issue, it’s just a matter of information more than anything
else at this point since we were so heavily involved in this thing before.
De Weerd: Is that another item that needs to be revised in your CUP then? Regarding
the size of the wall.
Durkin: No. I don’t think so.
De Weerd: I have not read the CUP, so.
Durkin: You have not read it?
De Weerd: No.
Durkin: I believe it is staff level matter, but the staff may---what we are trying to do on
the wall that you can only see from the Crossroads Subdivision, peoples backyard or
from the loading docks from the Shopko store is make it taller so that they have more
privacy. It does not effect the rest of the City of Meridian and in our opinion---
Rossman: I don’t recall any height specification in the condition use permit on the wall.
Durkin: Yes there is. It is 6 foot. To answer your question on the wall, the language in
the conditional use permit said it had to be a minimum of 6 feet. It really was not clear
on where that 6 feet was from. Was it from Fairview Avenue. It from this guys kitchen
floor. What happens here is you have a mile long piece of property and you have some
different grade changes from some peoples houses are taller, the lots fall off, but
basically you take a 6 foot man standing in his kitchen and he is looking right out his
backyard and he is looking right over that wall, the wall you may have heard me say
something like this in one of our public hearings, but it’s not blocking the visibility from
the center. It could be modified to block any headlights and that type of thing and the
best time to modify it is at this point, before we get the landscaping and other things in.
Rossman: I guess the point to be made that your proposing to make it taller basically,
which would not be a violation of the CUP.
Durkin: No. We are making it better. What we have submitted in an application is we
are all ready required to install 6 foot wall along this area, but in a rezone request and in
our other applications we would be continuing the 6 foot wall here and here. If it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 24
needed modification as we went along, we would do that as well. This is a higher area
of the development, but it’s a lower area of the Crossroad Subdivision, so what’s
happening is that the wall is about 3 feet about or I guess 4 feet above the parking lot
grade behind Shopko. It is 6 feet above the backyard elevations, so we are adding 2 to
3 courses of bricks, blocks depending on where you are. We are adding a minimum of
2 everywhere, 3 someplace.
De Weerd: Which is equivalent to what?
Durkin: Between 16 and 24 inches. Then there is a decorative cap on top of that.
De Weerd: And so in this other lot 5, is that higher then the backyard of the neighbors
then or are we going to have the same –
Durkin: No I think this is the problem and the further you this way and the further you
go this way, the better. There is a little roll right here or a dip, but for the most part –this
is the highest and this is low. The problem will be less the further away we go from this
corner. They’re aren’t any houses here at this time. This is a transitional –I can’t
remember—it’s in the Comprehensive Plan—it’s in the county it isn’t in the city. What
we are doing is taking the buildings from backing up to the houses. This building will be
backing up to a wall and to a future street and to an occupied cemetery. All of the
loading for this area, 100 per cent of that will be done along the east boundary of that
building, so I think –with the wider birm here and the –we think the 6 foot wall will
accommodate it , but if it doesn’t I think we have a good track record of making the
adjustments with these people and we will happily do so with these residents as well.
MacCoy: Any other questions.
De Weerd: I do want to give one a try. I know he won’t answer it, but… You’ve
mentioned that you have a tenant and can you name who that is.
Durkin: I am not at liberty to name a tenant right now, but I can be quite specific on the
type of tenant. It’s a general merchandise and a grocery store combined in the one
building. We’ve had quite a few requests from the adjoining subdivisions for a grocery
store and we have done our best to put a grocery store down on Eagle Road. We now
have contractual arrangement to put one at this location. So it will be a one building
general merchandise and grocery.
De Weerd: So you would not have the grocery in the other parcel that you talked about.
Dunkin: Actually we may, but we may not. We may just replace it over here. With
approval, we will build a grocery store here. That would be in our further meetings
when we go through the building configuration and everything else, but our only
commitment to build a grocery store on Eagle Road, we have a company out of Salt
Lake City that has entered into a contract with that, but is going throughout with another
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 25
company and I am not sure of this day what the status of that is for the other grocery
store.
MacCoy: Thank you for the description though on the wall. That was—you have fought
through with that the past few months and that your holding out to your commitment. It
is a continued public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of
what you have heard this evening.
Woodvine: My name is Gaylin Woodvine. I live at 3808 E. Florence. I am strictly
concerned about this it goes back to the 18th
century, I guess. The water deal. With
this outfit putting this one in over here, this in over here, heavens to Betsy, we weren’t
asking for very much. All we were asking was to but the pump truck down stream from
that, but it took an act of Congress to do that, all most. We had to dam near design that
for them. We don’t want to have this same problem with this other property that is going
to go in. I think that what I am trying to get at is that first agenda, before they start
breaking any ground and plowing all that up, is to put that line in that ditch and get it
taken care of first. It was satisfy—we live in an area of 250 homes plus. We’ve all got a
heck of a lot of money tied up in it. I can’t take off 2 or 3 days and not have water.
They have caused me nothing but problems. Big problems in fact. I don’t want to see it
go on with the other end of this deal, so I’d like to get it from—so that they are informed
about our concern that if they do get this deal all put through, these 3 parcels here, that
the first concern would be the water and the ditch so they don’t stick that pump truck
right there where it was before or upstream from it. Stay downstream from it. That’s all
I wanted to say.
MacCoy: Okay sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone here want to speck on the other
side of the negative side of this thing? All right. Larry, do you want to come back and
answer the question on the water cause I noticed that last meeting you had you had
quite a bit of discussion on the water.
Durkin: I want to again publicly and go on public record apologizing to user on the
water issue. I also want to –I really like the City of Meridian’s former policy when they
swear people. I felt great about that and I am sorry you changed that. I wish every city
did that.
Rossman: If you prefer to be sworn in, we can always do that Larry.
Durkin: I swear to you tonight that the very first time that that water issue came to my
ears, or Tom’s ears or any representative from our company, was on the night about 9
p.m. on June 17th
. I stood up and promised everyone in the audience that we would
take care of it immediately. I promised you. By 12 noon the next day it was taken care
of. It didn’t take an act of Congress. It was the first time I had heard of it. I do now
know that some of the adjoining residents were commenting to the contractor and the
contractor Union Pointe Construction did not relay the information to us. We are proud
of our track record of jumping on problems immediately. It was brought to my attention
at 9 at night. It was fixed by 12 noon the next day. I very much apologize for the delay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 26
The wall issue speaks well of our response to the residents. The wall is installed.
People don’t like the wall. I didn’t like it when we started, and we are modifying again. I
still won’t like it when we’re finished, but we will continue to make modifications. I will
make that commitment to you public and to you as the Commission tonight will continue
to do that throughout the process. I had formally asked the homeowners association for
Crossroads Subdivision to put me on notice when they have a meeting and I would like
to either myself or Tom from our office to attend the homeowners meetings where I
might get a better opportunity to hear other problems, comments, problems and
concerns and I have been told that I will notified at the next homeowners association
meeting they have and will be a regular visitor to those. That is the answer on the
water. This is all enclosed. The stitch that went through here. This is still open. That
is the very first thing we do when we start construction and will be done here as well.
MacCoy: Okay. Any other questions for Larry?
Borup: Just on the water. Mr. Durkin I assume that that phase is going to need water
also for dust control, etc. Where would that water be accessed at.
Durkin: I pledge to you tonight it will be well down stream from the intake for the
Crossroads Subdivision. Where it is actually taken—
Borup: (Inaudible) option cause downstream is a developed area now. You still
(inaudible) access from the parking lot is what your saying.
Durkin: Yes, we have full access. I want to remind you a kind of an issue that isn’t fully
in our control. We have to get, when we draw water from that we have to get
(inaudible).
END OF TAPE 1 & 2
MacCoy: Before you sit down, Shari do you have anything that you want to add to this
before we move on? No. Is that what your saying.
Durkin: I have one more comment. I wouldn’t be real thrilled about walking our of here
with a rezone in hand and then have deferrals on the other matters. I would like to
request from the Commission that you hold off on the rezone of this parcel until we
resolve the Comprehensive Plan change and the annexation because I have tried to
show you on the plan tonight very (Inaudible) applications and as they stand alone they
are not valuable to us.
MacCoy: Okay sir. Thank you for your comments. All right Commissioners.
De Weerd: I agree with that. So do we table this.
Rossman: Yes, as the first item in the agenda. I guess just continue it until the end of
the public hearing tonight.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 27
Borup: I move to continue Item 2 till the end of to nights agenda.
De Weerd: You mean after agenda number 5 or after—
MacCoy: Four.
Borup: Three and four.
De Weerd: After the JUB. Thank you. I would second that.
MacCoy: We have a first and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEM 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND USE OF 12.3 ACRES FROM SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL BY DEVELOPER DIVERSIFIED REALTY CORP /
DAKOTA COMPANY—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW & EAST OF RECORDS AVENUE:
MacCoy: Shari?
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Do we need to have the votes reflect a quorum.
Rossman: A vote by the Chairman since we are missing 2 Commissioners.
Borup: For a majority. We did not have a majority vote.
MacCoy: Well there is three of us here. That makes a majority for the—
De Weerd: Did you vote?
MacCoy: I voted, yes. We are covered. I said aye so we are three of us. Make a note
of that officially. Shari, anything you want to say about item 3 at this moment? We are
getting ready to move on here.
Stiles: Nothing beyond my request to continue the public hearing.
MacCoy: Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Durkin do you want to now make a
statement at this time.
Durkin: I really want you to know that I am trying to be as brief as possible tonight. I
appreciate and I want to thank you for holding this special hearing. I think it is beneficial
for everyone and I appreciate it. An extra night out of your week and thank you for
doing that. If I seem like I am getting a little windy—what we are trying to do, it seems
very complicated as I said last time, but our plans are quite simple, but there are certain
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 28
legal steps that we have to go through relating to this Comprehensive Plan change. It’s
a fairly new statute that’s new to me. I think it is fairly new to the City of Meridian. The
state’s statute limiting the numbers of applications. I am trying to be careful of how we
go through it so we are all –that we make sure all the bases are covered. I am just
going to read from some of the comments I made last month, but what we are trying to
do is add about 12 acres to this shopping center. As we just talked about, we are trying
to rezone part of the center and then the 12 acres that we are trying to add, we are
trying to annex it and we are trying to get the Comprehensive Plan changed to reflect
our intentions. This is a blow up map of the City of Meridian’s Comprehensive Plan and
to give you—I did not make up these colors for people in the audience or may have not
ever seen one of these maps. This is an exact duplication from the book that is put out
by the city. To give everyone their bearings, this is Fairview Avenue. This is Eagle
Road. The light tan color is property that is in the county. It is in the City of Meridian’s
area of impact and its designated in this Comprehensive Plan as single family
residential. Much of this land is an occupied cemetery. The likelihood of that changing
to a single family residential is not great. Nothing that we are doing in our plans would
interfere with the occupied portion of the cemetery. This area is the center that we now
are under construction with. This area right here for any of the Crossroads residents,
this is where you live. It is probably likely to assume that this will at some point be
annexed into the city. That it will be single family and that it will be a natural
continuation of the Crossroads Subdivision. What the City of Meridian’s left with in the
area of impact is a small piece here that is an occupied cemetery potion. What we are
trying to do is change this area right here so that all the frontage on Fairview Avenue
would be consistent, developed by the same developer, same access, same
landscaping and we think we meet all the hurdles for the Comprehensive Plan
requirements. The access is controlled by us. So it is a natural continuation. I think it’s
not likely listening to the testimony earlier tonight, that your going to see single family
residential development along Fairview Avenue in this area. We are asking to change
the Comprehensive Plan from single family residential to commercial so that we can
then add it to our development. This is a blow up section of the map and I do have
handouts of this map if anyone would like to see it. I have provided one to all the
Commissioners and to the staff. Our request was submitted to the city on May 3, 1999
and I think having attended thousands of these hearings around the country over the
years, everyone is in a hurry. We are in a hurry on this one as well. I think that when
your trying to hurry you just need to make sure you do things right. What we are
suggesting and what we are applying for we feel very confident that it is being done
right and that it is the right thing to do. A month ago when we talked there was some
discussion about can you hear one Comprehensive Plan change. Is that an act. I don’t
know if the City Attorney has done any research on that. I’ve done a little myself. By
delaying this Comprehensive Plan which had the major controversy to it last time was
the water issue, which we think is resolved. By delaying it for another and then another
month and then putting it into a large package of other Comprehensive Plan
applications, it is going to hurt us. That is not the worse thing, but I don’t really think it is
the right thing for the City of Meridian to do. Upon completion, this shopping center will
represent the major retail development for the city today and for the long run. By
delaying this Comprehensive Plan for that period of time, knowing that we have to go
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 29
through the conditional use process, The zoning process and all the other matters after
that—and also speaking from 20 years experience of going through these things
knowing that it is unlikely that it will be accomplished in September, I think what you are
going to have is six, sever or eight months from now we will be talking about this same
application. As I mentioned earlier what we are asking is complicated but it is simple. It
is the right thing for the City of Meridian and I would really like to see you recommend
that it go forward so that it can finish off what we think is going to be a prime
commercial development for the city. I would feel a lot differently about it if what we
were here to night talking about was a speculative adventure. With no disrespect to the
previous applicant that was up here, I am not saying I don’t know what I going to do. I
am not saying were just doing this to take a look at it. I know exactly want we are going
to do, what we want to do. I’ve submitted exactly what we want to do to the city. It has
been in the city since May. We would really ask your approval on this tonight and by
the time you get to the other ones, I am fairly confident that your six month lapse will
have expired. Having been through this with the City a year ago, and I think it has been
a good experience for us and it has been a good experience for the city, but it will as a
matter of fact jeopardize our 210,000 square foot grocery store from going into this
project if we do face that additional delay.
MacCoy: Commissioners?
Borup: Mr. Chairman. One that is informational. The property, is that where the
nursery is? So it has the nursery building right there also—their office and their retail
store etc.
Durkin: The owners of the land are (inaudible)
Borup: The parcel your talking about is the D&G (inaudible)
Durkin: They have a rental agreement with the nursery.
Borup: So their building a building on the property their renting.
Durkin: Frankly, I am not certain with the terms of their arrangement.
Borup: I guess my question was, there is a retail building and nursery, which the
nursery is not too hard to move. That is (inaudible) single family residential, with a
business building on it?
Durkin: The zoning right now is a county zoning. It is rural transition.
Borup: They must have had a conditional use or something.
Durkin: They must have had some kind of arrangement with the county. More
importantly, it is in the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 30
Borup: I understood that. I was just curious how it got commercial building on there
right now. The other was more of a comment. Talking about the timing, the six month
period, etc. where the present time it looks like our new Comprehensive Plan is
probably a little bit ahead of the schedule that was discussed six months ago and I am
thinking we’re not wanting to interfere with the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan
by delaying something out too far which, if we accept your application now, it pretty
much means anybody after this would probably not have a chance until six months after
the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted.
Durkin: Well I –
Borup: I think that is the rationale that—
Durkin: I’m not—there is a legal issue. There is a lot of questions. The way the statute
reads—I did not bring it with me tonight, that the Planning and Zoning Commission is
allowed to take an action on a Comprehensive Plan change no more frequently than
once every six month. Does that sound pretty close counselor.
Rossman: I think it’s Planning and Zoning Commission or the Council.
Durkin: I think it specifically---anyway we can look that up at a later date.
Rossman: I think Steve has it over there, if we want to look at the actual language.
Durkin: But you’ve actually taken an action on this application a month ago by –you
heard our application and you continued it. So you did not conclude that action, but you
did in fact taken an action on our application. You took an action on this application
tonight. So you have taken the number of actions and there is a lot of interpretations. I
really feel by making a recommendation to Council to night, that they approve this.
Your looking at August, September, October, November, December and January you
can make recommendations to the Council again. I think that that is the likely time
when your new Comprehensive Plan will be ready to do that and the other applications
that are in the speculative stage right now might be ready to go forward, but if you did
make that recommendation to night, that is the time we would be under construction
with our project. It is a valuable 6 months that we would lose.
Rossman: Just to clarify Mr. Durkin’s comments, we do have a copy of the statute out
of Code Section 67-6509 (d). It refers to a person may petition the Commission or in
absence of a Commission, the governing board for plan amendment at any time. It just
refers to your ability to petition the Commission at any time. The Commission may
recommend amendments to the land use map component of the Comprehensive Plan
to the governing board not more frequently then once every six months. It doesn’t refer
to action, it refers to amendments to the land use map component of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Durkin: I don’t know. Is that the full statute?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 31
Rossman: It’s the full provision on the six month requirement.
Durkin: Okay, cause there is additional language on that at somewhere else in the
statute, but that talks about the text.
Rossman: Yes there is an additional sentence. It ways the Commission may
recommend amendments to the text to the Comprehensive Plan and to other
Ordinances authorized by this chapter to the governing board at any time.
Durkin: Earlier in the statute prior to the land use section, it talks about the an action.
Rossman: Just to be sure, your not talking about a change to the text to the
Comprehensive Plan. Your talking about a change and amendment to the land use
map component to the Comprehensive Plan.
Durkin: That’s my understanding it actually would require both.
Rossman: I don’t think there are any cases that have been decided on that interpreting
that provision but my literal reading that provision would indicate the Commission may
only recommend amendments to land use map component of the Comprehensive Plan
no more frequently than once every six months. You can make textual changes but
land use map components can only be done once every six months.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Can I ask the City Attorney a question?
MacCoy: Sure go ahead.
De Weerd: Would that mean once we vote on, once we take action on any of these,
that six months begins. Not at the point where the governing body decides on it.
Rossman: Yes. It does refer to Commission action. It is talking about
recommendations by the Commission to the City Council. The Planning and Zoning
Commission may only recommend amendments to the land use map component of a
Comprehensive Plan no more frequently than once every 6 months.
De Weerd: So does that mean if we took action on this tonight to be packaged with the
other ones in September, we are all ready starting the 6 month period by doing that.
Rossman: My literal interpretation of that is if you take action and recommend an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan the land use map component of the
Comprehensive Plan which is being requested, you can’t make another request or
recommendation to the City Council for 6 months.
De Weerd: So we could not do anything official until we hear all of them if we want to
hear all of them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 32
Rossman: You can’t make a recommendation to City Council until your ready to wait
another 6 months to make a further recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to reflect the land use component.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MacCoy: You look at what Shari talked about earlier about the timing. This was looked
at because she is running the leader on the Comprehensive Plan work or amendment
and in order to take of all the ones she knows that is coming in they set a date so first to
receive then versus review and then it would all go out the same time so we’d have a
starting date like a gun goes off at a race. We don’t think, by looking at the time scale,
was what Durkin talks about here, by the time we get through that (inaudible) we’ll still
be completing the final draft for our Comprehensive Plan. We are fitting it into a
calendar situation where we try to work that everything gets done in right step and we
don’t hold everything up.
Rossman: Then there certainly should be some consideration for the fact of Mr.
Dakota’s particular development of this case. Obviously, it is going to impose some
problems on their development, but you have to take into consideration of the statute
that ties your hands so to speak, so you do have to take into consideration these other
applications in deciding whether or not your going to take action or make a
recommendation at this point on this application.
MacCoy: Correct.
Durkin: The other option that may be available to is to approve this tonight and make a
motion that it is approved to be included with your mountain of recommendations up or
down at a later date.
Rossman: But can they do that under the literal reading that statute where it says they
may only recommend approval once every six months on an amendment the land use
component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Durkin: But they wouldn’t be sending that recommendation or making that
recommendation until a later date, but it would end the testimony portion of it and the
hearing portion of it. This part of the exercise. The option that is available to the city is
to make a recommendation or to have a motion that they approve it but do not make the
recommendation until they make all of the other recommendations at a later date. I
think what your going to face is a night of –you’ll go around the clock for 24 or 36
hours.
Rossman: How does that benefit your application Mr. Durkin? I mean, obviously
nothing takes effect until City Council takes action. Planning and Zoning Commission’s
recommendations merely recommendations Planning and Zoning’s decision that they
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 33
thing they will approve this application at some point is merely that. Until City Council
actually takes action on it how does that benefit you and your application?
Durkin: It benefits us in our application in that we can continue with other critical
phases of our planning, both with neighborhood input and planning for the building.
Getting a design. Meeting with architects. It triggers an awful lot of things that take a
great deal of time. I think—
Rossman: But as we’ve see in the last few weeks or last few meetings, City Council
doesn’t always agree with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning Commission. Is
that really something you can rely upon.
Durkin: I think that that’s safe if that occurs in many different cities but it is something
that obviously my risk to rely on, but I certainly would feel comfortable relying on that.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. I think may be what Mr. Durkin is saying we could close the
public hearing and table it until –which would save us a whole another public hearing
the same time we are going to have a whole list of others.
MacCoy: That’s what I think I hear (inaudible) working that street. We continue tonight
as a special meeting to hear the documentation and all said about this item here. We
are going to continue to do these with other ones, so when the time belt comes up, we
have already taken care of your operation here and they are going to come back in the
same order we’ve got them here. You could step up that night and say we’ve all ready
made our statements and were---
Borup: I am saying if we close the public hearing there’s—we don’t have to take any
other statements.
MacCoy: Well that’s true, but that maybe is not a good thing to do because many by
the time September comes around, maybe he would want to make some more
statements.
Borup: Let me ask Eric something. Can we vote on an item and not send it to City
Council till later date.
Rossman: I don’t see anything in the Meridian City Ordinance. I am not aware of
anything under state law. On the other hand I guess there is nothing in there that would
preclude you from doing that. It would set a new precedent in this jurisdiction. I don’t
think it’s ever been done, but I can’t tell you that It can’t be done either. I think what Mr.
Durkin is referring to is that you make a decision and make a vote that you are going to
recommend approval of this application but you don’t send the recommendation
through for until you are ready to send all of them through. Once again, it would take a
legal interpretation of the statute as to whether or not a decision or action approving--
that you are going to recommend approval –if that is a point of time that triggers the 6
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 34
month requirement or whether it is actually sent through to the City Council. I can’t tell
you that what with the reading of the statute.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. I do have (inaudible) a couple other attorney’s if you would
like—
Rossman: You’ve consulted with other attorney’s?
(Inaudible)
Borup: This is Mason and Harrington. I think their comment agrees with what Eric said
that it repeats the same thing. What they are saying is that the planning commission is
limited to recommend changes to the governing board no more frequently than every 6
months. Our recommendation to City Council according to their interpretation is a 6
month limit, which doesn’t prevent us from having testimony and public hearings. It’s
just that the recommendation is limited to that 6 month period.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman, may I make a request. We’ve been going here for since 6
o’clock and I would like, you have the benefit of talking to your attorney. I happen to
have mine with me. I’d like to ask if we could take about a 10 minute break. I just want
to ask him a question. This is tricky.
MacCoy: All right. Lets do that. We will be back here at (inaudible).
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have one comment to make so he can talk with his
attorney about it. If we look at interpretations and there is references as to what other
cities do, other cities only look at amending their Comprehensive Plans twice a year and
they have specific dates or months they take that action. Which seems fair to me and it
is something this city needs to incorporate within its procedures. I think one thing that
your application and JUB’s application did that staff has been trying to put off till our
Comprehensive Plan has been updated and once your applications came on to our
agenda everyone else said hey you know, we’ve been delaying this. We want our
chance too. They are also aware of the time frame, so I think that we also need to be
sensitive to those things as well.
MacCoy: I could use a break. Back at 8:30
MacCoy: It is about 8:35 p.m. We are going to reconvene right now and when we left
here a few moments ago. What do you want to say now.
Durkin: I would like to ask if it would be all right if Kemer Green just addressed a couple
of issues on that statute. He has a way to put it into words that are—make for sense
then what I am trying to say. I know what I am trying to say.
Green: Mr. Chairman, member of the Commission, Mr. Rossman. Kemer Green,
attorney. Boise, Idaho. Address 1505 Tyrell 83702. I appreciate the process and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 35
watching all the hard work that you do. I represent a lot of school boards and they like
you spend a lot of time and a lot of hours and the community owes you a lot. I really
enjoy watching this. You also have good Counsel, and I don’t mean to be trying in any
way to not recognize that. I just wanted to add my opinion and my thought to Mr.
Rossman’s thoughts. It’s my opinion after reading the 67-6509 which is the statute that
deals with this Comprehensive Plan change that the decision, your making the decision
to approve or eventually recommend, can’t be the trigger mechanism that sets you off
on another six month waiting period. Obviously, you have a lot of matters that are
coming before you. If that would be true, then the first one you would vote on would
stop or preclude the other applications from being acted on if you interpret the rule that
way. The statute is pretty clear as Mr. Rossman pointed out. You can make an
application to the Commission at any time and I think that what that envisions is—these
are time consuming matters as you well know more than anyone else. It envisions the
Commission being able to field these applications as they come in. To be able to deal
with them and go through the testimony and evidence and the time consuming function
that you have and then being able to accumulate those and package them—send you
recommendation on to the City Council for final review and ultimately perhaps, a
second hearing of material for that process. I think it is kind of clear that the drafters of
the statute did not want the City Council to have to face one or a borage of requested
changes or recommended changes in the Comprehensive Plan on a monthly basis or at
every meeting that they meet. They want to be considered twice a year. It would
appear to me that this allows you to in an orderly matter go about your work. Take the
time and put in the effort necessary to hear these things out. Give everybody a chance
to speak their piece. Make you decisions and accumulate them and make
recommendations twice a year. The advantage to the (you asked about advantage)
Commissioner Borup, the advantage to the applicant is that you can come before this
body. You can prepare. You can make your maps and get your handouts and decide
what it is that you want to say and get it over with. Answer and field the questions from
patrons and from the Commission and whatever. The advantage to you is that you can
take these things in an orderly manner, can consider them, make your initial decisions
to approve and be done with that matter and move on to the next one. I can’t imagine
depending on the number of applications you have what it would be like on the last
night ,if you had to make final decisions on all of them at that time. It doesn’t make any
sense that you would be able to vote on them all at once because some of them your
going to recommend and perhaps some of them you are not going to recommend. You
have to consider them individually. There is advantages to both sides and that is my
interpretation of what the statute means and perhaps how it should be interpreted.
MacCoy: Thank you very much. Mr. Durkin do you have anything else you want to
add.
Durkin: Well, again I appreciate your time on this matter and again I am ready to
answer any questions, but this particular phase is one we would like to conclude.
MacCoy: Commissioners, any questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 36
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Only to the city attorney on what his interpretation would be.
Rossman: You had to do that to me…this is a new statute. I certainly don’t profess to
be the ultimate authority on the statute. What I gave you earlier was really my review
based upon my review for the first time during this hearing, just as Kemer did. My
understanding from reading the language of that statute and what it means. Kemer
raised an interesting point and that is that if you can only do it twice a year and your
getting all these Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals, throughout the year, and
you can’t act on them immediately. You have to table them and act on them all at the
same time, in a city such as Meridian where there is very high activity in
Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals, a lot of development that could complicate
things for the Commission and that they have to pile all these on at once. My concern
though from reading the statute is that it refers to the fact that the Planning and Zoning
Commission may only recommend –make a recommendation on the land use map
portions of a Comprehensive Plan once every six months. Our practice, our ordinance,
the history of practice for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission has been to
make a recommendation, make a vote here at the bench, make a decision as to
whether they are going to recommend approval or recommend denial of a application
and that that is all the further action they are taking. It is not brought back another
month later for them to review a recommendation and there is no further action. My
concern is that by making a motion to recommend approval at this point, but not send
the approval through until a later date, you may run into some –I don’t know the actual
answer to that but you may –there is a potential for some legal complication. If
someone were to come in and attack and say that that action by the Commission from
the bench on July 29, 1999, was in fact the recommendation of approval and it is not in
fact when it is sent through to City Council. It was actually the action taken at the time
of the public hearing. That is my concern. I can’t tell you until we get a court
interpretation of it. I can’t tell you what the answer is entirely. All I can say is there are
legal concerns by making a decision to recommend approval at this date and send it
through later. My recommendation is that –and I am not sure that it provides Mr. Durkin
with really any security that in fact his application is going to be approved. If this
Commission recommends approval, it’s the ( inaudible) by City Council. They can
decide whether they want to deny it or approve it and certainly whether you have
recommended approval or denial is not something they are bound to or even own
deference to. My recommendation is that you take action on whether you want to close
the public hearing today or continue the public hearing. If you choose to close the
public hearing today, I would recommend you table final action on this particular
application until your prepared to take final action on all requests for amendment of the
conditional use or the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. Did you get all
that?
MacCoy: Yes. All right Commissioners. Having heard from the—
Borup: Mr. Rossman was talking Mr. Chairman. I don’t know whether to bring this up,
but I did have one other thought. Until not that many months ago we use to prepare the
Findings here..
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 37
Rossman: And City Council decided they rather not.
Borup: That is the third solution. Make a vote to prepare the Findings and then don’t
have to vote on the Findings until whatever date—do we? Can’t we table the vote on
the Findings until any time?
Rossman: All you can do is –you can’t – and the reason we changed the procedure
that was adopted before is Meridian City Code is set up so that City Council takes final
action on all these applications. There is no reason for Planning and Zoning
Commission to be preparing Findings if in fact they are not going to be taking final
action. All they are doing is making recommendations. I don’t know about Findings.
You certainly could say that we move the City Attorney prepare recommendation to be
approved by us at a subsequent hearing, written recommendation. I still must say that
there is a concern that that action that your taking from the bench at the public hearing
is in fact the action of recommending approval. If you are going to do it, I would
certainly favor the approach that Commissioner Borup just indicated that you
recommend a review and approval of a written recommendation be sent up to City
Council. I still have concerns. If someone were to challenge and say that that in fact
was the action –someone that disagrees with one of the other applications for an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, it certainly invites a challenge by them to come
in and say that we acted twice within 6 months.
Borup: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rossman. Your saying the safest would be close the public
hearing and delay the final vote.
Rossman: Table final vote.
Borup: Thank you.
De Weerd: (Inaudible)
MacCoy: Okay. What are you going to do? We know what he is going to be saying to
us.
Durkin: I think the City Attorney just really hit it on the head. But really what we are
asking for is a motion that would be for approval for us for subsequent
recommendation or future recommendation to Council. You put that in you
recommendation stack, but if the motion is clear that your generally in favor of it , that
would (inaudible) the public hearing portion down and when in the future you send a big
stack, this would be in the yes stack. I think next month when you get to have a
meeting on another issue, you can take the same approach, either yes or no. What we
are asking for is –would be a motion that would be a motion in favor of approval for
subsequent or future recommendation to the Council.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 38
Rossman: I might add one comment and that certainly may not be what Mr. Durkin
would want to hear, but I think with a new statute like this, with a new provision like this,
the Commission and action that they take on this particular application, would have
presidential value. If you are going to take the action on this application, you need to be
prepared that that be your policy. If other applications for conditional use or for
Comprehensive Plan amendment come before you, you better be prepared to consider
taking the same action that you took here. It involves the scope of your decision
extends beyond this particular application.
Borup: Just on other comment along that same line. This is as far as I know, in 6 years
we had one Comprehensive Plan application half a year or so ago, and then this group
now. That has been it.
MacCoy: You mean for ask us to do that?
Borup: Yeah. Is that correct?
MacCoy: I think about right and we turned that on down.
Borup: So I guess what I am saying that this is unique for us. We have not had any –
and I think that this probably means that we do need a written policy. I hope what we
do here won’t necessarily setting that policy, but we will have a chance to decide what
we want that policy to be.
Rossman: I don’t know. With the potential for litigation relating to an alleged violation
of that statute or the spirit of the statute or whatever, I think that my preference would
be that that be a if a policy is adopted, it be a policy that is thoroughly considered by
both the Commission and the City Council and that perhaps even formalized into a
written policy or ordinance that would indicate how these would be handled.
Borup: The only other comment I have is as we have done on this other, would it be
appropriate to heard Item 4 before we—and then discuss all these we’ve
MacCoy: (Inaudible) have to do it because I am –2 and 3 and 4 are all related. We put
Item 1 off till the end of the meeting any way. It doesn’t fall into the same category,
stands on it’s own, but the other three belong together. They have to be together
according to legal standpoint.
Borup: So do we need a motion to continue that?
MacCoy: Just like you did number 2.
Borup: I move we continued Item 3 to end of meeting after Item 2.
Rossman: That’s correct.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 39
De Weerd: I would second that.
MacCoy: All in favor. Three have it. Thank you sir.
ITEM 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 13.09
ACRES (ZONED C-C) BY DEVELOPER DIVERSIFIED REALTY CORP.—4000 E.
FAIRVIEW, ½ MILE EAST OF EAGLE ROAD:
MacCoy: Shari, where are you? Okay, we’ll move on to the applicant.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. I live at 380 E. Park Center Blvd., Boise, ID, Ste.
100. Actually I don’t live there. That is my office. I feel like I live there. Thank you for
hearing our application for annexation and zoning. I have to just tell you. I have these
new glasses. I went to these trifocals and it is difficult for me to read later in the
evening. I think we have covered everything pretty clearly. The annexation doesn’t
work well with out the Comprehensive Plan change and –but to take a second with the
last exhibit against the board. So that the Commissioner’s and the public are clear of
what we are trying to do. We are trying to complete the annexation of this piece of
property right here. That piece of property then would be incorporated into this property
which would then look like this and that would all be incorporated into the property we
now refer to as Meridian Crossroads. We have completed our traffic study. On the
project with the development that we are doing has very minimal traffic impacts with the
plan that we have presented and submitted. The landscaping and design will all be
consistent with the rest of the shopping center and blend together. I could go on and on
and on, but I think everyone has a pretty good idea of what we are trying to do and I will
happily answer any questions relating to that annexation.
MacCoy: Anybody in the audience like to make a comment on this right now, pro or
con. Seeing none, Commissioner’s.
Borup: This is just a minor questions, but I’ve got all kinds of sizes on my paperwork.
13.9, 12.3, then there is another on in here too. I don’t know how critical that is. I was
just wondering why annexation property size different than the Comprehensive Plan
property size.
Durkin: It should be the same. The Comprehensive Plan amendment and the
annexation area are 13.9 acres.
MacCoy: For annexation, yes. 12.3 (inaudible).
Durkin: And then the zoning parcel was –
Borup: 12.3 on our paperwork, but—unless that was a typo.
Durkin: Our measurements are 11.4. I think the 12.3 might be prior to the relocation of
Records Drive. It might be (inaudible) legal description of it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 40
MacCoy: Okay. Your 13.09.
(Inaudible)
Durkin: I want (inaudible) on the record on a couple points, also.
END OF SIDE 3
Durkin: The parcel shown again are the staff comments that it would be an illegal split
of the property. Any action taken tonight would not result in an illegal split. Your action
would have to require us to go through that process which we volunteered to do. We
can’t go through that process until we get through this. Those comments would be the
same. The last comment by staff, any consideration of annexation and zoning should
require development as a planned development under the conditional use process and
specific requirements included in the development agreement and we asked for that on
our application and we are on record with the agreement then. That is it.
MacCoy: Anything else for him? All right.
Borup: Ready to move on.
MacCoy: Yes, I am too. So are you ready to make some decisions.
Borup: We’ve got two choices—well we’ve got more than that. I think we need to close
the public hearing or maybe before we do that have some open discussion. We need
some discussion here at some point anyway. The question is, do we want to do it
before or after we close the public hearing? Any thoughts from the other
Commissioners?
De Weerd: I can never remember if we can discuss after a public hearing is closed or
not.
Rossman: My thought are that obviously the rezone or the annexation and zoning
application is certainly dependent upon your decision on the Comprehensive Plan. If
you table your decision on the Comprehensive Plan, or continued the public hearing on
the Comprehensive Plan until the end of tonight’s meeting, you probably should
continue Item 4 until after you make that determination on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
Borup: Yes, I intended that. I am ready to go back to number—
Rossman: Number 1 and start going.
MacCoy: You want to do that at this point, okay.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 41
Borup: My only question was, do we do it without closing the public hearing?
MacCoy; Yeah, we’re going to do it.
Borup: Sometimes that is saver –then we don’t have to reopen the public hearing if a
question comes up. Hopefully we’ve got all the questions answered at this point.
MacCoy: Well, Item 1—do you want to continue the public hearing? I think that is
appropriate situation.
De Weerd: We are still on Item 4.
(Inaudible)
Borup: I move we continue Item 4 to follow Item 3 at the end of the meeting which we
are there now.
De Weerd: Second the motion.
MacCoy: Okay. All in favor? All ayes have it. Three of them. Now we go back to 1.
It’s a continued public hearing as it stands.
Rossman: If I may make a comment on number 1. What we did earlier was continue
the public hearing until the end of the meeting tonight. Your faced with the same
decision as you are with items 2, 3 and 4 and that is, do you want to continue the public
hearing until September 29th
or do you want to close the public hearing and table your
decision until September 29th
. I think that is the real question on all of these.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. On Item Number 1, move to continue the public hearing for
the request for Comprehensive Plan amendment by JUB Engineers to—
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: I thought it was the 30th
. To September 30th
. That was a motion.
MacCoy: Okay does that meet your time scale?
De Weerd: Continue the public hearing.
MacCoy: Okay. Does everybody understand the motion? Okay.
De Weerd: My motion was to continue the public hearing for Item Number 1 for the
request for Comprehensive Plan amendment by JUB engineers to September 30th
and
the meeting will start, do we need to state a start time of the meeting? The meeting to
begin at 6:30p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 42
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
MacCoy: Okay. There is a first and a second. Okay. Any discussion?
Borup: Yes, I do. I want not sure how I felt on that. I think the question, at least in my
mind for us to ask is, the choice here is leave it RT and I guess perpetually in the
County till something else happen, so go with their request for a mixed use. If we don’t
agree with the mixed use then what would we want to see there. Even if we approve
the application for mixed use, they still need to go through a plat application of approval
and a conditional use and everything else that needs to take place. There is plenty
opportunity for public testimony at that point. If we went ahead and approved this as
mixed use, are we obligating us to anything specific? Staff have any comment on that.
MacCoy: Let me take this over to Shari.
Stiles: I guess the only problem I would have is the indication was given to the public
that is was going to be continued to September.
De Weerd: That is my point too.
Borup: Okay.
Rossman: And I would have the same concerns as I expressed earlier with regards to
the Dakota application. From a legal standpoint I still think we need –
Borup: Yeah, we’d still be in the same situation. I don’t know. Maybe I am speaking
ahead to next time so we don’t have to go through this same thought process then. I
think we’ve got a shorter meeting tonight then we are going to have on the 30th
. That
would be my thought. They still have to go through (inaudible) and everything else at
that time, which would be plenty of opportunity to –
MacCoy: What you’ve done – you’ve continued the public hearing as what is stated
right here.
Borup: My thought is, if this isn’t appropriate, I guess someone should decide what is.
Your not going to have large lot single family residential on a state highway as busy as
that. No one is going to live there. I don’t think the people who testified tonight would
buy a home in a project like that.
MacCoy: You know, I‘ve got the feeling that JUB are going to go back and talk to
people and may come up with a whole different plan. I don’t see where you should sit
here and worry about they are going to have businesses and houses and so on. We
don’t even know.
Borup: That ‘s what I’m saying. That is not going to come till later and they will have
plenty of opportunity to do that, so I don’t know and again—that’s all.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 43
De Weerd: I will stand by my motion.
Rossman: That is a point to be made though. You heard a lot of testimony about the
particular pictures that were put up on the board here today on the JUB application.
You really need to keep in mind your not deciding whether or not what you saw there on
the board today is what you want. What your to decide is whether that area is
appropriate for mixed use Comprehensive Plan designation rather than what it currently
has. Irregardless of what they actually end up with, your question is whether that is
appropriate for mixed use.
De Weerd: However, testimony still can be requested new testimony only at that
meeting. Just move forward tonight. I stand by my motion.
MacCoy: Okay. Any more discussion? No more questions, all right. The vote. All in
favor. Three voting eyes, since Tom came back on the stand again.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: Moving on to Item 2. Tom is now leaving the stage again. What ‘s the
decision on Item 2.
Borup: I guess one point to be made is perhaps Mr. Durkin’s request we jump to Item
number 3 because I don’t think he wants a rezone if he’s not going to get a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. At this point I think we would be smarter to jump to
number 3.
MacCoy: Okay. Your want to do that next. Okay. Item number 3.
De Weerd: Do you need a motion or anything?
Rossman: No, just go to number 3.
MacCoy: We’re not losing number 2 we are just moving down and we will come back to
number 2.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor? Three ayes. Discussion?
Borup: Looking at the project, it is definitely a candidate, in my mind, for
Comprehensive Plan change. I don’t know what else your going to do with that
property. It's between the shopping center and cemetery on Fairview Avenue. There is
not going to be any other use there besides commercial. Any other commercial going
in is going to need separate access. The advantage of combining with this property is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 44
the access point is already there off Records. It is not going to be creating any new
entrance exit points. It makes a lot of sense to me to combine it with the existing
project that is there.
MacCoy: Okay. Any other discussion?
De Weerd: I think is says it all.
MacCoy: What’s you plan for this one?
De Weerd: We have to listen to our attorney.
Rossman: I guess I would say it this way. If your intention is to give an indication of
approval at least, my preference would be that you move to instruct City Council to
prepare a written recommendation of approval to be reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission on September 30th
. I think that will do the trick, if that is what you
want to do.
Borup: City Council can do that without us (inaudible)
Rossman: No. What I am saying is you come back on September 30th
and I provide
you with written recommendation for approval. You review it and approve it and if is
says what you want it to say, we send it to City Council with all the other ones.
Borup: Okay. I though you said instruct City Council to do a review.
Rossman: City Attorney.
MacCoy: All right now. What do I hear.
Borup: I move we have the City Attorney prepare a recommendation for approval of
(inaudible) Comprehensive Plan change for us to be reviewed at our September 30th
meeting. That’s my motion.
MacCoy: I am waiting for a second.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Tammy asked if there should be some other conditions and I was thinking of
that but thought –
MacCoy: This is a Comprehensive Plan, right.
Borup: This is a Comprehensive Plan change. There is no condition—I don’t know if
we can put any conditions on that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 45
Rossman: No. Your not going to put any conditions on a Comprehensive Plan change.
De Weerd: That is not my question.
Rossman: A development agreement, annexation and zoning and rezone you might
want some conditions on, but not the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
De Weerd: That was not my question. I just said Mr. Attorney. You jumped to a
conclusion. Do you feel comfortable with that motion?
Rossman: Well, my legal opinion is on the record and I certainly don’t stray from that at
this point. I think it needs further consideration by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and by City Council before we set any precedence in that particular area.
Like I said, you guys don’t always take my advice. If your not going to take my advice, I
prefer you handle it in the manner I just indicated.
Borup: Wasn’t my motion following your advice?
Rossman: No. My preference was that –to avoid any question of concern is that you
close the public hearing and that you table a decision on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment until September 30th
.
MacCoy: We all ready closed the public hearing.
Rossman: The actual recommendation or decision to recommend is not done until
September 30th
as opposed to July 29th
.
Borup: We don’t have a second on that motion.
MacCoy: No we don’t so it dies and we make a new motion.
De Weerd: That would also compromise the JUB and they could come back and
challenge.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we table our action recommending approval
(inaudible) Comprehensive Plan change –Let try again. I recommend we table the
Comprehensive Plan change until September 30th
meeting.
Rossman: I think the public hearing has been closed, right.
MacCoy: Yes it is. I still don’t hear a second.
De Weerd: Well, you can second. I’ll second it.
MacCoy: All in favor? All three ayes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 46
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MacCoy: Go back to number 2 now. Four, four should go next .
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor. Three ayes have it. All right. What is the decision?
Rossman: In light of number 3, I think you have to take the same action on 2 and 4.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I move that we table the request for annexation and zoning
of the 13.09 acres by DDRC.
Rossman: Have we closed the public hearing?
MacCoy: Yes we did.
De Weerd: And table that until September 30th
.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor? Three ayes have it. Up to Item 2, which is the
rezone.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor. Three ayes have it. What is the decision?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I move we table the request for rezone at 11.4 acres by
DDRC until September 30th
.
Borup: What I am thinking is, do we want to have some kind of reminder to add the
conditional use language and development agreement and that would just be done.
We all will remember that next time. I second that.
MacCoy: Any discussion? All in favor? Three ayes have it. That closes Item 1,2,3
and 4.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 47
MacCoy: Thank you gentlemen.
(Inaudible audience discussion)
ITEM 5. DISCUSSION/VOTING OF CHAIRMAN-PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION ONE TERM ANNUAL VOTE.
MacCoy: We have not got a fourth member. I am not sure when that is going to take
place. That is a mayor/Council situation, not ours. I am not in the running so that
leaves (Tom are you in the running).
Barbeiro: I would like to know the process.
MacCoy: Well we have a secret ballot—if it works out that way. If everybody says, yes
I am in, we will have that secret ballot. If most everybody says no, we just work it out. I
am just asking you your intention. Do you want to be –do you want to run for the
Chairmanship.
Barbeiro: If the set up is such that—as you and I discussed before—that we would first
have a Chairman, then a Vice Chairman at the Chairmanship would run from—say
August 1st
to August 1st
.
Mac Coy: We are on that now. We are on a one year for chair.
Barbeiro: And then you would elect a chair and elect a vice chairman and the vice
chairman would take chairman’s position the following year.
MacCoy: That is what Gigray talked to us and gave us a documents a year ago which
we are now living off of. We did not go into second work shop on that to finalize that, so
what I am saying is, now, unless someone has a different opinion, that the new chair
can carry that out and have a work shop (inaudible). I don’t think the out going chair
should have that responsibility.
Rossman: Hopefully, we are not going to decide that today—whether or not there is
going to be a vice chairman.
MacCoy: No.
Rossman: I think we are deciding whether or not someone wants to run for chairman
and if so address that issue.
MacCoy: It goes to the new chair that has to make the next move on that.
De Weerd: Well then Mr. Chairman, I like to nominate Keith Borup.
MacCoy: Are you in the running, by the way?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 48
De Weerd: I’m not.
MacCoy: Okay. Let me get back to Tom before you go any further. Are you in the
running.
Barbeiro: No, I am not. Thank you.
MacCoy: Well that means we’ll not have to do a secret ballot—I am in favor of Keith
running for chair and so since there is three of us—only three of us here and we all
have the same thing. Mr. Borup, you in acceptance of this?
Borup: Yes, I would accept that.
MacCoy: Very good. Thank you. Next year, starting in August, right away he becomes
the new chair for one year based on our recent past policy. Everybody in agreement.
Borup: Maybe we did not get it in writing but I think that was we did vote on for one
year.
MacCoy: Yeah, we did that a year ago.
De Weerd: So do we need to make an official vote on that?
Rossman: Yes, I believe so.
MacCoy: Yeah, I would think so. Having the new Chairman for the Planning and
Zoning for the year 1999-2000 for one year will be Keith Borup. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MacCoy: We will do it by the pole. In case of any negatives. For the record: Mrs. De
Weerd?
De Weerd: Aye.
MacCoy: She says Aye. Tom what do you have?
Barbeiro: Aye.
MacCoy: Malcolm MacCoy says aye. That is three. Three takes it and Keith Borup,
you can have a vote if you want to. It does not make much difference at this point.
Borup: Do it doesn’t, but I vote aye.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 49
MacCoy: Okay, so it is a unanimous vote for new Chair to be Keith Borup for the next
year. All right. Oh Charlie. I’ve got to go get Charlie. On my agenda, before you do
that—go ahead Charlie I’ll got something else, but I’ll do that—
ITEM 6. CHARLIE ROUNTREE – CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT ADDRESS
COMMENTS & ISSUES:
Rountree: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you for working me into you agenda
this evening. Sounds like you have had some fun.
De Weerd: We always have fun.
Rountree: I am here tonight to go on record to provide some clarification of statements
that City Council has been made aware of and has (inaudible) in the minutes yet to be
adopted of the Planning and Zoning Commission of July 13th
. There are some points
that were (inaudible) some statements that were made as it related to Council’s
position. And, in fact the Council’s position’s are not consistent with the statements
made. So, not to (inaudible) this, what I would like to do is get on the record the places,
the points and whether or not the City Council had taken a position on this particular
items. I have a point of reference a complete copy of the Minutes and I will refer to the
page. I will refer to the individual making the statements as they reflect in the minutes
and the (inaudible) where the comment is made and whether or not it is a true reflection
on what the Council’s position is. My first comment would by on page 42. Near the
bottom of the page in the discussion with Chairman MacCoy. It would be the third to the
last sentence starting, “We as a Commission, this one on our Council as well as the
Mayor, we’ve been trying to discourage anything like trucking operation, but more like
John Deere”. I think in this particular matter the City Council has taken the position on
Overland Road which is the referenced area here, that we discouraged 24-hour a day
operations, as related to trucking operations, but not necessarily discouraged any
particular operation. That is on record and that is in fact the decision that the City
Council has made. By the way, I have at least two council members here tonight at the
doors and I don’t know if they are playing guards or what (inaudible). They can jump up
and down, but my representation tonight is for the Council as Council President. On
page (inaudible) starting with Item 17, the first paragraph, again Chairman MacCoy.
This was in the discussion about Byron Smith, would be the fourth line starting “Mayor,
and the Council had their discussion with attorney’s and they had this thing settled a
week ago.” In fact the Council has had no discussion about any action of any Planning
and Zoning member. To my knowledge, there may have been some reflections
individually, but as a Council and as a discussion and as a decision, there have been
none, so that comment for your information and from the Council in your deliberations
of your minutes, is not correct. At the bottom of that paragraph, (inaudible) 16, it says
“that the Mayor and the Council were going to settle this situation” and in fact the
Council again has had no discussion on the situation as it related to Commissioner
Smith. And “that it was out of your hands and it’s all ready been determined” –if that’s a
reference to the Council, it should not be referring to the Council. I can’t tell by the
language here if that was the case. Again, the Council has not made any determination
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 50
or even had a discussion about whatever the situation might have been with
Commissioner Smith. On page 70, paragraph in the middle, again Chairman MacCoy’s
discussion—on line 7 of that—7,8,9,10 and 11. “It was a game plan put together. They,
the Mayor listened to the tape from all our meetings. Council supposedly, I don’t know if
all of their were there or not.” Excuse me for this. This is what’s said. I’m not
misspeaking, for the record. I reading what’s here. “But he said he and the Council
listened to it. The (inaudible) finished Cobblestone 2 for 2 – 2 for and 2 against. The
Mayor made the decision. That was an arrangement.” For the record, there was no
discussion of this particular agenda item as relating to Cobblestone, amongst any of the
Council members. There wasn’t (inaudible) public record at the City Council meeting.
The Council had no game plan put together as related to that. There were no
arrangements. I believe that a review, and I think you all have reviewed or can review
the minutes of that particular discussion. I think everybody was pretty forward and
forthright, and voted their minds and hearts in this particular thing. It just happened that
2 of us were for and 2 of us against. So, the reflection here is not correct. On page
(inaudible) at the bottom of the page, Chairman MacCoy, second (inaudible) “They had
had the meeting with the Council and they say they don’t have any power.” Council has
not met with City Attorney Gigray or the Mayor as it relates to powers the Planning and
Zoning Commission has or hasn’t. I believe, and the City Councilmen here tonight,
could probably correct me if I am wrong, but City Council views the work that you folks
so is extremely important. We review you as an independent body. We hope that’s
how it remains. You do a lot of work for the City and you make our jobs often much
easier and we really appreciate that. As it relates to power, your power is in the ability
to collect testimony and craft reason to recommendations to the City Council based on
the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s Ordinances. You do not make decisions and I
think you all recognize that. You do make decisions about what your recommendations
are going to reflect. Again, we view that as very important. (Inaudible) not had that
discussion. On page 72, top of the page, Chairman MacCoy lines 3 and 4. “They was
to be a meeting. He doesn’t know about it. That would be the Mayor and the Council
and I think he figured etc, etc.” Again, this paragraph relates to the on goings with
Commissioner Smith. To my knowledge, as Council President, and I don’t believe any
other City Councilmen are aware of any meeting that was arranged or going to be held
as it related to the resignation or the actions related to Commissioner Smith. Same
page, near the bottom. Chairman MacCoy, lines 4 and 5. “We had the Council and us
there at the meeting and we weren’t planning to have another 16 years like Johnson
went through.” I am trying to reflect back what that might have been. I can’t relate that
to any particular meeting that I can recall. It may have been several years ago.
MacCoy: That was last years workshop.
Borup: Yes that was early last year. Workshop about May or June.
MacCoy: Yeah. Gigray was there. In fact he conducted that meeting.
De Weerd: But I believe it was just P&Z.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 51
MacCoy: Yes it was. P&Z.
Borup: Right. (inaudible)
Rountree: My recollection is that the Council was not part of that discussion. Page 75,
top middle page, Chairman MacCoy. Second line. “That the Council is out of some
place decided they want to take over recommending signs and I say no way. They
have no concept and I know this for a fact because I’ve talked to the Council members
on this.” This particular Councilman, I don’t know the other Councilman, are particularly
interested in a sign ordinance. That sign ordinance we believe should be a product of
Planning and Zoning’s efforts with the community, including the citizens as well as
businesses that utilize signage as well as people in the business of signage, would not
indicated at any point of time that we want to go out and craft that ordinance. We
respect and desire that that would be brought to us with a caveat that would get that
kind of involvement in the process, and without that we probably would be in a position
to maybe want to go back and at least get those steak holders involved in the process.
As far as the Council Members knowing about signage, I think at least a couple of us
did (inaudible) on planning and zoning and been around for a while and know the
difficulty we all have and had have and continue to have with signs, as a result with our
less than adequate sign ordinance. I think we do know the situation. Again, we
appreciate what you go through. You appreciate what we go through, but we have to
get this together and get done with it. That’s the Council’s position. I don’t think the
Council in any way shape or form wants to take signs and run with them. That
concludes my comments. Again, they were for the record. I would hope that when you
take action on your minutes that you would reflect in your action that the City Council
has provided information as it relates to comments that were made that reflected on
positions of the Council and they have been corrected by the Council President and the
record clearly reflect that –what the City Council’s position really is. With that, I know
you folks have a workshop tonight and I know it has to do with signs and one of those
other bothersome things that we all dear with, so I wish you well and I appreciate the
long evening you have before you. I am going to go home.
Barbeiro: Council President Rountree, I’d like to clarify a point. The line on page 70.
The Mayor listened to the tape from our meeting. Did you or the Mayor or other Council
members listen to the tape of the meeting.
Rountree: The reference (inaudible) was to a meeting that was held, Planning and
Zoning’s meeting of the related –hearing on Cobblestone Apartment Complex, as near
as I can tell from that statement, and I did not listen to that. The Council did not listen to
that as a body. The Council did not discuss that tape as a body. Council did not
discuss any action of any particular Planning and Zoning Commissioner as it related to
that particular activity. You have to ask each individual Councilman if they have had an
opportunity since to review that tape. But I (inaudible) of time. At least the three of us
that are hear this evening, and I am not going to speak for Ron, but I would suspect that
he is in the same situation—had not reviewed the tape. I have not reviewed the tape
yet.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 52
Rossman: Let me put on the record Assistant City Council at least, City Attorney that
there is nothing under Idaho Law or case law or statutory law whatsoever that would
prevent a particular Council member from listening to a tape of a planning and zoning
hearing. There may be a concern if they listen as a group, as a quorum, but an
individual listening to a tape is certainly not a violation of any law that I am aware of.
Rountree: I hope anybody wasn’t concerned about that. It’s a public record. As a
citizen, anybody can either listen to the tape or get the transcribed document as
approved by you all, once it is official.
MacCoy: Charlie, I personally thank you for doing this and I still have a meeting August
3rd
when the Mayor (inaudible) and a lot of us pertains to discussion with the Mayor in a
closed office and also, just one other comment which I will make again on the 3rd
., that
part of the tape was a mistake from that standpoint, and that’s mine, and it was a closed
meeting with three Commissioners and nobody else, which makes no difference, except
what you did here was correct. I feel personally responsible from the standpoint that I
though the tape was off and that bothers me from the standpoint that I will be very
punctual about watching that. I did not do it and that was an on going private meeting
between Commissioners, even though it was at the end of our regular P&Z meeting.
There was no body in the house except for us at the time.
Rountree: I am not here to debate that—
MacCoy: But I think what you gave here was for the record which is what I want to
know. I was told in many cases, differently—this is the first time I have heard from you
or any of the Council members. The signage, Keith Bird and I have—
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I think we should just save this conversation for the 3rd
.
MacCoy: I am just making a comment.
De Weerd: I understand that.
MacCoy: So (inaudible) clarify in my mind some of the things that I was told, so—which
I conveyed—
Rountree: That kind of gets my parting words. At any time your confused by something
or hearsay that relfects on the Council, at least until my term is up, I am available.
Sometimes a little difficult to get. Got you message tonight Keith, but I got about the
time you started your meeting, so I figured we could talk this evening. I am available to
discuss issues and concerns you have at any time and the rest of the Council feels the
same way, so we are there.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
July 29, 1999
Page 53
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor? Turn off the tape.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 PM
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
________________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. CITY CLERK