1998 09-24MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Keith Borup at 6:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Tammy De Weerd, Byron Smith.
OTHERS: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman, Angel Sims, Will Berg.
Borup: Our Planning and Zoning Chairman is out of town this evening. He’s
asked me to fill in for him on this one occasion. I might mention for the record we
have this evening in attendance Keith Borup, Tammy De Weerd, Byron Smith.
Mark Nelson and Malcolm MacCoy are both absent.
ITEM NO. 1: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER BY DAKOTA
COMPANY, INC. – SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EAGLE & FAIRVIEW:
Borup: I believe the motion from the last meeting was that we would have a
special meeting this night to discuss two items, the buffering between the
commercial development and the existing subdivision and also the ACHD report.
The ACHD representative is not here yet. He does have some time constraints
this evening so we may interrupt and give him an opportunity to present his
findings when he comes. We’ll see how that proceeds.
Smith: Commissioner Borup, just before you get started, I would just like to
apologize to you and Commissioner De Weerd for missing the last meeting, I had
the dates mixed up, it’s my screw up, I’m sorry.
Borup: Did you miss that?
Smith: Yes I did.
Borup: We didn’t even miss you. Not really, we did notice that.
De Weerd: It went very smoothly by the way,
Smith: I’ll read the minutes.
Borup: Okay, Mr. Durkin, I assume you would like to be first on the agenda.
Durkin: I would.
Borup: Mr. Sale just walked in, so go ahead and proceed.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 2
Durkin: I’m assuming I’m to be sworn.
LARRY DURKIN, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief tonight. I do think it’s important that
we cover some ground that we’ve covered in the past. This is our fourth public
hearing at the City of Meridian and each time, it’s been—we’ve gathered new
information, new concerns. I’ve taken the time and tried to address those. I
think what we have today, we’re in a situation where I think it’s important that we
cover some of the same old ground as far as the development is concerned,
what our plans are and identify some of the changes. So with your permission, I
may be—this may sound familiar to you, I will be brief. In addition, I have asked
a certain group of people to be here tonight that are experts in their field. Some
of them have brief with a capital B presentations to make on their area of
expertise. All of them are available for your questions. I would ask that—I find it
difficult to respond to you when the meetings are—when there is repetition or
when people keep coming back and forth and back and forth with different
things. I would like to make a request tonight that the meeting kind of follow, that
we have normal rules for the commission as far as people making a
presentation. It’s difficult for me to stand up and respond and answer the
questions adequately the way the last couple have gone. Although I’ve gathered
terrific information. We have tonight Patrick Dobie from Dobie Engineering. Pat
is a traffic expert, has been doing this his entire career. He’s been involved in
government level planning for traffic and does traffic studies for both government
and private industry. Pat has a traffic study in your packets and the one that
we’ve talked about was prepared by Pat. Pat mentioned something to me last
night that I found interesting and I’ve been around traffic studies for years myself,
but I’ve never heard it described this way. His job is to predict the level of service
during a 15 minute time period, 17 or 18 years from now. So it’s a tricky
business and there is some guess work to it, but it is a science. It is a stamped
certified report similar to a home appraisal or anything like that. In addition, Pat
will make a brief presentation by the way. I have David Koga, David is a principal
in the land group, which is the landscape architectural firm that’s done all of the
work for us on this project. David is not planning on making a presentation, but if
there are questions from the commission relating to landscaping, he is available
to answer those or available to answer any questions that the public may have.
During the last meeting, we talked at length about noise, after the last meeting I
made an effort to contact the company in the Boise phone book that does noise
abatement studies. I was unable to make contact with them. We did retain the
services of DSA Engineers, which is an engineering firm in the Portland area,
they’re actually in Beaverton. This is their specialty, doing noise abatement and
noise studies. I’ve given Angel Sims a copy of the report that he completed and
was faxed into us last night. I’m going to take a minute to go over the summary
and findings of that report and also the recommendations tonight. In addition,
Mr. Standlee, Kerrie Standlee is available to make a brief presentation and
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 3
answer any questions you may have regarding noise. We will be telling you
some things tonight, some plans that—recommendations that he has made we
are planning to modify the plan. Today I had a meeting with a couple of the
neighbors that are involved in the neighborhood association. Went over in detail
with them, the areas that we are planning to do as far as noise abatement. I’ve
provided them with a copy of this study. Last night as you know, we had our
ACHD hearing we received approval from ACHD subject to the long list of
requirements that may be a record, I’m not sure if it is. I believe Mr. Sale is here
tonight and he’ll be talking to you about the ACHD matters. So with your
permission, I’m going to proceed and go over the project. I’m going to point out
some modifications and some things that we’ve changed. For the record, I’m the
president of Dakota Company Inc. I’m here tonight on behalf of DBR Family
Centers Inc. I want to assure you that every effort has been made to meet or
exceed the city ordinances and the city staff recommendations. I will go briefly
through the latest staff report that I have from the city tonight and tell you what
we are in agreement with, tell you what we are not in agreement with and
address the modifications that we’ve made. We have exceeded the landscape
areas required by the ordinance and recommended by staff. What I mean by
that is we have exceeded it from a percentage standpoint. There is still some
discussion about the internal landscape areas in the parking lot. There has been
a discussion between us and the staff. I look for your recommendation tonight.
We’ve exceeded the setback requirements required by the city. We’ve increased
as you know, the landscape buffer areas from our original application. There
may have been some confusion on this the last meeting, but we have submitted
to the city two plans. This is the plan of record, the one that’s on the tripod
tonight and that reflects a number of changes from the first plan. I think you all
have had time to familiarize yourself with the new and improved plan. Again, the
fire department report we are in full agreement with, Central District Health report
we are in full agreement with. Storm water management report, the
recommendations, we are in agreement with. Police department, we are in
agreement with. We are in agreement with the general comment section of the
staff report, items 1-10. On the site specific—I think I’ll save this, (Inaudible).
Jump a little bit out of order here, but I’m going to come back to these comments
and I want to talk to you about a significant concern that was raised to all of you,
I know you haven’t had an opportunity to read this, but do you all have this in
front of you right now for the records? I have provided a number of them for the
audience. I didn’t realize Tom brought as many. I do have some more, that I
would like to just turn around and hand to a couple each side and they can pass
around and look. I want to call your attention to page one, I’m only going to
address eight matters on the first page and about two matters far into the report.
I want to say, first of all, as you look at this report that we are in agreement with
the recommendations that the company has made and would like it to be part of
the record tonight, so that everything you are looking at we are in agreement
with. I understand that there will be further discussion and modifications by you.
As we go into this, we are in full agreement to meet all of these conditions. They
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 4
include on page one the summary and findings that as you know, we have
agreed to sign the area requiring engines of all trucks to be turned off. Once the
trucks are at the truck docks. The trucks shall not be allowed to park in the
driveway between these store and the Crossroads development, with their
engine running for more than five minutes. You may get a situation in the
morning particularly over at the grocery store area, where that would happen
with the small truck, when I’m talking about trucks tonight, I’m really talking about
the large semi’s and the refrigerated trucks. Number three trucks with
refrigeration unit mounted on the trailer should not be allowed to park between
the stores and the Crossroads development for any amount of time, if the
refrigeration unit on the trailer is operating. Number four, the refrigeration unit on
the refrigerated trailers parked at the truck dock of the building, that’s a fairly long
paragraph, but we talk about in that paragraph as you can read it, a barrier.
Actually, that is in our plans. I’m going to walk over to the other microphone.
The analysis for sound, there were three points taken, this is a new study this is
“A” “B” and “C”. On the plan that we’ve submitted, this outside line along the—
what I would call the east area of the grocery store is a masonry wall, our plan
was to make it the height of the grocery store building. The semi refrigerated
trucks are 13’ 6” high and the sound engineer for the lack of a better term, has
recommended 20’ we are in agreement with that. In addition over here, this is
the loading dock area for the membership warehouse club. This is a masonry
wall coming out here—the same type and I have some photos that I will pass out
in a moment so you can see what we are talking about. There is no wall planned
or intended in any of the other loading docks. The report doesn’t recommend it
with the other measures that we are taking. I’ll pass those photos out in a
moment. The numbers he is referring to here 1-B that is specifically the grocery
store. Item number five, we are in agreement with. Item number six, the delivery
doors of all stores should be closed after the delivery is made, we are in
agreement with that, we will sign that and make it a requirement. Item number
seven, all compactors located within 70 feet of the residential property line
should be surrounded on all sides except the truck pickup area of course with a
solid wall that extends at least three feet above the height of the compactor. A
couple of the buildings will have outside compactors, but they are loaded
internally and they are quite quiet. We do have some photos tonight of a solid
wall that we will be doing on all of the compactors. We will happily make that a
condition of approval. Number eight, the garbage service should be scheduled
between 7 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. we are in full agreement with that, but I want to
remind you and I’d like to remind you and I’d like to remind the audience tonight
that the garbage is in the control of the City of Meridian. We made every effort
when we developed the Fred Meyer project to arrange for private pickup
because the hours were more convenient. They are not allowed to pick up
garbage in the City of Meridian, I’m not sure that you are aware of that. BFI is
not allowed to come out here. So the City of Meridian is the trash pick up, it’s the
only trash pickup source. So we are in full agreement and actually our hope was
to make that 7 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. versus 4:30 and if the city—the city is in
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 5
complete control of pickup and I have no other method of getting the trash picked
up. Those are the summary of findings and I would like to now jump to page 11.
Seven point four, I just found that section to be interesting, I think there was
speculation on the record and a number of other meetings that this center may
actually result in a quieter subdivision. That was speculation based on
experience and based on street observation. The firm has made the observation
that the shopping center is actually going to block noise from Eagle and Fairview.
The data is in here, the decibels—you can see that it will be quieter. The three
points on the back of the report, there is a site plan where he specifically
identifies the three points of his model and you can see those are the areas
where the shop—where the residential area will actually be quieter as a result of
this construction, not noisier. The engineer does not feel the need to put a block
wall or a masonry wall on top of or around the berm because of the
recommendation that the wall specifically for the refrigerated units which are
noisier, be closer to the sound source and that’s in the third paragraph under 7.4.
On page 12, mitigation measures is really a, I’m not going to go through them
again, because they are really a repeat of what I went through on page one.
That covers again one through eight and those are measures that we are in full
agreement with. We will accept and we would make—fully agree to make those
a part of our conditions of approval. I’m not going to go back to the site specific
comments relating to the staff report prepared by…I think I’m required to go
through these one by one. So that’s my intention. I will skip and be brief.
Borup: I think you could handle them all by saying that we are in agreement to
them all.
Durkin: Well, actually we are not, the reason that would be dangerous, Mr.
Chairman, is that there has been modifications to our plan.
Borup: I understand.
Durkin: I think it’s important to zip through them quickly. Number one, our use is
listed as an allowed use. Number two, we do understand that it’s part of the
conditional use, the city may impose additional conditions. Three, four and five,
we have no objection. Number six, we have modified our plan to exceed the
percentage of landscaping required by the city. You may recall my feelings on
trees in the parking lot, we talked about that a lot. However, if you make them a
requirement, we will install them. Number seven, our plan has been modified to
exceed the ordinance. Again, number eight, our concern is the viability of the
plantings in the parking lot. Our landscape plan far exceeds any other
commercial project in the city. I admit that there is a large parking area, but for
the project, I think that’s a responsible amount of parking for what we are
proposing here. Number nine is okay with us. Number ten, while the
engineering encourages a wider landscaper on Fairview Avenue and Eagle
Road, we are showing 20 feet on our property. There is additional landscaping in
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 6
the right-of-way area. There is no ordinance requiring more than 20 feet and
with the other planting areas that we are doing in the project and with the wide
and expanded and higher buffer zones, we hope you can approve the berms as
we have proposed them. Number eleven, we’ve provided the location of the
proposed signs for the shopping center. While we did not intend to build all of
them, we do intend to submit signed data at the appropriate time. We have
submitted to you as a record the design of a generic sign. Number twelve, I
believe the revised plan addresses staff comments. Number thirteen, we have
provided the utility and lighting plans to the city and will gladly work with the staff
to meet all the codes required. Number fourteen, we do not intend to subdivide
the property. The reference to partial is only for planning purposes. Number
fifteen, I can’t remember what that is, it’s either okay or I have no comment.
Number sixteen, we are hoping to gain approval for our project tonight. We
agree to come back on a building by building bases for any drive thru approvals
that may be necessary. The details provided for the Shopko store will generally
follow throughout the rest of the development, we hope the staff will be given the
okay to work with us on each building by building application. Seventeen,
eighteen, nineteen are okay. Number twenty has been fixed. Twenty-one, we
will show this on our building permit. Twenty-two, we will provide this to the city
at the time the building permit application. Twenty-three is okay. Twenty-four,
we feel that the addition of signs relating to parking and noise will cover the
concern of the staff. I will say that the normal hours of operation relating to the
back loading dock areas are 7AM to 3:30PM and there are cases of later
deliveries depending on the needs of the tenants. Twenty-five, Twenty-six, and
Twenty-seven, we are okay with. Twenty-eight, last night we did receive
approval from ACHD for our application. I know that Mr. Sale will address you
regarding the approval and I may want to talk about it more during the rebuttal.
Again, I’ve asked Patrick Dobie to attend the meeting tonight and he will talk
about the traffic study. That’s my full presentation. I want to basically, I will be
open for questions and turn it back over to Pat Dobie, or Larry Sales if you prefer
next.
Borup: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Durkin at this time?
De Weerd: Not at this point.
Borup: I don’t know we have any of Mr. Dobie or anyone else at this time. So
may need them to call if there are. Mr. Sale would you like to give a presentation
(Inaudible).
LARRY SALE, WAS SWORN IN BY ATTORNEY.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, first of all I want to express
the appreciation of the highway district staff and commissioners for your patience
in tabling this application a couple of times, so that we could complete a fairly
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 7
arduous examination of it in your behalf and our behalf. In that review, I want to
assure the city that the highway district likewise involved experts in the review of
the traffic aspects of the project. The two technical staff members that assisted
me in the review of the application have six academic degrees between them
and several dozen years of experience in the field. To assure ourselves and you
that we were accurate in all detail the highway district also retained a separate
traffic consultant to review our findings and the traffic study prepared by the
applicant. You know the basic facts of the application very well by now. We’re
talking about an 848,000 sq. ft. regional shopping center that will generate
hopefully about 27,000 trips a day. The effect of those—I will describe the effect
of those traffic on the transportation infrastructure. I provided you with copies of
the action by the Ada County Highway District Commissioners taken last night,
actually taken this morning. I’ll summarize, I’ll go through and summarize what I
think are the most important points of that action. The project before you is
expected to generate about—I’m sorry is expected to attract about 27,000 trips a
day, approximately 20,000 of those will be new trips attracted to the site. The
other 7,000 will be trips that are already on the system and will be passing the
site and would’ve been there in any event. This equates to somewhere around
2,000 trips during the peak hour of the transportation system. Those are the
trips that are our concern and result in some rather as I’m sure Mr. Durkin will
agree some rather ominous requirements for improvements to the transportation
system. Out of the combined traffic study provided by the developers and staff
review and independent review by a second engineering firm, we have identified
nine major improvements to the transportation system that are required to
accommodate the traffic generated by the project. I’ll try to go through those
briefly. They are to construct dual left turn lanes and free right turn lanes on all
four approaches of the Eagle/Fairview intersection and modify the signal
transfiguration to accommodate the additional lanes. For those in the audience,
there are some extra copies of the staff report on the table over there in front of
Ms. Stiles and I’m reading from page six from that report. Second requirements
are the constructed traffic signal at the Fairview Avenue/Record Drive
intersection. Locate the signals to accommodate future left turn lanes—dual left
turns on Fairview Avenue. Construct dual northbound lanes on Records Drive at
the Fairview Avenue intersection. Construct a traffic signal at the new Eagle
Road/Pine Avenue intersection. Construct dual southbound left turn lanes on
Eagle Road at the Pine Avenue intersection. Construct dual westbound left turn
lanes on Pine Avenue at the Eagle Road intersection. Thank you Mr. Durkin.
Construct Pine Avenue from Eagle Road east of the eastern property line of the
project, two lanes are needed from the western driveway to the eastern property
line and four lanes are needed from the western driveway to Eagle Road.
Construct deceleration lanes on all intersections on Eagle Road abutting the
side. Finally construct curb gutter, sidewalk and an eastbound lane to Fairview
from a point 500 feet west of Eagle Road, to the eastern boundary of the side.
Not all of these improvements are required at the onset of the project. We have
identified thresholds at which the improvements would be required to
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 8
accommodate the traffic. We’ve related those to square footage or location of
the improvements. Those are shown on a table on page seven of the report.
The left turn lanes, the right turn lanes of the Eagle and Fairview were needed
after 450,000 gross sq. ft. of buildings are constructed. The signal at Records
and Fairview is needed at the start of development north of Florence street.
That’s the street that intersects Eagle Road from the west and midway on the
western side of the project. The dual left turn lanes at Fairview/Records, on
Records are needed at the start of development north of Florence Street. The
developers also require to dedicate six feet of right-of-way within 500 feet of the
Records intersection for the future addition of dual left turn lanes on Fairview by
the highway district or others as development continues in this area. The signal
at Eagle and Pine intersection is needed at the start of development south of
Presidential Drive. Dual left turn lanes on Eagle at Eagle/Pine at the start of
development south of Presidential Drive. Dual left turn lanes on Pine at Eagle
are needed at the start of the development south of Presidential Drive. The
construction of Pine Avenue east of Eagle Road is needed at the start of
development south of Presidential Drive. Mr. Durkin indicated last night, for their
convenience and convenient access to the site, that they would be constructing a
connection from the site out to Pine Avenue as a part of the earlier stages of the
project so they may exceed the schedule a bit. Construct a deceleration lane at
the Eagle Road accesses at the start of the development and construct a third
eastbound lane on Fairview Avenue, west and east of Eagle after 450,000 sq. ft.
of (Inaudible) are begun. The commission I think is at least slightly familiar with
the highway districts road impact fee program. These roads that serve this
project are classified roadways as such are eligible for the use of impact fees
from this project and for that matter other projects in the area to construct
improvements to those—to Fairview Avenue. Because some of these
improvements would have been required by natural growth in the Meridian area,
the district has committed to offset the cost of some of these improvements
against the impact fees that would be paid by this project. Those are
summarized at the top of page eight. The dual left turn lanes on Fairview
Avenue lanes of the Eagle/Fairview intersection will be offset against the impact
fees. The curb gutter and the east bound lane from—on Fairview Avenue to the
Eagle Road intersection will be offset against the impact fees. All of the right-of-
way that will be acquired will be purchased and paid for from impact fee revenue
either from this project or other projects in the Meridian area. That leaves and
I’ve forgotten my alphabet, but it’s about sixteen on the bottom of page eight and
on the top of page nine are listed down to the letter “O” specific improvements
that the developer would be required to make at their expense. Page ten, the
report discusses the concern of the district with the ability of the onsite circulation
system to accommodate the onsite traffic. Our concern about that traffic is
exemplified by the fact that the only real traffic conveyer on the site is a roadway
that travels directly in front of the store fronts. We have concerns over traffic or
vehicles that are parked in the north west quadrant of the project having to gain
access to the arterial system at one of the signalize intersections having to travel
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 9
nearly a half a mile, either an eastbound direction or southbound direction to get
to a signalize intersection. If you will recall, as you read the report at some times
of day in the future, the private driveway serving the project will probably become
useless for left turns out of the site because of heavy traffic on Eagle Road and
Fairview Avenue. So that much of the shoppers using the site will be forced to
route their vehicles to one of the signalize intersections at Pine Avenue or
Records Drive. This matter was discussed at length last night and this morning
by the commission. The commission along with some cooperative discussion by
the developer I think arrived at a solution that we hope will work. If I can
(Inaudible) If you recall our concern was about vehicles in the center part of the
project having to get to either Records Drive or Pine Avenue for access to the
arterial system without having to make this trip along the store front. I believe
the applicant agreed to this last night, but at any rate, the highway district
commissioners made this a condition of approval and are recommending it to
you for inclusion on your requirements as well. That would be the access aisle
that is currently shown around the perimeter of the project be moved back away
from Fairview Avenue and Eagle Road to a location—we are not too particular
about the location—but generally a location along the rear of the pads that front
Fairview and Eagle to create a fairly continuous vehicular ways for a vehicle to
drive from Records Drive to Pine Avenue without having to pass the store fronts.
This wouldn’t be entirely unimpeded. We would expect that it would stop at this
driveway serving the side there would be stop signs on the access aisle at the
major driveways and residential. (Inaudible) On the other hand, we want this to
be sufficiently open that we are asking that there be stops, needs to be painted
stops, but stops for the opposing access aisles as they intersect that vehicular
way. I think finally the most important, the most expensive part of this project
from the districts point of view is in 1997 the district completed an access
corridor—corridor access protection plan for the Eagle Road corridor and
identified the need for urban interchanges to be located at Franklin Road,
Fairview Avenue, Ustick Road and Chinden Boulevard. These are something we
haven’t seen locally, if you’ve traveled, in the (Inaudible) there are some in Las
Vegas, but they are—they amount to a very tight interchange of two major
arterial and this case, Eagle would overpass Fairview Avenue, Fairview Avenue
would cross beneath the overpass and beneath that same overpass would be a
fairly complex intersection that would allow left turns from Fairview Avenue onto
ramps that would access Eagle Road. The upshot of this, is that it requires a
triangle of right-of-way on each leg of Eagle Road, Fairview Avenue intersection
so that we are requiring the dedication of this right-of-way to the highway district
will be compensated, will be paid for at fair market value from impact fee revenue
collected from the project. The developer—let me restart, the four urban
interchanges are shown on the long range transportation plan as needed for
construction beyond twenty years. However, the need to preserve the right-of-
way for those interchanges is included in the less than twenty years time frame.
The highway district is obligated to acquire the right-of-way or preserve the right-
of-way. The developer has indicated a need for that right-of-way, certainly the
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 10
highway district has no need of it for several years, so the developer would be
allowed to use the right-of-way that the highway district acquires for non-
structural purposes, he could essentially put anything in there except a building
or a substantial part of the infrastructure that serves the development. It could
be used for parking, landscaping, any general ancillary use to the development
short of buildings. In there action of—on the application, the commission made
three special recommendations to Meridian City. The first note is that you
recognize the need for a circumferential (sic) access circulation way of the sort
that I’ve described. Then secondly, thirdly the district is recommending that the
city encourage the applicant to participate in an alternative transportation
program for the employees and that if there is—there are entities now that we
are calling Transportation Management Association of Transportation
Management Organizations and they are adopted for use by, not by
governments, but by associations of businesses and employers. In an area such
as this, where the employers would cooperatively establish a program and
cooperate, can’t use the word cooperate too many times, but to sponsor
alternative transportation plans for their employees and even the shoppers could
be included. This facility in of itself is probably of sufficient size to have such a
program. These are not requirements, they are recommendations for
encouragement. There are five special recommendations (Inaudible) to the
Idaho Transportation Department. Those are on the bottom of page eleven and
page twelve. Then there are as Mr. Durkin indicated, I don’t think this is a
record, I think Hidden Springs had the record, but we had thirty-six site specific
recommendation of things that we will require to be accomplished at various
stages of the development. If you would like, I could go through each of those
thirty-six, but it will take a few minutes, I suspect you and the folks in the crowd
have listened to me long enough. Do you have any questions of me that I might
help you with?
Borup: Commissioners, any questions?
Smith: Mr. Sale, where do I start? I guess the first thing is the facts and findings
on page two that—under item two effected streets, traffic count on Eagle Road in
October of 1997 was 27,564 vehicles, I believe at an earlier meeting that you
had stated that Eagle Road had been designed to carry a (Inaudible) capacity of
30,000 vehicles a day.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, Eagle Road is a five lane roadway
and we have adopted a planning threshold for five lane roadways of 33,000 trips
a day and we equate that to a level of service D which is the accepted level of
service this is peak hour level of service for arterials in Ada County. The physical
capacity of the roadway is more like 40,000-45,000 trips a day. That’s not a
comfortable volume to carry on a five lane road. You can’t drive that situation 50
mph and feel a great deal of comfort. To give you something to compare that
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 11
with, obviously you can—the current volume is about 28,000-30,000 trips a day.
Broadway Avenue on Capital Boulevard in Boise have at times carried 60,000
trips a day during the week days. I was going to look up what the interstate
carries out here opposite Meridian, I forgot to do that before I left. So the system
will be stretched, but it is going to be stretched anyway, really I can’t say whether
or not this project is developed. Obviously this property is going to be developed
for a significant traffic generator and accommodating the growth of the Meridian
Boise area over the next twenty years, Eagle Road and Fairview Avenue are
both going to be strained. We do plan the construction of two more lanes on
Fairview Avenue in the long term future, so it will be a seven lane facility from
Meridian to Milwaukee and Boise that will carry more than, that will carry the
40,000 trips a day at a more comfortable level.
Smith: When you say long term what is twenty year plan, ten year? Fifty?
Sale: Less than fifty, might be less than twenty, but part of it will depend on the
rate of growth, if we continue to grow at the rate we are, it will be sooner. Funds
available and the competition for funds. Funding will also determine when it
might occur.
Smith: I really don’t understand what the reasoning is behind a maximum of five
lane roads, I’m sure there has been a lot of discussion, I don’t want to get off on
a… One of the things that seems like to me that would alleviate a lot of the
burden of traffic on Eagle Road as it sits now is these major streets at Mile
intersections, Five Mile, Cloverdale, Eagle Road, Locust Grove, Meridian Road,
Linder, the way developments happen, they’re carrying at the same capacity they
were 30 years ago when I first moved to this community. What are the plans of
the transportation department and highway district for increasing the capacity of
those roadways and interchanges along the freeway in West Ada County.
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, why don’t we schedule another
meeting to discuss those, but I’ll go through.
Smith: There plans for increase of capacity of those roads (Inaudible).
Sale: Each of the north south roads from Black Cat to, well, all the way east to
Boise, will eventually be five land roads. Locust grove I think is the first one in
our program and that’s within the five year program to construct it from Fairview
Avenue to Ustick as a four or five lane roadway. With regard to additional
interchanges, there are additional interchanges shown on 84, one is at Ten Mile
Road and one is at Five Mile Road. Those are shown on the long range
transportation plan, but there is no funding anticipated for those, approval for
those will take not only the approval of the Idaho Transportation Department, but
the federal highway administration. That’s not meant to be too encouraging, or
too discouraging, they are properly located so that they meet FAWA specks and
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 12
they will occur someday. It’s just that I don’t know whether I will drive on them or
not.
Smith: One of the things that concerns me is the Presidential Drive that kind of
bisects in the middle of the project. We’ve got a—it looks like you are proposing
a signal at Records Drive, but I would assume that a lot of residents in this
neighborhood exit out on Eagle Road, turn left to access the freeway and drive to
Boise to work. How—there is no way without cutting through this development
for them to get access to Pine Drive. When you start talking about the periphery
drive and not bringing all the traffic right in front of these stores, is there
something different besides this access aisle around this back side of this site
that should be done to link Presidential Drive and Pine to allow those people to
get to the intersection?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith, there is a stub street from the
Crossroad Subdivision out the south boundary to the Pine Avenue alignment, so
that the people in Crossroads, they don’t like to hear me say this, but I’ll say it
real quietly. It’s my opinion particularly Mr. Harper the connection to Pine
Avenue is probably going to be heavily use for the commute trip if they are
indeed going East. It will ultimately connect with—you will be able to drive to
downtown Boise on Pine Avenue. You won’t get off Pine Avenue. The street
name will change from Pine to Executive to Emerald to Americana then you will
be downtown Boise. You’ll go past the mall, it will be enlarged in that area to five
lanes. It will become a major east west corridor in the future. With regard to
Presidential Drive it is the nice entrance to the subdivision, that’s still the way the
people are going to direct their guests to come and it’s still the way they will want
to go home, if it’s convenient for them. We discussed this at length last evening
and this morning. Our technical concern is how to keep the shopping center
traffic out of the subdivision. We think the residents of the subdivision will always
be able to access Eagle Road, via Presidential Drive during the afternoon peaks,
there may be some difficulty in that, there may be some delays, particularly in
accessing Eagle Road. There will be long delays if someone wanted to turn left
onto Eagle Road or Presidential. People will train themselves to go to Pine to do
that. People accessing Fairview Avenue to go north it should be always a fairly
convenient move to get out through the shopping center to Eagle Road and turn
north. The commission was concerned enough about the potential effect on the
subdivision that they required traffic calming on the few hundred feet, I’m sorry
it’s not a few hundred feet, say a hundred feet of Presidential Drive from the east
boundary of the project to the Filmore intersection. Commission didn’t specify
the types of calming but left that to the applicant and the staff and the
neighborhood to work out. That is a requirement of the highway district
(Inaudible) by the highway district of the developer.
Smith: I believe you mentioned that Pine Avenue light is required to be
constructed at the beginning of this project?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 13
Sale: The light won’t be required at the beginning of the project. I think the
traffic signal is not required until the 450,000 sq. ft. is—no, well it’s, I’m sorry—It’s
needed when the developments begin south of Presidential Drive. That’s part of
the sharing with the highway district. The highway district will provide the
materials for that signal at no cost and the developer will install them. As was
brought out and the people are more familiar with this than I am. The Meridian
School District has an elementary school site we understand half a mile east on
Pine Avenue and we expect Pine Avenue to be constructed at least that distance
in a fairly short term future. It’s identified for construction by the highway district
in 2002. The developer says we required them to put the signal in, they want it.
Smith: The last thing that I would ask you Mr. Sale, I think it would be naïve in
thinking that in some point in time in the future, this site is not going to be
serviced by buses, in your professional opinion, is there adequate drop off zones
and pick-up zones for a bus type service on this site?
Sale: Thanks for that question, I should’ve mentioned that. While we haven’t
discussed it, buses and bus access points really don’t require much modification
in a shopping center design. I’ve observed—my wife and I walk at the Boise
Town Square Mall, we’re supposed to do it every morning, but I’ve been lazy
lately and we haven’t done that, but I’ve observed the buses that come in there
to pick-up, drop-off employees, I guess they just drop-off employees, they’re not
picking anybody up at six o’clock in the morning. They just pull into the access
aisle, now they go in of course the town square mall is a much different shape so
that there is different sides of the building structure that they come to. They just
pull up to one of the main entrances and park there for 20 seconds, the people
get off, or on and then go on. So a bus really doesn’t need much special
provision, it can be accommodated in the access aisles that they have.
Smith: As existing, presently designed?
Sale: Yes.
Smith: That’s all I had.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd?
De Weerd: I just wondered what the width of the access drive for the circulation
is supposed to be?
Sale: It would be sufficient for two lanes, it would probably be 28 feet. Pat, do
you agree with that? We didn’t get into the details of that.
De Weerd: Okay, you said Pine Street will be constructed in 2002?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 14
Sale: Let me be sure that I’m clear on this, it is programmed for construction in
2002, often times, our programs don’t come true as well as we would like. That’s
the current program of the highway district for construction. I wouldn’t expect it
to be any sooner than that, hopefully it wouldn’t slip more than a year.
De Weerd: But they would need to construct Pine east of Eagle?
Sale: They would construct Pine as a four lane road from Eagle back to the
middle intersection and as a two lane road to the east boundary of the project.
De Weerd: So then the residents would have access out onto Pine?
Sale: We didn’t require them to construct it back to that street. We don’t think
that it’s the responsibility of this developer to construct facilities off site that are
not directly related to the impact of the project. It’s my opinion by the time there
is any hindrance to the people in Crossroad Subdivision that Pine Avenue will be
constructed by other folks, either developers to the south or the highway district.
Borup: Mr. Sale, didn’t you also mention and Tammy that the school going in
there is going to require and that access will be from Pine? So Pine is going to
have to go through to access the school.
Sale: Right, we anticipate that Pine Avenue will be extended a half a mile back
there to serve the school site which I believe was the subject, one of the subjects
of the bond election Tuesday.
De Weerd: That’s to be constructed in 2000, by 2000?
Sale: I think they are going to start those schools immediately.
De Weerd: Open by 2000.
Sale: 2000 right, well no, they typically take a year to construct an elementary
building. If they could start it in the next few months, it wouldn’t be open. It’s
feasible that it could be open for school September of next year.
De Weerd: I have no further questions.
Borup: I think the only question I had Mr. Sale was on the frontage road. I think
there is plenty of precedent there, I noticed back in some previous applications
both statements by the previous proposed developer and by ACHD under your
signature I believe talked about requiring the (Inaudible) at that time. Concern I
had was where it crosses Presidential, I don’t know if you addressed—your
report says at least 100 a minimum of 100 feet from Eagle Road. Is that enough
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 15
distance to prevent blocking traffic from coming in, or looks like (Inaudible)
removal of the divider, the road divider in that area, or is—I guess I’m asking your
comment, is that the most practical place, or could it move a little, would it serve
that better to move further to the east, or you feel it’s better not to?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, I think we are fortunate in this regard that the developer
shows a couple of fairly pad sites along side presidential avenue and this
frontage road would be east of those bad sides which would places it about 175
or 180 feet east of Eagle Road, which is our standard setback for a collector for a
driveway on a collector road.
Borup: So that looks like it would be adequate then. I have no other questions.
Mr. Sale, are you—you still have another appointment you need to get to?
Sale: No, I can stay for awhile longer.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I had one other question. Regarding the right-of-way
along Fairview and also on Eagle, is it a possibility that the developer can use
10feet of that to construct a sidewalk and have a setback with some sod and a
meandering, slightly meandering sidewalk?
Sale: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner De Weerd, I don’t want to say that there is
ten feet available, the developer will be allowed to landscape in the right-of-way
from the back of the sidewalk into the site. On Fairview, he will be adding that
additional lane so that we are pretty sure where the sidewalk needs to be for the
future. (Inaudible).
De Weerd: Are you asking him to also have something on the side, between the
sidewalk and the roadside?
Sale: No, that will be ugly old rocks, unless he wants to put some grass in there
too, which we would allow.
De Weerd: You would want a sidewalk right up against a busy road side like
that?
Sale: No, that’s my point, I’m sorry I wasn’t clear. The sidewalk will be detached
from the roadway.
Smith: About how far?
Sale: A minimum of about eight to ten feet to allow for space for disabled
vehicles, or vehicles to run off the roadway and try and correct themselves
without, before they strike the sidewalk. So that anything to the development
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 16
side of the sidewalk can be landscaped. Whether that, I can’t tell you that today
that that will be ten feet.
De Weerd: Okay.
Sale: It will probably be less than that. Whatever right-of-way, I’ll try this,
whatever right-of-way is left over toward the project from the sidewalk can be
used for landscaping. We will issue a license agreement to allow landscaping in
that area. That could include the beginning of a berm or flat land, whatever
works into the landscape plan of the project.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Sale: Anything else?
Borup: Not at this time, thank you. Do any of the commissioners have any
questions before we open up the public testimony? Mr. Durkin, is there any
consultants that you feel would be pertinent at this time, or would rather wait first
and answer some questions?
Durkin: Actually I think it would be a good idea for Pat Dobie the traffic engineer
to make a few comments and I think that, I wasn’t clear with the question or
answer relating to that sidewalk on Eagle, but we are constructing a sidewalk on
Eagle. It’s not right up against the roadway, it’s a significant distance off the
roadway when we build the shopping center.
De Weerd: Then you still have 20 feet of landscaping?
Durkin: Everything on that plan that you see right now is on our property. There
is no, we are not showing any improvements on the right-of-way. So the right-of-
way is off of that plan.
De Weerd: Included your sidewalk is also not included in the right-of-way on this
plan?
Durkin: That’s right, there is a sidewalk and then there is gravel area, the ACHD
area.
De Weerd: You are not including the 20 feet in that sidewalk area. So really
there is 25 feet there? Well, 20 including the sidewalk, so there is really a
sidewalk and 15 feet?
Durkin: So could I just ask Pat to make a few brief comments and then I would
also like the sound person to make a brief presentation. Is that alright?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 17
Borup: We do have the sound report.
PAT DOBIE, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Dobie: Mr. Chairman, I think I can add to what Mr. Sale had testified about, just
a couple of additional items. First thing is, I would like to pass this thing around.
This is just a print of an overhead that was shown at the ACHD commission
meeting last night and what it illustrates is what the configuration of the parking
lot would look like once you take that frontage road and move it out from the
perimeter of the site and bring it back in. It illustrates how the parking layout
would change and generally what the new site plan might look like. In locating
that frontage road and making that change in the internal circulation, there is a
couple of objectives that we are trying to achieve. What we would like to do is
minimize the number pedestrians that have to cross that road. It is—if we move
it out from the perimeter it is going to be carrying more traffic. The fewer people
that have to cross it, and the fewer number of parking spaces that are located on
the other side, the far side of that road…
Borup: Excuse me Pat, our speakers are a little insensitive right now, if you
could get a little bit closer or speak up a bit that would help.
Dobie: There are actually three roads that have been incorporated into the site
plan, there is a service road that goes back behind the buildings for service
vehicles and for employee access. There is a major collector road that circles
the site in front of the buildings. There is this frontage road sort of this minor
collector on the outside. Between the three of those roads, there is ample
capacity to accommodate the site generated traffic and all the movements within
the site, it’s merely a question of tinkering with it and adjusting the location of that
to try and address some of ACHD’s concerns and I think we discussed it pretty
thoroughly last night and I just wanted to give you that illustration as to
technically how it work and what the re-striping of the parking lot might be. The
second item dealt with the capacity of Presidential Drive and the ease of the
difficulty of exiting the Crossroads Subdivision. When a vehicle interfaces with
traffic on a high speed, high capacity arterial, what they—what the driver is
looking for is a gap in the traffic stream for them to make there maneuver into.
As it currently stands, the north bound traffic coming down from Franklin Road is
fairly well dispersed on the highway by the time it reaches this location. What the
drivers and residents of Crossroads Subdivision currently experience is the lack
of gaps in the traffic stream. Now, installing a signal at that location consolidates
the traffic and mechanically creates the gaps. In the absence of a traffic signal
and when originally analyzed, there was to be a signalized intersection for the
residential portion of this development. That signal was subsequently moved
down to the new location of Pine street. Pine Street will create additional gaps in
the flow of traffic and will significantly improve the ability of the uses of that road
to cross Eagle Road or to make left turns either out of or into the traffic flow. The
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 18
reason that happens, the signal at Pine Street will consolidate the traffic. It’ll—
it’s what we refer to as platooning, it groups the traffic into a tight platoon and
sends it down the highway as one solid block of cars. Once that platoon passes
the driveway, there is now a fairly large gap and there is an opportunity for cars
to exit the subdivision. Even though the signal is no longer at Presidential Drive,
by installing the signal at Pine Street, the gaps are created in the traffic flow and
the level of service at that intersection improves. In addition with the construction
of the signals and dual left lanes that are now being proposed at both Pine Street
and Records Street, there will be alternatives to the residents of the subdivision
and in my opinion their ability to access the arterial system will be improved
because of the site improvements being constructed as conditions of this
development. If you have anymore questions, I’d be happy to answer them.
Borup: Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Dobie?
De Weerd: I just had a question about when you put in this access drive, how is
that going to change the number of parking spots that you have? How many
parking spots are you going to loose by doing this?
Dobie: I don’t believe that we are going to loose any. Until you get into the
specifics of the design and layout I can’t answer for sure. Judging from my
experience in parking lot layouts reorienting the aisles the way that proposes is a
wash.
Borup: As far as parking spots you mean?
Dobie: As far as the number of parking stalls.
Borup: Any other questions Tammy? I wasn’t quite sure about you attitude
about the frontage road. Are you saying that you don’t feel it was necessary, or it
was marginal?
Dobie: I don’t think that the continuous frontage road from Records Drive all the
way down to Pine Street is necessary. I think there are locations around the
perimeter of the site where realignment of that outer aisle would help. I
personally don’t think that it needs to be continuous and I think it could have
some detrimental effects if you made it a continuous road.
Borup: What would the detrimental effects be?
Dobie: More people would have to cross it.
Borup: How about the people up at the buildings, you’re not going to increase
it—I mean Mr. Sale was concerned that would increase the traffic up near the
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 19
stores where you definitely have more people. So you have more people and
more cars at that point.
Dobie: The two locations where that aisle will be heavily unloaded down at Pine
Street and at Records Street. Both Pine and Records…
Borup: I think ACHD proposal is to stop that prior to Records that they exit to the
west of records so it won’t go quite there.
Dobie: So it’s close to Pine and Records where that road would help a lot. Out
toward the intersection of Fairview and Eagle Road, it would do very little. At the
terminus of that road, it would help to drive back from that arterial. In the middle,
it does very little. I could illustrate on the site plan if you wish.
Borup: You are saying that the ones at the corner there, the existing perimeter
road would handle the traffic in those corner areas, but as you get closer to
Records and Pine—I assume, then how about the area as you get closer to
Presidential?
Dobie: Between Presidential and Pine…
Borup: Well no, north of Presidential.
Dobie: Just two to three aisles north of Presidential, it would help.
Borup: So coming in where that pad building is and extending that out a couple
aisles is where you would gain?
Dobie: Yes.
Borup: Okay, thank you. That will be all, thank you. Then your sound engineer?
Durkin: Now I would just like to have Kerrie Standlee make a brief, I know we
are all here on our night off, so I’m just going to have a brief presentation of your
analysis Kerrie, thank you.
KERRIE STANDLEE, WAS SWORN IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Standlee: As I said, my name is Kerrie Standlee I’m with Daily, Standlee and
Associates, we are located in Beaverton Oregon. I’m a registered acoustical
engineer in Oregon. Oregon is the only state that has an acoustical engineer
registration. I’ve been in the work of acoustical engineering since 1975. I have
been registered since 1981. That was the first, second year that registration was
given in Oregon I was asked by the applicant to take a look at traffic issues and
also noise that would be generated by traffic serving the facility, trucks, delivery
trucks and equipment outside of the facilities such as compactors. So we took a
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 20
look at what levels would be generated by that equipment, but to do an analysis
or evaluation we had to have something to compare it to. The City of Meridian
and State of Idaho do not have a noise ordinance or regulation. So we didn’t
have a guide to use there. So we looked at using the State of Oregon’s noise
regulation. In that regulation, as I state in that report, there is a requirement that
if you have a new site that has never been used, that you can not increase the
ambient noise at a noise sensitive receiver, such as residents by more than 10
dB or exceed a maximum allowable. So we had to come up with some way to
determine whether we will be controlled by a 10 dB increase rule, or the
maximum allowable rule, if we were to use the Oregon regulation as a criteria.
At the time we were approached, we didn’t feel that we had time to come over
and do a study of the ambient so we approached it by predicting what the
ambient levels would be based on the traffic that we were given from Ada County
Traffic District. The time, we used the data from the county and contact them
about some specifics such as truck volume because the number of trucks on the
highway effects the level, versus the number of automobiles and using that
information came out with the results that you see in the report. I brought three
sound meters with me today, because I wanted to just check to see what the
conditions were out there to see if we were approaching the evaluation from a
good standpoint. What I found was that the speed limit was different from what
was given to us in terms of Fairview and Eagle. We found over two hours this
afternoon, between 4-6PM that the levels were about five to six dB lower than
what you see on that table, in terms of the L50 and the L10 levels. One of the
reasons is that we assumed 55 mph for both Fairview and Eagle, because that I
think was on the Ada Counties data that was sent to us. As I found, it’s 45 on
Fairview and 50 on Eagle. So the average speed was less than what we had
assumed. That can account for some of the variation. Secondly, today during
the measurements, we had a wind, that is not accounted for in the model. The
model predicts higher sometimes when the wind is blowing then it would be and
temperature effects. So the point I’m trying to bring though is that even with the
actual measurements, the criteria was what we were trying to establish. Whether
we needed to go to the maximum allowable criteria or the ambient degradation.
Even if we subtract and use the lower levels, the maximum allowable standard
would be appropriate here for evaluation. So it didn’t change anything from the
point we started evaluating, to the results. The result that you saw were that the
facility, the noise from the facility would not exceed the criteria if several things
were done, those were listed as the mitigation measures. The one point that I
wanted to bring out again, once the buildings are constructed, they will become
mitigation measures for traffic noise, and one of the points you have here is that
this is actually a good design layout to have commercial mitigate noise between
highways and residential, because the buildings are natural barriers to the
highway noise and as that highway traffic increases, you are going to see actual
increase levels at those residences. With the buildings actually put there, those
levels will be dropped temporarily until that traffic builds back up and it will
basically approach what it is now. The specific problem areas that we saw were
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 21
relative to refrigerated trailers when they are brought in, if those refrigerator units
are left running, those can be quite loud, especially if they are close to the
property line. We recommended that they be mitigated with barriers put close to
those unloading areas. We’ve worked on several projects in Oregon where we
have very similar situations, the back of the building is 25-30 feet from the
property line, trucks come in—have you passed out those photographs yet?
Okay, I worked on one in the community where I live, in which there was a
Safeway grocery store, the residents behind were retired residents, they were
senior citizens that were living there, had been living there much longer before
this facility was built. They had concerns similar to what I hear are concerns
here. The facility was constructed and the wall was put in to mitigate the
refrigerated trailers. The citizens have had no complaints relative to that. I think
there was one complaint about one compactor that was taken care of once
because something wasn’t done from the original design, but that was taken care
of in the City of Tigard, where I’m talking about. It is reported that there has been
no complaints from that since then. So if you have any questions about the
report or any other issues I haven’t mentioned, please call those now.
Borup: Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Standlee?
Smith: Not at this time.
Borup: Any comment on the—from your report, you mentioned that wall on a
buffering berm would be a lot of benefit, is that correct?
Standlee: I wouldn’t say, I don’t want to use it that way. What I’m saying is that
it’s not warranted given the situation. If you want to put it in there, there is other
benefits that you could talk about besides noise, I suspect, that people might
experience. So I don’t want to say that it won’t have benefits. It’s not warranted
given the expectations. You have to remember in the rear of the buildings, there
is very little activity. You don’t have traffic going through constantly like you do
on the front of the building and the building located there, that’s all mitigated.
Borup: Did you take into consideration landscaping along that same section at
all?
Standlee: No, there isn’t.
Borup: So your noise figures without even taken into consideration a tree buffer
or vegetation on that.
Standlee: There is very little attenuation provided by a tree buffer unless it’s 100
foot or more. (Inaudible) It’s more visual. That’s a cycle acoustic question and
sometimes visual makes a difference. People will be convinced that it’s quieter
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 22
because they can’t see it. That has worked in places, but it’s not showing levels
as being any difference.
Borup: Was there anything that you wanted to conclude with Mr. Durkin?
Durkin: No that’s our presentation, in addition tonight, I want you to be aware
that I have David Coates here from DBR Family Center Inc. in Salt Lake City and
again, the landscape architect, if there is any landscaping questions either from
you or the public. So that’s it for now, I would just like to keep open my
opportunity to further discuss. I did pass pictures out, there is duplicate sets, it
gives you an idea of sound barriers for the grocery stores or Albertsons, and a
Safeway store in Oregon.
Borup: Both of those pictures are from Oregon?
Durkin: Yes.
Rossman: Mr. Durkin, did you want to submit the three exhibits, the noise report,
the photographs and Mr. Dobie’s parking lot as exhibits and made part of the
record in this proceedings.
Durkin: Yes, everything that I do, everything that I show or bring out I usually
give to Angel or the Clerk. That’s always (Inaudible).
Rossman: Thank you, they will be made part of the record.
Borup: Okay, this is a continued public hearing, I might remind again that at our
last meeting, the two things we specifically wanted to consider was the buffering
and the traffic study. I think we’ve heard reports on that. We’ve been here an
hour and a half already. So, what we are looking for is I believe new information,
or perhaps short comments and again keep in mind that we may or may not get
to everyone’s comments depending on how much time we take, but we would
like to stay here tonight until things here get concluded. So saying that, is there
anyone from the public that would like to testify or comment? If so, come on up
and the attorney will swear you in.
DERRICK BROWN, 3873 E. EISENHOWER, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN
BY THE ATTORNEY.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, you are tired, I’m
tired I’ll keep it very brief. The only thing I would like to stress in the way of
additional information is that as you make your considerations, keep in mind a
couple of things that we have to deal with on a daily basis, just trying to enter
and exit our subdivision and the way that the new traffic flow is going to approach
that. Turning left coming off of Presidential onto Eagle Road, even off hours of
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 23
the day is an exercise in frustration at best. Even after the eight o’clock hour,
getting onto 8:30, nine o’clock in the morning, trying to turn left there, we’ve had
several opportunities to sit and wait for five to ten minutes for an appropriate
break in traffic. Generally what we see is even though lights help mitigate that a
little bit, people coming out and turning right at those lights really keeps that
traffic flow relatively constant. I think the only way that we are going to have a
really strong chance of not seriously degrading our quality of being able to get
into and out of our subdivision is to have some type of light available to us to get
out of there. I would like you to seriously consider that Pine Street continuation.
There is a connection available for our subdivision with at least an access to
someplace where we can get to a traffic light going out to Eagle instead of just at
Fairview to give us a little better opportunity to get into and out of there. If the
light is going to be completed at Pine as Mr. Durkin has stated on day one, then
a continuation of that road whether it’s done by the county or whether it’s done
by the development, however it gets done, at least would facilitate our ability to
not be exceedingly frustrated. So I would like to encourage you to look more at
that and also again visit the buffering areas, not just along the back of the
division but also internal to the parking structure. My wife and I have been
wandering around, there is nothing more sort of detracting than these big wide
open areas of asphalt and some type of division in there to just make it look a
little nicer for no other reason, we have to live there and pass by that every other
day. A sea of asphalt is not exactly what anyone wants to see. Those are the
considerations that I think I would like to stress, especially the Pine Street or
some type of adequate access to an easy way to get inn and out of that
subdivision.
Borup: Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Brown? I’d just like a clarification
on—you are saying that you would like to see the light on Pine as soon as
possible?
Brown: I’d like to see the light on Pine as soon as possible, and I would like to
see us have some way to get to it.
Borup: So the access from your subdivision on Pine…
Brown: I don’t see how as traffic demands increase, and the shopping center
gets into full tilt, we’d have any real break in traffic. People are going to be
turning right off of Pine Street, as that gets more and more into development.
We are not going to have any other opportunity getting out of Presidential. I
have a feeling pretty soon, there is going to be no left turning on Presidential,
there is just not going to be a way to do it. So, I think without Pine Street it’s
going to become pretty bad pretty quick. It’s already is pretty nasty.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 24
Borup: Okay, I’ve driven through there too, that’s the thing that I noticed was the
same thing Mr. Dobie said, by the time they come from Franklin, the cars are
spread out. You need that light there on Pine to make that break.
Brown: I think my main concern is that even with the light on Pine providing a
break, you are going to have right turning there as that starts to be developed.
You know, I think if you’ve got areas on that shopping center where people are
pulling out of that shopping center, that’s going to mitigate a little bit, and a little
bit more frustrating to get out of there.
Borup: It appears that the southern portion of the property is a ways off before
that is going to develop.
Brown: That’s what I was hearing.
Borup: Anticipating by the time that does, that Pine will be back and it looks like
the school is going in sooner.
Durkin: Mr. Chairman, there is a clarification, since many of you weren’t at the
hearing last night, I don’t think it’s accurately reflected in that typed report that
was delivered here today. May I hand this out? This is a commitment that’s on
the record last night. It’s our understanding, our belief that it’s a condition of our
approval from ACHD. While the southern edge of the project won’t be developed
right away, we are required to put a frontage road across that. We are required
to put a light in at Pine and Eagle on day one.
Borup: Okay, that is different than the report is.
Durkin: I’m going to hand this to you as part of the record and then you can at
least look at it.
Smith: Mr. Durkin, when you are referring to a frontage road, are you referring to
Pine?
Durkin: It’s a temporary road that is drawn on there that goes along the front of
that project.
Smith: Oh, from Presidential to Pine?
Durkin: Yes, to Pine. See we are constructing Pine to the rear of—to the east
edge of our property line on day one. That has to be open, finished, completed
when we open the center. So that—I just wanted to—I don’t think that was clear
from the record.
Borup: It was not clear from the ACHD report.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 25
Durkin: Were you there last night, that did come up and it’s a matter of public
record.
Borup: You’ve made it (Inaudible). So that clarifies for the homeowners here
that there will be a light and Pine will be paved back to the back of your property.
Durkin: There is an access road from Presidential to Pine across our southern
property that we are constructing. It’s temporary, it will be de-modified when that
part of the center is (Inaudible).
Rossman: For clarification, Mr. Durkin the exhibit you provided is figure 4 family
center at Meridian in the upper right corner and you’ve drawn with blue ink a line
from Presidential Drive to Pine, is that the temporary road that you are referring
to?
Durkin: It was a matter of public record last night it was (Inaudible) on an
overhead and paper.
De Weerd: The residents would have access to use that from Presidential to
Pine where a light will be, is that correct?
Durkin: Yes.
Borup: Okay, I think that answers a lot of concerns that Mr. Brown brought up.
Who’s next?
KEN SANSOUCIE, 3526 E. FLORENCE DRIVE, MERIDIAN, ID.
(END OF TAPE)
Sansoucie: …very cooperative, has invested a lot of time and effort into trying to
cooperate with the residents to reach a satisfactory arrangement. As an
adjacent property owner, I would like the commission to consider a requirement
that the developer provide the adjacent property owners at least names and 24
hour phone contact to our adjacent neighbors who are going to be in this
development. As an adjacent property owner I will have visual contact with the
development and if I see any signs of wrong doing, or if I have any noise
violation issues that I’d like to address, I’d like to address them with those
tenants before I take it up with the city police. I’d like to be a good neighbor, but
I’d like to have those numbers provided to me so that I can address those issues
as I see them. Like I said, as an adjacent property owner, I will see things that
other residents might not see. I’d just like your consideration on that point.
Borup: Thank you. Please come on up.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 26
MARY CAHOON, 1875 N. LOCUST GROVE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN
BY THE ATTORNEY.
Cahoon: On behalf of the neighbors that are here tonight, these are the homes
that they are talking about and I think it’s wonderful that we would treasure our
homes. I happen to live next to the Fred Meyer Development off of Locust Grove
and Fairview, so I can really empathize on how—the things that are happening
here. I think that Meridian is a city that is growing and we are experiencing
growing pains as we are developing and I think that there is a lot that we can
learn from developments or whatever that have happened before. By my living
experience of living next to a development such as this, some of the things that I
think can be done better is during construction there is a lot of dust, dirt and
debris and those types of things. I think water truck or whatever frequently is a
good thing to start with. I know that a lot of these neighbors like the idea of a
berm where it is a concrete or brick wall and I’ve seen the brick wall at Waremart
off of Fairview and Milwaukee, I believe and if you look at the berm that we have
off of Locust Grove, it was intended to be quite a bit wider and it ended up that—
it’s like a three foot berm and the gentleman here talked about how it’s
aesthetically pleasing and so you think it’s quieter, but really it’s not. I live there
next to a berm such as this, anyway I think that a wall, a six foot wall would be
great. This building is going to—they are going to be at the back side of it, what
about safety issues. People that might be burglarizing, the people that live
behind the building that nobody can see, so a nice wall might be a safety feature.
If you look at Waremart, they’ve done a really nice job of landscaping. I think we
need to make an investment in our city and in our neighbors. It’s called the
family center, lets be a family. Lets take care of the people that live right next to
it. You guys are planning and zoning, you can take care of your people here. I
know that there’s going to be a lot of money made for the city through tax
revenue and the developer, let’s take care of those neighbors. I think there is a
common bond that is threaded through each one of these neighborhoods that
comes and they talk to you. As a Planning and Zoning Commission we can
listen to those common threads and we can make it better. You know, we are
growing and we are growing and we are losing—they’re going to loose their
sunset, I lost my sunrise. There are things we pay for the price of growth. If you
have families and retired people that are living here, lets try and make it decent
for them. Things that they’ll be dealing with too are like street sweepers that
happen in the middle of the night sometimes. Steve Kazel from Fred Meyers has
been great to work with but they need that contact number, please give them a
24 hour contact number. Snow removal, you know, are they going to be awake
in the middle of the night. I’ve been woken up in the middle of the night quite a
bit. Signage, a huge TCBY sign appeared in my front window, you know, where
it lights up. When they first put the development in, the street lights that they had
out there were blistering through my window. They talked to Dakota
Development, they said it would take six weeks. I sent a letter in to some of the
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 27
media and immediately the next night there were shields on it. Why was it going
to take six weeks when it only took one night to put a shield over the lights.
That’s not fair to the homeowners. Drive-thrus, the TCBY they placed it there
and the headlights were shining into my front window and they didn’t do anything
for about three months. You listen to the concerns of these people and you take
action and you help them and you build a brick wall if they need that to keep
them safe to screen them from the noise, not aesthetically pleasing. Help the
people of your community, it’s your job.
Borup: Thank you. I guess we are done?
ANGELA DIFRONZO, 3583 E. PRESIDENTIAL, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN
IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Difronzo: Before I make my statement, may I ask for a brief questions of the
developer?
Borup: You could ask the chair and we will ask the developer.
Difronzo: Like I said, I have three brief questions, the first specifically to what
DBA do the mitigation measures proposed and the sound report decrease the
noise to the L-10 specifically at the location “C” during the early morning and day
hours.
Borup: So your question is at location “C”, would you repeat that again. What
do the buildings reduce the noise level, is that your question?
Difronzo: With the mitigation measure referenced in the report, the sound wall at
the specified locations, what is the L-10 estimated in DBA value during the early
morning and day hours. In the report it references a decrease in noise with the
mitigation. I just would like a value.
Borup: A decrease from what? Okay.
Difronzo: A decrease to what.
Borup: What, well, I will let them answer that. I think I understood his answer
but go ahead.
Difronzo: A question two, what is—will the wall be between the traffic lane and
the subdivision, or only between the loading docks and the buildings as depicted
in the picture that was passed around. Depending on that answer…
Borup: I think the applicant stated that would be as in the picture, the wall would
be as close to the right there at the loading.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 28
Difronzo: Okay, then my third question would be what is the distance between
the wall and the building?
Borup: And you said you had some other?
Difronzo: Just depending on those responses, I may have some comments.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Commissioners any questions?
De Weerd: Questions to her questions?
Borup: Comments maybe.
JOHN JAYNES, 3510 E. EISENHOWER, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Jaynes: I had a question for the sound expert here, whether in his opinion the
very small wall close to the loading docks would be more or less effective than a
continuous wall along the subdivision order. In my experience, I don’t have a lot,
I’m not an expert in this, I have dealt in sound a little bit. A concrete wall to me
does not absorb sound, it more reflects it. If you put a box with three sides on it
and put a noise source in there, it’s not really going to block it, it’s going to funnel
it in one direction. If that’s—that actually increases the level in that particular
direction. Where is that noise going to go and so on. I’d kind of like those
questions a little bit cleared up whether he believes the noise is going to be
funneled in one direction, or perhaps a six foot wall along the subdivision itself
would be more effective than (Inaudible).
Borup: Did you understand from the testimony that they were talking about a 20
foot high wall? You did understand.
Jaynes: Right, but it’s also open on one end which is going to blow that sound in
the one direction. That’s all I have.
Borup: Is there anybody else that has any questions on the sound. If so, maybe
we can get them and then answer them all at one time. Any questions for the
engineer?
KELLY BROWN, 3873 E. EISENHOWER, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Brown: My question would be that the sound engineer said that the trees would
be more for just looks than sound. Would something like tall and high density
bushes, I’m thinking tall junipers, things like that, would they do any good to
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 29
buffer the sound, but they would also look good. If trees aren’t going to help, is
there any vegetation that would help?
Borup: Okay, thank you. Okay, Mr. Durkin is Mr. Standlee going to be the one
that is going to answer these questions?
Rossman: Sir, is this a question for the sound engineer?
KEVIN BORCHARDT, 1071 N. FILLMORE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY
THE ATTORNEY.
Borchardt: My question would be, when he was doing his sound study, versus
putting this wall up, what is the sound impact going to be, as that truck drives
right along my fence early in the morning and if that was indicated in the study
anywhere because that is going to increase the sound level.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
ALLAN DURRANT, 3692 E. FLORENCE DRIVE, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN
IN BY THE ATTORNEY.
Durrant: My question for the sound engineer, I actually have two of them.
Originally I thought that Mr. Durkin, when he was commissioning the study was
going to have them refer to the Boise City Noise Ordinance as the reference
point. I just wanted to know what happened to that idea, or if it wasn’t feasible.
Also, when he conducted his sound study out there on that vacant property with
all the weeds, bushes and stuff (Inaudible) through there, would that have a
difference in effect for background level for absorption versus when it’s all paved
concrete if that’s a lighter sound audience you know (Inaudible) for echoes and
such of that nature. I just want to hear a response to those.
Borup: Are you handling all of these Mr. Durkin?
Durkin: I’d like to remind everyone of something, I’m record from the last
meeting that we had. I’ve never ever hired a sign engineer before, it’s new to
me. Most of the time its been guessing over the years, and I think for the most
part, I’ve guessed right. This is a particularly sensitive situation so we have hired
a sound engineer. I read the whole report word for word, I don’t understand a lot
of it. So, a lot of the sound questions, he is going to have to answer, but as it
relates to the Boise Noise Ordinance, the noise ordinance in Boise from our
understanding and from the engineers understanding, is that it isn’t a scientific.
The ordinance is, if I can hear your stereo from a hundred feet, you are breaking
the rules. It doesn’t have the decimals, it doesn’t have the scientific data that
Commissioner Nelson requested, I don’t know if you recall, his request on the
record is I want something with decibels. I didn’t understand what he was asking
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 30
either, but I did know that it was far beyond the scope of the Boise Ordinance.
So, when we hired this firm, we made a decision not to use the Boise Ordinance
because it’s more of a can you hear it from 100 feet or 80 feet, type of thing,
that’s the noise ordinance. That’s why we didn’t use the Boise Noise. Truck
noises addressed in the report in detail and specific questions he can handle.
The distance from the wall to the building on the location the woman, Angela
requested, the wall to the building is approximately 40 feet and the wall to the
property line to the east is approximately 35 feet. That’s from kneeling on the
floor and measuring out a colored rendering give or take a few inches. I just like
to address Mary Cahoons comments. Mary and I met probably every two to
three weeks for several years relating to the Fred Meyer project. Mary Cahoon
was the most effective property owner in the entire development. I knew it the
first day I met her, I acknowledge it today. My first public testimony on this
shopping center I stood up and said these people are going to be effected. We
will do everything we can to meet those concerns. As far as Mary Cahoon’s
concern we did everything that we possibly could to address her concerns. I
have on record here telling you about the parking lot lights the very first meeting,
when you turn the lights on, there is a lot of adjustments. I don’t have a cherry
pichard truck to go up and make them. The company that we hire does. So
when they say it’s going to take three weeks to do or in some cases ten days or
eleven days, that’s what it takes. In her case, she called and complained and
called the newspaper and called the store and called a lot of places. Our
response is immediate. She had many concerns about the dust, we responded
immediately. We certainly should have a good track record with Mary Cahoon
for responsiveness. Although she is effected, I admit that. Her house is the only
residence that is extremely effected by the development of that shopping center.
I admit it, I admitted it to her then and I admit it now. We did everything that we
could. There are adjustments that are made on a shopping center after they are
built. Hers is a good example and I’m glad she brought it up. We had a drive-
thru on the TCBY, it’s something that we didn’t think of, the architect didn’t think
of, the engineer didn’t think of, the planning and zoning didn’t think of, the city
didn’t think, the council didn’t think of. The first night TCBY was open and the
first drive-thru car went through, their headlights were shining right down the
drive lane, right into her living room. It was a problem, there was a couple of
different ways to handle it, and we handled it as quickly as we possibly could.
Every concern that we’ve been able to accommodate her with we’ve done both
during construction and during the operation of the center. I might add on the
sweeping, it’s limited on this project, it can’t occur after 4:30 in the afternoon, or
before 7:30 in the morning. I’ll let the sound engineer address the other
concerns and then I have some other comments from some of the other
testimony.
Standlee: I wasn’t sure about all the questions so if it is possible to have some
of them restated if I word it. I will try and word what a heard and if it’s not
correct…
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 31
Borup: Are you starting from number one?
Standlee: Right.
Borup: That was probably the most confusing.
Standlee: The question I heard was about what was the level—what would be
the level at location “C” once the mitigation wall was in for the refrigeration truck,
what is the L-10 level that they were asking? Between 5 AM and 7 AM, the
regulation level that we have to meet, that we chose to meet I should say, we
don’t have to meet it in this state, but we chose the criteria was 50 DBA. So,
10% of the time, it could be above that, 90% of the time it would be below that.
So to give you an example, 10% is six minutes of an hour. Its because we are
always looking at per hour type things. 90% is 54 minutes of that hour. I don’t
know how long those trucks will be at that dock, it just depends on if they are
there for 30 minutes, whatever, an hour. If they are there for an hour and the
equipment is run continually during that time—we will, we’re saying we will meet
that standard. The level itself may not be above 50 at all, the barrier was
designed to bring it down to 3 dB below the standard.
Borup: I think that was her question. You said the mitigation of the wall would
decrease the noise and she wanted to know decrease it to what. You are saying
it would be a minimum of 3 dB …
Standlee: …below the standard of 50 for the L-10. I’m sorry the L-10 would be
55 is the standard between 5AM. The L-50 is 50. If you look at that table that
we have in there. In other words, 50% of the time the level can exceed 50, but
only 10% of the time of that hour can it go above 55.
Borup: Okay, let me just maybe—Angela, did that answer your question? I don’t
see her. Just shake your head, that’s all we need to know. That did not.
Standlee: Maybe you could reword the question then so I can give you a better
answer then.
Borup: Yeah, maybe rather than coming back later should we just. Angela could
you maybe stand up and reword that question again and then we can go on.
Difronzo: I think the question was answered, I just want clarification that so when
the wall is constructed at the loading dock, the L-10 level will be reduced 3 DBA
from…
Standlee: No, the L-10 level will be reduced from 74 down to 53. Without that
barrier, the level and the property behind would be around 74 dB.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 32
De Weerd: Can I expand on that? Okay, without the wall it would be 74, with the
wall it would be 47. If you had the wall not close to the sound of the source, to
the source of the sound, and you had it to 35 feet away, how effective would a
wall be 35 feet from the source of the sound? Do you know what I’m asking?
Standlee: Yeah I do. We have to look at two things here to answer that. What I
heard ask is why can’t we put a six foot wall at the perimeter of the property line.
A six foot wall at the property line will do no good at all because the source is ten
foot high, actually ten to eleven foot high. So the source is above the wall. So
you have to have a wall that breaks the line of sight before you will get any
reduction. If you just break the line of sight, you’ll get about 5 dB reduction.
De Weerd: I understand that, I just wanted you to explain that.
Standlee: If you took that 20 foot wall and put it back there, yes you will get
about the same reduction because it’s about the distance between the source
and the top of the wall and the receiver that determines your reduction. So if you
are up close to the source and we have a distance up to the top of the wall and
into the receiver, it’s going to be about the same if you put the wall close to the
receiver as the same distance. So, if you put it into the middle, you will have the
least reduction. If you put it close to the receiver or close to the source, you’ll get
about the same reduction. So it’s no better to put it at the property line than it is
to put it next to the source. Does that answer your question? Okay. The next
question I believe Ms. Difronzo asked was will the wall be between the traffic
lane and the building, I thought was what she was asking. What we are
proposing is that that wall is an extension of the building, at the same line as the
building line. So it’s going to be there at the building. The traffic lane will be
between the building and the property line. Does that answer your question?
Okay. Then what is the distance between the wall and the building, I wasn’t sure
what…
Borup: Mr. Durkin answered that, he said about 40 feet.
Standlee: If that was actually the question she was asking, I was confused about
that one, as to whether or not she understood that was an extension of the
building, it’s in line with the building.
Borup: Just the width of the loading docks.
Standlee: If she was asking about the width of the loading dock, (Inaudible) he
answered that. I didn’t know she was asking that question. Okay then, Mr.
Jaynes asked is a small wall next to the source more effective than a six foot wall
continuous I assume along the subdivision and again, the wall dimensions—this
is not necessary a small wall, we are talking about the length of the trailer plus an
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 33
additional 20 foot. So we are talking about a 60 foot long wall here that is not
necessary that small when it’s 20 foot high. That is more effective than a six foot
wall around the perimeter because the six foot wall is below the source. The six
foot wall wouldn’t provide any reduction of a source that’s elevated.
Borup: Six foot wall on top of a five foot berm.
Standlee: If you go eleven foot?
Borup: So you still see about the same thing though, still above the line of sight.
Standlee: It’s just breaking the line of sight.
Borup: It would not break the line of sight.
Standlee: It would, eleven would break the line of sight of a ten foot source.
Because the receiver is five foot.
Borup: You are saying the refrigeration unit is only ten feet?
Standlee: Average ten foot, the source itself is averaged ten foot high off the
ground.
Borup: And then I think the other part of his question was will wall decrease the
sound or will it funnel it out the open end.
Standlee: That would be true. There is a product called sound block that is an
absorptive concrete block. It has—it’s constructed with slots in it and then inside
the block is a fiberglass absorption material, so that it doesn’t reflect as much
sound as much as a solid concrete block wall. That is a mitigation measure that
can be used to build that wall so that you don’t have this reflection if it becomes a
problem. We would look at that issue when we get into design of this loading
area. It could be that the distance from the wall to the reflecting wall is far
enough that it’s going to decrease quickly enough (Inaudible) add in. The sound
reduces about 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source. As an example, if
you had a measurement ten foot from the source. In this case, we had—our
levels are 15 foot away, our measurements I mean. So you will see in the
reference data that the level was 87 dB 15 feet away, you go to 20 feet away and
it’s dropped 6 dB already. You go to 40 feet another 6 dB, and so on. So when
you have reflections, you actually are having increased distances which will
reduce that sound. So I don’t know that we would have to worry about
reflections yet, but we would take a look at that. There are many ways to
mitigate that by putting absorption on those walls, either by constructing it with
an absorptive product, or adding absorption to the wall, such as a panel that’s
made of metal, that has perforated surface to it, with absorption material behind
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 34
it. That’s used quite often on projects, in fact, we are looking right now in
Portland, we have the new light rail on the west side. After they opened it up, of
course they had some noise problems that they didn’t expect and they are now
working to get those taken care of. One way to do that is to put absorption on
sound walls that they put up that are focusing sound in certain areas. Then there
was a question by Mr. Borchardt, I believe it was, what impact will the wall have
on trucks passing by? It’ll be basically be the same as the existing—the building.
Three will be a 3 dB reflection from the wall to add to a pass bi-level. If the wall
wasn’t there, or the building wasn’t there and a truck passed by, it would have a
certain dB level at a certain distance. If you put a wall up, it’s going to add 3 dB
to it for the reflection.
Borup: So you are saying that the wall is not going to have any more defect than
the building that will be there.
Standlee: Right. Vegetation was a question—with the vegetation now was
that—and none later, what was the effect, I think that was the just of the
question. That was commented on in my section 7.4 I believe in the report
where I said what we looked at was what would be the effect of the building on
the traffic noise. When we calculated that effect, in the original calculation of
traffic noise, we included a soft sight, meaning that there was vegetation on the
site, which adds some absorption. In predicting with the buildings there, we put
on a hard site, which there isn’t no attenuation by the ground. It showed that
they level predicted was from traffic if we just had a hard sight instead of a soft
site that the levels would be about 6 dB higher, with the same traffic. So we took
that into account, but we still got the reduction of about five to ten dB in some
locations. At one location we only got one to three because there is a big break
between the buildings.
Borup: So I think to answer Mr. Durrant’s question, you did take the asphalt into
consideration.
Standlee: Yes, that’s right. I don’t know if there were any other questions…
Borup: One other, I think Mr. Brown was talking on whether tall bushes would
have any effect in addition to just…
Standlee: Okay, when I said that vegetation would have no effect, I want to
make sure that you understand, I’m talking about perpendicular to the building. If
you have vegetation down a line a 100 foot and you were down at that 100 foot
and looking down the road, that vegetation is going to have an effect at that
location, but straight through, it’s not—parallel to the vegetation, you will have an
effect, but perpendicular to it because it’s so narrow, you won’t have an effect.
Really shrubs don’t help, it’s got to have density of distance, before you will see
an appreciable reduction that’s going to be noticeable. I think Mrs. Cahoon said
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 35
that I was saying that people will always think that bushes (Inaudible), no they
don’t always. I’m just saying that some people have responded to vegetation as
being a benefit even though the levels are shown to be the same. I can tell you
that it does not effect it, it does not reduce it and she agreed, it doesn’t reduce it.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Did that answer all the noise questions? Apparently
not. (Inaudible) Well you need to come up to the microphone and maybe, you
are talking a new question or we didn’t answer yours?
Jaynes: Just to clarify. It’s my understanding that there are going to be sunken
loading docks, is that correct? So you are lowering the refrigeration unit
anyway?
Standlee: That’s my understand, I’m not sure how much.
Jaynes: Okay. But I just wanted to know in your opinion whether this six foot
wall on a five foot berm continuous wall would be more effective than a partial 20
foot high wall over the entire distance, you know average distance. Maybe not in
one location or the other, but average over the distance of the subdivision there.
Standlee: You have got to remember the source is only right there at the loading
dock when it’s there for a long time. It’s moving through, it’s only going to be
there temporary, short-term. We are talking about a 15 mph, that’s about 20 feet
per second. So it’s a very short time that the truck and refrigerator is going to be
generating noise when it’s passing by. Once it’s at the loading dock a wall down
the way is not going to benefit anyone because the level is already low enough
that it’s not going to be a problem. So I don’t think you are going to see an
appreciable difference between putting a 11 foot wall at the property line and
putting a 20 foot wall next to the loading dock.
Borup: Okay. Mr. Durkin, the loading dock, how far is that recessed?
Durkin: They very. I’m not—it’s on the plans and specks for the Shopko which
may be modified, I don’t have the…
Borup: I think, and we haven’t stated that, but a lot of the concern has probably
been at the grocery store because eof the refrigerator units. That’s probably the
only one that would have refrigerator units…
Standlee: Even though the loading dock is depressed at the dock, the
refrigeration unit is not because of the angle, by the time you come to the front of
the truck, it’s at grade, it’s not depressed. We don’t have a step down condition,
it’s a ramp condition. The source is up at the front.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 36
Borup: That makes sense, it’s going to depend on the length of the ramp and
the length of the truck as far as how much that could effect, alright, thank you.
Standlee: I guess I just want to call your attention to the front page that we
talked about, keep in mind when the trucks are at the dock, the engines are
turned off. In item number four, for refrigeration trucks at a dock, its turned off.
So it’s not like it’s there sitting there running.
Rossman: Mr. Durkin you provided two additional photos, did you want to make
those part of the record.
Durkin: For the record, everything I hand to the clerk is always a part of the
record.
Borup: Explain those photos.
Durkin: Those are photos that are in a shopping center in Oregon that are the
photos requiring the trucks to turn their engine off, or the refrigerated trucks, it’s a
parking sign that the City of Tigard Oregon has, it states their ordinance number.
The City of Meridian doesn’t have that, that might be something they could look
at—we think that would be grand. We intend to sign the premises with a sign
similar to that absent the ordinance number.
Borup: Thank you. Hopefully we’ve covered the noise issues. This still is a
public hearing, have you got more?
Difronzo: So based on the answers to those questions, I had a few comments.
Borup: Okay you did say that you wanted to ask some, okay go ahead.
Difronzo: So basically based on my brief review of the sound engineers proposal
that I was given tonight, it is my opinion that a contiguous wall around the
perimeter of the subdivision may provide more adequate sound protection and
I’m also concerned about the reflection between—within the loading dock walls
and feel more investigation is needed in this area and also as far as the
contiguous fall around the perimeter, I understand the concept that you need to
have the line of sight broken between the noise making object and the receiver,
so it would obviously have to be higher than 11 feet at the perimeter of the
subdivision. It would need to be of increased height, rather than having a brick
wall going up this subdivision would so prefer to have a berm and then a wall
constructed on top of this. Just throwing a number out, it would have to be
higher than 20 feet. So if you had a ten foot high berm and a ten foot high wall
on top of that, maybe this would be possible. The reasons I propose this are, I
was trying to find some reference material regarding noise analysis and
abatement and I found one from the US Department of Transportation and one of
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 37
the main sentences it has in there “to avoid undesirable end effects, a good rule
of thumb is that the barrier should extend four times as far in each direction as
the distance from the receiver to the barrier. So, the 20 feet of wall that is
extended past the end of the truck does not appear to meet the…
Borup: You are saying it doesn’t meet that rule of thumb?
Difronzo: So therefore a contiguous barrier would reduce the number of breaks
in the noise barrier and so you would have more efficient noise suppression.
Another item that is in the traffic and noise analysis guidelines is that a noise
barrier can achieve five dB noise reduction if it breaks the line of sight and then a
reduction of one and a half dB for each meter above the line of sight that is
broken. So although the noise decibel level is decreased to the 53 in location
“C”, it is possible to achieve a more quieter environment if that height of the wall
is increased. Then another item of reference and my reference is that sound
levels are only to be used to determine impact and noise abatement should be
designed to achieve a substantial noise reduction, not the noise abatement
criteria. So basically as long as we are spending all this money to construct a
barrier for noise reduction, might as well make it a good one. I would have like to
review this report in a little greater detail to provide you a written letter of my
concerns, unfortunately time does not allow.
Rossman: Ms. Difronzo, a foundationally concern, do you have an particularize
training, education or experience in sound engineering?
Difronzo: Not sound engineering, my degree is in mechanical engineering.
Rossman: Have you consulted with the sound engineer?
Difronzo: No.
Rossman: Would you like to make your report that you are relying upon a matter
of record in this proceeding?
Difronzo: The report that I referenced?
Rossman: Yes, that way the commission can comply whatever credibility that
they may deem necessary after reviewing the report.
Difronzo: That is fine, how do I do that?
Rossman: Provide it to the clerk please.
Difronzo: Thank you.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 38
Borup: Thank you, Mr. Phillips?
ROBERT PHILLIPS, 3437 E. PRESIDENTIAL, MERIDIAN, ID. WAS SWORN IN
BY THE ATTORNEY.
Phillips: I’ll try and be as concise as possible tonight for Commissioners Smiths
benefit, I was very concise last time and submitted a letter, but…
Rossman: I will restate the general guideline or rules of this commission that you
try and confine your testimony to three minutes and try not to avoid or duplicate
prior testimony in this proceeding.
Phillips: I just wanted to also state for the record that I believe that the
continuous wall around the subdivision will provide me an sycho (sic) acoustic
benefit, just so everyone knows. I also want to commend the commission, I think
you have spent a lot of time in analyzing this, particularly Commissioner Borup
was at the ACHD till early in the morning, this morning. I think that is above and
beyond the call of duty and I know that you are taking this very seriously. All I
want to do here tonight is—Commissioner Borup asked me a question last time
that I would like to respond to, I drafted a letter and he asked me if that was my
opinion or if it came from the code. I’ve been a little puzzled by this application.
In particular I had a client who asked me a question last week and it took me
about 60 seconds to open the code and find the answer, basically there are three
things you need to know, where the land is at, what the use is, and what the
zoning is and you open the book and look. So I thought that would be the best
exercise for us to do very briefly is to go through that same exercise. I have a
copy of the section of the code 2-409. I think we all know where the land is, I
think we all know that the application requests a conditional use permit for a
regional shopping center. I think we also all know that it’s an industrial site with a
conditional use permit for a planned unit development general. If we glance at
this code section, I include the whole code section with the exception of section
6D which talks about livestock and poultry which I did feel was applicable. So it’s
all of section 2-409 except for that. The question is where can you put a regional
shopping center? If you will turn to page 45, which is about the fifth page in the
second item, this is a commercial use. This is in a commercial zone, not an
industrial zone. It tells you, you have a regional shopping center and that’s only
allowed by conditional use permit in an RSC, regional shopping center business
district. There is a conflict in a code and I just want to bring that to your
attention. If you look on the next page which is page 46, you will notice a
regional shopping center is allowed in RSC by—it’s just permitted simply. I don’t
think that’s really an issue, but there is small conflict in the code that I wanted to
bring to your attention so we are complete. Now we know that this isn’t a
commercial section, we are in an industrial zoning, so it’s important we look at
industrial zoning, which is on page 48. This is a planned unit development
general, this is the only use that allows residential or commercial, a mixture of
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 39
use. If you look down there you have R-40 which you can have by conditional
use permit, L-0 which you can have by conditional use permit, CN which you can
have by conditional use permit, CC by conditional use permit, but you’ll notice
that RSC is noticeable absent from that. I’m just puzzled as to how we are going
about putting this in and still abide by the code. Commissioner Borup asked a
good question last time as well, I think he was asking whether this was or was
not a regional shopping center…
(END OF TAPE)
…and I’m curious if it’s not a regional shopping center, exactly what it is. The
intensity of this is clearly by square footage above what is required for a regional
shopping center. If you look a the coding for the commercial districts, there is
like office, CNCC, it goes up in intensity and each one is supposed to be to
permit business uses that could—for example, in the regional shopping center
business district, it is to permit business uses that would not, or would be of
larger scale than a community business district. So you look at each zoning as
to get bigger and bigger and bigger is the way that the codes put together.
Clearly this is as big and bigger than the minimal requirement for a regional
shopping center which means it would probably be required to be in a regional
shopping center business district. I just bring that to your attention, it goes back
to my point, it’s too intense. Four quick points and I’ll sit down. I still think if you
do allow this, there should be a continuous berm with a wall. I’ve said that from
day one and it should be from the beginning of when they start construction,
even if there is a certain area that is not being constructed, it should completely
encircle or go around and buffer the residential from day one of construction, not
in portions. Secondly, if there is any—I know that Commissioner De Weerd last
time mentioned that she wanted a bigger buffer out front and I’d make the
request that we could leave the front at minimum and it there is any excess put
that between the residents and the shopping center. I would prefer a greater
buffer there than in front of the shopping center. The last thing that I would just
request, we’ve had a lot of recommendations here, I would just request that
everything that you decide to put in, make sure you put that in a conditional use
permit so that it’s clear. I’m sure there has been a lot of suggestions, I hope you
will detail all those out and make sure they are in writing in the conditional use
permit, I’d be open for any questions you might have.
Smith: Mr. Phillips, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of clarification of code that Mr.
Phillips is referring to as the zoning and development ordinance of the City of
Meridian and getting back here reference to the industrial zone, permitted uses
in that zoning, you will also notice that an R-4 development is not a permitted
use in a light industrial zone.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 40
Phillips: You are absolutely 100% correct. What would have to happen is there
should have been an appeal within a certain time after that otherwise it would be
allowed. Its been there…
Smith: I’m not going to debate ancient history but…
Phillips: I agree, I think you raise a valid point, the problem is it’s there. The
question is what can go in next to it as part of the plan and I’m saying under the
code, if you have a planned unit development general, you can’t have a regional
shopping center. Let me chance this—I think that’s a question we could sit and
talk about all night, that should be a question that you ask of your counsel and
decide with him.
Rossman: Mr. Phillips, along those lines, I’m curious. Have you read provision
9-607 of the ordinance, of the planned unit development ordinance?
Phillips: I probably have, I do not recall at this point at time, should we look at it.
Rossman: Maybe I’ll tell you what that says, it says that PD should be allowed
only as a conditional use in each district subject to the standards and procedures
set forth in the section. A PD shall be governed by the regulations of the district,
in which said PD is located the approval of the final development plan for a PD
may provide for such exceptions from the district regulations governing use
density, area, bulk, parking signs and other regulations as may be desirable to
achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are
consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this section. In light of
that provision is it your position as a matter of law, under Meridians zoning
ordinance that a commercial or regional shopping center such as the one
proposed can not be under any circumstances included with in a planned
development within the City of Meridian?
Phillips: It would look like from my reading of this it would not, there may be a
conflict between those two sections and from what I can see here it would not be
permitted—if it would be permitted, it would have to be a part of the original plan
and I don’t think it was a part of the original plan that was submitted. In fact, I
don’t think there was a plan submitted for commercial site.
Rossman: But there was an approval and there was no appeal of the original, of
the granting of the original planned development.
Phillips: That is correct.
Borup: Maybe this might be a good time a couple of clarification. I do believe
and maybe not to this extent, there was a plan submitted for a shopping center a
little smaller than this, it was 650,000 sq. ft. with much the same design wrapped
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 41
around the subdivision and I believe that was done back in –I can’t remember
now, if it was in 1991 or 1993. You probably came across that in your research.
Phillips: No, I didn’t I’ve heard people talk about that, I went and looked at the—
what I could find on record.
Borup: It was at that time just a conceptual plan.
Phillips: So I didn’t find anything on record that talked about that, but I do note
where there was another development, but it was much less intense than this
one is.
Borup: That one I didn’t find. Also prior to that they were at one time trying to
locate the regional mall there. It was in contention with where Boise Town
Square is and downtown Boise and Nahas project and another one called Clong
(sic) so this was about number four.
Phillips: You raise a good point, except for the fact that you have to go through
the process to make sure if they want to do that it’s fine, but they would have to
have the conditions in place to be able to do that. Even though there is
preliminary designs and intent, it was never put into place.
Borup: No, that’s true. I would like to maybe discuss just a little bit on a couple
of things you brought up, I guess to clarify on definitions, one was on the RSC,
the regional shopping center district, quoting from the same paragraph that you
read, it says that it is intended to and will serve the entire region of the treasure
valley. Do you feel that this is a development that meets that criteria?
Phillips: Yeah, I do, I think that was the intent was to have something
regionalized to bring people in from all over.
Borup: You feel that this store is, you mean?
Phillips: Not this store, but this complete center.
Borup: Well that’s what I meant, which we are looking at.
Phillips: The combination…
Borup: Another Shopko…
Phillips: Shopko combined with um…
Borup: Do you feel this Shopko is going to drag all the people from Boise?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 42
Phillips: No, it’s not the one shopping store, it’s the shopping center. When you
have 850,000 sq. ft. and you have a Sams Club or a Costco, there is not very
many of those in the valley. So if you don’t want to go and hassle with
Milwaukee, where are going to go to go there? You are going to go to the
closest one. So maybe if there isn’t something over in Nampa so you stop off in
here, so parts of the Treasure Valley will be attracted to this because it’s easier to
get into.
Borup: I agree with that, it’s going to regionalize.
Phillips: So that’s why I say that…
Borup: I mean anybody that is driving past this site to go into Boise is going to
stop here. Decrease in traffic down the road, perhaps.
Phillips: There may even be people from Boise or south Boise to come this
direction to avoid the Milwaukee traffic conditions.
Borup: Okay, I guess then just as—one of the purpose of this is to prohibit strip
and commercial development and encourage clustering. The other was on, you
didn’t get into the definition of also ordinance regional mall.
Phillips: Regional shopping center. There is three definitions and one is regional
shopping center.
Borup: Right, and I believe that is the only one in here.
Phillips: No, there is regional shopping center, there is community shopping
center…
Borup: Okay, but you are referring to the regional aspect, which is saying that
the regional shopping center has at least two large department stores. Serving a
population of 150,000 I guess that would need to be determined some other way
and then 750 sq. ft. or over and it definitely meets the 750, in my mind, I question
whether it does on the two anchor departments.
Phillips: You raise a valid point there, but the question is, if it’s not, what is it?
Borup: That was my next question for you, do you feel this is more of a regional
or a community?
Phillips: Well, the community shopping center is from a 100,000 to 400,000 sq.
ft. generally. So what I’m saying is whatever this is, it’s not a community
shopping defined in our code. It’s some kind of super community shopping
center is more akin to a regional shopping center.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 43
Borup: We need a new definition here.
Phillips: What I’m saying is that I’m not really sure what it is. I’m just saying…
Borup: I would agree that’s probably where it is, somewhere in between the two.
Thank you, I spoke before I asked if the other commissioners had any questions.
Thank you Mr. Phillips. Does anybody else have a final thing to wrap up?
Borup: You are next.
JOANN BUTLER, 607 N. 8TH
STREET, BOISE, ID. WAS SWORN IN BY THE
ATTORNEY.
Butler: Representing Capital development the developer of Crossroads
development. What I’ve passed out to the commissioners, your legal counsel
and staff is just a synopsis of some of the points in both the Comprehensive Plan
and the zoning ordinance. I’m not asking you to look at that, I’m not going to
take you through it bit by bit. I wanted you to have that and I also want to refer
you to 11-9-607 and 11-9-604 which are the planned development regulations
and the procedure for going through the planned development process which
this does have to go through. I’m here to follow up on some of the points that
were just raised and also to answer some of the questions that might be raised
by that testimony and by the testimony that I give. I am representing capital
development. Capital development is the developer of Crossroads and they are
very concerned that this commission and that the city address factually what
happened at the public hearings previous to this application and factually as to
how your Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance are met. Mr. Durkin raised
the point that he is trying very hard to meet the needs of the citizens that
surround this area to try and meet their needs as to the site plan Mr. Durkin and
his application needs to meet the cities concerns to as whether this application
meets both the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, because the city
has to make factual findings to that effect before it can reach the conclusions of
law as to whether it approves or denies or approves with conditions this project.
Also the city needs to do this because my client has relied on those factual past
public hearings and what was said. They have relied on the zoning ordinance
and they have relied on the Comprehensive Plan and they don’t want to have
had relied on that to their detriment. So we are looking to the Planning and
Zoning Commission in that regard. Mr. Phillips raised a very good point. The
application that you have before you is confusing for us as the reader. It
references, it titles it that it is asking for a regional shopping center, it implies it is
asking for a new conditional use application, it also implies that it is transferring
an existing conditional use from 1993. So the question is, what is it. Under your
ordinance if this is a regional shopping center then it is not permitted in an LI
zone, it is not permitted in this industrial zone, it does need to be rezoned. In
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 44
fact, the industrial zone clearly prohibits that as well as clearly prohibits any
commercial shopping center. If this is a new conditional use which has been
eluded to by staff and others that this is a whole new conditional use, what you
have to look at is does it comply with the Comprehensive Plan and again, you
have to say what is the zoning for this area? Is a conditional use allowed? I
think somebody, I think Mr. Borup you raised the question well, can somebody do
a conditional use in a LI zone. What the zoning ordinance says and what the
PD ordinance says, planned development section of the subdivision ordinance
says, is that you can—some planned developments you can do, but planned
development general you can not, or I’m sorry, I misspoke, it does say that
planned development general you can do. But what a planned development
general is a development not otherwise distinguished under planned commercial
which is defined as completely commercial. Or, which contains a mixture of
residential, commercial or industrial and that, this application wouldn’t do. So if
it is a new conditional use, I think it doesn’t meet your zoning ordinance. Then
you have to ask your question well, is this a transfer? It’s been raised here
tonight that and in past hearings that this is a transfer of a conditional use that
was previously done. Now we were, or my client was intimately involved in that
particular conditional use process. If this is a transfer from the old conditional
use then your ordinance is really specific. You have new owners here and it
says in order to transfer this, you have got to as the new owner petition the City
Council and ask their permission to make that transfer. There is a couple of very
good reasons why in this case. You need to have the council determine and
make sure that previous commitments made at public hearings are carried
through to this application. You need to ensure because your ordinance says,
that the same uses have to be contained within this application as was found in
the previous grant of a conditional use. One of the things that I’ve provided to
you tonight is a copy of and I want to apologize in advance, some of the pages
are a little bit out of order, which you can tell by the heading which shows the
numeric order that it came through the fax machine from somebody that sent that
to me. So I just don’t want you to be confused, but it’s the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law that this city reached in 1993 and also an excerpt of the
minutes from 1993. I’ll just briefly talk about refer you to those minutes. Mr.
Right, who is a partner in the previous owner of this project said that they were
going to covenant, they were going to record restrictive covenants as to color,
height, types, landscaping, lighting, hours of operation, etc. to protect and
enhance the residential that my client was up before this commission asking to
be put in. We won’t allow major heavy industrial uses, but light commercial office
type, and other industrial. The Findings of Fact that Mr. Crookston at that time
wrote up, state that the uses will be a mixture of and I’ll quote “commercial, and
light industrial uses as a planned unit development general.” In addition, Mr.
(Inaudible) said to the city that with regard to the buffer particularly. We are
thinking of some type of berm, fence, a combination tree situation to isolate the
commercial from residential. Continuing, Mr. Wright when asked by the council
what that would be like, he said it was difficult to be precise at that time, how it’s
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 45
going to be screened, but I’ll quote “Our commitment to this community and to
Mr. Yorgenson is that we will put covenant against all the property surrounding
him. That we will do among other things restrict height, color, hours of operation,
landscaping separations etc. We have discussed three variations of separation,
per say residential and commercial, one would be fencing, one would
landscaping, one would be berming. I don’t know precisely tonight what that
combination would be, what percentage proportion of those we will use, but I will
assure this council and this community that there will be separation be the
residential and commercial, but we have to do that in tandem with Mr.
Yorgenson.”
Rossman: Ms. Butler is it your position that the present application is
inconsistent with that particular statement, and how?
Butler: That’s correct.
Rossman: And how?
Butler: That’s correct, because what we have here is a couple of reasons why
it’s inconsistent with that previous application, if this is a transfer situation in
which you are saying the same uses will be carried out as previously approved.
There is no industrial, it is not a combination of commercial and industrial. So
the council needs to look at that and that’s what they would do in a petition to
them asking if this conditional use can be transferred. Likewise, when Mr.
Yorgenson, my client, met with Mr. Wright back then, they fully expected to be
part and parcel of a unified logical development that was both residential,
commercial, and industrial.
Rossman: So are you saying that it’s actually in the Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law which granted the original conditional use permit for the
planned unit development that a mixture of commercial, industrial and residential
uses in fact would be included in the final design, or…
Butler: It states and I’ll quote paragraph of the findings “Petitioners proposed to”
it’s on—don’t know what page that would be on the—but it would be on your
facts it’s five of fourteen at the top in the first partial paragraph at the top
“Petitioners proposed to develop the property in mixed use fashion containing
both commercial and light industrial uses as a planned unit development general.
This was in keeping with what Mr. Wright the previous owner of the property
stated, especially that has to do with uses and especially we are very concerned,
my client is very concerned about three things that we don’t feel have been
addressed collectively between these two developers. You could look if this is a
transfer and I’m not sure it is because there is no petition coming to this
commission following a council action, but if it is, then it needs to go to the
council and then I think it needs to go to the council with a unified message from
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 46
both of what would be the co-developers. My client who developed the
residential and the developer of this portion that surrounds it.
De Weerd: Can I ask a quick question, is your client Mr. Yorgenson?
Butler: He is the president of Capital Development the developer of Crossroads.
De Weerd: The same person who sat here and testified that he supports this
development?
Butler: He supports the development with—and he has talked about that what
he is very, very concerned about this, not that he supports the development as it
is, but it doesn’t have a lot of what the zoning ordinance calls for. Logical
consistency creating a unified development between uses of the planned
development.
De Weerd: But in his testimony, I’ve read all the minutes and in his testimony his
concerns were interior landscaping and the buffer. Period.
Butler: And that is no small matter. That is very much his concern the
buffering…
De Weerd: And that is what we’ve been spending all this time on.
Butler: I’m talking about two things though. I’m talking about you need to talk
about buffering, you need to talk about as you did tonight traffic. You need to talk
about landscaping internally to this system because from his perspective and I’m
sure the residents perspective they don’t want to become know as the address
less subdivision that is kind of located behind a major shopping center. They
want to be unified with that.
Borup: Kind of, they would be very specifically located, not kind of.
Rossman: Well Ms. Butler, do you understand Commissioner De Weerd’s
position that or question that, would you agree that this is in fact tonight when
this hearing was continued primarily to address two particular issues. This is the
first time that your client has addressed this commission with these issues that
you are raising at this time.
Butler: The issue on the buffering—as I heard you question being two parts.
The issue on the buffering and to answer your question too, the issuing on the
buffering and the land use and how it integrates as a planned development, that
is a very important answer. If these issues haven’t been raised before, it could
be perhaps because you haven’t had legal counsel look at it before and ask the
question okay, but before we even get to buffering, before we even get to traffic,
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 47
are we even meeting our zoning ordinance? Are we going through the proper
procedure? The reason for going through that proper procedure such as the
transfer process which requires a petition to council is to make sure that things
like tonight, what I’m saying tonight come up. So you are not hit with it at the tail
end. What I’m saying here is that the city—if the applicant had gone through that
process you probably would be hearing this from the last person to get up, to
testify to you after several hearings. I’m sorry for that, I think that’s not, that’s
because the process outlined in your code wasn’t followed.
De Weerd: In previous minutes though Mr. Yorgenson and it wasn’t in this
application, it was in 1993, he requested the fence, the buffering or the shrubs
and berm. He would put in the six foot fence and the development would put in
the additional buffering.
Butler: Are you talking about the side along Eagle and Fairview?
De Weerd: This is past testimony that Mr. Yorgenson had referred to.
Butler: I don’t know all the things that you are quoting from from the minutes, but
I can say that Mr. Wright said that he would assure the council and the
community that there would be separation, but we would have to do that in
conjunction with Mr. Yorgenson and Mr. Yorgenson for his part said to address
the question of screening.
De Weerd: That was in the May minutes.
Butler: I’m looking in June.
De Weerd: (Inaudible) July ones, not in the June ones. So this is testimony he
had already given prior to June.
Butler: Okay, and I’m looking at June minutes which it sounds like they are
repeating what he must of said earlier, that we will work together. We will work
together with the developer of the commercial and industrial to come up with a
mutually beneficial screening to both protect and enhance the residential.
De Weerd: And has he been working with the developer.
Butler: He has said to me that they have talked. That he remains after those
talks incredibly concerned about the buffering. That major buffering needs to be
done along the periphery of the residential area. He’s also very concern about
the parking lot itself and the buffering along Eagle and Fairview Avenue. He
raised the points that other property owners else where on Eagle have been
required to meet a 35 foot landscaping issue. It’s an area that you have
identified in your Comprehensive Plan as a major gateway into the city and
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 48
wanting it to appear good. It’s going to effect his subdivision which he spent
several, what he said to me was several hundreds of thousands of dollars on
landscaping.
De Weerd: A silly question to ask, why is it on the fourth meeting we are hearing
this?
Butler: I can only tell you this, I’m telling you that I’m raising some particular,
procedural, legal issues. The issues on screening, buffering, things like that
have been raised before. It’s appropriate to raise it whenever there is a public
hearing. I’m sorry you are not—if I’d known it was the first meeting, I would’ve
raised the issue. If your counsel had been here, those issues might have been
raised for the commission as well, but he wasn’t, I wasn’t and the applicant didn’t
raise them for you. Fortunately they have been raised and I ask you to work with
your attorney to determine whether or not you can make the factual findings that
the application is properly before you now, or whether or not something had to be
done prior to this. Is this a regional shopping center? If so, does it meet your
code? Is it a new conditional use? If so, does it meet your code? If it is a
transfer, has the process been carried out correctly.
Rossman: I guess I would ask that question to staff as to whether this
application has been treated as a new conditional permit or as a transfer of an
existing conditional use permit? If that can be answered.
Borup: Staff would you like to respond to that?
Stiles: Commissioners, I guess in this case, it’s almost treated as both. They
could have elected to apply for the transfer of conditional use, however, with
merely a transfer of conditional use, all of the exact requirements and the exact
concept plan that was originally presented would now be in place for this. They
were proposing modifications at the time the original conditional use permit was
given, I don’t know if it required a transfer of a conditional use permit. I guess
I’m a little upset too to be hearing this at this time and perhaps if this is going to
be the attitude of the adjacent subdivision, then I’m all for the subdivision and all
for subdivision rights, but maybe they could go back to the drawing board, they
could put in a junk yard, they could put in fuel yards, motor vehicle repair, mobile
home manufacturing, all those things they could put in today with no conditional
use permit whatsoever come in and get a building permit. If it happens to be a
problem and this is that offensive, I suggest you look at what is allowed in the
light industrial zone and I think that we’ve been as fair and as conscientious as
we can to the neighborhood. This commission has spent all of there voluntary
time to listen to the same issues over and over and over again. I hate to be
upset about it, I know it’s late to bring an attorney in here at the last possible
minute when we had the owner of the development that did not go through a
conditional use permit himself, come in and try to protest this is a little bit
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 49
ridiculous. I just want you to keep that in mind when you are bringing up these
points. I think you are splitting hairs, there maybe a little bit of a problem with the
zoning ordinance, that was in place before I came here. Unfortunately the
Crossroad Subdivision was approved before I came here and had I been here,
the Crossroad Subdivision would not be there today.
Rossman: I guess I would follow with a further question I guess to Will Berg the
clerk, how was the notice submitted in this particular application? Was their
notice submitted as a new conditional use permit or was notice submitted that it
be a public hearing on a transfer of an existing conditional use permit?
Borup: Are you looking something up? I also have a question for Ms. Stiles. If
this conditional use was transferred, would there even had been a public
hearing?
Stiles: I would suggest that if that’s the problem that the original conditional use
permit was not transferred that they merely petition the council as they go to
them, should you decide to send it on to the council, that is part of that. They
also submit a transfer of a conditional use permit to be submitted at the same
time that (Inaudible) before the council so that they can act on it that way.
Rossman: That is correct, the ordinance section 2-418 (Inaudible) to does
provide for a public hearing on a transfer before the City Council and it does not
appear that it is necessary that a public hearing be held before the Planning and
Zoning Commission. I don’t see any thing in that ordinance that provides that.
Borup: Did your other question get answered?
Rossman: No.
Stiles: It was submitted as a new conditional use permit.
Borup: Ms. Butler, could you maybe—you’ve said a lot of things here and I’m not
sure what it is that you are asking, what would you propose that we would do?
Butler: A couple of things. First, I think I will just a little preliminary statement,
perhaps in defense of at least one lawyer. I apologize to the commission that
you’ve heard it tonight. The applicant is represented by legal counsel as well
and the applicant knows what the ordinance states and the applicant could have
read the ordinance and could have pursued that. So I’m not really sure that,
unfortunately you’ve had to rely on someone other than the applicant and that is
where I think…
Rossman: But Ms. Butler, in defense of Mr. Green I think we are all well aware of
the courts difficulty or commissions difficulty or City Council’s difficulty in
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 50
forecasting legal arguments. They do need to be provided with some kind of
legal arguments so that they can be adequately prepared on those issues…
Butler: But to answer you question (Inaudible) as far as a solution for what we
think needs to be the solution, as a I said, our client is very, very concerned
about the commitments that were made to the city and to him back 1993.
Borup: And we are very anxious to start addressing those.
Butler: So what his…
Borup: But we are still waiting so we can do that.
Butler: And what he had asked that I raise with the commission as a possible
solution is just that your ordinance calls for looking at logical consistency, how do
these two uses buffer one another and create an overall well planned planned
development and he asked that just as Mr. Wright said in 1993 that this applicant
work more closely with Mr. Yorgenson. Address the buffer issue and come back
to the commission or council, we think it’s the council because we think this is a
transfer, but you’ll have to make that determination as to whether or not this is a
new or a transfer. Work in tandem to come up with a buffering situation
something that landscaping both along the perimeter of the whole site and within
the…
Borup: Ms. Butler are you familiar with what has already been proposed by the
applicant as far as the landscaping?
Butler: Yes I am.
Borup: You realize, and some statements have been made about what’s already
there and the proposal is about double the density of what is already there.
Butler: The proposal is for I think 20 feet.
Borup: Twelve, unless it’s changed. I’m sorry I’m talking, yes the distance is 20
feet, I’m talking about he spacing of the trees was about 12 feet.
Butler: There are a number of things as far as the actual design and of course
as you know my client works with a lot of landscape people because he is a
developer himself and he is very concerned about whether or not the distance
between the space. First of all he thinks 20 feet is your bare minimum for this
and that you are allowed by ordinance to go to a wider width and he would
suggest 35 to 40 feet. A mix that we can’t tell from the landscape plan, but more
evergreen to deciduous, ¾ to ¼ staggering of those trees and clearly identified
that it is staggered and that we are clearly understand what the distance are
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 51
between those trees and a better understanding of the height of the berm upon
which those trees are planted and behind which they are planted and in front of
which they are planted. So there are a lot of different elements of the screening
that are not provided and you of course know that in your ordinance and under
the planned development section of the ordinance, specifics of that are
supposed to be provided with the application. We are concerned that those
specifics haven’t been provided. The reason that we bring—the reason why my
client is bringing this up is because Mr. Wright made commitments to do certain
things Mr. Wright is gone. The reason you require such detail in the planned
development, color rendering showing the adequate scale all the various
landscaping and other issues is so that you know how it will be built and so you
have some comfort as to how it will be built. It’s your way in your conditional use
process to do what your development agreement does and annexation and
zoning process.
De Weerd: Which is what a site design review does. You know, I too am
personally offended that Mr. Yorgenson decides to use this method of
communicating with the city. In statements he made in 1993 he states he wants
shrubbery, berms and a six foot fence with which he would erect or a
combination there of. Now all of a sudden we are asking for the moon, what
does a 35 foot buffer do that a 20 foot buffer does. You know, I am just a little bit
puzzled as to what his intentions of all these things are. Why he is not standing
in front of us today stating that. The developer has been working with the
homeowners association which they have appointed a spokesperson for. I
assume that this developer has been working with the homeowners association,
we’ve heard reports on it repeatedly and still he hasn’t materialized until today.
Butler: Mr. Yorgenson sent his apologies as everybody else in the room knows,
he was at ACHD until one o’clock with everybody else, but the main reason he
wasn’t here today was because of a family engagement, an actual celebration
that he couldn’t make it here because of people…
De Weerd: You know what, I have a family thing going on here too. I’m here.
Butler: I appreciate that Commissioner De Weerd. The bottom line though is
that Mr. Yorgenson is asking—I appreciate what you are saying—but Mr.
Yorgenson is asking nothing more than asking the commission and the city to
look at the facts of the previous hearings and look at the facts of the ordinance
and looking to work more closely. He is very, very concerned about the logical
consistency between these two portions of…
De Weerd: Has he contacted the developer?
Butler: I believe they have talked yes.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 52
De Weerd: Okay.
Butler: So, he is asking for that, for you to just basically look at the ordinance,
has it been followed?
Rossman: I would ask you in follow up to that, Ms. Butler, lets assume this is an
application for a new conditional use permit for a planned unit development in
this particular area, what is it about Dakota’s application that does not comply
with Meridian’s ordinance according to your position?
Butler: There are a couple of things that I can mention and it will be up to the city
to look into further, of course. But if it is a new conditional use in this area, then
you’re going to have to look at what are allowed conditional uses in an industrial
zone.
Rossman: But I will refer you to the same provision that I referred Mr. Phillips to.
9-607 which provides the commission with the authority to provide an approval of
a final development plan and that the regulations governing use, density, area,
bulk, parking signs and other regulations may be accepted in accordance with
what they determine to be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed
P.D.
Butler: And that’s correct. And the proposed land development that is allowed in
an industrial zone is in one form and one form only. And that’s a planned
development general. So you can do a planned development general and these
people can apply for a planned development general and what your ordinance
say is a planned development general is defined as a development not otherwise
distinguished under planned commercial, industrial or residential developments
and your planned commercial development says any development which a
principal use of land is for commercial. Your definition continues or in which the
proposed use of interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to
achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and
function. It goes on to say that this PD classification which is the only one
allowed in industrial applies to essential public services, public or private rec.
facilities, institutional uses, community facilities or a planned development which
includes a mix of residential, commercial or industrial uses, so if this is a new
planned development and that would be fine but if it is the only one that’s
allowed in the industrial zone is a planned development general and that
requires a mix of uses and so this would not constitute a mix of uses.
Rossman: And what provision are you relying upon in determining that the only
planned unit development allowable in an industrial zone is planned general?
Butler: I’m relying on section 2-409 in which lists out both the conditional uses in
an industrial zone and those permitted uses. Planned residential development is
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 53
allowed as a conditional use and planned unit development general is allowed as
a conditional use.
Rossman: Do you know what page you’re referring to?
Butler: I can tell only that it is a zoning ordinance section 2-409 which is the list
off to the side that lists the various conditional –
Rossman: Under the industrial?
Butler: Well I was going by all the conditional permitted uses not distinguishing
between residential, commercial, industrial. As a solution because I appreciate
your desire to get on with life, I think you need to understand – the city needs to
know whether or not it’s following proper procedure because you don’t want to
be put in a position where you’re having to get into a shouting match about it
later, but as far as working together with the developer, that is what Mr.
Yorgenson is asking for to bring a logical – we thought of it as a transfer. I mean
because the application refers to the old transfer, we didn’t think of this as a new
conditional use because as soon as we looked at the zoning ordinance it was,
but they don’t fit in the zoning ordinance so why would they make the
application? They’re clearly we thought trying to transfer it. And if that’s true, it
was how can we work together as co-developers to make this work for each
other which is what we tried to do in 93. And so that’s what we would ask that
you perhaps either defer this and allow the applicant to work further with Mr.
Yorgason or tell the applicant that you if this is a transfer you do need to make
that application or petition to the Council and my client is very happy to work on
that application and petition to the Council with the applicant.
Borup: Mrs. Butler we need to wrap up your testimony but I’m still confused in
where you feel that working together is not consistent with what was discussed in
93. I mean we’ve already quoted the thing. Tom Wright talked about doing a
fence, or maybe a berm or maybe some trees. Later on I think was the following
month in testimony says they might do a combination of some of those. It was
discussed the residential development would put up the fence and leave the
balance to the commercial development. From my standpoint that’s exactly what
has transpired and the only thing that’s happened since the first application here
is the width of the buffering has increased, the amount of trees have increased.
They’ve gone staggered. I mean I failing to see where there’s a feeling of there’s
not cooperation working together unless the developer not making contact with
the applicant.
Butler: I think that what you’ve heard from the residents here tonight is a desire
for something more.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 54
Borup: But we’ve been hearing this for the last four months. You’ve haven’t
been at the last three meetings so you’ve missed some of that and we’re very
concerned about that and that’s why we’re spending the time on this buffering
because that’s been at least my concern from the very first meeting. Thank you
very much. We’re going to – I’m sorry, yes Commissioner Smith.
Smith: JoAnn you made reference earlier to the fact that our Counsel may or
may not have been present. Every meeting that I have ever been at, our Council
has been present. I wasn’t at the last month’s meeting, but I would find it mind
boggling to think that we didn’t have counsel here representing us. Second you
used the word office use in reference to this development going in and some
context. I would like to know if you can find somewhere where it’s expressed
implicitly or implied that this development would ever contain office use. And
lastly this is the fourth time this commission has heard this application. Outside
of the first meeting Mr. Yorgason hasn’t shown up and now at the fourth time this
thing has come before this commission, you’re asking us to continue it to allow
him time to work with Mr. Durkin. I mean come on. How many times do we have
to have these things come before us here? I mean yes this is a sizable
development. There has been a number of concerns has been raised by the
neighbors, justifiably so. Mr. Durkin has bent over backwards to meet with these
folks on more than one occasion and hear their concerns and try to address
those. I’ve seen changes and improvements made to these plans since the first
month they were submitted and at some point in time it gets ridiculous to keep
dragging things like this out and to do it just to give Mr. Yorgason a chance to
meet with Mr. Durkin and work out some buffering issues between his property
and the development and along Fairview and Eagle to me is ludicrous. I mean
spent two and a half months on this thing already and I think justifiably so. It’s a
sizable development. It’s going to impact the community for years and years to
come, but from where I’m sitting the things that you are bringing up that Mr.
Yorgason is concerned about is exactly what we’ve been discussing for the last
four meetings, and we’ve been working towards an acceptable solution that
addresses both Mr. Durkin’s financial constraints, his ability to maintain a facility
to provide something that is cost effect to development as well as something that
doesn’t adversely affect the neighbors to the extent possible and for anybody
sitting in here to say that somebody’s trying bamboozal (sic) somebody as far as
what kind of development was planned at the same time the subdivision is going
in is talking out of turn. It’s just not true. The information has been there since
1991 or 93 whenever this thing came before the commission the first time. It’s
piss poor planning. It stinks and I’m quite frankly I’m a little offended that we up
here now have inherited this thing and we’re being made out to be the bad guys
and not doing our jobs and doing bad planning. Because there’s going to be
commercial development on this site. Say this commission decides not to
approve this development, what you’re going to have there is strip center
development. It’s going to be one property here, one property there. It’s not
going to be cohesive hole cluster development. It’s going to be the same thing
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 55
you see down Fairview Avenue driving into Boise. It’s all going to be this part
from each other. They’re not going to flow together. It’s going to be more
detrimental to that neighborhood than what’s proposed up there tonight. I’ve
listened to these neighbors for – I wasn’t at the last meeting, but the two previous
meetings. I think a number of their concerns have been addressed and I don’t
blame them for not wanting the thing in here. But I’m – I mean we’ve got so
many things that come before us that half of them shouldn’t be on our agenda
because they are not complete, but you know we have had an extra meeting
every month here for the last four or five months and quite frankly I don’t think
(End of Tape)
Borup: Okay, just real quickly Miss Butler.
Butler: Sure. Commissioner Smith, I’ll come back to your question about office
use and answer that in just a second. As I think you know from other testimony
I’ve ever provided to this commission, this is not an attempt to delay. It’s an
attempt to bring up something for municipality. I would not raise something that’s
a legal procedural issue that I thought that the city could avoid possible dragging
it out beyond this time. It’s not my intent, and if I really wanted to or somebody
wanted to they could not point out the procedural irregularities. And that’s partly
why I do it, not for the residents and not for anybody else, but for the municipality
because I feel it is a working together. And for what it’s worth.
Smith: Well JoAnn I think if it was up to you, you would have been here two
months ago and not been coming up here now. So my comments are not
directed at you personally.
Rossman: Don’t kill the messenger.
Butler: With regard to office use, I can tell you that back in May of 93 it was
referenced. I will say it was not raised in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law and the conditions so it was only in the minutes and it did not find it’s way
into the written findings so –
Smith: Okay, I hadn’t seen that.
Borup: But again it was just in the minutes only. It was not in the Findings and
it’s not in the conditional use permit.
Butler: Correct.
Borup: Thank you. We would – we’re ready to take a break, but Mrs. Rogers
was ready to stand up so why don’t we let her testify and then we’ll take about a
five minute break.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 56
LORELL ROGER 3426 E. FLORENCE DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY
ATTORNEY.
Rogers: I need to clarify something for all the commissioners and especially for
Commissioner De Weerd and Commissioner Smith. If you’re wondering why
Ramon Yorgason hasn’t talked a lot with Mr. Durkin through this process, the
problem that we had a residents was that he was the president of the
homeowners association and there were no other elected officers. We got really
nervous about the prospect of him and Mr. Durkin meeting and us not having a
voice. And while that was not ever Mr. Yorgason’s intention at all, we asked him
to please let us have a representative and to let the representative deal with Mr.
Durkin, and I did meet with Mr. Durkin today with another one of my neighbors
and he will concur that fact that Mr. Yorgason has told him that fact so if that
clears up some of your confusion, I hope that helps. I did get a chance to read
through the sound study and I would like to quote just a small section on page 11
of it and it says that we do not see any need for a sound barrier along the
boundary of the property if the recommended noise mitigation measures are
used to control noise radiating from the specific noise sources that will operate
periodically behind the shopping center such as refrigerated truck, trailers and
compactors. The point that I wanted to emphasize there it says if the
recommended noise mitigation measures are used. The thing that the neighbors
are concerned about is we’ve already seen through this whole process that
people are not perfect, that things happen, that things go wrong. And our reason
for still wanting a wall is that there is still a margin there for human error for
learning curves for new drivers. These things are very difficult to enforce. Mr.
Durkin did offer – he offered us his full commitment to make sure that these
things would be in place but we would like that extra thing to fall back in case
those things do fall. Because if any of those mitigation measures aren’t in place
if some of them break down then the residents will be impacted. We were
hoping that the study would show the pluses and minuses of a wall. So that we
could kind of see since we’re having trouble and one last thing is that the
mitigation measures, we would ask that he has listed that (inaudible) part of the
conditional use permit if this is approved and there are some other big
developments that are landscaped nicely. In our area the St. Luke’s Meridian
and the Blue Cross administration. We kind of agreed with Commissioner
Smith’s ideas about breaking up the asphalt and making the parking lot look nice
and we thought that those were real good examples of landscaping. That’s all I
had. Did you have any questions?
Smith: Just a couple of things. I keep hearing this from a number of you out
there that a wall is desired and you referred to that you would hope that the noise
mitigation study would make reference to the plus and minuses of the wall and I
think that the study did indicate that the wall was basically not going to provide
the sound attenuation barrier that could be achieved by the 20 foot wall that’s
just an extension of the building line along the loading dock. If for other reasons
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 57
the neighbors still want a block wall there, Mr. Durkin is on record as saying if
you want a block wall there, I’ll build it if that’s what it takes to move this thing on
to the next step so if that’s what you want then and that’s what I’m hearing you
want, but be clear that it’s not going to give you the noise mitigation that you had
questioned prior to the sound study being done. That’s the testimony that I
heard tonight, so you could achieve other benefits from it, but noise is not one of
them. So if that’s still what you want then he’s on record as saying he’ll do it.
Rogers: The neighbors do still feel very strongly about the wall and like I said we
are worried about these things being difficult to enforce. So I mean that is a
really big concern for us. I mean some of the neighbors would also like that
extra buffer to help with dust and things like that. It’s not easy for us. I’m
speaking for the residents that will unify. That’s all I have.
Borup: I have a question. Is the concern on the wall or the reason for the wall
for the noise barrier or for the site barrier? I think it’s been established that it’s
not going to be a noise benefit. But you’re saying that you would still like to have
so I’m assuming that’s for the site? Or am I putting words in your mouth?
Rogers: That is part of it.
Borup: What’s the other part then?
Rogers: We’re really worried about these things that they say they are going to
enforce. We’re worried that it’s not going to happen.
Borup: That was my other question. You were concerned about it breaking
down on the mitigation so what specific items are you concerned about that
won’t happen?
Rogers: Well Shopko is going to be a 24 hour operation during Christmas time.
If trucks come and I mean it is conceivable since it is a 24 hour operation, it is
conceivable that there could be truck coming at 2:00 in the morning to unload. I
don’t think that’s ridiculous scenario. I really don’t. You know people also hang
out at movie theaters after. That’s a concern.
Borup: But that’s not even in the mitigation.
Rogers: Huh?
Borup: I’m talking you said you were concerned about some of the items in the
mitigation would not happen and that’s my question.
Rogers: Yeah, the garbage service.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 58
Borup: I don’t think they mentioned anything about herding people out of the
movie theater.
Rogers: Okay, granted. You made your point. I was wrong. I stand corrected.
Parking lot sweeping, garbage service, trucks with (inaudible) units operating,
truck engines being turned off after five minutes, parking in the driveway between
the residential area and the shopping center. I mean –
Borup: It’s some of the usage and enforcement things that have you concerned,
not that the block wall won’t get built or that the compactors are properly
soundproof and that kind of thing then?
Rogers: I’m sorry can you repeat the question?
Borup: Well in my mind the major noise mitigation or the 20 foot barrier wall at
the loading dock, and the refrigeration trucks often and the delivery door closed
during the unloading, I mean those to me are major things. You know like trucks
driving down there at 10 or 15 miles an hour is going to be the same noise or
less than a car driving down the street in front of your house.
Rogers: Well we’re just saying that this isn’t a perfect world. Things are going to
break down. Indefinitely we’re going to take advantage of the commitment that
Mr. Durkin made to us. We’re not sure that it’s going to if it’s going to be
sufficient to provide the proper buffering that we need.
Borup: Okay thank you. One other question and I don’t think any of the
residents brought up and that’s on the traffic calming. I think as you are aware
last night ACHD put that as one of their requirements to probably neck down or
close in the entrance on Presidential. Is that you understanding?
Rogers: Uh-huh.
Borup: Has there been any discussion what you as the residents of the
subdivision would like to see there? And again that’s not something that needs
to be specifically decided. ACHD is committed to work with the developer on that
requirement. I think the discussion was to narrow it down to a narrow two lanes.
Beyond that there was some question of a speed bump. It was suggested by the
commissioners last night that perhaps you may want to do the necking down first
and then decide later if you really want the speed bump or not.
Rogers: That would probably be consistent with what the residents want before
we add the speed bumps in. They’re still concerned about there not being a
traffic light there. I realize that’s not under your jurisdiction.
Borup: The traffic light at Presidential.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 59
Rogers: Yes.
Borup: But you are in favor of the narrowing of the entrance.
Rogers: The residents wants something that will slow traffic down or discourage
people from cutting through so that would be an option.
Borup: And I think that makes a lot of sense so okay. Thank you. Did any of the
commissioners have any questions for Mrs. Rogers? Let’s take a five minute
recess. I think we’re ready for that.
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
Borup: Okay, we’d like to reconvene this public hearing. Those that want to
continue to talk can sure do so but let’s do it out in the hall. Thank you. You
know that in peril of getting anybody upset, I believe that we’re probably done
with public testimony. I don’t anticipate that we’re going to hear anything new. I
know –
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, I do believe Mr. Durkin has a little more to offer –
Borup: Well I’m making some comments before I move on to that. So
essentially I believe we’re through. We would like to allow Mr. Durkin to
summarize in conclusion and keep in mind Mr. Durkin that we do have a time
limit. We would like to conclude this thing tonight if we have the time we’re
willing to do that.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Durkin starts, could I just ask you a quick
question. I apologize again for not being at the last meeting and I don’t know if
this was covered then but preceding that you had brought up the possibility of
shifting the building that has been identified as the grocery store to the west on
the site and I see that it looks like it’s in a pretty similar location to what it was
prior to that. Was that ever brought up again or addressed?
Borup: I believe it was and maybe Mr. Durkin could clarify that. I can’t remember
if –
De Weerd: It’s in the minutes.
Borup: Yeah, but I don’t believe the building was shifted. I think the loading dock
was. Can we let Mr. Durkin clarify that?
Smith: Yeah, sure.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 60
Borup: Can you answer that first before you go into –
Durkin: I will. That came up I believe at the last meeting. We’ve given it
consideration and feel that with the traffic, the hours of traffic at the theater, the
traffic for the –
Borup: No, he was talking about just specifically the grocery store building about
moving it forward a little bit because at that time –
Durkin: I thought you were talking about switching them.
Borup: No, that time I think the concern was about the noise from the loading
dock was the reason I originally brought it up. But that was and we’ve heard a
lot of other factors at this point.
Durkin: That comment came up at one of the meetings. It wasn’t last meeting.
It was I believe the meeting before last that came up and I think that goes in the
scope of the overall noise mitigation. What’s the best thing for the neighbors.
We feel that the plan that we’ve submitted with the comments, with the noise
analysis, I’m not sure what to call the report that’s been submitted into evidence
tonight. We feel that that’s the best thing that we can do for the neighbors. Not
moving the building but to do the other matters on that report. I want to say I’ve
said from the first meeting I’ve said it at the second meeting, the third meeting,
and I’ve said it earlier this evening and I’ll say it again. We will do a wall along
the perimeter of the property. We always would have done that wall along the
perimeter of the property. I don’t think it’s the right thing to do. The noise
engineer doesn’t feel it’s going to mitigate the noise, but we will happily do it. We
didn’t make that commitment in an effort to “move this thing along.” We made
that commitment because if that’s what the neighbors want that’s what we’ll do.
In solving the noise, I don’t believe that’s the best thing, but if that’s what the
neighbors want, I don’t live behind this shopping center. I live 11 miles away on
the other side of town. If that’s what they want, if that’s what they feel is the right
thing and if that’s what you put down as a condition, we’ll enthusiastically support
that. I have a few comments on the earlier testimony. Does that answer your
question?
Smith: Yes, thanks.
Durkin: The traffic concerns that we discussed tonight I feel that they have been
addressed. Our traffic proposal our traffic plan has been approved by ACHD.
The vote was unanimous with one person abstaining. There was a significant
amount of testimony last night. The was a lot of give and take on our part, and I
feel that the traffic to the extent that it can be corrected, answered and
addressed at this point, we’ve done everything that we can do and we have the
ACHD approval. The last meeting the meeting before last, that’s been a concern
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 61
how can we even talk about this any further without ACHD’s approval. We have
committed to spend nearly two million dollars in off site improvements to help
both the existing traffic concerns in the area and future concerns and future
congestion. We have offered the neighborhood association I want to go on the
record tonight. I thought maybe one of them would have gone on the record with
this and I want this to be on the record. We have committed to the neighborhood
association both myself and an officer of DDR Family Centers Incorporated today
that we will have an owner’s representative available to attend every monthly
homeowners association meeting should they desire. The homeowners
association will have the name and address and telephone number or numbers
of an on site management person from the day the shopping center opens.
That’s our commitment not to move this along or make you happy tonight but we
feel it’s the right thing to do for the homeowners. Again I want to emphasize if
the continuous wall on top of the berm next to a berm and back of the berm,
we’re happy to do that. But ultimately it’s going to be your decision. If you make
that a condition or a requirement, we will happily do it. I’m absolutely shocked at
the attorney for Capitol Developments testimony. I want to say that I take my
oath seriously here. Speaking under oath has been a big subject lately in the
papers. And it’s become a joke with a lot of people. My father is an attorney.
Six of my brothers and sisters are attorneys. I’m one of the lucky ones out of ten
children I guess that’s what they tell me.
Rossman: Let me write that down real quick.
Durkin: And I am under oath tonight. And I’m making these five clear
statements under oath. We have met with Mr. Yorgason more than four times
prior to the first public hearing on this site. Mr. Yorgason clearly stated to Tom
Bauwens of my office and myself that he was meeting with us not as the
president of the homeowners association but as the adjacent land owner and
developer of the project. Mr. Yorgason at each meeting gave his enthusiastic
support for what we were proposing. Mr. Yorgason testified in support of this
project at this hearing at least twice. Mr. Yorgason’s son representing himself as
an officer or on behalf of Capitol Development testified in support of this project
once and in addition there was a meeting in this room attended by city staff
where Mr. Yorgason and his son spoke favorably about this project while at that
meeting, I believe they were acting as homeowners association representatives
and they did listen to their concerns. Last night Mr. Yorgason testified at the
ACHD meeting in favor of this project. He was not under oath last night, but he
stated and I’m quoting as accurately as I can recall, that my only concern is that
Presidential Drive will not be closed. I’d like to say quote unquote. I want to
represent to you that that is very, very close to what he said. In addition following
the meeting last night or possibly during one of the breaks, Mr. Yorgason came
up to me in the hall at ACHD with an extraordinary level of enthusiasm
complimenting me and my staff on an absolutely gorgeous project. The only
concern ever expressed to me by anyone from Capitol Development Corporation
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 62
ever is that they would like to see more trees within the parking lot and according
to one of the staff comments that we talked about earlier. I just want to
emphasize to you that at no time ever did Mr. Yorgason, his son or other office
people in their company express the slightest concern. They expressed an
extraordinary level of enthusiasm. I would ask you at another meeting I asked
you to ask people to identify the realtors. There was a legal discussion. Some
of the commissioners said no, that’s not an appropriate question. And I just want
to ask that you ask Mrs. Butler I believe her last name is if she’s representing any
other party either for a fee or not for a fee that’s she’s providing any advice or
counsel to any of the other parties other than Capitol Development because I
testified to you tonight under oath her testimony which I assume was under oath
is absolutely 100% inconsistent with everything that we’ve ever been told both on
the record and off the record. This is our fourth public hearing. The meeting
before last we had concerns that I frankly can’t bring to mind right now, but we
deferred the meeting while we took a month to address those concerns. Several
weeks ago we met and the concerns that we left with at the end of that meeting
were traffic and noise related. I have tonight here a traffic engineer who spent an
incredible amount of time and effort for you and for the people in the audience
and the adjacent property owners and for us. He’s been directed to give honest
accurate advice and has testified under oath. I have a sound engineer from
Portland, Oregon. We hired him, never done it before. I’ve never seen it done
before in any other project ever in the United States that I have been involved in,
but we did it because you asked us to and you said it was the right thing to do.
He’s done an analysis and we presented that to you. I brought tonight a
landscape architect and engineer of the Land Group Engineering Firm and is
able to answer any questions. I did not bring our attorney, Keemer Green, with
us tonight because I did not know that it was going to turn into a legal discussion.
I ask you not to defer this for another month. By the time we’re finished I’ll have
the entire side of the room with our experts. We’ve done everything that we can
and if there’s going to be further legal discussions, which I presume that there
will, I don’t that this is the proper form to handle them. So I’m asking you based
on our application based on the commitments that we’ve made to proceed with
this application and the legal matters will have to fall where they fall. I’d be
happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Borup: Any questions of Mr. Durkin at this point?
Smith: I don’t have a question of Mr. Durkin, but I would like to ask a couple of
questions of Mr. Koga if I may at this time.
DAVID KOGA WITH THE LAND GROUP 8840 KIOWA DRIVE BOISE, IDAHO
WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
Smith: Okay David, two questions I got. These colored documents that were
prepared by your office that shows cross sectional views and areas behind the
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 63
on the berm behind the shopping center, there’s a 20 foot wide landscape buffer
with a three foot berm and then a five foot berm at the area behind the grocery
store which would raise the berm to five feet above grade. There’s no block wall
indicated here and previously to do this we had got a sketch that showed a 60
foot buffer zone which showed kind of a block wall at the top of the berm and
then kind of meandering sidewalk. It seems like to me that –
Borup: You realize they were both not from the same individual?
Smith: This is from – oh, oh, okay. Sorry. Where I’m going with this is we’re
looking at 20 foot wide buffer zone. If we were to put in a block wall at the top of
the berm, it seems to me that we’d be creating a place for kids to go back and
drink beer and smoke cigarettes and raise more hell than you would want to deal
with for the neighbors back there and so I’m wondering your recommendation if
we’re going to put a block wall back there, would it be best to put it on the
property line as opposed to the top of the berm and pluses and minuses because
I think that that is something that is going to be brought up here later and I want
to make sure that we ask for it in the right place.
Koga: I would think for both the applicant, the developer and for the homeowner
that that wall should be more not so much right on the top but offset on the
property line. The reason why if I was a homeowner in one of those homes, I
don’t know if I would want to just see a stark bare block wall down there so if you
use some plant material and break it up on both sides, it will be more aesthetics.
The draw back on that would be number one if you don’t put that berm right on
the tippy top you might not get as much height as possible, but as mentioned
earlier, that block wall did not affect the noise factor. It would only affect just the
vision barrier if you may and the height of the trees would take care of the visual
more than the block wall.
Smith: Is the landscape plans that were submitted here, is this what you are
going to install the landscaping based on is these particular plans, or are you
going to do some modification and show actual?
Koga: They’ll be our requirements when staff does the design review, there’s
more detail involved, just like more details on a building or the parking lot or
things like that at the same time we do a lot more details on the planting. That
was as it says on there, it’s a landscape concept take into account of to define
the landscape areas take into account the percentage of landscape at the site
and also even more important how many trees are provided on the site.
Smith: And that will take care of the appropriate spacing and staggering that
would achieve the visual things that it’s intended.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 64
Koga: One thing to bring up is the fact the applicant decided to go with the 20
foot width around the perimeter. It provided us more area to stagger the trees
throughout the perimeter.
Smith: Okay, then the parking lot landscaping I think that we’ve asked for and
staff has asked for a break up of some of these large asphalt areas and to put
trees in those locations and I hate to be too specific with that because then I tie
your hands as far as being able to do your thing and be creative and come up
with a good design solution. I think we’re going to be moving in that direction as
part of our discussions as far as what we want to do there, but do you have any
– I’m looking at big seas of asphalt there and I know that maybe just spacing
them out an individual tree at regular intervals may not be the best way to
achieve the break up of the expanse of asphalt. Do you have any thoughts on
what might work best and Mr. Durkin has brought up concerns about snow
removal and things like that so given all those perimeters.
Koga: And that is a good point, the snow removal. He’s probably concerned
that it’s a lot easier to do snow removal and cleaning the parking lot easier if
there’s less islands in the middle. At the same time when our firm was brought in
to design the landscape, the planting design on that, there was no islands
designed by the architectural firm. Since then and as note in the site conditions
where it mentioned a required I think it says 150 feet spacing from landscape to
landscape area. The applicant has agreed to comply with that. And that at the
same time will give us some latitude on the best location for those islands.
Borup: Just a clarification. I think that was one of the items the applicant did not
agree to yet. You did? Okay, we’re glad to hear that.
Smith: That’s really all I had was those areas there.
Borup: I had that marked as one that was still up for discussion, but I do have a
question – I’m sorry commissioner –
Smith: I’m finished.
Borup: Do you have anything Commissioner De Weerd? That means no. Mr.
Koga question on the again the wall on top of the berm. What effect would that
have on the amount of trees up there, the density of those trees, especially from
I guess I’m figuring probably with the wall in there the trees are going to have to
be planted away from that wall so you’re not going to be able to get the trees on
top of the berm which would be reducing the height and I assume you are also
going to need to plant those trees further away from the wall so it’s either going
to reduce the number of trees or end up with a row and not the staggered effect;
is that true?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 65
Koga: That’s part of the key thing right there. If we put that wall on the top we’re
going to split that 20 feet wide. It’s going to be 10 feet wide and it’s going to turn
into more of a row so we will definitely be limited on the staggering effect which is
going to be a lot more pleasing to the eye and that’s why I come back again that
it would be nice if it’d be more offset instead of on top of the wall.
Borup: So if you offset it and get it down you’re talking maybe a wall might be a
foot above the existing wooden fence.
Koga: (Inaudible) has not been discussed with the applicant, but this wall does
not have – we do not have to have a typical berm with a wall. Maybe we could
just have the berm slope up and then have a wall even more on the staggered
effect something like that to break it up.
Borup: But is that going to also reduce what’s going to do to the amount of trees
and the tree spacing?
Koga: I don’t think we’re ever going to have to worry about reducing the amount
of trees. It just affects the spacing.
Borup: Thank you. That will be all then. I think what I’d like to proceed with
here and maybe a little bit different than what we typically do, but because of the
extent of this application prior to closing all public testimony I’d like to open up for
discussion with the commissioners. The reasoning behind that is and it may not
but in the discussion if I anticipate we could maybe have questions from
someone either homeowners in the audience or any of the expert witnesses or
Mr. Durkin. That would allow us the opportunity to consult them at that time. So
commissioners anything else you would like to add? I would like to see us move
towards a motion here tonight. In my mind I think that motion is going to include
a lot of conditions and so I’d like to maybe go into a discussion of some of the
items that you feel would be pertinent to have as those conditions. And perhaps
we might just if that sounds like that would be a good way to proceed.
De Weerd: Would you like to just hear my list and then we can talk about it?
Borup: I think that would be a good starting point. And you know a couple of
other – and I don’t know if this is the time to bring that up. Maybe it is before we
get into those. Tammy I know you’ve spent some time driving around the city
looking at other shopping centers, specifically the back of the other shopping
centers.
De Weerd: Very interesting driving.
Borup: Any comment you would like to make on some of your research?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 66
Rossman: Now just a minute. Let’s not get into testimony by the commissioners
about ex parte viewings of other shopping centers. If we want to discuss a
particular application and the testimony today, that would be more appropriate.
Borup: Okay, let’s go to your list then.
De Weerd: Okay, and feel free comment on any of these. And I wish Mr. Durkin
was here because he may want to comment on some of these too. In response
to – I have made phone calls to kind of substantiate my request so I can’t talk
about them, so I guess I have to start somewhere. I would like to see –
Borup: Do you have a nice concise list?
De Weerd: Yeah.
Borup: Okay, let’s just start with that. Number one.
De Weerd: A minimum of a six foot wide planting islands that are in the project
wide.
Borup: Throughout the parking lot.
De Weerd: I know a concern was the health of the plantings within and I’ve been
told that with the minimum of a six wide planting island, you have better success
at keeping plants alive and having nice looking islands. We’ve already talked
about breaking up the sea of asphalt at 150 feet so now that he’s agreed to that,
I would like to make that a condition and have staff authority to approve the
location and designs of those plantings. I would like a minimum of 20 foot berm
on the property on the perimeter not including the sidewalk and not including the
right-of-way. So –
Smith: 20 feet wide?
De Weerd: Yeah, a 20 foot berm.
Borup: You’re saying along Fairview and Eagle.
De Weerd: Yes. How high?
Smith: Yeah.
De Weerd: Well do I need to state how high? I would hope that they could work
with staff on those things unless we’re suppose to be specific.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 67
Smith: Well then we might need to get Mr. Koga up here again and tell us it’s too
high. Let’s not be that specific.
De Weerd: Yeah, I think –
Smith: We’ll rely on staff’s judgment that it’s not just a little bump.
De Weerd: Yeah, but probably no less than four feet three to four feet, two to
four feet.
Borup: I think from previous testimony three feet seemed to be the optimum
without getting too steep for run off.
De Weerd: You know but if you do look at along the corridor there with some of
the berming with Blue Cross, with Fred Meyer, those are all higher than two feet.
Borup: Fred Meyer is?
De Weerd: Oh, yeah, Fred Meyer is –
Smith: Fred Meyer is why too steep though.
De Weerd: On Locust Grove, but on Fairview it’s nice. So anyway leave that for
them and if they are to use the right-of-way that they obtain the license
agreement for landscape encroachment from I.T.D. and ACHD. I guess we have
to discuss the buffer. You know I just have a hard time requesting someone to
put in a masonry wall when the whole reason we were looking at a masonry wall
was because of the sound buffer, and I know from the professional that we heard
today and from some of the phone calls that I’ve made that that’s not effective.
It’s more necessary that we have –
Rossman: Hopefully relying on the testimony today.
De Weerd: Most definitely.
Rossman: Okay, thank you.
Smith: I think the other reason – there were some other reasons for the masonry
wall and I think one of them was security. At least from my standpoint it was and
durability versus the wood fence and I know Mr. Durkin had another opinion of
that, that was another reason for asking for it.
De Weerd: I also believe there’s a security issue if you’re going to create a
pocket. And if you’re going to put a fence on top of the berm, you’re going to
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 68
create a pocket between that fence and the property fence and I think we’d be
doing the neighbors a disservice by creating that pocket.
Smith: I agree. And that’s why I wanted Mr. Koga to talk about where the best
placement of that wall would be. Given the fact that we’ve already had testimony
that it’s not going to give us a sound attenuation benefit, therefore, the residents
had stated I believe the last person that talked was talking about drivers running
into the fence or something along those lines. There are security issues
associated with it. So it could go right behind the wood fence, you know, right
next to it, on the property line replace the wood fence. I don’t know. I don’t
know if we reference that again, the placement to be reviewed by staff and then
the height of it is also an issue. If I lived there I wouldn’t want more than a six
foot high block wall there and having lived in Las Vegas 11 years where every
damn piece of property is surrounded by a six foot high block wall, I hate them
and these yards are much larger than the yards down there, so they’ve got a little
leeway, but six foot – I don’t know who came up with this magic number of six
foot, but I guess it’s head height the average person. The neighbors made it
pretty clear they want a block wall around the periphery. Mr. Durkin is on record
as saying he’ll put one there. Let’s let the landscape architect have some
latitude to do what he’s trained to do professionally and put it in the place that
works the best from a design standpoint of the other things we’re trying to
achieve with the berm and the landscaping and staff review it.
Borup: Are you saying you think the wall can work in aesthetically with what
they’re trying to accomplish?
Smith: It can. But more importantly the neighbors want it and Mr. Durkin has
agreed to put it in. If that makes them feel better about this thing and alleviate
some of their concerns not being noise not being one of them –
De Weerd: Okay it’s defining what it is. Is it a ten foot block cinder wall? Is it a
three foot retaining wall with a wood fence on top of it you know what is it?
Smith: I don’t have landscape as part of title. It’s architect.
Borup: I’m still looking at the conceptual plan they gave us on five to seven
years. And that’s a very dense growth there. We start cutting those trees back,
have them in a straight row and stick the fence in there. It may get the wall but
it’s going to be ugly.
De Weerd: I think right now we’re talking about having the wall next to the fence
on the property line.
Smith: If I was (inaudible) that’s where I’d put it.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 69
Borup: And what does that accomplish?
De Weerd: Well what does the wall accomplish anyway?
Borup: That was my question.
De Weerd: Commissioner Smith?
Smith: To me masonry is more durable than wood. You drive all around the
valley, you see all these dilapidated wood fences falling down and I don’t have
experience with masonry walls out on site in this climate although I did down the
southwest so I can’t testify to the extent of their deterioration over a period of ten
years, but it seems to me that it’s more durable and you just don’t bust through it
with a vehicle or kids can’t push through it and it’s going to stand up there longer
than a wood fence.
De Weerd: Now are we talking about a car driving through the fence when it’s
bermed and has trees at 12 foot intervals?
Smith: You don’t drive to work to Boise every morning do you? Like I do.
De Weerd: How about a different type of fence?
Smith: I’m trying to respond to what I’ve heard the neighbors ask.
De Weerd: And I also heard someone who said she doesn’t want a masonry
wall in her backyard.
Borup: And some of them want a 11 foot wall on top of a ten foot berm.
De Weerd: Now can you say you want a wall and just let staff design it?
Rossman: No, absolutely not.
Smith: What I’m saying is let’s request that a block wall be a part of the
conditions if that’s where we end up going with this thing and allow the
landscape architect a chance to use his training and expertise in figuring out
where it’s suppose to go and what the height is and let him do his job.
De Weerd: Well we do want specifics and I think Mr. Durkin –
(inaudible)
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 70
Rossman: Unless you want to continue the public hearing, you have to either
grant it with conditions or deny. You can’t leave it open for review with staff.
Obviously –
De Weerd: Right, so I would like to hear from Mr. Durkin.
Borup: Let’s see if there are any other comments on the berm first.
De Weerd: Before we get passed this fence though. I would really like –
(Inaudible)
Rossman: Mr. Durkin is antsy to make statement.
Borup: Mr. Durkin.
Durkin: As a condition of approval, we have to install a wall. We have to install a
six foot masonry wall.
Borup: You’re saying you would like that as a condition of approval?
Durkin: I would. However the precise location that’s on the one side of the
berm, the middle, the top, close to the fence line. I don’t believe it’s – I believe
that the homeowners association needs to gather the thoughts on it. So my
suggestion is that you make it a condition of approval that we install it and that
the precise location be a result of a meeting between the land group and a fair
number of representatives from the homeowners association.
De Weerd: And staff. And you might include the police department in there if
you’re going to put it not against the property line.
Durkin: I think that that’s acceptable. A wall has to be installed and we agree to
put it (End of Tape)
Durkin: …agreeable to those people. They are the affected parties.
Borup: So far no one said it has to be installed but you. But we rely real heavy
on what you say.
Durkin: I want you to know that you have not said that it has to be done. I have
always said that I would be happy to do it. Not happy to do it, that’s misstated. I
want to be true and accurate tonight. I’ve always said that I would do it. I’m
under oath. I’ve always said that I will do it. But I have with meeting with the
homeowners association people, I realize that it’s critically important and an
emotional issue and I believe there’s two members of that association here
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 71
tonight that feel that they are under a tremendous amount of strain. Tell me put it
here, here and here. What’s going to make them happy? 99% of the general
public is never going to see the wall. They are and I just think that I will commit
make it a condition of approval and install one. Precise location to be approved
by staff as a result of a meeting with the land group and I would say ten
members of the homeowners association and that has to be done prior to
opening.
De Weerd: Can we be that vague?
Borup: I don’t think it’s that vague.
Smith: I don’t think so either. I think that’s perfectly acceptable and that’s what I
was trying to get at with my –
Borup: That’s putting a wall and a 20 foot – you only got 20 feet to put it in so I
don’t think it’s that vague.
Durkin: You could also be specific. I have to put it along the property line.
Unless staff, the land group and ten homeowners association representatives
agree that another location is preferable.
De Weerd: But we’ve already been told we can’t require you to work with all
those people.
Durkin: I’m not going to work with them. The staff is. That’s why – take me out
of the equation. Put a licensed expert in there.
Rossman: So you are saying Mr. Durkin that you will agree to a condition that a
six foot wall will be placed in this particular area or in a particular location to be
designated by staff.
Durkin: Actually I like my second idea better. I think that you’re right about being
big. I think you do have to pick a spot. So I think you should say a six foot
masonry wall should be installed either along the property line or the parking lot.
The location can be changed upon an agreement between ten representatives of
the homeowners association, a representative of the land group with the
approval of staff. I think that that is absolutely nailed down. It commits me to
build it and the final location is going to be approved by the people that are
relying on it.
Rossman: That’s fine and that takes away the subjectivity and the discretion and
the arbitrariness of prior proposals.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 72
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, if I might make a suggestion. If it is your desire to
move forward in that scenario, I just might propose that some how we get
something in writing from the homeowners association as to what they’ve
resolved prior to this coming back before you on I believe it will be the 13th
of
October.
Borup: You’re assuming if we have Findings prepared.
Freckleton: Yes, sir.
Borup: Okay.
Freckleton: But I would just think it would help us, it would help you if you had
something in writing from the homeowners association and Mr. Koga a direction
to go on that.
Smith: Will that give you enough time?
De Weerd: Well before City Council gets it.
Borup: Mr. Durkin, I had a couple of questions probably pertaining to the berm,
but to clarify you say that does not give you enough time?
Durkin: Well it doesn’t matter to me.
Borup: That’s what I thought.
Durkin: Commit to it tonight so I’m not worried about my time. I’m worried about
the homeowners association.
Borup: Okay, and we’ll clarify that later.
Durkin: The land group gets paid by the hour and they can do it all night long, so
it doesn’t matter to me. It doesn’t matter to Larry Durkin.
Borup: Okay, I understand.
Durkin: But I think a reasonable – I think a significant amount of time should be
allowed because they don’t really have a formal corporate structure from my
understanding to their homeowners association and I think that has to get in
place and they have to get representatives and –
Borup: I just wanted to clarify a couple of other things on the buffer berm. Are
we still talking three foot berm, I assume, except I mean we’re still talking
everything else as was presented previously as far as this same buffer?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 73
Durkin: On the back.
Borup: Yes, on the back, we’re talking the buffer between the subdivision.
Durkin: Yes.
Borup: Okay, and it was proposing three foot and then are we still looking at the
retaining wall with the five foot wall at the grocery store then?
Durkin: No.
Borup: That was after the –
Durkin: That was just one our numerous suggestions that was in lieu of a wall on
there.
Borup: That was in lieu of a wall. Okay, that’s what I wanted to clarify. Has
there been any discussion at all on changing the mix of the trees? Would you
have any problem with that?
Durkin: No.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
Durkin: I do have an answer on that berm on the perimeter if anyone is
interested. It’s a rolling berm depending on if it’s sod or if it’s a planting area.
And it goes from a four to one slope for a sodded area of that perimeter berm at
four to one for the sodded area.
(Inaudible)
Durkin: All right, so it’s kind of a rolling, you know, it isn’t just a straight shot.
Borup: Thank you. I’d like to keep this while we’re still on the berm. Is there any
other questions on the berm? I mean our buffering thing on the subdivision or
any other comments?
De Weerd: Well it still needs to be stated it has to be a 20 foot landscape berm.
Borup: Yes. I’d like to have Lorell Rogers come up. Just a real quick question.
LORELL ROGERS
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 74
Borup: And that’s on the time frame that you feel the homeowners association
would – I’m assuming you still want the fence, the block wall.
Rogers: Masonry wall.
Borup: That’s still what the homeowners would like. How much time do you feel
you’d need to decide on a location that would be acceptable? Or have you
already discussed that enough that you could give input tonight?
Rogers: We were kind of hoping we could discuss that with Mr. Koga at the
meeting. I mean we could certainly come to the meeting with an idea, but since
he is a landscape professional it makes sense for us to consult his ideas about
this.
Borup: I think that makes sense.
Rogers: We will have ideas, but I do think we should call on his expertise if we’re
going to meet with him.
De Weerd: I have a question too.
Borup: Do we have a time frame established? We do not have a meeting time
established yet do we then? I’m going back to Mr. Freckleton’s comment is if we
could have something in writing for us to review, it won’t be public testimony, but
we could do it I assume in like a design review aspect.
Smith: I think what Mr. Freckleton was referring to is that they had met and come
up with an acceptable location for the wall. Just a letter stating same from the
homeowners.
Freckleton: Yeah, I think we need to have something in writing from the
homeowners association that they’ve reached a consensus on that and –
Borup: I was trying to establish a time frame.
Freckleton: Right and along with that I would like to have some date certain that
we can expect that.
Rossman: Yeah, and from a legal standpoint, let’s leave the discretion out of
there. Let’s leave the reference to agreements out of there and let’s just say if
you’re going to do it, you’re going to grant a condition, make the condition that a
wall be put in one of the two locations within an “x” amount of time we receive
notice of where that location is.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 75
Borup: Is prior to the 13th
enough time or do you feel you need more time than
that?
Rogers: Prior to the 13th
should be okay.
Borup: Does that work with Mr. Koga? Okay, thank you. That was all.
De Weerd: Can I ask her really quickly you saw this conceptual drawing.
Rogers: Yes.
De Weerd: If you have this three foot concrete wall and the five foot berm as it’s
drawn here for your whole buffer rather than just in front of the grocery store and
not have a masonry wall, would that be satisfactory?
Rogers: The neighbors want more than that.
De Weerd: They want a masonry wall.
Rogers: To be honest with you, yeah.
De Weerd: They have one, but not in their backyard and it’s three foot there.
Rogers: They want a taller one. I’m trying to confer to you honestly how they
feel. That is how they feel.
Borup: And I would just maybe admonish you to discuss that with the landscape
architect and what the aesthetics are going to be with that wall in there and I
mean it looks to me like and I think if we’re honest with ourselves we got to rely
on the experts and it’s been conveyed that the noise reduction is going to be
minimal if any from the wall. So that leaves us the visual aspect and so that’s
what you got to be taking into consideration.
Rogers: That’s why the homeowners had discussed not just gray flat, you know,
a textured brick something with color on it. That sort of thing was what they were
after.
Borup: And I am repeating myself but the wall there if it’s in the middle is going
to prevent trees from growing. So it’s going to reduce the amount of those.
Rogers: That’s why we would like to –
Borup: Discuss the location. I think that’s good. Thank you. Let’s go on with
your next item. Tammy do you want to continue on with your list?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 76
De Weerd: Yeah.
Borup: I’ve got that was number five.
De Weerd: We would like to have a site plan review of future buildings. We have
one on Shopko but nothing on anyone else and that’s something that we do with
staff.
Borup: You’re talking essentially a design review?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borup: What do you mean by we?
De Weerd: Planning and Zoning.
Borup: You’re talking the Commission?
De Weerd: The Commission. Like Shari did with the furniture store.
Borup: And you want to limit, you’re talking about the buildings?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borup: How about the parking lot landscape design and the other designs?
De Weerd: I think the parking lot staff, I mean unless Shari wants us to be
involved in that. I don’t have any desire to.
Borup: Commissioner Smith.
De Weerd: Oh, I have no outside speakers?
Borup: No, on this same thing if Commissioner Smith had any comment on the
design review aspect.
Smith: No, I think I’d like to see us have that.
Borup: Well no her proposal was just on the buildings, not on any of the
landscaping.
Smith: All future development associated with the phasing build out of the
center.
Borup: So you’re limiting that to the building?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 77
Smith: No, all future development. Landscaping, parking lots, buildings.
Borup: Okay and as I understand as a design review, it’s not a lengthy process
or public hearing just for us to take a look and review it. I don’t think that’s
something that would need to extend or delay anything for the applicant if it’s to
us in a timely matter.
De Weerd: That the agreed upon buffer be put in first before construction on the
site. The landscape strip.
Borup: Are you talking the buffer?
De Weerd: Yeah, haven’t we been talking about that a lot?
Borup: Well you just mentioned landscape strip again.
De Weerd: Okay the landscape buffer to be installed as first step of
development and complete in full prior to first building permit.
Borup: Any comment Commissioner? I’m not sure if that’s practical from a
construction standpoint. You’re talking about having the trees planted and a
sprinkler system, watering system in place and all of that?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Smith: I would feel that it may be more reasonable to have a phasing plan
submitted to City Council and then that prior to each construction in each phase
commencing that the periphery landscaping between the subdivision and the
center development is in place.
De Weerd: But then you have different heights and sizes of trees along the
property line.
Smith: That’s what makes landscaping so neat.
De Weerd: Well yeah, but one neighbor probably wouldn’t agree with you. While
the neighbor that gets it would.
Smith: I guess the disadvantage you have here is you don’t whether this is
proposed to be constructed over four phases, two phases, eight phases.
De Weerd: Well it takes away the guess work.
Smith: Maybe Mr. Durkin can address the phasing aspect of that.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 78
Borup: (Inaudible)
Smith: We can get an idea there that you’re not so concerned about it being so
piece meal.
Durkin: Mr. Smith I guess you know this is a big project and some things get
overlooked, but it’s our intention and I’m certainly willing to make it a part of our
conditions. But it’s our intention to install the landscape perimeter from
Presidential north to the corner and all the way to Records. That would the first –
we’re not going to build all those buildings at one time, but we think it’s important
to put all those in at one time. I want to caution you the practicality of installing
that buffer and having the buffer be viable at a too early date. All along that
property line, I’ve got an irrigation lateral that we have to enclose so that’s really
starting construction. Some of the materials on site, I’m getting the top soil and
dirt on site from scraping which I need to have a building permit for and I’m not –
it’s a balancing of the site to accommodate that berm and –
Smith: Can’t you just do that with an excavation permit?
Durkin: I probably could.
Borup: Yes, you can.
Durkin: I don’t know if it’s a practical way to do it Commissioner. What you are
doing here is getting into an area of construction that it could affect the viability of
the buffer and then in addition I need water to it and power to it and to piece
meal that it may not be practical. I think that it’s a suggestion would be that it be
done prior to an occupancy permit, you know, prior to an inventory and the
stocking and hauling in the – you’re going to have some noise when there’s all
the inventory and all that starts arriving, but from a practical standpoint that
requirement is going to be extremely difficult to live up to.
Borup: And that was my concern from a construction standpoint.
Smith: Yeah, I think maybe we just got hung up on semantics here a little bit and
I don’t feel that it would be a problem to issue a building permit say the first
building that we had before us here is the Shopko to allow that to commence
construction while in the meantime the buffer is going in between Presidential
and Records, and I think that that’s a lion’s share of that whole buffer there and
the chunk to the south of Presidential and the piece to the east of Records is –
they’re logical places to provide a demising line so I think that would work for me
if we state it that way.
Borup: What that it would be prior to what time frame?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 79
Smith: The occupancy permit.
(Inaudible)
Borup: In the process of construction that’s the normal time because you’re
moving machinery around and having things in place of just getting the dirt there
to build the berm. It has got to come from the site and it’s going to come from
when they are cutting up the roads and parking lots and pads for the sites for the
buildings.
Smith: Right, and I am not going to put words into your mouth Commissioner De
Weerd, but I think your concern is that we don’t allow them to start occupying
buildings and start building second and third and fourth buildings before they’ve
started or completed this buffer. In this case what we would be allowing them to
do is commence construction activities but not occupy a building prior to that --
Borup: You know one thing that may work if the masonry wall is against the
property line against the fence, that is something that could probably go in first.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I hate to raise this point, but something Mr. Durkin
said reminded me of something. There is a lateral that runs along there. I
believe it is under the jurisdiction of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. They
have some pretty specific rules as to what you can do above their laterals as far
as plantings. I don’t know if anybody from their design team has addressed that
issue or not but we’ve had some issues in the past with planting trees. They’re
just not permitted within the area of a piped ditch.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton do you know the size of that lateral easement?
Freckleton: I don’t, not off the top of my head.
Borup: Does anybody in the audience?
(Inaudible)
Borup: No, no, I’m talking about the specific size of the easement and that’s
going to need to show on the plat, not how long or where it goes. No, it’s not
shown on that. Did Nampa Meridian address that in your comments? That was
clear back in July I believe.
Well that easement there could affect the wall. It could affect the plantings which
may move that further to the west. Mr. Durkin did you have any information at all
on that lateral?
Durkin: Do I have any information on it?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 80
Borup: On the lateral.
Durkin: Yes. Actually we’ve had a meeting with the Nampa Meridian whatever
the name of that entity is and gone over the site plan with them. They want us to
enclose the lateral. They’ll allow us to move it. Their preference would be to
have it more out at the base of the slope. They don’t want it under a giant berm
or wall so we would probably move it out closer to the edge of the parking lot.
There would be an enclosed pipe review the plan –
Borup: To the edge of the parking lot did you say?
Durkin: Yeah the edge of the berm.
Borup: Okay, so it would be on the store side of the berm or the building side of
the berm?
Durkin: Yes away from the residents.
Borup: Okay and no concern with them on the asphalt or anything else over the
top of it.
Durkin: They have the right to come in and tear it up any time and fix the
problem and then say see you later.
Borup: Does that express your concern, Mr. Freckleton?
Freckleton: Yes, it does.
Borup: Okay good. Thank you. Well when we left off talking about construction
of the berm prior to start of construction was how you worded that I think. Did we
clarify that enough?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: And so –
De Weerd: Did we Shari? I don’t know. I got lost.
Borup: I think what we discussed about was that would probably be -- I mean in
my mind from practical from a construction aspect with everything else that
needs to be in place to do that.
De Weerd: If and when they decide on that wall, the wall has to go in first.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 81
Borup: Assuming it’s not on the berm.
De Weerd: Assuming it’s not on the berm. If it’s on the property line that the wall
go in.
Borup: Do you want to make that part of the proposed motion to start with? I
think it was discussed that we need to do that anyway. When you specified the
location of the wall subject to being moved by the homeowners other decisions
so are you proposing to maybe include that in?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: So the wall on the property line and built –
De Weerd: If the decision is for the wall to go on the property line, that the wall
go in prior to the first building permit and then the berm can go before the first
occupancy you know permit.
Borup: And I’m not sure how practical before the building permit is.
De Weerd: Well these people are concerned about noise and dust and why are
we putting up the wall if it’s not suppose to do something?
Smith: Because they want it.
De Weerd: And they want it for that reason.
Smith: I don’t think we can prior to the issuance of a building permit. Is there
some type of – there’s a permit required to tile the ditch isn’t there? Or some
kind of authorization –
Borup: Mr. Durkin another question please.
De Weerd: Well can’t we ask Shari?
Borup: Well what do you feel is the earliest possible point to be practical to put
that wall in? I know it’s a difficult question.
Durkin: It really isn’t difficult because we have the whole schedule. I guess I
really want to stress it’s –
Borup: I’m not talking about the berm. We’re talking about the wall if it’s on the
property line.
Durkin: If it’s on the property line the earliest I would say would be June 15th
.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 82
Borup: I’m sorry I’m not talking about date, I’m talking about in the construction
schedule. At what point would the –
Durkin: About the same time that the masons would begin the masonry work on
a building. Well in advance of that you are going to have earth movers and
you’re going to have dust.
Borup: And what would prevent the wall from going in sooner?
Durkin: Because as part of the earth moving process and the scraping of the top
soil, part of that when you have that phase of construction going on, that’s and
prior to them turning on the irrigation we want to get that pipe done so we are
going to be under construction balancing and grading assuming everything
continues.
Borup: Well –
Durkin: Prior to them turning the water on.
Borup: But the grade is not going to change at the fence line is it?
Durkin: I don’t know. I can’t answer that tonight, but you are putting a
requirement on me that’s very –
Borup: Well it can’t change very much without a retaining wall against the
neighbors’ property.
Smith: There’s a lateral there that requires tiling and filling then that could affect
the grade there.
Durkin: (inaudible) with this issue and you’re asking me to do something I can’t
do. So I’m asking you to somehow to get out of your area to a staff level or
something because –
Borup: Yeah, I think at this point of discussion is when some type of separation
could go in.
Durkin: If I have a six foot fence block wall along the wooden fence and I have
earth movers and D-9’s or 10’s or whatever is out there and back hoes there’s no
chance that that wall is going to stop that noise. Or the berm for that matter.
There is going to be a ruckus in construction.
Borup: So you’re saying it would be practical to do it to the time that the block
masonry construction starts on the buildings?
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 83
Durkin: Mr. Chairman, there really isn’t a practical thing. It’s something I can
expedite just a fast as possible. But I need to start the Shopko store in
December, January. And I can’t get that ditch relocated cleaned, relocated and
get the block wall by that time. It’s going to be a real challenge for me to meet
that will delay the project 12 months that condition. I couldn’t foresee a
circumstance that that wouldn’t be the case.
Smith: I don’t see any benefit of having a six foot high block wall next to a six foot
high wood fence that that’s going to provide any additional benefit to having that
in prior to beginning construction.
Borup: Okay, I think I agree with that. Okay, Tammy let’s go on.
De Weerd: Also to incorporate the summary of Findings from the study from the
noise study into our conditions.
Borup: Specifically 1 through 8.
De Weerd: Specifically 1 through 8.
Borup: And then clarification on four. Four was either or type of thing. So is
your recommendation for the 20 foot high wall rather than –
De Weerd: You can change that or to and.
Borup: I think that would be good. So you’re saying 1 through 8 with substituting
and for or for the 20 foot high barrier.
Rossman: Which and for or are you referring to in paragraph four?
Borup: Third sentence, third line. It’s on page two number four, third line. The
refrigeration unit on a refrigerated trailer is parked on the truck dock of the
building one be a proposed grocery store should be turned off after the trucks
are parked or a 20 foot high barrier higher should be constructed along the side
of the truck docks. And the applicant has always said the 20 foot wall there will
be put in so we’re saying delete the or and say the wall will be put in. Is that fair
to say what we’re – okay. Number five says the same thing.
De Weerd: Yeah, change or to and.
Borup: Okay, number 9, is that what we’re down to? On your list number 9.
De Weerd: Yeah and to abide by the terms and conditions of ACHD that they
impose.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 84
Borup: Okay, that’s –
Smith: Including but limited to a road linking Presidential Drive to Pine Avenue at
the time the –
Borup: Yes because I don’t think ACHD had that as a requirement, but the
applicant said that they would be doing that. Is that what you’re saying?
De Weerd: The temporary access?
Smith: Just make sure that that’s part of it.
Borup: Okay, while you’re on the ACHD did you how about the three
recommended conditions for the City of Meridian? The three conditions that was
recommended that Meridian would impose. Are you including that in there or are
you wanting to look at those as a separate item? It was specifically talking about
the referred to as the ring or frontage road and then the other two were on ride
sharing and –
De Weerd: Oh yeah.
Smith: Yeah, I’d like to include those.
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: I guess I wonder if we need more direction on item one on that on the
frontage ring road especially after hearing a little bit from the traffic engineer if it’s
accomplish anything to run it clear to the corner or not. I think everyone agrees
that it does when it gets closer to the exits. I mean do we want to clarify that or
are we saying a full length frontage road? Or do we want to modify that with –
De Weerd: Well wouldn’t that be something that staff works with the applicant
and we’ll see it in design review.
Borup: That’s what I was going to say. A minimum of back a distance to
properly be able to empty the parking lots and then review that in design review.
And I think the highway commission kind of clarified the other ones that if there’s
not a program available we can’t require them to participate in it. But that was
changed from the previous.
De Weerd: You know a lot of this is included in the testimony, but lighting by
review of staff and approval. Signage, he talked about restricting trash and
sweeping. I guess trash was addressed as number 8. Sweeping I don’t believe
was in there. I know it was discussed though.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 85
Borup: Yes, the applicant testified to 7:00 in the morning until 3:30 or 4:30 in the
afternoon. The sweeping would be restricted to those hours.
De Weerd: Restrict loading times the times that he suggested. I believe they
were 7:00 until 3:30.
Smith: 7:30 to 3:30 I thought.
De Weerd: Except for the grocery store which is 5:00 to 3:30 I believe. Was that
5:00 a.m.? I can’t remember.
Borup: That I don’t remember either.
De Weerd: It’s 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for non grocery and 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
for store receiving grocery items, which is just the grocery store.
Smith: Getting back to signage, isn’t that something we can do as part of the
design review under the –
Borup: Well they need to have a sign permit and that’s all handled in a separate
application anyway with staff on the signs.
De Weerd: That’s my list. Thank you.
Borup: That’s it? Okay, Commissioner Smith.
Smith: That the name and 24 hour contact or representative of the Family Center
be made available to the homeowners association.
De Weerd: And adjacent property owners.
Borup: Well –
De Weerd: Not always.
Borup: No, I agree with that but I don’t know maybe should be up to the
homeowners association to get that to the property owners.
(Inaudible)
Smith: Yeah the management of the Family Center can’t keep with every –
Rossman: Just give it to the homeowners association.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 86
De Weerd: Okay the homeowners association.
Borup: Are you saying one contact or –
Smith: Just the homeowners association.
Borup: No, no, I meant for the stores or each individual store?
De Weerd: No, one contact.
Smith: I believe there was some testimony prior that there was going to be an on
site manager of the development and that person should be available 24 hours a
day I would think if something came up. And then there was testimony regarding
the reflection of sound out of the area where the truck backed in with the walls
that were surrounding and the noise funneling out and reflecting and at some
future point in time that if there was noise mitigation steps that could be taken
beyond just putting up a block wall so what I’d like to do is instead of requiring
that sound attenuation be installed because it may not be necessary is that if the
reflection of sound is above a specified DBA outside and this is where I don’t
know what to say is outside a specified area and I don’t know if it’s against the
property. If it’s right outside this little loading dock area or not that the developer
be required to install sound attenuation to bring the DBA down to those levels
recommended by the noise study done by Daly Standlee dated September 23rd
.
Borup: You discussed talking adding the sound block and the paneling and
those aspects?
Smith: He said sound blocks, perforated metal with sound insulation behind it.
Borup: The other thing I just noticed on the design itself where that wall was
proposed to be, the building jogs in so straight across from that is another
building and another loading dock.
Smith: Right and may create enough effect where it bounces back and forth in
there it doesn’t drift out. But if it drifts outside of that area and that’s what I would
like to – I don’t know what the proper location is where it’s too high. Whether it’s
immediately outside that loading dock area or it’s at the property line, in the
middle of the service drive.
Borup: Well I think they took the other readings at the property line.
Smith: Let’s say at the property line.
Borup: So I didn’t get all that down. So you’re saying if the –
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 87
Smith: If the reflection of sound out of the loading dock areas is above the
specified DBA referred to in the noise attenuation report by Daly Standlee dated
September 23rd
, 1998, that steps be taken to install sound attenuation which will
bring the DBA down to the targeted levels noted in the noise study at the
property line.
Borup: I think the testimony was the DBA of 50 unless we want to clarify that
and put a number in or just say as in the study.
Smith: I think it went from 74 to – first he said 74 to 50 and then he said it was
55 and it lowered it three so it should be really 52.
Borup: I think the way you said it the first time is the best as stated in the study.
Smith: Yeah, then we don’t hang ourselves on a number that doesn’t mean
anything.
Borup: Okay. I’m going to let you repeat that later because I didn’t get all that
down. Go ahead on your next one.
Smith: I think Commissioner De Weerd covered all the other things I had on my
list.
Borup: Okay, and I think that covered everything on my list except for – and
maybe someone can help me if the ACHD report mentioned the traffic calming
aspect. We did not have a lot of time to review that tonight.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman –
Durkin: I don’t know if it’s in that report because I haven’t read the one that was
delivered today. But we’re on record with ACHD and it’s a matter that they would
do the work and bill us versus the city, but we are on record.
Borup: Oh, for that road. Okay.
Durkin: We are on record last night with them. If traffic calming is necessary
they can go ahead and do it and bill us. I really don’t know it is in the report, but
that is a matter of record.
Borup: So ACHD would be doing that anyway?
Durkin: We don’t have the authority to go and put in –
Borup: Public road.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 88
(Inaudible)
Rossman: ..made a condition that they comply with ACHD.
Borup: Yeah, we’ve already said that. And ACHD has made a strong
commitment on that. They’re the ones that – that was discussed.
Durkin: For the record here I commit again to that, but it’s not something that
Meridian is going to do the work or we can do the work. It’s a county street and
they go and do it.
Borup: I think ACHD was real cognizant of the homeowners concerns there.
Okay, that’s 12 items is what we’ve got here. Is there –
Rossman: Just for the record, I’ve been notified that the specific provision of the
Ada County Highway District report is on page 16 paragraph 35, referring to the
traffic calming facilities.
Borup: Okay it says to coordinate the design and placement with District staff
which would be the highway district and the Crossroad Subdivision homeowners
association so they are going to be coordinating that with the association.
Commissioners is there –
De Weerd: I would ask staff if there’s anything else.
Borup: Yes and I was going to do that too.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, maybe I missed
something but maybe a point of clarification on what Byron was talking about.
Tammy was talking about the mitigation the eight items in the mitigation on the
report of the sound study that they were going to be incorporated and then I
maybe confused on what Commissioner Smith was saying, but were you
proposing that they not build the 18 foot high wall to enclose the dock unless the
sound exceeds the levels?
Smith: No, what I was saying was that if the sound reflectivity due to
construction of this 20 foot wall or 18 foot wall on three sides that the sound
reflects out and is above the noise decibels are referred to as the target what you
are trying to get the sound down to at the property line that if they exceed that,
then they go in and do sound attenuation installation to bring that down to the
target DBA that they had identified in the noise study.
Freckleton: Okay, thank you. I understand.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 89
Stiles: You did talk about the interior landscaping. I would like to work on that
with Mr. Koga if that’s okay with the applicant. I don’t want it to be thought that
the 150 feet I was referring to meant that if you have a tree and if there’s a tree
anywhere within 150 feet of that, that would the requirement. That was not what
I was referring to. I was talking about breaking up each row that is longer than
150 with landscaping of a minimum 6 foot width.
De Weerd: Yes, that’s what my intent was.
Stiles: Okay.
Borup: And I think it was still they would coordinate that with staff and then come
before us with a quick design review.
Stiles: And the loop road is going to be incorporated in accordance with ACHD’s
recommendations?
De Weerd: Yes.
Stiles: Are you going to see this plan again as part of just this design review
because they are taking significant amount of right-of-way from Fairview and
Eagle beyond what is shown on their plan that is going to reduce the number of
parking spaces. I just want to make sure that this we get a final plan to look at.
De Weerd: Yes, that was part of my motion with the design review.
Smith: We didn’t have a motion.
De Weerd: Well I mean that was part of the condition we’ve been talking about.
Stiles: Okay.
Borup: Other than I don’t know if we completely reached a decision on the
frontage road as far as how far that would extend but we definitely agreed that
there needs to be some there and whether it goes clear to the corner or not and
I’m not sure the best way to get that information. Would you like that to someone
to meet with you to discuss that or are you just saying do it period no matter
what?
Stiles: I guess either they’re going to have a loop road or they’re not going to
have a loop road. I wouldn’t pretend to know –
Borup: There’s presently a loop road. It’s just not very travelable. I mean it’s
not practical to travel around it. So the road needs to come in.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 90
De Weerd: They showed us a concept; right?
Stiles: This detail that was presented by Mr. Dobie.
Borup: Well that’s just from a manual.
Stiles: Well it’s a concept, but a concept similar to this would be incorporated as
part of the plan.
Borup: Okay he also testified he didn’t think it would accomplish anything to go
clear to the corner. I don’t know if that’s something we agree with or not but –
Stiles: But I thought the testimony was that they would incorporate that from
Presidential Drive to Records Drive. Or to just short of Records Drive. Is that –
Borup: No, that’s what ACHD recommended. That was in their testimony. Yes
and clear around to Pine.
De Weerd: Perhaps Mr. Durkin can answer that.
Durkin: As a matter of fact our testimony tonight was that we didn’t feel it was
safe and sound to have the road corner to corner. Pat testified tonight that he –
it is his recommendation to do it in sections, but it wouldn’t necessarily come
right out all the way to the corner. Otherwise it would be a race through. It would
in links. (End of Tape)
Borup: …that emptying and I’m not sure that was the terminology that that would
be a benefit but the further you extend back the less of a benefit it would be.
Durkin: Yeah, the closer it got up to the stores and to that other driveway the
less benefit it would be. He’s going to do a redesign to tell me what’s safe and
sound.
Borup: Well and I don’t know, do you know whether ACHD did much study on
that.
Durkin: ACHD’s authority is not to go on site.
Borup: Right, I mean –
Durkin: So they justified that last night.
Borup: Yes.
Durkin: They talked about the ring road which –
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 91
Borup: That’s what I wondered. Did they do a traffic study on that or are they
just going by –
Durkin: Their traffic study was only off site.
Smith: They are just making a recommendation.
Durkin: They made a recommendation.
Borup: That’s the same recommendation they made in 93.
Durkin: It was –
Borup: Then would it be practical maybe to see a traffic study on that interior?
He’s going to be doing anyway. I think it definitely needs to be there to do the
emptying and concern about customers crossing the roadway to get to the
stores, I mean if all the cars go there, that’s where all the people are going to be
crossing. I mean they don’t have any other choice. I guess I didn’t put a lot of
weight on he’s saying he felt it was more dangerous to have it out there where
because you are not going to have that many people crossing that road when it’s
out away from the buildings. Because the parking is going to be as close a
building as you can get it. The only time that you are even going to have people
out there is on the busy seasons and that type of thing so you know those far
ones aren’t going to get a lot of parking anyway I wouldn’t think. Okay. Have we
got that done concise enough on that? I don’t think – can we just review the
traffic study and leave it at that? Okay.
De Weerd: Does that work with staff?
Stiles: That’s great.
De Weerd: Does that give you something to work with?
Stiles: Yeah.
Borup: Okay, Commissioners, is there anybody else you feel the need to ask
anything from before we close this hearing?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, no.
Borup: Thank you. I’d like to close this public hearing at this time.
Commissioners, I think as you know we –
Smith: Mr. Chairman, --
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 92
Borup: And maybe all of us can help, yeah, I’ve got the 12 items written down
and you may need some help on reviewing them.
Smith: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion that we direct the attorney to
prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on this application,
incorporating the conditions to be stated as read by beginning with
Commissioner Borup.
Borup: And Counsel would that help for you if we ran through those one more
time right now?
Rossman: They’re in the record. If your motion is to recommend approval of the
conditional use permit with the conditions stated during the discussion that
immediately preceded the motion, that’s sufficient to prepare Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law. We don’t need to restate it.
Smith: And so do I need to amend my motion and restate it to say such?
Rossman: That’s fine. There was a little bit of ambiguity in some of those
conditions so if you feel better restating them, go ahead.
Smith: That’s why I thought we needed to restate them.
Rossman: Yeah, go ahead.
Borup: I think we can do that real quickly.
Smith: I made my motion. Commissioner Borup restate those 12 items.
Borup: And both commissioners if there’s something need to add here because I
did write abbreviated. That there be six foot wide minimum planting islands in
the parking lot. Number 2 and you did not mention six feet by – have you got a
direction the other way, 6 by 6 minimum? Or –
De Weerd: No we were looking at taking the parking length.
Borup: The whole parking 6 by 19 or whatever the parking.
De Weerd: Yes.
Borup: I think 19.
Rossman: Restate that condition please.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 93
Borup: I am going to reread that. Okay, number one that there be –
Smith: I would like to give them an opportunity to stagger them. Instead of
having one strip maybe they can stagger them. Give Mr. Koga a chance to use
some – he spent a lot of money getting his degree and license and so let’s let
him do what he’s good at.
Borup: I think rather than having it six by 38, you could have two six by 19’s
spread apart. Is that a concern?
Stiles: Can we just work on that together on that?
De Weerd: Yeah, I just think that the width needs to be –
Stiles: Minimum six foot width wherever they occur.
Smith: Minimum six by 19.
De Weerd: Minimum six foot width.
Borup: Okay, number one minimum six by 19 width planting islands to be design
by a landscape architect and approved by staff and eventually design review by
P & Z Commission. Number two, that generally the design incorporate the 150
foot break up of those islands on the parking strips.
De Weerd: The rows.
Borup: The rows, generally to 150 foot break up on the rows. Number three,
that there’s a 20 foot berm on the perimeter on Eagle and Fairview.
De Weerd: Not including sidewalks.
Borup: Not including the sidewalks. The sidewalk would be either in ACHD
right–of-way or the berm increased to include that. Number four, that they obtain
landscaping permit from I.T.D. to do landscaping in the right-of-way. Number
five, that there be a 20 foot buffer on the project bordering the residential that this
20 foot buffer include a three foot berm with staggered trees as designed by
landscape architect and a block wall located on the property line next to the
wooden fence unless decided otherwise by the homeowners association this –
well that’s all I need to say there. Number six design review –
Smith: What’s certain on that though.
Borup: They said yes provide it to us by October 13th
.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 94
Rossman: And what size block wall?
Borup: Six foot.
Rossman: October 13.
Borup: Commissioners do we need to review that prior to – I guess by that date
would be enough time on something like that wouldn’t it? Or do we want the
Friday before?
Smith: That’s just a letter.
Borup: Right. That’s what I was saying that should be enough time. Okay
number six is that we have design review of the buildings, landscaping, parking
lot design etc. on any development of this project present and future
development. Number 7 I incorporated in number five when I stuck the wall on
the property line. That was number seven so maybe I’ll renumber those. New
number seven that the noise items 1-8 and the noise mitigation summary of
findings be included and that in item number 4 and 5 that the or preceding the
wall barriers be changed to and. Number eight that the ACHD findings be
incorporated. Their site specific findings and the three recommendations to the
City of Meridian be included. Number 9 lighting, signage, sweeping, loading
hours, as testified and agreed on by the applicant be included in this condition.
Number 10 that the name of the shopping center contact person be supplied to
the home owners association and number 11 Commissioner Smith, I think you
got that written down.
Smith: That if the reflection of sound outside the loading dock area at the
property line exceeds the targeted decibels noted in the noise study by Daly
Standlee dated September 23, 1998 that sound attenuation be installed in the
loading dock areas to bring the DBA at the property line within those targeted
referenced numbers.
Borup: Thank you and I believe that concludes the now 11 conditions.
De Weerd: Second. I second that.
Borup: Motion has been made and second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: All ayes.
Smith: Mr. Chairman I’d like to make a motion that we adjourn.
De Weerd: Second.
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
September 24, 1998
Page 95
Borup: Meeting adjourned. I would like to say and I meant to do that before we
and most of the neighbors are gone, but we appreciate the input from the
neighborhood. I hope you realize that we did not take this lightly. If we did it
wouldn’t have lasted four meetings. And it may not be all what everybody
wanted, but I hope they realize that what you’ve got here and you can find that
out by looking around is more than any other shopping center in this valley has.
Smith: Mr. Chairman maybe you could just inform these folks that aren’t aware
of the process what the next step is and what their future opportunity is to –
Borup: The next step is – this is the last public hearing. At the next meeting,
we’ll be reviewing the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. That’s when
we’ll be voting on that. The approval has not been granted. That would possibly
come next week and after that it goes to city council for them to vote on. So
there’s a couple more months.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:57 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED:
_____________________________________
MALCOLM MACCOY, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK