1998 09-08MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Malcolm MacCoy.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Malcolm MacCoy, Mark Nelson, Tammy De Weerd, Keith
Borup.
OTHERS PRESENT: Eric Rossman, Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Will Berg.
MacCoy: Welcome to the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for September
8, 1998. The first items are the business, is the minutes of the previous meeting
held on August 11, 1998. Is there any comments commissioners or corrections.
Borup: I have none.
De Weerd: I have none.
Nelson: I have none.
MacCoy: What’s your flavor?
De Weerd: I move to accept the minutes as presented.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: The meeting minutes of the special meeting held August 31, 1998.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have no changes.
Borup: I have none.
Nelson: I have no comments.
MacCoy: What’s is you desires?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to accept the minutes of the
special meeting held August 31.
Nelson: Second.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 2
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Approved and passed. Before we start this evening, I want to reiterate
something that we started this summer because of the long meetings we’ve been
having to live with. We ask that the presenters hold their comments to 15
minutes or less. If they need more, then they will have to ask for, the
commissioners will decide if they should allow an extension. For those of you in
the public, we have a time for you people. We’d like to have a time put in about
five minutes, if you could hold it at that. We’d appreciate that for keeping this
meeting down to a reasonable level and if somebody in the public is said what
you planned to say, then there is no need for you to get up and it’s already in the
record and it’s all in tape. We get a print out of that, so it’s a requirement that
everything is recorded from the public and we would like to keep the redundancy
down if that’s at all possible. If you have something special that you would like to
add, you are free to come up and do that. I’m not trying to limit you from the
stand point that nobody can speak except one. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m
saying lets kind of try to keep the meeting at a reasonable moving time period.
For those of you that are here for one of these. I have a notice given to the
commissioners here. This is from our counsel, he has said that on your agenda
this evening, that the item #2 which was a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for the Terra Townhouse Subdivisions, item #4 Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for Tina Carrico, item #5 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law for Mel Lacy, item #6 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the
Troutner Business Park Development Corporation, all four of those even though
we are here to hear Findings of Fact, we have none in our hands, the attorneys
have not prepared them for us, so we can not pass on those this evening. So if
you’re here for any one of those, you are free to leave or stay and listen to
everything else. I’ve also been informed just a few moments ago, that item #11
and we’ll take that a continued public hearing, that we still have not received the
final on the ACHD material, but we will continue the public hearing anyway, but it
will have to be kept at this level until we receive those. Item #13 which is also a
public hearing for John Biss, we have a problem with posting time, as well as no
material from ACHD so that also will have to stay at this level. It’s a public
hearing, and we can entertain anybody that wants to talk on that at that time.
With all that said, I’m going to start off with item #1.
ITEM NO. 1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.18 ACRES (R-2) BY WILLIAM C.
HUMPHREY FOR LAND LOCATED AT 939 E. PINE.
MacCoy: Commissioners?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 3
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of
Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Nelson: I have none.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Aye.
MacCoy: Commissioner Byron Smith is absent. Commissioner Mark Nelson?
Nelson: Aye.
MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: Aye.
MacCoy: Okay, make that comment for the record. We have all yeahs, a motion
passed and a decision recommendation.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that
they approve annexation and zoning that is stated in these Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth that the applicant be specifically required to meet all the
ordinance of the City of Meridian specifically including the development
agreement and that if the applicant isn’t not agreeable with these Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law and/or is not agreeable with entering into a
development agreement, the property should not be annexed.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: All ayes, motion approved and passed.
(Inaudible)
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 4
ITEM NO. 2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 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: Since that’s a finding, we have no findings.
De Weerd: To table? Okay, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to table the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Terra Townhouse Subdivision till
October 13th
.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second?
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussions? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 3: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING FOR
STARBUCK’S BY SUE GENTY – 1742 E. FAIRVIEW AVENUE:
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.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Roll call. Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Aye.
MacCoy: Commissioner Smith is absent. Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: Aye.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson?
Nelson: Aye.
MacCoy: Any discussions at this point? I guess none. Recommendation?
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
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 5
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and all the ordinances of the City of
Meridian.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Thank you, all in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: We’re going to run through a couple of these.
ITEM NO. 4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP DAYCARE BY TINA
CARRICO – 2052 N. LARK PLACE:
MacCoy: Commissioners?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until
our October 13th
meeting.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 5: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONVERSION OF GARAGE TO
BEDROOM & BATHROOM BY MEL A. LACY – 1414 N. MERIDIAN ROAD:
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to table this item until our
October 13th
meeting.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussions? None, okay. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 6: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 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:
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 6
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we table this item until
our October 13th
meeting.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think we need to reverse the order of seven and
eight.
MacCoy: I think you are correct on that too. She’s right.
Rossman: It appears to me that it would be appropriate to address the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law before you move on to the Plat approval.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess there was a question as to several items that
were mentioned in the Findings. A letter from the school district and a building
that was mentioned in the staffs comments and that’s why we tabled the
conditional use permit.
MacCoy: I agree with commissioner De Weerd and also with our counsel. We
will switch no. 8 to no. 7. We’ll move up no. 8 and come back to no. 7.
ITEM NO. 8: TABLED AUGUST 11, 1998: FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) – THE VILLAS
AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT – NORTHWEST
OF CHERRY LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
Borup: Mr. Chairman, probably the easiest to handle this is ask staff if all their
items of concern was included in the revised plat.
MacCoy: Staff, Shari? Bruce? I guess we’ll wait for a few moments. Shari did
you hear the question? I guess you did, okay.
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners, I got this just today in my box and
hadn’t had a lot of chance to review it. It appears that most of the items that
we’d asked for had been addressed. They have added one duplex lot from the
original findings and probably that may need to be revisited into the findings, I
don’t know if that can just be done by your motion, but … I don’t know if the last
time you looked at it whether that parking was incorporated in there, the
additional parking area. Without actually reviewing this against what the findings
are, I’m not positive that all those findings are consistent with what we’ve been
presented.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 7
MacCoy: Shari do you have anymore to add at this moment?
Stiles: I seem to recall on this project that they had made some concessions as
to minimum house size adjacent to the lots in Golf View Estates No. 2. The note
that is still shown on here shows the minimum house site is 1250 square feet. I
don’t know if you recall that?
MacCoy: We had discussed that, but I don’t know what our final decision was.
Maybe Commissioner Borup has something to review. Commissioner Borup, did
you hear what Shari had…
Borup: I’m sorry, did I hear her comment?
MacCoy: Yes.
Borup: No, I didn’t.
MacCoy: Shari would you repeat the comment please.
Stiles: There was some discussion previously about making the house sizes
larger next to Golf View Estates No. 2, I believe the minimum house size in that
subdivision is 1,800 square feet. Do you recall?
Borup: I don’t recall that that was one of our requests. I know there was some
comment, but there was also a irrigation ditch and a pretty good buffer there, with
no direct access. That’s my recollection. Did you say they added another lot, or
another duplex lot? I’ve got three plats up here, so I think I’ve compared the
most two recent ones.
Stiles: From the findings it showed that there were nine duplex lots, there are
now ten. That was back from…
Borup: I still have ten on my previous one, that’s why I was confused.
Stiles: I think the findings still reflected the original submittal.
Borup: That must have been from perhaps the testimony on what their intention
is. My—the notes that I had on my previous plat coincide with the ones that
they’ve got marked duplex on this. Whatever that means. I think most of the
comments—one of the reasons we table this was technical information is missing
on the plats. Some of it was—one big concern was the path along the ditch. It
looks like they included a conceptual there. Which is I think what one of the staff
requests. I think some of the other things were more specific plat type
comments, if I remember right. I don’t believe, I don’t know that the commission
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 8
had any other concerns other than that those specific items that staff had
mentioned were included.
De Weerd: Some of those were on the pressure sewer main. Has that been
answered?
Freckleton: Yes it has. They got—they’re calling it lot 47, which is out of
sequence for lot numbering, it should be 38, it looks like, but they do have a
common lot now. However, in the notes, it’s not reflected as a common lot.
De Weerd: You wanted detail on who was to maintain that, included in their…
Freckleton: There should be a note on that plat that references the common lot,
calls it out as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the homeowners
association, with a blanket easement for the City of Meridian for sanitary sewer.
Borup: I think the question that we have is, is this plat to the state that we can in
good conscious send it on to City Council?
Stiles: Commissioners, I would like to see the note added and the Findings
changed to reflect what is here now. On page 21 of the findings, Mr. Bradbury
stated that most of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1600 to 1700
square feet, I would like that to be designated which lots and what sizes of
homes are the minimums for each lot.
De Weerd: You would like that noted in the findings?
Stiles: I would like that part of it noted on the plat. The findings changed to
reflect what we have before us now.
De Weerd: I believe that was one of our requests, so that is not noted on the
plat then. The new plat?
Stiles: The minimum house size, or…
De Weerd: How many lots met the R-4 and how many don’t. If the existing road
was changed with what the proposed, and did we receive comments from
ACHD?
Stiles: We received comments from Ada County Highway District, previously, the
first time this came through.
De Weerd: Okay, but we haven’t received anything again to reflect what the
applicants have told us.
Stiles: Nothing new, no. I don’t think that they changed the roadway system.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 9
Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd, the information that was requested
regarding the zoning and setback variances is in the table of the right hand
corner on the plat.
MacCoy: Keep in mind commissioners that we’re still talking on item no. 8,
which is Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the plat comes on number
seven.
De Weerd: These were items that we had issues with in our findings.
MacCoy: Just so we’re keeping straight the two items.
De Weerd: I guess the findings have, they’ve been revised not to reflect the
building that was supposed to be on site, that is not going to be on site.
Stiles: They do show the existing club house, I don’t believe that has anything to
indicate that’s going to be removed. They do show an outline of the existing club
house on Lot 4, Block 1.
De Weerd: On page 29 we have 19 and then the next item is item no. 29. Mr.
Chairman, on these findings they have on page 29, item 19 and then they jump
to item 29. In these findings, do we need to amend them before we can pass
them?
(Inaudible)
Berg: Commissioner De Weerd, on page 29, you are referring to where you
think it skips from 19 to 29, if you notice the indention 17,18,19, so it isn’t a skip.
De Weerd: So if we were to amend these…one of the items that we mentioned
was item 14 on page 28, that refers to the maintenance building. Would we then
request that that be omitted?
MacCoy: That was the agreement that was made at the time we had the
hearing. He said he would remove that off the final plat. So if you’ve got it
covered in the findings, then it’s going to have to be done. Shari, Item 14 in the
findings of facts, referring to the maintenance building which was stated—that’s
page 28. That was to be omitted, the applicants made that statement. We
agreed to scratch that I thought. Is that your recollection?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, that’s what my notes show.
MacCoy: Thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 10
Stiles: I don’t recall on the storage area. I don’t remember that you requested
them to take out the parking that was shown on our previous version of this plat,
particularly around—they had some parking stalls shown adjacent to the duplex
lots and those have been removed. I don’t recall that being requested to be
removed.
De Weerd: I don’t recall that either. Mr. Chairman, can we table this and review
the plat so we can get response from the applicant?
MacCoy: We like to have it on the record. You request to see the applicant at
this moment or are we talking among ourselves here.
Borup: The plat is a continued public hearing.
MacCoy: The plat is, right. We’re on item eight right now for Findings of Fact.
Borup: That’s why I was talking about tabling that item, all our questions seem to
pertain to the plat and revising the findings to reflect the revised plat.
MacCoy: Well, if that’s your desire, I don’t see why not. That’s up to you.
Rossman: There is no reason why that can’t be done and probably should be
done to expedite this process.
MacCoy: Yes, do you want to have motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table item no. 8 for the conditional use
permit.
Nelson: Second.
De Weerd: Until…
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: Until after the public hearing for the preliminary plat, item no. 7.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: Item eight will be tabled until after item seven has been reviewed and
we’ll come back to that.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 11
ITEM NO. 7: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT (48 LOTS ON 8.53 ACRES) FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES
SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT—NORTHWEST OF CHERRY
LANE VILLAGE NO. 1:
MacCoy: We’re open for public hearing, does anybody here have any comments
to make on this subject on this point, can come forward. I didn’t know if you were
here yet.
Rossman: Please state your name and spell your last name, we don’t need to
swear you in, unless you’re going to give facts.
Bradbury: Steve bradbury, I’m the attorney representing Steiner Development,
my address is 877 Main Street in Boise. Where do you want to start.
Rossman: It looks like there are some things that are perhaps, somewhat
confusing.
MacCoy: You have heard the comments haven’t you, you were here. Do you
want to start answering some of those right now.
Bradbury: I’ll try. Let me first say that I think some of the confusion and the
difficulty is that in the findings that you folks have before you on the conditional
use permit is listed a series of comments that were made in the original staff
report that was prepared for the submittal that was made some nine months ago
in January. Those same comments have been carried forward through the
findings even though the plat was ordered revised by the City Council last spring
and some of those comments just don’t pertain anymore. It think that might be
part of the reason we are struggling some. I’ll try to go through them at least the
ones that I can remember.
Rossman: Mr. Bradbury, if you could identify for us specifically what comments
are no longer applicable, that would help us.
Bradbury: I can try. I’ll go through and see which ones I can find. I know that
number seven on page 27 doesn’t apply because there’s no three unit lot
anymore, no triplex or three unit townhouse lot. Let me back up and say this,
there was also some question about how many two unit duplex lots, there were
originally three duplex lots, three two unit townhouses for a total of six and one
three unit townhouse for a total of three, plus the six made the nine. When the
City Council ordered the plat revised, the number of lots, the total number of lots
in the plat was reduced by three. So there is no longer 48 building lots, but 45
and I may be getting my numbers fouled up here, but there was a total of
reduction in number of lots by three. As a result of the City Council’s
requirement that the plat be revised. In the same revision, the number of duplex
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 12
lots then was increased to ten. We used to have a total of nine of these zero lot
line lots and now there are a total of ten, although there is a net reduction of lots
in the entire subdivision of three fewer lots and with one additional duplex lot. In
any event, that might help to explain why the numbers might be somewhat
different. Number seven on page 27 I don’t think applies to this, because it’s not
the same project.
De Weerd: Number nine I think was mentioned. The letter from the school
district.
Bradbury: I’ve never understood what letter we’re looking for from the school
district, I guess. The reason that it’s been somewhat of a confusion to me is that
we’ve had private roads proposed and they would be gated, so that—I don’t think
the school district has any interest in any of these roads. I don’t think the school
district would anticipate taking school buses onto private roads. If that’s what
we’re talking about—I’m trying to help you here, but I don’t think that the school
district is going to have any interest on commenting upon private roads.
De Weerd: I don’t believe that they only comment on roads, they comment on
homes and how the children impact the schools.
Bradbury: I’ll read the comment. The letter of approval from the Meridian Fire
Department…
Borup: It was my understanding that the comment was because they were
private roads, if the fire department could fee comfortable with their trucks in
there and the only reason that I can see that the school district having a concern
is like Mr. Bradbury mentioned on bussing. I believe that was the only reason—
was that your understanding…
(Inaudible)
Borup: Did you have any comment on that?
MacCoy: You are correct on part of that, but Commissioner De Weerd has also
commented, if you remember some of the letters that we received from the
school district comments on children…
Borup: They always say the same thing.
MacCoy: Give away their secret.
De Weerd: They spend a lot of time on those letters.
Bradbury: Number 14 talked about a maintenance building, as we explained a
couple of meetings ago, the intention is to provide, is to contract for all of the
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 13
maintenance by a private contracting company. There would be no need for a
maintenance building on site. None has ever been proposed for this project,
ever. We are consistent on that. Somewhere I thought, there it is, the comment
asking for interlock and being continued through as a public street to provide
access to the club house. That was a matter that was taken up with the Highway
District some time ago. You should’ve received back in June a copy of the
ACHD findings which approve the private roads and eliminated the previous
requirement for a connection through. Matter of fact, at the meeting in July, I
handed that submittal to Mr. Berg. So number 16 doesn’t, at least with respect to
the portion of it, that talks about a connection through no longer applies. I think
that’s—those are the ones that I can put my finger on right now. There were
probably others throughout the document and I didn’t go through and mark all of
them. When we were here before you, there were a number of things that you
asked for. One was whether it was to provide a common lot for the pressure
sewer main, which Mr. Freckleton points out is number 47 on this plat. When this
thing was originally presented to the commission, back in January, the argument
that we made about not making that into a common lot because that provides, it
is essentially a useless landscape area, that has no value to homeowners
association, because it’s remote from anything that is useable. Our argument at
the time was, why don’t we just restrict the buildings from being on top of that
portion of the lot, so it can be usable for somebody, someday. I say somebody,
someday because this is a temporary sewer line easement here, eventually it’s
going to be routed some other direction. Apparently that got lost in the
translation. When we were here in July, you folks asked for it to be a common
lot, that’s what you’ve got. You’ve got a common lot. If you don’t think it makes
sense, we’ll take it back out, but if you want it, now you’ve got it. That one is up
to you folks and we’re just trying to get along. You also asked for a specific
notation of which lots were what sizes. They are all there, listed, every single
one of them. What all the set backs, the requested setbacks are. They’re all
there on the plat. You asked for a landscape plan and I understand that was
delivered to you with the preliminary plat. You were concerned about the road
alignment. Where the public road meets the proposed private road. The
engineers as I understand, I’m not one as you know, the engineers in preparing
the plat you have before you, have got it lined up so it all meets. If you have any
questions about that, our project engineer Keith Jacobs is here in the room and
he can ask, answer any questions you have. As it’s been explained to me, it
lines up with the existing right of way, now of course, so there is no confusion
about it, there is also some additional land that is included in the subdivision
which will be built into the roadway. I can see you are trying to find out where I’m
pointing over here, down here at the entry. The existing road lines up with the
proposed road, according to the engineers. I think that’s everything, have I
missed something?
De Weerd: Fencing.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 14
Bradbury: That’s right, the proposal is to provide some sort of wrought iron or
similar fencing along the golf course side of the canal and standard—okay, I’m
saying that wrong, I don’t want to get you confused. At the rear of the lots
adjacent to the canal which is between the subdivision and the golf course. The
proposal is to use some sort of wrought iron or similar fencing there. On the
balance of the subdivision would be a standard cedar fencing.
De Weerd: Along your entry way? In this area. Kind of where you were
showing that the road would be expanded from what the engineering shows.
What you are going to do along these lots, to separate them from the roadside.
Bradbury: Those lots all take access from that road.
De Weerd: Okay, so they wouldn’t go through the gated community park. These
are outside of the gated community.
Bradbury: That’s correct.
De Weerd: Those were my questions.
MacCoy: Mr. Nelson, do you have any?
Nelson: I have no questions.
MacCoy: Mr. Borup, do you have anymore?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Freckleton, concerning the
comment on the common lot. I guess first of all, is this a temporary sewer line
that isn’t going to be abandoned, Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: Yes it is commissioner Borup. The lift station that pressure main
comes from is in the Golf View Estates Subdivision. When the sewer line, the
trunk line is built in Black Cat Road, the sewer will gravity float to Black Cat
therefore, the lift station would be abandoned at that point in time. Until such
time though, that is a pressure main, it would make a big mess if it got broke into.
We feel that it is imperative that it be a common lot. With a common lot, I’ve
talked to Mr. Cambell about this scenario before, is that—at such time that it is
vacated, that common lot could be deeded to that adjacent property owner to be
part of his lot.
Bradbury: I think I remember this conversation now, the concern was if it’s an
easement through someone’s lot, they are going to mentally claim it, if there is a
problem going in there and doing the work. It’s a lot more (Inaudible) if it’s a
common lot and there is no ones permission to ask.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 15
Freckleton: And our access is impeded, so we have to have access to that 24
hours a day.
Borup: Yeah, I think that is the same thing. So does that make sense Mr.
Brabury to deed it over at the time and…
Bradbury: You can have it the way you like it.
Borup: I think we’ve got to go by past experience when they’ve gone in and had
problems with…
Bradbury: That’s completely understandable.
Borup: That’s all I had Mr. Chairman.
MacCoy: Is there any more questions for the applicant? This is still an open
public hearing, is there anybody who would like to make a comment now.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if staff have any further comment
on this conditional use—preliminary plat.
Stiles: I still have a question about the preliminary plat that I received June 9th
,
it’s dated the minimum house size was 1,304 and why it was changed to 1,250
that we received September 1st
. I’m still not satisfied that they’ve designated the
lots correctly on this plat. None of the house plans that were submitted with their
conditional use application, they know that’s part of the conditional use
application. None of those house sizes showed the 1,250 square feet, so I don’t
know why that was revised and I still don’t know that he’s answered the question
why the parking was taken out, unless that was a request of P & Z.
MacCoy: Mr. Bradbury, would you come forth, staff has some questions.
Bradbury: Sure, I’ve been (Inaudible) I meant to address that one, the only thing
that is different, that area still exists for parking, it’s just that the lines aren’t
shown on this plat. If you take the two plats and hold them together, you see that
the space is still there, it’s just that the lines aren’t drawn in on the plat to show
the stripping of the parking area. If you folks want to make the provision of the
number of parking space, a condition of approval of the conditional use, that’s
perfectly acceptable to us. It’s just that typically, I don’t think we see parking – a
stripping plan shown on a preliminary plat. We are trying to make this thing right
to you, to the best of our ability. We seem to be missing. House sizes, I was
trying to figure that one out too, because I think that the original proposal called
for a minimum house size in the subdivision of 1,250 square feet, and we’re
talking about the two unit townhouse units that we’ve been talking about. For
some reason, the 1,300 sq. ft. got printed on some document somewhere and I
don’t think it ever intended to be there. There was also at one point in time a
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 16
drawing that was prepared for you folks and the City Council that showed the
distribution, what we expected we would see, in terms of the distribution of
various house sizes. Throughout those lots in the subdivision and of course
since then, the plat has been revised as required by the City Council so that…
(END OF TAPE)
Bradbury: …substantially larger, so I’m not sure what was originally shown as a
conceptual distribution of house sizes holds true today. We haven’t attempted to
provide you with a distribution of house sizes because we all know that’s going to
change. We don’t know exactly which house is going to be built and what size of
house is going to be built on exactly what lot, these are after all individual lots
that will be sold to people and they will probably want to select which house they
want to build and what size of the house they want to build on each of their lots.
If you folks are concerned about having minimum house sizes of some size in
some locations, that’s fine, tell us what you want. If the developer can live with
that, then it’s a done deal. If not, then I guess we will try to figure some way to
work it out with you folks. What we’re trying to do is not get too terribly, not get
you too terribly—we started out, because this thing has changed it’s become
very confusing about what—which lots are what size and which locations
according to which plat and I guess you have to understand now that we’ve been
before this body at least four times, perhaps five and the City Council once and
twice between. As a result of recommendations made by staff and as a result of
recommendations made by this body and as a result of recommendations that
are directives that are made by City Council the plat has in fact changed. With
the change of the plat, so too have the plans with respect to the conditional use
permit. So that was probably a long explanation of trying to say, if you have
some ideas about minimum house sizes, in particular locations, feel free. We will
do what you folks would like to have done if at all possible.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I’ve only got three plats up here. The one that we just
received, the one from June and the previous one that has a November 18th
1997 date on it. The first two both said 1,304 sq. ft. on house sizes. If there
was an earlier one that said something different, I don’t have a copy of it. So the
only one that has a 1,250 is just the one that arrived this week. Does any of the
commissioners have anything different?
De Weerd: I’ve only been here since June.
MacCoy: I think our real question is what is our base number for house site. We
don’t expect you to tell us exactly what lot, because we understand that some
developments goes on here. I would like to know the minimum size that we are
going to hear about being (Inaudible).
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, maybe the applicant may be looking for some
direction? Is that…
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 17
Bradbury: While I’m looking for direction, I’m leafing through the booklet that was
submitted with the application clear back in January. I’m looking at plan six and
seven that are behind tab six and…I’m thinking that these plans for the duplex
lots are for about 1,250 sq. ft. There may have been a number on the plat, which
I think was maybe wrong.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, in the booklet, that was submitted February 1998,
minimum square footage of structures is listed as 1,304 sq. ft. Page 3 of the
findings also lists 1,304 sq. ft.
MacCoy: That’s what we want to know.
Bradbury: He’s right, just as he said it, I found it too. It does say 1,304 sq. ft.
Perhaps I’m not remembering things correctly.
Borup: Mr. Bradbury, does the booklet have some of the duplex or two unit
structures listed in it.
Bradbury: Yes.
Borup: Was that under tab six, behind tab six?
Bradbury: The reason I’m hesitating, I’m not sure you’ve got the same—we’ve
got two different booklets, yeah, it’s behind tab six. I was leafing through and
trying to figure that out, because if you look at plan six and seven…
Borup: Those are one half of a two unit?
Bradbury: Right. I think they are about 1,250 sq. ft. which was what was
originally proposed.
Borup: Well and that’s maybe where I was leading to Mr. Chairman. I think we
need to keep the single family residences at the 1,304 as I think all the
documents state. Maybe we could open for discussion on the size on the two
unit structures. A 1,250 minimum there would be a 2,500 ft. building. Is that
acceptable? Sounds like, I think maybe the planning administrator would like to
comment on that.
(Inaudible)
Stiles: Commissioners, I wouldn’t particularly have a problem with the duplex
units being reduced in size. Our ordinance does require that the minimum house
size has to be designated on the plat. I don’t think it’s acceptable to put the
minimum house size at 1,304 or whatever it is. They made representations
repeatedly that the majority of these homes will be 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. I think
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 18
they need to indicate on the plat exactly how many of these are going to be
1,600-1,700 sq. ft. whether it’s exact designation of which lots, the ones
particularly along Golf View Estates need to be designated that, then the majority
of them, they could simply put a number. It’ll be a record keeping process for us
in the building department, but it’s better than having a note on there that says
1,250 or 1,304 and they come in to get a building permit and nobody is
monitoring it, all they see is that note and there is no record of any other
requirement and I don’t want to get into that.
MacCoy: Good comment.
Bradbury: That makes sense to me too. We could maybe do a percentage
distribution, so many have to be so at such, such size. If that’s what you would
like to see.
MacCoy: How’s that Shari?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure if the building department would agree with
the record keeping part of that, I don’t know. I’m trying to keep track of how
many. What would be wrong with stating the minimum size on the duplex at
1,250 and specifically indicating—we’re only looking at four or five lots along Golf
View Frontage, and those are the large ones. The ones that I’m seeing are 80-
84 foot frontage. Those maybe appropriate for larger footage and those could be
designated right on the plat, and then perhaps the others could be based on the
square footage of the lot. I think the very lot sizes are consistent with what the
city has done in the past when the minimum has been less than the 1,350 across
the board. I guess some comments from staff, but also Mr. Bradbury, would that
make sense to maybe have a lot size based on the specific lots and that would
be based on the square footage. Maybe those over the 8,000 feet would be the
whatever size we are talking about here. Whether it’s 1,600 or 1,500 or
whatever.
Bradbury: It certain makes sense to me that you might want to impose a specific
minimum house size on the lots that are adjacent to Golf View because those are
the lots that the City Council wanted to have enlarged. Perhaps the minimum
house size on those that you folks are comfortable with, we could do. I guess
the typical, or standard R-4 minimum I think is 1,400 or 1,401 something like that.
Obviously that number is acceptable, if it’s a larger number that you are looking
for, that’s okay too. Another area you might want to think about calling out
specifically perhaps are these lots 2-9 that go along the golf course there. Those
all were also, those lots were made larger as a result of the request of the City
Council. So they would all, they would easily accommodate larger homes. I am
a little reluctant to try and specifically call out a minimum house size for every lot
along there, it just may turn out that somebody may really like a golf course
house and really only want 1,500 sq. ft. or whatever the number is. Like I said,
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 19
we’re trying to do something that you folks will—I can finally get this thing out of
your hair, if we can.
Borup: How many lots do we have on the golf—is that 31-34?
(Inaudible)
Bradbury: Golf View, that’s 31-34, correct.
MacCoy: Bruce, do you have any comments on this?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, commissioners. I still think that most of the lots need
to be 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. that’s what they have represented repeatedly. I would
say most means more than 50%. The easiest way for—if you went with the
8,000 sq. ft. there is only five that are 8,000 sq. ft. The easiest way for us to
track it would be a definite designation on those lots that we are going to require
the 1,600, minimum 1,600 sq. ft. unit and those would preferably be the ones on
the perimeter next to the golf course and next to Golf View Estates. However
many it takes to make the majority of the lots minimum 1,600 and then the rest of
them could be the—I don’t know, I guess a 1,304, which is what they
represented on their application as the minimum. If the commissioners want to
approve a different size for the duplex units, that’s fine. I interpret most as being
51%.
MacCoy: Very good, thank you. Commissioner Borup, any comments?
Borup: I guess my interpretation is a little bit different. I know that most would
be more than half, but I took that as part of testimony. All the written
documentation had the 1,304. The packet that they submitted had the 1,300 the
plat said that. Truthfully, I don’t think Mr. Bradbury or anybody knows. The
marketplace is going to determine that. It does make sense to me if we are
going to do as Ms. Stiles mentioned, there are only five that are over 8,000. We
designated the Golf View and the golf course lots, I already counted that once
and now I’ve forgot the count. There is 12 of them there, in that total. I guess I
would be reluctant to go beyond that from my part. It may well be that the
percentage will be there. Some of it may have been by past experience and
other phases I don’t know, but that’s to me seems fairly restrictive. I guess what
I’m saying through a designation with the minimum size on those 12 lots.
Perhaps a reduction on the two unit buildings and then leave the rest as
submitted.
MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd, do you have any questions on that?
De Weerd: I just wondered Mr. Bradbury what you thought the applicant would
think about the 50% over 1,600 sq. ft. The duplex unit is a minimum of 1,250
and the remaining lots a minimum 1,304.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 20
Bradbury: Unfortunately I haven’t talked to him specifically about that
requirement, I can’t really give you a, yeah that’s fine, or no that’s not fine. My
gut instinct tells me that it will be disturbing to them because of the lack of
flexibility, maybe it won’t be a big deal, because I think these folks have the idea
that they are going to try and get larger homes built in there. I don’t know, I wish
I could give you a better answer.
Nelson: I have a question Mr. Bradbury. Can you respond to Shari’s impression
that more than 50% of the lots were going to be over 1,600? She must have
gotten that impression from somewhere, so someone…
Bradbury: The developers vision certainly was and is that the homes in this
subdivision that most of them will be in the 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. range.
Nelson: You don’t want your vision in writing though?
Bradbury: Well, it’s in writing, you’ve got it in front of you. That’s what was
submitted with the application. The question really is that if you folks are inclined
to make that vision a condition of approval. Which, I think you are entitled to do
if that’s your decision. I guess I’ll leave it at that.
MacCoy: Commissioners, any other comments, questions, requests.
Nelson: I’d just like to comment that I could support either approach and I think
the proximity to the golf course is going to push a lot of those house sizes up
anyway. The very minimum are going to make it to the 1,600 anyway. So I’m
comfortable in not making that an absolute. I’m supporting commissioner Borup,
is what I’m trying to say.
Rossman: Before we get to any more comments, I guess we should either ask
further questions or wrap up the public hearing.
MacCoy: That’s what I’m going to do next but I’m waiting for them to finish this
process right now. We’re almost down to that point, I think.
Rossman: Then we can open it up for discussion.
MacCoy: Lets see if we can finish questioning him. Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: I have no questions.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson?
Nelson: I have no questions.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 21
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: I have none other than, I only found in one sentence the mention of the
1,600-1,700 feet. It may be other places, but…
MacCoy: Do you have anymore questions?
Borup: No, that’s all I have.
MacCoy: Okay, thanks Mr. Bradbury, you can sit down. Anybody else in the
audience here have any comments to make. If not, I’m going to—staff do you
have anything else that you want to add? I want to close the public hearing at
this point and commissioners, what is your desires.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, just for a point of view, in this Mr. Bradbury did
mention that most of the homes would be an excess of 1,600-1,700 sq. ft. That
was during a public hearing. The people that came to testify, they did hear that
same comment, so I would not feel comfortable changing something that wasn’t
during a public hearing.
MacCoy: So what is your desire.
De Weerd: I guess my desire would be to make the 50% of the minimum lot
requirements over 1,600 sq. ft to include lots 31-34 and 2-9. The remaining lots
would be a minimum of 1,304, with the exception of the duplex units as a
minimum of 1,250. That’s what I would be comfortable with.
MacCoy: Is that a motion?
De Weerd: What would it be a motion to? Just to change this preliminary plat?
MacCoy: I’ve got to have an approval for a preliminary plat.
De Weerd: Okay, sure, I’ll try that. I would move that we approve the preliminary
plat for the Villas at the Lakes Subdivision to include the parking area, as was on
the past plat that would include five spaces as well that it would show 50% of the
lots would have a minimum of a 1,600 sq. ft. to include lots 31-34, lots 2-9 that
the remaining lots be a minimum of 1,304 with the exception of the duplex units
at a minimum of 1,250.
MacCoy: Do I have a second on that? Without a second, things are going to
fail. Alright, is there another motion.
Borup: First maybe the information Mr. Chairman, unless it was mentioned
elsewhere and it may have been, but the July 14th
meeting I think was the one
that made the comment on the size. Mr. Bradbury was responding to a question
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 22
from commissioner Mac Coy. Commissioner MacCoy’s question was about the
homeowners association and who going to take care of those and it is going to
be costly for them. It’s kind of a different subject. His reply was “I don’t think this
is going to be a cheap old subdivision, that’s not the mark that these guys are
after. These guys are after, these guys are after the market, the bulk of the
homes in the subdivision and you don’t have them (Inaudible) submitted here six
months ago, the bulk of the homes are proposed to be in excess of 1,600-1,700
ft. So we are not talking about a number, just little boxes. I know these aren’t
mansions by any means, but they are reasonably sized homes. The market is to
try and find people, said in the past meeting with you to try to find people who
want and have nice homes and secured environment, but have a bunch of yard
and maintenance duties,” probably was stated not have a bunch. “You are right,
they are going to have a fair amount of homeowners dues in order to maintain,
(Inaudible) private road, with a pathway, etc.” Perhaps it did come up in one of
the earlier ones, and maybe that’s where it was, but this comment was
(Inaudible) the maintenance.
MacCoy: Okay, do you have a motion to make then?
Borup: I would move that…
MacCoy: Shari, you have a comment.
Stiles: Commissioners, I would also like to direct you to tab ten of the document
that they submitted. It shows 33 of the units will be over 1,600 sq. ft. Now if we
can’t rely on the applications that they submit…
Borup: Which tab?
Stiles: Eight.
Borup: Oh, eight.
De Weerd: I could restate my motion.
Stiles: It doesn’t show anything less than 1,300 sq. ft.
Borup: Can that tab, for the record it shows a product mix of the entire
subdivision.
MacCoy: Since it was submitted as a document then, unless it has been
changed. We have nothing to show that it’s been changed, document wise.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd, was your motion 50%?
De Weerd: Yes it was.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 23
Borup: Do we know how many lots we’re talking about? That’s also changed.
Are we around 43 lots, around 43?
De Weerd: Yeah 43.
Borup: So you are saying that half would be 22? The original documentation
had (Inaudible) 34 over 1,600 feet in the original booklet. That’s, I’m not sure if
the total lot, well, the lot count was also reduced in that time too. Okay,
Commissioner De Weerd, would you like to state your motion?
De Weerd: Maybe I want to change it.
Borup: One question for Mr. Freckleton. The common lot, the plat has
numbered at 47, should that be 38?
Freckleton: It appears that it should be, yes.
Borup: The common lot was number a lot number 47, right next to lot 37. I
guess what they did was…
De Weerd: It’s out of sequence.
Borup: What they did was numbered all the building lots and then left over
common lots they started at the end of the building lot sequence. It’s still
confusing on the blocks.
MacCoy: On your map, 38 is the private streets on this material.
Borup: Okay, because of the private streets, we’ve only got one block on this
and this. So Mr. Freckleton, does that still stay the same or does it make any
difference since they are all one block.
Freckleton: Shari just pointed out that there are 43 lots. When you do have a
private street, that street has to be a lot number. It does make it hard to have
consecutive numbering of lots.
Borup: Okay, so we’re fine on the numbering?
Freckleton: Yeah.
De Weerd: One clarification I’d like from Shari is on the new table that you
pointed out, all of those lots, with the exception of the duplex and the triplex,
we’re going to be over 600 sq. ft. Is that what?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 24
Stiles: Commissioner De Weerd, it showed everything but the duplex lots and
four other lots would be 1,600 or greater.
De Weerd: So if we subtracted out the duplex lots and the four additional lots
that they were requesting that would leave 29 lots, right? So I could amend it
rather than 22 go to 29 on my motion? Is that correct?
Rossman: You need to make a new motion. You need to make the motion, state
the motion.
MacCoy: We are waiting for a motion.
De Weerd: Okay, well I will based on this table that I see, I will make a motion. I
would like to move to approve the preliminary plat for the Villas at the Lakes
Subdivision, with the change of noting the parking area to include five parking
spaces that 29 lots need to meet a minimum 1,600 sq. ft. per unit to include lots
31-34 and lots 2-9, that the duplex units need to be a minimum of 1,250 sq. ft.
and the remaining lots a minimum of 1,304.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second?
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion? I think we’ve had a lot of discussion already. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: Two ayes, one nay, and one absent.
Borup: Just a comment, Mr. Bradbury might want to pass along sometimes it is
not necessarily good to put too much information in the packet.
MacCoy: Alright, moving on back to item no.8. That which was tabled earlier
this evening.
ITEM NO. 8: TABLED BEFORE ITEM NO. 7. FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (48 UNITS ON 8.53 ACRES) – THE VILLAS
AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT – NORTHWEST
OF CHERRY LAND VILLAGE NO. 1:
MacCoy: Commissioners?
De Weerd: I assume that I could make a motion to approve the Findings of Fact
with the amendments that were noted previously?
MacCoy: On item no. 7, which is the preliminary plat.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 25
De Weerd: Counsel, is that what I need to do?
Rossman: It appears to me that the Findings of Fact that we have before us are
not very representative of what we need to decide or what is acceptable for the
commission to decide at this point. My recommendation would be, unless
somebody is ready to recite what the proposed amendments were, we’re going
to have to submit this for amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
De Weerd: I believe that I can do that.
Rossman: Okay, then go ahead.
MacCoy: Commission, it’s up to you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Facts with the following
amendments: On page 27 number 7.
Rossman: What did you want to do to number seven?
De Weerd: Delete. On page 28, delete number 9, 14, and part of number 16
regarding interlock and connection. The interlock and connection. That they
would include the new preliminary plat incorporations.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion at this point? All in favor? We want to pull, you have
an approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions, does somebody want to read
theirs? Alright, we’ll go ahead with it then. The Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission hereby adopts, need the roll call.
De Weerd: I already made that in my motion.
MacCoy: Yes, you did. Going down…
Rossman: Just call the roll.
ROLL CALL: Borup, aye. De Weerd, aye. Smith, absent. Nelson, aye.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: I wanted to read the decision and recommendation.
De Weerd: The Meridian and Planning and Zoning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that it approve the
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 26
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 as amended or similar conditions as found
justified and appropriate by City Council and that the property be required to
meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform
fire code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements
and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use shall be subject
to review upon notice to the applicant by the city.
MacCoy: All in favor.
Borup: Second.
MacCoy: Second, excuse me, you’ve got to pick up the second, yes. All in
favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 9: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA
COMPANY, INC. – SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAGLE & FAIRVIEW:
MacCoy: Before we enter into the public hearing, I’d like to make a comment.
We the commissioners are very much in approval of all the letters we’ve received
from you people. That’s one thing we’ve been asking for the last couple of times.
We’d like to hear from you. You stand up hear and give your comments, it’s on
tape which is very good and also a number of you have submitted letters. One
thing I would like to comment about the letter is they are well written. They are
not some of the stuff we see in the past years with all kinds of little pieces that
don’t really add up to anything. They are really well thought out. I want to
commend you from the standpoint too that we are very much impressed with
some of the suggestions you’ve made. We’re going to consider those because
they haven’t been brought up before. I just want to put that on the record this
evening. It’s a great job, keep it up, that’s good. Since we are open again as a
public hearing, is there anyone here that would like to standup next. Okay, the
applicant would like to stand up next.
LARRY DURKIN, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman I would like to hold my comments tonight in the interest of
time and in the interest of repeating myself until after the public comment. Prior
to that, I would like to answer any questions that you may have developed,
otherwise, I will make my statements after the public comment tonight.
MacCoy: Any commissioners have any questions you want to ask the applicant
at this moment?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 27
Borup: No, I just appreciate his statement. Thank you.
De Weerd: I do, but I’ll wait till after public testimony.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson, do you have anything? Okay, we are open to
the floor now, the public has the podium.
LORELL ROGERS, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Rogers: Good evening Chairman MacCoy and commissioners. I’ve been asked
by Ramond Yorgenson, President of the homeowners association and number of
my fellow homeowners to be the homeowners representative in matter relating to
the family center. As you requested, we’ve tried to come together on a possible
barrier between the crossroad subdivision and the proposed development.
There may still be some of my neighbors that will disagree with me and will
speak contrary to what I say, but with the residents that were willing to help
gather data and to come together on this issue, we tried to submit ideas that
were both feasible and realistic. We as residents and especially the adjacent
property owners prefer the colored and textured brick wall with a berm. We
would also like to see trees on both side of the fence. We believe that this is the
best possible barrier and buffer for our situation. We have submitted to you a
few drawings and pictures showing landscaping walls and signs enforcing
delivery house from around the area. We have submitted an architects rendering
of the barrier that the majority of the unified residents prefer. We fully realize that
no buffer will completely eliminate all site, sound or other effects of a major
development, such as the Family Center. Our goal is simply to ensure that all
residents, especially the adjacent property owners can enjoy a reasonable
amount of quiet, privacy and freedom and freedom from other annoyances. One
of the biggest impacts the Family Center will have on many of us is noise
pollution. I personally did some research and study into buffers and read some
news articles on barriers and other types of developments, including but not
limited to stores, amphitheaters and freeways. From my research, I learned that
the most success was gained where there were a masonry wall between the
homes and other types of developments. That’s not to say that everybody in all
these articles that I read, not everybody effected was pleased with the wall, but
the majority of people were satisfied with it. One article in particular which was a
study actually published by the Minnesota Pollution Agency stated specifically
that walls and berms are the most practical for cutting noise. It also noted that
quote shrubs and trees are worth little as tools for noise control. (Inaudible)
noise control, must be at least 50 feet tall, must be in a continuous strip, 75 to
100 ft deep, must have dense foliage down to the ground and must be evergreen
to supply protection year round. The barrier trees that is draw on the plan for the
conceptual plan for the Family Center is not that kind of a barrier. The deciduous
trees will drop their leaves in the winter and that means that we will have a good
portion of our year without any buffer, until the spring comes and the leaves are
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 28
developed on the trees. Another article which was published by the Kopply (sic)
News Service out of San Diego stated “the most effective method of reducing
street sounds is to construct a concrete or brick wall which is at least six feet
high. Such a wall can deflect nearly 60% of street sounds. A wooden fence can
reduce noise only about 5%.” Street sounds in this article was defined as steady
traffic late night parties and noisy children. To us, I thought this was significant
because we will be having trucks behind the shopping center, we will have
people cutting through. It's realistic to think that. It is possible that we will have
people that will be in the parking lot making noise at night, partying or whatever.
So we believe that this is a significant figure for us. We also ask that the
commission require that the barrier for the—between the Family Center and
Crossroad Subdivision be built before the construction begins. To help with
things such as the construction noise and the dust. We do ask that dust
abatement be addressed during this time and we would ask that the construction
take place between daylight hours between 8 A.M. and 6 P.M. or something
similar to that. Saying all this does not mean that the residents of the
Crossroads Subdivision are necessarily in favor of the Family Center, it simply
means if the commission votes to approve this development, that we would
prefer a wall between us and the shopping center. We as the residents of the
Crossroads Subdivision thank you for your time. At this time to help me answer
you questions, if it’s not objectionable, I would like to ask that Alan Durrant come
up and help me answer some of the questions you may have. If he could be
sworn in.
Rossman: That’s fine.
Rogers: Do you have questions for us?
De Weerd: I would.
Rogers: Okay, can we have Alan be sworn in first.
Rossman: Alan can you step forward please.
ALAN DURRANT. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
De Weerd: I guess my initial question is, of the home owners that you have
talked to and shown your plans, how many live along the perimeter that will have
the masonry wall in their backyard?
Durrant: Probably more than half, because those are the most active people in
our meetings. We’ve been having a meeting every week to get as much input
from residents as we can and we’ve got the same core that shows up every
week and it’s mostly probably people who live along the barrier.
De Weerd: Okay, and which of the plans are you proposing at this point?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 29
Durrant: The one that we had drawn up by the architect is this one. I don’t know
if you all have a copy of it, we had it shrunk down a little bit.
MacCoy: That’s right we have it.
Durrant: Do you have any questions specific to the plan?
De Weerd: I guess my concern would be between the shopping center and the
15 foot berm, the other side that would be hidden between the wooden fence
and the masonry wall. Who is going to light that, who is going to patrol it? It is a
security issue. Who will maintain it?
Durrant: Right, there was also a list of basic points given out with this, lets see.
For the lighting it said—down here on the point that starts with eight foot high
berm with eight foot high CMU block wall on top, the first page about half way
down. It says the block wall to be constructed from eight inch spit face
(Inaudible) colored block with stone cap. Provide common brick pillars 20 feet off
center with cast stone cap as well. Then it says, provide no intrusive security
lighting on the subdivision side. Fixtures to be approved by the Crossroads
Homeowners Association. At that point, we kind of left that part open. We had a
couple of ideas to mount the lighting light on the wall, but then some of the
residents didn’t want it shining in their backyards. So we were thinking of some
kind of ground lighting affect down by the concrete walkway.
De Weerd: I did talk to the police department about this, when I saw the
rendering and in their opinion, it seemed like it would open up a whole new area
of illegal activity. It’s very invisible from the shopping center side. You’ll have a
six foot wooden fence on the homeowners side. Who knows what’s going to go
on between the area of those two walls.
Durrant: That’s a good point. The only thing we’ve done to address that, we
talked about it a little bit, everybody has back windows on their house and if you
see something shady going on, you can also notify people. It also depends on
how well it’s lit.
De Weerd: The hand drawing is the second option?
Durrant: There were several hand drawings. Everybody gave us a hand
drawing at our meetings, we submitted them all so that you would have a variety
of thing s to review for your own pleasure.
Rogers: We tried to submit more than one option for you to consider.
De Weerd: On the hand drawn ones, this one, what is the feeling of the
homeowners on this option.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 30
Durrant: Which one?
De Weerd: The one with the 20 foot berm. Oh, is that a 11 foot wall? Eleven
foot wall with a five foot berm.
Rogers: Truthfully, most people would prefer this first one, but the second one is
the second option. You know, they would accept that, it wouldn’t be their first
choice, but they would accept it.
Durrant: They would rather have the first one, because the second option looks,
like Mr. Durkin said earlier, looks like a prison wall.
Rogers: That one can still be a sculptured wall, it doesn’t have to be gray, it
doesn’t have to be concrete, it can be made out of nice brick, it could, you know.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup, do you have any questions.
Borup: Your definition of a sculptured wall, or you talking a split face CMU or?
Rogers: The residents were concerned about just gray concrete. We wanted,
you know, they were thinking of colored bricks with texture to them that didn’t
look—because a lot of the walls we’ve seen have been a cinder block type of
thing and they wanted to get to a colored…
(END OF TAPE)
Borup: They painted it gray.
Durrant: It was an (Inaudible) color.
Rogers: But there is colored brick out there is what we’re saying. It would just—
the residents would, if it was a colored brick, it would be easier, they would like
the look of it better, is what I’m saying. Some of them were concerned about the
look of a cement gray one.
Durrant: Another point for having color back there, the brighter they make it, the
easier to patrol it for any kind of suspicious activity. The darker it’s going to be
back there, the worse it could be. If you had a solid gray brick wall, you couldn’t
see a shadow very well.
Borup: So rather than having something inconspicuous, you want it to…
Rogers: We don’t want florescent yellow, that’s not what we are getting at, but
you know—it’s hard to make a statement for what all the homeowners would
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 31
want, but like for instance, we’ve seen rose colored brick, or shades of brown.
Those types of things…
Borup: It would need to be something that is readily available. In your studies
on the wall height, you mentioned the six foot wall would block 60
% of the sound.
Rogers: Street sounds.
Borup: The definition of street sounds you said was people talking, and…
Rogers: Cars, dogs, things like that. We foresee as residents people getting out
of the movie and hanging out in the parking lot and making noise, it is
foreseeable.
Borup: Okay, and that could apply to the movie, except for the plan all has the
buildings along that side so the cars are going to be blocked by the building
already.
Rogers: People always cut behind malls, we’ve done it, we’ve seen other people
do it. You know, we’ve seen people cut behind Waremart. There is going to be
noises. There is going to be delivery trucks back there with beepers on them.
Borup: That’s probably the biggest thing, but my question was if a six foot wall
does 60%, how much does an 11 foot wall block?
Rogers: I don’t have that answer for you.
Durrant: It would kind of depend on how close the noise source was to the wall
itself as to how effective it was.
Borup: Well, I don’t know on this, but on most things, there is a diminishing rate
of return. I think that’s true on anything. You reach a point where what you gain,
you don’t gain, but what your adding (Inaudible) and I’m wondering where that
point may be.
Durrant: One of the points of having an eight foot wall that we’ve all discussed
was basically, I’m 6’7” I can see across a six foot fence real easy. To just keep
the visibility down from the other side from the shopping mall, incase someone
wanted to sit on top of the wall or something, make it more inaccessible.
Borup: Nothing more at this time.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 32
Nelson: I understand their concerns, I would just comment, if my yard was back
there, I wouldn’t want to live in the shadow of such a big system, whatever that’s
going to be. I understand your concerns with the mall though.
MacCoy: Anything else?
Nelson: No.
MacCoy: Are you familiar with a split face block?
Durrant: That’s what they’re calling for.
MacCoy: That can be had in colors or rose color, I’ve seen several different
types, hues of color and you can get those. They are acceptable, they do away
with that concrete block prison look which nobody wants to have next to their
house. I have lived in the same position in the past years and different places
and the exact same place behind my house, part of my backyard was something
very similar. So we I think most of us have a good feel for that already, so we—I
am personally and most of us will feel that way, not all of us that you are
spending time where you should be spending time and try to figure out a good
solution to the buffer zone. I think that’s where you can really make a dent in this
for your future life.
Durrant: I have one other point, you also asked about the maintenance and
what we were proposing on the maintenance is the tree and ground cover can
cover the majority of the (Inaudible) behind the fence and just a little bit of grass
along the other side of the fence or the walkway so the mowing to be a couple of
trips through there real quick, instead of having to mow around the berms and
around the trees and such, just make it a complete ground cover of some type,
Shrubs and trees combination.
MacCoy: I think you’re right.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I have another question for, at least while they are up
here. I assume you are familiar with Patrick Harper’s proposal, did that come up
in your homeowners meetings.
Rogers: Patrick Harper? Yes.
Borup: Any comment on that proposal?
Rogers: I believe that Patrick is going to address that.
Borup: I meant as a homeowners association, no comment then?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 33
Durrant: You’re talking about moving the different portions of the buildings
around the traffic flow.
Rogers: Most people support it. It’s difficult with 200 plus homeowners to come
into an agreement. A lot of people did think it was a good idea though.
Especially the well, the ones that unified, let me say that, the ones that have
been coming to the meetings.
MacCoy: Any more questions for these two? If not, thank you.
Rogers: Thank you.
Durrant: Thank you. I just got a couple of little points about the ACHD, actually is
there someone from the ACHD here tonight?
MacCoy: Yes there is.
Durrant: I would like to hear what he has to say real quick before I bring up
anything. Maybe he’ll contradict what I was thinking.
MacCoy: We’ll call you back up then. Before that takes place, lets ask for
anybody else on the floor here.
ROBERT COURVAL, 3653 E. PRESIDENTIAL, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN
IN BY ATTORNEY.
Courval: Other than new matters, the only thing I have to say is that I wish this
were going to be a park or remain farm land, but the reality is, it’s not. The area
is zoned commercial, I would rather have a mall that is a Comprehensive Plan
development, rather than a bunch of piece meal different types of buildings, give
it a junked up appearance. The ACHD is going to address our traffic concerns
hopefully the signs were brought up once before, I would prefer low monument
signs something that is not real high, 40 feet in the air. If some kind of masonry
fence is put in, I would have a (Inaudible) that it have some kind of anti-graffiti on
it, to prevent having it marked up. One concern that is frequently brought up is
our property values. I think it will effect our property values to some extent, my
contention is that the way we maintain our property individually in the subdivision
has a bigger impact on property values. I think we need to keep after capital
development and our neighbors with as much zeal as we have kept after Mr.
Durkin and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Do you have any questions?
Rossman: Sir, before we go much further, a foundationary issue, can you
provide your address please.
Courvel: 3653 E. Presidential.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 34
Rossman: Thank you, go ahead.
MacCoy: Commissioners?
De Weerd: I have no questions.
Courvel: Thank you for your time.
MacCoy: I will address a little later, his statement of real estate. Any body else
here?
SHERRY JAYNES, 3510 E. EISENHOWER, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN
BY THE ATTORNEY.
Jaynes: We’ve had much discussion and testimony over the zoning adoption
and the timing and the residents knowledge of the zoning, so I’m not going to
rehash all of that. All I’m going to say is that regardless of when the zoning was
put into place and who was aware of what zoning at what time, there are people
that live in the Crossroad Subdivision right now, and there is no shopping center
around it and that’s just the fact of what we live with right now. There are people
and families that live there and I don’t think that anybody here can suggest that
the homeowners are going to be unaffected by this shopping center. I don’t think
anybody can suggest that we’re just going to go on with things exactly the way
they are and totally unaffected. It does appear evident from previous testimony
that we’ve heard at these meetings, when the area zoning was developed
significant consideration was paid to the impact and the buffering of the impact to
the homeowners that any development around us would have. I think that was
pretty well addressed. In the past years when this was put together, they even
suggested covenants to protect the homeowners in previous testimony,
whatever. Mr. Durkin proposing his retail center with full knowledge that it
boarders a residential area, he knows we are already there, that’s pretty obvious.
Since the issue of buffering the residential area was addressed when the original
planned unit development was created and Mr. Durkin making his application
knowing who his neighbors will be, I think that he should be willing to anything
possible and this commission to require him doing anything possible, realistically
and reasonably possibly to protect the homeowners, the existing homeowners
from the shopping center, because we are already there. In that light, I would
suggest that this commission require no truck parking behind those buildings, no
through truck traffic through our neighborhood, to affect our children and very,
very limited times especially as far as the grocery store because I think 4:30 in
the morning in somebody’s backyard is pretty unreasonable. I think that this is a
special situation and if they normally deliver to every grocery store in the area at
4:30, just because this ones behind a neighborhood, they ought to have some
special delivery times. So those are some suggestions that should be put forth.
Any questions?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 35
MacCoy: Any questions from the commissioners? Thank you.
PATRICK HARPER, 3644 E. JUDICIAL DRIVE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN
IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Harper: I have been working with the homeowners as well and traffic has been
one of the issues that I’ve been looking at primarily. I have reviewed a draft copy
of the ACHD report, I’m not sure how many of you are familiar with it. Mr. Sale
said he didn’t have any specific testimony to give tonight, but I would hope he
would address any specific questions that you would have or that might be
brought up. One of our primary concerns after, behind (Inaudible) regarding
traffic, is the high traffic volume that is going to be created on Presidential Drive
and especially the intersection with Eagle Road. This is the primary entrance to
our subdivision. ACHD is currently predicting a level service E, I believe on that
entrance. That is only if it’s many specific recommendations are followed
through with. It appears from reading it, the report that this finding is based on
the Ada Planning Association estimate of 4% growth rate annually on Eagle
Road, at which everyone would admit that it’s been a great estimation of what’s
actually been happening. Further, ACHD has contracted with Earth Tech
Engineering to do a third party review of the investigation, they have not yet
made that available to me, but that will be coming in time. I would like to note a
couple of things that they do note in their reports. Let me just read these two
points. Number one, Earth Tech has a less optimistic view of the future traffic
volume on Eagle Road and were less comfortable with the APA forecast of 4%
annual growth and used increase traffic volumes to forecast higher future
volumes on Eagle Road. The result of this assumption is the roadway
intersections are completely overwhelmed with traffic from this project and the
background traffic volumes. Point number two, Earth Tech had a less optimistic
view of the sites customers traveling to the nearest signalized intersections.
They assumed that more drivers would wait for traffic near an un-signalized
intersections, the result of this assumption is that the un-signalized intersections
will be completely overwhelmed with traffic from this site. Again, that intersection
would include the Eagle Road entrance which is the primary gateway entrance
into our subdivision. As I would imagine that you know that ACHD has not
released that final copy of the report, so we are anxiously awaiting that but their
long term plan for this area and for the Eagle Road entrance in particular would
be as traffic and accidents continue to increase would be the loss of left turn out
of the subdivision and then the loss of left turn into the subdivision and eventually
the complete closure of the Eagle Road or those intersections as traffic gets
worse and worse. Again, this is our primary entrance by design to that
subdivision. The final concern would be about the long term viability of the
shopping center say 10-20 years from now as these entrances are lost. It seems
a fairly high density development, a full 40% more than 40% larger or higher
density than the last shopping center that had been proposed and tried to move
in there a few years back. It seems to me as access is restricted from these
other entrances, you are going to lose additional parking to driveway space and
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 36
access is going to be real difficult to customers and the long term viability of
some of the stores is a concern to me because I don’t think any of us wants
vacant buildings or things like that, so that’s another concern. Finally ACHD
does have several specific recommendations to the City of Meridian and other
parties and I would just ask that you take a look at those and carefully consider
them before you would take further action on this motion. One final note, as
Commissioner Borup did mention, I had submitted a proposal or idea that I had
had regarding the rearrangement of some of the houses-or some of the business
in the proposed development, that might help to decrease the traffic problem. I
guess most of my comments up to this point have been speaking the concerns of
the group and like I’ve said we’ve been having weekly meetings. The proposal
that I did submit, I had distributed by hand to all the adjacent residents. To this
point, I’d only heard two people who had concerns and both of those gentlemen
are here tonight, it was primarily concerns about noise from the entertainment
center and again, hopefully that could be alleviated if this were—could be moved
further out into the parking area. I think I’ll let that statement, or the letter speak
for it’s self. If you did have any specific questions, I’d be glad to answer those at
this time.
MacCoy: The material you just read from, have you given it to the client? Have
you given it to the applicant?
Harper: I mailed a copy to Dakota, yes. I’m sorry. No, what I have in front of
me, I mailed him the letter that I submitted to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. I don’t know if Mr. Durkin has the ACHD traffic report or I assume
that wouldn’t be until it was made public.
MacCoy: No, we don’t have that either. Commissioners? Thank you very much.
Anyone else?
KELLY BROWN, 3873 E. EISENHOWER, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Brown: There is one thing that I would like to bring up as far as the noise. I do
not live along the border. My house does not border the proposed shopping
center, but I do have a concern with Shopko, because I do know that the Shopko
I used to live by on Broadway Avenue is open 24 hours during the Christmas
season. As far as noise is concerned, the theater doesn’t bother me as much as
Shopko being open 24 hours. Secondly, I would just like to remind the
commissioners that we are relying on this commission to help us. One thing I
wanted to bring up is that we have tried to talk to Mr. Durkin, in fact, immediately
following the last P & Z meeting quite a few of us tried to corner him per say, and
talk to him about some of our suggestions. As we tried to previously in the
meeting that was suggested by the commission where we met in this room. I
feel like most of the suggestions, in fact, almost every suggestion the
homeowners have made will quote “not fit into my plan” as Mr. Durkin has stated.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 37
I feel like he has stated he will do whatever the commission forces him to do, but
I don’t feel like he’s been very open to the suggestions that the homeowners
have made. All I ask is that if you eventually approve this conditional use permit,
you please draw very specific restrictions to protect our subdivisions, that’s all I
ask. Thank you. Do you have any questions?
MacCoy: Any questions? Thank you for your comments. Anyone else?
TINA CLARK, 3610 E. FLORENCE DR., MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Clark: I just wanted to make a statement, my husband and I are opposed to the
wall. So, I just wanted to make a statement for the record that I don’t know how
many property owners are going to be facing Fairview and Eagle that are for the
wall, I’m just up here to say that we’re against it. That’s all I have to say. I don’t
want to be looking out my backyard at a cement wall, I’m worried about the
graffiti, I’m worried about gangs and stuff, you know.
Borup: At what location are you assuming that would be from your (Inaudible).
Clark: Well, I don’t know. I thought they were talking about having it along
Fairview and Eagle.
Borup: We have several proposals here, one proposal has the wall 35, 45 feet
from your fence. Others have it right up against your fence.
Clark: I would want it as far back as—I mean if it had to go up, I would want it as
far back as, as far out as Fairview.
Borup: That seems to conflict with what you just said.
Clark: I don’t want a wall at all.
Borup: Well, I mean about the graffiti, if the wall right against your fence the only
way to get the graffiti is from your yard.
Clark: Right.
Borup: It would be your kids doing it.
Clark: That’s a scary thought. My biggest concern was looking out my backyard
into a cement wall, that’s not what I want. I’d rather put some type of tree and
shrubbery that maybe doesn’t loose leaves in the winter time and can just be out
there. Any questions? Thank you.
MacCoy: Anybody else?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 38
KEN SANSOUCIE, 3526 E. FLORENCE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Sansoucie: Just real briefly to address Commissioner De Weerd on the security
issue. (Inaudible) As an adjacent property owner, I was concerned about that as
well, I hope this doesn’t sound too comical, but as an adjacent property owner, I
wouldn’t be opposed to having the property between my existing property line
and the sound buffering fence deeded to me and let me maintain that and use it
for my personal use to compensate me for what I consider is going to be an
expected property devaluation. I just wanted to through that out as an option.
De Weerd: That’s something new. Thanks
MacCoy: Thanks. Anyone else? Lets wait one moment and we’ll bring you up
here. Anyone else?
ROBERT PHILLIPS, 3437 E. PRESIDENTIAL, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN
BY THE ATTORNEY.
Phillips: I’ll limit my time, I’ll be very quick. Last time, I think I talked way too
much. First of all, I just wanted to state that regards to some of the comments
made at the end of the hearing last time, it wasn’t my intent to offend Mr. Durkin,
or question his integrity. My goal was to clarify the record and it wasn’t to
threaten litigation, it was to say it’s important to follow the rules we’ve set for
ourselves, in following the ordinances. I think it’s important when you make your
decision to follow those rules. I only have a couple of things to add that have not
been previously said, one is that there hasn’t been any ACHD findings at this
point at time, so it’s going to be difficult to make a decision without those as a
factor in your decision making. Secondly, along presidential drive I think it would
be important that if we could not bust that up. It’s a beautiful drive right now with
trees that are currently there and it’s a nice drive into the subdivision, by not
busting that up, we could limit the traffic going into the mall areas. If that isn’t
possible, I think the next best alternative is to narrow it, so it discourages people
from going into the subdivision. Those are the suggestions that I have. I also
drafted a letter and if you have any questions regarding that, I would be willing to
answer those at this time.
MacCoy: Any questions? Mr. Borup?
Borup: Yes Mr. Chairman, probably the aspect of your letter that maybe I was
specifically interested in was—hang on, let me go grab (Inaudible). You listed
four items, four reasons that you thought it was inconsistent with the zoning
development ordinances.
Phillips: That’s correct.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 39
Borup: But then it seemed to, I didn’t see where it specifically addressed the
ordinance. (Inaudible) Personal opinion. Like the first item, you said it was too
intense, to me that seems more like personal opinion rather than anything
specific.
Phillips: That’s a legitimate question. My intent, as you know that I’m a lawyer,
contrary to what was said earlier, I tried to be concise, it was three pages. I
didn’t want to write a brief. This is not a judicial form, it was to address what I
thought my concerns were. I based everything on my reading, particular code
sections, for example the first one. I stated those concessions last time when I
spoke inconsistent to Comprehensive Plan and specific sections, also with the
definition of regional shopping center. I think that—especially they wanted
89,000 sq. ft. more than the minimum, made it too intense for that environment.
So that was the basis for that particular comment. Each one of my comments
was based on similar readings.
Borup: Did you feel this met the definition of a regional shopping center as in the
ordinance, that this proposal?
Phillips: I think the applicant requested a regional shopping center.
Borup: Well, that doesn’t mean that’s what it is just because they said it.
Phillips: That’s true. I think he did meet the definition from the standpoint that it
had to be more than 750,000 sq. ft. and this is 848,000 sq. ft. from that
standpoint, I think that it was. Yes, from the acreage that was required, I think it
wasn’t met.
Borup: I was looking at more than just the acreage. There are several other
definitions that I didn’t feel that it met.
Phillips: Keep in mind that when you read the code there is two different
definitions, one is a zoning and one is a definition of a regional shopping center.
There is a zoning called the regional shopping center business area or
something like that. That’s different then the actual definition of regional
shopping center.
Borup: That’s what I was looking at the definition of a regional shopping center.
Phillips: That was my basis.
Borup: I don’t have that open right now, one of the (Inaudible) I know was two
anchor department stores.
Phillips: Yes, I think that’s a definition of a regional shopping center.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 40
Borup: I’m not sure that this had even one department store.
Phillip: No, I don’t think there is any department stores. I think the style of
business we do today and what a department store is, there is some gray areas
there.
Borup: I guess the other questions we’ve got in the previous minutes of
testimony.
MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd? Thank you very much. Is there anyone
else that would like to make a statement? If not, then ACHD.
LARRY SALE, 318 E. 37TH
STREET, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Sale: Thank you, I’m here representing Ada County Highway District in the
matter before the commission. First of all, I’m up here for two things, to express
a couple of appreciation’s, and secondly to make an announcement. The
Highway District appreciates the patience of the Planning and Zoning
Commission in putting up with us in our lengthy view of this application. We also
appreciate and understand the developers impatience with that same pace. He
obviously would like to move ahead and I do understand that. Unfortunately this
is the only opportunity that we will have to review it and I want to make sure that
when I present a report to you that it’s factual and accurate. The second thing I
wanted to do is announce that our staff report will be available at noon on
September 16 and will be delivered to our commissioners at that time. They will
consider it at a meeting 7:00 P.M. September 23. Presumably at that time they
will render a decision and have a report to you by the end of that week. We have
completed the findings portion of our analysis and are attempting to write the
mitigation part of our report. As I say, that will be done a week from today
actually. Does the commission have any questions that they would like me to
answer tonight?
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: Not that are probably pertinent. We do have the draft copy that we
reviewed, are you anticipating any major changes from the draft copy?
Sales: I don’t know which draft you have.
Borup: I don’t either, it’s not labeled.
Sales: Probably not, because I amended this one this afternoon. They take the
same shape and format, but as we develop additional information or findings, we
will change that report. So it really depends on whenever that was issued.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 41
There are some changes to the early drafts in that part of our problem has been
that some of these improvements that are necessary to accommodate this
development are also improvements to the arterial system and the collector
system for which they are going to pay some fairly substantial road impact fees.
We’ve been trying to analyze which of those improvements are of sufficient
benefit to the general public that they should be offset from their impact fee.
That’s been taking a great deal of our time and we are starting now to home in
on those, but there will be some major reconstruction needed to the system out
there to accommodate it and the background traffic as well. They are
improvements which we had planned for and would’ve been made by the district
someday, but this project accelerates the need for them somewhat. Anything
else?
Borup: No, it’s the most comprehensive set that I’ve seen since I’ve been here.
Sale: It’s a comprehensive application.
De Weerd: I just had a question, today we attended a walkability workshop and
there were several different options that were presented that might have some
effect on Presidential Drive on limiting traffic going into the subdivision or
discouraging it. I just had wondered if perhaps, taking a second look at
Presidential Drive and the concerns of the residents, if perhaps some of those
options might be appropriate in this regard?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, two of my staff members
attended Mr. Burdens (sic) presentation this afternoon and I expect to discuss
those in the morning and the report will probably be altered again. I haven’t
heard those, but we are trying to be susceptible, not the right word, but
something like that to the needs of the pedestrians that will be there. Perhaps
not today, but sometime in the future. We may look foolish now in requiring
pedestrian actuated signals at Fairview and Eagle, but probably someday they
will be needed. Hopefully they will be needed. Anything else?
MacCoy: Mr. Nelson?
Nelson: I have no questions.
MacCoy: thank you very much.
Sale: Thank you.
Durrant: On the submitted copy of this I put in, I had one real major concern that
I had was the traffic, the facts and findings report of it and the traffic counts they
used and the dates they are drawing their data off of. Such as on Eagle Road
and Fairview Road, they did their traffic counts on 10/97 when it was still partially
under construction through there and I was wondering if it would be a little bit
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 42
wise to get a current traffic count since they’ve completed that five lane opening.
Another portion of it was that there was no traffic count available on Records
Avenue or Drive, which I live right by there and there is plenty of traffic cruising
down that street and the traffic count dates they used for Presidential Drive was
12/04/96 and talking to the development company, we’re guessing somewhere
between 100-120 houses were there at that time and now there is close to 200. I
just wanted to make my concerns known that I think we need to get a current
traffic count. I don’t know if Mr. Sale had addressed this at all with his group
(Inaudible) Ada County Highway District. I would like to see a more recent traffic
count taken for actual figures before they do projected basis.
MacCoy: Is that it?
Durrant: That’s it.
Sale: I’m under the impression that we are taking new counts currently. They
may not have been done yet, but we can foretell the traffic on the streets coming
out of the subdivision quite accurately. Each of those trips will generate within a
tenth of a ten trips a day for each house over a period of a year. We can
estimate very accurately the number of—the amount of traffic that’s there now by
counting the houses. The traffic on Eagle and Fairview is a little bit different. We
were going to recount that, but I don’t know if we did or not.
MacCoy: Okay, thank you very much. It’s still part of the open.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, can we take a break and then resume.
Durkin: I’m the applicant, I’m the president of Dakota Company. I have really
made every effort to listen carefully to the comments and the concerns address.
Before I start however, I would like to go on the record, at the last meeting, I was
ill and if I was short and tired at the end of the meeting, I apologize. I hit the bed
for two weeks the following morning, but, Mr. Phillips apologized for things
getting heated and it wasn’t necessary. He’s a fine man and I have no hard
feelings there. A couple of comments, it’s been a little bit hard to really go with a
normal presentation of our project here, but something came up tonight that I just
wanted to clarify. We are what we call a second generation plan, I hope that all
the commissioners are all aware of that. We submitted a plan with our
application, we revised it in accordance with the meetings with the first public
hearing and with the neighbor meeting and in accordance with the first staff
report that the city staff put out. It also takes into consideration some of the Ada
County Highway Districts comments and concerns. That plan was submitted to
the commissioners prior to the last meeting. That’s the plan that’s up on the
board now. That was the one that I used that was the public hearing last time. If
you would like me to answer any questions relating to those plans as far as
building placement, etc. I would be happy to do so. The major change on this
plan, which again, I want to remind you is the same plan that we had at the last
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 43
meeting. The major plan that we increase the size of the landscape berm along
Fairview and along Eagle from 10 feet to 20 feet. Also the plan has an increase
in the landscape berm along the back of the property from 10 feet to 20 feet.
There has been a couple of other landscaping additions. I think one of the more
significant additions is we’ve built up the landscaping in this area, more
substantially. This is the area that I have more concern over, this is the theater
area. We’ve eliminated the access to this area so people that might be at this
project and want to leave will be going out here, versus here. These, this access
point and this access point, at any place where it will be available will be signed
for deliveries and for truck traffic only. It’s necessary to meet some of the other
conditions as far as fire trucks and routing and getting through. This does meet
with the city codes as far as access. So this is a change from last plan, I can’t
recall to what detail that we went over these changes at the last public hearing.
Are there any questions from the commissioners on this plan before I go back to
my other…
MacCoy: Commissioners?
De Weerd: I guess I would like to wait and hear what he has to say.
Durkin: You know, the first public hearing that we had in my opening comments
I acknowledged to the commissioners and the public here, that this shopping
center will have an impact on the adjacent property owners. We recognize that.
We recognized that before, we planned it, we recognized it during the planning
process of it. I think what’s most important is we recognized that during the
operation of the shopping center. So, that’s something that we recognize, that
we are fully aware of. We have a lot of experience in developing these types of
centers. Although the record shows this is quite a bit larger than any of the other
projects that I’ve developed. The concept and use of tenants is similar, so our
experience is solid and our record is good as far as the design of these types of
centers, but a long term operation is important. As far as the traffic through the
subdivision, I can’t say anymore than I—on the record in the past, there is
obviously a threat and a question that the residents have, but that’s an ACHD
concern. On my opening meeting, I asked for your approval of our plan. I asked
for one of the conditions that we abide by the conditions that Ada County
commissioners put on the project, I repeat that tonight. To my knowledge, we
have no dispute with ACHD as far as the shopping center and the matters that
relate to—that are in the authority of Ada County Highway District, it’s a large
project and we’re working through. There is no issue between us that is a
stumbling point with ACHD. All of the matters that we are working through, in my
opinion, are technical. Mr. Sale has gotten up here time and time again, or
actually twice, but he’s said it to me in other meetings. We are concerned about
the impact fees. We know what the impact fees. We know that there are going
to be impact fees. We know at the right date, we are going to argue about it.
That isn’t going to be settled in a staff report at the next hearing, that isn’t going
to be settled for a long, long, time. I pledge to you tonight, I ask you to make it a
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 44
condition of the approval if we get to that point, that we have to abide by the
terms and conditions of the Ada County Highway District that they impose on this
project. Again, I remind you that I feel there is nothing that has come to my
attention that is even a hint of impasse with ACHD. On the other hand, Mr. Sale
commented that we are getting a little impatient and we are. We first talked to
some of the people at ACHD in December of 1998 about this project. We had
our first staff meeting with them in April of 1998, we had another one in May. We
submitted our conditional use permit in June. We submitted the traffic study in
June. We had comments that were submitted back to us from ACHD which we
answered in July. We had another meeting in July. We had more comments,
we answered the immediately. We’ve had meeting in August and we continue to
have meetings, we have a, in my opinion, Mr. Sale we have a solid track record
with ACHD. We have not had any big disputes with ACHD and again, from our
earliest staff meeting with them in April to today, we are—we have in our position
four drafts (Inaudible) Ada County Highway District report on the project and not
one of these has anything in it that’s insurmountable. Now there is a fifth draft
and their will probably be a sixth draft. This is a common normal process that we
go through on a shopping center, after shopping center, not only in Ada County,
but in other areas. The shopping center that we are building will be
(END OF TAPE)
Durkin: …to the residential areas, in my opinion. There will be a benefit that the
shopping center will be screening 25,000 cars a day, night and day. Trucks and
every other type of vehicle on Fairview Avenue and 25,000 cars a day, today on
Eagle Road. A combined 50,000 cars a day, trucks, semi’s 24 hours a day going
back and forth. A substantial amount of noise will be blocked with the
construction of the center. What is going to happen behind the shopping center.
I can tell you from my experience, I’ve developed more than 150 similar types of
shopping centers throughout the United States and several in Boise. I talked
today with Fred Meyer, as you may know, I was the developer of that project.
Fred Meyer, for their store on Fairview. During their busiest time of the year, they
would expect 11 semi-deliveries a week to that store. That store is 172,000 sq.
ft. it’s a food store, which is comparable in size to the food store that we’re
planning on building here and it’s a general merchandise discount department
store. That would be during their peak time, their busiest time they would expect
11 semi-deliveries a week. As I’ve said to you before, there are many, many
other smaller deliveries, the step van and what we call the vendor truck, delivery
system that come and go. Those are small business people from around the
area that deliver potatoes chips or whatever. They really are not a noisy vehicle.
They’re lower profile, smaller, it’s a faster delivery type of operation. Shopko
stores during their busiest time, I want to remind you that they are distributed for
this entire area from a large distribution facility that they own out on Gowen Road
and the Freeway. During one of their busiest times of year, they would expect
eight Shopko trucks a week. That would be during the Christmas season or back
to school. They would expect eight Shopko delivery trucks a week. Again they
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 45
would have the step vans and smaller deliveries. If you burdened all of the
grocery store with the Fred Meyer type of delivery, which is 11 trucks a week,
and all the Shopko trucks, eight trucks a week, there is not a tremendous amount
of traffic going back there. Those trucks, the hours are posted, the hours are
limited. There is no overnight parking allowed. It’s signed and monitored. I can
only tell you from experience of operating and maintaining these shopping
centers, it is not a problem, it can be a problem, but it isn’t a problem if you stay
on top of it and we do. Between blocking out the noise and traffic on Fairview
and Eagle and the limited amount of truck traffic that we would expect behind a
shopping center, it is not reasonable for us to build—take 60 feet of property and
build a wall out on top. I think the public comments tonight, the most important
comment was expressed by Patrick Harper. Where he talked about the long
term viability of the shopping center. We know how important that is, we’re not
developing this, selling this off and going home. This is a long term ownership,
everything is leased and the ownership entity is very important to them and to us
that it be a long term viable project. If you were to have a 60 foot berm behind
the shopping center, that would require moving the buildings closer up to the
streets, it would interfere with the parking flow, the traffic flow, it would actually
rule out the site for quite a few of the major tenants that we have. The long term
viability of the center could not be assured. In fact, I think it would be an
experiment and an experiment that would fail. When you are finished at the end
of the day, there isn’t a lot of things you can do with an 800,000 sq. ft. retail
shopping center if it’s not done in accordance with standard design criteria and it
fails. Last meeting, I’m sorry that Mr. Smith isn’t here, he asked us to go and go
back to the drawing board. That’s what we’ve done. Commissioner Borup said
can’t you try to do something for the area behind the grocery store. So we are
going to give you a handout tonight. It’s something we think is workable. We
would be very open to having that in a motion tonight to require us to do
something like this. Tom Bauwens from our office is going to hand these out. It’s
a two page document. The first page answers some questions that were brought
up last time. How high are these trees when we plant them? How high are they
going to be in a couple of years? This information, as all of our landscaping and
buffering information has been put together by the land group, a local area here,
I think it’s an Eagle based company. The first page is what they are calling
section A, this would be—this is a typical berm section taken right here, if you
notice the black line on that plan, that’s showing exactly where that is. It gives
you a sense of what the berm would look like on a larger scale than what we
have on this plan. You can expect that to go throughout the center. What I’m
really excited about is the second page. It’s going to take a little more
explanation, this is new technology that prior to the other day I just was not
familiar with. Again, this is a drawing showing one section behind—it’s an area
from Presidential Drive that we’re proposing along in this section, I’m not—on the
view 1, the viewpoint location on the center of the top of that drawing you can
see where that arrow is. If you were to look out from here today, this is taken
with digital photography standing at that precise location, which is roughly in the
loading dock area of the plan, if you can see. That’s what it looks like today, but
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 46
with the construction along this area of a three foot high concrete area at the
back of the parking lot, that gives us the opportunity to raise that berm up. So
you can see what that does to that typical planter section in the top right hand
part of that sheet. Then the bottom large photo is a—I can’t remember the term
that they use, but this is prepared by the land group and this is what the photo
would look like approximately five to seven years after planting. The brown area
that comes across as brown area there would be the parking lot driveway in this
section, that you would be looking at. Then the gray stripe along there, these
colors are a little off, that would be the raised retaining wall, for lack of a better
term, but a small wall along the edge of this parking lot. Then you can see what
the landscape berm would look like and grow to in a five to seven year program.
This plan in—it will help decrease the noise from the grocery store. It will help to
decrease the visibility from the grocery store area and it looks nice. The
plantings look good, they will be maintained, that’s part of our conditional use,
that they be maintained. They’re very, very expensive to put in the first time, so
that is a real high incentive to take car of them, but we are suggesting that we do
this from Presidential Drive to the end of the first row of buildings. Primarily this
will add some additional buffering for the grocery loading dock because of the
early hours necessary for the vendor vehicles. The other—the first page just
gives you a sense of what the rest of the berm would look like, but it’s a large
area. I’m sorry that I’ve given people the impression, particularly after the last
meeting, I was ill, I was feeling really poor. I’ve been completely available, and
today I received two letters from some of the residents, but that’s the first piece
of mail that I’ve received, I haven’t had any calls from anyone, and I’ve been
available. I’ve tried to incorporate the comments from these meetings that I think
are reasonable into our plan. I guess I really want to stress something again
tonight on the record. If you require a wall, as I said the first night, we will build it.
I implore on you to not do that. I’ve traveled around the United States, my job,
my hobby, everything I do is related to shopping centers. It’s an undesirable
circumstance and I just can’t tell you an example that it isn’t. I’ve talked to
people that look there I’ve looked at many and many of them and I just feel that
when you put 20-25 foot masonry buildings and then you put another wall within
that 45-50-60 feet away from it. I know you are going to have echo. It’s different
than cutting out freeway noise. It’s different than cutting out highway noise, it’s a
different kind of a sharp bang type of noise that you are trying to protect yourself
from. I guarantee you, I’m under oath here, I take that seriously. I strongly telling
you that I’ve seen this, I’ve seen many unhappy people that have that. So I
would—however, it isn’t a financial issue for us, it’s a long term use issue for us.
They deteriorate quickly, they get graffiti on them quickly, they make an awful
lot—the results in noise transfer, it’s just very undesirable. I put that back on
you, if you require a wall, we’ll build it, we don’t have to talk about it a long time, I
just want to be on the record five years from now when that’s a problem. I don’t
believe that It’s reasonable to build a 60 foot berm. I don’t think it’s necessary, I
don’t think it accomplishes the cost of doing it, the viability of the center could be
jeopardized. I would like to ask tonight that we get some kind of approval to
move on through the process. We were scheduled to go to an ACHD meeting
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 47
several weeks ago, it’s been scheduled and put off, scheduled and put off, by
delaying this project tonight a month, results in an opening time of the shopping
center that could easily change from November of 1999 to November of the year
2000. That’s a significant impact on us, we own the land, we own it free and
clear. We own all of the land, the project isn’t going to go away, the planning is
still open for modifications and changes, but we can not precede with our
engineering our architectural drawings, our final landscape plans, our wall or
fence, I can’t precede any further without some type of go ahead tonight. A
delay tonight a deferral tonight until ACHD gets answers that I don’t believe are
critical to this project will likely cost us a one year of operation for this shopping
center. As it is now, we are hard pressed to get all of our information put
together and submitted and be open in November of 1999. It’s typical that you
would open this type of center consistent with the holiday season, which would
likely delay this for a significant amount of time. Earlier meetings we’ve gone
through the staff report, I think we are in agreement on most things. As far as for
tonight, I respectfully request that you vote this plan up or vote it down with the
modifications that we’ve discussed so that we can proceed with the project. I’ll
happily answer any questions.
MacCoy: Mr. Nelson?
Nelson: You are not going to want to hear this, I would prefer to see the
(Inaudible) ACHD report and I would like to see how it does impact. I really don’t
want to press anything on without any unknowns. I don’t know how the other
commissioners feel. Also a lot of the discussion tonight has been related to
sound. I would like to see that quantified by a reputable sound engineer with no
financial impact. I don’t mean you, I’m talking about everyone involved, not just
the developer, or the homeowner. We’ve been educated by both sides and a lot
of conflicting information, so I would personally like to see something from a
registry sound engineer or whatever it takes. That’s all the comments that I have
right now.
MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: I too, since this will be the only public hearing, I would not feel
comfortable passing it on without ACHD, and without the residents having that
knowledge and being able to reply in a public situation. In your travels, have you
encountered a buffer area that has the retaining wall with the landscaping in
between the building and the wall, and how that would help the echo?
Durkin: Can you say that—I’m sorry, yes I have encountered that a number of
times. I just looked at one on Saturday in Souix Falls, South Dakota. I drove
behind a builders square which is a home improvement center operation that
was late. There was no operation going on, but they have a shopping center
with a landscaping berm a wall on top and there is—I was in my car with all plans
and estimating that I estimated that it was a smaller area. I think the wall was
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 48
probably 40 feet from the building, but there was tremendous echo. There was
an apartment complex behind it, so they were instead of single story buildings,
they were double. You know, it’s so important for us to proceed that I think you
should ask Mr. Sales if there is any issue with ACHD. There is no staff issue,
you have four or five staff reports here, there is no staff issue that relates to any
of the traffic concerns, it’s primarily as he has testified, an impact fee issue that
they are studying and how—the land set asides and those types of things.
Which they have told us what they want and we have already agreed to that set
aside and preservation. So I think that the traffic issues, there will be a public
hearing on traffic and the residents are welcome to go and talk about it, but your
authority to approve or deny a project because it impacts a local subdivision
that’s up to ACHD to handle and to fix. I don’t have the authority to fix it. They
have to direct that and I guess with my testimony and with the restriction and
outright requirement that we fulfill the obligations that they impose, I don’t think
that’s necessary to go through that, get that requirement and bring it back to
show you what its…
De Weerd: Mr. Durkin, I do trust that you will work with ACHD. I do believe that
ACHD will give their report verbally to us, it would be nice to have that
opportunity. It would be nice to have the opportunity for these residents whose
lives you will impact to hear that as well. I have no doubt that you will do as you
are instructed, I just think that we owe it to the public to have that be able to be
presented to them as well to ourselves. I do have a couple of other issues. I
guess I would like to see a larger berm area on the perimeter of your project. I’m
fairly new to this commission, so I can only look and learn at every meeting and
look forward and try and work to make the good decisions. So, maybe you might
see it as changing my mind, or coming up with a new idea, I do believe that it is a
corridor into Meridian, the look is going to be very important. I do agree with staff
that the berm along Fairview and Eagle should be greater. I don’t like the idea of
having a sidewalk next to that major—anyway, where I see on my plat here, this
is the sidewalk that will be right against the road, or is it going to be further in.
Durkin: There has been some modifications required by ACHD that have
resulted in that being moved in to the inside of the berm area.
De Weerd: So you will have a grassy area on the outside that would be along
the road side. Are you using some of the easement for your bermed area or are
you going from the…
Durkin: All of the berm is on our property. As well as the sidewalk.
De Weerd: And the right-of-way? You’re not using any of the right-of-way?
Durkin: That’s correct.
De Weerd: So it’s 20 feet from the right-of-way.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 49
Durkin: That’s correct.
De Weerd: I guess I missed at the last meeting the movement of some of the—
your tenants or—so could you review with us again, who’s where?
Durkin: Sure. The tenants that we’ve identified tonight, or up to tonight by name
are Shopko store, they are in the same location as they have been on our
original application. The grocery store that is also in the same location. I’ll step
over here. Lets start over here, this is a theater area, that hasn’t changes that
we’ve made I’ve pointed out earlier. These have restaurants and entertainment
related users that would be related to this project. By the way commissioner, I
don’t know if you remember there is a stop light going in at this intersection.
There is a membership warehouse club going here, unnamed. It’s very similar to
a Costco that you see on Franklin and Milwaukee or Sam’s Club is another
company, or BJ’s wholesale club. There is only three companies in the business
and those are the three. We have an office supply super store going in here, that
would be similar to a Staples or an Office Depot operation. We have a Shopko
general merchandise discount store going in here. Modification to this plan, this
shows a 96,900 sq. ft. store, when we submit the building permit it will be about
103,000 sq. ft. It’s a lower building a little wider, but our—your ordinance for a
conditional use permit does allow those non-material changes, it won’t effect the
overall square footage, but that’s a change that I’m aware of now. (Inaudible) In
you packages is 1-G is a fabric, linens, apparel, (Inaudible) I’d say it would be
similar to a TJ Max or Ross store. We had a coffee shop going in on the corner.
Are you with me on this, do you want me to point this out to you? You don’t care
about that’s there?
De Weerd: The reason I asked is that I noticed between the plat that we had
initially and what we received in our packet this time, was a new loading dock
area that wasn’t mentioned on the first one, I guess my curiosity overcame me as
to why those changes were made and why we’re adding new loading dock
areas.
Durkin: I just don’t know what changes—the first plan is in front of me that we
submitted, this was in your packets for the last meeting as well. So this plan
was, I don’t know what process—
De Weerd: I think I only received one plat…
Durkin: There is a large plan that you keep holding there. Just for your
information, what that is, the real large one that is folded up. It like on ten pages.
Do you remember the first plan when Commissioner Smith was concerned he
couldn’t read the plan, I just for your benefit and for everyone’s benefit I had our
landscape architect blow that up so that it would be easier for you to read and I
had it delivered to all of you. It’s the same as this plan right here.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 50
De Weerd: Okay, it would be 1-C.
Durkin: 1-C. Alright, we have on the first plan that we submitted, we had three
loading docks in that area, and now we have two commissioner. We had on the
first plan that was submitted, there was building 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C, each of them
having a loading dock and now we have building 1-D and 1-C to take up all of
those so we’ve decreased…
De Weerd: Oh, you took out 2-E and then just moved that loading dock over?
Durkin: I guess if you take that whole building, we have now five loading docks
between 1-A and 1-D. The only significant one (Inaudible) commissioner would
be 1-B. In the first plan we had nine loading docks, so we’ve decreased the
number of loading docks and what we refer to internally as parcel two backing up
to an area. I guess for the audience to see it, just have you hold this up Tom.
We’re talking about this area right here, the reduction of loading docks in that
area.
De Weerd: You reduced them in what area?
Durkin: Right along in the is area commissioner. That’s what I’m talking about
right now.
De Weerd: ON my original one I show one loading area in front of 2-E, which is
right next to the grocery store and then two in front of the grocery store.
Durkin: Commissioner, you know what you are looking at there? You’re looking
at the artist rendering of the trucks. Yeah, you are not looking at the actual dock.
De Weerd: Well, there is too many trucks in front of there.
Durkin: I’m sorry, the idea there is that it shows the relationship in size. I’m
talking about the dock facilities and not the trucks.
De Weerd: Thank you, you can tell I’m the commoner up here, right?
Durkin: Hey, that’s a real fair question. We have now if you can look up the
number of loading docks, we have submitted in this area, it has actually reduced
significantly. Again, there has been an additional reduction in this area,
commissioner, on building 1-E on the new plan. We had three loading docks that
have been replaced (Inaudible) in this building. We always had two here and
there still are two here. So we’ve reduced two loading docks here, several of
them here. There has been no reduction here. Same number here. Same
number here. This building we do not plan to build, but there still is a loading
dock there as well. I don’t have plans for this one right now, when I say that I
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 51
don’t know how that’s going to be configured in the future. In continuing going
around the corner here though, just a little bit, you can see that we had a number
of other small shops here and small buildings, we now have one user going in
right there. There have been some changes and I expect that their will be more
changes as we go through the process.
De Weerd: Well thank you, I appreciate that. As far as the entrances into the
subdivision, are those going to—on your landscaped areas, are those going to
be bermed and sodded.
Durkin: Can you help me?
De Weerd: Down Records Drive and also Presidential.
Durkin: There is berm along Records Drive, between this street there is a
sidewalk and a landscaped area dividing the street obviously from the shopping
center.
De Weerd: Right there at the entrance.
Durkin: Right here?
De Weerd: No, at the buffer zone.
Durkin: Right here?
De Weerd: Yeah, there you go.
Durkin: There was a substantial, we have really raised this up to the maximum
that can be. It will require more maintenance and possibly more planting
replacement over the years. We’ve raised this up drastically planted these here
and eliminated any traffic. We are also planning on signing this area employee
parking. I can’t foresee the circumstances, unless it’s horseplay, people driving
around this building in the evening. We’ll have that secured and situated that
that would be very difficult to do.
De Weerd: And also around Presidential you also have that bermed, before their
entrance.
(Inaudible)
Durkin: I do have to have access here, I can’t cut that, it’s from a safety
standpoint through the (Inaudible) here. It will be signed and limited to service
vehicles here and here and employees.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 52
De Weerd: Because Commissioner Smith is missing, I need to bring up his issue
on the parking lot. I have done research myself and driven a lot of parking lots
and saw a lot of parking islands that are very attractive in groupings and so I did
take pictures, I haven’t developed my film so far, or I would’ve showed you.
Durkin: Commissioner, I’m asking you to approve this, if you want trees in the
parking lot, put it in your motion. I’m not fighting the trees in the parking lot, I’m
not ever bring a plan in and show it to you and say don’t these trees look nice,
they are going to grow forever. I’m not going to sit here every night and argue
about whether we should have trees. If you want trees, say Mr. Durkin, put trees
in. We’ll put them in.
De Weerd: Okay, if I want a 35 foot berm in the front, I only have to put that in
my motion?
Durkin: Our position is that we take it to the next step, so I need, I can’t. We can
come back here month to month, but I will then take it to the next step, that’s the
council, or whatever it is. I need to move on. If you want a 35 foot berm, if that’s
a significant issue to you, if you think it’s going to be great with a 35 foot berm,
put it in the motion. I don’t agree with that, but that’s something I can discuss
and try to work out and try to see if it effects the viability of the shopping center,
see if it reduces the parking below your ratios. See if those things are impacted.
Out of fairness, I would look at other projects in the City of Meridian that are
gateway projects and I would see what else has similar requirements. I know
this is a new commission, and this is a new plan. There has got to be a balance
and I want to build the nicest shopping center in the area. There will be more
landscaping here than any other shopping center in Idaho.
De Weerd: I agree and it looks very nice, but again, we can only start from today
forward.
Durkin: I realize that commissioner, but it isn’t like I’m submitting to you a 1984
plan. This has got more landscaping per square foot per parking stall, or
however you want to break it down, than any other shopping center in the state.
De Weerd: It’s also bigger than anything that we have, so I guess that’s why…
Durkin: This has got 1,350 trees, this is an enormous deal.
De Weerd: It is, it’s nice, I will admit that, but it could be better.
Durkin: (Inaudible) If a 35 foot berm is significant issue to you and I can do it, I
have to reduce my isle widths and do some different things. If I can do it, I will,
but I can’t answer that tonight. That’s part of the next step. So if you do that in a
month, or if you do that in two months, it throws it off. These are the kind of
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 53
questions that I need answered and the only way—I’m relying on you as a
commission to allow me to take it to the next step.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: I maybe fall in line with some of the others. On the ACHD report, I think
that’s important, but in light of, along with what has been said, the draft report we
have, came from the homeowners, so they saw it before we did. I think getting
the information to them is not as much of a concern to me as maybe some other
issues. There are I believe 32 sites specific conditions on the draft that I have,
which is, as mentioned earlier the most that I’ve ever seen from ACHD, but it’s
probably appropriate for the size of the project. I’m not sure what more the
applicant can do than say that they are going to comply with everything that
ACHD says they are talking about, in which this case is extensive. Some of the
questions I still have is on—part of my main concern is the buffer, but before we
get into that, did you—Mr. Harper made a proposal on essentially putting the
grocery store where the theater is, and the theater down on the parcel next to
Pine. Have you given any consideration to that what it may do to traffic.
Durkin: I have not, I just received that today in the mail at three o’clock this
afternoon at my office. I do have a lease signed for the other parcel.
Borup: For the one on Pine?
Durkin: Right, the one on Eagle Road, so that would require some significant
modifications by me and I’d have to go through the process with the tenant that I
couldn’t commit to tonight. Their studies and research has been based on, that
was their desired area and it was our desired area as well to hook that off
Fairview. I received that late this afternoon as I was preparing for the hearing
tonight and I didn’t have any way to do anything on that prior to this meeting.
Borup: I guess my—possibly what impact that could have on the traffic. It
looked like more than just a spot of the individual businesses, based on what I
can see on the amount of parking for the theater is probably not the same
proportion of the parking for the grocery store and would probably be another
building something in that area. I don’t know if we need to go into that if you
haven’t had a chance to really look at it.
Durkin: I haven’t and it’s really too bad, because what’s happening tonight and
what’s been happening through this process is you’re delaying this tonight is
going to cause a competitor to leave this area. We will loose our grocery deal
because we won’t be able to meet their time frame and then we will be back to
square one, which will then require a significantly different application.
Borup: At this point my question is just information.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 54
Durkin: As far as me going back to that grocer, what you asking me to do
takes…
Borup: I haven’t asked you to do it. I asked if you had given any consideration
to what—how it might effect your project.
Durkin: I have not.
Borup: The questions that I have I think are on the buffer. Some of them and I
have several, just about all the homeowners seem convinced that a concrete
block type of wall is going to be the best barrier but I haven’t really heard or seen
any real studies. Are there, is that something that can be readily available, some
type of noise study on the benefit, you had mentioned earlier about the highway
noise already being buffered and I have to agree with that. If there is any
highway noise now from Eagle Road and I know there is, the buildings there are
going to reduce that. So I think it’s the center noise is probably the buffering that
we’re talking about.
Durkin: No one asked me to get that information that’s available, the plan that I
handed out to you with the landscaping, that takes a month, so that kind of stuff
takes a long time to get. I would be able to search it out.
Borup: That’s why before I did, I wanted to know how readily that type of
information would be available, if that is something that—a noise engineer may
have a computer model already.
Durkin: Commissioner the City of Boise retained a company from Portland, last
year to make two visits to Boise and do these types of studies and I could check
with that firm. I know the firm, I have their card in my office. I don’t know how
long, or what type of information they would have to have to be able to give a
scientific report.
Borup: One of the proposals which kept the buffering at the ten feet had a berm
sloping up to a block wall. Is there—are you aware of—well two questions, one
maximum a maximum wall height that would be practical and then also with the
wall acting as a retaining wall.
Durkin: Commissioner, I’m not aware of any modification that I can make that
would be better for the residents than what I have submitted to you tonight.
Borup: Well, my question would be is there a maximum wall height?
Durkin: Since I’m so opposed to the wall, I’ve never seen it work. Anyway, the
higher you make it, the worse it is as far as I’m concerned. I just don’t have a—I
can’t comment favorably on that. From my experience that I can draw on, I can’t
give you the right kind of answer that you are after.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 55
Borup: Okay, I did hear that (Inaudible). I believe that is true. I don’t know if we
need to ask that to staff or if that is something that can be changed in the
conditional use also. I’m not sure where—maybe I’m not sure where I’m leading.
I would have to agree that 60 feet is not practical. I’m not sure where that point
is. I don’t know about a wall on top of a berm anymore than you still got an area
behind it that would be even smaller, that’s less than 60 feet right now. Sixty foot
creates a park along there. Is there—well, never mind, I was going to ask if
there was any practicality to deeding that buffer area excess to a homeowner.
That would have to be unanimous—
(Inaudible)
Borup: … to be practical and you got one hold out and you defeat what you are
trying to accomplish.
Durkin: I have actually have done that (Inaudible).
Borup: What was that…
Durkin: We ended up having to pay someone to take the land and we wouldn’t
do it, so the other neighbors paid and they hated each other (Inaudible) and then
it was difficult to enter into a sprinkling agreement, but it did work. In Reno,
Nevada it’s open, operating and looks nice, it was a challenge. Actually that was
a situation where we were required to build a wall and I actually went back and
visited a few years ago. There is a petition to tear the wall down. I really wish I
could get that information, but it’s on (Inaudible) Nevada, it backs up to an
existing subdivision, not unlike this scenario. It’s a Shopko, Safeway project.
So, it’s a good project.
Borup: What was the location of that wall? Was it on top of a berm, or…
Durkin: actually, it’s very difficult to find that exact circumstance. In that case,
the homes behind the shopping center were elevated. The shopping center was
built back into a hill. The homes, it wasn’t a flat area like this area in Meridian.
There was echoing that they were unhappy with.
Borup: I’d like to see this thing moved on. In my mind, I don’t know about the
rest of the commissioners, I don’t know if it’s anything that will happen tonight,
but I’d like to see it next month to definitely be the last meeting. I’ve stated all
along that my main concern was the buffering. The problem is, we don’t seem to
have any real solid information from the homeowners association or from the
applicant on actually what a noise reduction wall would mean. Some examples
given on the freeway and that kind of stuff, that'’ a whole different matter. I
somehow, would like to see some real information and that would in my mind, go
forward. I don’t know how much time…
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 56
Durkin: Commissioner, if I could comment on that line that you are going down.
The process has been extremely frustrating with your city. You have a fine staff,
organization. We work within your ordinances and it’s a guess work. We throw
out what we think is good and you want something different, we modify it, we
could come back here for a year. I’m asking you tonight, I’m asking you in
another month, or six months or next year. Somebody sometime has to stand up
and say I make a motion that we either say forget it to this guy or that we
approve it. I can say well I’ll go back for the study and come back in a month
and you go, well what if you do a study with this, and what if we do a study with
that, we can be here for six years.
Borup: I agree.
Durkin: Somebody, it’s your job to stand up and say yes, or no. Let me go
forward, but I can’t read your minds. I want to do the right thing. I promise you I
will do the right thing, but you need to give me direction. Tell me what you need
me to bring next meeting and I’ll bring it. I can’t…
Borup: Well, in my mind I think a lot of the issues, there is not going to be much
that can be done about it. I mean, this property goes back and I got some more
information on it also. Upland Industries originally had this back in the 80’s trying
to do a regional shopping mall. It ended up going to Boise Town Square…
(END OF TAPE)
Borup: …were proposed to be where the homes are now. Probably some
industrial area behind those office buildings way back at the back of the piece.
An individual that was on the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council
was real concerned at the time about residential development going in there. I
believe the owner at that time, it was his option at that time to keep the property
viable. Too bad you guys weren’t around in 93’ could’ve bought the property and
would’ve been able to do as you had planned. Still, the buffering between the
project and I don’t think we are talking about buffering traffic. There is not going
to be much traffic, I’ve been behind other shopping centers. Other long ones
specifically. The corridor—or the area from Costco to Home Base on Franklin.
There is no traffic behind those buildings, that I’ve ever seen. I’ve been back
there once and a while, I’ve been all alone. So noise is maybe a question and I
don’t know how to in my mind to answer that without an expert.
Durkin: Commissioner, I have a question for you. Commissioner Nelson tried to
find an expert without a financial interest. I obviously have a financial interest in
the project to let it go forward. The neighbors have an interest that it not go
forward or that it go forward in one way or another. How would you propose,
what would make you happy as a commissioner, how would you feel—I’m only
aware of one company and that’s a Portland base company. If we hire them,
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 57
bring them in and they bring you a study in a month, that says it’s a piece of
cake, don’t worry about it, everyone go home and relax, are you going to be
happy with that?
Borup: I’ve done noise studies on—and it’s different, but on a freeway and I
can’t remember where I got the information from, being cheap, I did it myself. I
got the information on the criteria that was already established. It was based on
distance on house to freeway, height of fence along the freeway, I think it was
also factored in there for shrubbery and landscaping type items. Now it’s just a
matter of plugging that data in and it gave the decibel ratings of different
locations. Maybe it’s not that simple there. It wasn’t a big drawn out—maybe
before, I would like to ask more questions of probably Mrs. Rogers as a
representative of the homeowners association. I think I’ve said enough.
MacCoy: Thank you, do you want to sit down. Mrs. Rogers?
De Weerd: Malcolm, I mean Mr. Chairman, just one thing for Mr. Durkin, I
understand your time issue and I would not personally be opposed to calling a
meeting after we get the ACHD report just to deal with this one item. It takes up
most of our agenda and it might be nice to just get it in it’s own separate meeting
so we can just take care of those issues. I do want to see ACHD’s report and
have a chance to ask questions and comment on it. That might even give Mr.
Durkin time to have some kind of noise. My recollection—I just recall that last
meeting we talked about these masonry walls and sound and I don’t think this
sound thing is a new issue that we are bringing up tonight. So, I would not be
opposed personally to calling a special meeting later this month. ACHD has their
report on the 23rd
. Tuesday is the 29th
, it would give, don’t they do that the 4th
Tuesday? I would not be opposed to calling a special meeting.
Durkin: Commissioner may I ask—you’re going to ask one of the previous
people to come back, I think it would be a good idea to ask Mr. Sale, if he’s still
here, he may be able to give you a sense that they are—what the issues are with
the ACHD. I believe that there may be a false sense that ACHD is like saying
this either should or shouldn’t happen. I don’t know if you have read any of the
staff reports that they’ve submitted to the commissioners, but there have been
four of them and we are in agreement with all of them. So it’s not like there is a
giant issue. Would that matter to you, would that make any difference if you
knew that to give an approval on the project subject to us abiding by every
condition put on by ACHD. I just don’t understand that your authority to bring it
back after you have an ACHD report, is that going to make the 35 foot wide berm
different or the wall different? I just don’t get it. There is no traffic issue that I’m
aware of with ACHD and Mr. Sale is here, he can maybe answer that.
De Weerd: Well, I don’t think that ACHD is the only issue. I think the issue is still
the buffer, if we feel a masonry wall is—I guess from what I hear Commissioner
Borup say, we would like, and Commissioner Nelson, we would like to know
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 58
more information before we make you put in a retaining wall that’s going to be
something that is going to be the benefit of the subdivision.
Durkin: But are you using the ACHD as an excuse. I don’t know what they could
possibly tell you.
De Weerd: I would not use them as an excuse, I do feel that this is the only
public hearing that we will have. You will not have a public hearing at City
Council I think it is fair to allow people to have the opportunity to comment if they
feel it is necessary for them to comment. That’s a personal feeling.
Borup: May I just comment, there is a public comment at the ACHD commission
meeting, much like this. So there is a chance to specifically to talk about the
ACHD study. The other question that I would have, is everything that you
anticipate in ACHD that would change your mind on how you feel about it based
on the rest of it?
De Weerd: Like the buffer area and how the noise…
Borup: Well, no, yeah those are separate issues. So if ACHD, I mean right now,
they have got 32 items on there.
De Weerd: Other than the fact that…
Borup: So they add 33 would that change your mind on how you may be
inclined to vote on the project.
De Weerd: I thought at some point Commissioner Borup, I thought we really
didn’t want to forward a project until we had all the information. I know we made
a strong comment about that at our last meeting and now we are already
considering going against that?
Borup: No, I don’t think it’s the same situation.
De Weerd: Well, I guess I’m not experienced enough to see any difference.
Borup: We were talking about preliminary plats and findings, etc. This is a
conditional use permit, that’s all we’re looking at. I believe that we will have
some design and review authority here.
De Weerd: I don’t know, maybe I would be interested to hear about Mr. Sale has
to say.
Borup: I would too, we are not forward (Inaudible).
De Weerd: I can’t say any thing further.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 59
MacCoy: Are you two ready to listen to Mr. Sale? Commissioner Borup, you
said you would like to recall.
Borup: Yeah, I would like to hear Mr. Sale first, with all that still fresh on the
mind.
MacCoy: Thanks for sticking around.
Sale: How can I help?
Borup: Mr. Durkin made some statements expressing good cooperation
between ACHD and the development, is there any concern on your part on
complying with each and every stipulation. You’ve got some—I realize that some
of them are not specific, but there is a lot of things on the intersection,
deceleration lanes, etc., etc. Essentially would you agree with the statement Mr.
Durkin just made?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Borup, I would like to have a copy of your
tape if you’d loan it to me. I’ll just take it to the commission meeting and then
we’ll put the item on the consent agenda and it won’t take much time at all.
Seriously, we’ve met—the last time we met with Mr. Bauwens and their traffic
engineer there was only one item of significant discussion and I think we’ve
rectified that. So I guess I would conditionally—that’s not the right word—I would
hesitantly agree with this statement that there are no issues. I never say never
and I don’t give any guarantees. They’ve been good to work with, they—we’re
laying some pretty heavy improvements, requirements on them. They recognize
the need for those and are being cooperative. There is no signed deal yet.
Nelson: Let me just ask this one question. My main concern was that between
the time it left here and it made it to City Council, that potentially there was some
change that impact the site plan as we’ve been discussing it. If you feel
comfortable, the entryways that shown and the traffic patterns of this site aren’t
really an issue and that there is no concern that between now and the City
Council meeting that that get modified, without going line by line, does this look
like a pretty stable site plans as far as you’re concerned.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Nelson, last meeting we decided to add,
oddly enough as people fall over, add a driveway on Pine street to empty out that
parking area to the southwest quadrant. That’s reflective of our concern which
doesn’t really relate to the public streets. We have a serious concern about the
amount of traffic that is going to be going past the fronts of the stores. If you got
one of the later staff reports drafts, you’ve seen that in there. We are
recommending to you to encourage the applicant to do something different with
the on site circulation system. Also to aid that in the very center of the project,
Mr. Bauwens indicated that we would—that they would open up the isles in that
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 60
parking area near the intersection of Fairview and Eagle so that parking area
would empty out quickly to that first driveway. That’s going to be a right in, right
out driveway, but at least it will give people a way to get onto the arterial system
without having to travel a half a mile in front of the store fronts. Those are the
only items that I think are still of significant discussion. I would not consider
those significant site plan changes to add a driveway and modify the driveway
isles on site.
Nelson: Thank you.
De Weerd: So in your opinion, if the applicant—he wants to work with you and
he’s going to do what you recommend, you see any from ACHD’s perspective,
any reason to not act tonight on this, without your report?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think I should answer that…
De Weerd: I thought I would ask anyway.
Sale: If you have a policy of not acting without a report, this is a fairly significant
application to deviate from that. There are some other applications on tonight’s
agenda, that it wouldn’t matter as much. I think I’ll pass.
De Weerd: I have a question for Shari. If any of these changes were impacted
by ACHD’s report, is that something that can be taken care of in the design site,
or design review.
Stiles: Commissioner De Weerd, commissioners, if they are not significant, I
guess if they would not be considered significant changes. Significant changes I
would say would be reducing the parking spaces below requirements, increasing
size of buildings, after they’ve been approved, those kind of things I would
consider significant changes. I’m not particularly happy with the way the parking
is laid out. It’s kind of a free for all with it’s—I don’t know if Ada County Highway
District is going to make any comments requesting perhaps some of them or
directional one way with some angle parking. I think that would be more
desirable, but without knowing what kind of comments they might have, I don’t
know whether they would be considered significant or not.
De Weerd: So you would not feel comfortable moving. You guys are the
professionals, come on. Would you feel comfortable passing—okay, I won’t ask
it.
Borup: May I follow a question to Shari, what future presentations that we would
like you to have, are we going to have some design review and would that entail
just the buildings or would it entail parking lot design or are we going to have
some additional design review after the conditional use?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 61
Stiles: I would hope we would have some design review, the only building I’ve
seen is the Shopko building, I haven’t seen any details of any of the remainder of
the project.
Borup: That was the way that I read the original conditional use is that it would
be subject to design review so I’m assuming that we still have an opportunity to
review those. Some of those things. I would hope that the commission would
feel comfortable in making that a requirement. Any drive-thru’s would still be
conditional use permit. I would—Mr. Chairman, and maybe Mr. Sale could just
not his head—my reading of this ACHD comments are really concerning access
in and out of the property things that impact the public roads and does not really
get into any internal parking lot design or traffic flow within the parking lot, is that
correct? Try to make it easy yes or no answer for you.
Sales: Our jurisdiction stops at the right-of-way line.
Borup: That’s why the one comment was a recommendation to the city. I see.
That’s what I understood. I wanted to get that clarified.
Sales: Our concerned is not.
MacCoy: Okay, you were going to call somebody else forward here.
Borup: Well, …
MacCoy: Or did you change your mind?
Borup: No, it was for one specific thing and that’s on the noise issue. I think
Mrs. Rogers said she had done some research on that. Without getting a lot
of—well, we didn’t get much detail on that, so that is what my question is
concerning that one issue.
MacCoy: Would Mrs. Rogers please come forward please.
Rogers: Yes, Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I just wanted to make sure your name got on for the record. You had
mentioned that you had done some—what type of noise study did you do?
Rogers: I found stuff that was already—I found the information was already
documented. I got it off of a web site called NONOISE.ORG. Ada Planning
directed me there, they had no other place to go to tell me to find information.
So, I went there. They were news articles, one was a study by the Minnesota
Pollution Agency.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 62
Borup: Which of those studies did you feel was most pertinent to this situation.
The statement by the Minnesota Pollution Agency about solely trees and shrubs
for noise control. I felt that was significant. I mean—I don’t know what else to
say other than I’ve already said. The barrier right now is not continuous, it is not
thick, the foliage will drop to the ground. You know, this is the only—what I have
maybe anecdotal, but it’s still written down, it’s still some sort of data. We don’t
have data from anybody else. We’re having trouble as homeowners finding the
data. I’ve been to the library, I’ve been to Ada Planning. This is not easy to find.
At least not for homeowners. My husband tried to find a sound meter so we
could go behind and actually do this ourselves. We can’t even rent one. At least
not to our knowledge, so for us—at least for me, I think that the statement about
the trees being by themselves as being little noise control. I think for us
residents, that is…
Borup: Do you know what type of project that was referring to, the one in
Minnesota?
Rogers: No, I would have to go back and look at it.
Borup: You’re not sure if it’s a freeway or a shopping center?
Rogers: When I read it, it was very general. Finding data on big shopping
center is also something I had a very difficult time finding specifics for. If the
commission has any idea where to find it, I will gladly go and look for it. I will
gladly go and look for it.
Borup: I don’t know any. That’s what we are trying to find also. Did the
Minnesota other than saying that trees as the only did not work, did they have
any other specific recommendations? Or, was that deduced?
Rogers: They stated that, they suggested as a use of a barrier that walls, berms,
or other structures intended to provide excess (Inaudible) by blocking noise from
the source. That’s what I have.
Borup: Something to get some height off the ground other than just the trees.
Thank you.
Rogers: Can I say one more quick thing. One of the other, some of the other
residents have said that in addition to concerns about dust abatement and those
things, they are also concerned about outside speakers, through truck traffic
through the subdivision, the sweeping, mowing, and delivery times, and the light
shining in our yards, just to have that on there as additional concerns that I
maybe didn’t address with my statements earlier.
Borup: I think all of those have been mentioned.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 63
Rogers: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: Before you leave there, I’m looking for a source. I’ve done a lot of
design work in California and they are very concerned about the (Inaudible) we
are all concerned about and there are some very heavy documents that have
been turned out by experts in the State of California. So if you want to find a
source through the net to get the data from California.
Rogers: Do you have any specific place that I can look.
MacCoy: Not off the top of my head right now, but there’s (Inaudible) I was
there at the time, but I do know that there is documents that are written in the
library.
Rogers: I’ve been to the library.
MacCoy: Well, I mean in California. (Inaudible) got here.
Rogers: If I can find it here, I will find it, I will try and bring it here. If I don’t know
where to look, I can’t.
MacCoy: You might want to try BSU if you can, they have a total U. S. Library
and they can get material for you.
Roger: Okay, thank you. Any other questions?
MacCoy: I don’t think so. Mr. Durkin?
Durkin: Can I make a comment?
Nelson: Before you do, let me let you comment about my next comment, while
you are at it. One thing we are concerned about is compliance issues and one of
the anecdotal commentary tonight, even quoting the web as a source of
information, that’s find, it’s a good source, but most web data needs to be
verified, so my concern is about, it may be even for your benefit, that once your
development is up, you may have by then, she finds the noise meter after your
development is ready. So in our minds as a commission, we need, the number
one issue is the buffering with the neighborhood. I think for all peoples benefit, it
needs to be in quantifiable measurable level such that, if you meet the
requirements we impose that you can prove it, so that you don’t have to
continually defend it. I think it does you good, and them good. I’m afraid that we
as a commission may impose upon you a 60 foot wide buffer with a 20 foot wall
made of granite or whatever it becomes. That you invest hundred of thousands
of dollars more than are required to get the effect that these people are looking
for. Like you said before, the potential that we petition later to have that
removed. It might not be the benefit of the homeowner that we overbuild that
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 64
buffer either and give them something to deal with for the next century. So what I
am really leaning towards is getting information from a qualified sound engineer
and putting them into quantifiable numbers that we can put into a conditional use
permit and pass that on and get that approved and get away from the anecdotal.
I’m very comfortable with ACHD imposing requirements and that you’ll meet
them. By the same token, I’m very uncomfortable with passing it on and
allowing—making sure that City Council catches some of that internal traffic
issues that ACHD might have. So now, you can have your way with me.
Borup: Maybe just to add on to Mr. Nelsons comment, I’m assume that you are
talking about specifics, would that include decibel levels then?
Nelson: Yes, I mean put it in terms that—levels that are recommended by
people in the industry so that you can design to it and that we can verify it and
that there is no gray area after you’re done. That’s what I want.
Durkin: I feel real bold asking this, but would it be appropriate for me to ask for
about a five minute break so that I can recess with Tom Bauwens who is an
engineer with my office. I think I can come up—I have an idea that I just want to
step out with him and talk about it for a minute. I think we can come up with an
idea that is a solution that is a win-win for the neighbors and you and how we
can get to that point on the berm. I don’t have the answer tonight, but I have a
suggestion on how we can get an answer, it struck me this evening.
MacCoy: It’s eleven o’clock already, I’ll give you what do you want? Five
minutes?
Durkin: Four or five minutes.
MacCoy: You can go out…
Borup: Mr. Chairman, can we, I guess I would be in favor of doing a delay so
that we can move on, then while during those five minutes can we perhaps go
over the other four items so we don’t need to do that later on.
MacCoy: Well, it won’t take him very long and I’ve got something to say anyway
so.
Durkin: I just, I’ll I want—I’m specific to the berm answer, that’s all I’m going to
talk about. I just need to dig/hit a resource out of his brain here.
Borup: Can we momentarily table this then, is that what we need to do?
MacCoy: I’m going to make some comment about this right now, so we’re doing
the same thing.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 65
Nelson: Is that appropriate while they are gone?
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, why don’t we take a break, the applicant isn’t even in
the room.
MacCoy: Alright, we might as well do this.
Borup: So we can’t table this and get 9, 10,11,12, and 13 out of the way?
MacCoy: Take a break, he’s going to be gone four minutes, I all you’re going to
get out of it. I think once you start anything like this, you’re going to end up
having him sit too.
Borup: I thought most of these were going to be open and closed because it’s…
MacCoy: Well, it may be, but you know how this is going this evening, I thought
we’d be out by ten o’clock. That was my hope anyway. I’m afraid that we’ve had
a hard time of it too.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, are we going to take a break too then?
MacCoy: Five minutes break is all we are going to take to get out of here and
we’ll get back in and see how we can do this.
Durkin: You know, the project that we’re dealing with tonight is the staff report
with I haven’t even counted, but there is 30 or more suggestions and provisions
in the staff report, I think we’ve worked through a lot of those, and from what I
can see tonight, having been through this a fair number of time, and even in this
city several times. We are basically down to two major issues. We’re down to
ACHD report and we are down to what and in whose opinion is a satisfactory
berm and buffer area between the two properties. I would like to make a
suggestion. I know that last meeting when we were here, Commissioner Smith
and Commissioner Borup recommended that I go back and take a look and find
out how big the trees grow in five years, go back and take a look and see if there
is anything else we could possibly do to quite down the area behind the grocery
store and try our best to have the ACHD answers. For the record, we’ve
submitted a drawing tonight that shows what the trees do in two to five years or
two to seven, whatever we submitted, that was a request. We submitted a
suggestion for the area behind the grocery store, that was a suggestion, that’s
our response to that. I’m going to submit this to Will, to the City Clerk for the
records in the list of our efforts to get the ACHD and we are not there with them
not yet. I would like, if it’s at all possible tonight, because it will save a lot of our
project if we can at least come to an agreement on significant components of the
project and have us, we will agree to retain the services of this Portland base
company. They are the company that assisted in writing the noise ordinance for
the City of Boise. I don’t know if you are familiar with, I don’t know the details,
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 66
but there are decibels written down and what you can do, what you can’t do,
what’s going to make this noise, what’s going to make that noise, what a truck
does, a motorcycle does and a stereo. That’s in the Boise Ordinance now. We
will retain the services of that company and we will make every effort to get them
over here to meet with us and Mrs. Rogers, is it and everybody else. There is
not a lot of time, so I can’t have three months worth of meetings, we’ll set a time
if it works for me, if it works for the person from the company and it works for
Mrs. Rogers. Anyone else is available and wants to come, they’ll come. That
person will do a study and will do a report and we’ll submit it. That’s the best that
I can do and as long as there is some kind of agreement that you’ll live with that.
I won’t influence them, Mrs. Rogers will be there, but it wouldn’t be any less than
what we are proposing now. If he is making a recommendation that we have to
do more to comply with the decibels that are in the Boise Ordinance, they would
know the answers to the science that I don’t know. They would do a report that
is a stamped, signed, and sealed report that will stand up in the court. It’s like an
appraisal a survey or a traffic study. It’s the best information that a scientist can
get at that time. That’s the only one company that I know that has that capability.
There may be more, but if you’ll agree to accept this company, assuming that
they have the credentials, I don’t know if Shari or Bruce are familiar with them, I’ll
hire them and get them over here and meet with at least one of the homeowners
representatives and us and I’ll have the report in a month. I’m asking you tonight
to give me the go ahead on significant other portions of it subject to in a month I
know then I have to bring in the report on the berm and the quietness nature
and we have to have a satisfactory report from ACHD. I have no doubt that we’ll
get what we need. We’ll be able to deliver to you what we need from ACHD. I
have every confidence that that won’t be a hurdle, I do think that there will be
hurdle and some discussion relating to the berm and the wall, but I’ll put—we’ll
put our faith and our competence in the expert and I commit to you that our input,
our correspondence with them, all of it both ways will copy Mrs. Rogers, and
she’ll be—if she is available, if she would come to the meeting, we’ll have it on
this side of town so she will be as fully informed. So in a month, she’ll have an
ACHD answer and a berm answer. In the mean time, we go forward on
everything else.
MacCoy: Very good offer, let me check, commissioners comments?
De Weerd: Did Shari want to have…
MacCoy: Yes she wants to, but I want to get commissioners, he made a
presentation right now, is there any comments, or do you want to hold it till after
Shari speaks.
Nelson: I’ll comment that I think that’s appropriate and I would like those
retained services to review your proposal and also the proposals that have come
from the homeowners and hopefully they can help educate both the homeowner
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 67
and us. Then we can weigh the differences between what you’ve offered and
what they have suggested. I think that’s appropriate.
MacCoy: Commissioners De Weerd, do you have any comments?
De Weerd: Not till I hear what Shari has to say.
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup, anything from what has been presented?
Borup: No, I was still thinking about commissioner Nelsons remarks and I’m not
sure what he said is what Mr. Durkin had offered.
Nelson: I mentioned that because I wanted to specifically have the consultant
review both his proposal and those offered by the homeowners, because he, I
think there is a good chance that he might tell them what you have and that
could be detrimental, that way it might quill some concerns.
Durkin: Commissioner, there has got to be a day when you step out and there
has got to be some trust, I’m telling you that the correspondence that I have with
them both ways will be copy one representative of the homeowners association.
When we have a meeting, she will be there, if she can’t be there, she can send
someone else, she can bring whoever she wants. We’ll have the meeting on this
side of town so it’s convenient for her.
Nelson: I’m comfortable with that.
Rossman: Mr. Durkin, just so Commissioner Nelson is clear on what you are
proposing, what you are proposing is that conditional approval be provided by
the commissioners tonight with the condition that you retain the services of this
company from Portland Oregon to do this study and provide recommendations
and that you will comply with those recommendations but you are asking for
approval today. You are not proposing that you will hire this company and that
we’ll come back in a month and see their reports before the commission makes a
determination.
Durkin: I could make a motion, but I would get into trouble if I did. There are a
number of other points that I’m on the record from the last couple of meetings
that I wanted to modified. My offer relating to the two items that we just talked
about, I will be as clear as I can. We are asking for the go ahead from you, keep
in mind, that go ahead requires us to go to ACHD for more public hearings, they
can defer and take time which they have already, they can continue to do that if
they feel it is necessary. It requires us then to go to the council. We will have
another meeting in another month. There is only two things that we’ll talk about,
we will talk about the ACHD report which will be public at that time, and we will
talk about that report that I’ll have submitted to me from an engineering company
that I want to protect myself, it’s Portland area, it might be Beaverton, it’s a
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 68
Portland area company, the only one that I’m aware of, and they do noise and
screening studies and reports and they tell you what the noise will be and where
it’ll be. I would imagine that company would look at what we have submitted and
tell me, you, and the neighbors what the noise impact will be on every ten feet,
twenty feet at different times of day. They will then look at what the neighbors
have drawn and then give the report on that. So there is obviously going to be
some variances. They may give a report that says both of these are bad ideas
and you should do this. I’m willing to put the project to that recommendation of
that decision in the hands of a company—the only one that I know of that does
it—so I’m asking for approval on the vast majority of this tonight subject to you
review the ACHD subject to you coming up with a satisfactory berm noise
protection plan between this project and a residential area. As long as we are in
agreement that I can use that company.
Rossman: From the legal standpoint, I’m not sure that the commission can
provide you a partial approval sir. If you want to continue the hearing, we can
continue the hearing, but we can’t make any commitments as to any issues until
we are ready to decide on the entire application.
Durkin: I think counsel that you can do a partial approval, you can do a full
approval with further review of two areas.
Rossman: Do you have any legal authority (Inaudible)?
Durkin: No, I don’t. I’ve actually seen it done a fair number of times. That’s my
legal experience. I’ve seen it done many times.
Nelson: I’m ready to move on with my life. I would be comfortable with sending
this to City Council with those two conditions.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question for Mr. Durkin, I’m leaning that way
too. The two proposals that we look at, or more than two, how does that effect
your project in design if the buffering distance needed to change?
Durkin: It could, but it isn’t going to effect the storm sewer flows, (Inaudible). It
allows me to go forward on the critical things that I have to do right now.
Borup: Okay, that’s what I was wondering. If the noise engineer said, you need
30 feet…
Durkin: 50 feet or four feet would be adequate, those things aren’t going to
effect what we need to go forward on.
Borup: That answers my question on that. The other thing, just to let you know
that I would be concerned about also is the internal circulation, which has
already been stated, ACHD doesn’t really have any authority there. We kind of
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 69
got a way from that issue and on to the buffering, but the cut through traffic was a
concern, I can’t see that many people doing it, but if there was some different
internal traffic control in there, that would definitely alleviate that. I’m inclined
that it would probably be included in there somewhere again in a subsequent
review or something, again I don’t think that will impede your initial go ahead with
your design. That’s all.
MacCoy: Shari?
Stiles: Chairman MacCoy, Commissioners, I don’t know what they are talking
about could be accomplished in the next two weeks, Will has indicated that the
only times that you have available is the 24th
and the 25th
, which is a Thursday
and Friday.
MacCoy: Mr. Durkin is talking about the October 13th
, he said a month, so that
would be our next meeting…
Stiles: If you wait till your next meeting how can you order findings tonight
without having that information? You have to order findings, it’s going to take
another month. If you would have the special meeting, continue the public
hearing to accept that information so it can be included in the findings, then
instruct the attorney to have those findings prepared for the October 13th
meeting. They will still go to City Council on October 20th
just as they would if
you would order findings tonight, they are not loosing any time at all. I just don’t
know if that’s possible and they are able to get that sound guy out here within
the next two weeks or…
MacCoy: Mr. Durkin?
Durkin: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea because I’ve never done it, but I would be
shocked. It takes six weeks to get an environmental assessment and a long
time, I would just be shocked. I would be concerned of the accuracy of the
report in that short of time.
MacCoy: We had discussed before the break about having a special meeting for
you with the same month which would help in your behalf. We also realize that
trying to get the facts together and trying to get your facts together, it’s maybe
difficult. The only date we have open is the 23rd
and 24th
. The 24th
seemed to be
blocked in. The next thing is the October 13th
which is our own meeting a month
away.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, a question for Shari, is there concern in your mind on
conditional approval. Approving the project with—conditional approval on the
buffering on the ACHD study and then I would probably add the internal…
(END OF TAPE)
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 70
Borup: I mean concern about monitoring it properly and I realize then the other
findings would go on to City Council I guess stipulating those same things. That
would be worked out later then back to us again.
Stiles: I guess the wording would have to be very specific to meet the
requirements of Ada County Highway District and also that the buffering not be
less than what has already been proposed by the applicant. If Mr. Durkin is
willing to agree to some kind of condition it’s—the buffer has to meet the
requirements of the sound engineer plus be approved in writing by something by
the homeowners association. I guess that I really don’t feel comfortable in
accepting information after you have closed a public hearing and trying to
incorporate that into findings. Maybe our whiz attorney can have a way to do
that.
Rossman: I don’t know if whiz attorney is an accurate description, but I think
there is a distinct difference, I think there is real miscommunication here and
there is a distinct difference between conditional approval which is an approval
today of the application on the conditions as stated by the commission to include
the two issues that all recommendations, requirements of ACHD be complied
with and all recommendation requirements of the sound engineering outfit be
complied with. That’s a conditional approval, but there is also a difference about
what has also been talked about today with providing partial approval today on
all issues except the two, the ACHD and the sound issue and continuing the
public hearing to another date for only those two issues. There is a complete
difference between those two proposals. If you want to continue the hearing you
continue the hearing on the entire application, from a legal standpoint. If you
want to grant conditional approval today, then you grant conditional approval
today on those terms. The way I see it from a legal standpoint, those are your
two options, or a denial.
De Weerd: If they order findings, they would have to close the public hearing
and the public would not be able to comment on the studies that we will be
hearing next month, right?
Rossman: That’s right, if you grant conditional approval you’re putting your full
faith and trust in the fact that this engineering report will be accurately prepared
and that everybody will be satisfied with it and that it will actually resolve the
issues that have been raised today. That is entirely up to you, that’s certainly not
something that would be out of the ordinary or something that you could not do.
You certainly can grant conditional approval on those terms.
Durkin: I think the point is the buffering would not be less than is presently
proposed. I will go on record that I’m agreeable to expanding it, extending it. If it
accomplishes something, I’m agreeable to that. The final outcome will meet or
exceed the requirements in the Boise City Noise Ordinance. So I don’t know if
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 71
those are the two correct words, meet or exceed when talking about noise, but
my idea is that it would be quieter than what is required by the City of Boise.
I’m—it’s tricky, I don’t know how…
De Weerd: Well, essentially what we are doing if you guys go ahead and do this,
because I’m just one vote, is that the homeowners will not have a chance to
respond outside of Mrs. Rogers having her part in the study.
Durkin: Well, it’s just an idea.
De Weerd: I’m still open to a special meeting.
Durkin: I am also, I would make every effort to accomplish this in that amount of
time. I’ve never retained these people, I’ve never retained anyone like them
anywhere in the United States, they might be the only one in the world. They
might be all over doing this, I have no idea, so I don’t know if I can call them up
and get them over here on Friday or what, I have no idea what to expect.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, in my mind a special meeting would answer the ACHD
questions and realistically probably not the noise engineering issue. Mr. Durkin
on the internal traffic flow within the development, is that something you’ve had
your engineers look at, at all?
Durkin: Commissioner Borup, frankly, I wasn’t aware of that concern till this
evening, aside from the landscaping parts in there.
Borup: Well it was in the ACHD draft report.
Durkin: Right, I’m aware of it that way. I thought we had responded to that.
Okay. We think we are making ACHD happy. He’s going to have fun with this
tape at the hearing, I’m not aware of a problem with it, we have an engineering
company.
Borup: Essentially I think it’s what Boise Town Square has.
Durkin: What’s that?
Borup: An internal roadway, but it’s a different configuration than the building.
Durkin: It’s completely different. I wasn’t ready to respond to that, I thought that
was a resolved issue with ACHD and our traffic engineer and my associate Tom
Bauwens, I just wasn’t aware until right now that was still outstanding. Is there
any solution? Our traffic engineer is doing an analysis and I don’t know…
Borup: I think I’d asked that earlier if that was something we could review in the
design review aspect.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 72
Durkin: Can you do the berm in the design review aspect?
Borup: No, I’m talking about that internal traffic study. I guess it depends on
what areas we have design review over. Just the buildings, or does the parking
lot? Whatever we decide, okay.
MacCoy: Commissioners, are you ready to make a decision here?
Rossman: I think there is another witness.
MacCoy: Alright, Mr. Durkin, if you have no more to say to us, the
commissioners have agreed what you’ve got right now. We’ve still got the open
hearing.
Nelson: I have one quick question, believe it or not, it’s unrelated to the last two.
If you could just, I just thought of this tonight and what provisions do we have for
like a throughout the site some kind of continuity of design?
Durkin: We have an architectural design that we’ve submitted for the Shopko
store, that design, those materials and those colors will go throughout the whole
main building of the project, then on each of the individual buildings we’ll go
through this process on each, on a building by building, on a small, what we call
a pad site uses, along here. So we will submitting those each individually, but all
these buildings will have the same exterior materials and colors as the
architectural drawings that we submitted on the Shopko store.
MacCoy: Anything you want to say? Okay, thank you. Still an open public, and
we have somebody in the back here that would like to speak.
BROOKE BARZEE, 3670 E. FLORENCE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Barzee: One thing that I think hasn’t been raised and this is something that I just
realized is my home is—there is the big warehouse store and then there is
parking in between there and the stores next to it. That goes clear up to our
back yard. They were stating that there wouldn’t be any activity besides delivery
trucks and I think there will be more than that there. I don’t know that that’s been
addressed. Do you know where I’m talking about? I did see a picture of the
berm that he was proposing, which a berm is better than being flat, but I think it
would need to be around—if you are going to do it where the grocery store is,
we’re just as close. I think it needs to be a benefit for all adjacent property
owners, mostly because my husband works from three to two in the morning,
he’s in bed asleep, he needs that additional buffering also. We’ve discussed the
effect of the traffic on the subdivision, even though this is going to be a benefit to
Meridian, it’s going to effect the entire city, it’s an artery clear to Eagle, if not
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 73
farther, I’m sure that’s being address. Just tonight, it seems like everyone is
concerned about that area, I think it’s used for more than that subdivision and
shopping center. The only other thing I wanted to mention was that you’re
saying we are worried about the buffering and screening. I think we’ve brought
up more concerns than that, that need to be considered before approval. I would
want to know what your thoughts are on that, I know that you are concerned
about it, rather than the buffering and the traffic only. We’ve had a whole list but
not been able to concentrate on those. I can’t list them all, but I know there are
more. That’s it. Any questions?
MacCoy: Is there anybody else before we close the public hearing?
MARTY HALE, 3515 E. CONGRESSIONAL, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Hale: I was here the last meeting and this meeting and I am a little bit concerned
about a couple of issues. I know that we’ve discussed this already a little bit, I’ve
tried to live my life doing things for other people, that I would like have done for
me. I can not envision myself living in the Crossroad Subdivision without a better
barrier than a six foot wooden fence and some trees built up on a five or six foot
berm, whatever. I think we’ve got to have a little bit more than that. Mr. Durkin
did bring up the Portland Company and he said he would pay for that. I applaud
that wholeheartedly, but I would like to have him a little bit more removed from it,
then just paying for it. I think that if Mrs. Rogers were willing, I think if she were
to contract the company herself and he could pay them through her, I would feel
more comfortable as a homeowner with that. Remove him a little bit away from it
or contacting Portland company, I know that anybody that’s in business knows
somebody else that is in the same business. So there has to be some other
companies. I just want—it’s not like I’m not trusting, I just want to be as
comfortable with this as possible. I do want to have public hearings after that
has been made. I think that’s rather important. Please do that. My other
concern is the traffic, I know that we’ve discussed this, but for once in my life as
a citizen of not only this nation, but of this community I would like to see some
traffic concerns addressed before the development happened. I’m sick and tired
of having the development happen first and then watching ACHD try and catch
up to us. I understand that Mr. Durkin wants to move this thing forward quickly,
but my experience and I know that everybody else has found this to be the case,
haste does make waste. I do think we need to tread this very carefully. Again, I
refer back to the traffic, I would like to see some of those traffic concerns
addressed well ahead of the construction even beginning. I think that makes
sense, I have been in other states where they have always had, I remember
looking at maps of cities with city streets on it that didn’t even exist yet, for two
years. In all the construction of the city streets were well ahead of the actual
development, that makes a whole lot of sense to me. For one time in my life, I
would like to see Idaho do the same thing. I’m finished.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 74
MacCoy: Thank you, I’ll answer your questions in a moment here. Is there any?
The hour is getting late here, I hate to tell you but we were going to break at 11
o’clock and it’s almost midnight now and we still have more to go tonight.
Durrant: My only thing is I just would like to remind the commission as a
homeowner, I would like you guys wait and see the ACHD report and possible
insist that they do use a recent traffic study done within the last completion of the
Eagle Road project, I think that would have a big impact on the size of this
project that would be able to accommodate the traffic flow. I never even heard
anybody talk about it, I didn’t even know if it was a possibility of shrinking the size
of the project by a certain percentage to accommodate traffic. I just wanted to
put that out.
MacCoy: Mr. Durkin do you want to get back up here again?
Durkin: No, I think I’ll wait till someone else get up. Otherwise in the interest of
time, I know everyone is tired.
DAVE BARNES, WAS SWORN BY ATTORNEY.
Barnes: I think my only comment is I think everyone is thinking on a what is the
minimum that we have to have to get by with and I live in that subdivision and I
don’t want the minimums, I‘ve got to live there. If the minimum is here, why don’t
we once raise the level and start shooting for something that is way above the
minimums. If the berm is required for a ten foot, lets push it out and make it
nicer. I think everyone is always shooting for the minimums, well, lets just get by.
If it’s this big of a project and it could benefit the city as big as it’s going to let it,
let’s make it the best thing there for both people, for the city, for Mr. Durkin and
us too.
De Weerd: I just have a comment and I’ve been trying not to say this at all, but I
finally have got to that point. If you go and look at shopping centers that we have
in this local area, you will not see anything behind them, we’re not going for the
minimum here, this developer is not even agreeing to just the minimum. They
are going above and beyond what you see in this area, anywhere. So we will not
on your behalf accept the minimum. I think that’s already apparent. I think I’ve
visited every shopping center in this area and you would be appalled to see what
is abutting their property line. Generally it’s weeds or it’s houses. I think this
developer is being very fair in trying to work this out and we are trying to be as
fair as we can to make sure that your concerns are met and that you are going to
get the best buffering that you can. There, I get off my soap box, but we are not
going for the minimum, and I don’t think this developer is going for the minimum.
So, I’m sorry I tried not to say that this whole time.
MacCoy: Very good.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 75
Brown: Commissioner De Weerd, I just wanted to let you know as far as the
minimum, I think one of our concerns was that I spoke to Shari on staff after the
last meeting and I remember her saying that the original proposal, I mean this
must have been way back. The original proposal by Mr. Durkin was a ten foot
buffer even after Shari had told him that the minimum that they would accept was
20. So what I understand from Shari is that the minimum was 20, which is what
he is proposing. He said he has increased it from 10 to 20, but from what I
understood from Shari was that she had told him originally at the beginning the
minimum was 20. I just wanted to clarify that. That’s what I’ve been told and I
think that was our understanding as far as the minimum for the buffer. Thank
you.
MacCoy: Is there anyone else at this point?
De Weerd: I just have a response that was just a recommendation, that does not
mean that is the minimum under our ordinance, that was a recommendation.
Jaynes: I know you mentioned earlier something about property values and I’m
waiting to hear whatever you had to say.
MacCoy: I’ve been waiting my turn too.
Jaynes: I have noticed that in the subdivision, we have a bunch of rentals now
and we never used to have rentals before. That is a real concern to me because
if people can’t sell their houses now, people are certainly not going to be able to
see them after this goes in. That is a real concern. That really effects property
values. In fact, I have a rental right across the street from me right now. So, I
just wanted to let you know that it’s already effecting people and their ability to
sell their houses in the subdivision, because it’s never happened before, I’ve
never seen a rental in there before.
MacCoy: I’m afraid to ask the question. Is there anyone else in this group here
that would like to have the last two bits in this point before we move on? Before I
give it to the commissioners, I’m assuming that we are at a point now that every
body at least had their say. I would like to open your minds a little bit because,
Commissioner Borup and I have served on a couple of other commissions as
volunteers which very much impact your area and our area and this city and this
county. We both served on traffic commissions and areas that relate to traffic
commissions. Mr. Durkin this evening made one small comment which went on
through everybody, I’m sure. It was to do with the fact that he is putting up
buildings in this area and you may be glad they are there. The comment made
recently about planning ahead. Ada County and Canyon County are working
together and planning ahead. We’ve been at this for months. I want to share
with you something that has just come to light this summer and we have not put
it into print yet, I’ve already asked Mr. Sale this evening can I comment on that. I
think it may make some difference to you or at least open your minds to
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 76
something in the future. Ada County, Canyon County, ACHD all the people that
are involved in this thing have already looked at Eagle, Eagle just got expanded
on the way down toward Eagle itself, the City of Eagle and now they’ve decided
that they are going to expand it again and also Fairview is looking at that. The
intersection of Eagle and Fairview has been declared this past summer as the
busiest intersection and will continue to be in the state of Idaho, even to the point
that we are faced with now, even though we’ve got a shopping center going in
this corner. All four corners are being looked at nationally. This is the—if you
were to read the communications that we have seen recently. The Consumers
Report, Newsweek, Time Magazine has placed Meridian as number one and two
in the nation for growth. We are receiving countless comments and letters,
commentaries of what can they buy into, where can they go with this. This area,
this intersection is now programmed as one of the busiest there is going to be in
the nation. ACHD has already looked at and got on the drawing board, over
under this intersection, which means they are going to elevate some highway in
this area. If it wasn’t for this building going in here, you would have traffic noise,
you couldn’t believe. It would be elevated above your house. This is going to be
a good buffer in itself to where you live right now. We talked about real estate.
I’ve talked to some very influential people who are in real estate, who own real
estate corporations not just the company locally. They say, within five years,
you’re sitting on a gold mine because you are going to be right next to where the
action is. People who want to be able to walk to a place that they can buy goods
and so on will want to buy your home. You’re going to experience for the first
couple of years, the dip then after that, you could put a sign up in your place and
it will be sold very quickly at a price you want to save for it. It’s going to meet a
lot of criteria for the people who are retired, people who want to be in close
because of other reasons. They can get to the shopping center and ones around
this area by foot, by bicycle, so on. The land right across Fairview just north of
this property is being looked to as an expansion and along with that, we are
already looking at a fly over, pedestrian wise in these two—connecting these two
areas. The reason they picked that direction and not Eagle because Eagle is so
large to crossover, but Fairview is not. So look to the possibilities of the future. It
may look glim, glum, sad to you right now, but the future looks bright if you talk to
people who develop, people who do real estate, people who are wanting to be in
this area. You are in a Mecca area, maybe what you bought into at the time
didn’t look too good, but it may look real well five years down the road. So the
main point is if you like where you live, and I think you do have a real nice area, it
was put together by a developer who listed that thing and did the work for a
quality area. So it’s not something that you are living in which is a slum area at
all, you are living in very good area and it will be profitable to you later on. I’m
not going to take any more time because it’s getting to be twelve o’clock and
we’ve have got to move on. Commissioners, what do we have in mind?
Rossman: I think you should close the public hearing first.
MacCoy: I’m going to find out if this is what they want to do.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 77
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing to the special
meeting September 24th
at which time, we can review the ACHD report and
perhaps get some additional direction on the noise study.
MacCoy: Do I hear a second on that?
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: Any discussion?
Nelson: I guess I’m comfortable with the special meeting, I just hope we don’t
bring people in to a special meeting and have to re-meet again on the 13th
of
October. Do we gain enough…
Borup: My intention would be hopefully we have enough information at that time
to move to have findings prepared.
Nelson: Okay, I’m in.
MacCoy: Anymore discussions? Would you amend that and put a time in there
so we can meet at a described date and time so everybody knows.
Borup: I’m open, in the past, sometimes special meetings we’ve had a half hour
early.
MacCoy: That’s correct, do you want to do that?
Borup: Would that be appropriate, 6:30? I would like to add that to my motion,
meeting time 6:30.
Nelson: I’ll comment that I will be out of town that week so we need to make
sure we have a quorum. Pending Mr. Smith showing up.
Borup: Three is a quorum.
MacCoy: Three is a quorum, we can do it that way, we can cover.
Borup: If you want to cop out like that.
De Weerd: Most specifically, will be to address ACHD and the buffer issues. Of
course, we don’t want to forget my 35 foot wide landscape and looking at
breaking up the parking.
Rossman: I need a second on the motion.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 78
Borup: Second on my amended motion.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MacCoy: We’ll see you back here on the 24th
.
ITEM 10: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLAT FOR PROPOSED FIRST MERIDIAN PLAZA BY WILD
SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP – SOUTH OF GEM AVENUE BETWEEN
MERIDIAN ROAD AND E. 1ST
.
MacCoy: Is the applicant here to make any statements since we have a
continued public hearing?
Berg: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, we contacted the applicant
and he informed us that he wasn’t ready for the meeting tonight and wanted to
postpone until October. We talked with Brian Iverson, he was supposedly faxing
a note explaining this.
De Weerd: On item number 10?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue the public hearing item #10 to
October 13th
.
De Weerd: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO. 11: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED WHITESTONE ESTATES NO. 3
SUBDIVISION BY WHITESTONE PARTNERSHIP –WEST OF LINDER AND
SOUTH OF FRANKLIN:
KEITH JACOBS, WAS SWORN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Jacobs: As you remember from last time, I sent a letter requesting this hearing
be continued to this date. At that time, ACHD had made a request that we
weren’t prepared to deal with at that time. On September 2nd
we met with two
ACHD’s representatives, Meridian P & Z representative, my client and a
representative from the school district. ACHD had requested that the turn
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 79
around or the way we had designed the street intersection at the south west
corner of the subdivision would be changed to reflect how we designed them.
The other intersection at the south east corner. So at that meeting, we worked
out the details of that particular intersection and the plat you have reflects that.
The utilities that we intend to have the public utilities within the public street.
Move that manhole that is outside of that public right-of-way and that corner and
put that within the street five feet off of the lip of gutter and also move the fire
hydrant and put the fire hydrant where it should be and trunk it in the public
utilities within the public street. There would be two services that we would
extend through that 25 foot, which is emergency access, which will be paved to
the school property to the south, where we can extend water through there and a
sewer connection for the school property, then the two lots that are there 11 and
12 we will have to adjust the utilities to serve those lots. One of the lots is a
platted lot, which my client has retained the ownership on and we will include that
in this plat to accommodate this change. To accomplish this, we’ve had to
reduce the frontage on the two lots 11 and 12, to 30 feet from 40 feet, to provide
that 25 foot wide access to the school property, we’ve had to make that
reduction, so we are requesting that consideration. The school will own that 25
foot of access, emergency access. We will need to have the school district, the
Ada County Highway District, and my client to sign on this plat as owners of the
property. There is some ACHD right-of-way which will be exchanged during the
process of this plat and since they are owners of part of that property, they will
need to sign the plat so we can get it recorded. Do you have any other
questions?
MacCoy: Commissioner Borup?
Borup: This is strictly emergency access from the school. They are going to
have a break way post in there.
Jacobs: That is my understanding, yes. The school district does not desire a
public access to that property other than pedestrian access.
Borup: Any comments on the ACHD report about the design of the—I believe
they said they wanted a hammerhead, or a knuckle.
Jacobs: A knuckle similar to what we had proposed on the southeast corner of
this project. So we’ve replicated that on the southwest corner. They have not
formally approved this. Larry Sale was here tonight, I appreciate his efforts to try
and stay long enough to assist me in this application, he has indicated that the
highway district does not have a problem with this proposal.
Borup: It’s clear now, I tried to differentiate between the knuckle and the snoopy.
The snoopy was a new term.
Jacobs: The snoopy is out. Yes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 80
Borup: That’s all I had, thank you.
MacCoy: Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: No.
MacCoy: Commissioner Nelson?
Nelson: I have no comments.
MacCoy: Well, we’ve got a open public hearing…
Jacobs: Well just one more, if I may I’d like to point out. My client has made
request to the Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District to tile the (Inaudible) lateral. It
is my understanding that they will do that this fall (Inaudible).
MacCoy: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any comments from staff?
MacCoy: I’m going to ask that right now.
De Weerd: Okay, thank you.
MacCoy: Is there anything from the public and I don’t see any of the public out
here that is interested. Staff, do you have any comments?
Freckleton: Staff, members of the commission. I just want to make one little
point of clarification, on the utilities that would be extended down that common
lot, it’s my intention to extend the public main down that common lot and
eventually loop that public main through the school site and back out to Waltman.
So that I can complete the loop. I’ve got a ten inch main off of Linder Road, that
I want to loop all the way out. So that would be a mainline, not just a service
line. The only other thing that I was thinking of as far as preliminary engineering
on getting sewer service to the school site, can you do that with a service line
Keith, or can you—or do you run out of grade? Does it need to be a main line?
Jacobs: I’m not sure whether that needs to be a mainline, the school is in the
process of designing that particular property for an elementary school. I don’t
know what their design is. If we can extend just a six and serve the property, that
would be what our intent would be, however, I would coordinate that with them to
provide whatever they need, obviously. That’s the only way they can get service
without a lift station and that’s not a desirable option, so we would make that and
present that information to public works at that time. I’m sure the school would
not have a problem with looping that water through their property. I can’t speak
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 81
for them on that behalf, but I would think that would be reasonable thing at least
for fire protection if nothing else to have a back fed Linder, on the south side.
Freckleton: Thank you.
MacCoy: Any of the commissioners have any comments to make at this time?
Officially I will close the public hearing. Commissioners what is your desires?
De Weerd: I would move that we instruct the…
(Inaudible)
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the preliminary plat.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: Any comments? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
ITEM NO.12: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE, UPSTAIRS APARTMENT AND POSSIBLY
RETAIL USE BY JOSEPH A. JOHNSON – 46 E. PINE:
MacCoy: Would the applicant please come forward.
JOSEPH A. JOHNSON, 4375 ROSEHILL COURT, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN
BY THE ATTORNEY.
MacCoy: Good morning to you, do you want to tell us anything at this point, or
do you want to wait for questions?
Johnson: I’m overcome, I’ll wait for questions.
MacCoy: Commissioners, do you have any questions for Mr. Johnson?
De Weerd: I just thought we were waiting to see an alternative plan for the
parking, in case ACHD didn’t reconsider his request.
Johnson: Across the back, we have an 80 foot lot. We allotted for the parking—
for the planter five feet on the west side and I think it’s four—is that correct, four
feet (Inaudible). Is it four or five feet? Four feet, that parking area is 32 feet
deep off of the alley and it is 32 feet wide. There is 5.9 feet on the east side of
the garage. Now, in my application, it showed work storage that is a functioning
two car garage and consequently with the area we have at present and with a
two car garage, we meet six. We are not looking at heavy duty parking, we’re
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 82
talking about a bridal boutique and upstairs residents. The upstairs residents will
use the garage and it is the same people that have the downstairs. Any other
questions?
MacCoy: Did you receive anything from ACHD on this? Where do we stand with
that piece?
Johnson: I received eight items specified, but approved through ACHD. I have
submitted a counter to ACHD’s request and talked to Mr. Sale tonight. I have not
had any response. I have a hearing on the 23rd
, their request for me to pave 200
feet of the alley, just to get to the (Inaudible) parking area and to redo the curb
and the curb is already asphalt. I feel as it’s not really responsible because I
think it’ll cause puddling and eventual in the winter time ice that would be in the
front parking. I’m still hoping to get the front curb cut, I am flexible on (Inaudible)
a 19 or a 12, I can’t speak on your behalf, I have submitted it. I understand that
there is a letter that was to be sent to ACHD in recommendation of the curb cut.
Having the—I think the handicap parking in front has a little more dignity to it
then making them go to the alley to drive in.
MacCoy: But you haven’t heard anything back from them? Mr. Sale didn’t tell
you anything tonight?
Johnson: My conversation with him was I would like to go ahead and get
approval tonight and the commissioners, pardon me. The conversations is open
with ACHD, we can be flexible, we can comply with adequate parking.
Everything that you all have something to do with, I think we can comply with.
The only variances that we have, are with ACHD.
MacCoy: Shari, have you heard anything from ACHD, where do we stand with
that?
Stiles: As Mr. Johnson has said, he has filed an appeal on their former decision
to not allow any curb cuts there. I think they are still investigating the history on
what is happened there on Pine. I think there is a way if this portion of the
existing garage is taken off the back and they use two existing spaces in the
garage and pave this area back here. They will meet the minimum parking
requirements. It may not be the most ideal, but that’s kind of where we stand.
We don’t know if he is going to get any access off Pine right now.
MacCoy: We don’t know of any date or deadline on this thing?
Stiles: Once an appeal is filed, it kind of sets everything back and then they
have to go to the commission. I think this was a staff level approval at first.
Johnson: Yes, it was a staff level and the official meeting is on the 23rd
. I would
like at this point in time try and save that portion of the garage which is separate
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 83
and added on to, but we need for work area. We have enough room in the back,
that we could possibly even redesign them…
(END OF TAPE)
Johnson: ..by redesign some way even leaving that there still meet the parking
requirements. I believe because that’s 80 feet. You take off on the original plat
five foot on one side and five foot (inaudible). You take out 27 feet for the garage
and that little building, there’s a remainder of I believe it’s about 46 feet that is in
fact in road mix at this point in time.
Stiles: The parking calculations are based only on the house and the apartment and from
the plan that’s submitted, these are the minimum width requirements for parking stalls.
Johnson: The originals were 8 feet I believe.
Stiles: There’d be 9 x 19. You show four on your plan which are at the 9 foot. If you’re
using part of the garage for work area, that has not been calculated in the number of
parking stalls you would need. Right now you need seven parking stalls just for the
house portion.
Johnson: Could I have my tenant address you people with his concerns?
RON RUEPPEL, 3549 N. COLE ROAD BOISE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Rueppel: Commissioners what we’re planning on doing for the time being is my wife
and I are going to be living upstairs, and we would start a bridal shop in the bottom. I
won’t be selling any dresses, but I did tell her that I would get everything ready for her.
Shari we would use the garage to park our two vehicles. There is more room rather than
taking off that section because she said she could use that, and simply be dying shoes
which I know nothing about, but I would rather take out one tree that is there closer to the
house and go forward toward the house more and I can probably take around 12 to 14
feet and bring it up towards the house in the back. That is if ACHD doesn’t go through,
but after talking to some people there (inaudible) but they are going to have to do
something to allow access because all those buildings up on Pine are most likely going to
go eventually commercial. And there is no access off Pine except for a legal curb cut
into a parking lot by the church which was done a few years ago, so we’re trying to do
this right and we’re working with Larry and I think we can get something done. Right
now I think I could get more parking if necessary if I just moved it towards the house.
Stiles: I guess I don’t see how that would work. Unless you are going to park in tandem.
Rueppel: I would have to look at it on the computer, but I’d probably do 45. I’d have to
see how I could get – you want a total of how many Shari?
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 84
Stiles: Not counting any use of the garage except for strictly garage, now if you’re
talking about using it for business, that’s additional parking space you are going to need
to provide for that.
Rueppel: Just the small 7 foot section would be used as like an office. I might put my
office, or she might dye shoes, but the two garages would be used for (inaudible).
Stiles: So you are talking about this a little addition that’s there.
Rueppel: The small addition.
Stiles: That doesn’t meet uniform building code for occupancy for any kind of a business
or –
Rueppel: To dye shoes out there in the back so you’re not doing it inside the house?
Stiles: I believe you would need to get permission from the building inspector to use that
for anything but a garage.
Rueppel: Okay.
Stiles: You’d be better off not telling me that.
Rueppel: I can work with (inaudible) on that to get that done. But I don’t want to tear it
out at this point. I would like to see if I could use that.
Stiles: I guess I’d rather see you get by with this existing plan. Than to take out any of
those trees. I mean you’ve got some nice trees back there.
Rueppel: Well there’s one small tree that is being dwarfed by two larger ones anyway. It
is a plum tree, which I don’t want to take it out, but there’s two huge trees that are just
dwarfing it anyway. And you can take a look at it if you want. Any questions?
Borup: This plan for the 1,000 square feet on the lower level, is that close? You say your
wife will be running. Is she going to have employees.
Rueppel: Probably not to start out with for a while.
Borup: I guess what I was getting to was how many customers do you anticipate having
in it at any one time?
Rueppel: I don’t know. It’s not a huge shop. It’s not a 2-3,000 square foot shop. I
wouldn’t imagine more than two three customers at a time. A lot of them are by
appointment.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 85
Borup: And that’s what I was wondering. That maybe kind of relating to what Shari was
saying, I realize the ordinance say parking spaces based on the square foot of the
building. Maybe that’s somewhat a prerogative we have on a conditional use. Can we
take a consideration a little bit the use of the business and by that use what kind of
customer traffic it would expect and I would see a lot less customer traffic on this then if
it was a coffee shop or any number of things.
Rueppel: And I have done some research as far as how many weddings in Ada County
and how we might expect to pick up reasonably and I can get that to you and you can
divide it up. I can see fifteen customers a day.
Stiles: You hope.
Rueppel: I hope, yeah that would be nice.
Borup: And I brought that up just as and I don’t know how pertinent that is, but that was
my thought this does not seem like a high traffic type of business that’s going to have a
lot of cars that need to park there.
MacCoy: Good point. Okay, no questions for him? How about Mr. Johnson, any
questions for him? Okay you two can sit down. Is there anybody else in the room that
wants to make comments. Don’t laugh at that.
(Inaudible)
MacCoy: If not we’ll close the public hearing and Commissioners what do you want to
do?
Borup: Does the attorney feel comfortable preparing – (inaudible). We’re still kind of at
this point we can proceed on assuming that ACHD may make an adjustment or go with
the plans as they are which were under a little bit under on the parking; is that correct?
Is that what we’re basically looking at right now?
Stiles: Commissioners what he’s proposed would actually exceed what he would be
required to have with the handicapped access and there’s still room for a couple of
parking spaces out front. I would feel comfortable if he would pave that alleyway and
those parking areas out back. I don’t know that the findings could be worded such that
there would be a curb cut off Pine if approved by Ada County Highway District to allow
a minimum of one parking space for handicapped accessibility.
Borup: I’ll bet you we have an attorney that can include that.
Stiles: If they don’t get the access off Pine with the design here they will not have a
handicapped accessible parking spot. But Jay will carry them in personally if they need
assistance.
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 86
Borup: I’m ready for a motion.
MacCoy: Well make one.
Borup: I move that we request the city attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law on this application.
Nelson: Second.
De Weerd: With any conditions based on the approval of this or –
Borup: The conditions are in the testimony. No, well –
De Weerd: Can you do that?
Borup: And again I think I stated this before. I have a little different attitude on some
projects like this rather than –
De Weered: What we just had.
Borup: Yeah.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Would you like some conditions?
Rossman: Well that was a legitimate question as whether you’re moving for approval or
approval with conditions.
De Weerd: That was my question. Don’t look at me.
Borup: Well is there some conditions that you would like to see.
De Weerd: Well I thought you made the condition before you made the motion.
Borup: I didn’t make any conditions.
De Weerd: Based on ACH’s reconsideration or would you accept that –
Borup: On something like this I’ve got the confidence that staff can handle it.
MacCoy: Well Mr. Johnson said he could take it the way it was without having to go
through we as a commission thought that it was unfair that he was saddled with this in
the first place by ACHD. It was just a blanket situation so we have asked in his behalf
and our city to re-review their request, but he’s already stated again tonight that even
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 87
without that, he still could go ahead with it so he’s not requesting everything should be
hinged on what they come up with. Am I correct?
Johnson: That is correct. This is a small business and the more expenses we have in
there the harder it is to survive and that’s a concern.
Borup: And again this is a conditional use if the business changes or something else
happens then they are back here again. And it may different.
Nelson: I’m for proceeding as it is. We’ve already discussed the four parking stalls in
the back plus two in the garage. He’s got additional parking on the front road if there’s
no curb cuts.
De Weerd: I don’t think the parking was in the garage. It’s along side the garage. Is that
right?
(Inaudible)
De Weerd: In the garage?
Borup: Part of the parking is for the residents and parts for the business so there’s –
Rueppel: There’s six overall in the back.
Borup: We got four for the business plus three on the street if neighbors aren’t taking up
those spots.
Nelson: I do believe you do have two internal to the garage. We’re counting that.
De Weerd: Okay.
Nelson: So I’m comfortable with the second as discussed.
Borup: Without any additional conditions?
Nelson: No.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
De Weerd: I can’t wait to see the Findings.
(Inaudible)
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 88
ITEM 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AND SERVICE BY JOHN BISS – ON MERIDIAN ROAD
JUST NORTH OF MERIDIAN RENTAL.
MacCoy: This business has been told to me by ACHD that they did not have the material
forms yet. It is one of their concerns and it will not be available until our October 13th
meeting. So I need a motion to change this. This is an open public hearing and there
seems to be nobody in the house to say anything.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue this public hearing on item number 13 to our
October 13th meeting.
Nelson: Second.
MacCoy: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Borup: Mr. Chairman you said ACHD just did not prepare their report on this or they
weren’t prepared to do anything on the street?
MacCoy: No, they said they were very concerned about this piece and have it in
committee and they said we came tonight to tell me to take it off the list because there
will be no ACHD report until the technical get the thing done.
Borup: I guess that surprises me with widening Meridian Road and you think and all
that’s already commercial along there, they should have planned for the whole thing
going commercial.
MacCoy: He didn’t tell me what the problem was. I’m waiting for one more motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I would move to adjourn.
Nelson: Second.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:30 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
____________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
PAGE 89
ATTEST:
_______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK