1998 08-11MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 11, 1998
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 7:00 p.m. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Byron Smith, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Borup.
OTHERS PRESENT: John Prior, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg, Shari Stiles.
MacCoy: We have a few things we want to discuss first with you the public here.
We’ve been making some changes in how we do this because we believe that running
to 2:30 – 3:00 in the morning is not a good way to do business for anybody for you and
us both and after we get so late in the evening, it’s hard to make good decisions and we
want to that, and it’s hard for you people to sit here for hours and not get upset also.
You’ve got things to do besides. So this evening I want to put on the table, we
discussed it as commissioners and the attorney and so on the Mayor of our city, and
we’re going to run to no later than 11:00 tonight. We’ve got a long agenda, 18 items.
We’re going to take a break along about probably 9:00 and there will be a decision
made then to see what we have left and what we’re going to do. We’re already
discussed a roll over meeting which would be later in this month. So what we do have
to put forward to another meeting will not be waiting until the second Tuesday of
September to do it, so it not a complete stretch out. One of our problems has been
here in the city we’re in budget and audit time and it’s very hard to get this room or any
part of this building usable for such a meeting as this so we’re having to be sandwiched
in everything else. So that’s what controls our meeting times. That’s number one.
Number two make the statement to the presenters this evening. We are going to allow
you fifteen minutes to make your presentation. That’s your presentation. That does not
include the time that the commissioners ask you questions. At that time the
commissioners will make a decision as to what they want to do. For those of you who
have come here to make statements either way pro or con, we’re going to allow you
three minutes to make your presentation and I want to ask for your cooperation and if
you hear somebody get up from you community or whatever you want to call it and they
have already made the same statement you want to make. We ask that you give us the
time that you understand that at least the statement has been made for our record.
Because it’s all on tape. It gets recorded, printed, and at least that takes care of
hopefully your concerns. If you have something which is not been brought up, then you
have the freedom to get up and make a statement when the public open hearing is
there. Okay any questions about that at this moment? If not we’re going to proceed on.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, do you want to do a roll call on each of the individual items to see
how many people are here on each of the individual items?
MacCoy: Yes…. We are all starting with the same agenda. We’re going to make a
couple of changes here because it works a little better for us and hopefully you whoever
– items one through five will be as written. We’re going to move six will – let’s see we’re
finishing Steiner – Steiner has four and five. Steiner is also shown on our thing with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 2
eight and nine which will become six and seven on your agenda. And then we’ll follow
with item 14 and then we’ll follow with item six on your agenda which is Dakota and this
will help move this along fairly fast and then the rest of the agenda is as printed. Is
everybody ready here?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, point of order, as printed items four and five. We’ve got Findings
of Fact first and then a continued public hearing for a preliminary plat. Then items 8
and 9, we’ve got continued public hearing for preliminary plat followed by Findings of
Fact request for conditional use permit. Which one is right and which one is wrong?
De Weerd: Eight and nine are wrong.
Smith: 8 and 9 are wrong, okay, and then Mr. Chairman just as a matter of record going
through this packet here, I have a real problem with this agenda as we were given it.
We’ve got items 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 all of which were heard last month. We haven’t
received one iota of information on any one of these projects. I thought we were real
clear with Steiner that there was changes that needed to be made on that plats that
they submitted and we didn’t get anything that showed a change, and I thought we were
real clear in our last meetings that we’re not forwarding anything on to the city council
that doesn’t have the information correctly shown because this stuff hasn’t been getting
done by the applicants preceding these individuals and this room here is packed full of
people to see item to hear this Dakota Company submittal and we haven’t seen
anything. We’re not going to be able to make a decision on this tonight. We don’t have
any information to react to. We can’t possibly make a good decision tonight of just a
presentation and the testimony given tonight without having a chance to review the
submittal. This is an agenda that we clearly can’t get through tonight and yet these
items keep getting stuck on our agenda. This has been going on for months. I don’t
know where the problem is and whose fault it is, whether it’s the applicant or who it is,
but this is ridiculous for us to keep these unbelievably long agendas when half this stuff
on here shouldn’t even be on here in the first place.
MacCoy: Well I think it’s going to be taken care of. I’ve been meeting with the
attorneys and the Mayor and I think this will be the last month that we will have this type
of thing in front.
Smith: Okay, I was upset with it and I wanted to make my point as a matter of public
record.
MacCoy: Very good. I think we agree with you, so I have no problem across the board
on that.
Smith: That’s all I had.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 3
MacCoy: As we move down the agenda, then you can make a statement, and the
commissioners can do what you wish to table it or move it forward or whatever you want
to do. Okay? Agreed?
Smith: Thanks.
MacCoy: Okay starting off with the first part of our meeting for our minutes is the
previous meeting which was held on July 14th
, 1998 in this room. Commissioners, what
do you have to say about the minutes?
Nelson: I have no changes.
Smith: None.
De Weed: No changes.
MacCoy: What’s your action?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we approve the minutes as written
from our previous – are we approving both?
MacCoy: No, we’re doing one at a time.
Smith: -- as written for our July 14th
meeting.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Now the minutes of the special meeting.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move that we accept the minutes of the special
meeting held on July 22nd
.
Smith: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND
ZONING OF 1.18 ACRES BY WILLIAM C. HUMPHREY FOR LAND AT 939 E. PINE:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 4
MacCoy: Is the applicant here?
WILLIAM HUMPHREY 939 E. PINE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY
ATTORNEY.
Humphrey: I would like to annex into the city of Meridian and pretty much that’s it. I’ve
been here before one time. I was delayed by circumstances beyond my control, but I
would like to proceed with the annexation.
Borup: Mr. Humphrey, you have reviewed the comments from staff and understand
everything they are asking for.
Humphrey: Yes, I have.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Smith: Mr. Humphrey, I believe the first time you were in here you had just discovered
your lot was in the flood plain?
Humphrey: Yes, I did.
Smith: You were looking to build another structure on the lot.
Humphrey: That’s correct.
Smith: That would still be owned by yourself.
Humphrey: Yes.
Smith: Is that still what your intention is?
Humphrey: If possible, yes.
Smith: But I believe your neighbor had mentioned something about he had supported
your application because he had adjacent property and there maybe some opportunity
to merge those parcels together for some type of future development?
Humphrey: I believe that’s correct.
Smith: Has there been any discussion with you and him about that?
Humphrey: None whatsoever.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 5
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I just wondered if staff had any comments on this. Okay
thanks.
MacCoy: Okay thank you. This is a continued public hearing. Anybody here who
would like to get up and make a statement at this time or a concern. I don’t see any
hands. Okay, we’ll close the public hearing and commissioners?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we need to direct the city attorney
to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this item.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONTRACTOR’S YARD BY DONOVAN HANSON:
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.
Smith: Second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. De Weerd, aye. Smith, aye. Nelson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: I’d like to move that 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 safety life 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.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 6
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TABLES AND CHAIRS FOR OUTSIDE SEATING
BY WILD WEST BAKERY – 611 E. 1ST
:
Smith: Mr. Chairman, just to make a matter of public record. I don’t have any problem
with this, but the chairs and tables already are out on the sidewalk.
De Weerd: They were before we even heard this. Mr. Chairman, I would move the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Nelson: Second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. Smith, aye. De Weerd, aye. Nelson, aye.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the
conditional use permit for outside seating with the conditions set forth in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian.
Borup: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
De Weerd: Mr. Bradbury are you up there? You’re up.
Prior: Actually Commissioner –
De Weerd: Oh, we’re doing Findings. Sorry.
Prior: Sit down Steve.
De Weerd: I’m trying to really rush to number five.
Prior: Me too.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 7
Smith: Page 28 of the Findings, the staff’s comments, requirements, did we have a
page 28, item 9 did we get a letter from the school district? And then same question
has to do with item 16, it says provide detail pedestrian walkway, golf cart access, my
question is when is that suppose to be submitted prior to City Council action, after,
now? And then item 14, a maintenance building or approved area will be provided for a
suitable services required for the repair and maintenance of all common areas. And I
don’t recall that there was a maintenance building area proposed for this development.
I guess item 14 – 14 is probably the most concerning to me.
Stiles: Commissioners on item 14 that was a staff requirement that we requested. This
project did come before you previously. It was recommended for approval to the City
Council. It went to the City Council for a second public hearing and some of the
neighbors were upset and wanted it to be reheard by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. That’s why it came back before you. They have made some
modifications. There are some errors on some of the information that they have
included on this plat. They haven’t met all the requirements of our initial comments, but
I don’t know if you want to approve this or make any kind of recommendation for
approval on this with the errors or I’m not even sure if this is the most recent one that I
have. The one I have is dated June 8th
, ’98; is that what you have? Is that what you’re
looking at?
Smith: I didn’t get anything since the last meeting.
Stiles: You wouldn’t have had anything new.
Smith: But I guess that leads into my terse comments at the start of the meeting
regarding why this is even on the agenda if we haven’t got a corrected plat. But we’re
not on the plat. I realize that. We’re on the Findings, but I don’t want to throw a wrench
in the works here. I don’t want this thing coming back from City Council for starters, and
I don’t want to approve Findings if we are going to have them – if that’s going to cause
us problems getting the plat moved through. But I know the plat hasn’t – we haven’t
seen anything that’s responded to the comments. I think there was a couple of
questions on common lots and the plat didn’t reflect that, and it should have been
resubmitted before we push it on to City Council, so I don’t – and then these things that
are in the Findings, I don’t remember ever discussing a maintenance building. I didn’t
see a letter from the school district. Well the fire department, we get the comments, but
the school district I didn’t see a letter – I don’t recall seeing a letter of approval. I’m not
saying I didn’t get it. I just don’t recall it. Then I want to know when specifically so we
can make it matter of public record, when they are suppose to provide a detail of the
pedestrian walkway, golf cart access. I guess this is a question for the attorney or the
chairman. Should we – what should we do on item four so it doesn’t adversely affect
what we do on item five?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 8
MacCoy: I think you can make as you have had statements which I think are apropos.
Staff can give us some guidance as to when we’re going to see material, and I still don’t
like to move anything – in fact we will not move things forward to the council until we
actually see the facts. We could go ahead and make the approval of this with no –
Smith: Would this move the conditional use permit to the City Council prior to us
approving the preliminary plat though?
Stiles: Commissioners if you approve this conditional use permit we will be required to
go ahead and notice it for presentation to the city council without the plat if you don’t
approve the plat at the same time.
MacCoy: Okay then if we table it we have it in our hands, right? That’s the only
condition we have.
Stiles: Yes.
Smith: Then I’m mind set to table because I’m not going to forward on the plat.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, we’ve heard one commissioner’s views on this, and I think it’s
important that you hear what the other commissioners have to say.
MacCoy: You heard what we just finished saying here about the fact that table versus
moving it, and we don’t want the thing in the council’s hands without having all the I’s
dotted, so do you have any comment the fact we table this?
Prior: That’s entirely up to you. If you want to table consideration of the Findings until a
later time, my preference is you table until a date certain to allow the applicant to
provide the information that you request. I think it’s important thought that Mr. Bradbury
and the applicant are back there. I think it’s important that you state to them exactly the
reason why you are tabling it and what information specifically you want for the
applicant to provide. I’m a little uncertain as to what exactly they want, and I see Mr.
Bradbury in agreement. Commissioner, if you would express exactly what you want him
to do, I think that would be helpful.
Smith: Okay, item 14, the maintenance building, it either needs to come off the
Findings or it needs to be incorporated on to the plat. I’d like a date certain when the
detail of the pedestrian walkway golf cart access is suppose to be provided, and staff
asked for it for a reason. I’m sure they don’t want it after it’s already built. So
clarification on that. The school district’s letters are pretty standard, and I’m not so
uptight about that, but if it’s in the Findings as needing to be provided, then as we’ve
been told over the last month and it’s not a – this is not directed at Steiner Development
and Mr. Bradbury at all, but past applicants haven’t incorporated the information we’ve
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 9
asked them to provide on their submittals before or after they’ve gone to city council,
and they’ve fallen through the cracks and not been done. So specifically because I
don’t want – personally and I’m not speaking for the whole commission, personally I
don’t want to the Findings on without the plat to the city. And the reason I’m not in a
position to send the plat on to the city is because of these conflicts with the Findings
and with – there was a couple of items and I don’t have the minutes in front of me, but
there was a couple of items that needed to be corrected on the plat and we have not
received that. We don’t have that as part of our packet and so it hasn’t been done. I
can’t forward that on either.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess it raises the issue if we have complete information
packets and the items that we asked for the time before if they were also provided and
what we have prior to this meeting, we wouldn’t be in this situation. We would have that
information even though the plat follows this discussion, we would already have had a
chance to view it and be able to make some logical choices here. My concern is
number 14 was not discussed at all at our last meeting. It wasn’t raised as an issue by
staff. I didn’t even see it in the minutes that I read of prior meetings of this building
being an issue. So that building came out of the blue.
MacCoy: It was discussed and I see it’s written because that’s off a tape on all the past
documents, so I agree with Commissioner Smith that since it’s in the documentation as
we see it presently it better be ready to go forward all the documents present to this
council. Otherwise we should not be releasing that, but that’s your decision.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would support Commissioner Smith’s option to table this. In
the essence of not avoiding other – wasting people’s time here.
Borup: I think we already – we’ve been given pretty good guidance from city council.
It’s already come back once. If at the very least if staff would have received the plat
and had a chance to review it, I’d feel more comfortable in this case staff has not
received it. And we certainly haven’t. I don’t know how we can do anything else.
Again city council has been pretty clear on what they want.
MacCoy: We are asking to approve the Findings of Fact number one.
Borup: Right, but I think they go hand in hand enough, and I don’t know what it
accomplishes to forward the Findings without the plat.
MacCoy: All right.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, then at this time I would make a motion that we table this item
until our September 8th
meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 10
Bradbury: My name is Steve Bradbury. I’m representing Steiner Development. I
understand your frustration and believe me we’re just as frustrated. We’ve never seen
your Findings. We don’t know what’s in front of you. So, I’m at a complete loss to be
able to respond to the questions that are contained in a document that we don’t have.
In listening to your conversation, you are struggling with respect to a maintenance
building. My understanding is the initial staff report suggested under the typical PUD
requirements that provisions should be made for a maintenance building. We explained
to you in the original public hearing some months ago and in the most recent public
hearing that there is no maintenance building. There is no provision for a maintenance
building because all the maintenance will be contracted by a third party provider. So it
seems to me that if the maintenance building is an issue as a condition to leave it from
the Findings because we don’t propose one and I don’t think you folks ever required
one. I think it’s just a hold over from a previous staff report. With respect to the
pedestrian access and golf course detail, when we met a month ago, the discussion
was to my recollection that that would be a matter that would be provided before the
council approved the final plat. It would be handled as a staff review detail. And so if
what we’re looking for is a date certain, let’s put it on at the point of the final plat. With
respect to the corrections needed for the preliminary plat, I guess perhaps we dropped
the ball there, but I got to tell you I don’t know where. And part of what we were hoping
to have happen is that the Findings would be adopted so that we could prepare you a
preliminary plat that complies with the conditions of approval that you impose on the
conditional use permit. Otherwise we’re guessing, and I know you guys are tired of
hearing us guess and believe me we’re tired of guessing, and that’s kind of the chicken
and egg problem that I think we maybe getting ourselves into. If you tell us what you
want, believe me, we’ll get it to you, and we haven’t been yet told what you want. I
think the process that the city attorney is suggesting is that the conditional use permit
Findings is the process by which you tell us what you want.
MacCoy: Hold it right there. Let me ask the question of the staff. Everything that we’ve
talked about, do you have any comments right now?
Stiles: Commissioners staff was at a loss to know how to react to this going back to the
Planning and Zoning Commission because the changes were really negotiated at City
Council level, then sent back because of the opposition from the neighbors and they
wanted the opportunity to review the revised plat and speak to those concerns at a
public hearing. Probably what needs to happen on this plat because there are some
obvious errors on the plat, I’m not sure that the public would know what they’re looking
at if they did see this plat. It refers to six duplex lots that are two of them are
immediately adjacent to the people that were having problems with the duplexes and it
also refers to three triplex lots one of which I don’t even see on the plat. My concern is
approving something that’s not correct. It maybe that we need to revise our comments,
and if this is the latest version, --
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 11
MacCoy: What’s your date?
Stiles: I have June 8th
, ’98.
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, when we were here last month, we provided you with a
revised plat dated July 10, ’98. That’s the one I’ve got.
Stiles: Staff does not have any copies of the revised plat.
Bradbury: Ms. Stiles was not here, and I remember handing one to Mr. Freckleton that
night as well as all of you.
Stiles: It’s almost impossible to comment on something that’s handed to you the night
of the meeting.
De Weerd: I might share a couple of things here. This commission is fairly new. We’re
evolving, and we’re finding out that if what we forward to city council is not complete
we’re getting it back. That doesn’t do you any good and it certainly is overcrowding our
agenda. So we need to be conscience what we send forward is going to be complete,
and this is all a learning process as the newest member for me especially. What my
notes have of last meeting is that we needed resolution on the pressure sewer main, on
the common lots. One was made common. The other one had it as an easement. We
requested that that have a common lot as well. We wanted specific notation on setback
variances, and where they were required, how many would be required. We would like
to see a landscape plan on the pathway. We wanted to know how many lots met the R-
4 requirements and how many didn’t. We wanted to know about the fencing in the front
and also about the existing road and how it’s not in line with the proposed road. And I
believe those were the issues that I noted that we thought we would see at this meeting
before this meeting, and if that’s of any assistance there you go.
MacCoy: Does the applicant ever receive the Findings of Fact prior to this meeting?
They are available to him? Okay, by what type of – here’s meeting on Tuesday night,
do they (inaudible).
Berg: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, we prepare the packets on Friday.
At that time we call each applicant, and if we can’t get a hold of them Friday, we call
them Monday saying the packets are prepared. If we get the Findings in at a later time
from that Friday, we call them and say we now have the Findings or what other
documents that we may have, but we call the applicants and let them know that they
are on the agenda and their packets are ready. Sometimes we fax it to them.
Sometimes they come pick them up.
MacCoy: Anymore comments from staff?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 12
De Weerd: Do you have a letter from the school district?
Bradbury: No. As a matter of course a letter from the school district comes out. I don’t
recall – I mean I don’t recall if there has been something more than what is typically
sent, their form letter is generally not very helpful. Could I inquire Ms. De Weerd? I’m
recalling several of these issues that you’ve raised except the pressure sewer main. I
don’t remember what the issue with respect to that was.
De Weerd: I’m sure Bruce can help you with that.
Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, members of the commission, the issue with the
pressure sewer main was that the easement that you have shown along the southeast I
believe needed to be a common lot over that pressure sewer main instead of an
easement.
Bradbury: Okay, all right, and you are looking for a landscape plan now as opposed to
at final plat?
Smith: No, I just wanted to know when staff was asking for that.
Bradbury: Well that’s what I’m trying to figure out if between now and the next time we
come if in fact this thing going to be postponed, if you wanted to see a landscape plan –
De Weerd: I would love too, but I won’t require it. I would love to though.
Bradbury: The discussion at the time, my recollection was at final plat, but if that’s not
what you want, you just need to tell us what it is and we’re going to do our best to
provide –
De Weerd: If I could ask for it, I would.
Smith: I’m not concerned about it. I’m just – if it’s in the Findings and staff was vague
as far as when they wanted, I just want clarification to be entered in by Shari when she
wants it so we can incorporate that into the Findings.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, in an effort to move this along it appears to me that all the
questions really are concerning items that would be on the plat. Is that – the other
commissioners agree with that? So far what I’ve heard are all things that pertain to the
plat. You don’t agree?
Smith: Well if you could get a date certain into these Findings, but yes I agree with you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 13
Borup: Well then in light of that I would be in favor of approving the Findings and
tabling the plat approval especially in light of what Mr. Bradbury said. That would give
them the information that they need and we can move on.
Smith: But that information is available to them whether it’s approve or not.
De Weerd: Mr. Berg, our city clerk, raised an important issue, and that’s if we pass the
Findings tonight, that will go before city council without the preliminary plat and they
really should go hand in hand, should they not?
MacCoy: We think so, but that’s raising a good point.
Smith: I made a motion to table it.
De Weerd: Did you make that official?
Smith: I did.
Borup: Oh, that motion on the table? Mr. Bradbury, if we approve the Findings and
held the plat, the end result isn’t going to be any different for you, is it?
Bradbury: I agree and that’s what I was just speaking to Mr. Campbell about, and I
think if we’re going to get hung up on the plat, let’s just table the whole thing and –
Borup: Do them both at the same time, and the time frame stays the same.
Bradbury: We’re going to be back next month anyway. I apologize for that. I wish it
didn’t happen, but that’s where we’re going to be.
Smith: And by that time staff can – we can either remove item number 14, have a date
certain on item 16 and find out whether or not we do have a letter from the school
district.
MacCoy: Any comments from the staff?
Stiles: Commissioners the reason I asked for the detail landscape plan is because they
are calling this a PUD. They are required to have ten percent common area. They are
showing the edge of the ditch in some areas where they are proposing a pathway at
less than three feet from the people’s backyard. I think as part of the conditional use
permit, those details need to be reviewed and approved and know that that is what you
are approving as part of the conditional use permit. Not something after the fact that
staff is simply going to review and have to try to negotiate some kind of common ground
when what they are proposing at least to me is difficult to tell that that can happen even.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 14
De Weerd: I believe that we did request a landscape plan for our next meeting. If we
could please get that prior to the meeting, that would be helpful. You know, Mr.
Bradbury, I don’t believe – Shari do you want that specific as to what the plantings
would be or do you want a conceptual design?
Stiles: I would like it at least conceptual to the point that I can tell that there is in deed
room for the pathway that they have proposed and what kind of landscaping is going to
be there beyond just the ditch that’s there now.
De Weerd: Well perhaps I might suggest that you call Shari and work with her on the
Findings and maybe pose any questions that you might have on what she needs, and if
we could have that prior to the meeting, that would be excellent.
MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have any conditions before you—
Smith: No, my motion is still on the table.
MacCoy: Do you want to put any conditions to it?
Nelson: I’ll second that.
Smith: Beyond what Commissioner De Weerd stated, no. Incorporate all the other
commissioners’ requests.
MacCoy: Okay we got a second on the table right? Okay. All in favor of that?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 5: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT –
NORTHWEST OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, could I move right now to continue the public hearing on the
request for preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision by Steiner
Development?
Prior: Is that a motion?
De Weerd: Can I? It’s a motion – until September 8th
.
Smith: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 15
MacCoy: All agreed?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUD FOR WILKINS RANCH A THE LAKES
SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
Smith: Mr. Chairman I have the same comments on this item as I did on the last one,
same issues. That Steiner Development could get a copy of the meeting minutes and
the Findings of Fact. I think they have all the information that they need to incorporate
on to their preliminary plat so we can move this forward. So again I’ll go ahead and
make a motion that we table this item until our September 8th
meeting.
MacCoy: Is there a second?
Borup: I’ll second that.
MacCoy: All in favor?
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, could I be heard on that as well?
Prior: It’s a little now. The item has been –
Borup: Well 9 has. Eight is still coming up.
MacCoy: Yeah, we did nine just now.
Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I guess I just want to state for the record that I have no idea
why it is that this matter is being tabled. When we were here a month ago, we spent a
substantial amount of time discussing what needed to done and the only change that
was asked of the applicant was to make a modification to reflect larger park space in
that one area, and here it is. It’s one thing that you ask to change –
Smith: But we didn’t have that.
Bradbury: It’s here. I don’t understand. All you need to do is open up the map and
look at it and see if what the proposal is meets what you requested last time.
Smith: It wasn’t in my packet.
Bradbury: It was a single request that you made. And I don’t (End of Tape)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 16
Bradbury:… my understanding was that we all had an agreement upon what was to be
required and that was a simple change to the plat and here it is, and yet now we’re
being continued on the Findings and the plat from my perspective for no good reason
whatsoever.
Smith: I disagree with you because the same issues that we just discussed on the last
application are the same issues of why I made a motion to table this one. I didn’t get
one piece of information in my packet that showed the change that was made. I don’t
care how simple it is. The fact is that we’ve been told that the stuff going to the City
Council isn’t getting done. It’s not on the information that’s right in front of us.
Bradbury: Well Mr. Smith last time you continued the public, meaning the public
hearing was left open for the purpose of providing you the information which you
requested and you tabled it to this date, and here we are with the information that you
requested.
Smith: And I believe we ordinances that state when we’re suppose to receive
information in our packets for a public hearing, and we didn’t get it.
Bradbury: But this is a continued public hearing.
Borup: This is not a public hearing that we just voted on gentlemen.
Smith: No, but it’s tied to the public hearing we’re going to hear next on the preliminary
plat that we didn’t receive. That’s a public hearing, and that’s why we just said we
weren’t going to forward the Findings of Fact on the last one is because it would go
ahead without the preliminary plat. I mean Steve, I don’t like making you guys keep
coming in here. I really don’t.
Bradbury: If this process was made just a little – I mean we spent I don’t know an hour
and half two hours here at the last meeting, and we walked through this thing point by
point by point by point. We came to an agreement on what was required. The only
change that I understood that you were asking for was the provision of more park
space. That meant that we were going to show you a preliminary plat. You closed the
public hearing on the conditional use permit so that you could adopt Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law on the conditional use permit tonight and then you continued
the public hearing on the preliminary plat so that we could show you the change. Well
here we are to do those things. And now you want to continue us again.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bradbury and Commissioner Smith I did not vote on that
because I haven’t had the opportunity yet, but I do agree with Mr. Bradbury. The prior
application had a number of things. This one had a change that was requested and
agreed upon at the conclusion of the last special meeting we had. Because of the order
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 17
of this Mr. Bradbury I guess it makes it difficult to approve Findings before we see the
final plat because we do want them to go hand in hand. I do see your point. I will vote
against tabling it, so you’ve got my nay vote on that. Because I think that – well first of
all I am sick of seeing this on the agenda and I do think that they have done everything
that we have asked them to do and I do believe that if what he says is true that that plat
is done, then it should be forwarded on.
Nelson: May I comment? Commissioner Smith is correct in that our last special
meeting our request was we ended up with apparently with what’s in your hand to
forward on to city council. We haven’t requested that we table that. He based that on
not having what’s in your hand. So I think Commissioner Smith was correct in tabling
that and there’s no reason for everyone to get too upset. We requested the plat
showing the change. He didn’t have it when he made that motion. So with that said I
guess the discussion should whether to accept what’s in the changed plat right now.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Well I think the situation here is a little bit different than the previous one
because in the previous application there were several plat changes with some detail.
We left the last meeting though exactly what the plat should look like. I mean we could
have had this looked at and taken care of in thirty seconds because we all know what
we’re looking for, but the way I see it in reading the Findings you still do have a problem
again we could have solved it and been on to the next agenda item by now. Page 17 it
says Commission and applicant came to agreement certain lots to be made open space
and that prior to approving the conditional use permit the applicant would have the
revised preliminary plat showing the new open spaces requested by the commission. If
we accept these Findings, well we can’t accept, if we accept the Findings we’re not
following what they say. Could I suggest Mr. Bradbury that Mr. Bradbury you give him
permission to pass out these plats and we can spend thirty seconds looking at it and
then move on.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, just a point of order, this commission just voted to table the
conditional use permit. That item has been tabled. Now my advice to you is that you
do not pass the preliminary plat on without the conditional use permit. You’ve tabled the
conditional use permit. If I may, what you are going to need to do is if you want to pass
this conditional use permit and the preliminary plat on you’re going to have to make a
motion to take that item back off the table and consider it and then you’re going to have
Mr. Bradbury look at the preliminary plat. Well we’ve got a150 people here waiting for a
public hearing.
De Weerd: I understand that Mr. Prior. I just want one more point is we are trying to
make a statement here tonight and that is we will not accept any more incomplete
applications and we do want everything prior to our meeting but we cannot penalize
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 18
something that has been this way in the past every single time and expect them to
understand it. We’ve made our statement. They’ve accepted on the last project. This
one seems if we just look at this plat maybe we can move on, and that’s what I’d be in
support of, bringing this back to the table and if we everyone else agrees to it.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we move item nine from the table.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Borup: Could you request Mr. Bradbury to pass out the plats?
MacCoy: Bradbury – the commissioners the plat please.
Borup: I’ve seen it. Mr. Chairman the only comment I have is they made the park
space bigger than they said they were going to.
MacCoy: What a shame.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law.
Borup: Second.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup, aye. De Weerd, aye. Smith, nay. Nelson, nay. Chairman,
yea.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, the 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. 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 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. A conditional use should be subject to
review upon notice to the applicant by the City.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 19
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 8: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR WILKINS RANCH AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT:
MacCoy: At this moment, we are continuing the public hearing, is there anyone here
that wish to stand up and make some comments on this?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, if it’s acceptable to the applicant I’d like to make a motion right
now that we approve this preliminary plat.
De Weerd: Second.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be necessary to close the public hearing.
MacCoy: Okay.
Smith: Do I have to restate my motion?
MacCoy: You will in a minutes, yes. Do I have anybody out here that would like to
make a statement? If not I will close the public hearing at this moment.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we approve this preliminary plat.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 14: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
OUTSIDE SEATING FOR STARBUCK’S BY SUE GENTY – 1742 E. FAIRVIEW:
MacCoy: At this time I would like to have the applicant come forward and have a
statement to make.
RICK CARTWRIGHT 2530 VIRGINIA AVENUE BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 20
Cartwright: No statements, just request for the outside seating.
MacCoy: Commissioners you have anything you want to say to him or ask him?
De Weerd: I have none.
Smith: Looks good to me.
Borup: Any staff comments? Everything fine there?
Nelson: I have no comments.
MacCoy: All right you may sit down thank you. Is there anyone here that would like to
make a statement for or against the seating at Starbuck’s location? Having none, I’m
going to close the public hearing.
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 item.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIE: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 6: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA COMPANY – SE
CORNER OF EAGLE AND FAIRVIEW:
Smith: Mr. Chairman before we get started I’d like to make a matter of public record
what I stated at the beginning of this meeting and what I just gave Mr. Bradbury such a
hard time about is here we are again reviewing a project that we haven’t received on
iota of information on since the last meeting, and I don’t know why we even got it on the
agenda. We haven’t been – had anything submitted to allow us to review and digest.
MacCoy: You raise a very good point, Commissioner Smith.
De Weerd: We did read in the paper though that they met with the subdivision.
MacCoy: Well my comment before anybody starts speaking so that we all have the
same reference there, there’s been a lot of press on this issue. And if you have read
either the local paper or our Idaho paper, you’ve got a pretty good feel for it, and if
you’ve had your public meetings internally in your housing area, I’m sure that’s a help.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 21
Since this is a continued public hearing we have a lot on record already we’d like and
request that you keep everything brief and we are giving you fifteen minutes at most to
do the pitch and hopefully we’ll get this thing moved on.
Borup: Mr. Chairman would it be appropriate for us to reiterate the items that we felt we
tabled this meeting for.
MacCoy: Probably be a very good idea Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I’m not sure if we need to rehash stuff.
MacCoy: You want to read those off?
Borup: I’m not sure if I’ve got them all and staff maybe able – in my notes the one
request we had for the developer was to meet with the neighborhood regarding
buffering between the development and their neighborhood. I think that was probably
the major one. We had asked that they submit their responses to staff comments in
writing. And there was some discussion about – I don’t know Commissioner Smith, you
may elaborate a little bit. We talked about parking lot additional landscaping, but I don’t
know if we had anything specific other than –
Smith: Ask for more.
Borup: Then I believe there was still some issue and staff may want to elaborate on
that is landscaping along Eagle and Fairview. As far as I know those are issues we felt
that we were going to be covering here tonight.
MacCoy: What about the buffer zone between the –
Borup: That was the first thing I mentioned. Yeah, and I felt that was number one.
Does anybody else have anything else to add?
De Weerd: No, I think you summarized it very well.
Borup: Did staff have anything they would like to add?
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, in regards to the issue of written
response that was a suggestion that I had made during the public hearing. The
applicant addressed each of the comments. Commission elected not to follow my
suggestion and I believe that Mr. Durkin’s responses were entered into record and that
was how it was left.
Borup: Okay, thank you for the clarification.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 22
LARRY SALE ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 318 E. 37TH
STREET BOISE WAS
SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission for the record my name is Larry Sale.
I’m supervisor of planning and development for the Ada County Highway District. I’m
pleased to meet with you. Some of you I’m meeting for the first time. I hope to change
that in the near future. I have a very short statement, and some of it is overstating the
obvious. But this is a very major project. It has very major ramifications on the facts on
the transportation system. The Highway District staff has not finished it’s review of
those impacts and thus we have not been able to forward a report to you or even to our
commission. If you chose to have those comments prior to your making a decision, that
will be a couple of weeks before we have those to you. If you wish to take action on the
application tonight and forward it to the City Council I would ask that you adopt a
requirement that the developer be required to comply with all requirements of the Ada
County Highway District. I need to warn you that those maybe major also, those
requirements may match the magnitude of the project. For beginners we will be forced
to acquire substantial area of right-of-way at the intersection of Eagle Road and
Fairview for a future interchange. And there is still some doubt as to whether or not the
intersection can be modified sufficiently to accommodate the traffic that will be
generated. There’s an old adage in the transportation business that if you throw
enough money at anything it will go away. And I suppose that applies here, but it will be
a very expensive mitigation requirement that the project will have. That’s the end of my
statement. Does the commission have any questions of me?
Borup: Maybe a couple. The last letter we had from ACHD is that the staff will be
reviewing that July 20th
, so you are saying this is still be continued from – I believe that’s
the correct date.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, would you repeat the last part of your
question?
Borup: Essentially we expected to have an answer by now. The letter had indicated
that ACHD staff would be meeting on July 20th
. Did they in fact meet on that date and
you are saying it’s just taking longer or are you saying you need more time because you
didn’t do what you said you was going to do.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, perhaps a little of all of the above. In fact
staff has met a few times on the application at least twice with the applicant. We had
requested additional information from the traffic engineer. Some information was
submitted. We requested more information from the traffic engineer, and I think we
finally have a response to our questions. We have elected to retain a traffic engineer by
the Highway District to examine the project, and the result of that analysis I hope will be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 23
complete next week. Following the receipt of those comments by a separate traffic
engineer, we’ll formulate a report to our commission and it will go to our commission
probably the first Wednesday in September.
Borup: By traffic engineer you are referring to the engineer the applicant hired.
Sale: The first part of my comments, Mr. Borup, I was referring to a report submitted by
a traffic engineer employed by the developer. The second part of my comments were
intended to convey the information that the Highway District has retained separately
retained a traffic engineer.
Borup: Okay, that was my understanding, but the engineer that you requested more
information from that was the applicant’s engineer?
Sale: Yes, that’s correct.
Borup: You said the major issue was probably going to be the intersection widening,
that’s still what you would consider – any other short brief concerns at this point other
than that?
Sale: An issue that we have to look at a time like this is how much of the future
capacity of a facility one application uses up. We can add lane to that intersection and
accommodate this traffic and some significant traffic into the future, but sooner or later
there’s a limit to the number of lanes we can add to the intersection and the affects of
that limitation on the long term future traffic of ten years hence or longer. So that we
can accommodate the project and other growth for some short period of time. We don’t
know if we can accommodate a twenty year period of growth for example.
Borup: Are you looking at perhaps future development on the other intersection
corners? Is that what a concern would be?
Sale: Not only on the other corners of the intersection, but regional growth as well. We
have to accommodate the overall growth, the long term growth, of traffic on Fairview
and traffic on Eagle obviously Eagle is a state highway. So we don’t have jurisdiction
over that. Those are the issues that we’re going to have to address to the satisfaction
of our commissioners and prior to finalizing a recommendation to you.
Borup: Thank you. That’s all I had Mr. Chairman.
Sale: Thank you for letting me –
Smith: Mr. Sale, what capacity are we running Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue at
now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 24
Sale: Commissioner Smith, I can’t answer that question. I don’t have that information
with me.
Smith: Do you have knowledge of how many years down the Eagle Road was planned
for five lanes because it seems to me being a major north/south corridor through the
valley off of I-84 connecting on to Idaho 55 that five lanes is a pretty short time frame if
that’s going to be adequate to handle the traffic because Eagle Road is going to be
especially between the interstate and Fairview is going to be fully developed very
shortly and I would imagine that will connect down the Eagle eventually, and I’m just
curious as an independent party here what kind of projections were used to plan that
road.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, unfortunately none of us are individual
agents, we all are part of the problem and part of the solution. The state is
overwhelmed by the increase in traffic on Eagle Road. Traffic for the first, I guess it’s
been open five years, and it’s averaging about 20% of growth in traffic per year. Now
that’s distorted somewhat because of its newness. It obviously is going to grow. It’s
traffic is obviously going to grow much faster than an established route. But the
capacity of a five lane roadway that we prefer not to exceed is somewhere around
30,000 trips a day, and I believe back to my affirmation this is to the best of my
recollection and it may be wrong but the traffic information up further south up near the
interstate is exceeding 20,000 trips a day now.
Smith: Thank you.
Sale: Sorry I don’t have a better answer.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, just for a clarification if Commissioner Smith recalls Mr. Sale is
correct that the traffic numbers – the project just south of there that the Eagle Partners
is being considered, the traffic numbers are I believe your recollection is correct, it’s
about 22,000 is the current traffic on that road.
MacCoy: Before you leave here, any other questions from the other commissioners?
Thank you very much. Okay is the applicant ready to come back up and make a
statement.
LARRY DURKIN 380 E. PARK CENTER BOULEVARD BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman, it’s going to be very difficult for me to respond to the comments,
questions and concerns expressed at the last meeting and on our follow up meeting,
and to respond to Mr. Sale’s comments for a 45 –50 million dollar shopping center of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 25
this magnitude in fifteen minutes, and before I start my presentation I know that you
have some agenda problems and some different things, but it’s unfair to me as an
applicant. I think it’s unfair to you as commissioners and it’s unfair to the hundred of
people in this room tonight to expect me to jam that much information in that short of a
period of time.
MacCoy: Let me clarify that. As the applicant we have given the carte blanche across
the line and said everybody fifteen minutes. You have need for more, then I’d ask you
that you would estimate it what it would be and the commissioners would have to agree
to that.
Durkin: I estimate that my comments in total with my prepared remarks and questions
will take about forty minutes.
MacCoy: Any comment from the commissioners?
Smith: Let’s get started.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. I’m the president of Dakota Company, Inc. I’m here
tonight on behalf of developers diversified Family Centers, Inc. I’m seeking your
approval for a conditional use permit for our shopping center project at Eagle and
Fairview. During the last meeting I explained the plan at length and I’ll do so again
tonight should you wish. Of course I’ll answer any questions you about the plan. At the
last meeting many people testified that they have no notice or knowledge of a shopping
center plan for this site. They said that the realtor told them of other uses, yet not one
person identified the name of the company of the realtor that made those claims. I ask
you tonight that if you have this type of testimony, I’d request that you ask the person to
identify both the real estate agent’s name and the company. Because it is something I
would pass along to the real estate commission. The changes in the site plan that we
discussed at the last meeting, we discussed with about 50 residents or so that attended
a meeting in this room. We talked about landscape buffers along the adjacent parcels.
We talked about changing the landscape berm area. I don’t know if you can see the
plan here. But we talked about changing the landscape berm area along Eagle and
Fairview Avenue. But we made some changes. As a result of that meeting, we
immediately the next day we got with our landscape architect, and I’m going to just walk
over and point those out on the plan. The adjacent residents a number of them were at
the meeting and other people from the shopping center so as far as the buffering and
the –
Nelson: Excuse me, sir. Can we make that available to more of the public?
Durkin: I will make it more available to more of the public after I make it available to you
first. I’ll turn it around.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 26
Nelson: I mean you are explaining an awful lot of stuff visually and if there’s any way to
push it back a little bit.
Borup: But I think it’s our responsibility as commissioners, we need to see it.
Nelson: Yes, I want to see it too. I’ve been vented on in the past by people who say
they can’t see what’s going on.
Durkin: For the people in the audience my first responsibility tonight is to explain it to
the commission, so I am going to address my comments here and everything will be
available for you to look at but as an applicant that’s my responsibility is that – is that
fair?
MacCoy: That’s correct.
Durkin: After our meeting with the adjacent residents we made changes to the plan in
an effort to address the concerns stated both at the public hearing and at the meeting
with the residents. Now you may recall the first plan we submitted there was a ten foot
buffer area along the back of the project. We have been able to increase that to 20 feet
instead of ten feet. We committed to do so at the meeting, and in fact the meeting with
the residents that was a strong desire of theirs at the very least to do that. But in doing
so it had another benefit. I think I expressed to you last time a concern we had in trying
to find a place for all of the trees. We have now been able to exceed the landscape
ordinance and the suggestions in the staff report for the tree plantings. By increasing
this width we are planting a solid wall of trees and our suggestion is going to be a
combination of pine trees and other so year round it will block and I want to clarify the
word block but it will soften the impact of the center. I know of no plantings that I can do
that will hide the shopping center. I know of no wall or fence that I can construct that
will hide the shopping center. The offer is still out for the adjacent residents. Nobody
had contacted me or talked to me about, but it there’s a type of species that anyone’s
interested in, we’re more than willing to do that. Another concern as it relates to
landscaping that was expressed in the staff report was the berm area and buffer area
along Fairview and Eagle. What we have done in the previous plan, we had a 20 foot
berm area that was landscaped. Half of that was on the Highway District right-of-way.
Half of that was on our property. Both on Fairview and on Eagle. We’ve now moved
that entire berm on to our property, so we have a 20 foot berm on our property and then
in addition there is for the time being there’s improved area of landscaped area that
would be on the state highway property and on ACHD property. Those are the two
significant landscape changes that we made. In addition if I can just point to this area
of the plan, you may recall from my last presentation that this area that we call parcel
five, this is an entertainment area. We have a theater planned here, and some other
entertainment uses. The plan that we had originally drawn had a driveway access
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 27
going back here. We have eliminated that, and we’ve substantially increased the
landscape. No more will fit in that area, but we’ve really secluded that so if there are
people here, this will be the area of the plan that would have more late night or later in
the evening type of activity and their access here was a concern for these residents, so
that’s been eliminated, and the access now will go out to there. I might ask you to hold
that up again, but for right now, you can give your arm a rest. As I stated the change
will not hide the buildings, but it will soften the look of the buildings from the homes that
are adjacent to the property. In the last public hearing there was discussion about a
block wall versus a wood fence. I made every effort at the last meeting to convince you
that a block wall or a masonry wall is less desirable. It causes an echo, and I asked
some of you to go look at some of the other ones around. I think that some of the staff
did that, but I don’t know if you had a chance to do that. But the semi trucks and
delivery trucks 13 feet 6 inches high and a wall that would be higher enough to block
those from a sound standpoint right on someone’s backyard would be a huge barrier
along the property. I want to state tonight our interest is to keep the project moving
forward. If you require us to build a masonry wall, we’ll build a masonry wall, but I want
to be on record with you that I don’t think it’s a good idea based on my experience in
other developments. I’m skipping pages here. Another concern was traffic. As I
stated, we submitted a traffic study to ACHD. We’ve answered the questions that
they’ve asked us. But we found other this past month that the adjacent subdivision was
designed and approved with the expectation that there would be an 800,000 square
foot development on this corner. Now the concern came up would people be leaving
the shopping center and driving through the subdivision. Well in fact when the
subdivision was designed and approved by ACHD and by the city, that was a concern
and the streets I’m told and from the minutes and references that I can find were
designed to accommodate an 800,000 square foot development on this corner. I have
a traffic study that I’m going to hand to you that was submitted on October 18, 1993. It
was submitted to Ada County Highway District and to the City of Meridian, but before I
hand it to you I just want to read for the record for everyone in the audience I don’t have
enough to hand out, “Evaluated in this report are the traffic impacts associated with the
development of a mixed use commercial and residential development at the intersection
of Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road. Crossroad Subdivision is a mixed use
development proposing 256 single family residential lots, and an 800,000 square foot
retail, commercial and general office use center. The residential lots will be developed
between 2994 and 1997, and the commercial area will be built over a period of 12
years.” The idea that this shopping center is a surprise to the adjacent property
owners, I can’t help that. But there’s been as far as the city is concerned as far as Ada
County Highway District’s been concerned and as far as the state’s been concerned,
that planning information the size, the number of lots, that’s been a matter of record for
some time. Since you have those reports now in front of you, if I could just ask you to
go back to the very back two pages, there’s figure four and figure eight that are the
same. I call your attention to figure four, I’m sorry to state they are not exactly the
same. Figure four has a little bit more detail as it relates to Pine Street, and I think it’s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 28
more appropriate. But the subdivision I’m told and from my viewing, the subdivision has
been built in accordance with the plan that you have here. You can see the roads are
built in that way. The only changes two changes have come to just jump out at me.
The street that we now know as Records Drive, where we’re installing a signal, on this
plan that was submitted it was named Reagan Drive. That intersects on to Fairview so
if that helps you with your bearings, that is now Records Drive. The other street is
Congressional Drive that comes on to Eagle. That was not constructed. We are not
proposing to construct it. And from what I’ve been able to gather that was a concern
that would in fact cause traffic into the subdivision. So that street’s gone from the
project forever and it’s not one that we are proposing in any of our plans. But there are
certain things that we can do and try to develop a nice shopping center, but when
people have – I guess I just wanted to point out with this plan, this study that this has
been a matter of public record for some time and I apologize for the surprise by
everyone. We are moving faster than the 12 years. Another comment and suggestion
that I made at the last meeting was as it relates to the ACHD approval process. We’re
aware, we’ve done a lot of these centers. We’ve another one in Meridian right about a
mile west of here and we’re aware of requirement to go through the ACHD process. I
stated last time on the record and I’ll restate it again tonight we are seeking approval
tonight in order to keep our process moving and our designs and our planning moving,
and we will commit to you tonight to abide by the conditions imposed on us by ACHD.
Mr. Sale is cautioning that that’s going to be expensive and we know that it will be. A
rough estimate our impact fee alone for this shopping center will exceed two million
dollars. So we understand the scale and the scope of what we’re getting involved in.
Another discussion we had last time were the interior landscape islands. For the record
I have Tom Bowens is prop man. I don’t know if that’s necessary to have on record.
I’m going to pass this around to you and I’ll make it available to all of the audience in a
moment. I am not a fan of interior landscape islands. I’m not a fan for one reason and
one reason only. I think the idea is that an interior landscape island is beautiful and
provides shade. I had a couple of people go around town and gave them cameras and
said go take pictures of interior islands, and I’ll pass those photos so you can get a
closer look, but you’ll see there’s some photos on here from the Shopko Shopping
Center at Fairview and Milwaukee Street. That center was built in 1986. The trees
were built and installed at that time, and those trees that are shown here are the original
trees. So I don’t know how many years that is later, but they are not providing shade,
and they are not providing beauty. If we could emphasize the perimeter they have a
larger area to operate in and they will develop and grow beautifully, but when we put
them in the middle of a parking lot, they don’t have a chance and I just have some
photos that I’ll show and that can go on the record, but again I want to state tonight, if
you require internal landscape islands, we’ll build them, but I want the record to show
that in my opinion they don’t provide the beauty and the shade that some of you may in
mind. The photos of the Target Store on Milwaukee Street where these trees were
planted in November of 1988, Circuit City has planted in the fall of 1997. The Wal-Mart
were planted in the spring of 1996. The Shopko, Fairview Avenue Store planted in July
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 29
of 1986. And there’s another one of the Shopko trees as well, but I think it will show that
they had not developed fully and that they are sickly looking, and they don’t provide the
beauty and shade, so I will pass this along and I will leave it will Will. The last meeting
there was a great deal of discussion about the noise that this shopping center would
cause. We have agreed to sign the back of the shopping center with quiet signs
requiring trucks to turn off their engines during certain hours. We have gone around the
city again. Actually it was the same group that was taking the landscape photos. And
they took photos of the hours of operation that are posted on the backs of a number of
buildings in the Boise area. I think it’s important that you know that these are similar
types of uses that we are planning here. But in addition we’ve agreed to have the
following restrictions in our conditional use permit. We will restrict the sweeping of the
shopping center, which from my experience is the noisiest of any of the operations. We
restrict that between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. I’d like to just be completely
frank with you tonight. You’ll find that the earlier hours are more desirable to the
sweeping people than the later, so you could expect that more likely to occur closer to
7:30, 8:00 to 9:00 in the morning versus later in the afternoon. But no sweeping will
occur at the shopping center after 3:00 p.m. The trash pick up for the compactors and
the dumpsters on the premises will be restricted from the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 3:00
p.m. Snow removal will occur when necessary. (End of Tape)
Durkin: The photos that I’ve taken are from the Shopko, the Broadway Avenue
receiving. Their hours are 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. It’s posted on the receiving door. The
South Shore Albertson’s this is in southeast Boise at Apple and Park Center. This is a
typical sign that’s posted along the back of that. It’s a sound restricted area. Turn off
engines and refrigeration units. This is a typical photo I think that you would find typical.
It’s the Shopko loading dock area. This is taken at 11:00 a.m. in the morning. There’s
an empty trailer parked there, but no activity. Linens and Things which is a mall area
store it’s a fairly new opening. They have their hours posted 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
The South Shore Albertson’s and again as I stated at the last public hearing the earliest
hours of loading dock operations are going to be for your food stores. Their hours of
operation for their receiving are 4:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. And again the reason the early
hours as I testified last time the early deliveries are the vendor trucks. They are the
small vehicles. I don’t believe they actually occur at 4:30, but they may. But they don’t
occur after 12:00 p.m. The Target Store at Milwaukee Street, their posted receiving
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. K-mart loading dock, this is just another typical
photo. This is taken at 10:30 a.m. There is no activity there. The Wal-Mart Store out
on I think it’s Overland, their receiving hours are 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and the Shopko
at Fairview and Milwaukee Street there posted receiving hours are 9:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m.
The receiving hours and the receiving noise is a concern, a common concern, to local
residents. My experience in developing more than a hundred and fifty such centers,
although I admit this is by far the largest one, but most of my projects are discount
store, grocery store type of operation. My experience is that after the first few weeks of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 30
operation when the hours are posted and when the regular delivery people understand
what’s going on, it’s not an issue. An issue that continues after that time are grocery
store trucks, leaving their refrigeration units on. This center will be patrolled. We’ll have
on staff property management people. It will be signed. The grocery store coming in is
brand new to the market. They are open six days a week, closed on Sundays. I don’t
have any reason to believe that they won’t strictly enforce the signage and the
deliveries and the refrigeration trucks, but if they did not enforce that, we would be
enforcing that as property managers. It wouldn’t typically be something that the
Meridian Police would be called on, but if there was a serious problem, that may have
to happen. I’m ready to just move through a couple of specific comments that I had on
the traffic report that I wanted to ask you about. Before I do that are there any
questions of me as far as the shopping center plan, the changes that we’ve made or
any of those comments?
MacCoy: Commissioners, anything you want to say?
Borup: I got a few. I don’t know if this is the time to do it or want to wait a little bit.
Durkin: All right as I stated last time on the record, the staff report it was discussed
about submitting written comments, but through meeting with the residents and meeting
with staff, we’ve reduced those to a very few concerns instead of a great number. And I
would like to just touch on those right now. Under the site specific comment section of
the staff report, item eight and ten have been addressed by me tonight, and I would
request a modification consistent with the plans that we have shown tonight and
submitted to Shari, and I really didn’t hear the earlier comments about when things get
submitted. I was out in the hall. I couldn’t hear what you were saying, but I want to tell
that – we had the meeting with the residents at the earliest possible time. We met with
our landscape architect the following morning, and these plans finished the machines at
about 3:30 this afternoon. So we did everything as fast as we could. And we delivered
the plans to Shari this evening, so she’s just gotten them. Item number 12, the
reference to a masonry fence. We’d like to have that reference deleted from approval.
Item number 24, we would like to have deleted. And otherwise the recommendations
and comments of the staff report are generally acceptable to us. And with the changes
that we’ve made and submitted tonight. And that’s it for me.
MacCoy: Very good. Thank you. Anything from the commissioners now at this
moment?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Durkin you talked about the 20 foot landscaping buffer
between the subdivision. It looks like from what you said that filled it fairly well with
trees. Was that going to be bermed at all?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 31
Durkin: No, it wasn’t going to be. There would be a minor, but it wasn’t going to be a
major berm area.
Borup: Is there anything preventing to get a little bit more height in there?
Durkin: There isn’t really anything preventing it. We have a lot of materials on site to
accomplish it, but I don’t know if it’s a good idea as far as drainage and how that
drainage would effect the adjacent property owners with the wood fence that’s now
installed. So our engineers have not bermed it. I don’t know what that – there’s a six
foot high wooden fence right now that’s installed along the property. And you wouldn’t
be able to see a berm from the other side.
Borup: And I wasn’t thinking a berm as much as a visual effect of getting the trees up a
little higher and doing the job of buffering that we’re trying to accomplish here. And I
realize what you are saying on the drainage, and that would depend on how much you
stagger the trees, but you’d be able to grade that such that it – I don’t think it would
affect the lots. In fact their lots should be draining to that property line anyway.
Durkin: Commissioner Borup, when we met with the landscape architect I heard very
loud and clear from both this commission and the adjacent property owners last
meeting that they wanted a dense cover. So what we’ve done is we’ve met with the
landscape architect and we’ve basically planted these trees at about 12 feet on center,
which is really tight. While I would be happy to look into the berm idea, it isn’t
something that we did look into. But I would like to not be required to do that if we have
to spread our trees out farther. In meeting with the land group, our Boise based, I think
Meridian actually based landscape planning company, this is the tightest that these
trees can be planted without – and still grow to a satisfactory level. So I think if the
berm had a negative effect on that for any reason which I don’t know, I would like to not
do that.
Borup: Were you looking at sodding the berm or the other material around the trees?
Has that even been decided or discussed?
Durkin: What we’re dealing with is a berm area that’s 20 feet wide that is absolutely
packed with landscaping so I would imagine that it would be a decorative bark or
something.
Borup: Well I realize there can be a problem with too steep of a berm. Well you do
have a berm out on Fairview and Eagle don’t you? And the same width? I understand
not as many trees though.
Durkin: There’s not as many trees. There’s a lot more bushes and we don’t have the
density of trees in that area, but I would be happy to –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 32
Borup: But I realize there would be a limit on how high the berm could be. You get too
steep and the water is going to run right off without benefiting the tree, and I’m not sure
what that height is but I would think three feet would probably not be prohibitive. And
20 feet, you know a 20 foot area. That’s an additional three feet of buffering.
Especially on some of the evergreen trees. The widest part of that is down on the base.
Durkin: I have an engineer from my office and he might cringe when I say this, I’d be
happy to install the maximum allowed – a maximum size berm that we can in this area,
but I would like to keep the density where it is, so if we increase the size of the berm
and it decreases the density, I’d like to not decrease any density, but we have about a
half a million yards of top soil that’s access material on the site, so it isn’t a matter of
material. It isn’t a matter of cost. My only concern would the affect of the –
Borup: I’ve been looking, there are some berm around some other commercial projects
that are raised up quite a bit more than I think would be practical here, but again they
are very sparse with the trees and vegetation, and the other question you mentioned on
the interior islands and landscaping about the problem with the trees and I assume
that’s because of getting sufficient water into the roots and maybe is the soil situation
there? I’ll defer to the experience there. The question I have is how would shrubs do in
those areas?
Durkin: Commissioner, it’s been my experience and that’s what I’m going on. Again if
your staff and you want the landscape islands, we’ll put them in. But it’s been my
experience that the heat from sitting out in the parking lot, the engines and cars parking
next them, the reflection, the maintenance of the parking lot, both the sweeping and
snow removal have a serious impact on the viability of a tree.
Borup: That’s what I’m wondering about some shrubs and bushes rather than trees.
Durkin: It’s been my experience that shrubs fair worse than a tree because they are
lower, the cars pull right up to them, and so people walk on them and shopping carts
and different things. I think a lot of developers stand up here and they try to cut corners
or cut an expense. That is not at all what we are trying to do. We’re adding more in
every other area where it’s going to be viewed by community and where it’s going to
affect the adjacent property owners. But for us to put them in the parking lot they won’t
be beautiful. I’m just not aware of them being beautiful anywhere.
Borup: Thank you. The other question I had the South Shore Albertson’s, do you know
how close that is to residences? Specifically the loading area?
Durkin: The loading area is about 210 feet from the adjacent residences, but a couple
of things that are different there. There is adjacent property owners to the Albertson’s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 33
loading dock are up on a bench. So the elevation of their backyard is actually higher
than the -–they look down on the truck dock area.
Borup: And then maybe more of a statement, I think the buffering what you’ve done is
– I would think goes along to take care of concerns, the only concern I would have
would be probably the grocery store, and I’m wondering if something on some
additional buffering. It appears from what you said, that’s probably the only facility that
would be doing early morning deliveries, and I don’t know what you can do there other
than a redesign. Maybe push the thing further away, just in that area. But I guess at
this point just more of a statement.
Durkin: Commissioner my statement to that is the setbacks that we are now proposing
exceed the ordinance. Every other grocery store in the vicinity they have the same
vendor trucks. So if you see the Frito Lay truck he goes to Albertson’s out on Cherry
Lane. He goes to Albertson’s so to have different hour or different time you know have
them drive across to Boise and come back –
Borup: No, I’m not talking about the hours, because I realize they’ve got schedules and
I don’t know what can be done there. That’s why I’m saying because of the hours if
some additional buffering in the grocery store loading dock would be appropriate.
Durkin: I can’t fit any more in back there that would be viable. The landscape architect
is telling me to put them 12 feet on center and if there’s anyone that has more
experience in making that different –
Borup: I’ve got some suggestions that might work. It may not be what you want to hear
though.
Smith: I want to hear them.
MacCoy: Before you leave this, just one question. Are those trees in the buffer zone
staggered?
Durkin: Well they are – how can I describe this. There are staggered. They’re
basically two deep. But you’re not going to see a tree and a tree. You’ll see a tree,
tree, -- our instructions to our landscape architect were to load it up, spare no expense,
put as many as you can possibly put in of the most viable species to provide what we’re
after kind of screening and soften.
Borup: So at this point you’ve got the 1296 or whatever that number was?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 34
Durkin: Yes. We have the required numbers. We actually decreased our parking lot
size a little bit and so that increased the requirement. But we exceed the required
number in the ordinance.
Borup: Well I don’t know if you want to hear but my solution for buffering around the
grocery store would be to move the store to the west which would give you more
distance back there and allow you the space to do.
Durkin: I appreciate your suggestions. It’s just not a – it isn’t viable for us on that site.
I can’t get the parking depth and I will have more parking then behind the store adjacent
to the property.
Borup: I’m not talking about moving all the buildings, just the one specific. I mean it’s
already separate from the other buildings as far as the – two deep is that the grocery
store?
Durkin: This is the grocery store right here.
Borup: Yeah, I’m saying just to slide two of these to the west.
Durkin: This is west.
Borup: Right.
Durkin: So if I move this to the west I have to keep it –
Borup: No, why would you have to move the others?
Durkin: Um, just planning and keeping the drive you know the alignment and different
things.
Borup: It might slow them down if they didn’t have such a straight shot.
(Inaudible)
Borup: I’m not talking about a lot. I’m saying maybe another 20 feet. Take out two
more parking spaces along the front there. I’ve said enough. I think the other
commissioners may have –
Smith: While we’re on that subject if you want, that in an effort to increase the height of
the landscaping at the rear of the site, the berm I don’t know that that berm necessarily
has to extend that full 20 feet either. If the drainage is a concern maybe the berm starts
on the paved side as opposed to the property line side of that 20 foot zone and then
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 35
that gives the opportunity of the back portion of that 20 feet to create a swale back there
that – it also raises the trees up that are farther away from the houses so you get the
stepping up away from the houses, which would be I think more desirable than having
the highest trees closest to the homes. That way they wouldn’t loom over them over so
much, and Commissioner Borup’s concern about that deliveries on the grocery store,
I’ve seen Albertson’s trucks parked over here at Cherry Lane as late as midnight and I
had no idea these stores started taking deliveries at 4:30 a.m. I know I wouldn’t be
happy about being rousted out of the bed at 4:30 by a refrigeration truck. Maybe
something that can be done to really push that landscaping up at that store would be to
use some kind of retaining wall system to be able to elevate your grade up there, and it
wouldn’t be the whole periphery, but you know that particular tenant may – something
along those lines may help with that screening as well. I don’t know what the answer is.
I’m kind of at a disadvantage here having not seen the plan before. I also think that the
Chairman’s questions about how the trees are sited on there brings up a concern that I
had as far as the scale of the drawing as presented. You can’t do a finished
landscaping plan on a scale of that size. It’s too small. I mean I don’t know what your
landscape architects used to draw on there, but I’m used to working with much larger
scale sized plans to have those trees located and spaced properly.
Durkin: You know, I’m not taking notes. Do you mind if I interrupt and comment on a
few things. Because I’m not going to – there’s some things I’d like to comment on.
With all due respect Commissioner, I think if you are in the business or if you are
familiar with this I have to able to present a plan tonight that’s viable for you to look at
for the audience to look at and if I were to roll out the giant plans that we submit for our
building process, that wouldn’t be possible.
Smith: No, I understand, but specifically (Inaudible) –
Durkin: In more than 150 shopping centers this is exactly the same type of plan we use
for submitting – I’ve traveled the United States, I’ve not seen it done a different way. I
can’t fit more, and if I had seven boards around this room it wouldn’t blend together, but
obviously the plans for the building permit process and the plans that will be available to
staff for staff to review will be adequate. This is the best picture I can show you.
Smith: That’s where you’ll indicate the final landscaping schemes is on those individual
building plans?
Durkin: No, as a matter of fact they’re indicated on here right now.
Smith: That’s you landscaping plan? What scale is this, one to –
Durkin: Mr. Smith this is a landscaping plan that we use for the purposes of this
meeting. It’s a very small plan. But it enables you to see the entire shopping center.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 36
When we submit our drawings for our building permit and for the review they will
obviously be in a different scale. They’ll probably be broken down in ten or more pieces
of large blueline sheets, but the information on this plan that I’m showing you tonight
which is reduced and it’s difficult to read is what we will be submitting in our building
permit process in a larger sheet. I just can’t –
Smith: I understand.
Durkin: The next thing I’d like to address is the retaining wall. I’d have absolutely no
objection to installing a retaining wall along the back of the loading dock area for the
grocery store or for the whole shopping center for that matter as long as the people who
live right here were in agreement to it. It’s not a good idea in opinion. I’m under oath
tonight, and that’s all that I can tell you. If you want the wall, I’ll put the wall up. I don’t
think it’s a good idea, and I think they will be very angry that it is there. If they want the
wall or you want the wall, I’ll put it up. As far as moving the building forward, that isn’t
going to be viable for us and we will – that’s not something that’s going to be acceptable
for our overall flow for the overall plan of the project. Your first comment that you’ve just
seen this. We haven’t moved the building on the plan. This is exactly the plan that was
in your packet and it was in our application in May. The modifications to this plan were
to take some of the parking area away behind here. This building is in the same place.
This house is in the same place. The street is in the same place. All we did was widen
this landscape area and reduce the width of that drive lane and widen this landscape
area and reduce the number of parking stalls out in the front, so as far as the plan of the
shopping center, it’s the one that we submitted to the city in our packet in May and so
the changes are those landscaping and the ones I pointed out earlier over here. But I’m
sorry that -- I think you are an architect or you in that field, I’m not sure. You seem
pretty sharp about it, and I know that you are probably used to looking at larger plans
and I just for what we’re doing tonight it’s not a reasonable thing to do.
Smith: No, that’s not my issue. It’s difficult to respond specifically to a lot of landscape
items when you’re talking about a drawing this size. That’s all I’m commenting on. To
clarify the retaining wall statement, the goal of it being the same thing as Commissioner
Borup’s comment about a berm is to get the trees up not to use that wall as a screen,
because I have listened to your comments on the masonry walls and the echoing and I
defer to your experience with that. I’m not going to belabor this point, but the things
were changed on this plans were the ones that were specifically brought up last time
that were concerns to the residents and to the commission, so that’s you know we didn’t
ask that you look at moving buildings, but just that you get together with the residents
and those are the things that we haven’t really had a chance to look at.
Durkin: There’s one more thing I need to answer. As far as the berm area along the
back, while you were asking me another question I asked Tom what we could do and I’ll
be frank with you. It’s not something we thought about before. At least it’s not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 37
something that I thought about before. But we can commit tonight to build a 3-4 foot
berm area all along the back, and I would commit tonight to build a larger if you wanted
it larger but I would commit to build it as high as we possibly can if the recommendation
of the landscape architect that we are using – if it’s his recommendation that it doesn’t
affect the density. That’s my only concern, but we do have a 20 foot area and I was
imagining that it would be raised somewhat, you know, like a foot so that it’s not part of
the parking lot. I can assure you that we can do it three to four feet without any problem
without affecting the trees, and I think it’s a good idea. We have excess material on site
and we’ll happily do that, but if I can do it larger, specifically in the grocery store area, I
think it’s a good idea. I’d rather have it lower and more dense and that’s my only
concern.
Smith: This could be my last comment. At this time it will be, regarding the landscape
islands in the parking lot, I appreciate your position on that. I don’t say that I
necessarily agree with it. I think what you showed us in those pictures is a clear
example of exactly what you said is cheap, going the cheap way. The trees at that
Shopko probably were about as small a caliper trees as the developer could plant there.
It’s hard to say whether they’ve been adequately watered and whether the planter area
is adequate for those trees to receive proper root system. I would not want to see
shrubs instead of trees. The idea of the trees to me is to break up the large expanse of
asphalt and parking area. The other thing that those pictures you showed us exhibited
was poor design in the fact that they are just plopped on a regimented spacing with no
design considerations to clustering or grouping trees to help create the pockets of
landscaping in the parking areas, and I think that’s one of the things that most shopping
centers don’t do very well is parking lot landscaping, and for that reason is they just
plop them here, here, and here evenly spaced, and they use too small caliper trees. I
think something more creative than that is what I would like to see you do there. I know
you don’t want to do it, but I’d like to see it done and that’s kind of where I’m coming
from on that so at this time I’m done.
Durkin: May I make a suggestion to that. In the event that that’s in a motion for any
kind of approval tonight that we do that. Would you be so kind as to consider to give
staff the authority to approve the location and the design of those interior islands?
Smith: I don’t know.
Durkin: Well it’s just something that the architect comes in and meets with staff versus
the full committee approach on it, and it’s –
Smith: Yeah and that’s how I would hope that your consultants would interact with staff
is to sit down and meet with them and –
Durkin: That’s what we normally do.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 38
MacCoy: I’d like to make a suggestion though along that same line. I think if we knew
in advance, commissioner wise, that when staff is going to meet with you that we could
make some alterations for ourselves to come in and help join with them if that was a
good example because a couple of us know quite a bit about this.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think this would be an appropriate time to break.
MacCoy: Well I’d like to finish up before we break. In the first place let me ask the
question, do you have any questions?
De Weerd: I would rather listen to the public before I have any of my comments.
Nelson: I have no comments at this time.
MacCoy: Okay, anything else you want to add. At this time since it’s after 9:00, let’s
take a break for ten minutes and be back in here to hear from the public.
TEN MINUTE BREAK.
MacCoy: I promised at the beginning of this meeting we were going to at this break
time take a look at our agenda to see what the future looked like for us and what I’m
going to do based on a consensus is that we’re going to consider that the present
project will be the last one for this evening because we’re going to be leaving here
between 10:30 and 11:00, and we believe it’s going to take some time, so all those that
are here for item 10, excluding 14 which has been taken care of, through 18 will be
brought before this commission in this room on August 31st
a Monday night at 7:00 so if
you’re here for those things after the present item we have the best for you to do is go
home and get some sleep and come back and see us. With that, we’re going to open
the hearing for the present project, which is item 6, the Dakota project. So the podium
is open for anybody who would like to speak and I would like to remind you as you do
that we’re holding that to at least a minimum of three minutes and if somebody has
already said your peace, we’d ask that you’d take consideration for your people here
and for us too that it’s already been said. It’s on the record and you don’t have to get
up and repeat that.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I might add if you have something that someone has said but
you would like your name on record that you are in agreement, you can get up here and
say – be sworn in and agree with what already has been said. If you want your name
record, that is appropriate.
MacCoy: Let me ask the question, I wasn’t planning to use that because we have
agreed to something else? Is that in agreement to all you? Any problem with that?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 39
Borup: I would rather see, and I’ve seen this at other Planning and Zoning meetings,
just have everybody raise their hand or stand up if they support the one position.
MacCoy: That’s a good idea. I think we’ll be here for a long – it’s very commendable
but we’ll run out of time doing it that way.
ROBERT PHILLIPS 3437 PRESIDENTIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY.
Phillips: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I would like to ask for a little bit of
time. I’ve talked to my neighbors. I’ve got about half a dozen that will give me their
three minutes. I need about 15-20 minutes. I have some facts that need to be put on
record that will answer some of your questions.
MacCoy: Okay under your special condition, commissioners what do you want to do?
Borup: Could you repeat the request again?
Phillips: I need about 20 minutes.
Borup: And you are speaking for how many people?
Phillips: Half a dozen. That’s three minutes –
(Inaudible)
Phillips: Is that enough?
Prior: Typical lawyer gets a consensus, doesn’t he?
Borup: I would agree with that.
Prior: Would he speak on behalf of all you folks who just raised your hands? So you
folks won’t be speaking? Is that what we’re saying here?
De Weerd: Please go ahead.
Phillips: I do have two questions. I would hate to say something that was incorrect or
false, and I have two questions for Mr. Durkin. I just want to know if he’s the present
owner of the property or if Gemtone still is. And second if there are any restrictions that
he’s aware of on the property.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 40
MacCoy: Well go ahead and he’ll come back up to answer that.
Phillips: First of all I want you to know that I represent myself and nobody else. My
comments are mine and mine alone.
Smith: Wait a minute that contradicts how you opened up your argument for 20 minutes.
Phillips: No, I said they would give me their time. But that doesn’t necessarily mean
they have to agree with what I say.
Smith: You can’t have it both ways. One way or the other.
Phillips: Well let’s go ahead.
Smith: Which is it?
Phillips: Well they’ll agree – okay, I’ll represent them then. First of all you are probably
asking yourself how did we get a residential subdivision in the middle of a light industrial
zone? Wouldn’t you like to know the answer to that question?
Borup: We know the answer.
Phillips: You may be interested by the end exactly how that happened? Secondly why
is it all these residents are complaining that realtors told them that there would be light
offices next door? Or why is it the developer is claiming that 1991 he had the right to
build a shopping center? Well I think the only answer to those questions was to go and
look at all the reports so last Friday I spent a couple of hours and so I’ve got some
documents here that I’ve pulled and these all come photocopies that I made from staff
over here. Mr. Chairman, could I pass these out?
MacCoy: Yes, you may.
Phillips: Mr. Durkin, I have a copy for you as well. I’d like to do this in kind of three
parts. One is to go back and retrace the history too to talk about the ordinances just a
little bit. And third to talk about some other policy considerations. I think we all know,
and this is item number one, you’ll see there that in 1991 a conditional use permit was
passed in a light industrial zone. It was a PD general, which allows for certain uses,
which wouldn’t otherwise be authorized. Commercial use is not authorized in industrial
zone so they had to get a PD general. That’s the only way they could have commercial
use. Item number one is a copy of that hearing. You’ll notice it says, Kingsford: At this
time I open the public hearing. Hearing no response I will close that public hearing.
That was all that was said. Page two is just a continuation of the three or four lines that
were missed on page one. At the last hearing we held on July 14th
, 1998, a couple of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 41
questions were asked and I’d like to go back to that, and this is page number three, the
question was asked of Mr. Durkin about the conditional use permit. It specifically allows
for a shopping center. The approval of Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law were
approved unanimously and signed by the Mayor. Commissioner Borup asked the
following question, a shopping center was mentioned specifically? Answer, yes. If
you’ll turn to page four, I will read – this is from the second page of the PD general
permit that was issued in 1991. And this is the section that talks about the uses. The
petitioners propose to develop the property in a mixed use fashion containing both
commercial and light industrial uses as a planned unit development. You’ll see there’s
no mention of a shopping center. There is mention of commercial uses. Commercial
doesn’t mean retail necessarily. There are lots of other uses like offices. Another point
I want to make is on – another discussion took place hearing on July 14th
, 1998
regarding the timing when the residential portion was introduced. Commissioner Borup
again asked the following question, this is on page 5. Apparently the residential part
came in 1991. At the same time was the PUD from? Durkin: The residential
development occurred after 1992, 93, 94. The insinuation here was that the residential
came after the original commercial use, and so obviously the commercial would have a
higher priority first in place. However if you actually look at the permit that was granted
it did allow for residential use. Let’s look at page six. Now this is a section quoting what
is allowed under a planned unit development. I’m just going to read the highlighted
portion. One is to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses
and functions including a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses. Okay so
residential is allowed and this is the actual Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that
was granting the original use in 1991. Now this is where it gets tough. And this is a
tough issue if you have questions please ask me. I’ll do my best to try to explain this. I
told you I would tell you the truth, the whole truth. The proposed uses in that seven
page permit in 1991 never specifically mentioned residential. The only inference was in
the actual definition of a planned unit development general. But the PDG specifically
allows for residential uses. So now you’ve got a question you have to answer. Were
they granted simultaneously or was the commercial granted first? Okay Mr. Durkin
seems to be of the opinion that the commercial was granted first, and the residential
came second. However if the residential didn’t come until later, then it would have
violated the conditional use permit on its face. And there wouldn’t be any commercial
or residential allowed and it would default back to light industrial. Let’s look at page 7
and this is the actual permit the last page. Page 7 of the permit that any conditional use
granted by condition on compliance with the conditions herein and that the conditional
use be revoked for failure to comply with the conditions. In other words, if they fail a
condition then you revoke the permit. If they grant residential, uh-oh, we have a
problem. The only way to have both uses currently on the property is to take the
opinion that they are granted simultaneously. In fact in 1993 when the preliminary
platting took place on this property that’s what they did. They asked for a residential
use under PUD general because it was granted in 1991 and they received it. Granted
they were granted simultaneously. I guess the most important question is what I’m
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 42
going to get to now. Why did they put residential property there? And this is my
favorite one. This is page 8. This is from Meridian Planning and Zoning May 11th
,
1993. Crookston, who is the attorney at the time, what’s the reason for the change from
commercial industrial to residential? Tom Wright was sworn by the attorney. He’s the
principal at Gemtone. I believe it’s the current owner. That’s why I asked the question
at the very first to find out if he still is the current owner. Wright, I’m a part owner of
Gemtone. The owner of the property. The answer to Mr. Crookston’s question was
strictly market demand. But it goes on. What kind of commercial are you going to
endeavor that’s not going to interfere with residential living? His response under oath,
we’re going to covenant as to color, height, types, landscaping, lighting, hours of
operation, etc. in order to protect in essence enhance the residential. We won’t allow
major heavy industrial uses. I would call it light commercial and office type uses. This
is under oath in front of Planning and Zoning in 1993. You know I think Commissioner
Hepner shortly thereafter still on page 8 realized we’d have today. He said we’ve
recently had projects where there’s been commercial and residential bordering the
same property line and typically you get home owners in their first, then you try to come
in with commercial project, and it was 200 mad home owners here and want to see their
rights protected. Does that sound familiar to everybody here? Page 9 is simply a
continuation of that hearing. That was Planning and Zoning still in 1993, similar
promises were made by the owner of the property Mr. Tom Wright to the City Council.
This is page 10, again Mr. Tom Wright is sworn in. In response to earlier questions,
there was some earlier questions asked about screening. He said the following. It’s
difficult to be precise tonight Mr. Crookston as to exactly how it’s going to be screened.
Our commitment to this community and to Mr. Yorgason who is developing the
commercial property at the time is that we will put covenants against all the property
surrounding him that will do among other things restrict height, color, hours of operation,
landscaping separations, etc. We have been discussing three variations of separation
per say between residential and commercial. One would be fenced. One would be
landscape. One would be berm. I don’t know tonight precisely what combination, what
percentage proportion of those would be used but I will assure this Council and this
community that there will be separation between residential and commercial. But we’ll
have to do it in tandem with Mr. Yorgason. Mr. Crookston asked the following question.
I know that these other situations that this has arised and there is quite a bit of concern
about light coming from the commercial and sound. Are those issues to be addressed
in your covenants? Next page, page 11, yes they will be by covenant mind you on the
property. Again back a month or so ago on July 14th
, 1998, there was a question that
was asked to Mr. David Yorgason. They were discussing again the time frame of this
permit. And on page 12 it says as follows: Commissioner Borup, at that time did you
have any concept or understanding of what project would be going in this area? Mr.
Yorgason, no. You had no idea at all? Mr. Yorgason, I personally wasn’t working for
Capitol Development at the time. And that’s probably a truthful statement. Because Mr.
David Yorgason. Now let’s find out what Mr. Ramon Yorgason had to say about that
same thing at the City Council. Now this is on page 13. Crookston, do you plan any
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 43
kind of barriers between your residential lots and adjacent commercial or industrial
uses? Hubble, let me refer that to Mr. Yorgason. Page 14, to address the questions of
screening between the residential and commercial number one by covenant we will
have in the commercial area it will be light commercial and there will be screening on
their side as well as we’ll be putting a fence on our side. As the commercial in there will
be shrubbery that will go between that as well. I believe this testimony clearly indicates
be people under oath that Mr. Yorgason believed that there would be some sort of
screening when he built the residential (End of Tape)
Phillips: … was that there would be covenants and it would be light commercial. Light
commercial. Now there was a question asked a little bit earlier by Mr. Durkin. He said I
want to see the names of realtors. I want to know who those people were. Wouldn’t it
seem reasonable to you that if under oath at several hearings it was specifically
mentioned by Mr. Ramon Yorgason the developer and by the owner of the property that
those restrictions would exist that realtors, home owners and builders would rely upon
that? That seems perfectly reasonable in my mind. Had Mr. Durkin known all these
facts, I believe he would have had a different approach to this shopping center. Again
back to the last public hearing, July 14th
, 1998 and this is in regard to the masonry wall
discussion that took place. Commissioner Borup again had asked a couple of
questions. On page 15, Mr. Durkin said I’m not familiar with large shopping centers
where masonry wall has been required. He goes on to say I’m familiar with it being
required in Boise elsewhere with the exception of – and then Commissioner Borup
asked the following question. Home Depot? Mr. Durkin says the following, maybe I
should be more clear on what I’m talking about similar use. If I were coming in tonight
and say this is on residential for an apartment building or office building, and I wanted to
build a shopping center I would and the people who are living there bought their homes,
built their houses with the belief that there was going to be additional residential or
office building there, and I came in and said I wanted to build a shopping center. I
would do lots of different things differently. I would build to meet their to satisfy their
needs. I think as you look at the history and a quick summary we relied upon what was
said under oath that there would be covenants next door. That’s a reasonable belief.
We built our homes on that, and we understood that going in. But you know you have
some tough decisions ahead of you tonight and I want to give you some ways out. I
don’t want to leave you there hanging. I know these are difficult decisions so my
second point is I think the ordinances actually discourage and prohibit this kind of a
shopping center especially in this location. Let’s go to page 16. This is the application
for conditional use permit submitted by I think the Dakota Company. You’ll note it says
73 acres. The next page, page 17, it mentions 74.74 acres, kind of a discrepancy.
Actually I did the calculation on the parcels. I thinks it’s 74.67 acres. That’s about how
big it is. The interesting thing is they ask for a regional shopping center. Let’s look at
page 18. What is a regional shopping center? The largest of shopping centers, which is
all inclusive and self sufficient with at least two large department stores as the major
tenants and generally serve the population of approximately 150,000 or more. Here’s
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 44
the key part. It is a center having over 750,000 square feet of gross floor space and be
located on a site greater than 75 acres. On the face of their permit they have
insufficient acreage to meet the definition of a regional shopping center, but more than
that if you look at the comparison between 75 acres and 750,000 square feet. That’s
the minimum for each. They want 850,000 square feet. A hundred thousand square
feet more with insufficient acreage. It’s too big. That’s a 13% increase. There’s just
not enough space, and that also goes to violate the comprehensive plan of Meridian.
Look at page 19. This is page 23 of the Comprehensive Plan of Meridian. I’m looking
at section 1.4U as the left hand column the second one that’s circled. This is the policy
to encourage new developments reinforces the city’s present development pattern of
higher density development. Within the Old Town area and lower density development
in the outer lying area. You have to base your decision on that policy. Let’s look at 1.3
above that. The following land use activities are not in compliance with the basic goals
and policies of the comprehensive plan. Sub A, strip commercial and strip industrial, but
more important than that if you look over at 2.3U. Protect and maintain residential
neighborhood property values, improve each neighborhood’s physical condition and
enhance its quality of life for residents. Under the comprehensive plan it’s clear how
you should make your decisions. So the second thing I’m showing you is under the
ordinance there are clearly problems with this particular application, and most of it
stems from size. It’s too big for the location. We’ve heard insinuations of the serious
traffic problems it’s going to cause and that’s because of the size again. I realize how
difficult your decisions are. But he’s asking for a conditional use permit. I just wanted
to read from the ordinances which is also supported by statute. This is exhibit number
20. Upon granting a conditional use permit, a) your goal is to minimize adverse impact
on other development especially development that exists, and then g) require more
restrictive standards than those generally required in this ordinance. Now Mr. Durkin
has expressed that he has complied with ordinance, but when you ask for a conditional
use permit this commission can go way beyond those ordinances because of the
circumstances of protecting other development that’s currently existing. You know I
really want to be a good neighbor with Mr. Durkin. I figure at some point in time there’s
going to be some commercial development there, and I would like to be a good
neighbor and we have a lot of lemons here. And they weren’t cause by probably any of
the people in this room including Mr. Durkin. We bought our homes on a reasonable
reliance that it would be light commercial. The ordinance supports our belief and
probably a denial of this conditional use permit in the form it is currently. There’ s a lot
of public policy considerations as well. There’s traffic, there’s design, there’s lighting,
there’s buffers. If I had a lot more time tonight which I don’t I could go through and
show you different issues that I would be concerned about. For example my home is
right here. It’s the first one on the right coming into the subdivision, and they are going
to bust out this beautiful berm in four places which mean trucks go right behind my
house. My three year old is going to love that, but the rest of the family probably won’t.
Like I said there’s a history you now know. You know what the ordinances say. You
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 45
know what good public policy considerations are. There’s a lot of lemons. Your job is
to make lemonade. Don’t give us a sip but give us a full glass.
MacCoy: Thank you very much for your enlightenment. I’m afraid we have been
fighting this thing for some time in our minds because we have also reviewed the
material and we have really a hard decision to make and one of the things I’d like to
make point to everybody in this room we are by the time element he’s been mentioning
here, we are the new commission and we take things a lot differently than the old
commission did just to be general about it. But what I would like to underscore is that
we really have your interest in heart and that’s what make our decision even tougher
because if we were just callous about dollars and cents, then our decision would be a
lot easier. I just want you to know that we feel for you. We feel for everyone in this
room because we put ourselves in the same position. Thank you very much for your
discussion.
Phillips: I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding.
MacCoy: That’s the next thing that happens. Commissioners?
Smith: Mr. Phillips, when did you purchase your home?
Phillips: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smith, 1996, May of ’96.
Smith: I believe that property was signed by that time of Crossroads Development
Center.
Phillips: It was signed?
Smith: There was big eight foot plywood signs on Fairview and on Eagle.
Phillips: I believe there was signs up. Do I recall what on those signs? I don’t
remember the exact – I know there was commercial use that they proposing it for.
Smith: Was it ever represented to you what that commercial use would be anyone?
Phillips: No. Well let me change that. Before I bought my house, I consider myself a
fairly sophisticated investor. I figured I’d be there three to five years. I made inquiry
into the community. I know people who are planners and various people and I asked
about the situation. At the time I purchased my home, I knew it was light industrial from
my own personal research. I knew that there was – I don’t remember exactly if I knew it
was a planned unit development at that point in time. I did within three months
thereafter, and I was comfortable with what I knew that it would probably be something
along the lines of light offices that would go next door.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 46
Smith: Okay, but nobody ever represented to you that you know what in their opinion
that was going to be, and you did research it on your own with the city public records
what –
Phillips: Actually I talked like I said with some planners and they had told me that’s
what they thought was going in there. If you mean by representation they told me this
is going to happen here, no.
Smith: Can you be more specific as to who the planners were that you talked to? Were
they with the City of Meridian?
Phillips: No, they were not.
Smith: City of Boise? Ada County?
Phillips: No, I talked to the planners who had worked with Ramon Yorgason and
previously worked for the city.
Smith: Okay, thank you.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, well I had a lot of questions from my notes, but I think maybe just
one is all I am going to ask of Mr. Phillips, and you made many comments concerning
light commercial. In your research did you come up a definition of light commercial? I
cannot find that.
Phillips: You know I did the same thing. I looked for light commercial, and I was trying
to find out light commercial and I couldn’t. I couldn’t find what light commercial was, but
then I pondered on what maybe heavy commercial is. And I think when you have –
Borup: What’s heavy commercial?
Phillips: Like I said it’s a gray area that’s probably a question of what a reasonable
person thinks it is, because it’s not addressed in the code.
Borup: You spent a lot of time giving us definitions out of the ordinances, did you find
one in there for light commercial or heavy commercial?
Phillips: No, I did not.
Borup: Did you find anything for commercial?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 47
Phillips: Yes, there is a definition of commercial. That includes retail and office
buildings.
Borup: And that was my point. I think there’s only one definition, commercial, period.
Phillips: Let me mention one thing, when it comes to shopping centers there are three
different definitions of shopping center. There is a convenience shopping center, there
is a neighborhood shopping center, and there is a regional shopping center. The
question in my mind is to what heavy and light were, clearly a convenience would be
light, a regional would be heavy and I’m not sure what the middle one would be.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Phillips: One more thing along that line. A neighborhood the middle one that I
mentioned contains a 100 to 400,000 square feet which is about half the size of what is
being proposed.
MacCoy: Commissioner Smith do you have anything else?
Smith: (Inaudible) I couldn’t believe. I didn’t know. No, I don’t.
Phillips: I’m willing to answer anything. I mean I wanted to let you know what I found,
what I can do to help.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, I have a question if I may. Mr. Phillips, obviously in your mind the
original conditional use permit was violated in some way. Is that the understanding I’m
getting?
Phillips: That’s a tough question. I’m not certain of the answer to that question. If they
were granted simultaneously, it seems like, like I said it depends on whether you
assume they were granted simultaneously. It was not. If they were not granted
simultaneously it clearly was.
Prior: So if the conditional use permit was violated our recourse is to revoke the
conditional use permit and what do I do? Do I tell all these folks sorry you are going to
have to get out of your house at the end of the week? I want you to tell them that
because I don’t want to have to walk outside and tell all these folks the conditional use
permit has been revoked.
Phillips: That’s a wonderful question, but it goes back to who violated the conditional
use permit. It was the owner of the property.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 48
Prior: That’s under the impression – that’s with the assumption that residential was
planned after the commercial and if they were planned simultaneously, I don’t think
there was any violation.
Phillips: That’s correct.
Prior: And based on what I see here it doesn’t appear that they were planned
separately. They were planned together but we’re here on a separate condition use
permit. We’re not here on – the old conditional use permit isn’t in effect basically. It
doesn’t apply to this – he’s applying for a separate conditional use permit. Isn’t that
your understanding?
Phillips: He’s applying for a separate conditional use permit. If that’s the case clearly it
fails on its face. Because it doesn’t apply for a PD general. The only time you can
have a commercial center inside of an industrial zone is if you apply for a PD general.
Prior: And as a conditional use permit.
Phillips: As a conditional use, that is the only time. There is no other way, and so what
he’s applying for is a conditional use permit for a regional mall, which would not be
allowed.
Nelson: I was going to save my comments until the end, and at the risk of making
enemies of my neighbors, I understand we can play games with the dates and times,
but the situation is that we’ve got to deal with the intersection as it is. We’ve got a prime
piece of real estate. We know it’s going to be commercial in some fashion. We need to
do our best – I’d much rather deal with it as a package, call it a regional mall if we have
to or we could come back later and break it all up in little pieces and have them all
different colors, shapes and sizes. This is just a general comment that I am going keep
in the back of my mind as we go through the rest of this process.
Phillips: You know that’s a fair concern I think. On the other hand you know if you
make a decision you grant the conditional use permit. Let me just walk you through the
steps you have to make.
Nelson: Before we go too far you’ve had your half an hour or so.
Phillips: Twenty minutes. If you’re done, I’m done.
Nelson: I’d like to give – I mean do we want to keep –
Phillips: Can I make one final comment, and I’ll sit down? If you grant the conditional
use permit you have to realize what the reliance of the people was on the owner who I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 49
believe is the current owner of the property unless it’s transferred in the last few
months. You have to do it in violation of both the policy of the ordinance and the
ordinance on its face and there are a lot of other considerations as well that you have to
consider like traffic etc. And that’s what you are going to have to do to grant it. And
that opens yourself for a lot of difficulty and thank you.
MacCoy: Counselor, do you have anything else you want to add. You were looking for
something.
Prior: No, I’m satisfied.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, maybe while this is fresh in our mind, I think Mr. Phillips asked
two questions at the beginning –
MacCoy: You want to do that right now? I think we’d wait until –
Borup: Well he’s probably prepared to answer it. I guess I would like to right now those
two things though.
MacCoy: Just two things. Okay, would you back up one moment and go ahead and
answer those questions?
Durkin: It’s very hard for me to just get up here and answer two questions. My name is
Larry Durkin. The answer to the first question is yes, the property transferred on or
about June 18th
. And the title is held in the name of the applicant. The restrictions that
are encumbering the property are various. It would take a title report to show that and
it’s more detailed than I’m prepared to go into right now. I could give a summary if
anyone wanted a general summary. And I do want – there are a number of other points
in his presentation that I want to reserve to –
MacCoy: Okay, thank you.
ROBERT R. SMITH 335 S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD WAS SWORN BY THE
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Smith: I came here tonight to roast you guys real big time. Unfortunately the only
person I recognize on the board is Will Berg. We went through this –
Berg: I’m not on the board, so let’s make that clear. I’m sitting here, but I’m not on the
board.
Smith: I am going to speak rather rapidly for the time factor. We were involved in this
same situation two years ago. We’re still involved in it. We are being bordered by a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 50
light industrial situation at right at our backyards. We ask for a berm. We asked for a
masonry fence. We asked for all kinds of these things that this gentlemen is actually
proposing he’ll give these people. I suggest you take it. Whatever you can get and he’ll
volunteer to give you, you better take. If you want to see your tree berm and what it
looks like and we’re putting up with, you can come out look at ours right now. It’s 25
feet wide. It has trees spaced every 12 feet. They are six feet high. The chicory
weeds is 7. We’ve policed this through the people every day, and we are the policers
(sic). We’ve put up with dust, weeds, and all kinds of miseries involved in this situation.
We’re still policing it. The Meridian City Council threw out the comprehensive plan. We
don’t have a leg to stand on. And they have the ability to do this. So all these things
that you guys are going through we really have compassion for you. We’re all retired.
There’s five of us involved. We thought we’d live there our life. I’ve lived in Meridian
my whole entire life. I have worked here. I retired from Idaho Power with 40 years
seniority. I was a line crew foreman. I’ve been through a lot of developments. My crew
built all of Boise Town Square. I know what goes on within developing and I have a lot
of compassion for you, but I know that what’s going to take place you are going to be
stuck with what’s going to come down the road. What you can get you better get. We
couldn’t get it. We’re in legal recourse now so that’s other alternative. Thank you.
Smith: Mr. Smith, where do you border on light industrial?
R. Smith: Pardon me?
Smith: Where about do you border light industrial?
R. Smith: Medimont Subdivision. Right there across from Pumice Products on Franklin
Road.
Smith: Okay. And what are the uses you are having problems with over there?
R. Smith: I would talk to you a lot. What are the problems? First of all we –
Smith: Not the problems, but what kind of tenants are you –
R. Smith: We’re still dealing with the developer and what he was to suppose to follow
through with to give it our protection and our buffer area. We still not got what that –
they took away our irrigation system, access to our irrigation system. We’re all
acreages. We all irrigate as a farm, and I’ve been a water master there for 33 years.
All of these things we fought with daily, constantly. I call and no one polices this
situation. You got a fine situation here in Meridian, but it looks like a Chinese fire drill
when you try to get something accessed or try to get some of your own rules and
regulations abided by. We fight this continually. We become the policers (sic) of this.
These people will become the policers (sic) of it, and what happens? Do you see it?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 51
You don’t see it. We argue with them all the time and it’s a terrible thing to have to go
through this. It upsets the whole apple cart continually, and we don’t get answers.
We’re just sitting in kind of a limbo thing here. We’re in the county, you’re in the city.
We talked to the county. We’re in the Meridian City impact zone. We have no elected
legal recourse. We have to go through our own legal now to fight this thing, and not in
the position to do that. Not you people, and I’m not pointing the – we came to you. We
came to you with exact rules that should have been abided. It all got thrown out when it
went the Meridian City Council. We have nothing that we have to back up. We keep
talking but the talk goes on. It’s two years now into effect. We had to go to the EPA to
stop the dust mining of that soil. They started mining the soil out there. The dust in our
homes got so bad you couldn’t even breath. Those are things that happen. And if he
volunteers a lot of this you people would be wise to take what you can get. Thank you.
MacCoy: Anybody else?
Prior: All I would ask is that if you are going to repeat what you said before, spare us.
MAYNARD MARTIN 3668 E. JUDICIAL WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY
ATTORNEY.
Martin: Issues still concerning the mall, the are a couple of things that I highlighted, a
couple of things that I would like to present to the commissioners. One concerns
ACHD. I want to start back at ACHD. Now Mr. Durkin had stated in his July 14th
meeting that – I’m reading here, I don’t know what page it is, I have a draft of the thing,
but anyway it was number 28. It says the agencies have had adequate time to review
our application the engineer required. Recommend a delay on this in order to hear
comments back from ACHD, but we have to gain separate approval from ACHD. In
addition ACHD now has the approval rights for Eagle Road. Rather than continue the
hearing since are hoping to get started on the building design and our site, I would hope
that you would incorporate the future requirements of ACHD as part of our approval
tonight. We have had informal meetings with the ACHD. We have delivered our traffic
study to them. We have had and then it says blank, blank, blank. There aren’t any
problems that I’m aware with ACHD. We are scheduled to have a hearing with them on
the 24th
of this month. Well I have talked with ACHD, and ACHD had major issues their
proposal. I plan to give you a copy of that tonight and I did have a question. Have you
guys been keeping in touch with ACHD as a commission board?
MacCoy: I think our staff has.
Martin: The staff has, okay. Maybe I’ll (inaudible)
Borup: The representative from ACHD was the first one that testified on this
application.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 52
Martin: Yeah. Here I’d like to present copies for your guys’ viewing pleasure so you
can see what issues ACHD is having with this guy’s traffic study. And I’d like to read a
couple of comments from it. The second one is the one that I’m most concerned with
and that’s the latest comments that they did have concerning the traffic study that Dolby
Engineering submitted to them. And this is from July 30th
. It says here Ada County
Highway District, ACHD, staff and Idaho Transportation Department staff had discussed
the reference draft traffic impact study. While the initial submission response to most of
the issues of concern to the district there are several considers which need to be
addressed for the final report. Please review the following topics and submit a revised
traffic impact study. The needed information includes: I am afraid that we will need a
complete new analysis of the submitted traffic study. Why? The submitted report uses
the a trip generation rates from a fifth edition of the I.T.E. trip generation manual. We
prefer the use of the current sixth edition of the manual. The new trip rates are shown
on the attached tables. Please update the analysis using the new data. It’s only one of
several items that they document wrong. ACHD goes as far to say the assumption of a
four percent increase in Eagle Road traffic is silly. The observe increase has averaged
four or five times that figure during each of the last several years. Please reconsider
your figures and choose the appropriate course of action. I suggest that you assume a
more linear growth rate between the current figures and the 2015 forecast. I would
encourage you to review that. Moving on because I didn’t want to waste time. I had
some questions here that I’d like to address. I’m not clear as to when was the light to
be installed on Pine Street if this mall goes through. When was the scheduled date for
the light at Pine Street?
MacCoy: I don’t think we know yet.
Martin: So am I clear then to understand that this mall can be built and as far as I know
looking at Meridian future planning, I think the light doesn’t show up until 2003.
MacCoy: We’re pushing that forward. I happen to sit on part of the traffic board for the
county, and one of the things that we’re concerned about is a number of streets and
traffic lights for our City of Meridian, and we think we’ve been kind of pushed to the back
door and we are working on it. The other way to say we need this because our
development is going so fast and they have now agreed that they have made a mistake
and they’re moving our stuff forward. So I don’t have any dates at this point.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think our three minute thing is not working. But if you could
ask your questions and perhaps the applicant can respond to them when he gets up,
this will help make this a little quicker.
Martin: Okay. Mr. Durkin has mentioned several times that in his landscape berm and
whatnot he has exceeded the ordinance, and here again I encourage you guys to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 53
consider this a special case and we should push for the maximum exceeding of the
ordinance to make this a harmonious situation between the commercial and residential.
When he talked about – oh, there was another question I wanted to ask here. What is
the current ratio of parking space to square feet? In his first report if I’m not mistaken
Mr. Smith Commissioner stated that normally for every 1,000 square feet of retail space
you want about 4 parking spot. Mr. Durkin came in with 6.11. I submit to you tonight
that if you reduce his parking back to the 4.9, which is standard for Boise Town Square
that that would give him additional room to create the berm that we the citizens of the
community have decided that we would like to have, because at the meeting that they
had nothing was accomplished. Because Mr. Durkin states up here that he was willing
to concede, but from what I hear from the meeting after about thirty minutes, he got up
and walked out and left my fellow neighbors sitting in the meeting. Now we have
walked the neighborhood, and I want to show you a draft and here are all the signatures
of neighbors who have signed on if this thing goes through the kind of berm that we’d
like to have. Anyway I’ve got to submit these, and I’ve got to hand on to one so I could
read what we’d like to see concerning a berm. I do also have figures of what it would
cost and how it is feasible to do to make these landscape berms. We had an engineer
do the work. He checked with local nursery people, and they said this is possible to do
and it will take care of drainage and all that issues.
MacCoy: You are pretty close to be completed with your – because we’ve got timing
here involved.
Martin: Yes. I’d just like to read over this very quick it says we the fellow home owners,
we the concerned home owners of Crossroads Subdivision propose that the following
items be installed by the developer of the Family Center of Meridian if this goes
through. Concerning the berm separating the Family Center and Crossroads
Subdivision, the following ideas have been selected as preferred choices concerning
the berm. The number one would be a landscape 20 feet wide, 6 feet in height berm
with a 6 foot wooden fence at the top of the berm. Berm to include Evergreen trees,
and assorted shrubs on both sides of the berm with the majority of the trees consisting
of Evergreens as opposed to deciduous. Or a landscaped 30 feet wide, 10 feet in
height berm with Evergreen trees and assorted shrubs with the majority of the trees
here again consisting of Evergreens as opposed to deciduous. Concerning the traffic
impact study, we ask that our concerns with cut through traffic be included with a
submission including a brief discussion of this issue and identifications of needed
mitigation measures. Concerning the signs to be used for advertising, we oppose the
30 foot high banner or pylon style signs. We ask that the City of Meridian will consider
our desires also and look at the more monument style signs that are at Blue Cross so
that when we drive home down to our property we don’t have to look at these big nasty
neon signs that are standing there beeping at us. Secondly, things we’d like to be – you
guys to be considerate of is these last items concerning issues surrounding the
construction of the Family Center of Meridian. We propose the following: Dust
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 54
abatement as you just heard the gentleman stand up and talk about dust. We’re
definitely concerned about dust abatement, the noise ordinance, set construction times
between the hours of 8:00 and 6:00 p.m. Temporary fence installed around the
construction site to limit debris from our subdivision and in closing all we the home
owners want is a fair shake from you council members. It’s an ugly situation like I
stated last time for the record. We don’t need to perpetuate this thing. Now is a good
time for you commissioners to stand up and correct some wrongs, and in closing the
concerned home owners of Crossroads Subdivision would greatly appreciate the
Planning and Zoning Commission of Meridian, Idaho support of our proposal. That’s all
I had.
MacCoy: Any questions from the commissioners?
Borup: One quick one and that was pertaining to the landscape buffer. You said you
had an engineer felt that a six foot high berm was –
Martin: Yes, (inaudible). What you want and I’m not an expert on landscaping, but I
guess you need a one to one ratio. If it’s 20 feet wide you can go six feet high and that
will give you still adequate space at top to place a six foot high wood fence and also to
place trees on both sides of that berm and fence.
Borup: And without a problem with run off at that grade?
Martin: It shouldn’t be.
Borup: Did he address the reduction and the number of trees at the fence in the middle
of the berm would have?
Martin: The berm – what he’s proposing a three foot high kind of berm is not going to
help with noise at all.
Borup: No, I think we already talked that. My question is if you add a six foot fence in
the middle of the berm is that going to reduce the amount of trees?
Martin: It shouldn’t because you can put trees on both sides of the fence and berm. If
your berm comes up like –
Borup: Well, you are talking a tree that’s not going to grow anything and diameter?
Martin: No. You can still put them. The deal is – no, there is adequate room according
to his estimates that you can do that and put your trees.
Borup: Was that submitted with your –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 55
Martin: I will give a copy of that, and he also ran up the figures of what it would cost to
do said berming.
Borup: And I don’t know that the cost is the factor as much as the feasibility.
Martin: Yeah.
Borup: You say you do have the engineer’s report on that?
Martin: His drawing and the cost. That’s all I had.
Borup: Just a drawing.
Martin: Yes. All I had was the drawing.
Borup: And you feel the drawing that he came up with was superior to what the
applicant has already proposing as far as the amount of trees?
Martin: Oh, by far. His berm is a joke.
Borup: Trees, trees. He’s not even proposing a berm.
Martin: Right.
Borup: I’m talking about the amount of trees, the number of trees. You’re trying to get
more in than what they are proposing?
Martin: No, we don’t want more necessarily more trees.
Borup: You’d like to get some height in there.
Martin: We want the height. The height is what’s going to diminish the noise and also
the site of the back side of the building.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Smith: So, Mr. Martin, did I hear you correctly you would prefer to see a fence at the
top of the berm?
Martin: At the top of a six foot berm. Either that or the – you see we have that or. I
would prefer to see a 30 foot wide berm that goes 10 feet in height with Evergreens on
it with some deciduous trees and shrubs.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 56
Smith: So the fence at the top of the berm isn’t necessarily what you’re looking for. You
are looking for height.
Martin: Right. Now we have home owners who – we walked around and had them sign
it. This is like these are the two options that we came up with that we felt would satisfy
the people.
Smith: Because it just doesn’t seem like good design to me to put a fence 10 feet away
from and existing fence. You’ve got 10 foot of dead area that – the other thing I’m also
concerned about is just the height of a physical manmade barrier above the grade of
your lots and that is why I think the going at it from a landscaping standpoint would be a
softer more sensitive kind of treatment there than placing the fence there. But I want to
be clear about what you are asking for.
Martin: Well if you look at like Bristol Heights Subdivision which is down Eagle Road,
they have incorporated the two where it’s a berm and a fence. It looks rather nice to
me. Also if you go further down Eagle Road and you cross over into Eagle it is a nice,
the houses are like $250,000 and up. They have like a 12 foot berm in front of their
subdivision and it looks great.
Borup: Where is this at?
Martin: Island Park and it looks rather nice, so it does look good. It does.
Smith: I think both those examples you sited are quite a bit wider than 20=30 feet that
you are referring to.
Martin: They may be. I’m not sure. All I know is at these calculations 30 foot wide
berm you can get it 10 feet high and you will have your one to one ratio that is required
for that kind of a berm.
Smith: That would be one to three ratio.
Borup: I was going to say a one to one ratio is a 45 degree angle.
Martin: Yeah. Here again, I’m not a landscape guy, but if you look at his information it
is I’m assuming it’s correct and you won’t have an issue.
Smith: I think what we usually try to do is not go in excess of two to one. Just because
as Commissioner Borup pointed out earlier it’s a problem with maintaining something on
a slope in excess of that. It gets to be a maintenance problem. So those are just some
design perimeters.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 57
Martin: Here again I encourage you to look at the one down at Eagle and it looks great
and they maintain it. So it is possible.
Borup: Another question, Mr. Chairman, and again I’m a very – I think you can tell we
are interested in the buffering here and something that’s going to satisfy. On a 20 foot
area with your 6 foot berm which I don’t know if that’s exceeding what’s practical or not.
Then you’re talking about a fence in the middle. How big of a essentially flat area on
top are your – does that allow for the planting of the trees? The other question is and
what diameter do you anticipate these trees becoming? I’ve got a fir tree in my yard
and it’s got 25 foot diameter.
Martin: Yeah. What the deal –
Borup: You’re talking about planting that thing from a fence, it’s just going to knock the
fence over. I mean have you looked at what happens after the trees grow?
Martin: If you look at pine trees and the way they grow which is pretty much straight up
and then –
Borup: I’ve got one in my yard.
Martin: I know, but what I’m getting at is the fact that as you have your hill that slopes
you don’t have to necessarily plant the trees all up by the fence. They can be scattered
throughout on the sides of the berm. Right? So it would make accommodation for it.
Borup: You’re talking about getting them in that 10 feet area then?
Martin: Yeah, that’s all we’re asking.
Borup: On the side of the hill.
Martin: Yes, and here again I cite the incidents that you can look at on Eagle Road in
front of that subdivision. It works there.
Borup: Thank you.
MacCoy: Any other questions? Anybody else from the audience that would like to
make a statement at this point?
CRAIG STEELE 2021 N.W. 8TH
WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 58
Steele: I guess I’m kind of in the minority. I don’t live in the subdivision. I live here in
Meridian. I see the problem that you have is you have a city of 30,000 that you have to
development to where we have a tax based where we can afford parks and things that
the city needs. Here we have a subdivision that I feel for them that they have a
development going in next to them that they wouldn’t want there, but the city of
Meridian needs taxes. They need the income. We need the parks, so I guess I’m
coming at it from the standpoint of the regular citizens of Meridian, so you guys have a
tough decision. One that I wouldn’t want. But you do have to take into account the
other citizen of Meridian. That’s pretty much all I wanted to say in this.
Smith: Just a statement Mr. Steele, I understand what you are saying but I personally
and I cannot speak for the other commission members but generating a tax base for the
city doesn’t enter into any of my considerations on any project that comes before us
here. I look at the planning aspects, the compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods and
–
Steele: and how that affects the city as a whole.
Smith: That is why I can’t understand that the city ever approved a residential
subdivision at this location in the middle of a light industrial zone.
Steele: Exactly.
Smith: I said it last month, I’ll say it again as a matter of public record, it was bad
planning. It shouldn’t have been done that way, but it was. So now we have to – I do
believe that Eagle and Fairview are going to develop commercially. One of the
problems with the way Fairview has developed in Boise is it’s all strip commercial
development. This is not strip commercial development, and if we break this down into
smaller pieces, inevitably at some point in time in the future it’s going to be all
commercial even if this project is denied I think and personally I think it’s better planning
to develop larger parcels, and I can appreciate the neighbors concerns. This is a scary
proposition going next to them. You know it’s large in scale. But quite frankly I don’t
know that you are going to see a density or amount of commercial development in this
half mile stretch down Eagle and half mile down Fairview that’s going to be all together
different as far as size goes. It could be smaller. It could be some different uses, but I
just want to reassure everybody in this room that this thing isn’t being looked at by at
least one member up here, and I doubt anybody else from a tax based situation.
Steele: It’s the city as a whole, and it needs to be looked at that way.
Smith: Winston Churchill said we shape our buildings thereafter they shape us, and
that’s one of the reasons why I have an interest in planning and architecture. I also do
it for a living. Your point is – I’m going to shut up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 59
Prior: Mr. Chairman, could I make a request that you remind all the people speaking to
limit their comments to three minutes and maybe the commission to limit their
dissertations to three minutes.
MacCoy: You have a good point there Commissioner. I would like to add one thing to
Commissioner Smith’s thing. I think what you are looking at is a board nowadays is
about generally what he said is how we look at it is the overall viewpoint and we try to
balance things out, and it’s a tough decision we know.
Steele: It is, but the City of Meridian still needs to grow.
MacCoy: But we come from a background that understands exactly what you say and
what they say. Thank you very much for your comments.
Smith: I never thought I would hear from you, Mr. Prior, about someone being verbose.
RONALD HOWARD 3587 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Howard: Thank you. I will stay within the three minutes because I don’t have a whole
lot to say other than I’m not a real eloquent speaker. I don’t talk in front of the pubic a
lot. The things that have concern with we moved in the Meridian Subdivision at the time
we moved in there, I knew there was some industrial going to come into the area.
There were signs placarding up there, A Family Center. That was the sign that was put
up there. Most people whenever they look at something that says a Family Center,
does not indicate a regional mall. But I know that we’re going to have development in
this area. The thing that I’m asking of the Planning and Zoning is that they take into
consideration the lives of the people that are living in that subdivision, the children that
are at risk in the subdivision. There are some real basic problems that I see with their
plan as far as access to their mall area. There’s two entrances at this time into the
subdivision (End of Tape)
Howard: … our entrances into our subdivision. If anybody goes into those mall areas,
they miss a street to pull in or they decide that they want to get from one end of the mall
without having to go around the L-shape, the subdivision is where their cut through is
going to be. This subdivision has a high number of little children within this subdivision
area. It’s not an adult community center. Myself I don’t have a lot to worry about. My
children are grown. My neighbors have little children all around me. My biggest
concern is their safety. My secondary concern is my property values. I spent a lot of
money to move into that subdivision. What I want is the assurance that this isn’t going
to drive my values down. If they are so confident that this is going to keep our values
up, then let them make some proposal or some way of reimbursing us if our property
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 60
values do go down because of their development. Bottom line for them is strictly
dollars. The bottom line for us is our livability, and dollars do affect us as well. I’ve
always been a firm believer in the government and the city government and I do believe
that you people are put up here on the boards to protect us as well as the community in
its development. And our primary concern is the people not the developers and that’s
where your main concern lies. Other than that that’s my statement and that’s the way I
feel about it.
MacCoy: Any comments from commissioners?
Smith: Just a quick question. Who are you looking for assurances from about your
property values?
Howard: I think if it’s a approved through the Planning and Zoning, the Planning and
Zoning has to give us some kind of assurance. What is in it for us? Why is the
community – where is the community benefiting from and this and especially the
community that here is going to be eventually wrapped completely around. It was the
Planning and Zoning, not you, but the other Planning and Zoning board that put this
thing in here that gave the residential permits to be built in here. Now they are going to
land lock us with major construction in there, major businesses that are going to create
traffic hazards. From just looking at their traffic patterns that they’ve got there I can see
major problems with trucks, with vehicles coming into the subdivisions. There again the
children in that subdivision just off of Judicial Drive, there’s what five six bus stops right
in through there? There’s more children under the age of three in that subdivision than
in most subdivision in this city I’d say. That’s all young people. They are starter homes
for a lot of these people. They are getting started. They can’t afford to take this kind of
loss. If the developers of this are so confident in what they are building and what they
are doing for the community let them put up the money and put it up into a fund that
they will receive back after a certain period of time when they proven that the values
don’t drop. If the values drop, let that fund be disbursed among the home owners in
that subdivision to help replace what they’ve lost. I spent a lot of money on a home to
move into there. I can’t afford to take a 10 to 20,000 dollar loss because of somebody
wanting to make a few million dollars out of money that I’ll never see. I think that they
can come a long ways and I think that there’s a lot of things that we can do to work
together to put this thing together. I don’t think that it should be put together all in one
night and one meeting with the subdivision and the owners and have everything, well
it’s all perfect now. It’s not. Before they move forward I think there needs to be some
more meetings and I think those meetings need to be well publicized. They need to be
minutes taken at those meetings, how they are discussed and what they’re discussed,
and you know there’s a lot of things I’ve got real concerns with. I don’t want to take up
a lot of your time because it is getting late, and like I say I’m not a public speaker. I’m
not the man out here to be doing this. There’s been a lot of other people up here a lot
more eloquent than myself. People in suits that have better degrees than I have. I’m
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 61
not an uneducated man, but I do know that your job is to protect me. And I’m
depending upon you to do it, and I don’t expect him to come in and change my whole
lifestyle over a few dollars that they’re going to make.
Smith: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I just got to say something before we go on. One of
our purposes here is to get all the information we can and we want to weigh it as best
we can. But for anybody else coming up with ridiculous off the wall suggestions not
doing anybody any good. Just keep that in mind. Let’s be practical here. Thank you.
(Inaudible)
Prior: Sir, you’re not on the record, would you be quiet please? Will you promise me to
limit this to three minutes please? Obviously no one else is doing it, I’m going to ask
you to limit it to three minutes.
CHANDLER LEGARRETA 3683 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Legarreta: Just to first address your concern, Commissioner Borup, I don’t think
anybody here intends to be flippant by any means and I think we’re trying to make the
best efforts and the stress and the concerns that we have to try and resolve this issue.
For some of us, I am in the starter home category, and I have not yet had to deal with
something of this stature, and if I seem flippant and concerned, it’s because I am very
concerned, and it’s not to waste your time or to Mr. Nelson’s time. They are true
concerns to us so that’s why we’re voicing them. One of my original issues that I want
to bring up is this realtor said this, the realtor said that. Clearly based on this
gentleman’s testimony or comments earlier there was some discrepancies in the
information at a public level records level and essentially now as a result of realtors and
finding trust in a profession that we could buy our homes through we’re now going to
suffer the consequences of this. I don’t know that that burden is all on us as being
uneducated purchasers or if that burden lies in the fact that the public records weren’t
kept well or maybe my misunderstanding of the law. Or the realtor’s understanding of
the law. My second issue the traffic issue. We have to understand that from even not
only a Crossroad Subdivision perspective but from a community and valley perspective
that Eagle Road is a north south artery to the whole north end of Idaho. Whether you
want to believe it or not people commute and just having that built I’ve seen the traffic
increase personally just driving it. People travel that road to get to the north end of the
valley all the time. That’s the main artery that way. You can guess that it’s going to be
nightmare. And finally the third issue is by building this and building it to the statue that
it’s listing here and developed here, you are going to set a precedence for the
surrounding area if I might approach this. If you recall this corner is also vacant. I don’t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 62
know. It’s probably 100 plus acres, maybe 200 acres. This corner is vacant. I don’t
know big and this corner is vacant. As with any development in retail area, retail breeds
retail. If you set a precedence with this for this be sure and know now that you are
going to set a precedence for that whole area. And what you are going to have is
another Franklin disaster at Milwaukee.
MacCoy: Does that conclude your statement?
De Weerd: Well I would just have a comment that you know that’s why it’s – we need to
rely on ACHD. They are the experts and their report as Mr. Sale had mentioned will be
to us in two weeks and so as far as I’m concerned until we see that report, I can’t make
a decision.
Legarreta: I appreciate that.
MacCoy: Any other comments?
Smith: Mr. Legarreta, you made some comments about realtors. When did you buy
your house?
Legarreta: September ’96. Actually August, excuse me, August ’96.
Smith: Did you inquire as to the adjacent development?
Legarreta: I did.
Smith: And inquired that of your realtor?
Legarreta: Yes, I did.
Smith: And you were told anything specific or just said it was commercial.
Legarreta: Yes. I was told specifically that it would be office type buildings along the
dentist and medical field. Something to compliment Blue Cross across the street.
Smith: What was your realtor’s name?
Legarreta: Is that necessary?
Smith: Yes, it is, because you were told a specific use that not one piece of information
that we’ve had presented before us either by Mr. Phillips or any previous information
that has been submitted to us that ever specifically stated what exactly was going on
that site beyond commercial and as Mr. Phillips pointed out commercial is not only
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 63
shopping centers, it’s office buildings, it’s also entertainment complexes, recreational
uses, etc. It’s a vague all encompassing definition, so I would like to know who your
realtor was.
Legarreta: Okay, can I answer that by asking one question if we could? Could we take
a poll of the audience by show of hands of how many realtors actually told the people in
this room the same thing?
Smith: Certainly. Go ahead. I’m still going to expect you to answer my question.
Legarreta: Absolutely. I just want to show you the magnitude of how much information
–
Smith: I think I understand what the magnitude is, and I think that’s why I want to know
who these people are because again we’ve got some individuals sitting around this
room that depending on what happens here, you’re all looking at us at the bad guy, not
them.
Legarreta: No, I don’t want to pose myself as being confrontational, but I want you to
understand that if I give you my realtor’s name, you’re going to have about a thousand
people giving realtors names. I’m happy to do it, as long as I don’t fall into any legal
slander or any other legal issue at all.
Smith: All I’m asking you is who represented you in the purchase of your home.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, not to disagree with Commissioner Smith, but I’m not sure if that
is really a necessary question. The thing I would be interested in knowing is how many
of the people that said your realtor told you this has gone back and asked the realtor
about it again in the last month.
Borup: Five. Thank you.
Legarreta: Can we asked the original question too? How many people told that initially
when they bought their house?
Smith: By your realtor.
Legarreta: Specifically by your realtor that helped you buy your home.
Smith: It’s got to be a third to half the people in here.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, I don’t understand what the relevance is of him telling what the –
and sir you are not required to answer that question if you don’t want to. I don’t
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 64
understand the relevance of him finding out who specifically his realtor is. I don’t see
the relevance of that, and I encourage us to move on.
Legarreta: I appreciate your time. If there are any more questions I’ll get out of your
face.
Smith: So, you are not going to tell me who your realtor is?
Prior: That’s up to you sir if you want to do that.
Legarreta: Maybe afterwards. I can tell you in private. I wouldn’t want to make it public
knowledge.
Smith: Okay.
MacCoy: Thank you.
KEVIN BORCHARDT 1071 N. FILLMORE WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Borchardt: Just a couple of quick things that really I think need to be brought up. My
house borders the fence line. I bought it a little over three and half years ago. The
Family Center sign was not up. There was a big retail sign on the corner. I did look at
that, did some investigation myself. I came up with the same conclusions by coming to
Planning and Zoning doing a few things like that myself. Being right next to the mall, I
have small children, and we’re kind of concerned about noise. That’s our biggest
concern. We do not want to see outside speakers on the mall. Home Depot is a good
example. We do have other areas down the street that have outside speakers. I can
hear them from my backyard right now. And noise ordinance is a big thing too.
Concerning the berming issue and all that. Being from another state I do know that
drainage is usually taken care of through different forms of systems. You can make
drainage piping all along the back sides so when you do water it flows down. It hits the
pipe, and goes down to another area and waters another area. So the berming we’d
like to see that as a neighborhood. And the water drainage system that would have to
take into effect when they are building the berming that they do need to incorporate that
because I don’t want my backyard flooded, and I don’t want to be picking up trash out of
my backyard all day long either, and if you would like since my house sits on a fence
line, if you would like to come out and get a better view of what we’re trying to talk about
on berming, I’m more than willing to have you guys out so you can see from our
backyard what it’s going to look like.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you. Any questions from the commissioners?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 65
Borup: Just a quick one. When you mentioned berming were you talking the same
specifications that Mr. Martin?
Borchardt: I would kind of like to see more of a back support to the berming by the
fence and a gradual down on the front.
Borup: Slope away from your property?
Borchardt: Slope away.
MacCoy: Any other questions? Okay thank you very much. It is now about 12 minutes
before the hour of 11:00. In order to give the applicant a chance to speak at least five
minutes before we close this out, we have just about seven minutes left for this open
thing for you tonight. Unless we continue it on, so please take that in mind when you
speak to us. Thank you.
PATRICK HARPER 3644 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Harper: First thing I wanted to address since it was timely in that Commissioner Smith
brought up the issue as far as who is giving us this information. I have an interesting
story. I was curious on what kind of information was still currently being given out
because there’s signs up. We have people have been in their houses one or two
months that are still being told this story. This is an open house being held by Tidwell
and Associates on Florence Drive near the Records entrance, and to my amazement I
received a very detailed description when I asked them what’s going to go on out here
with this shopping center? I see signs up. And they described it. In fact I’ve mapped
out here essentially as they described. Records Drive on over to Eagle Road would be
a retail development. The area in red all the area directly west of this subdivision would
be – they are trying to get office, medical, dental tenants. This is with the three
billboards posted out in front, and we are still getting this kind of information. People
telling me this and called them back, confronted, they were still clueless and insisted
that I was wrong and that it was not until they called Capitol Development and got the
story. They did call me back repeatedly apologetically. Thankfully for straightening
them out. But this is two days ago that this information is still going out and people are
still buying homes in this subdivision with that information. My realtor was Germaine
Terrance. We were not necessarily buying a house in Crossroads Subdivision. We had
looked at several subdivisions. We were working independent so I don’t think he had
any particular vested interest. I did ask him, I had seen the sign out at the corner. I had
asked him what the implications were. He looked into it and I have called him back and
confronted him on the issue, and as his recollection he did talk to the developer. Now
that could be one of two people that he would have been working with at that time. I
think it would be fantastic. I personally don’t know how we go about pursuing this. I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 66
don’t know that it’s my realtor or anybody’s realtor, but somewhere, somehow this
misinformation has some very specific misinformation has been given out. This same
type of diagram is what my realtor explained to me. He went on to explain the vine,
everything else in the area accurately, but this is the information that he got as well.
One other thing Commissioner Smith had asked about the signage on the property, and
as I said I did see the sign. I spoke with David Southers of Southers Properties who did
speak at this meeting last month and we had lengthy discussion about the subdivision
and the signage. He stated that at that time there was a large sign on the corner which
we’ve all discussed and also two smaller signs at the corners of the property. Well as
we pursued our discussion it was his opinion that those two corner signs which he said
were smaller and he does not have information on whether they were maintained but
they were also at the locations of the current Family Center signs, which are at the red
circles here, so as you see again leading to this perception. So my point here is that we
are not all just naïve or stupid. That even those of us who did try and pursue that made
a best effort to get some information received quite specific misinformation. The only
other issue that I don’t think has been adequate addressed is and I was glad to hear
Commissioner De Weerd address this was the traffic study. I’ve seen several of the
ACHD documents, and I’m certainly not the person to describe those in any detail or
with any expertise, but I have seen the proposed layout at least for the expanded
interchange that’s going to be at this corner, and as the proposed interchange is
designed, it’s going to take out a minimum of two of the pad properties. Two of the
buildings on the property and in addition the impact of that interchange is going to
extend a good 200 feet beyond the Florence entrance on Eagle Road. Now if Mr.
Durkin has worked with ACHD to address those specific concerns I think we would be
very interested in hearing that’s going to impact. Because since Presidential is our
primary entrance into the subdivision that would mean that all southbound traffic at the
very least would not be able to use that entrance and would further add to the stress
that is going to be at the Presidential Drive. Their current traffic study shows that the
left turn lanes out of the shopping center on Eagle Road are at level service F, and that
was with the underestimated traffic flow. A lot of other bits and pieces I won’t trouble
you with. I think other people have addressed them longer and in greater detail, but I
thank you for your attention.
MacCoy: Any discussion from the commissioners? I’m going to call it a point now for
our applicant to come back up and answer some of these questions so we don’t run out
of time.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, before you do so, I think it’s important to note if there is
further testimony out there, we will be continuing this public hearing.
MacCoy: Well I’d like to have you hold that for the time being until we get –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 67
De Weerd: I’m not making a motion. I’m just letting them know that they are not just
cut off.
MacCoy: No, they are not. We hadn’t said that. I’m just asking at this point that you
come back forward and answer some of these before we run out of time.
LARRY DURKIN WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Durkin: I’m the applicant. I guess my first comment is really I was offended by a couple
of the comments from people that seem to question my honesty, Mr. Phillips and others.
Everything I’ve testified here I’ve done. I’ve testified truthfully, accurately and honestly.
My reputation is in good shape with the City of Meridian on other projects, and there’s
been no effort by me to distort be incomplete or inaccurate. The handouts on the other
hand that were given by Mr. Phillips tonight are inaccurate. They are out of context.
The dates don’t follow the meetings, and maybe if the hearing is continued and he has
another opportunity to address it, but if you look at the dates on top of some of the
pages, he has various different minutes from a number of different meetings, yet his
testimony was talking about one meeting or another, and I can’t see from this handout
that they necessarily coincide. Mr. Martin had some good points tonight, but Mr. Martin
again questioned my honesty and my integrity, and I will state to you as a matter of fact,
we had a two hour meeting. I was here for two hours with the adjacent residents. The
guy that states on the record that he isn’t a landscape guy didn’t come to the meeting,
but the meeting started at 6:00 and I walked out of here at 8:00. Tom Bowens from our
office stayed afterwards to answer questions and the president of the homeowners
association continued to have a home owners meeting. But during that time I thought it
was a real positive meeting. I would guess that there were 50 or so people here. I
know that some of the city staff was here during that meeting, and I thought it was a
real open honest exchange between us as the developer and the affected people in the
subdivision. I know Mr. Phillips threatened a lawsuit tonight in his closing arguments,
and so I expect a lot of this testimony will be – have exhibit numbers and date stamps
on it at a later so I’m very carefully wording this. I will represent to you tonight that the
Family Center sign was installed on the property on or about February 1st
, 1998. It may
have been the 15th
. It was not earlier than the first of February. The Family Center sign
that was installed three of them were installed the installation company went to the site,
took down the sign that had been there for years that said the Crossroads Shopping
Center and installed the Family Center, coming soon, the Family Center with a site plan.
Generally consistent with what you see there. Not exactly but I would say very
consistent with what you see there. So if someone bought a house three years ago and
they looked at the Family Center sign and thought it was going to be a family park.
There wasn’t a Family Center sign at that time. I guess that’s my point. I think it’s
important to get accurate, honest public testimony. And so I’d like to ask for an
extension tonight and not put you in a situation where you are going to be spending a
lot more time discussing a motion. That’s my suggestion and my request of you, and it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 68
will enable people to come back and testify again. So I would like to say that. That
would be my request as the applicant and I’d like to give plenty of notice and have
everyone be available to come back and go through this again. But I want you to know
that our efforts were prior to purchasing the property we conducted a lot of detailed
studies in the area. The services that we’re offering we’re convinced are needed in the
area. We have other developments in the Boise area. We live here. And we’re proud
of it. We maintain them. The traffic study process for those of you on the commission
that understand that, we’re required under statute to hire a traffic study engineer. We
give them the general facts of what we’re planning to do. They go out and do a study.
They put it together in a book. They give it to us. We hand it to ACHD, and their entire
tech review committee has a meeting and they go over it. They have comments to that,
and they submit those comments for – they’re generally considered questions. But at
the time of our last meeting we had in fact submitted the traffic study more than a month
before and had received nothing but verbal positive comments from ACHD. You may
recall one of the commissioners that night said have you seen this? And you were
faxed a letter that afternoon stating that they had questions. That’s the first I heard of it.
And you gave me a copy that night, but in fact since that time we’ve met with ACHD. I
can represent to you that in my opinion we have answered all their questions to our
satisfaction and to their satisfaction. This is more study. It’s a big project, but our
commitment is to accept the final recommendations of the Ada County Highway traffic
group and so that’s our commitment. We’re aware of the costs and the other matters
related to their approval. We’ve gone through it before. We have had more than one
meeting. We’ve had a number of meetings with staff. We’ve had two meetings with the
president of the adjacent homeowners association, reviewing our plans and giving him
copies of all our plans prior to ever having a pubic hearing here, and that’s a normal
procedure that we go through, and we’ve had a meeting with all of the adjacent
residents, and I don’t think that you could question tonight with the audience that people
are aware of what’s going on and the opportunity to comment has been ample. That’s
about it. I guess I’d ask for a continuance. I don’t know the term that the City of
Meridian uses but continue it for another night. My only request and I don’t know if we
have any influences is that we could be first on the agenda instead of last. The last
time we started at – I think we got out of here 12:00 at night or something because we
started late. So I’ll happily answer any questions that you may have.
MacCoy: Thank you very much. At this moment I think I will ask you to take your seat
and put it to the commissioners since the hour is already passed 11:00 as to what do
you want to do?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a comment. I think there has been
considerable time on a lot of people’s parts here. The developer, staff certainly and the
residents as well, and I sit up here and mudslinging seems to be the only term I can
come up with. But no one is being personally attacked. You know emotions do funny
things and certainly we’re not sitting up here speculating on what your interpretation is
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 69
on those signs and what our opinions are of that or anything to Mr. Durkin on his
honesty level. I think we need to stay away from that, but I would hope that people
could put those emotional things aside and realize that there’s nothing behind the
personal attacks and I would hope you remember that when we continue this pubic
hearing. We all are trying to do the best we can. It’s an enormous project and needs to
take some time. It’s very rare that the developer does as much with the residents that I
think they are coming out and doing and they are trying to listen to your concerns. I do
appreciate also the time that the residents have spent looking at other options and Mr.
Martin you kind of surprised me on that, but I think that those kind of things really are
what we’re looking for. We’re looking at other ways to look at things. So we have to
depend on the public to do that for us as well. There’s my soapbox speech and I have
been quite most of the evening. Anyway on this issue.
MacCoy: Commissioners what do you suggest?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we continue this item until our
September 8th
meeting if that gives the applicant enough time to – I guess that’s a – we
have to continue this to a date certain. I think there’s been some things brought up
today that I think I’d like to see prior to the next meeting in working with the neighbors
and staff that have been brought up tonight like studying this berm at the back. What
the best way to approach what we’re trying to solve by putting that berm there and the
landscape screening. The neighbors have expressed concern over not only visual but
most specifically I think noise.
De Weerd: Is that all part of your motion?
Smith: No.
Prior: It’s part of his dissertation.
Smith: Mr. Prior, I can’t believe you are a Redwing’s fan. The other thing was how we
can address this trying to break up these parking lots and not have the landscaping look
like the pictures that you showed. I think there are some creative ways that a good
designer could approach those, and I don’t want to tell you how to do it because I don’t
want to lock anybody in to something where somebody else might have a better idea
how to do it, but I would like to see these large expanses of asphalt broke up somehow,
and whether that’s clustering trees or you know spreading them out the way you see
them done all the time. I don’t know the best way is to do that. But somebody could
come up with some ideas and then I think Commissioner Borup’s suggestion of moving
the grocery store ten feet, twenty feet, whatever deserves to be studied and looked and
see how that affect things. And then Mr. Martin brought up the point that I said 4
parking spaces for 1,000 feet was desirable. That what’s the minimum required by
ordinance. As Mr. Durkin stated last month I think that’s not always adequate for this
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 70
type of development. That parking gets over burdened and remember again when
we’re talking about landscape requirements. Those are minimum parking requirements
those are minimums too. So do you need more than until next month? Okay so I’m
going to restate my motion to continue this item until September 8th
and ask the
applicant to provide us with new site plan information based on those items I just
discussed prior to our meeting so we have a chance to review that.
Borup: Yes, I would like to second that, but I was just also maybe a clarification. I just
wrote down three items that you mentioned, and I would like to know if that fit in with
what you had in mind in your motion. Talking about the screening berm along the
subdivision property, parking lot, additional – to break up the parking lot with some
additional landscaping and then also look at additional buffering around behind the
grocery store. Is that the three items that you were –
Smith: Yes, and I don’t know the residents – we didn’t hear from everybody tonight so
you may have more things and Mr. Durkin may be more than willing to sit down again
and meet with the neighbors. I can’t say what he’s willing to do or not do. He’s done it
once already so I would think that he wants to move this thing forward and continue to
meet with you. Again I can’t say what he will or won’t do. But there may be some other
things that the residents have to bring up.
Borup: We got the letter that (inaudible) turned in. You know we did not hear from
anybody that was behind the grocery store, which I would have been interested –
Smith: There are some –
Borup: Okay so I’m sure we’ll hear from them. I mean maybe not only Commissioner
Smith, maybe not only your idea on moving it forward, but you also mentioned
increasing the height there is another option for us.
Smith: I would encourage the residents to get the developer’s name and number and
call him and talk to him.
De Weerd: And he is the one that suggested that, so we’re not putting into his mouth.
Before we vote on a motion, I think staff has been very patient with us. We haven’t
asked them any questions.
MacCoy: I haven’t finished yet thank you.
De Weerd: If there’s any issues they would like to add on to these considerations. No?
Of course there is ACHD’s report that we need to concern ourselves with too.
MacCoy: Okay any other discussion from the commissioners before we take a vote?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 71
Prior: Mr. Chairman, would they just restate the motion and second it again and then
we’ll vote on it.
MacCoy: Again?
Prior: Yes please quickly.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we continue this item until our
September 8th
meeting and ask that the applicant look at the landscape buffer, between
the residential neighborhood and the proposed development, the parking lot
landscaping i.e. additional trees and the siting of the grocery store as Commissioner
Borup suggested earlier and any other items which staff or the residents may bring up
in subsequent meetings.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
(Inaudible)
Prior: Mr. Chairman the public hearing has been continued. We ought to stop now.
MacCoy: We’re going to. I’m waiting for another motion. Wait.
Berg: I’m sorry just a point of clarification Mr. Chairman, I know you verbally talked
about these other items and issues, but I think we need to open each public hearing
and continue it to that date that you had recommended. Because these were noticed
as public hearings and we are suppose to have a hearing tonight on those items. And
so each item that we have on the agenda needs to be dealt with.
Borup: Individually?
Berg: Yes. So before your other final motion, I think you need to do that.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we take items 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
16, 17 and 18 and continue those to our August 31st
meeting.
Borup: second.
MacCoy: All in favor.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 72
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Smith: Doesn’t that work? Doesn’t that cover what you wanted?
De Weerd: I think we have to open them individually and continue them officially. Is
that right?
Berg: Mr. Chairman and commissioners, of all the information that I’ve gone to
seminars and classes, that’s what I presume is the proper thing. What we’re dealing
with is we notice for public hearing and we have to have a public hearing tonight. Yes,
we can continue it, and that’s what we want to do, but I think you have to open up each
public hearing and get a motion to continue it.
Smith: Mr. Prior can we open up all these public hearings at the same time?
Prior: In the form of a consent agenda, I think you might be able to get away with that,
but they weren’t listed as items on a consent agenda. So that creates a little bit of a
problem. So quickly just open the public hearing, close the public, -- if you’ll just do it
very quickly. Chairman, very quickly say I’m opening up the public hearing, anyone
here and then just move along.
MacCoy: It seems like a lot of stuff to do but okay. If you say so.
Prior: Please quickly.
ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL
PLAT FOR PROPOSED FIRST MERIDIAN PLAZA BY WILD SHAMROCK
PARTNERSHIP – SOUTH OF GEM AVENUE BETWEEN MERIDIAN ROAD AND E.
1ST
.
MacCoy: Anyone here to speak? Since there’s none, we’ll continue the public hearing
to the date of September –
Prior: You need to make a motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to move that we continue the public hearing for a
request for preliminary and final plat for the proposed First Meridian Plaza.
Smith: Second.
Prior: Mr. Chairman, I think if you just note them by number we can do it relatively
quickly. Just note the number we’ll go with that route please.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 73
MacCoy: All right. That second was made yes. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PROPOSED WHITESTONE ESTATES NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE
PARTNERSHIP – WEST OF LINDER AND SOUTH OF FRANKLIN.
MacCoy: Anyone here? No. We’ll continue the public hearing until September 8th
.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion we continue the public hearing until
August 31st
.
Borup: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
PROPOSED TERRA TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION BY JIM HICKS – EAST OF W. 7TH
AND SOUTH OF IDAHO.
MacCoy: Anyone here? No. We’ll continue the public hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue item number 12 to August 31st
.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
8 ZERO LOT LINE TOWNHOUSES IN TERRA TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION BY JIM
HICKS – EAST OF W. 7TH
AND SOUTH OF IDAHO.
MacCoy: Anybody present? All right we’ll continue the public hearing.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue the public hearing for item number 13
until August 31st
.
Smith: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 74
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 15: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
GROUP DAYCARE BY TINA CARRICO – 2050 N. LARK PLACE.
MacCoy: Anyone here? All right seeing there’s none –
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion we continue the public hearing for item
15 until our August 31st
meeting.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONVERSION OF GARAGE TO BEDROOM AND BATHROOM BY MEL A. LACY =
1414 N. MERIDIAN ROAD.
MacCoy: Anyone present?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing for item number
16 to August 31st
.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 17: PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN
OFFICE, UPSTAIRS APARTMENT AND POSSIBLY RETAIL USE BY JOSEPH A.
JOHNSON – 46 E. PINE.
MacCoy: The public hearing is open and there’s nobody here, so I’ll close it. No—
You’ll continue it. Go ahead.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I move to continue item number 17 until August 31st
.
Smith: Second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 75
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO AMEND CITY ORDINANCE,
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT FOR TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK
DEVELOPMENT CORP. – S. WEST FIFTH AVENUE, SOUTH OF FRANKLIN AND
WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, does anybody here have any idea what item 18 is about?
Smith: I didn’t get anything.
Nelson: I had to pull it from last month.
De Weerd: Yeah, it’s from last month.
MacCoy: Anybody here for public hearing? Okay, commissioners?
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion we continue the public hearing for
item 18 until our August 31st
meeting.
Nelson: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: One more motion left.
Berg: Mr. Chairman, you talked about eliminating or taking off item number 7. Well
there’s two things. You asked the city attorney to prepare Findings. We’ve had a public
hearing on those things. You need to probably motion to dismiss or take it off or
continue.
Prior: Motion to table it just to an – they don’t have to table it to a certain and then the
only way it comes back on is they remove it from the table. So just make a motion to
table it. That’s all they need to do.
ITEM NO. 7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: AMENDMENTS TO
ZONING AND SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we table item 7.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
August 11, 1998
Page 76
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Okay, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Berg: We talk about trying to get things not to come back to haunt us. I think it’s best
that we do it this proper way or else we’ll have to re-notice –
De Weerd: I agree we have to do it right.
Berg: Thank you for your cooperation.
Nelson: I’d like to make a motion to adjourn.
Smith: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:18 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
____________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK