1998 04-14MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1998
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Chairman Jim Johnson at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Johnson, Mark Nelson, Byron Smith, Malcolm
MacCoy, Keith Borup.
OTHERS PRESENT: John Prior, Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 10, 1998:
Johnson: Any additions, corrections or deletions to these minutes?
Nelson, Smith, MacCoy, Borup: None.
Johnson: Motion for approval please.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to motion approval of the March 10th
minutes as
transcribed.
MacCoy: Second.
Johnson: Motion is seconded for the minutes as written. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER (CHELSEA SQUARE) BY
TOM BEVAN -–2030 W. FAIRVIEW:
Johnson: At this time we'll ask Mr. Bevan or his representative to come forward
and address the Commission.
McKeegan: My name is Patrick McKeegan. I'm an architect representing Mr.
Bevan and his development group this evening in this matter. Do I need to be
sworn in?
Prior: Yes you do and would you state your address for the record please.
McKeegan: 218 South Cole Road, Boise, Idaho.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
McKeegan: I do.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 2
Prior: Proceed.
McKeegan: I wasn't present at the last hearing, it was my understanding that the
Commission had quite a few questions and concerns about the plot plan. We
addressed all of those concerns, including the Highway District's comments,
revised the site plan considerably so that all of the required parking is maintained
on the site without requiring access to any of the adjacent pieces of property,
we've met with Shari Stiles and Skip Voss the Fire Marshall to review the plan
that you have before you and they have given their blessing to the site
configuration. To my left, your right is a color rendering of the plan that you have.
The larger trees that are showing on that are existing trees that we're going to
make an attempt to save during construction. The smaller trees are indicated in
the darker green color and they meet the City's requirements for one three-inch
caliper tree for every 1500 square feet of parking area. The building site, the
total building area is still the same, approximately 20,000 square feet, it's broken
into two buildings however we have relocated the building in front building A so
that it is back in line with building B. The reason for doing this was to get the
required parking on the site without having access to using the property to the
west for access. In between the two buildings we've provided a courtyard and
there's going to be a clock tower that's showing in the elevations. The only
variance if you will that we're requesting is that along the west property line we
have I believe there's eight parking spaces that we're requesting that those be
compact spaces in depth only, they are going to be the full nine feet wide and
we're not requesting the minimum depth. The reason we're doing that is we're
maintaining a five-foot landscaped strip along that parking along the west
property line next to Econo Lube. Econo Lube will have a seven feet wide
landscape strip on the other side and we feel that having the compact spaces in
that location will not be a detriment because the cars will actually be able to pull
up to the curb and overhang into the landscaping a little bit because of the site
width we in that one area had to reduce the length I believe to eighteen feet
instead of the required nineteen feet or maybe it's seventeen six. We've shown
the trash enclosure relocated behind the building. We've shown the required City
street lights at the entrances, we've provided some additional lighting in the
parking areas and then we anticipate that as shown on the exterior elevations
we're going to have some light sconces that will also provide lighting at the
pedestrian walkways and other areas. We've provided, depending on the tenants
for glazing building A on the north east and west sides as well as the south side
opening onto the court and that will kind of depend on how the tenants evolve.
Building B will primarily be glazed on the north side facing the courtyard and the
west and the north side on the parking, we're anticipating those are probably
going to be a retail type use that the backside of the building which would be the
south and the east walls would be used for deliveries and access and we've
provided sidewalks and doors in those locations. As far as the architectural
design of the building, what you saw previously was more of a residential looking
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 3
building and discussing with the clients we felt that a commercial type building
would be more appropriate and we wanted to use some different materials or
different colors and textures of materials than you normally see in this
commercial type of structure. We're going with a gray (inaudible) material which
is a synthetic stucco but there's some newer materials out that actually have
stone in them so they simulate stone like materials rather than just the typical
monolithic colored materials and we're going to be going with that and as you
can tell the color Xerox's don't do justice to what we're going to be trying to do,
for some reason the gray's and the green's always get a little goofy when you
use the Xerox process but we're going with a light gray building with kind of a
dark gray band and then we're going to have kind two different colors of green
accents to accentuate the fascia band. The clock tower is going to have a
functional clock in it with a painted metal frame to act as kind of an accent and a
focal point for the center of the development. At this time I'd just like to request
that you approve our project as submitted, we've made a – we've met all the
requirements that were requested of us, I might also add that we've indicated the
extension of the utilities down Wilson Lane from the west where they pick up at
the Econo Lube property. I would also like to note at this time Econo Lube is
constructing those utilities and expect to have those done either this week or at
the end of next week so when we start our project we'll be able to pick those up
and continue forward. At this time I would just open it up for any questions you
might have and once again if you have any questions of the owner he is also
present.
Johnson: Okay thank you very much. Questions from the Commissioners?
MacCoy: I'll start it off. Looking at your layouts and (inaudible) you submitted this
last month your site lighting I only see three standards in your beginning one at
Wilson and one in the middle of a property. Is that indication or is that the total
three you're going to have?
McKeegan: The two at the driveways are the required ones, the streetlights like I
indicated, we have another one showing in the parking area and then we are
going to have lighting on the building on approximate sixteen-foot centers and
that's going to be a high light sconce on the fascia which will light in front of the
buildings. At the point that we've approved for this we're going to hire an
electrical engineer who will then do a study of the site and do the calculations to
determine if we need more lightings and obviously we're not going to leave
people out in the dark we want people to be able to see the buildings at night, we
want people to be able to come to this building and feel safe and we're going to
provided whatever lighting is prudent under the circumstances. It's not our
intention to skimp on the lighting it's not in our best interests to have people out
there tripping and putting themselves in danger. Your comment's well taken.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 4
MacCoy: Insurance is very costly. So you've taken care of my second question
that's the building face lighting because I was going to ask about did you have
planned but didn't show small standard lighting next to the parking or some place
like that but you've answered that question.
McKeegan: The large kind of triangular elements are sconce type lighting.
MacCoy: You show one trash area for building A and B, is that going to be as in
one location behind B?
McKeegan: That's correct and there's a sidewalk that connects down the east
sides of buildings A and B and again that will depend on the tenants. If we get a
tenant that's trash intensive then we'll expand that to accommodate those. If it
turns out to be more office users than retail users then they generate very little
trash but if you have something like a retail type use that is selling things that
have lots of big boxes and things like that then we'll have to adjust and again it's
not our intention to have the trash piled out behind the building in a pile, if it turns
out we need more area or a second dumpster then we'll accommodate that.
MacCoy: So the marker on your plot plan there to show where trash – that would
just be an expanded section, it would not be another trash section some place
else then.
McKeegan: We hadn't planned one at this time, we presumed that it would be
best in the back part of the building where it was accessible from what we are
assuming is going to be the back side rather than having a second one out front
and having people hauling trash through the building. Normally on these types
of uses the trash and the deliveries are done through the back and so they don't
interfere with the clients.
MacCoy: Okay I just was wondering if you – and you've answered my question.
On your handicapped parking spaces is that shaded area a ramped area?
McKeegan: It would be the drop zone and then it would – there would either be a
– it would be a flat drop zone and then what we normally do is lower the sidewalk
and so the people go up to the sidewalk and then it feathers up rather than
having the ramp going out into the parking area.
MacCoy: Okay because you didn't show, at least the drawings we have doesn't
show the extra lines which would indicate you have cut down your curbing and
your signage on this building you just indicated a sign, what do you have
planned?
McKeegan: For the individual tenants we're presuming that each tenant will have
it's own graphics and we've indicated a panel above an area where the door
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 5
would be. Again, we don't have any specific tenants signed up for the building in
mind, if we have one tenant per building then we would probably center it and –
MacCoy: -- But you've got a criteria for your sign size and then –
McKeegan: It would be in accordance with the zoning ordinance. We've shown I
believe the panel is approximately four-feet high by twelve to sixteen-feet wide
and that could be either individual letters or it could be a box type sign. We've
also shown a monument sign out at the north driveway at Fairview Avenue
seventy-two square feet which would identify the center itself.
MacCoy: I'm just looking for uniformity in the whole complex there.
McKeegan: I'm sure that we would put together some criteria so that there would
be some uniformity and there would be a consistency throughout the thing.
Johnson: Mr. Borup?
Borup: I think all of my questions have been answered.
Johnson: Mr. Smith?
Smith: I assume the – you said the question on setback on Fairview was already
worked out with ACHD but last month there was a question on whether there
was a conflict on the center line or section line.
McKeegan: It was from the center line of street and it's the same criteria that they
imposed on the Econo Lube project next door that I did so we – our twenty-five
foot setback is from the new property line at the front of the site it's not from the
existing.
Smith: Getting back to the signage, maybe expand a little bit on what your client
envisions for the tenants of the building more of a professional office type use or
a more retail or just however the market demands –
McKeegan: We're basically at this point we're just – we have two very capable
people out there sending out proposals, some of those are to office users some
of those are to retail type users and it's really we've set the complex up to where
it could be either/or. If it's an office type use you probably won't have a lot of
signage unless it was some kind of like a national client like a Edward Jones or
something.
Smith: That's kind of what I'm heading towards here is the signage concerns me
as it's proposed and it's probably more of seeing so much bad signage on
Fairview Avenue and I would just like to encourage you to really take a hard look
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 6
at some type of graphics on the glass of the building in the windows something
that is not so jump out at you, jump off the side of the building a little more low
key, a little more professional clean looking and I'd also hope that you could
submit some ideas for your monument sign to the City Council when you submit
to them too. That's something that I'm really concerned about here on these
types of developments. Then you've got siding called out, looks like you've got
you've got split faced (inaudible) siding and then (inaudible) type product on the
outside, what type of siding are you envisioning?
McKeegan: Probably just a wide lap residential type or the type you see on
commercial buildings and we're putting that on the east and the south side on the
areas where the – we're going to have a four-foot coat of masonry so that when
the hand trucks and the carts and stuff are being hauled down there the building
will not get torn up and then just for purposes of economy we're putting the siding
on that, it'll be a probably a gray tone to match the EIFS or the drive it system the
stucco system we're going to be using it's just really an attempt to – you know if
we got tenants that wanted glass down that side of the building then we would
probably be glazing that. What we're concerned about is we don't know what's
going to be developed on that piece of property, we don't know if it's going to be
another warehouse that's going to back up to our building, we don't know if it's
going to be a parking lot but just for – to make the building more economical to
build and maintain we're going to put up a product that is permanently colored so
we aren't going to be painting it all the time but because it is more the utilitarian
side of the building – for the first I think it's been about a week since I did the
renderings but I think for the first twenty or twenty-four feet on building A we
have shown the glass coming back and I can't remember if I showed the Drivot
fascia for the whole on all four sides of the building so that the siding is just going
to be down and also because of the trees and the landscaping that will tend to
soften that also.
Smith: Okay and then – this really – you can't really make a comment about the
color other than –
McKeegan: It's one of those things you're either going to really like it or you
aren't going to like it, it's very color – color's very subjective.
Smith: No it has nothing to do with – I can't tell really what it's going to be. Then
the last thing I wanted to ask about was the -- approximately 1/3 of your parking
is at the rear of the building but really all your – the way it's designed is all your
access to your buildings going to be from the west and the north side of building
B.
McKeegan: Yes that's correct we anticipated the parking on the south side would
be primarily for employees and overflow.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 7
Smith: There's no real pedestrian link between that parking lot and the front of
the building, you'd have to go in – unless you go around the east side, I suppose
you could do that.
McKeegan: Yes you are correct.
Smith: That's all I had.
Johnson: Mr. Nelson?
Nelson: I have no questions.
Johnson: Anyone else? Any comments from staff at this time? Okay thank you
very much. This is a public hearing is anyone here to testify on this application?
Seeing no one then I'll close public hearing at this time. This is an application for
a conditional use permit and would require Findings of Facts and Conclusions of
Law.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to make a motion that we direct the City
Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact on this application.
Nelson: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and two seconds to have the City Attorney prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on item #1 on our agenda. All in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A ONE STATION HAIR SALON BY STEPHEN & KAYE
PADORIS – NW ¼ SE ¼ SECTION 12, T.3N., R.1W:
Johnson: You have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions as prepared by our
City Attorney are there any questions, any discussion any deletions, corrections
or additions that you'd like to make to these?
Borup: Under last page -- next to the last page – last page of the Findings
number ten item "I" and I'm assuming that this is probably inconsistent with City
ordinance but a question I had was whether it was really necessary to have a
licensed engineer design a drainage plan for the parking area. The area is
already paved, it's existing paved driveway, they're looking at limited use for a
one station operation. I don't know if that's anything we have an option of doing
anything about or not but that was the question I had. Maybe the attorney would
like to answer that.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 8
Johnson: No he wouldn't, no. We have an ordinance that requires that at this
point I assume --
Prior: I would be happy to defer to Mr. Freckleton if you'd like to talk about that.
Johnson: Any comments Bruce?
Freckleton: The only thing I would say is any new parking areas that are added
any new paving that sort of thing that would require the drainage plan designed
by an architect or engineer per ordinance.
Borup: Would that include the turn around? Right now I believe they have the
parking just that there's not a turn around. Okay maybe we can assume that
that's not a real critical thing, can we?
Freckleton: No I don't think so.
Borup: Thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else have any comments?
Nelson:I have one comment. On item #10 "G" there's a reference to the signage
and I believe in our discussion last month we talked about making that a smaller
sign attached to the building and I'd like to amend this Fact and Finding to just
put in writing that we wanted a small sign attached to the building, is that right?
Johnson: Well you can make that suggestion if you want to condition the
approval based upon that.
Nelson: I would like to do so. What else?
Johnson: Well since you want to change them why don't you make the motion.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman I would like to motion the approval of these Facts Findings
and Conclusions and amend item #10 "G" to state that there be a small sign
attached to the building.
Borup: Second:
Johnson: We have a motion and second to approve the Findings of Facts and
Conclusions of Law as amended by Commissioner Nelson. All in favor? I'm sorry
it is a roll call vote.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 9
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Borup – yea, Mr. MacCoy – yea, Mr. Smith – yea, Mr.
Nelson – yea.
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Is there a decision or recommendation you wish to pass on to City
Council?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the
conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in
the application with the conditions set forth in the Facts Findings and
Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the
City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer
requirements, fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking requirements
and the paving and landscaping requirements and all ordinances of the City of
Meridian the conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the
applicant by the City.
Borup: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the recommendation on to the
City Council as stated by Commissioner Nelson. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #3: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 13,250 SQUARE FOOT HIGH TECH
MACHINE SHOP BY NICK BRACKUS – NW ¼ NW ¼ SECTION 18, T.3N.,
R.1E:
Johnson: Any comments regarding the Findings of Fact as prepared by our City
Attorney?
Smith, Nelson, MacCoy, Borup: None.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
Nelson: I second.
Johnson: This is a roll call vote. We have a motion and a second for approval.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Borup – yea, Commissioner MacCoy – yea,
Commissioner Smith – yea, Commissioner Nelson – yea.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 10
MOTION CARRIED: All yea.
Johnson: Recommendation for the City Council.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian they approve the
conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in
the application. The applicant shall satisfy the conditions set forth in the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and
appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the
sewer and water requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code,
parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements and all
ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use shall be subject to review
upon notice to the applicant by the City.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the recommendation on to the
City Council as read by Commissioner Borup. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SHILD CARE FACILITY BY SUSAN
EHTESHAMI – 875 W. FRANKLIN ROAD:
Johnson: Any discussion, comments, additions, deletions to these Findings and
Facts as prepared by our City Attorney?
Smith: I do Mr. Chairman. I believe last month I made a comment about the
parking being located on the east side of the building as opposed to the west
adjacent to the residential neighborhood on the west side and my memory tells
me the architect said that he tried to lay that out that way and it didn't fit and that
– I've gone back and I've taken my scale and I think it fits so I'm going to make a
motion that we amend these Findings of Fact and redesign the site to have
parking off the main access to this presently proposed development and the
remaining portions of this complex to get it away from the adjacent property
owners and put it on the main access to the entire site and as part of that to
move the trash dumpster as far back on the lot as we can.
Johnson: Is there a reference point in the findings that you'd like to refer to? Is it
in there at all? Page 55 of the minutes it makes reference to the trash enclosures
that you commented on but –
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 11
Smith: I didn't remember reading it Mr. Chairman.
Johnson: But you recall a discussion regarding –
Prior: If you go to page 11 Chairman Johnson I think there's a reference to it.
Johnson: Of the Findings?
Prior: Yes, the first paragraph.
Johnson: Well that's a reference to the trash enclosure, I'm talking about the
location of the building.
(Inaudible)
Nelson: I had a question for Commissioner Smith then. You're proposing to
move the building to the west?
Smith: I don't think the building even needs to be moved.
Nelson: Okay, that's what I wasn't sure what –
Smith: When I scaled out the parking and laid it off of the main drive coming in
the whole development (inaudible) there's another – there's approximately
twenty-feet between a sidewalk that would run across the front of the stalls and
the – there's probably twenty-five feet, if you had a twenty-foot deep stall, five-
foot sidewalk you've got another twenty-five feet and I'm scaling the drawing so
there's a little margin for error there too I think but –
Johnson: Any further discussion? (Inaudible) Commissioner Smith would you like
to make a motion to that affect?
Smith: Okay I would, I'd like to make a motion that we approve these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law with the amendment that we require the applicant
to redesign the site plan to locate the parking on the east side of the building
access from the main drive to the site and locate the trash dumpster as far back
off of Franklin as possible.
Nelson: I'd second that.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to approve the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law as prepared with the revisions as stated by Commissioner
Smith. All in favor? This is a roll call vote excuse me.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 12
ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner MacCoy – aye, Commissioner Smith – aye,
Commissioner Nelson – aye, Commissioner Borup – nay.
MOTION CARRIED: 3 aye, 1 nay.
Johnson: Any recommendation you would like to pass on to City Council?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the
conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in
the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the
City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer
requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking
requirements and the paving and landscaping requirements and all ordinances of
the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon
notice to the applicant by the City.
Nelson: Second it.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to pass the recommendation on as
stated by Commissioner Smith. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #5: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC:
Johnson: At this time I'll ask Eagle Partners LLC or their representative to come
forward and address the Commission. Is there a representative here from Eagle
Partners? I saw Billy Ray Strite out there somewhere. Okay we opened the
public hearing we're waiting for a representative to come forward from Eagle
Partners.
Butler: Commissioners, Joanne Butler, 607 N. 8th
Street, representing Eagle
Partners. I hardly need to introduce everybody again I think you've seen them
several times.
Prior: Ma'am before we start why don't we swear you in here.
Butler: Sure.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 13
Butler: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Butler: Thank you. Before Mr. Strite comes up to address the conditional use
application I just wanted to briefly address the Findings of Fact and the
Conclusions of Law that this Planning & Zoning Commission typically finds in
connection with the annexation and the zoning request like the one that we have
before you tonight and in fact these Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law
virtually parallel the Findings that this Commission has made in the past for the
annexations in the immediate vicinity and that you have recommended to the
City Council and that the City Council has adopted. So we're expecting that this
property so far as annexation and zoning will be treated just the same as the
other property in the vicinity. If however the Commission does decide to
recommend against annexation and zoning of course we would want the
Commission to very clearly point out to the applicant why the annexation and the
zone request are not being recommended for approval and why the applicant
would be treated differently. The Findings of Fact that have been made in the
past by this Commission for the areas in the vicinity follow: the property as
described in the application and is presently zoned rural transitional in the county
which as you know is scheduled for urban zoning as the services become
available to the area; the applicant has requested general retail and service
commercial like the other properties in the vicinity; the general area surrounding
the area is used commercially, residentially and is (inaudible) services; the
property is adjacent to and abuts the City limits; it's within the area of impact for
the City; it's within the urban service planning area which indicates that services
can be provided; the applicant is the owner of record and requests that the entire
parcel be annexed in zone; the applicant has stated in it's application that the
intended development is for a Chevron service station, McDonald's restaurant
with a drive-up window & Idaho Power Credit Union facility with a drive-up
window. We've been very specific about this even though in previous
annexations and zones the City has not required that the uses be specifically
addressed other than generally by means of requesting particular zoning.
Further facts that this Commission can find as it has in the past is that the
property can be physically served with both city water and sewer. Sanitary sewer
is designed to be from the Five Mile Interceptor and water service will be from
the extension of an existing line. In connection with the sewer service (inaudible)
that when improvements were made to the Five Mile interceptor I think
justification for those improvements were made due to the designation of this
area as commercial under the comprehensive plan. The Meridian City Engineer,
ACHD, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, the Zoning Administrator, the Police
Department, the Fire Department and the Central District Health Department
have all commented on the request and provided those comments to you. The
general retail and service commercial zone requested for the property is
consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan and I won't read out the
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 14
whole description of the purpose of the C-G zone but it is to provide for
commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within
a building. They provide commercial uses which are auto and service oriented to
be located in close proximity to major highways or arterial streets. They are there
to fulfill the need of travel related services and to serve the traveling public. The
particular goals, objectives, and policies of the Meridian comprehensive plan that
you typically list in your Findings of Fact include the following and I won't list
them all out but I will indicate what those policies are by number or by section of
the comprehensive plan: the economic policy 1.2 states that it is a policy of
Meridian to set aside areas where commercial interests and activities dominate,
this site has previously been established as a commercial activity center on the
generalized land use map for the City; your commercial policy under land use
4.8U encourages commercial activities near high intensity activity areas such as
the freeway interchange, the project conforms with the I-84 mixed use policies
under the comprehensive plan which says that these areas are surrounded by
arterials, are immediately adjacent to the freeway or relatively level in
topography, are greatly affected by contiguous industrial, residential, and
commercial land uses. The comprehensive plan goes on to state that in order to
provide for compatible land uses and an efficient mix of uses in this area that
probable mixed uses of the areas can be commercial, combined medium to high
density residential, open space, tourist lodging, industrial, office, medical and
related land uses. This project also meets the transportation goal of the plan that
encourages clustering of uses and controlled access points along arterials,
collectors and section line roads. The comprehensive plan does identify Eagle
Road north of Overland Road as a principal arterial within the Meridian urban
service planning area. The comprehensive plan goes on to say that
development in these areas should be based on functional plans and proposals
to ensure that proposed uses conform to the comprehensive plan, policies and
are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods, an issue for this Commission
tonight. The integrity and identity of adjoining residential areas are to be
preserved according to the comprehensive plan through the use of buffering
techniques, screen planting, open space and landscaping techniques.
Development should be conducted as a conditional use especially when there
are more than two uses and this one does that. The character, the site
improvements should be harmonized with previously developed land in the area,
especially when located near residential or residential areas. And all reasonable
efforts shall be made to reduce the environmental impact on residential areas
including noise and traffic reduction. Because these areas under the
comprehensive plan are located so close to the freeway design review guidelines
and conditional use permitting processes have to be undertaken and the mixed
use area in this vicinity according to the comprehensive plan is a priority
development area. The proposed use complies with all of these policies and
strives to make all reasonable efforts to reduce impacts on nearby residential
areas. The plan does not say that these uses if they have any impact at all on
residential areas are not allowed. It acknowledges that there is likely to be an
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 15
impact but it does say that reasonable steps can be taken to reduce those
impacts. A few more comprehensive plan goals that the City should be aware of
and typically list in it's findings is that the community design entrance corridors
policy says that the City will support ACHD corridor development standards for
entryways to the City. ACHD is here tonight and will be asking the City to
support it's decisions. The community design policies also state that the City will
encourage landscape setbacks for new development on entrance corridors and
that the City will require landscaping along those corridors and Mr. Strite will
address exactly how and how extensive that landscaping will be for this particular
project. The City of Meridian has consistently stated it's concern with the need
for an increase in tax base in the City and in it's Findings of Fact in the past has
said that it knows that and increase of population alone is not enough and is not
sufficient enough to create the tax base it needs to provide schools, fire, sewer,
water, etc.. This project helps promote the tax base for Meridian. These facts
that you've found for this area in the past and that you can make for this
particular proposal will allow you to reach the same conclusions that you have in
the past that the City of Meridian has the authority to annex this property under
Idaho Code in your own ordinances that the Commission can take notice of
existing ordinances and the conditions existing in this area. The property is
contiguous to the City, the annexation request has been made by the
owner/applicant, the proposed uses of the property are in compliance with the
comprehensive plan and therefor annexation and zoning is in compliance with
the comprehensive plan. The applicant will be required to hook up to Meridian
water and sewer and that the annexation and zoning as requested is in the best
interests of the City. The comprehensive plan has already identified that
legislative decision has already been made by Meridian as to what this area
should be zoned for upon annexation so the City has already made the
determination as what is to be the best interest for this area. The Eagle Partners
request for annexation and conditional use supports these goals and policies and
as such the project is in the best interests of Meridian. So on behalf of Eagle
Partners before Mr. Strite comes to the podium we would respectfully request
that annexation and zoning as requested be recommended to the City Council
and if there are no questions I'll turn the podium over to Mr. Strite.
Johnson: Any questions from the Commissioners? Not now apparently.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission I'm Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River
Street, Boise.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Strite: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 16
Strite: If I might, some exhibits here. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Commission, in an effort to be brief this evening since we've all seen this at least
a half dozen times I think what I'd like to concentrate on as Butler has already
provided you with adequate Findings of Fact relative to annexation and rezone I
think the thing that is probably most pertinent not only in your ordinance but
obviously to the neighborhood that's to the north of this project was what in fact
we could do to minimize if you will the impacts of this particular development.
First off as you well know your City Council met with ACHD ITD and deemed that
there would be a roadway section placed on the north boundary of the site. That
roadway section which I believe Mr. Little will discuss in a few minutes was
deemed to require 108 -- (end of tape) by providing 108 feet of right-of-way for a
future five lane I believe roadway section that enabled or I should say forced this
developer to move everything south from the original proposal that you saw here
last year. Each one of these uses has been moved to the south, each one of
these uses and the reason we're here incidentally for conditional use is a drive-
through which certainly was in error of the neighbors, each one of the drive-thru's
have been moved around from what was originally the west side of the site to the
south side of the site which would then hopefully provide additional buffer by
virtue of putting any loud speakers of which only the Chevron facility McDonalds
has a speaker system. That speaker system is generally located in the south
westerly portion of the site and as the drive-through progresses to the southerly
sections – as you can see the drive-through is now placed on the south side of
the building, the drive-through window if you will is about midway on the
southerly portion of that building the speaker box and order station is in the south
westerly quadrant of that drive-through on the Idaho Power Credit Union facility
there is no speaker system that will also because of what we concern with the
neighborhood in terms of traffic we move the drive-through around on the south
side of that building, the stacking lane as is would be Chevron McDonalds is also
on the south side. I think what we've been able to provide here in an effort to
mitigate the noise impact as well as the impact of a commercial use adjacent to a
residential neighborhood is certainly by virtue of putting in a office facility 8-5 if
you will, the mass of which you can see over here is consistent with a residential
neighborhood to the north. We've been able also to provide an additional
twenty-foot of buffering on the north side of the credit union and an additional
fifteen-foot of landscaping between the credit union and the Chevron /
McDonalds. Similarly
from the last plan that you saw we have taken the minimum westerly setback and
increased that to fifteen to eighteen-feet and as we had originally proposed there
will be a solid wood fence that runs from the southerly boundary at Magic View
north until it reaches the new 108-foot right-of-way roadway section. So I think in
all good conscience the applicant has certainly tried once again to reduce the
impact in the neighborhood, I think they've done an excellent job, I think they
have a fine user in Idaho Power Credit Union, again I think and 8-5 user I would
hope would satisfy or at least medicate some of the neighbors concerns and I
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 17
would ask that if nothing else happens this evening that we do move forward and
I implore this Commission to please act this evening because I think it's been
unfair not only to our client but also to the neighborhood that this thing has gone
on for the last almost 2 ½ years and I would ask that a decision be made this
evening and if you have any questions of me specifically I'd be happy to answer
them.
Johnson: Okay thank you very much. Any questions from the Commissioners?
Strite: Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else representing the applicant? Anyone else at
all? Yes sir.
Prior: Just state your name and address.
Williams: My name is Richard Williams. I live at 3133 Autumn Way, Meridian.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Williams: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Williams: Thank you. Has it been 2 ½ years? It seems like an eternity,
especially when you have to live by this. I'm glad that Miss Butler stated about
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The first thing I would like to do is
enter into the public record the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as
drawn up by the City Council on this in February of 1997 where they denied this
project. I would very much like to state and ask that each member of this
Commission read these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to why it
was denied. It was denied because it does not comply with the comprehensive
plan. As a former member of the City Council and the president of this City
Council that drew up the first comprehensive plan if you will note there are seven
elements in your comprehensive plan. This area is identified in one, the
generalized planning map. It is not stated anyplace else in your comprehensive
plan. I would like to submit this – I'm sure you already have a copy of this
considering it's the City's document – this is not an appropriate use for the land.
This impacts severely residential neighborhood. The street alone is going to
have unbelievably devastating affects on a prime residential neighborhood in the
City of Meridian. It will now be double fronted lots with 108-foot right-of-way in
your back yard plus a McDonalds in your backyard and if you've been by
McDonalds you can smell the hamburgers a block and a half away and I'm sorry
but it's not a very pleasing smell. Additionally if you'll recall that a conditional use
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 18
permit requires a community necessity, I fail to see where a McDonalds and a
Chevron constitutes a necessity to the City of Meridian. This is high-density use
and is not compatible with residential. This in no way conforms to the
comprehensive plan. This is not a use in the comprehensive plan as stated by
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as drawn up by the City Council in
February of 1997. What we do ask is that because of the fact that this whole
area, not only this parcel but you have probably seventy-five acres back in that
corner that you will probably be going through the same thing that you've been
going through the last 2 ½ years for every one of those five acre parcels. We
would very much encourage that a moratorium on this whole area be
incorporated until the comprehensive plan is amended and proper planning for
this whole area is done. There is no comprehensive planning done for this area
at all. It's going to be hit and miss and unfortunately I think for a lot of us it may
be a miss if and we suggested this a year ago we would be glad to work with the
City Council and P & Z to amend to make recommendations to help with that
amendment of the comprehensive plan we and you will not be going through this
constantly. There are a number of items just within this drawing, we have not
seen this drawing, this is the first time we've seen this but it's the same as it was
2 ½ years ago except now we've changed from a motel to a credit union. The
conditions for the denial are still there, we ask that you deny this plan as it was
denied a year ago, this is not the proper use for this type of land. That's all I
have Mr. Chairman.
Johnson: Questions of Mr. Williams?
Borup: Just one short one. You mentioned that this would be affecting a prime
neighborhood in the City of Meridian?
Williams: In the Meridian area – in Meridian – we're not in the City at this point.
Borup: Right, that's what I was just wondering if you guys – if that was a prelude
to annexation request?
Williams: It depends on what you do here.
Borup: Okay.
Nelson: I have a question. What would you like to see developed here or can
you even address that question before you feel that this has been addressed
property and revision of the comprehensive plan?
Williams: Well in talking with a number of people, the neighbors, other planners
quite frankly, planners within the City of Boise, professional planners, this would
be an ideal location for offices. I have talked personally with people that -- and I
can represent people that would buy this land tomorrow and come back in here
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 19
with an office proposal for doctors, for professional people. They have a pretty
good schematic of what they want to do with that land in terms of office. That
plan can be before you in a matter of a few months quite honestly, I represent a
group that made an offer two months ago to buy that land from these people and
we'd buy it tomorrow quite frankly.
Nelson: Thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else care to testify at this time? Yes sir.
Hanks: My name is Harvard D. Hanks. I live at 2930 Magic View Drive, Meridian.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Hanks: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Hanks: I know nothing about the comprehensive plan or the plans as going on, I
do know that Eagle Road is probably a prime location for commercial projects
similar to this, not necessarily this project. We were not and our neighbors were
really not advised or asked if we wanted a more dense neighborhood to the north
of us so my only question on this whole thing right now would be the traffic on
and off Eagle Road from Magic View Drive. If we add another station in there it
is becoming harder and harder to get on and off that street and would become
more difficult later. That's all I have.
Johnson: Okay thank you.
Sherman: Hi I'm Beverly Sherman, I live at 3134 Autumn Way.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Sherman: Yes.
Prior: Proceed.
Sherman: I'm not a public speaker or anything, I'm a full time mom, I've got a two
year old and three year old at home and I've got several concerns. One of them
is we have a well very close to that area, just north of where that is and that's our
community well for all the houses in the Green Hills Estates and I don't like the
fact that there's going to be a gas station that close to it. I don't know exactly all
the scientific things or you know whether it could actually get into our ground
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 20
water but it does concern me. The other thing is I certainly don't like a road right
there just south of our development, it's going to be added on to and we don't
even know what it's going to be, you know where is it going to end and what's
going to be you know going on after that and I just you know like the man said
getting on and off any of our streets to come in and out of Eagle Road is getting
really crazy and you know we already have a gas station right there, why do we
need another one? That's my opinion.
Johnson: Okay thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to come before
the Commission? Yes sir.
Skeen: My name is Gary Skeen. I represent Idaho Power Federal Credit Union.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Skeen: Yes, I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Johnson: Gary could you raise that mike just a little bit please.
Skeen: Basically I wanted to come forward and say why we were interested in
the site. As you know that area is difficult for easy access for customers and that
sort of thing. It's a high speed roadway north/south, we have a high speed
roadway east/west, good access, I think as far as the neighborhood association
we represent the type of business that would act as an adequate buffer between
other businesses in the area and the neighborhood association and we're
primarily 9-5, currently our office hours are 9-5:30, we aren't open weekends. I
would respectfully request that the Commissioners act on our application so that
we may proceed. Are there any questions that you may have for me?
Johnson: Any questions? Mr. Borup.
Borup: I have one Mr. Chairman. No matter what happens whether there was a –
are you relying on the rest of the development for your project to work, in other
words whether the Chevron station is there or not you'll still be interested in that
same site?
Skeen: Well we're a small institution, we're chartered under a separate
corporate charter from Idaho Power Company and so Idaho Power Company
does not own the Credit Union, the employees of Idaho Power own the Credit
Union. Frankly there are certain economies of scale that would permit us to
purchase a piece of property like this that we normally would not be able to by
working with Eagle Partners.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 21
Borup: So the answer was? You're going to need another partner to buy off that
section from –
Skeen: At this point it's economically very attractive, I guess would be the
appropriate way of saying that.
Borup: Okay thank you.
Johnson: Okay thank you. Is there anyone else out there? Yes sir.
Pearcy: My name is Dave Pearcy. I live at 675 Wells Street in the Magic View
Subdivision.
Prior: Sir, do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this
public hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Pearcy: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Pearcy: My main concern is the traffic getting in and out off of South Eagle and
Magic View Drive, it's pretty bad right now and if we had facilities where we could
get in and out that would be my main concern at this point but where it would be
safe right now it's really bad.
Nelson: I have a question sir, the same thing I meant to ask Mr. Hanks. I
understand the concern on traffic, are you for or against this project? Do you like
to see some development go in there or –
Pearcy: There's no way we can stop development, it's coming, we've got a gas
station that's already in there, we've got a hospital there, we can't stop it. As far
as I'm concerned whatever they put in there as long as we can get in and out, I
live there, I've been there ever since that subdivision was built and if we can get
in and out and get in and out safely that's my main concern. If there's adequate
–
Nelson: Do you think another road access where the light is now would be a
help?
Pearcy: I do, I really do, I feel that would be the way to go. That's my feeling on
it.
Nelson: Okay thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 22
Horel: My name is Chuck Horel. I live at 3043 Autumn Way in Meridian.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Horel: Yes I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Johnson: Spell your last name.
Horel: Horel.
Johnson: Thank you.
Horel: Gentlemen I am a little confused here about what is being proposed all of
a sudden and maybe we can get this clarified but it's my understanding that if
this land is subdivided to allow for the placement of the Idaho Credit Union is this
then a subdivision? Who's owning this land, is it all under one parcel or is it in
two segments and I guess this is starting to concern me a little bit, I mean I'm
seeing one application and yet now I'm – maybe I'm not reading this right but this
is why I ask this question is to please clarify this for me.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I may have confused that when I brought that up but it is
all one sight there is not a subdivision so I may have confused that by asking that
question from the Credit Union person. I apologize if I caused a confusion there.
Johnson: The Credit Union is a tenant.
Horel: Is strictly a tenant.
Johnson: We can have the developer answer your questions specifically and
we'll do that. Anyone else?
Kyler: My name is George Kyler. I work for McDonalds Corporation at 5000 SW
Meadows Road in Oswego, Oregon.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Kyler: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Johnson: I'm sorry sir I didn't get your name.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 23
Kyler: George Kyler. K-y-l-e-r.
Johnson: Thank you.
Kyler: I've been here a couple of times before on the same issue and I've
traveled here from Portland quite a bit to discuss this and made good faith efforts
to meet with a group of neighbors that we invited, I believe over 100 neighbors to
attend the meeting and sent out notices and two neighbors came to that meeting
we held it at St. Luke's and we were specifically asking for input and showing
plans so it confuses me to have people come up and say "gee, I never saw this
plan before" because it hadn't been attended well by the neighbors that we
invited. There were some complaints earlier that the whole neighborhood or
something like that should be getting notices but I wanted to address something
that was said about McDonald's smells just because I need to do that, odors, we
occupy spaces inside malls, at the factory outlet, we do a lot of volume in town
here and our other restaurants they're probably going to exceed what we plan on
doing here and you can be in the parking lot and not smell anything, I'll invite you
to the roof if you'd like to climb up there and see if you can smell something from
our exhausts, we have electrostatic filters in our restaurants and all those
cooking odors as were discussed earlier or represented really are not there as
far as I'm concerned and as far as neighbors that are along residential areas that
abut McDonalds in other communities, in Boise etc., so I just wanted to make
that clear and discuss that. I don't know the reason it was rejected or turned
down last time and I guess you were asked to take a look at that but there was
some comments made before that bothered me that I never addressed in public
such as "gee, we are sitting here do we need another McDonalds and create
low-wage jobs in this town etc. and maybe there was some of those sentiments
and maybe that was part of the reason that it got denied I have no idea, so I went
to the franchisee in August of 1996 and I said tell me have the McDonalds we
have here in town, the one on the interstate the one exit further west, tell me a
little bit about the employees that are there and he says well if you've been there
for two years the average employee's making $8.26/hour, this was a year and a
half ago now. We've got 55% of these employees that are women, 21% of these
employees that are high school students, 12% in college, 67% of the employees
who work at that McDonalds for over two years live here in Meridian and I think
that that says a lot about the kind of businesses that you're trying to support here
is businesses that hire people locally, businesses that hire people locally,
businesses that have opportunities in the future and that sort of thing and maybe
that's not part of a land use decision but it seems like there's all kinds of other
issues being thrown at the table so I just wanted to clarify some of the things that
were said in the past that are in my opinion misstated and didn't have facts to
justify. So if you have any questions I'd be glad to answer anything before I sit
down.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 24
Johnson: Any question of Mr. Kyler?
Kyler: Thank you very much.
Johnson: Thank you. Not yet. Anyone Else? I'd like to get all new testimony
and then we can come back if you have another comment but we usually give
you one shot.
Moore: Well I've been here before too. My name is Dick Moore. I live at 3050
Magic View Drive.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Moore: I do. To avoid a question, am I for or against, I'm definitely for this. I
would like to see something done I don't care what but preferably approved the
way it's stated now. It's been going at least 2 ½ years, I moved out there 25
years ago and my intent at the time was to subdivide in 1993 when the
covenants expired. They've now expired and I still can't do anything because we
can't get a decision off the thing, I'd like to see something happen.
Johnson: Thank you. Any other new testimony? Yes sir.
Little: Terry Little, ACHD, 318 E. 37th
Street, Boise.
Prior: Do you promise swear or affirm the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Little: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Little: The ACHD works with the Idaho Transportation Department on the
planning and development of the state highway corridors. We manage all of the
traffic signals once they are installed and we jointly do studies with them on the
planning of the corridor. We plan collector streets along the major arterials like
Eagle Road so they can be put at locations where we can have traffic signals
where we can get as many as possible of the properties out to a traffic signal
where we can provide safe and convenient access and access that's planned for
efficiency of the major street as well. We have studied Magic View along with
ITD and found that it really lacks adequate spacing from the interstate for safe
operations. The last conclusion was that even the stacking from a signal there
itself would go back through the ramp which would create problems even getting
off the ramp to go south. We often have to create new roads at a great expense
however the impact fees that development pays goes into those roads
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 25
sometimes it's when we have an existing road that's functioning such as
Waltman Lane over here in Meridian, it was a collector road 5,6,7 years ago it's
no longer a collector we're having to put in a new collector into that area. This is
one which we found we have to do a similar thing to provide safe access. If it
was going to stay like it is today we could live with it but if development continues
in there pretty soon the safety problem becomes a great problem something has
to be done. What ACHD has typically done we've had to block off left turns out
of intersections and ultimately left turns in and that doesn't work well for
business. If the private property and the property in question is linked up to the
traffic signal what you're going to end up with is people cutting across private
property to get to the traffic signal and the more aggressive drivers will do that
and the more timid ones that probably are least able to pull out onto Eagle Road
safely will probably go up Magic View and have a lot of problems. ACHD has
proposed that we plan for a road there that we acquire the right-of-way and in the
near term build just enough to serve the property or in the – with this
development in the near term three lanes would be adequate, in the longer term
we see the need for it to widen to five lanes at the intersection and then be three
lanes that comes around and hooks back into Magic View. The 108 foot was
thrown out and that was the distance that was established based on lining the
road up with St. Luke's and then the extra buffer that was between that road and
the subdivision so it wasn't that we were looking at the whole 108 foot. The
consultant did a follow up study using that 108 foot say well what can we put in
there and we don’t anticipate going to the extreme of what they had proposed,
we believe that the five lines fanning to five at the intersection and going three
hooking on around as you get about 300 feet back would be adequate for many
years into the future. That's the primary thing I wanted to say, we have just
completed a corridor study of Eagle Road, we believe it's the most important
arterial street in the county, it was identified by the APA as a limited access
arterial, it's the only one of that designation in the county and we've done a study
as to how to preserve it and how to allow restriction of access as the volumes
grow and ultimately move much greater volumes of traffic than you have today.
Today it's nearly 30,000 in that section which is like a Fairview type traffic volume
pretty much although it flows much better because access is limited on it and you
don't have the side street conflicts, we believe we have to control those side
street conflicts and this road that was proposed is one way to do that and we
believe it's the best way. I'm respectfully open to any questions.
Johnson: Yes, I have a question. It hasn't been all that long ago that Jackson's
was put in, the light was put in, do you think ACHD did proper planning for the
future when that was done considering that this is an obvious place for
commercial development?
Little: I don't know what we would have done differently with Jackson's had we
planned out this road because it doesn't go through any of their property or
impact them, I don't know what we could have done differently. It would have
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 26
been nice had we had this plan could have communicated with Mr. Jackson so
he would have understood the full impacts of the thing and I've talked to him a
number of times on this, some of the early things said that we're ready to go out
and put a barrier in and restrict left turns, I believe that the signal will create –
four legs of the signal will create more conflicts, more gaps at Magic View and
allow Magic View to function safely many more years than it will be with just a T
intersection at St. Luke's so I see it as being advantages to that property.
Nelson: Is ACHD in agreement with the ITD with respect to the signal light that's
there being the only signal light that should be permitted?
Little: Yes I believe we, are Mr. Jeff Miles who is Assistant Director of District 3 of
ITD supported that thing in a recent meeting with the Meridian City Council and
the ACHD Commissioners and Mr. Monte McClure who is the ITD board member
for this area just recently the staff was very clear on it, I believe the opinion or the
consensus of the elected officials was pretty accepting of the fact that it just isn't
going to happen. St. Luke's has looked at the costs and impacts on them and
they were saying $200,000 and they would accept another signal but they still
wanted the existing and no one in either organization has ever considered two
signals at such a critical location at that spacing on a street like Eagle Road.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Little from the Commissioners?
MacCoy: On the same subject that Mr. Johnson's been talking on let me get this
thing straight now in order to get the traffic flow as the way you see it or as your
organization sees it there is going to be one signal and that's going to be the one
we have presently at St. Luke's and I've gone through all this with St. Luke's
people too and I know what the dollar situation is and I wouldn't say stubborn I
think they got some pretty good statements to make but anyway since they're not
planning to move the signal or pay for that movement they say it stays where it is
and your organization will not let a second signal be put up on Magic View Drive,
what you're telling me is it's status quo now, there is no signal discussion
anymore.
Little: That was my understanding, yes.
MacCoy: It's a settled deal then.
Little: We're willing to discuss it but we haven't found any daylight I guess in the
subject any place to go that would allow it. We're not familiar with any additional
facts to explore I guess that would allow that.
Borup: I think this is the only issue or the issue that prevented this from coming
up starting back in January, it's been delayed since that time for ITD to get things
decided and it looks like that's finally happening. And I understand St. Luke's
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 27
position I mean they wanted it at Magic View when they build their building and I
believe ITD told them no it would be down where it's at now so they redesigned
their whole site to accommodate where they were told it would be and stay.
Little: That's correct.
Borup: Thank you.
Johnson: Okay thank you Mr. Little.
Little: Thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else? Let's have Beverly come back Dick and then you can
come back up. Just state your name again you don't need to be sworn.
Sherman: Beverly Sherman. I just wanted to take exception to the guy from
McDonald's because my husband or I have been at every meeting that we've
been notified of and we didn't know about that meeting apparently so I don't
know if he never notified us or what and the other thing is I also understand that
there is going to be development and that's fine and offices would be great, the
credit union as far as my family's concerned would be fine, it's just the other part
of it that we don't like.
Johnson: Okay thank you. Mr. Williams. Have you testified sir?
Nickel: I have not.
Johnson: Come on up then.
Nickel: Hello my name is Patrick Nickel and I work with Thornton-Oliver-Keller
Commercial Real Estate and I live at 2899 N. Anston, Meridian, Idaho.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Nickel: I do. I'm a professional commercial real estate broker, I'm also educated
as a City Planner, my only comment is the economics of this particular piece of
ground have got no point where office development is cost prohibitive and
commercial development is more logical. Capitalism works and capitalism has
determined this piece of ground to be commercial and that is my only comment,
any questions?
Borup: Essentially you're saying the price per square foot of this ground is too
high for office buildings, is that what you're trying to say?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 28
Nickel: We have gotten to a point with the office market rents cannot support
office development where land costs are so high yes.
Borup: Where's the break point there do you know?
Nickel: I do have my financial calculator with me, I cannot sit down and
determine that break point, presently at this point and time we're at
approximately $6.15 per square foot, I know that when the ACHD was initially
looking at taking the right-of-way a number of $7.75 was presented by them
other than that I cannot determine the break point I will tell you that office rents in
Boise, Idaho are maxing out at about $17.50 to $18.50 per square foot, office
rents in Meridian, Idaho are somewhat less than that, there's a brand new
development on the corner of Franklin Road and Eagle I believe approximately
40,000 square foot development and I'm anticipating office rents to be
approximately $15.00 to $15.50 per square foot.
Borup: Thank you.
Nickel: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Williams, did you want to come back up?
Williams: Richard Williams, I'll try and be brief. In regards to this roadway that
Mr. Little talked about, the way they had it configured that what we saw in a
proposal they projected 22,000 car trips a day on this road which is the amount
that Eagle Road now has so I don't know if this is going to be a bypass out of
Eagle Road that's going to swing around and come back or what. If Eagle Road
is a limited access road why do we want to add another access within
approximately 1,600 feet they will now have four ingress's and egresses on a
limited access road, I find that strange. At one time, at one meeting Mr. Little
and I bless his heart for this little statement, proposed or suggested made the
statement – probably not proposed, that the westbound off-ramp at Eagle Road
be changed, that the free right turn be eliminated and that that off-ramp be
turned into three lanes with the middle lane going left, right or straight, the left or
right lanes going the respective direction which would eliminate the weaving
problem. Another item that was discussed at a proposal the way this is drawn
we're not sure where this road is going to end, is it going to end at Magic View
and make a left turn or is it going to go to Locust Grove? If it turns and goes to
Magic View based on the ACHD's own numbers this 750 foot road will cost
$750,000.00 to the tax payers. Mr. Little did state that this would be absorbed by
impact fees from the developers, if they do that I wonder what other roadway
projects they'll have to turn down in those developments and I believe in my
conversations with members of ITD board is this traffic light agreement that it
won't be moved is really to staff level. I'm not sure that the board of ITD is in
total agreement with that, I just make those points.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 29
Johnson: Questions for Mr. Williams?
Smith: Yes, I have one. Dick with your background in the City (inaudible) and the
fact that you represent the Homeowners Association over the past many months
on this thing, what is your viewpoint of what you'd like to see in that property?
Williams: Well contrary to what the last speaker said that we do know, I mean I
could bring people in here tomorrow that would – that are very serious about
buying this for office use. They know what the costs are, they know within the
range, that doesn't bother them. We quite frankly had a group of surgeons from
California and wanted to open a significantly large outpatient surgery clinic right
there, that was a year ago. We did talk with the members of the City Council at
that time with them about this so it's – the fact that medical as we've looked at it
or other type of professional offices. We know it's viable because we know
people that are willing to step up and do it and that's what we – I mean with the
market there we can go through all the financial planning and all the calculators
that you want but the bottom line is if there's people that are willing to step up to
it and buy it that's what dictates the market.
Smith: Based on the fact that you and the homeowners would prefer to see
either a medical or a business building on a one or two story level and it's an 8 to
5 use type of thing versus the fact that you've got a service station in there that
has no hours it runs 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
Williams: Correct, and the way they've got it proposed that all that traffic 24
hours a day is going to come at that light one way or another and that's –
Smith: That's really the crux of your problem is the fact that aside from your –
Williams: It's a high density use 24 hours a day and quite frankly I would hope
that the City would encourage an office type of development professional people
to move into the area. I would imagine with the way St. Luke's is going with
professional offices you're going to have more of these people wanting to live in
Meridian they don't want to live in Boise and drive out to Meridian, they want to
live close to their work just like all of you do like I don't but I would like to, it's
much more convenient, it's an opportunity for the City of Meridian to increase the
higher paid professional people to come into your area.
Smith: Thank you.
Johnson: Ms. Butler.
Butler: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again Joanne Butler. Just to – these will
be a little bit out of order but I'd like to make a couple of comments in connection
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 30
with some of the points that were raised tonight. First of all that this doesn't
comply with the comprehensive plan, I think you've heard over the last couple of
years that somehow somebody's elbow slipped when the comprehensive plan
map was made and when you set the policies for the I-84 mixed use area but no,
in fact this does fit with the comprehensive plan just as you've found in the past.
The statement was made that there's been no comprehensive planning done for
this area but on the contrary as this City will recall and I recall because I sat in on
your 1992 and 1993 meetings when the comprehensive plan was being adopted
and discussed there was extensive discussions on development in this area and
the need for mixed use commercial office and mixed uses. That's why ACHD
and APA can project figures like 22,000 trips a day or 20,000 trips per day
because APA of which this city is a member has gone out and done an extensive
traffic analysis based on the comprehensive planning that this city has done in
the past. Mr. Williams stated that the area was ideal for offices and in fact the
City has said this area is ideal for offices commercial mixed use and that's what
you are getting with this proposal, offices and mixed use for the area. I want to
tell the Commission and Mr. Williams that I am deeply concerned with some of
his comments. One has to ask after 2 ½ years if Mr. Williams goal here is to
delay a decision by the City. He has told this City and the public tonight that he
has contacted the City Council, he has contacted potential people to buy this
property, one has to ask if there may not be an interference with business by the
neighbors and I hope that the City does not allow itself to be used in this matter.
Somebody raised a concern about possible pollution to the well in the area. As
you know, and they raised this issue in connection with a service station being in
the area, as this City is aware and the engineers in the City are aware there are
extensive regulations that govern the service station business and I appreciate
the comment that one of the Commissioners had asking I think Mr. Williams if
maybe annexation wasn't appropriate for the residential area in the area because
if I'm not mistaken those are individual septic systems in the area and more likely
than not to provide pollution for that well and I'm sure that that will be changing in
the future. There will be not only extensive regulations governing this site, there
is extensive management expertise by the people that will be running this site.
The managers that will be running this site would be somebody that had worked
for fourteen years at Nordstrom's in Portland, one that has worked for five years
at the Bon Marche, these two managers have extensive management expertise,
you have seen the management expertise at the other Chevron sites in the area
especially in connection with things like taking care of the property, landscaping
in the area, things that this City really works hard at trying to protect through it's
conditional use process. And with that if there are no further questions of the
Commission again as Mr. Strite mentioned earlier this has been going on for
quite some time and we would ask the Commission to close public testimony and
deliberate on the testimony and make a decision tonight.
Johnson: Okay thank you. Mr. Strite.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 31
Strite: Mr. Chairman and the Commission, Billy Ray Strite again. Just a real
quick comment, although Terry didn't mention it there is a study that I provided
Shari Stiles which indicated that regardless of what happens at this site the 108-
foot of right-of-way and I have to say that I'll have to give the ACHD kudos
because they're still providing the 30-foot of buffer to the neighborhood as well
as providing the five lanes but there was a scenario done where there was five
different scenarios for the 75 acres sitting west of the site in question and four
out of the five of those required 108-foot right-of-way as proposed with the 30-
foot buffer, the only one that could not meet that is if it – I believe and Terry could
correct me – 75-acres of all commercial and/or all commercial and office. If that
site went all residential, that study suggested that that roadway would still be
there regardless of what this site creates and I think that should be brought up.
I'd also like to suggest that – and unfortunately I can't give you the exact
numbers, I've searched through everything – I picked up a 24-hour count on
Eagle Road in reference to what Mr. Williams said was a concern with all that
traffic going north – (end of tape) – and I apologize and I don’t want to use exact
figures but the traffic volumes on Eagle Road dropped to less than 10% after
10:00 at night until over 6:00 in the morning so what I'm suggesting to you is if
there was 500 cars an hour during the daylight, after hours there's less than fifty
and that was conclusive in the numbering, please don't quote the 550 because I
don't remember exactly what the numbers were but it was conclusive that less
than 10% of that traffic after dark or after hours which would indicate to me that if
in fact people were using the Chevron McDonalds as suggested by Mr. Williams
they would probably and most likely take the least path of resistance which would
be back to (inaudible) where in fact a left turn back to the freeway would be
easily accomplished. In respect to the comment of the well, I'd like to only
suggest to you and you probably already know, ITD's future plans for that
intersection have already been drawn, they've taken the right-of-way, they're
going to move that roadway section almost 25-feet to the west, the roadway itself
will be closer to the well than anything we could even possibly consider on the
parcel to the south and with that I'll answer any questions if I can.
Johnson: Any questions for Mr. Strite?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman I've got a couple. The one you may not be able to
answer it sounded like you did have some information what – 22,000 trips a day
on Eagle Road is that pretty accurate on traffic count that was what you said
earlier.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, right now the figure on Eagle Road
is closer to 30,000 cars a day.
Borup: Okay, and then do you know what the projective count would be on the
new 108-foot right-of-way road or does Mr. Little need to answer that?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 32
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Borup, I think that Terry could tell you, I think the
volumes are in there in the turning movements, I'm not sure of total volumes but
the turning movements –
Borup: Okay, I can ask that later. And from what you had stated to your
understanding that this is based on just the 75 acres to the west with no tie into
Locust Grove or any other areas –
Strite: I believe that that study did not tie to Locust Grove, it took the alternate B
as suggested by ACHD which took the road westerly if you will to approximately
400 feet west of this parcel, I believe it would be the westerly boundary of the
Moore property returns and takes it south so that it would form an intersection if
you will with a northbound lane of that circular and I think that's an extension of
Magic View I could be corrected, it goes around and comes back north, that
would form an intersection there.
Borup: Okay that's what I was originally thinking I was wondering if that was still
–
Strite: That's correct.
Borup: I do have a question on the other – we hadn't really, well – Mr. Chairman
I guess my question is really pertaining to the conditional use, would you rather I
waited on that?
Johnson: Well we've got a lot of conditional use testimony already in here so go
right ahead.
Borup: It's on the building, on the Chevron building station itself and we really
haven't talked about that tonight we've got some information in our packets. One
of the staff's – this is something that's been bothering me for awhile and it was in
the staff comments about two of the existing Chevron stations we already have in
Meridian that the lighting at the other two are not in compliance with the City
ordinance that the owner has been requested formally in writing. It seems to me
that he more than just completely disregarded and showed contempt for the City
in ignoring that. One of the situations after receiving the letter they tore the lights
down and put up brighter lights which is almost throwing it in our face and I don't
know if you're in the position to make any comments on that but I would be
interested if there is any –
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I cannot answer nor make comment
to the last part of your original statement however I can tell you that we have
proposed on this particular site recessed fixtures quite similar to those that are at
the Garrett station at the corner of Chinden and Garrett in Boise, they are a
recessed fixture as opposed to a surface mounted fixture that the foot candles of
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 33
which will not allow airplanes to land, they are considerably less, there will be no
brain surgery done under this canopy. I think that we suggested that to the staff
and I thought that we had under testimony last time brought that up, it's a very
good point but we have taken that under consideration.
Borup: So it's your understanding that there's no conflict with Chevron nationally
to change the lighting to that –
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, we did the Garrett station for another
(inaudible) and I assure you that we can get that done.
Borup: I had heard indirectly from a comment that the owner had no choice that
Chevron dictated that and –
Strite: Generally that's the case.
MacCoy: Let me jump in here because you and I have discussed this and I was
one of the ones that went to the Chevron station up on the Meridian First Street
area right off the freeway off I-84 and they had flush recessed fixtures and there
was approval type of thing that we went through when they put those up in there
and then they came back and I think I was present when they came in and they
took them down and put up the fixtures you now see today and I went back in
and complained to the manager and I said this is in violation of our codes and so
on and it was a blinding factor for the drivers on the street at night time and his
answer directly to me was that he would check, I went back two weeks later and
he said that it was the Chevron corporation would (inaudible) the whole thing and
he had no say so in that and like Commissioner Borup here I'm really concerned
from the standpoint that we get a station put together like you state here and we
end up a year down the road and all of a sudden the lights change again.
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner MacCoy, again you're probably speaking to
the wrong person however I can tell you that we've done a number of stations
with recessed fixtures.
MacCoy: And you don't have any problem with them coming back from the
corporation and pulling those things down?
Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner MacCoy, we have not today and that's
probably three to five years. I certainly would not be so pretentious to suggest to
you that I can control what Chevron does or does not do.
MacCoy: Anyway I was a little bit upset about the whole thing because I felt that
we have a City we have certain rules and ordinances and they agreed to abide
by those and then they blatantly in my view point did what they darn well
pleased.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 34
Strite: Mr. Chair, my suggestion would be if in fact that is still a concern after this
testimony that that become a condition of approval. I think that would put teeth
into that particular part of the ordinance as well.
MacCoy: Well I thought it was on the last job too but –
Prior: I can address that, that was actually a condition of the approval of the
previous Chevron station, in fact I think it was explicitly stated that the Chevron
was to use the recessed lights and it was just disregarded. What I guess I would
just like some guarantees myself personally that you folks aren't – what's going
to stop you folks from doing it again, let's just get right to the chase.
Strite: Mr. Chair, again I think you're speaking to the wrong person certainly
there's somebody here who can answer that for you. I'm not sure I can do that.
I'd be happy to answer any of the design questions that perhaps I can handle.
MacCoy: I have no other questions.
Johnson: Thank you. Mr. Smith? Sorry I didn't mean to shut you out.
Smith: I've got a couple of questions. I haven't seen the credit union building six
times, this is the first time I've seen it and could you talk a little to the design of
the – I've read through the material description here as part of your application
but I'm unclear as to the location of some of the different materials and maybe
the overall heights, scale and so forth.
Strite: Yes sir, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smith, the building is basically a square
shape, it's 60 x approximately 90 feet, it has a 4 and 12 pitch that's consistent
with the neighborhood, we have asphalt, decor asphalt shingles on the roof, we
have a band of EIFS or stucco if you will bordered at the bottom by wains coat of
dark colored brick, the canopy on the south side has two large columns which
support the canopy – excuse me four large columns that support the canopy,
those are made of a wains coating of brick with a similar material stucco on the
lower side with wood banding and wood fascias around the periphery, there's an
entry on the south – excuse me north-westerly corner if you will, that entry
canopy is another hip roof that is supported by two columns similar to the
columns on the drive-through and I think with that the materials selected not only
were selected to better identify with the neighborhood but also the credit union
felt that they liked the idea of a more homey, a more residential type structure.
That is a fully trussed roof, again 4 and 12 the top of the ridge is approximately
22-feet I believe, again at 4 and 12 pitch the plate height on the building itself is
at 9-feet, the canopy is obviously at 13-feet because we're anticipating larger
vehicles.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 35
Smith: Okay thank you. I think it's successfully addressed the things you tried to
accomplish there. I'm a little confused though on the speaker at the drive-
through, there's three lanes there and I'm assuming that one of those would be
an ATM or could be an ATM but that still leaves a second drive-through and if
somebody's in that lane and they need to communicate with the teller inside do
they roll down their windows and yell at each other or – I just don't see it working
without a speaker.
Strite: Mr. Smith the third lane is solely a bypass lane if you will, if you'll notice
over on the site plan that is a bypass lane, there are opportunities here at certain
times in the day when the line trucks come through here and we wanted to give
them adequate access so if effect the third lane as you see it on the floor plan if
you will is the escape lane on the site plan it is not in itself a lane so all the
controlled mechanisms between the drive-through tell takes place on the second
lane that's shown there, actually it is only the second lane on the site plan and
then obviously through the window and that is done through as you probably
know as well as I doing your banking, that is done at close range and again at 8
to 5 I don't foresee that as being a problem especially on the south side of the
building.
Smith: I don't see a problem with having a speaker there either but I just was
curious so –
Strite: I'd like to also if I could – and I'm sorry I forgot to suggest to you that there
is an ATM but the ATM is a walk-up and it's located on the south wall of the entry
if you look at the entry where it's truncated there on the north-westerly corner, the
ATM is a walk-up ATM which is located at the front door and will not have drive-
up traffic.
Smith: Okay, and then from a site planning standpoint I think you had identified
57 required spaces but you have 105 and I'm just curious why there was felt to
be a need for such an excess amount in parking spaces.
Strite: You got me. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smith, first of all because of the
seating in the McDonald's facility we are required to have 45 parking spaces so if
in fact if you're referring to the requirement by City code based on the ordinance
at 1 per 250 cutting aside the seating capacity then you're probably correct if in
fact we're referring to the seating capacity there's a need for 45 parking spaces
alone for the McDonald's portion of the facility then there's one per 250 square
feet for the remaining Chevron portion and I believe one per 250 or perhaps it's
one per 400 for the bank, I'd have to run over there and take a look but --
Smith: I'm just reading off the site and building data –
Strite: Well I apologize, I don't have that in front of me but –
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 36
Smith: What you have on here is 27 required spaces for the McDonalds and the
C-Store, 25 for the credit union, for a total of 57.
Strite: Okay, that is as required by ordinance, in other words if we went strictly
by the Meridian City ordinance that is exactly what is required but McDonald's
has asked us to provide a minimum of 45 parking spaces for a facility in a
(inaudible) situation like this.
Smith: So that would be an additional 18 spaces besides the 27 that's required
by ordinance?
Strite: That's correct and then what we've also done is on the bank – excuse me
the credit union, is you'll notice on the site plan that credit union is expandable to
5,000 feet therefore we've taken the westerly bank and used that for employee
parking which will ultimately become required parking for that facility at the time
of expansion so that may make the difference if you consider that inordinate, I'm
not sure the jest of the question but my assumption is that you think that's an
inordinate amount of parking.
Smith: Well yeah I guess where I was heading with it was to see if we could cut
down on the amount of hardscape and put a little more into the landscaping
along Eagle.
Strite: Well I think that's an excellent point but –
Smith: I would like to ask you though to go back and study that again with the
actual figures on what's going to be required for the expansion and if there is an
opportunity there to reduce some of that and that you take a serious look at
doing that.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smith, one of the things that I think you'll find
that this facility as designed now as well exceeds the 5% of the required
ordinance landscaping as well as providing the 35-feet of quote corridor entry
landscaping, not only as you can see by the landscape plan are we providing 35-
foot of softscape we're also doing burms as well as some high plant material
which will obviously soften the corridor. If in fact there is a need for that and you
know if you think that the percentage of landscaping as opposed to hardscape
which certainly I would agree in one sense but at the same time the percentage
of landscaping here far exceeds the 5% minimum.
Smith: I'm not disputing that. One last question for you was you've identified on
here this burm along this proposed roadway to the north of the site by others, I
was curious if by others is who that –
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 37
Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smith, that will no longer belong to the applicant,
it's my understanding ACHD will take care of that. That parcel once the 108-feet
of right-of-way has been taken is no longer part of the application.
Smith: Alright, I understand. That's all the question's I have.
Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you. There's a gentleman over here that wanted
to testify.
Truax: Rod Truax, 3091 Autumn Way.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Truax: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Truax: Commissioners, first of all I'd like to start by thanking you for considering
the neighbors of the community there, this is not the first time for me here as
well, I'm on the very north-west corner of this project here and we've made a
significant improvement from what was originally proposed and as one of the
neighbors the credit union is definitely a lot more in keeping with what we had in
mind. The roadway though is still obviously a major point of contention and the
lady made the comment earlier that it appeared as though we might me be trying
to stall this or delay that project as it was originally proposed, I would apologize
for not being more obvious about that, we had intended to bring it to a screaming
halt in any way we could however it's a lot more palatable in it's current proposal.
As one of the neighbors and the discussion about the lights and having gone
around to some of the stations and looking at the lights as a resident the only
suggestion or request that I would propose would be that possibly the Chevron
station be rotated a full 180 to put the canopy and lights on the other side of the
building in case they did decide to put in their own landing lights or whatever, so
again I'd just like to thank you gentlemen for your consideration for the
neighborhood and making it one that we can continue to live in, thank you.
Johnson: Any questions? Thank you, anyone that would like to come forward?
Butler: Mr. Chair, Joanne Butler, if you would like an answer to just the question
that was raised about the lights and also maybe that rotation issue. I think Mr.
Prior and maybe Commissioner Borup raised the question about the lights, just I
can tell you what I know about that and that is after Locust Grove opened I guess
my client had a conversation with Shari Stiles about the lighting and in a passing
conversation with the Mayor thereafter he was told that from a safety perspective
the lighting was appropriate and so did other customers in the area. I know that
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 38
when the staff report came out and I saw the comment in the staff report, I did
talk to Ms. Stiles about that to ask her about that and she relayed the same story
to -- the story that she had had conversations in the past, my client just reminded
me and to tell you the truth I cannot remember I guess I had said to him at one
point that after my conversation with Shari a letter was due to be coming to us
about this issue, I just went through my file and we haven't gotten a letter but if
the City wants to send a letter on that issue we will certainly discuss it with the
City and somebody asked a question about what would ensure that this does not
happen if we're making the representations that we are doing recessed lighting
and what not then of course putting it in the conditions of approval and making
that part of our permit then can be revoked if that is not undertaken would make
that enforcement possible for the City. I understand the idea of rotating – the
reason that the station is in the orientation that it is today is because of request
of some neighbors, I'm not sure if it was the same person that got up to speak
but that is something that can be looked at but I think that this was done
deliberately in this orientation because of previous requests, thank you.
Johnson: Just a minute please – could you – did you have a comment you
wanted to make to that before I ask her a question? I'll ask her a question and
you can think about it.
Stiles: With regard to the lighting we did have a conversation quite some time
ago, I wasn't aware of a letter being requested regarding that, I believe certified
letters were sent out by Dean Ehlert when he was here as a Code Enforcement
Officer to whoever the property owner is listed at those properties and I can look
that up but I wasn't aware of you waiting for a letter when the request had been
made, you know it was a condition of the conditional use permit and we felt that
just the fact that the illumination was not to cause a glare or impact adjacent
residential properties should have been sufficient to warrant changing it.
Butler: Thank you and thank you Mr. Chair, we'll look into that with the City we
weren't aware that – or my client was just saying that not aware that that was a
condition of approval so we'll review that with the City further.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, I have a question real quick if I may.
Johnson: Sure Mr. Prior.
Prior: Is the owner of the Chevron station here, the one who owns it on Fairview,
is he here tonight?
Butler: Yes.
Prior: Would you mind if I ask him a question, I'd like it for the public record
personally.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 39
Butler: No, that's fine.
Prior: Just state your name and address please.
Eddy: My name's Steve Eddy 3775 N. Sawgrass.
Prior: Do you promise, swear of affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole and nothing but the truth?
Eddy: Yes, I do.
Prior: Great. Sir, just real simply, why should we grant this conditional use permit
for this Chevron station when you've disregarded the lights at the other stations, I
just –
Eddy: I don't believe we disregarded anything. When that station went in 1996
there was nothing in our conditional use that covered anything on lights and I
think if you look that up you will see that.
Prior: To my knowledge I recall coming across something saying that they were
supposed to be recessed lights –
Eddy: -- That's not true.
Prior: -- And in fact I believe when I first started with the City I had a number of
discussions with Mr. Ehlert in regards to that particular subject. If I recall –
Eddy: The only time I've talked on those lights is Shari called me within three
months of that station opening in July of 1996, I have not heard anything on
those lights since –
Prior: -- So what you're saying is you've never heard any complaints or anybody
complain about those lights?
Eddy: We've had more positive comments about those lights – I met with the
Mayor in the last six months, we talked about those lights, we told the Mayor at
that time this station would have the recessed lights, we told him where to go
look and he actually referred to Locust Grove as being a more safe and inviting
environment with those lights and I have never – I mean when that station
opened I was there during the occupancy permit with the two guys that signed
me off for occupancy, we looked at all the lights at the facility, they signed off for
occupancy at that station at that time and we were within all the regulations we
thought we had to meet.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 40
Prior: You thought you had to meet?
Eddy: Well that we had to meet. I mean we were signed off as occupancy on
the station. I mean if we were –
Johnson: Are we confusing two locations here?
Eddy: No, no, no, we're talking about Locust Grove, that was the one built in
1996.
Johnson: The first comment about lighting here tonight was about the Chevron
on East First Street.
Eddy: Okay I thought we were talking about Locust Grove. East First Street was
built in 1991 and I know there was no conditions on that facility and I don't
believe there was any on the Locust Grove facility either that I remember. Bill
Strite did the plans on that also and I don't know if he remembers anything.
Strite: I don't.
Eddy: I don't recall anything very honestly.
Johnson: But you can ask him anything you want about design as long as it
doesn't have anything to do with lighting.
Eddy: But I mean the reason we put those lights in was to create a more safe
environment, that was the only reason. Locust Grove has too many lights, that
was one of the first stations with that fixture and we put too many of that many
up. Jackson's Food Stores at Eagle Road has that same exact fixture, he had
them before us but we put a little too many up I would agree, we didn't know
what the lighting would be and that was what the lighting manufacturer
recommended me putting on that canopy which is a lot larger than the Jackson
canopy.
Johnson: He sells lights.
Eddy: Well you're right, it has too many – I would totally agree it has too many
lights.
Prior: So if I'm able to come up with a condition on the conditional use permit
saying otherwise I imaging that you would be concerned that you've been
violating a condition is that right?
Eddy: Yes, I would be.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 41
Prior: And that would be a reason that we may ought to have a look into that –
Eddy: Yes that would be, you're right.
Prior: Alright, thank you.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I had a question for Mr. Eddy.
Johnson: Mr. Eddy you've got another question here.
Smith: Was there any specifications on candle power, is that something that's
normally in a set of plans?
Eddy: The typical canopy light is 400 watts, metal halite bulb and that's pretty
common throughout the industry. The lights that we propose for the new Eagle
Road were a full flush surface mount that basically just had straight down lighting
there was no visual affect from the side at all. We had told the City Council and
Planning & Zoning prior to, you know if somebody could look at the station at
Garrett and Chinden in Boise, it has the new lights.
Smith: You're talking for what you're proposing now –
Eddy: Correct
Smith: But at the time and I assume that's right there wasn't anything really
specified as far as candle power and –
Eddy: No, I am certain that there wasn't.
Smith: Well I'd agree – I mean I think that's probably right, is that something
maybe that should be in, that should be specified or is a flush mount be enough
–
Eddy: -- I think the flush mount –
Smith: And the other question I had was what was the reasoning for removing
the lights on East First and putting the others in.
Eddy: East First has I think 21 canopy lights and we replaced those just for a
brighter image at that station and I haven't heard one complaint on that station
this is the first time that's been brought up here at this meeting on the East First
station.
Smith: Okay I just from my understanding of sequence of events that happened
after comments on Locust Grove.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 42
Eddy: Locust Grove's biggest problem is there's too many, I think if we took part
of those off it would fix a lot of the problem.
Smith: Thank you.
Johnson: Joanne Butler I need to ask you a question. About an hour ago a Mr.
Chuck Horel had a question regarding ownership and I think he may have got
confused by some testimony by Gary Skeen, could you clear that up for him?
Butler: Can the question be repeated please? What exactly Mr. Chairman --
Johnson: Well I think there was confusion when the representative of the credit
union talked about purchasing property when I think he was talking about rental
costs.
Butler: I will let the person that knows the answer to that question respond.
Strite: Mr. Chair, Billy Ray Strite. That lot was a legal lot of record some twenty-
five years ago and according to our Civil Engineer that lot is eligible for a one
time split that would allow this parcel to be split into two parcels, one which would
go (inaudible) to Idaho Power Credit Union which is presently the contractual
arrangement, the other would remain with the applicant.
Johnson: Okay thank you, I think that probably will clear it up.
Smith: So that is the intention to do a lot split?
Strite: Yes sir, take the one time split.
Johnson: Anybody else have anything they'd like to add this evening?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Little a question.
Johnson: Okay you may do so.
Nelson: Mr. Little I guess I'm just a little confused still and maybe you could just
clarify for me the proposed roadway and it's traffic counts and then how it's
actually envisioned to extend to the west once it gets behind this parcel and then
does it go all the way to Locust Grove, you know what type of development in
this acreage between the freeway and Locust Grove and Eagle it was envisioned
in that planning all that stuff.
Little: Alright with respect to traffic, the volumes was that one of the questions?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 43
Nelson: Yes.
Little: I would point out Eagle Road I was just checking that November of 1996
the account was 31,975 south of Franklin, the 28,000 was north of Franklin taken
at that time. We looked at five different land use scenarios for the build-out of
this area and they varied from 895 in the peak area and if you took 10% is peak
that would be 9,000 that would be with residential build-out. The one with the
commercial, the 35 acres of commercial that was not accommodated – had a
level service F, had 27 would be about 2,700 now or 27,000 a day which would
be getting close to what Eagle is today, of course by the time it gets there Eagle
will be long past that and then the one that was projected to be as close as we
could interpret to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan business park was 22,000 or
2,200 peak hour. I do not believe we took into account any additional traffic – let
me just check this – I believe it was just the traffic from that, we are looking at a
potentially something that would connect through but not be a direct shot to
heavy traffic, another thing I'm not so sure they gave enough credit to Magic
View as well because that will definitely the signal and the conflicts at the new
street and the St. Luke's driveway will provide a lot of access to where people
will typically use that for a right turn out. I have schematics of the diagrams that
we did for the road, near term and long term if you'd like to see those I have
overheads, I don't know if you're set up for an overhead projector or not and I
have hard copies –
Nelson: I would be interested in seeing that yes.
Borup: While they're setting that up maybe I could ask Terry a question. Were
your accounts did you say was not based on any traffic on Magic View, that was
100% traffic on the proposal or near that?
Little: I think it is based on the traffic being accommodated at the new street
because and I don't know positively but as I look at these traffic counts the left
turns in and comparable to the right turns out and that doesn't make sense, most
people would go up use the signal to turn left in to turn out there would be much
more tendency to turn out. Example is Costco, in 1991 that was almost a
parking lot out in front of Costco, we had to go in put in a barrier, close off a
driveway so it was just a right turn in and out and it signalized the next driveway.
They get an incredible amount of right turns out of that driveway because of the
gaps that they get in traffic you know most people don't wind their way back to go
to a signal to turn right and I envision the same thing here. – Okay this was one
alternative, we had a long term A and a long term B – here's the short term, the
near term A would probably most useful to look at it that way and this would
come down the property line, we did talk to the property owner or the property
owner showed up at one of our meeting on this property and he was just
concerned that it be close to a property line and that it not cut him in half, this
was a – to take it in as short of alignment as possible this would be the long
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 44
range the short term again had just – let me point out the differences – it's got
just three lanes at the intersection, three lanes on the north-south (inaudible),
this one the longer term has double left turns and a right through going out it has
five lanes at the intersection if you'll note that, that's the difference in what we
perceived as a longer term. The other variation was near term B and this takes it
on over and ties it into the street, again it has three lanes at the intersection in
the near term, initially it would just be out to here to provide a driveway here, this
would be next phase as the road is built out at three lanes a single left turn off
Eagle Road and then in the longer term end up with a double left turn off Eagle
Road so you would have two receiving lanes that would come around off of the
and two lanes around it would be counter clock wise and then one land from that
so in both scenarios it was three lanes back in here fans out at the intersection to
minimize delay on the intersection and the amount of green time that would be
needed to allow that traffic to go so that was the two scenarios and the near term
and long range for both. Now our consultant looked at additional lanes and
further build out of that, six lanes on Eagle Road and additional approach lanes
here, I really don't think the right turns will materialize as heavy as they
anticipated but to have a double right turn under that all commercial where that
heavy commercial scenario.
Smith: Okay so if I look at the right-of-way that's identified on Mr. Strite's plan it
looks like you're – am I correct in assuming that ACHD is looking more towards
the farther west extension of this roadway as opposed to bopping off the back
northwest corner of that property and turning it right back down the property line?
Little: Let me check my notes. The staff reports dated February 4, 1998 page 4
recommendation 2, said approve variation B as shown on attached drawing as
the appropriate extension of the road and that would be the one that we have up
there I believe – yeah that's variation B and the shorter term, near term is the
same configuration it's just different at the intersection.
Smith: Okay thank you for clarifying that for me.
Johnson: Yeah we'd like some hard copies of that for the record, you can keep
your overheads.
Borup: Mr. Chairman I just had another clarification for Terry while he's still up.
I've still got a question on these trips and you're talking about build out and
commercial, was that based on what we just saw? You're not looking at bringing
that road back further to the west then and the build out and trip figures and
etceteras?
Little: Not necessarily, the trip volume wasn't built on the designation, I mean it
could be flexible from the standpoint if there's agreement as to how to do it we're
not hung up on the alignment.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 45
Borup: I guess I was assuming those trip figures were based on build out of the
75 acres.
Little: But it doesn't matter to us whether they get there from Magic View and
come up or whether it goes out there and they come from both sides, they all will
eventually get to Eagle Road was the thinking on that.
Borup: So either way then the road would (inaudible) turn to the south and over
to Magic View and not continue along the property lines of the subdivision, I
mean none of yours showed that so –
Little: Right, we're not envisioning staying along that line, we could see the
possibility it could come somewhere down in between and be double fronted by
commercial property or something like that. What typically happens is the first
person in the door at the street we end up having to set an alignment, next
person comes in there's a little more flexibility, often times cost wise it's a
different participation, Corporate Drive is an example where the Developer is
pushing the construction of it, he's carrying it we're just paying the difference
where we have to force it in a almost a surprise manor where it's not really fair to
put it on a developer we end up paying sometimes the whole barrel such as this
but as we get down there and working with development it becomes a
cooperative thing, it's not our job – we don't envision it as our mission to go out
and build roads for development, we cooperate with them and try to
accommodate that and work together with them but we had hoped as it goes on
that it could be more of a partnership in terms of the costs and that because they
would have to build some kind of traffic network and it's an advantage to them to
get to a traffic signal as you get further back.
Borup: I understand and I think that makes sense, otherwise twenty years from
now everybody's complaining about why didn't you plan.
Johnson: Anyone else? Okay thanks Mr. Little. Is there anyone else that would
like to make a comment before we close public hearing?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman I would just like to clarify something from Ms. Butler that a
statement that she made earlier at the beginning of this public hearing and it had
to do with a reference to previous planning and zoning decisions that were made
I think in particularly regard at a Jackson's Food Store, I've been on this
Commission for less than a year, I wasn't involved in those decisions, I don't
know what the perimeters were that they had to consider when they made those
decisions therefore I don't feel bound to necessarily consider those issues in
regards to this matter and it's not going to influence my vote one way or the
other, same in regards to the tax base I don't feel that good planning decisions
are made with necessarily paying attention to what it does for the City's tax base
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 46
and that's not going to enter into my consideration on this proposal one way or
the other, so you asked for clarification as to why we would vote against it when
previous decisions were for similar developments and I hope that clarifies it.
Johnson: Okay any further comment? If not I'll close the public hearing at this
time. I need to remind the Commission that we're dealing with item #5 which is
annexation and zoning only at this point. This is an application that would
require Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law if you would like to have those
prepared.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I would like to ask that we direct the City Attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this application.
MacCoy: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on item #5 request by Eagle Partners
LLC for annexation and zoning. All if favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #6: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MACDONALD’S W/ DRIVE-UP
WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION WITH DRIVE-UP
BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC:
Johnson: Before I open the public hearing I would suggest to those who have
testified previously that you come forward and state if you want to that the
testimony you gave on item #5 be incorporated into item #6 so we do not have to
have repetitive testimony and I would request that also of the applicant. At this
time I'll open the public hearing for item #6 and ask that the applicant address
the Commission.
Strite: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River
Street, Boise.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Strite: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Strite: Mr. Chair, we'll stand by the previous testimony if there's any questions if
you'll allow us the opportunity to rebut we'd appreciate it, thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 47
Johnson: Anyone else like to come forward? Mr. Williams?
Williams: Richard Williams.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you?
Williams: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Williams: I would ask that all of the testimony from our people that in our position
be entered into the public record for the conditional use permit.
Johnson: Thank you.
Butler: Joanne Butler 607 North 8th
Street.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you?
Butler: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Butler: Thank you. I would like to incorporate the testimony and just for further
clarification and I thank Commissioner Smith for his comments but just for
clarification the references that I made were not for in connection with Jackson's
but in connection with the other annexations in the area in section 17 and section
16, thank you.
Johnson: Thank you, anyone else?
Sherman: Hi, Beverly Sherman.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you?
Sherman: I do and ditto.
Johnson: I think our motion will include a condition that the prior testimony will all
be included. It's difficult to separate the testimony from the conditional use
permit and that annexation and zoning.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 48
(end of tape)
Prior: Do you promise swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Truax: I do. I'd also like mine from item #5 submitted. I also would like to add a
comment to the conditional use permit part of it that the credit union may end up
being the pawn in this whole ordeal her and since there is so much commercial
pressure on that intersection on that particular piece of property that there be
some constraints on that to keep it from going into another high volume, high
use, high through-put and eliminating the buffer for the property to the north. I'd
just like to request that the Commission consider that when they're laying out the
legal documents for that permit. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you. Anyone else have a statement or would like to testify on
this application? Is there any further comment from staff? At this time then I'll
close this public hearing. This is a conditional use permit request, it will require
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as well.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on this application.
MacCoy: Second.
Johnson: I have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on item #6 conditional use permit
submitted by Eagle Partners LLC. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Johnson: We'll take a ten-minute recess. – We'll reconvene the meeting at this
time.
ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR 13 TO 24 CHILDREN BY: WENDELL AND KATHLEEN LAWRENCE – 889
N. FILLMORE WAY:
Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing and ask that the applicant or the
applicant's representative address the Commission. You need to be sworn.
Lawrence: Kathleen Lawrence, 889 N. Fillmore Way.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 49
Lawrence: I do. First of all most of my parents will call my Kasha and they are
talking about me that's what I go by, they were all wondering why it said Kathleen
on the itinerary. I have a daily schedule and then I also have a list of four
children that are currently in our subdivision who are on our waiting list and I
would like to thank all my parents who stayed to support.
Johnson: Are you through? You have to address everything to us, you can't talk
to the people who came here to support you, okay?
Lawrence: I'm sorry.
Johnson: Questions of -- I don't know, we're going to find out right now whether
her name is Kathleen, is that your name?
Lawrence: Yes.
MacCoy: Kathleen I was at your home property there because I didn't receive a
location map nor a layout out of your home so I didn't know what we were
looking at here. Did anybody else get one? Well tremendous you guys got it
and I didn't get it in my box. All right I'll move on, are you planning to have any
children that are handicapped in your facility?
Lawrence: Actually we have no training for that, we will not – I'm not saying we
will not have any, we haven't had any requests for handicapped children in the
past.
MacCoy: Okay if you don't plan but just for a matter of information if you should
come across that and have to entertain that as a way to go you're going to have
to follow some additional things into your home to take care of those, so just
keep –
Lawrence: We do have one handicapped parent who's in a wheelchair and she's
never had any problem coming in the house and using the restroom.
MacCoy: Right, I was thinking of the children from the standpoint of your play
equipment and so on of that type. You've got what two gates to your backyard?
Lawrence: We have one gate, the other one on the other side is into the
storage.
MacCoy: I noticed the storage material in there yes and that's had a combination
lock on the door that one did from the outside.
Lawrence: Right.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 50
MacCoy: The one that's on your playground side, is that a lockable gate?
Lawrence: Yes, but we haven't ever had it locked.
MacCoy: Well one of the things we worry about is the fact that –
Lawrence: It's a latch, the children can't open the gate from the inside.
MacCoy: Well it's protection from both directions. It's protection from the kids
getting out so they can't reach the lock and the latch system and also for if
anybody's trying to come into your place and would snatch a kid from you too so
it's to your –
Lawrence: We can begin locking it.
MacCoy: I think you ought to take a look at that from a security standpoint. Is
your neighborhood have covenants?
Lawrence: Yes, they do.
MacCoy: And have you checked into that before you started this procedure?
Lawrence: Yes, I did.
MacCoy: And what about your neighbors that are right around your area there,
anybody have –
Lawrence: -- We have spoken with all of the neighbors that are directly adjacent
and across the street and I've talked to the one on the – two down and two this
way and the one across the street and any of the other neighbors that I do know
and I have seen, I have also spoken to them.
MacCoy: You have nobody that has complained or is upset over this?
Lawrence: No, no sir.
MacCoy: We see that every so often. What about signage?
Lawrence: No signs.
MacCoy: No signs, you're going to do it all by –
Lawrence: We haven't ever needed to advertise with a sign.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 51
MacCoy: Alright. I thought you had a nice looking playground out there though,
I thought the thing was well designed and is more than just a jungle gym you had
some really nice runway I thought was – is that your idea?
Lawrence: My husband also works there and so he's quite the handyman.
MacCoy: Well I think it's really great for the kids, he did a good job, thank you.
Johnson: Anyone else? Mr. Smith?
Smith: Yes. What is the age range of the children you presently care for?
Lawrence: The youngest child that we have is one year old and the reason why
he is so young is he was a sibling and we've been watching his little brother for
three years. The oldest we have is nine, Krista is nine, she just had a birthday I
wasn't sure.
Smith: Okay, and what's the maximum age of children you're going to watch –
look out for?
Lawrence: Well we have never cared for anyone older than nine. A lot of times
– I think maybe in the future we will as they grow older and they might possibly
need after school care, you know we're not going to say well you're ten, you're
out of here.
Smith: That's a good thing. I hope you have a talk with them when they enter
high school though but – I was just trying to get an idea what kind of –
Lawrence: We try to mainly take potty trained and up for our curriculum but you
know granted if somebody has a baby we will try to accommodate them.
Smith: I don't have anymore questions at this time.
Nelson: I have a question. This is still a residential area and I know when you
have a wide age range it's really hard to keep skill levels in groups that are
reasonable with kids. It's my personal preference that when you get up to
twenty-four it's no longer a daycare it's a commercial environment, that's quite a
few kids and I'd just like to have your comments on how you would deal with
twenty-four kids in a wide range and such a small area.
Lawrence: Okay for our square feet I believe that the Fire Department would
probably only license us for eighteen, we would like to try to stretch it to twenty.
The Fire Department comes in, they evaluate your square feet, measure
everything off and they do not count kitchen, bathrooms, they do not count where
your couch is, they do not count any area that is not usable play space for the
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 52
children and they assess how many children can safely and – you know so they
don't make each other sick – live – I mean, you know, be cared for – then I want
to say Central District Health comes in and they take the Fire Department's
number and they do their evaluations and they restrict you further. I would
possibly – I would love to get licensed for eighteen, that way my husband would
have nine and I would have nine. The majority of our children are 3, 4, and 5
year olds. We do have a couple older children that are there after school, before
and after school I should say. Does that answer your question?
Nelson: Yes.
Lawrence: Okay. You know we would meet the 35 square feet per child, and
that isn't per child that is per person so they would count my husband, myself,
and my two daughters.
Johnson: Any other questions?
Nelson: What areas of the home are incorporated into your daycare?
Lawrence: Do you want me to go up and show you, I don't know where to tell
you.
Nelson: Well I have the plan in front of me, I would assume the family room is.
Lawrence: The family room, the front room, the larger –
Nelson: The front room being the living room?
Lawrence: Right, the living room, the larger back bedroom, --
Nelson: Which is the master?
Lawrence: Right, the larger back bedroom, -- my husband and I, we reside in
the smaller back bedroom and then my daughter's bedroom, I'm not sure if the
Fire Department and Central District Health would use that, we currently use it
because you know my children they let the children go in there and play.
Nelson: Okay, and then the bathroom between what's called the master
bedroom and the family room is what you –
Lawrence: -- Bob from Central District Health told me the children would be
using both bathrooms.
Nelson: Okay, then what about the dining and kitchen, do you use that for food
service and –
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 53
Lawrence: Yes, they don't count the kitchen as usable play space, the dining –
Bob Speck would have to come in and he would not give me a yes or no answer,
he said –
Nelson: -- I'm not really so concerned about what they consider usable play
space, I'm just curious what is utilized in a day care.
Lawrence: Yes, we do use that.
Nelson: Is the garage used at all?
Lawrence: No.
Nelson: Okay, I don't have any other questions.
Borup: So it sounds like you're anticipating eighteen children, is that what you're
looking for and at this point has an analysis not been made by the Fire
Department and Central District Health?
Lawrence: No, they won't come out until you guys give them the permit.
Borup: But is that what you're looking towards is the eighteen possible twenty-
four?
Lawrence: Actually I personally would like to have twenty. My evaluation –
Borup: -- That's what your application had was twenty.
Lawrence: Right, my evaluation of our home probably suggest eighteen but –
Borup: -- But you're thinking that twenty is going to be a maximum that you'd be
able to accommodate?
Lawrence: Right.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: I had one question, or one statement anyway. You look familiar to me,
I didn't realize it but our counselor just told me that in February 1996 you and I
squared off on a place for children, and in that --
Lawrence: -- same house.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 54
MacCoy: -- And at that time if you look at the record I also called for a child proof
gate that be lockable, so –
Lawrence: -- I didn't understand that it was to be lockable, I thought it was to be
latchable but it is lockable you can lock it we just have not kept it locked.
MacCoy: That's right, I can see it can be lockable so it would just be a matter of
doing it that's all.
Lawrence: Now when the Fire Department came out they told us that we had to
leave the door and the gate unlocked and so I – for fire safety, you know so the
children could get out but our fire plan actually has all the children going to the
far corner of the yard, the far back corner, it's kind of a pie shape.
MacCoy: Yeah I was out there so I know. Working with our City Police
Department they would like to have a security situation so there we are, I can
understand the Fire –
Lawrence: Actually I kind of would like it locked myself, we've had the UPS go
back there and I've told them you do not use this – you know I've thought about
maybe putting a little note saying if your children don't come here stay out.
MacCoy: Yes, the Fire Department that I've had discussion with and that's the
Chief, is saying that if the gate's locked he said we can get through that thing in
just like that because we've got the axe and the whole works and we'll use it.
Lawrence: Well I think – what I understood from talking with him is that he said if
I was knocked out or if my husband was incapacitated the children couldn't get
out of the gate before the Fire Department got there.
MacCoy: Well from our standpoint we're looking at the standpoint of – at least I
am anyway –
Lawrence: --That's the standpoint I look at also and I don't have any problem
locking it.
MacCoy: -- And the Fire people, they'll get in if they have to.
Lawrence: Right.
Johnson: You guys are kind of reading each other's minds but you're not really
providing us with a whole lot of good testimony okay, you're filling in for one
another, anticipating answers and words and questions. Try to be more specific.
Okay, that's enough for right now, thank you, we may call you back. Anyone else
like to come forward? You need to be sworn sir.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 55
Lawrence: Yes, Wendell Lawrence, I live at 889 N. Fillmore Way.
Prior: The other hand. Do you promise, --
Lawrence, W.: Sorry -- I'm left handed.
Prior: That's alright. Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give
at this public hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Lawrence, W.: Yes, I do. I didn't have too much to add to my wife's testimony
except to say that we tried to find a happy medium with the security issue
because of the differences with the city requirements and the Fire Dept.
requirements so there is an actual alarm on the gate that goes off every time the
gate is opened so if a kid goes through the gate we know right away so that's
what we tried to do because we realize this is a big problem and kids are
escaping, we care, so – there may be instances that the children are in the back
yard that we're not there but that's very rare, we try to be back there – on our
daily schedule we have specific times that the children go outside and once that
happens we try to go outside with them but as a backup we do have that gate
alarm that goes off every time.
Johnson: Anything else? Anyone else like to testify? Yes ma'am.
Weatherby: I'm Connie Weatherby, I live at 3588 E. Judicial.
Johnson: I didn't get your name, I'm sorry.
Weatherby: Connie Weatherby.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Weatherby: I do.
Prior: Thank you.
Weatherby: I would just like to state that my children, I have three of them, that
go to Kasha Lawrence's daycare is the safest, loving, nurturing place that my
children have been and we've been to a lot of day cares. My two year old
climbs, he gets out of our house, we had to child proof our house to keep him in
and he's never had a problem at Kasha's about leaving or climbing over their
fences in any way – he does, we have a fence he climbs over, he's a little
monkey – but it's
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 56
a wonderful place for children to be in and I'm also her neighbor and I've talked
with other neighbors that she doesn't know and they have not got a problem with
her day care in any way, shape or form. That's all I have to say.
Johnson: You're a character reference then is that right?
Weatherby: Yes.
Johnson: Anyone else?
Bolter: Hi, Martin Bolter, 801 N. 20th
.
Prior: Do your promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Bolter: Yes, I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Bolter: My son's been going to Kasha & Wendell's daycare for four years,
always been safe and everything and they're really nice people and I support
them fully, that's all I really have to say.
Johnson: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes sir.
Fairchild: Mike Fairchild, 3738 E. Judicial Drive.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you?
Fairchild: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Fairchild: I'd just like to say that my son goes to Kasha and Wendell's daycare
and it's a real good daycare, we're real pleased with the service and the quality
of the education and things that they do there, he's really developed more since
being there so I support them fully.
Johnson: Okay, thank you, I appreciate that. We passed down a waiting list and
some things, we need that back for the record, do you know where that is?
Anyone else like to come forward at this time? Seeing no one then I'll close
public hearing at this time. This request for a conditional use permit would
require Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 57
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman I recommend that we ask the counselor to prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Nelson: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and a simultaneous second to have the City
Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on item #7. All in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GROUP
DAY CARE BY TONYA WEBSTER -- 3642 E. EISENHOWER:
Johnson: I'll now open the public hearing and ask the applicant or the applicant's
representative to address the Commission and be sworn.
Webster: My name is Tonya Webster, 3642 E. Eisenhower Drive.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Webster: I do. I want a conditional use permit for a daycare of up to six or seven
kids between the ages of seventeen months and five years.
Johnson: We have your application so we can just start by asking some
questions, this might be a good way to start some dialogue. Have you seen the
letter dated April 10th
from our planning staff, Assistant Engineer, Freckleton, and
Planning & Zoning Administrator, Stiles? Do you have a copy of that?
Webster: I don't.
Johnson: Well it was just done on the 10th
that's why I asked that. There are
nine items in here and I'll make mine available to you here so that you at least
have that because I was going to ask you if you had seen that and if you had any
difficulties with any of those items and I will relinquish the podium to someone
else.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman I'll pick it up from you.
Webster: Yeah, I have seen this.
Johnson: You have seen that, okay. Then I will ask you, did you have any
problems with any of those requirements, suggestions?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 58
Webster: This was just mailed on April 10th
?
Johnson: Yes, it's date April 10th
.
Webster: Actually no, I have not received this letter.
Johnson: Okay so you need a little time to look at it. Did you have another
question Malcolm?
MacCoy: Yes, I was out at the site, in fact I've even talked to Tonya out there
and she even gave me a tour so what about for the record your neighborhood
covenants and your neighborhoods response to you running a daycare center.
Webster: I've talked to all the neighbors right next to me and behind me and in
front of me and none of them have a problem with it.
MacCoy: Okay, your yard is fenced and it does have a gate on it.
Webster: My husband says that that can be a lockable gate all we need to do is
buy a deadbolt.
MacCoy: That's right, I've checked your locking system and that's all you need
and you've got an above ground pool in your backyard, would you please state
the condition of that.
Webster: Well there's no way possible that a kid five years or below could get
into that pool, I mean the pool stands five-foot high and a five year old stands 2-3
feet high you know so it's possible we do have a deck going in around the pool
but it will be gated and locked and I was just told by Kasha because -- the gal
that was here before that the health inspectors will tell me to take out the pool or
completely fence it in before I can even get a license.
Prior: That's what state law requires, you have to fence it.
Webster: Yeah, and we're halfway there so –
MacCoy: And I witnessed that (inaudible) it's almost – the gate's there it just
hasn't been put on the hinges yet and you've got part of your fencing already up.
Webster: Right.
MacCoy: It's more like a four foot high pool by the –
Webster: No, it's five-foot.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 59
MacCoy: It sure doesn't seem like it.
Webster: 48-inches, I'm sorry, 48-inches, 4-feet sorry.
MacCoy: What do you plan for signage to announce what you're doing there?
Webster: I plan on using the Idaho Statesman for advertising.
MacCoy: Okay, you're not planning on planting a sign –
Webster: -- But I did have a sign stating what I wanted to do for my neighbors,
and for passerby’s, and I it got rained out so I need to put another one up.
MacCoy: Well, okay, but you plan to not have a sign designed and planted in
your front yard?
Webster: Oh no, no.
MacCoy: Alright, do you have any plans for handicapped children in your take?
Webster: I do have experience with Down's Syndrome and I would take Down's
Syndrome kids because I do have extensive experience with Down's Syndrome
kids but that's all the further I've thought about that.
MacCoy: Just a matter of statement to you about the handicapped is that there
is a state and federal law that handles that if you end up having a child who is
handicapped that you would have to meet that part of the requirements, if you
don't plant to have them then don't worry about it. What's your hours of
operation?
Webster: Well I would plan to be open from 7:00 to 6:00, 7:00 in the morning.
MacCoy: Okay, pass.
Johnson: Anyone else, questions?
Nelson: I have a question. Could you clarify the number of children – you
mentioned around six and –
Webster: I only plan to take six or seven including my own.
Nelson: That's including yours for a total.
Webster: Yes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 60
Nelson: Thank you.
Smith: I have one. What areas of the home are you planning on using for this
daycare?
Webster: Well I've got – I'm going to use the kitchen, the (inaudible), the dining
room, my living room, the two spare bedrooms and the one bathroom. The
master bedroom will be excluded and there's another bedroom by the laundry
area that will be excluded as well.
Smith: Okay, thanks.
Johnson: Mr. Borup?
Borup: I think all my questions got answered and this is more of a comment on
technical. Item #10 on the application calls for a plan to scale, showing the site
and lot, etceteras, I do not find that in my packet so I assume that wasn't –
Johnson: I think all we have is what Byron has open there isn't that right?
Borup: The floor plan of the house but not of the lot. And I think we can get the
idea with the (inaudible) but a lot of time that's on there so that we can see what
the whole property is, I assume that's one of the reasons. Thank you.
Prior: Chairman, I have just one brief question.
Johnson: I'm going to stick to Mr. Smith from now on.
Borup: Go ahead.
Johnson: Mr. Prior?
Prior: I just want a clarification because our ordinance breaks down these child
care facilities into three classifications and it's five or fewer, six to twelve, so on
and so forth, so you're telling us specifically now so when I do these findings,
and they're going to make me do findings on this, you're telling me six kids is that
the maximum?
Webster: I'm telling you six or seven.
Prior: Okay, so no more that seven kids that's what you're saying then right?
Webster: Well I don't know.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 61
Johnson: Well that's what she's saying but she will have every right to go to
twelve.
Prior: Okay. I just wanted a clarification for my own, you know I know it's late
and maybe I'm tired but at least I know the Commissioner's names.
Webster: I feel like I'd be comfortable with six or seven and according to my
comfort level with the six or seven I might go with another part timer, I don’t
know.
Prior: So six to twelve.
Webster: I'm not going to have twelve kids, no.
Prior: You could have six to twelve alright? That's all I have.
Johnson: Alright thank you very much, anyone else like to come forward on this
application?
England: My name is Charlene England, I live at 3718 E. Eisenhower.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
England: I do. I do not have an issue with the daycare operation on my street, I
have an issue with the increased traffic that may occur. Currently now we have
the six to twelve children that may be entered into this home for daycare but as
in the previous person before where it could double in size and I'm just
wondering what impact that will have on the traffic on my street and what I as a
resident on that street can do, maybe I'm addressing the wrong place but I have
a concern of the increased traffic that it might present.
Johnson: You will have increased traffic.
England: Okay, what are my options then because I have no problem as I said
with the –
Johnson: It depends on what this Commission and the City Council decides to
do, if they approve it you will have increased traffic.
England: Okay, and I just deal with it?
Johnson: Yes, it's part of life, yes.
England: So if I don't want increased traffic I need to oppose it?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 62
Prior: You know let's not cut the –
Johnson: Okay Mr. Prior go ahead, you have more tact than I do, go ahead.
Prior: Everybody has more tact than you do for the record. These conditional
use permits can be revoked and everybody understands that who's here today
so if it gets to be an ongoing problem obviously the solution is you try to work it
out with – if it's approved – work it out with the person there but if it's not and it
gets to be an ongoing problem these things – you file a complaint and it goes
before the City Council and they can hold a hearing whether they want to
continue allowing that person to have that, so there is an option there at some
point, okay? It's not deal with it.
Johnson: And that last happened in 1810. I'm just kidding.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, let me just read part of an ACHD report on this particular
project, it might clarify for you what it's going to do to your traffic. "Each parent
typically makes two round trips per day, four one-way trips, the Institute of
Transportation Engineers data shows that a typical daycare created 4.65 vehicle
trips per day per student". The proposed twelve student facility can be expected
to generate 56 total vehicle trips per day and she's said that she doesn't want to
have twelve so it would be less than 56, so four times however many kids gets
you an idea according to ACHD and if some of those kids are her kids then that
would be even less.
Johnson: Or if two kids come together in the same car.
Borup: And I really question how many parents make four trips a day.
Johnson: A trip is I think by the Highway Dept. is you go and you drop your child
off and –
Borup: They're saying two round trips so apparently they expect the parents to
rush over there at lunch time and check on their kids every day.
Johnson: Could be.
Smith: Two round trips, one in the morning to drop them off, one at night to pick
them up. Four one way trips, one way in one way out twice. Sounds bad but –
Borup: I think what the Commission's saying to the individual up here is yeah
there's going to be traffic unless you propose the children being dropped off at
Eagle Road and walking in, so the cars are going to be there.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 63
Nelson: Can I make a comment? It's kind of the obligation I think of this Board
to provide alternative daycare solutions if we're going to approve subdivisions
and – I think it's a good thing that we allow some in-house daycares and should
almost encourage it rather than lots of industrial sized daycares but yes that
does promote the traffic locally. The assumption is that there's only the same
number of kids in Meridian regardless of whether they drive through your
neighborhood on the way to a big daycare or stop on the way. I don't think traffic
really is going to be an issue.
Johnson: Okay I feel better now.
Borup: Obviously one factor would be how many of the people are living in the
subdivision already and how many are coming from outside the subdivision.
Johnson: Anybody else since we've hit the traffic issue pretty good. Yes Sir, you
need to be sworn.
Webster, D.: Daniel J. Webster, 3642 E. Eisenhower Drive.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Webster, D.: Yes I do, thank you. Gentlemen this pool is 52 inches, I would like
to have you correct your paper work, it's not 48, it is 52 inches though just to –
that's four more inches than 48 standard so –
Prior: I feel better, I feel a lot better.
Webster, D.: -- yes, we've got to put a lot of design into this particular deck that's
being built around the pool and rest assured that there is no way any children
can get into this particular area.
Johnson: Is that a covered pool?
Webster, D.: Yes it is sir, yes it is a covered pool.
Johnson: Any questions of Mr. Webster? Thank you, anyone else? Anybody
else here for this application? If not then I'll close the public hearing at this time.
This would require Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the conditional
use permit by Tonya Webster.
MacCoy: Chairman I recommend that we give to the Counselor the duty to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this item.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 64
Johnson: Are you just going to recommend it or are you going to instruct him to
do it?
MacCoy: I want to instruct you to do it.
Nelson: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City Attorney prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. All in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ENGLEWOOD
CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY ENGLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT
CORP. – WEST OF TEN MILE ROAD AND ¼ MILE SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Johnson: I'll now open this public hearing and invite the applicant or the
applicant's representative to address the Commission and be sworn.
Tomlinson: My name is Richard Tomlinson I work with Hubble Engineering, 9550
Bethel Court, Boise, Idaho.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Tomlinson: I do.
Prior: Proceed.
Tomlinson: I'm here on behalf of the developer, it's for Englewood Creek Estates
Subdivision No.2, it's a 49 lot subdivision on 15 ½ acres, it's apparently in the R-
4 zone and I think we meet all of those – meet all of the requirements in that
zone and also we agree with the recommendations and comments that the staff
has brought up for the subdivision except for site specific comment number six
which is to dedicate a twenty foot lot –
Johnson: I think you responded to those in writing didn't you?
Tomlinson: I did, and at the time we had agreed with it and I have spoken with
the Public Works Department since then as to maybe some other way we can
deal with the sewer line being brought in between lots 12 & 13 of block 4 there
and we would put in a twenty foot exclusive easement. The twenty foot
easement would be entirely on one lot so there wouldn't be a fence down the
middle or over the sewer line so there would be adequate area there to get in
and do any repairs necessary.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 65
Johnson: Okay any questions of Mr. Tomlinson? Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Item #7 on the flood plain, is this area being affected by flood plains
differently than others?
Tomlinson: No, it's not. The Five Mile drain is adjacent to this property on the
east boundary and there's a floodway and floodplains along with that but it's not
in a – on the lot's – the flood plain elevations are well below the elevations of this
subdivision.
Borup: It's 100 or the 500?
Tomlinson: 100.
Borup: That's all I have for Rich, sometime I've got a question for staff but we
can probably do that later on.
Johnson: Yeah I'm going to ask Bruce now on item #6 if I could please. Have
you had discussion with Hubble Engineering regarding that?
Freckleton: Yes, we have. I concur with what he has said. We do feel that the
easement would be an adequate solution in this case. We have access to both
ends of this main, it's fairly deep, it's nine feet deep. At the final plat stage we do
plan on putting some restrictions on that lot so far as what could be improved
permanent structures and that sort of thing, so we feel real comfortable with the
easement situation.
Johnson: Okay thank you Bruce. Did you want to hold yours for later?
Borup: No let me maybe ask Mr. Tomlinson first. Item #4 on orientation of lots
and arrows indicating – have you got any comment on that? And I bring this up
from a comment I heard from someone else previously but maybe a little bit
different situation.
Tomlinson: I don't, there was one lot on there where it was a corner lot and in
this zone we need to have a minimum eighty feet of frontage and this particular
one side of this lot was 79 feet so we will have an arrow on there orientating the
house to the 80 foot frontage.
Borup: Okay then maybe a question for Bruce. I guess I didn’t really understand
what you were trying to say there unless it was saying that one of the lots was
under 80 feet.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 66
Freckleton: That's true Commissioner Borup, in fact Rich pointed that out to me
today that I wasn't real specific there. Typically when I do make this comment I
do specify a particular lot and I'm not so general, it was for the record lot 17,
block 4, the north Phoenix Avenue frontage was the short side and so Rich is
correct the arrow would point towards Angelica Drive.
Borup: If it stays (inaudible) Rich is that the one you were saying was 79?
Tomlinson: Right.
Borup: Are these dimensions correct?
Tomlinson: Right, what you have there is –
Borup: Is that a twenty foot radius there?
Tomlinson: That's a twenty foot radius, yes.
Borup: And then there's 65 on top of the 20?
Tomlinson: Right, well the radius is twenty-five feet, I believe the arc length is
twenty-eight feet, that may not be a ninety degree angle there.
Borup: Well then yeah it looks to me like that far exceeds the 80 feet.
Tomlinson: No it's typically I think we take half of the arc length – half of the arc
length plus the tangent.
Borup: Okay that was my next question the definition of frontage on a corner lot.
Freckleton: Right, the criteria that the City Engineer has had us going by is ½
arc length plus the tangent length on the side.
Borup: Can you explain the rational behind that rather than the back property
boundary -- or is there any rational? – And I realize that maybe doesn't
necessarily apply to this specific application but it's for my clarification for future
and to try to clarify a question I was asked –
Freckleton: In a lot of cases lots do narrow towards the front, this particular lot
does narrow some, the side lot lines aren't parallel with one another so by
applying the ordinance the frontage requirements of the ordinance we go by the
street frontage.
Borup: So you're saying – how about lot 16, right behind it? Rich is that a 28
foot radius? There's no curve date on here but –
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 67
Tomlinson: I'm going to go –
Freckleton: That's your arc length Rich, you take the 71 plus ½ of the 28, the 28
is the arc length so it would be roughly 14 and 71, you make it on that one.
Borup: So you're saying if that was – if the back of that lot was – well those
aren't all right angles – if the back of that lot was a 84 foot lot it would not meet
the criteria then?
Freckleton: That would be correct if the side lot lines were parallel, if it didn't
converge toward the front.
Borup: Right, yeah and I realize – I'm not sure if those are.
Freckleton: Yeah at the preliminary plat it's hard to tell.
Johnson: Yeah maybe we can explore this with the City Engineer later.
Borup: Yeah I would like to because I have some questions on (inaudible)
Johnson: We need to move on this application, any more question's of Hubble
Engineering's representative? Okay thank you. Anyone like to come forward on
this application? Any further comments from anyone? I'll close the public
hearing at this time. This preliminary plat does not require Finding of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, it requires a recommendation to the City Council.
Borup: Chairman, I move that we recommend to City Council approval of this
preliminary plat.
Nelson: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second to recommend approval of the
preliminary plat for item #9 the application by Englewood Development Corp. All
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
Freckleton: Excuse me Mr. Chairman, the motion didn't include deletion of item
#6 site specific.
Johnson: It could. Do you want to withdraw your motion?
Borup: Yeah I'd like to withdraw my motion.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 68
Johnson: Withdraw the motion, we'll start over.
Borup: Does that need to state deletion of #6 or stating that there wouldn't be a
20 foot easement on – did they go the 12 or 13?
Johnson: Well you could just make it –
Borup: Or is that pertinent?
Johnson: You could make it vague, you could say – considering alternate
options for site specific item #6 to be worked out by staff.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend City Council
approval of this preliminary plat with the clarification on the sewer line between
lot 12 and 13 that sewer main easement be worked out between the applicant
and staff as far as easement location and specifications.
MacCoy: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and a second, any further discussion? All in favor?
Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye
ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.02 ACRES
FOR OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY TONY HICKEY – EAST OF 603
EAST PIINE:
Johnson: I'll now open a public hearing and ask that the applicant's
representative be sworn and address the Commission.
Howard: My name is Jim Howard with J. J. Howard Engineering, address is
1675A Hill Road.
Prior: Do you promise, swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this public
hearing will be the (End of Tape)
Howard: We have brought some visual aids if you would like to look at those we
could post those and discuss this project.
Johnson: Whatever you would like to do in your presentation.
Howard: The proposed development is just off of Pine Street. It’s a twenty lot
townhouse subdivision. It’s currently zoned agricultural. We are requesting a
rezone into the city under an R-15 designation, and from the out set, we
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 69
contacted the City about the concerns of Idaho Street which is on the south
boundary, at that time the City as I recall was – I don’t want to characterize it
indifferent. They weren’t really concerned, or they didn’t have an opinion as
whether Idaho should be extended or not, and I’ll let them speak to that. And
then we presented a plan based on Idaho not being extended. And with further
discussions with Ada County Highway District just recently, they requested or
they wanted Idaho extended, so we have this plan reflects a situation where
Idaho could be extended so as a developer has indicated to me he could go
either way. So the issue of Idaho being extended can be provided for either
case. If they choose not to extend Idaho, then that’s just fine, so we’re really
passive about that. We’re not concerned about whether Idaho be extended or
not. We can accommodate it either way. Our first plan was with Idaho not being
extended. And then it was further revised, and primarily it’s a very simple
development. Our first plan is almost identical to that, except it had cul-de-sac or
a t-turnaround. So there’s no real difference and no lot count difference between
the two development plans. One of them was with a t-turnaround at the bottom
here. I have a copy of that plan if you want to see it.
Johnson: I believe we have that one in our packet.
Howard: And it was just simply a turnaround at the south end of it and one way
and with the emergency turnaround.
Johnson: We’re getting away from the microphone, so we’re not going to be able
to pick that up, so you need to stay with it or take the –
Howard: So I think that you have a copy of that other plan and that was it. Its
issues are not terribly complex. It’s either or. I believe there was a letter that I
just received the other day that they wanted to maybe further review this
because of the changes. I’m not overly concerned. Perhaps I don’t understand
why this has to be looked at a second time.
Johnson: Would you be overly concerned or at least a little bit more concerned if
you were asked to pay for part of the extension of Idaho Street?
Howard: We would certainly pay for the extension of Idaho Street across our
project.
Johnson: Because there is three lots or something to the west that you’d have to
cross over if you even had access from Idaho Street; isn’t that true?
Howard: No.
Johnson: Three lots that aren’t shown on that?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 70
Howard: No. One.
Johnson: Well, there’s one lot that would be affected, but there’s actually three
lots running north and south there, right? According to the diagram.
Howard: On the east side of us of on the west side?
Johnson: I’m talking on the west side. This shows three lots. That’s what I’m
referring to. Of course you are only crossing one lot.
Howard: (Inaudible) It’s presently right now, it’s one lot. But there may have
been some splits taken. But I don’t think that would be particularly a concern
from his perspective, but he is here and he can address that specifically so I
don’t want to sell the farm. But I don’t think he’s going to have a problem with it.
Nelson: I have a question about the interim, in the event that you do this
development –
Johnson: Excuse me, are you guys joining us here?
MacCoy: We’re talking about the same thing.
Johnson: I know, we can hear you is the problem and he’s still testifying.
Nelson: In the event that Idaho doesn’t get extended for sometime, what do we
do as far as a turnaround in the interim?
Howard: Okay the way this is set up is it’s to provide for the extension of Idaho,
and I better not leave the mike.
Johnson: You can take that mike over there and walk right up to it. It’s portable.
Howard: This is Pine out here and this would be left as an open area for a
turnaround. And access would come off of Pine and then turn south and there
would be emergency turnaround in this area here. When Idaho is extended, this
street would be completed. There would be barricades because this will be a
private street to stop traffic from entering on Idaho coming to the project and then
out on Pine. So it would be only one way in and ballards would be erected or
barriers, break away barriers to stop through traffic. Does that answer your
question?
Nelson: Is there any kind of documentation to that affect as far as the phasing of
that?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 71
Howard: The developer would agree to that. That when Idaho is extended to
south that would occur. In fact he would prefer that.
Johnson: Thank you. I didn’t want to cut you off. Did you have some more
comments.
Howard: I believe that’s it. I would the opportunity to answer any questions you
have, if you have any more. If you have any more that you would like to direct to
the developer. He’s here, and he can respond to some of the specifics that I
couldn’t.
Johnson: Okay, thank you. Any more questions for Mr. Howard? Anyone else
like to come forward at this time representing the applicant first?
TONY HICKEY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Hickey: When we first started with this development it was not in my intent to
bring Idaho through and all just to make it a single private lane going in and to
service 20 townhouses that are directed as much as we can to empty nesters,
single persons and so on and so forth that are getting up a little ways in age and
they don’t want 2,000 or 3,000 square foot house anymore. When we developed
this project, the major bedroom for example we expect to be on the main level.
You can’t hardly build a one or a two bedroom house anymore and they expect
to get to get it sold so it will be a three bedroom townhouse, the master on the
main level so that we can in fact direct our marketing more towards the senior
citizens. Because of this, I don’t expect to see a lot of additional traffic in the
area. We’re hoping that the City understands that we are trying to do some infill
with this particular project and feel that it makes a great buffer between some of
the other industrial things that could at some point in time head south towards
the railroad tracks and on. We also did not want to come in with apartments. It
wasn’t intent to have a lot of rentals even though there are rentals everywhere. It
isn’t specifically set up to be a rental project. It’s an owner owned and occupied
project. Our covenants and restrictions, we would hope, would be fulfilled with
the home owners association to keep it looking as good as one would expect to
have in the City of Meridian. Also it’s our intent to try to blend the look of this
townhouse project to the more mature parts of the city of Meridian. We don’t
want it to look out of place at all. It’s difficult to build a 1998 version next a 1937
version, but we are making every attempt to keep it blended as much as we can.
Any questions?
Johnson: Questions from the commissioners?
Smith: Can you elaborate on why you think that an R-15 density fits well into this
existing neighborhood?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 72
Hickey: Yes, I can. I think it makes a good buffer between the single family
homes at one home per lot type of thing to anything that was going to happen
south between this piece of property and the railroad tracks and the things that
are going to happen on towards the east where there’s some industrial activity,
commercial activity going out there. It makes a nice transition.
Smith: Well, I’d agree that would be a valid statement for the homes north of
Pine Street, but the ones south. I drove by the site yesterday and to be honest
with you I recall the home on the west side, but I don’t recall what approximately
was on the east. But I’m just going to tell you straight out I don’t think it fits there.
I think it’s too dense. It doesn’t fit the neighborhood, and I can’t support it. So
therefore I’m not even going to comment on what is the architecture and how
that fits because basically that’s the killer for me.
Hickey: I understand that Commissioner Smith. It has been noted in growing
communities and cities that as we get closer to the center of the community,
higher density is needed in order to keep less traffic. A person would put in ten
or twelve houses would probably have a lot more traffic congestion I would think
than they would have with twenty townhouses that are directed more as close as
one can without being discriminatory towards a particular type of citizen. The
closer in to the nucleus of a town in most case the higher the density is a better
situation, so I understand what you are saying, but that’s kind of what I’ve seen
in the past.
Johnson: Anyone else? Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward on this
application? Lady in green.
RITA TAGGART 830 E. 5TH
STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Taggart: I’m here because I am opposed to this, and I hope you weren’t asking
me to come up and go along with this, because I’m definitely opposed to it. I’m
about three doors down from where this is going to be going in. When we look at
it, we look at it as apartments because they are so close to each other. There’s
new subdivisions going in and have gone in around there. They are very nice
looking homes, and the people take good care of them. When you are talking
about a three bedroom, you’re not just talking about two people living in it.
Because those other two bedrooms have to be filled also. I’m a mother and I’m
a grandmother, and I constantly have kids moving in on me, grandchildren
coming, everything else so you do have a lot of people. So you are not just
talking about 40 people. You are talking more about 80 or even more than that.
You were talking about the traffic. Traffic, when you’ve got kids coming, you’ve
got their friends. You’ve got friends coming to visit. You are not just talking
about the people who are living on those homes, you are talking about
everybody who is coming to see them also. I’m very much opposed to it. It
definitely does not fit in our area. Our homes are within that whole block that is
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 73
right next to it, they were all built probably in 37’s and 47’s. They are older
homes. This is just too many people all in one tiny area. And the industrial area.
I’d much rather see industrial come up next door to me than to see apartments
condensed that much with that many people in them. I go out riding bike and go
walking in the evenings. It’s very quiet, but when you are going to put another 40
people or all that traffic possibly animals and whatever, it’s just really takes away
from the quietness of the neighborhood and if you drive down, you’ll see there’s
just not that many people walking around and out on the streets. That’s all I
have to say.
Johnson: I have a question. So you’d rather see industrial there. Was there
anything else you’d rather see there?
Taggart: I know that possibly individual housing would fit in the area so much
better where there are lots, where there’s space in between them. And I know
that you are still inviting traffic. You are still inviting children. You are inviting
animals and whatever, but in a two acre parcel, what are you talking about?
Eight lots? Possibly eight individual homes as compared to 20. Maybe 10, but
no more than that.
Johnson: I take a little exception with your use of the word apartment because
we have found over the years that there’s a vast difference between an
apartment and an owned townhouse and the type of people that you do get there
and the type of problems that are presented. I wouldn’t personally equate this to
an apartment.
Taggart: I lived in a townhouse over in Nampa for one year about six years ago,
and I had to live in it for one year, and they called it a townhouse. There was a
wall in between each person.
Johnson: Were they rental units?
Taggart: They were rentals, yes, and that’s another thing we are afraid of that
this is going to end up being rentals rather than owned homes.
Johnson: Well, I don’t know any apartments that are owned. You used the word
apartment. That’s one of the distinctions I was trying to make there.
Taggart: Well the management called it a townhouse, so I assumed that a
townhouse.
Johnson: Okay, any questions?
Borup: You say you lived on 5th
? Are you between Pine and Idaho?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 74
Taggart: Yes.
Borup: Okay, it sounds like one of your main concerns is traffic.
Taggart: The consolidation of the population in that area. The number of people
that will just hit that area just all of a sudden.
Borup: But it’s the traffic or people all on bicycles.
Taggart: It’s both. People brings traffic.
Borup: Pardon.
Taggart: People brings traffic.
Borup: Would you anticipate that the majority of the people would be driving
west on Pine or east on Pine from that project?
Taggart: They would go out to Pine probably rather than using Idaho unless
Idaho was clear through because almost everybody goes down to what used to
be called Locust Grove to get over on Franklin to get to the freeway.
Borup: So you think they would probably go east down to Locust Grove then if it
was available.
Taggart: Well Pine would be getting all of the traffic unless Idaho was clear
through.
Borup: You say you’d rather see industrial or commercial property in there or
usage in there?
Taggart: Much rather see the industrial because it closes down at night. It’s
quiet in the evenings. On the weekends, there’s nobody around on the
weekends.
Borup: I am not sure what the traffic count would be on industrial, but from
previous testimony, Mr. Little from ACHD, the traffic count numbers on
commercial as opposed to residential is almost three times.
Taggart: That’s during work hours. When you are away from home in the first
place, then you don’t see that, but in the evenings when you see those people
coming and going and relatives and everything else, then the traffic is throughout
the day rather than just during the work hours.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 75
Smith: I need to clarify something. You said you’d rather see industrial come up
to your property rather than this type of development, but you’ve been asked
twice now if you’d rather see industrial commercial on this site as opposed to
what’s proposed now. To me there’s difference.
Taggart: I said I’d see industrial than I would see.
Smith: On this site.
Taggart: Correct.
Smith: As the existing uses are adjacent to it now.
Taggart: I would. I just know that it’s impractical because of the canal that runs
through that I don’t think that anybody would want to put industrial right next to a
–
Smith: All right. Thanks.
Johnson: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? The lady in the rear. We’re going
ladies first here. I’m old fashioned.
JOLENE DAHMER 513 E. PINE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Dahmer: First thing I want to say is way up Commissioner Smith because we’re
right there with you. We don’t want to –
Johnson: Can I say something about that? It would really be nice if
Commissioner Smith would wait until we got your testimony before he slammed
dunked an issue.
Dahmer: He’s for us. He likes us we have to love him back.
Johnson: Yeah, but editorializing before you hear the testimony is a little
contrary to standards.
Dahmer: I’m sorry, strike that from the record. No, don’t. I bought my little home
on E. Pine about five years ago. I’m a single person. I do have a whole flock of
kids and grandkids that come and visit and move in and move out. We have a
real unique neighborhood. A lot of us in the neighborhood are older even older
than myself. We watch out for each other. We socialize a little bit, but we don’t
trespass. We don’t but in. It’s just a really quiet neighborhood. When I moved
there, I felt like I had the best of both worlds. I had the City five blocks this way
and the country five blocks this way. Of course some of the country is going
away because of the trucking place down there now. But I just – like Rita – I
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 76
think 20 units, I’m four doors down, 20 units is just way too many. I kind of like
my privacy. My lot isn’t a very big lot. I work real hard to keep it up. Again,
animals, kids, so on and so forth. I did take a little time even though I’ve been
very very ill to get some signatures for people who couldn’t get here tonight. And
now I’m open for questions.
Johnson: The first question I have is what kind of use would you prefer to see
then because obviously it’s not going to stay the way it is.
Dahmer: No. I would like to see some nice homes on it. Some homes that tried
to fit with the kind of homes that are there. They are unique, old homes. My
home is 57 years old. And it’s just real charming. And I think if we had some
individual homes, that would better. That’s what I’d like to see.
Johnson: Okay, thank you. Any other questions?
Borup: Just a question. You say you are four doors down. You are the second
lot from the corner?
Dahmer: Yes.
Borup: Okay so then if someone come in and moved some 50 year old homes
then on there would be all right too?
Dahmer: I’d love it.
Johnson: Is that it? Thank you. The gentleman here.
GENE STRATE 745 E. PINE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Strate: I support the senior citizen idea, build the townhouse. I have the
property right to the east of that. There’s a couple of questions I have, and I’m
not sure that they need to be addressed prior to or after, but if they are approved
for townhouse, I’d like to see the townhouses be there, not build the four plexes.
The sewer is to the east of my property. It’s at 825 E. Pine. I’d kind of like to
know how the sewer is going to get there and also the status of Idaho Avenue.
Because if Idaho Avenue goes through, it’s going to cut my property in the back
end. So I think those things need to be addressed, but I do support the
townhouse, senior citizen idea.
Johnson: Thank you. Question from Mr. Borup.
Borup: You said Idaho would cut your property in half. So you go beyond the
southern boundary of this property?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 77
Strate: Yeah, if you go the first property is 707, and then I forget the address.
Then I live at 745 E. Pine, and those two are mine and then the other two
properties right to the east there.
Borup: I’m talking about your southern boundary. Is that – how many acres do
you have?
Strate: About 6 acres in there.
Borup: And that’s a rectangular?
Strate: No, it’s not. The first property to the east. That’s 1.1.
Borup: So you have three parcels there.
Strate: Four.
Borup: Okay, and it’s the fourth parcel that would – that Idaho would cut into.
Strate: That’s correct. Fourth and fifth.
Borup: I mean the maps that we have a whole separate parcel to your south
other than –
Strate: That’s correct. That’s Mr. Horton’s property. I’m in the county there and I
raise animals.
Borup: I am just trying to get a clarification. You have four homes then on those
four properties.
Strate: Yes.
Borup: So, you’ve got six acres total.
Strate: Something like that.
Borup: Have you got any long terms plans for that property?
Strate: Right now I’m raising donkeys and goats. Are looking for a lot?
Borup: No, I’m not. I’m just wondering what maybe down the road next to this
project.
Johnson: Lady in the rear.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 78
KATHLEEN CRONIN 533 E. PINE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Cronin: Some of my questions have been answered already, but I am a little bit
concerned about this called phase 1 of the project. Right now I assume this is
the 20 townhouses in question, but I’m concerned about what will be coming in
the future. Is there plans for a phase 2 where this is only on two acres of
property and there’s more than that I believe next door. I’m wondering if there’s
going to be further construction and when. And also when is this project going to
start and when do they plan on having people actually living in these places. I
too have three children. One you’ve heard a lot of today. Our so called quiet
neighborhood, I apologize for. It wasn’t so quiet tonight because of my littlest
one. But I’m concerned about the traffic as well. There are small kids. The road
right in front of our house is mapped at 35 miles per hour right now. As it stands
we have people not following that. The more people that come into the
neighborhood, I’m concerned that it will be further abused, and I guess I just
mostly have questions to know what’s ahead.
Johnson: Okay. Thank you for the questions. We’ll try and get you some
answers here before we’re through. Probably can’t get you all of those, we’ll get
some. Anyone else?
ROBERT HORTON 607 E. IDAHO WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Horton: Mr. Borup, I’m not sure if you were looking at the property that I’m living
on when you were asking Mr. Strate some questions, but on the map that I have
of the Oliason Park Subdivision, the vicinity map that was from J.J. Howard
Engineering, I have the one that’s identified as RT. It’s the big large rectangular
one there. I started living on that property, I don’t want to give my age away, but
there’s no way I can tell about when I started living there without doing that. It
will be 56 years ago next month. I’ve lived a good portion of that 56 years on
that piece of property. Not all of it. I spent decent portion of that in Boise as well.
I’m sorry I’m prepared a little bit more with information of what their plans are
than I am because the property is actually owned by my mother. And it is held in
trust and the trust was sent the notice, and so I didn’t know anything at all about
this hearing until Mr. Strate called me and just asked me if I was coming. A little
bit after 6:00 this evening. So I would say that I’d love to see the property stay
as it is, but I know that it is not going to. I kind of am in favor of the townhouse
concept. I do have concerns with the density, but more in respect to one aspect
than any other. The best laid plans sometimes go array. I have lived in a
condominium association. In fact I still own a condominium unit. I do not know
what the plans are for the covenants and restrictions the association if there
happens to be one, and I assume there must be in a townhouse. If you’ve only
got four buildings with some of them with four units in one and others with five
units in others. There’s gonna have to be some common ground there. My
concern is that they not – a couple of areas. One is they not turn to apartments
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 79
because they’d be priced in a category that empty nesters and elderly people will
not able to afford them. So that then they are held in ownership by one person
who is forced if he’s going to make payments to rent them out and they become
apartments. I realize there is a big distinction between townhouses and
apartments. However, if you cannot make them function as townhouse, then
they will rapidly become that. These as I learned tonight are planned to have
one bedroom downstairs and two bedrooms up. Again that is – that’s a number
of bedrooms for kids to come and visit. And the letter that I saw that was passed
around to some – must have been mailed to some. I just saw it tonight, indicated
that there would not be any other play areas than probably what we see there.
So my second concern is that the property that I’m on not turn into the play area
for the grandkids and the visitors. I guess my concern is what type of security
will they have surrounding their complex. I know the condominium unit that I own
and that I lived in for a number of years is chain link fence and I don’t condone
what they did to it, but when the kids liked to use our swimming pool and climbed
over the chain link fence, they even put up some razor wire on it, and I’m glad I
wasn’t on the board of directors at that point. I don’t like the liability for that. But
on the other hand I am concerned again with the privacy issue. I know no other
way to say it I guess than that. On that same map that I quoted to the west of
me between Idaho Street and Broadway, there is a set of apartments and so far
that has not been too big of a problem. There was another set of apartments
that were put in a little bit further up towards 5th
Street, and adequate parking
was not made for that. So the street that is adjacent to me between I guess you
call it 6th
. It’s really a half street has incurred an awful lot of increased traffic
particularly that goes up and down that alley. I think there was a lack of foresight
I guess in approval for some of the things that went on, and maybe that was my
fault that I didn’t come to this meeting and voice my concerns that they have
adequate parking for it and that it be paved because it was obvious they were
going to use it. This is my first awareness that somebody is looking at extending
Idaho Street which would certainly go through my front yard and maybe that’s
just something I’m going to have to deal with down the future. I do wonder how
that will all put together. I guess what I’m telling you folks this evening is that I do
kind of like the concept of having this be a townhouse concept geared toward or
least aimed at older people. I think Meridian could use some facilities like that. I
know my mother at one point would like to have our property turned into a not a
nursing home but a retirement center. We do need something of that nature.
And I guess I really don’t – I can’t think of any more comments. I would have
had them all prepared logically for you had I had more warning that it was
coming. And again that’s my fault. I guess I’m going to have to make sure
where the mail is directed so that I do get these notices in the future. So I’ll shut
up and just answer questions if any of you have.
Johnson: Yeah, we just take property owners and if it’s listed as a trust that’s
what we do is mail out of the city. Actually the list is provided by the applicant.
And the City does the mailing on those notices. You can have another
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 80
opportunity on this application if it goes forward to the City, where you testify
again and have time for adequate study, but I suggest that you get your hands
on the Ada County Highway District Report –
Horton: I’m having trouble hearing you, sir.
Johnson: Well we have a lot of material available including some from Ada
County Highway District about the extension of Idaho Street that you need to
make yourself aware of and you can get those through the City Council. I was
just suggesting that prior to the next opportunity at a public hearing that you
educate yourself on what is taking place.
Horton: Shall do so, sir.
Johnson: Because that is available and sorry you didn’t get the original
information. Any questions of Mr. Horton? Thank you. Is there anyone else who
would like to come forward. Maybe I would like to have the applicant’s
representative come back up and – Mr. Howard – and ask a couple of questions
here that came up during the testimony. I can’t remember the lady’s name, but
she had questions regarding phases. Maybe you could start with that.
Howard: Okay, the phases I don’t believe that we will plan on doing any phases.
We will plat or develop the entire parcel. So it’s not a large development. It will
have a cedar fence, six foot high, around the perimeter of it. So that’s going to
certainly access to other properties, properties to the south, east and west. And
there will be no phasing on it. Did I miss anything?
Johnson: Okay thanks. Anyone have any questions of the developer before we
close the public hearing.
Borup: Not of the developer, but I do have some questions for staff before we
close the public hearing.
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Howard. Questions for staff. Bruce, in your statement
in here, you asked for a continuation in May. What is your reason?
Stiles: Chairman Johnson, Commissioner MacCoy, Commissioners, when we
went to the tech review at Ada County Highway District, they came up with this
issue of extending Idaho Street. When I initially talked to Amy at J.J. Howard,
she wanted a definite decision whether this street would be required to be
extended, and I told her that I couldn’t give her that information. We didn’t have
it in the comp plan. We didn’t have any specific requirement for Idaho Street
going through. And then when we got this application at the same time, we also
got – they also submitted an application to split the adjacent property to the west
into three lots, and that had never been discussed. And none of those lots would
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 81
have had any legal frontage except for the one that was on Pine Street. When
Ada County Highway District indicated they wanted Idaho Street to go through
and I had indicated to the representative from J.J. Howard to go talk to the
Highway District prior to ever submitting this, so that could be worked out. Her
indication to me was that they didn’t care. When we got in the tech review
meeting and they said yes they did want this road extended, and then they
came up with the scenario of extending Idaho Street, cutting off access to Pine
Street. I said, well wait a minute, that was never proposed. That’s a significant
change as far as I’m concerned. We will need to re-notice and re-publish this
notice because of the drawings that were sent out with the notice to the
surrounding property owners within 300 feet, some of them wouldn’t care if it was
not going impact them. If they are living on Idaho Street they probably all think,
oh, they are all going off Pine. It didn’t make that much difference to them. I think
now that they are proposing the Idaho Street extension, that does make a
significant change to the project, and that it should be noticed to those owners;
those surrounding property owners. And the fact that we didn’t get this revision
until Friday, didn’t leave us time to comment on the new plan.
Borup: Can you enlighten us at all on ACHD’s reasoning on this, on the
extension? In their comments, they acted like it was a joint thing. I’m sure you
probably noticed that. They said the City of Meridian staff and District staff are
planning to extend Idaho. It sounds like from what you said, it was more one
sided than that.
Stiles: That report was prepared without any comment from me.
Borup: That’s what it sounds like. What are they trying to accomplish by
extending Idaho? Is it a traffic issue or they just think it would be nice? And
along that same line then is why is it necessary to cut off Pine also?
Stiles: I can understand why they want that to be done because of the
configuration of those remaining lots to the east that haven’t been developed.
Even though I understand that a number of those are in Mr. Strate’s ownership
right now, he would have the possibility of selling individual parcels if he wanted
to. What we didn’t want to see was each individual parcel coming in with a dead
end cul-de-sac in order to develop that property and particularly the very deep
lots coming off of Pine, those would present particular problems if they didn’t
have a public road bisecting them, and that was their reasoning for it. They said
that the Five Mile Creek would essentially be a barrier to the industrial
development to the east, and immediately to the east of that Five Mile Creek,
you just see it a little bit in this vicinity map would be where that retirement center
proposed by Wayne Forey would go in. I know that in the past on projects such
as this, where a grid system is in place, they like to extend that. Idaho Street will
extend all the way to I guess probably Western Pines to the west. It is a
signalized road now. It’s a major road in the city.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 82
Borup: That was what I was also wondering, how far – the dotted line on the
ACHD vicinity map doesn’t show Idaho extending that far. It shows it extending
over and then looping back around. Does ACHD have any long term plans or I
guess it’s not up to them. At this point there’s no platted right-of-way through
there. No road easement or anything?
Stiles: No, there isn’t. There’s no right-of-way.
Borup: So I take it the original city plat must have stopped right there without
extending.
Stiles: Well, there’s several plats in there, but I guess that was as far as they
planned.
Borup: I know. I guess after Malcolm’s question answer, the reasoning of staff’s
request for delay is because of the reorienting the entrance is a whole different
use.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to maybe make a point of clarification too.
The application was submitted as a subdivision. At this point in time, they have
not submitted a subdivision application. Now this may be the question I’d have
to throw back at legal counsel. By definition of townhouse versus apartment, it’s
my understanding that a townhouse is under ownership. In order to have
ownership, you’ve got to have legal lots. And like I said right now at this point in
time, there is not an application before commission for a subdivision.
Prior: Correct.
Johnson: Any further testimony? Any other discussion?
Borup: At this point, we have two applications, one for annexation and the other
for a conditional use for a townhouse. How can we act on a conditional use for a
townhouse when there’s no subdivision to put the townhouses in?
Johnson: We’re not on that item yet. I wouldn’t think you could, no.
Borup: Yeah, we’re on the annexation right now.
Johnson: Anything else? I’ll close the public hearing at this time. Annexation
and zoning of (End of Tape)
Johnson: If you wish to move forward, we would require Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law based on testimony given tonight.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 83
MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, based on what I’ve heard from our staff, and also some
of my own thinking and also Mr. Smith’s thinking here, I think we’ve got to table
this until the next month, get some answers because I don’t feel in shape to pass
this forward.
Borup: Shari had a comment too. I agree with the whole project, but I don’t
know as we’ve gone and looked at the annexation separate from the conditional
use, but definitely on the conditional use. It’s not going to – by separating it, it’s
not going to make any difference on the time frame of the whole project. Did
Shari have some additional information?
Johnson: Were you looking for anything else at this point? I don’t want to put
words in your mouth, but it sounded to me like almost you were asking for a re-
application. And I need to know that because I’ve closed this public hearing,
then I need to re-open it and withdraw that and continue it if that’s what we’re
planning on doing. So I read from what you said that because of the substantial
change in the street that you were looking actually for a new submittal coupled
with comments about the subdivision question as to whether it is or not. We’re
almost leaning in that direction. At least my thinking is. We might be looking at a
total start over. Are we?
Stiles: Did you want to consider it as a subdivision and a townhouse
development. I think that it was the intent of the applicant to show you exactly
what he intended to do without going through development of the entire
preliminary plat and all the development plans associated with that. He has
made an attempt to show you exactly what he’s proposing to do. If the
commissioners and the Council want to make it contingent any approvals, any
possible approvals contingent on a plat being submitted prior to any building
permits, they could do that. As far as the annexation and zoning, I think that the
public hearing could be closed on the annexation and zoning portion of it.
However, I would like the public hearing to be continued for the next item on the
conditional use permit because that’s really where the issue is as far as notice.
Johnson: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure she answered your question.
She said she’d like the public hearing continued. Did that allow for the re-
notification, re-noticing?
Johnson: She’s only asking for the next item if we address that.
Borup: So you’re saying let’s forget about that and get this first item out of the
way.
Johnson: Well, it’s that and we have a fourth.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 84
Borup: I don’t have a problem with continuing on the annexation. I mean –
Johnson: Is that a motion?
Borup: We’re discussing Malcolm’s motion right now, I believe. Did you make a
motion?
MacCoy: I didn’t make a motion yet. We were in discussion.
Borup: It’s not going to change the overall time frame. It’s contiguous to the City
action asking to be annexed. A lot could happen on the rest of it. Yes, I make a
motion that we have the attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusion of
Law on this annexation request.
Johnson: Okay, I’ll second that. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of
having the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, say
aye.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. MacCoy, nay. Smith, nay. Nelson, nay.
MOTION DENIED: 1 AYE, 3 NAYS.
Johnson: So we are not going to have the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law. Any further motions?
Nelson: I’d like to make a motion that we table this issue until staff has time to
review it and comment on it. Until our next meeting on May 12th
.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and second to table item number ten until a date
certain which is May 12, 1998. Discussion?
Berg: Just a point of clarification, if you are going to table this issue, any new
information cannot be really submitted to the public hearing because you’ve
closed the public hearing. If you want more information, you need to keep the
public hearing open so that the information can be incorporated into your
findings.
Nelson: Then I guess I’m going to withdraw my last motion. You need to re-open
the public hearing.
Johnson: What if I don’t want to?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 85
Nelson: I would like Shari to have an opportunity to let other people comment
once they are aware of the Idaho Street extension.
Johnson: Do you have a comment?
Stiles: I was just going to ask if you -- I know that I said that it would be okay to
close the public, but then you couldn’t incorporate any of our comments on it.
So I would like you to –
Johnson: Okay, I’ll re-open this public hearing at this time and entertain a motion
for continuance, if that’s what you want to do.
Nelson: I am going to make a motion that we continue the public hearing to our
next date May 12th
.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: I have a motion and second to continue the public hearing on item no.
10 until May 12th
, our next regularly scheduled meeting. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 20
TOWNHOUSES IN OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY TONY HICKEY –
EAST OF 603 E. PINE:
Johnson: I will now open the public hearing. We will incorporate all prior
testimony into item no. 11. Would the applicant like to add anything? Would
anybody like to add anything? Seeing no one, hearing no one for discussion, I’ll
continue this public this public hearing.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public
hearing until our May 12th
planning and zoning meeting.
MacCoy: Second.
Johnson: We have a motion and second to continue the public hearing on item
no. 11 until May 12th
, 1998. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
SECOND BUILDING FOR A FUEL ISLAND BY ALBERTSON’S, INC. –
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF W. CHERRY LANE & TEN MILE ROAD:
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 86
Johnson: I will now open this public hearing and ask the applicant or it’s
representative to come forward and be sworn.
CRAIG SLOCUM 200 N. 6TH
WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Slocum: I am here this evening representing the applicant, Albertson’s, Inc. I’m
requesting a conditional use permit to allow a express fuel facility at the
northwest corner of the existing Albertson’s center at Ten Mile and Cherry
Road. Albertson’s is proposing to put this facility at this location to
increase the services it provides to not only its existing customers but
other residents live in western Meridian. The closest existing fuel facility is
approximately a mile away at the intersection of Linder and Cherry and in
the other direction at the Cheese Factory. What the facility consists of is a
70 square foot kiosk with very limited product sales. Three fuel
dispensing locations and a covered canopy, and it would be located in
what is now existing parking and paved drive aisles. In putting the new
facility there, we’ve removed 16 parking spaces. But I will want to point
out that the entire center still meets all applicable landscaping and parking
ordinances. The applicant has read the comments from staff and from
ACHD, and we do not have any problem with any of those comments, and
try to keep this short and sweet. There are representatives from
Albertson’s this evening, and I am certainly available to answer any
questions.
Johnson: Okay, the only question I have is I’m assuming that’s what we’re
looking there is up in the upper left hand corner.
Slocum: That’s correct. This is the fuel facility with three dispensing islands and
the kiosk.
Johnson: Is it still presently located over the subsurface drainage?
Slocum: A portion of the construction would impede on the existing storm
drainage structure that we built when the store was constructed. Our engineers
have looked at what this construction would do to that and we don’t foresee a
problem in meeting both the city engineer’s comments as well as any of the need
you may have.
Johnson: Okay, I’m sure the commissioners have some questions.
Borup: I think that probably answered my question. That was the main one I
had, so it sounds like you would be coordinating with staff and city engineer on
the relocation and whatever design criteria.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 87
Slocum: We met prior to submitting this application with the city engineer and
discussed that and even prior to that had our own engineers look at what would
be involved in it. We feel comfortable we can handle that.
Borup: The only other question I have Mr. Chairman is make sure city engineer
concurs with that.
Johnson: Anyone else have any questions?
MacCoy: That was mine also.
Prior: I live just down the street from the Albertson’s store. I’m kind of
concerned about the traffic coming in and out of the only entrance and exit to
that particular facility. You’re talking about traffic coming in one way and traffic
going out the other way. It’s a dual exit entrance off of Cherry Lane. How do you
anticipate handling all the extra traffic that’s going to be going through there
coming out of those pumps and crossing to get out? Do you have any way to
anticipating those concerns? Or are you anticipating any of that at all?
Slocum: We have certainly a great portion of the traffic that’s going to use this
facility is already at this site. ACHD staff report indicates the same. There
certainly will be some additional trips generated, and in response to handling that
additional traffic, we concur with ACHD’s recommendations to add some stop
bars and stop signs which don’t exist there now.
Prior: You don’t think people are – and actually I disagree with ACHD. I don’t
think there’s another gas station within half a mile in any direction over that way,
and all that you are surrounding by is all residential neighborhoods. I’m guessing
that just about everybody who lives in all those residential neighborhoods are
going to be stopping over there for gas. A lot of times, that’s going to be all that
they are stopping by and going in and out of that parking lot frequently. I’m kind
of concerned that you are going to see a lot of traffic going in and out of those
pumps especially over there. My personal opinion if I can interject this, is I just
think it’s a real bad idea.
Johnson: You already did interject your personal opinion when you told us all
you lived down there. You could have just said from an attorney standpoint, what
about traffic?
Prior: Well, it wasn’t that. It was just interjecting my own personal opinion
having someone who has to live over there and I’m concerned about the traffic.
That’s too bad.
Johnson: Any other questions?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 88
Prior: No, I think that’s about it.
Borup: Can I go? I’ve got a question for the attorney, just same question I would
have asked anybody else in the neighborhood. ACHD talks about 350 additional
trips. Are you worried about – do you think it’s going to generate more traffic
passed your neighborhood. No, it’s not passed my neighborhood that I’m
worried about. What I’m worried about is that my wife goes down to Albertson’s
to go shopping in there and she pulls into the store, and next to Albertson’s you
have a pizza place and you have a hair salon place and the traffic going in off the
Cherry Lane, that’s the only way in and out – in and out of that particular facility.
That’s what I’m concerned about. I’m done. I probably shouldn’t have said
anything.
Smith: I’m curious why the materials don’t match the existing the store?
Slocum: That as you are probably aware as you read papers and articles,
Albertson’s is putting many of these facilities in. That is the design that our firm
working with Albertson’s has come up with. It deals with their corporate image
as well as one issue.
Smith: It doesn’t look like the one in Eagle.
Slocum: Nor does the store here look like the store in Eagle.
Smith: Right, and that’s why I am going to ask you to match the materials on the
pollards in the store with a minimum on the canopy. And I’m probably going to
ask that you match the color scheme on the little kiosk. Get the person that you
pay is in too. It’s on the same side. I think that things should tie together and I
think it should be stucco and try to match the same color scheme. What is the
height of the canopy? I didn’t see that on there.
Slocum: To the bottom of the canopy?
Smith: Bottom or top because I know it’s four feet tall.
Slocum: It is 17 feet, six inches.
Smith: To the bottom. Okay. That was really – I think all my other questions
were answered, and I can see what you are proposing there.
Johnson: Anybody else?
Borup: I do have a question for Mr. Smith on what he was saying on the color
map and he was saying match the color to the store; is that correct?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 89
Smith: Well, I think there’s a number of colors on the existing store, and just the
color scheme –
Borup: The question I had is a practical from engineering and design aspect. I
don’t know the answer to this to have a stucco on a raised shelter like that.
Smith: I’m sure it’s going to cost more because other wise they would have been
doing stucco.
Borup: No, I’m not talking about the cost. I’m talking about the movement.
Something up that high is it going to hold up?
Smith: The one in Eagle is stucco. Yeah, it should. There shouldn’t be any
reason why it wouldn’t. I’m not the architect on this. I don’t see any reason why
–
Borup: I just did some remodeling work on one of those a number of years ago,
and there was a lot of movement in it. That’s what I was wondering if that – I
guess maybe you can answer that.
Slocum: It would certainly change the design perimeters, footings would have to
be beefed up, columns may need to be larger.
Borup: Something to prevent some movement. Or this is I assume is all steel
construction.
Slocum: It is, yes.
Johnson: Anyone else would like to come forward on this application?
GORDON BATES 164676 USTICK ROAD CALDWELL WAS SWORN BY CITY
ATTORNEY.
Bates: A comment to the aesthetics at the site. Our main thought with this
approach is to have a standard express image similar to what Chevron has for
people going down the street once we have more of these in this area and
nationwide will recognize the express and associate that to Albertson’s. We did
do a lot of effort to match Eagle to the store. The stucco is possible. It’s from a
gas station point of view, it’s not quite as a clean image and that’s one of the
reasons why we went with this. Albertson’s would entertain changes as dictated
by the City to address that. That’s the comments I have right now. Any
questions?
Johnson: Thank you. Questions?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 90
Borup: The image that you are trying to maintain, I assume you are saying it’s an
overall light and blue color. Other than just the logo and the wording.
Bates: That’s correct. It’s off-white to gray the main body color and then the
Albertson’s standard blue and light blue striping. Again, it is a flexible issue if it
needs to be – if that’s what the city wants us to do, we would entertain that. We
would prefer to go with the standard package. From a cost savings obviously,
also from the materials etc. as already been mentioned.
Johnson: Is there anyone else that would like to talk to us on this application.
BOB CHARTERS 3280 SUGAR CREEK DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Charters: First of all I would like to clarify in this letter I got it says in the
northeast corner, and that looks like it’s in the northwest corner. So do they
really know where they are going to build it at? Next of all, --
Johnson: It looks to me like it’s in the northwest corner too.
Charters: I would mind both of them. I live right straight across the street. If this
goes in, I am going to have a hell of a time driving home. If I go shopping, I
might have to trade to Fred Meters. I don’t know. Anyway before I get started, I
would like to comment Mr. Smith on his idea about the speaker of the bank. I
asked OOTA representatives one day why they put brail on a drive up window
things. They had no answer. So you think like me. I’d like to emphasize –
Johnson: The brail says push button is what it says.
Charters: Who’s driving the car is what I asked. I would like to emphasize an ad
that Albertson’s so proudly uses, and I quote “this is your store.” If in deed this is
my store, then why aren’t my feelings about a gas station on the corner of
Albertson’s across the street from my house considered. All I can see is further
devaluation of my property, which I purchased this property in January. I got on
a good buy because of its location. Now this is going to devaluate it even more
so I’ve lost money moving in. Albertson’s making money, which I don’t –
Johnson: You can’t prove that until you sell your house.
Charters: I can still make the statement though.
Johnson: You have to condition that if you want to get it by me that maybe you
lost value.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 91
Charters: It could happen, the possibilities. I really don’t know why I’m here to
protest a gas station being installed. Albertson’s seems to always get what they
want no matter what the public’s opinion is. I was brought this to my attention
when Smith’s Food King tried to get a store in across from Centennial. Theirs
was denied, but I see a big sign up across from Lowell Scott School that says
future Albertson’s store will be built there in the future and probably with no
hassle from the Ada County Commissioners. They seem to pass everything. I
would hope that the Meridian City Council can look at this in our favor that is
Texaco going to be the next thing that wants to come in and buy all the grocery
stores. Why do we need a gas station at a grocery store? Food chain is one
thing, but having a gas station right across the street you, you got all the gas
fumes. You can’t sit out in your backyard and enjoy it in the summer time and
barbecue because people over there pumping gas. And I just don’t think this
would be good for the citizens around that location. Thank you.
Johnson: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else? Any comments,
discussion? I’ll close the public hearing. This is an application for a conditional
use permit by Albertson’s.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we direct the city attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this application.
MacCoy: Second it.
Johnson: Motion and second to have the city attorney prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law at number 12. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All aye.
ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 36. 71
ACRES FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER
DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND
SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Johnson: I want to open the public hearing on item no. 13. I will now ask the
applicant’s representative to come forward and address the commission.
STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Bradbury: I’m representing Steiner Development here tonight and I guess
there’s three items on your agenda, I am maybe going to suggest that to make it
go a little bit faster, perhaps we could consolidate all the hearings and just do it
all at one time, because I can just talk about –
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 92
Johnson: Well, it’s a good suggestion, but I don’t want to do it.
Bradbury: All right. You’re the boss. You all have I think one of these booklets
in front of you. Okay. What I’d like to do is just start with page one and read the
whole thing to you if you don’t mind.
Johnson: I’ve read it.
Bradbury: I’m kidding. It’s late and I’m just going to try and go through this thing
as quickly as possible. I think just about all the information you need is
somewhere in the booklet, and as we go through if you have any questions
about anything, please feel free to stop me. The project in its entirety
encompasses just a little bit under 52 acres, and includes 260 building lots, 153
of those are single family detached buildings, and then there would be 107 would
be single family attached. Most of those would be two unit townhouses. A
couple of three unit townhouses and a couple of four unit townhouses in there. It
equates out to an overall density of about 5 units per acre. The concept that
Steiner Development is proposing is to provide a variety of housing types and
living choices all in a single community, and what we attempted to do is
segregate each different living type or housing type into different portions of the
project, and so what you’ll see is that to make it kind of easy to talk about the
project – I’m going to get you clear back to tab four. The project map has been
divided into five different what we are calling section, and given each one of them
a different name so that it’s primarily so it’s easy to talk about it. And then behind
tab seven through eleven are the specific details of each one of the various
sections telling you about what is planned to go there. So as I talk about this, if
you want to go through this tab by tab you can do it that way. All right in the
northwest corner of the project on just over 11 acres is the section that we are
calling The Meadows and information on that portion of the project is behind tab
seven. In there is proposed for 59 single family detached living units. They are
all single story. The minimum square footage for the housing units would be
1300 feet. May I should back and I did skip over something, and I don’t want to
forget to talk about it. So that it’s clear to you the northwesterly 36 acres is what
is being proposed for annexation. The northeasterly 36 acres is what’s proposed
for annexation. The southwesterly 15 acres is already in the city. The property
that is proposed for annexation is presently zoned RT in the county zone, and
the application is for it to be R-4 zone designation which is consistent with the R-
4 zone designation which presently exists on the property which is essentially
which is southwesterly of the Eight Mile Lateral, and is already in the city and is
also consistent with the adjoining properties which are all zoned R-4. Anyway,
back to the meadows, there’s 1300 square foot minimum houses. There’s
actually six different plans proposed in that area. They range from 1304 square
feet up to 1872 square feet. Of those six different plans, there are ten different
elevations, so for five of the plans, there’s two elevation choices. Each of the
units would have two car garages. The lots sizes in there vary between 4250
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 93
square feet and 10,435 square feet. The access to that part of the subdivision is
proposed for private streets with a 42 foot right-of-way. Five foot sidewalk one
side and there would be a security gate installed to provide security for the other
residents in there. You’ll see that there is some park area that is set aside in that
portion of the project and behind tab seven, you can also see a list of the
proposed setbacks. In the northeasterly part of the project, by the way if you
want to stop and talk about each one of these sections as we go, I’m happy to do
that. Otherwise I’ll just press on. In the northeasterly portion of the project, just
a little over 10 ½ acre portion called The Plains. That is proposed for 74 single
family attached units. Townhouse type units. 24 two unit townhouses, 6 three
unity townhouses and 2 four unit townhouses. The minimum house size there is
proposed for 1200 square feet, and again the sizes will vary between 1250 up to
1500 square feet. All single story again, all two car garages. The lots sizes are
about 3100 square feet up to over 5700 square feet. Again that portion of the
project would be served by a private street with a 42 foot right-of-way. Five foot
sidewalk on one side. Essentially the same as across the street and in the
Meadows. That too would have a security gate, and again the setbacks you can
see both setbacks in a list behind tab number eight which is where you can find
information on that. And again that section is also serviced with a park area, and
there would also be a pedestrian access to the school site which located
immediately adjacent to this portion of the project. Adjacent to and I guess
easterly of.
In the central portion of the project is what’s called The Villages, and
there’s about 14 and a half acres included in that portion of the project. There
would 59 single family detached dwellings. The minimum house size there
would be 1385 square feet. There’s five sizes, ranging from 1385 to about 1746.
Again, they are all single story, and these would have either two or three car
garages. The lot sizes in there are 5400 square feet up to about 13,500 square
feet. That portion of the project would be served by public streets which would
be built to ACHD standards and dedicated to the highway district and the
setbacks again there’s a list of proposed setbacks which would be the same as
what are proposed for in The Meadows and in the Plains. And once again you
can see there’s some park area set aside in that portion of the project as well.
And in addition there’s also a proposed access to the school site which is
adjacent to that portion of the project.
I guess the fourth section is what’s called Moon Lake Park and I guess
you can find that one behind tab ten. The acreage in that one is about 10 and a
half acres in there of the proposal is for 35 standard R-4 lots. These would be
for custom built homes. Minimum house size would be 1500 square feet there.
Lot sizes range from 8,000 up to 16,000 square feet. That portion of the project
would be served by public streets built to ACHD standards and dedicated to the
highway district and the setbacks there would be the standard city setbacks.
You’ll note that in the list of setbacks, proposed setbacks for that section, you’ll
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 94
see that there’s a section for garage setback of 18 feet. You should eliminate
that, that’s a mistake. The setbacks in that section would be all city standard
which would be a 20 foot front setback including the garage. As part of that
project proposal is to use the Eight Mile Lateral and create a pedestrian path that
could be used and go through that portion of the project across the street to the
south and attached to an access way to the golf course, which is located south of
the project. So there’s a golf course access that comes out of that project
heading south.
In the most southerly portion of the project and what I described as the
finger that points down toward the south, towards the golf course, they are
calling the Green Brier portion of the project. There’s about 5 and a quarter
acres in there. The proposal is for 33 single family attached units. These would
15 two unit townhouses and one 3 unit townhouse. The minimum square
footage for those homes would 1250 square feet, and they vary up to 1500
square feet depending on the unit that is selected. Again they are all single
story, and would include two car garages. The lot sizes in this portion of the
project range from 3850 square up to 7350 square feet. The proposal is for a
private street on a 50 foot right-of-way here. And also have a security gate, and
again the setbacks are shown in the list in the booklet. That’s really all that I kind
of wanted to just try to hit the highlights and I’d be pleased to answer any
questions. What I would like to try to impress upon you is that the project that
you see before you here is very similar in nature to the project that Steiner
Development has under development over at the Lakes at Cherry Lane. Same
basic type of a concept of providing a variety of houses for a variety of different
types of users, and for any of you who haven’t seen that project, I certainly
encourage you to take a drive over there and take a look at what’s under
construction there and what has been built there because it’s very similar to what
you will see in this project if it were approved. I’d be pleased to respond to any
questions you may have.
Johnson: Well, Steve, you say it’s similar, but with respect to the other than the
single family structures, isn’t it somewhat different?
Bradbury: I guess – maybe I need to be more specific by what I mean by similar.
In the Lake at Cherry Lane, as you go in off of Ten Mile, immediately to the right
you have some townhouse, you have a townhouse project which is gated or will
be gated and immediately to the left, you have some single family detached units
that are also behind a gated subdivision. As you go into the project more, there
is an R-8 section which I guess would be northerly of the main collector. Peter
Boulevard that comes through there, and those are on lots that are 6500 square
feet. So that would be similar to what you see in the villages portion of this
project, and then as you go further into that project, you get into the standard R-4
type of 8,000 square foot units. So what we have here is in the Meadows and
the Plains, you have the same kinds of dwellings as you come into the Lake at
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 95
Cherry and then the villages would be similar to what you have in the central
portion of the Lake at Cherry Lane and then this Moon Lake Park which is
proposed for Wilkins Ranch. It would be similar to the R-4 sections of the Lake
at Cherry Lane which is probably mostly found in subdivisions #3,and 4 and part
of 5 in the Lake at Cherry Lane. Now the difference. And you are right, there is
a difference. The main difference is that in the Lake at Cherry Lane, those first
two portions that you see immediately when you come into the subdivision are
set aside for senior citizens only. Whereas in this project, that is not the case.
There’s no attempt to create a age restricted community here. Did I come close
to answering your question?
Johnson: Oh, sure. Any questions from the commissioners?
Borup: I’ve got a couple I think. And the fact that this is very similar to the
others, I think raises the question, several (inaudible) have done some of the
same thing with the decreased density and the private roads and reduced
setbacks, etc. It looks like there’s probably hopefully a need in Meridian. The
question I have is how what’s the status of those previous projects? Have they
been as successful as you had hoped? Are you filling those up and needing
more of the same or are – it didn’t look to me like they are at that stage yet.
Bradbury: Well, Mr. Campbell who is here and represents Steiner Development
can probably answer the question somewhat more authoritatively than I can, but
what I’m understanding is that it’s been very successful. The Lake at Cherry
Lane No. 6 was essentially sold out to a builder who thought enough of it to take
the whole thing and has taken about half of number 7 which is the higher density
areas. And I don’t know, I can’t tell you –
Borup: That’s the lots. How about the buildings? How’s the sales on those?
Bradbury: Well, my understanding is that there 8 under construction and all
sold? Ten. Right. Of course we haven’t built number seven yet, so don’t know
how that one is, but in the – well maybe I ought to let you talk to Doug about it,
because he can give you numbers and do a lot better than I can.
Borup: That probably answered both my questions. The other thing I had, do
you have any idea what the total density for Lakes at Cherry Lane, all phases
would average out?
Bradbury: I couldn’t tell you. I don’t know. I’m looking at the engineer and he’s
shaking his head. We could probably figure it out for you.
Borup: Well, I know you could figure it out.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 96
Bradbury: But I don’t know it.
Smith: I guess my only concern is just the density and we’re looking at more
instead of less out here as opposed to what’s kind of to the southeast, but I
mean I guess I was just you know I’d just kind of like to see something out there
more along the density more tuned to the Ashford Greens as opposed to what’s
kind of oozed out that way from the east. So I really, nothing specific. I guess
I’m just concerned about the number of attached homes and so forth.
Bradbury: Sure and I understand because I kind of had – when I look at it, I
probably get the same impression that you get, but the when I take a look at that
entire mile section and look at what is there and approved, well I should say what
is constructed what’s in existence and what is approved but not yet there. I find
that entire section is being built with this type of a mix of uses. I mean you find
even in the Ashford Greens, although what you see there now are the primarily
the standard R-4 lots. What has previously been approved and has just simply
not yet built is some higher density areas that I expect that you will probably see
before too awful long, and of course immediately adjacent to this in the Lake at
Cherry Lane that Steiner has developed it has a density that I think that you are
going to find is going to be fairly similar to this. I guess then you get to the
question of how dense is too dense, and I am not sure I can answer the question
at 12:05 either.
Smith: I’m not sure I want to hear it at 12:05 either.
Johnson: Speaking of dense, did you have a question John? Any other
questions of Steve?
Bradbury: There’s no gas station on this site though.
Prior: I feel very strongly about gas stations. I want you to know that.
FRANK JOHNSON 4010 W. USTICK ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
F. Johnson: First question is why didn’t I get a notice?
Johnson: Where do you live? How far? Right across the road. We got a list
somewhere.
F. Johnson: Is this the legal hearing, if I didn’t get a notice?
Johnson: Well, I’m not an attorney, but we’ve got one here. Let me look for this
list.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 97
F. Johnson: Well, I know you’ve got my name.
Johnson: I’m looking at the list, and you’re the first guy on the list. We’ve got the
right address on there?
F. Johnson: Yep, I’ve only lived there for 61 years, so it ought to be.
Johnson: 4040 W. Ustick Road.
F. Johnson: Yeah. We’ve got a copy of all the notices that went out because
those go out certified and you should look in his box.
F. Johnson: Well, I’m sure you paid the post office to deliver, but I never got it.
Johnson: Oh, okay, I don’t doubt that. I think the point I’m trying to make is,
obviously there’s no intent here to circumvent anybody within the area.
F. Johnson: Yeah, but is it a legal hearing if you don’t notify all the land owners?
Johnson: If we did our part, it’s probably legal. If the post office didn’t do their
part, then it probably doesn’t affect the City of Meridian, or somebody stole it out
of your mail box, but we do have certification here. March 26th
. That’s all we can
do. (End of Tape)
Johnson: And you really are first right?
F. Johnson: Well, I thought I was. I don’t think that makes any difference any
more.
Johnson: I don’t know. I don’t anything about that. Did you have any questions
on the development at all?
F. Johnson: Well, I think it’s pretty high density for out there when you figure
Dakota Ridge will have 90. Angel Creek will have 49, and you got the school,
and you got 260 there, and you add up all that extra traffic on Ustick Road, that’s
going to be quite a bit of traffic. The legal notice in the paper said 260 units on
35 acres, and I’d like for you to also make note that I’ve got my water delivery
system goes through that place.
Johnson: Right. That would be taken care of. There’s nothing they can do to
disrupt your water flow.
F. Johnson: Well, they can’t disrupt but make it damned miserable.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 98
Johnson: Well, I’m just talking legally here. They can’t shut your water off. So,
you don’t think it’s a good idea. Is that what you are trying to tell us?
F. Johnson: Well, I’m sure that it’s going to go in the city, but with that kind of
density, I don’t know and see I was at one meeting here when you mentioned like
my own place, the reason that you zoned it the way it is zoned was to protect the
sewer plant and leave room for future expansions. So where does that leave
me?
Johnson: That leaves you with manure on one side and the sewer plant on the
other is what it leaves you.
F. Johnson: And I know my cows don’t stink anywhere near the sewer plant.
Johnson: You may not have to worry about the prevailing wind. You’re going to
get it anyway.
F. Johnson: Well, I guess that’s all I have to say.
Johnson: Okay, Frank. Sorry you didn’t get the message, but we sure tried to
send it out; the notice I mean. Anybody else?
GUY GAGE 2596 N. CROOKED CREEK WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Gage: We live right straight across the fairway from the finger as he called it. I
think that’s what they are giving us.
Prior: They’re giving you the finger, aren’t they?
Johnson: Could we get that back up on the – do we have a drawing or just
what’s in here? You didn’t bring anything for an easel. We’ll work with that.
Gage: When we purchased our property approximately a year ago, we were the
first family to move in to the Ashford Greens. Of course our first question was
what was going to be developed across the fairway from us. And the answer
from the realtor and the representative of Ashford Greens was that the
development that was started coming in off of Ten Mile on the moon light streets
would the similar type of development that would be around the golf course. I
see on the plot that we got in the mail here, that some of that is probably true.
But this finger to me looks like it’s going to be something maybe like an Arkansas
chicken barn or something. These size of these lots about 30 feet wide
approximately. I don’t know what kind of – it’d be just a solid wall of houses
across there. No break in them at all, if these are attached buildings. The
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 99
density is just – I don’t think it could get more dense than this. I’m having a
problem with the townhouses and what he’s got laid out on the upper part here,
but Cherry Lane Golf Course is suppose to be a jewel to the City of Meridian.
What kind of Aesthetics are they going to have around this solid wall of
townhouses? Has there been any drawings or conception there of anything that
they are going to build or what it looks like?
Johnson: Yeah, I don’t know if you looked at these packets, but they are pretty
specific.
Gage: No, we haven’t had access to one. Are those the ones that goes down
on the finger? What does the back side that faces the golf course, is that
becoming to the golf course or -- Well, anyway, I’m opposed at the present
density that they have down on this finger and possibly the density of the project
here. They’ve got out on the Ten Mile side they have a lot of these smaller
homes being built in there. The whole area out on the Ustick clear into Meridian
has got a lot of these small homes, and I’m just getting concerned that we are
going to be blessed with a lot of unwarranted type people that would be coming
out into these areas. They call them townhouses. I still kind of call them
apartments myself because when they are attached like this, there’s just one wall
separating the other building and whoever thought up the word townhouse is I
don’t know. To me it’s still an apartment. But I am opposed to this type of
density. I’d like to see single unattached homes all the way around the perimeter
of this golf course. Thank you.
Johnson: Okay, thank you, Mr. Gage. Any questions? Anyone else would like
to come forward? Any response from Mr. Bradbury?
Bradbury: Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman. For Mr. Johnson, perhaps we can help
with his concern. Obviously all we can do tonight is say any water that is
delivered or needs to be delivered to your property will continue to be delivered
to your property. Both as a legal matter and as a practical matter. Anything that
is coming across this site by law has got to keep coming to you as designed. It
will. Number two with respect to the fact that there’s this dairy operation across
the street, I can make a couple of suggestions. One suggestion that maybe is
dealt with in two locations. Either in the restrictive covenants which will be filed
as a part of this project and/or on the face of the plat a note could be included
which calls out the fact that there is a dairy operation immediately across the
street so that any buyer will have notice of the fact and second, we could even
put a provision on to the face of the plat as the county requires indicating that the
project is subject to the right-to-farm act under Idaho Code. In that fashion any
buyer gets notice of the fact that they take what they get, and if there’s dairy
across the street, well, that’s what they are getting. And we don’t have a
problem with that. With respect to the questions that Mr. Gage is asking, it’s
unfortunate that he didn’t have an opportunity to see the materials that you all
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 100
had, but what I’d like to point out is that in this section that we are calling the
finger and boy, I wish I hadn’t said that now, but it’s too late. You can’t unring the
bell. There will be 16 buildings and they are 16 separate buildings that go
around that area, and combined when you look at them, they each are going to
be at least 2400 square feet and some more depending on the combinations that
are built on each one of these lots. There are a number of different styles and
elevations and so that you don’t see a solid wall. What you folks have in your
packet behind tab 11, is a proposed building footprint plan for that portion of the
project, and if you don’t mind I’d like to show Mr. Gage so that he can see it too.
So what you get when you look at that, is that you get a variety of elevations and
you get some contours and it’s not all one flat wall. I mean you get some, I don’t
know that Mr. Smith can tell me the word I’m looking for when I’m talking about
the fact that it’s not all one line, but there’s a variety. What’s the word I’m looking
for? It’s too late. Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that you are not going
to get, it’s not going to look like an apartment complex with one solid wall going
across there. There’s 16 separate buildings. Those buildings will have the
outward appearance of single family dwellings. It just so happens that each of
them will be housing two families, and so from where I’m understanding Mr.
Gage to be living when he’s looking across the fairway, I think what he’s going to
be looking at are for outward appearances, single family dwellings. And by the
way, I know he was concerned about the fact that these are apartments. They
are all going to be separately sold and theoretically owner occupied. I mean you
can’t – I guess you can’t guarantee that some owner might not want to rent out,
buy a unit and not live in it and rent it out, but these are all separately owned and
sold. They are not duplexes where it’s all on one lot and you buy – well, you live
in one and rent the other. With that I’ll respond to any questions that you all may
have.
Johnson: Did you have a question over there?
Bradbury: By the way and I realize that staff have previously indicated that they
hadn’t had an opportunity to prepare all the comments they wanted prepared and
were asking for a continuance of the public hearing, and we certainly have no
objection to that. We’d like to work with staff and get them as comfortable as we
possibly can.
Johnson: Right. Thanks for pointing that out. We do have a letter from them
requesting a deferral to keep the public hearing open. Anyone else would like to
come forward on this? Further discussion? I’ll keep the public hearing open. Is
there any motion?
Smith: Just quickly I don’t know exactly what all staff is concerned about. I still
have some real concerns about the density on this thing. I’m glad we’re looking
to continue the public hearing because I think I’m just not comfortable with this
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 101
right now as it sit, so I’ll go ahead and be the one who makes the motion that we
continue the public hearing on this item until our next meeting on May 12th
.
MacCoy: Second it.
Johnson: Any further discussion?
Borup: I would like to add a request to the applicant that I would interested to
help me, that is I would like to know what the density is of the Lakes at Cherry
Lane as a whole, and also probably the status of the build out. I mean you have
a nice variety in there, and I would be curious to know which projects are selling,
which ones aren’t. Which to me would indicate what the public wants and where
the demand is, and I don’t know. If it’s going that way. I guess I envisioned that
would be built out and if that’s successful you go on with more of the same. I
don’t know at this point if those results are in yet.
Johnson: Probably have that by next meeting. That’s not what I meant. Any
other discussion? We have a motion and a second. All in favor. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIES: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 14: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES
SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK
CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Johnson: I will now open that public hearing, and we would incorporate
testimony from the prior public hearing. Are there further comments? Anything
you would like to address the commission with regarding that? You have to be
sworn again.
Bradbury: Do I have to be sworn to say nothing more?
Johnson: Yeah.
STEVE BRADBURY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Bradbury: I have nothing more to add to that.
Johnson: Anybody have anything to add on the preliminary plat? We will keep
this public hearing open as well. Is there a motion?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we continue this public
hearing until our next meeting on May 12th
.
MacCoy: Second.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 102
Johnson: Further discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES
SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT LLC – EAST OF BLACK
CAT/USTICK INTERSECTION AND SOUTH OF USTICK ROAD:
Johnson: Again we would incorporate prior testimony on items 13 and 14.
Anybody have anything they would like to address the commission with? I’ll
open the public at this time. Entertain a motion.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we continue this public
hearing until our next meeting on May 12th
.
MacCoy: Second.
Johnson: Motion and second to continue the public hearing until May 12th
. Any
further discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Johnson: And now we get to move into a workshop on item no. 16.
ITEM NO. 16: PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO ZONING AND
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES:
Johnson: I’ll open the public hearing and ask the City Planning and Zoning
Administrator to address the commission.
SHARI STILES WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Stiles: Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Commissioners, the items that I have
presented and put in your packet, the first item has to deal with the ordinance we
currently called piping of irrigation ditches. This is not something that the
commissioners deal with normally because when the variances come in on the
ditches, they go directly to the City Council. The Planning and Zoning
Commission doesn’t ever hear those problems that come up because of the
ditches. We were instructed, Gary Smith and I were instructed to look at what
Boise City had, and as a result we came up with this three page proposed
ordinance. City Council has reviewed this and made comments and we’ve made
revisions to comply with their comments. The biggest problem we have is that
no where in the ordinance does it say anything about the size. It’s always been
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 103
a policy that if it required 60 inch pipe or greater, that they wouldn’t require tiling
of the ditch. They have since changed that policy to 48 inches. If it was 48
inches or higher, than they would grant the variance. But another problem we
had was not allowing any leniency as far creating an amenity with some of these
existing irrigation ditches and canals, and maybe giving them some relief from
some of Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District’s requirements. I don’t know if
you’ve had a chance to look at this. I know you didn’t get it until Friday. I would
appreciate any comments you have on that.
Johnson: It looks to me like you went through Boise’s ordinance and changed
everything to Meridian.
Stiles: We added quite a bit more than what Boise had. Did you read Boise
City’s Ordinance?
Johnson: Yes, and I have that one memorized.
Smith: Wait a minutes, here’s a place they missed.
Johnson: Still says Boise?
Smith: Just kidding.
Borup: Did essentially you just clarified some things like the 48 inch and which
like you said was a bit policy but not an ordinance and then expanded on the
water amenities. Is that essentially the major changes?
Stiles: And then also put the requirement in for fencing it which wasn’t ever
clearly spelled out.
Borup: And again just policy, not ordinance.
Smith: The distance as far as how it was defined as adjacent, is that the same?
Stiles: That was from Boise.
Borup: There’s some subdivisions in Boise that’s done some great things with
the water amenities. And I don’t know that it costs the developer any less to do –
you know, it’s not saving the developer money necessarily not having to pipe
them. They are putting into landscaping and fixing up. It’s making a nice project.
The trouble is we got Nampa Meridian to deal with here.
Stiles: The property owner still has the right to develop their property in the way
they want to as long as they are not interfering with their delivery of water. This
is kind of a result of the problems we’ve had with Nampa Meridian. If you’ve ever
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 104
been out to Los Almoitos Subdivision, the intent when we approved that
subdivision was that there would be a pathway along Nine Mile Creek. Right
now it’s just a weed patch. Nampa Meridian has also required gates across it so
nobody has any access back there.
Borup: So how is this going to jive? I mean is Nampa Meridian going to let this
happen?
Stiles: They don’t have a choice.
Borup: They don’t? I love hearing that.
Stiles: I think our opinion at this time has been –
Borup: So city ordinance takes precedence over Nampa Meridian’s policy?
Stiles: As long as we’re not interfering with their maintenance and ability to carry
water. But you know at one time when we first started this ditch committee. The
irrigation ditch committee, there was talk of actually giving the property to Nampa
Meridian and Nampa Meridian said, oh yes, we’ll plant fiscue or something in
there and keep it weed free and all these things, but once you would convey
ownership over to Nampa Meridian, there would be absolutely no control at all.
Johnson: Let me try to wind this up. What we’ve got is an ordinance you are
bringing before us. It’s already been to the City Council. You people are the
experts, but because out of formality, you get to start with Planning and Zoning.
Let’s do this thing. Right?
Stiles: For that. Can I cover any of the rest of this stuff?
Prior: No.
Stiles: I think that it was noticed and that I will.
(Inaudible)
Prior: Do I hear a motion to continue this public hearing?
Stiles: I think this is out of order.
MacCoy: I want to make a motion.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: Do they need to be?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 105
Prior: Well, are you talking about every single one of those things?
Stiles: It’s for – it’s five issues.
Smith: I don’t have a problem with any one of the five.
MacCoy: I do, and I want to make a motion, because I haven’t had a chance to
go through this, and I want some detail work done on this thing. I am going to do
this myself, I’m going to vote no on this, because I don’t think there’s enough
time to do this. I just got this thing like everybody else did, this past weekend.
Smith: So you want an opportunity to read it.
MacCoy: I’ve read it. I’ve made notes and everything. My motion is –
Johnson: Number five, go ahead and make your motion.
MacCoy: I propose we table this until the next meeting of Planning and Zoning
of May 12th
.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: Okay, discussion here.
Berg: One thing it was your motion again to table. If you are going to add
information to any public hearing, you have to continue the public hearing. I
know it’s maybe one word, but it will get us in trouble if we don’t do it that way.
MacCoy: All right. My motion is that we continue this –
Berg: My other part of my discussion is the ordinance is pretty clear. The
ordinance on the tiling of ditch, and we’ve gone through some of this even in past
joint meetings talking about tiling the ditches. I don’t think there’s any more that
we can do about the tiling of ditches. And I’m just batting for Shari and Gary
because they’ve been hammered to get this thing done.
MacCoy: I don’t disagree with that.
Berg: So if we could get through that part of it pretty much agreed upon, --
Borup: Is City Council waiting for this too?
Stiles: They’ve been waiting on it for about three months. Probably for a year
and a half, actually.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 106
(inaudible)
Stiles: Well, we have to have findings on this, don’t we?
Prior: On this ordinance? I don’t think it’s necessary that we have findings on
this thing. No. All we have to do is set – whenever you are passing and
recommending, the only thing that is required is that a recommendation is sent to
the City Council. It does not necessarily requires findings. It requires a
recommendation from P & Z to the City Council. That’s what our ordinance says.
Berg: So my questions was can we split it and send recommendation from this
tiling of the ditch ordinance and continue the hearing on the other one for your
input? That was my other discussion?
(Inaudible)
Borup: I can make a motion to amend the motion, can’t I?
MacCoy: What we had we are trying to correct that one right now.
Berg: Yes, you can make a motion to amend the motion.
MacCoy: Okay, you go ahead and do that.
(Inaudible)
Johnson: I don’t have a problem with the tiling; number one. I don’t have a
problem with number two, where the workshops are suggested. I don’t have a
problem number four, 45 days the time thing. We can do a better job doing it. I
don’t have a problem with saying workshops or whatever are required for future
things such as landscaping. I do have a problem with Walt Morrow and Bob
Corrie sitting down and making changes, making them conditional instead of
permitted without me having a little opportunity to look at each item and see why
they are doing it. I mean there’s nothing here to back up their reasoning, and
they are just picking and choosing and changing c’s and p’s here or what are we
doing here?
Stiles: P’s to c’s.
Johnson: Well, p’s and c’s or c’s and p’s.
Stiles: I think what started that was the Best Western Concrete mess out at
Overland and Linder.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 107
Johnson: How do we know this is not an all inclusive list? Maybe we want to
add to it or –
Stiles: Well, I’m sure we do. I mean these are the immediate potentially very
offensive uses that could happen in the acres and acres of property that we
have.
Johnson: Okay, so what is the history behind it? Why were they permitted?
Berg: We didn’t have a classification between a heavy industrial and a light
industrial, and back in I believe it was ’95. No, ’93, we set up a committee of two
councilmen and two P & Z members and they did certain things and one of them
dealt with landscaping and one dealt with changing of some industrial uses or
uses for industrial zoning. And these two gentlemen happen to be on the uses
for industrial zoning, and I don’t remember who the P & Z members were.
Johnson: Okay so tell me what’s offensive about a contractor’s yard. I know
some contractor’s yards, and they aren’t offensive.
Stiles: You know some that are though.
Johnson: I know some that are, yeah. So you want to condition every one of
those. Anytime we go through the conditional use process, to me it just drags
things out further. I have a problem with a lot of these too.
Borup: But if it’s already industrial zoned.
Prior: It appears there’s some discussion about this. Maybe this is the one that
you should motion on and consider.
Johnson: It’s against the one that I’m not comfortable about slam dunking
through. The others I can just talk about future workshops and the piping thing.
I wouldn’t be astute enough to find anything or discover anything that was wrong
any way. It’s already been thoroughly researched by our city engineers. I have
confidence in them. The only one I have a problem with is changing all the c’s to
p’s unless this is a partial list, and we have an opportunity to revisit it.
Stiles: Well, I mean that’s the intent too. I think what we have to do even though
it was vetoed by the council before is to have a general industrial and a light
industrial zone. I don’t see how you can put any of these things in a light
industrial zone. I don’t think they even meet the definition of what light industrial
means. You can have a solid waste transfer station, somebody can set one up
anywhere zoned light industrial in the city today.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 108
Johnson: Yeah, I understand that, but I know some machine shops you wouldn’t
even know they were machine shops. (Inaudible) I see where they are coming
from. They just want to go through the conditional use process. I guess I don’t
have a problem with it, but I – we’re taking two people’s word without going
through the list ourselves. Maybe we could embellish the list a little bit.
MacCoy: I’m not willing to do it.
Stiles: The general industrial and the light industrial kind of ties in with what
we’ve been discussing about the adult business license too.
Prior: These folks haven’t been informed about the adult business. It was in the
paper but something else needs to be added to the list as well as where you
folks plan on zoning for the adult businesses.
Smith: You mean like the Bottoms Up?
Prior: I’m not going to get into it tonight because I’m tired. At some point you
guys will get the full run down on that. I will be putting that on the next agenda
probably. At this point let’s just make a decision about this one.
Johnson: Well, anyway, I’m through with my discussion. We do have a motion.
MacCoy: We got to amend that.
Borup: No, we can still vote on it.
Smith: Withdraw and re do it.
MacCoy: Withdraw the motion and we’ll –
Smith: I’ll withdraw my second.
Borup: Well, Jim already said it. Approving items –
MacCoy: Now, you are going down one by one.
Borup: Well, one, two and five, and we haven’t heard any discussion on four, on
timing. What is that suppose to accomplish?
Stiles: We’re required by Ada County as part of their approval of our area of
impact that we submit applications to them thirty days prior to any hearings.
Borup: Then my motion would be that we approve items –
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 109
MacCoy: Can we do that though?
Borup: Well, I don’t know.
(Inaudible)
Smith: 45 days is a long time.
(Inaudible)
Smith: Having been on the other side of the fence before, that’s – I don’t know
that we need to tack on fifteen days on the Ada County’s thirty days.
Stiles: We do need time to review the applications, I mean sometimes we get 15
applications, and I have got to review them. I’ve got one day to review them.
And you wonder why you have incomplete applications that come to you?
Smith: You are getting staff; aren’t you?
Stiles: I don’t know. I can’t find anybody that’s willing to take the pay.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: Gary and I talked about it.
Borup: What is it now, thirty days now?
Stiles: Sometimes. Sometimes it’s less.
Borup: Going by ordinance?
Stiles: By ordinance it’s thirty days.
Borup: And if it’s an easy one, you let them slip by a little bit.
Stiles: Not much.
Borup: Well, that’s my small town attitude. I don’t think that’s so bad a for little
neighborhood deal, but if it’s a regular commercial business, then that’s different.
MacCoy: From my personal feeling, I don’t think you can do it peace meal. If
you are viewing a document here, and the staff has asked for –
(Inaudible)
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 110
Prior: I think we got to wait on the whole document.
MacCoy: Yes.
Borup: They are separate items? Aren’t they?
Stiles: One public hearing, separate items.
Borup: I still agree with what our chairman said. I make a motion to approve
everything except for item three. I mean recommend everything be adopted to
City Council except item three. Anyone else want to express their opinion so we
know which way to go?
Smith: Well, I’d like to add item four to that. That’s the only other one I have. I’d
like to just mill that one over.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: I don’t care if you continue the whole thing as long as it puts me at the top
of the list for next time.
Borup: I would move that we recommend approval to City Council items 1,2 and
5.
Smith: Second.
Johnson: Any discussion? We have a motion and a second to approve items
1,2 and 5 only on the public hearing number 16, and I would assume to include
in that motion you would want us to review.
Borup: Yes, review 3 and 4.
Johnson: 3 and 4 at our next regular meeting. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Nelson: I would like to make a motion to close.
Smith: Second.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:46 P.M.
(TAPE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ON FILE)
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
APRIL 14, 1998
PAGE 111
APPROVED:
_______________________________
JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK