1999 08-31MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
AUGUST 31, 1999
A special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called or order
at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Tammy De Weerd, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard
Hatcher, Kent Brown
OTHERS PRESENT: Bruce Freckleton, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, Steve
Rutherford, Will Berg
Borup: I would like to convene this special meeting of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission. Just an informational item before we start. The city is in the
process of updating our Comprehensive Plan. That is the guide in a large part
development of the City of Meridian, excessive guide lines and we are very anxious for
public input. Anyone here that’s got an interest that would like to—the next meeting is
September 15th
at Chaparral Elementary School, that is off of Ten Mile near the Fuller
Park back in that area. It is a public meeting welcome for all. 6:30 is the time. We do
have one Commissioner absent to night. I think he had a conflicting meeting. That is
Kent Brown. All other Commissioners are here in attendance.
ITEM NUMBER 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR EXPANSION OF FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING CHILDREN BY RAY
CHASE/REGENT BUSINESS—1301 E. FIRST STREET:
Borup: Brad, do you have a staff report?
Hawkins: Good evening. This application before you is for a conditional use permit to
add a second building to the Kids Club parcel which is one parcel north of the U.S. Post
Office. We do ask that you incorporate our comments from August 30 which details
most of the issues. The project is situated is completely surrounded with C-C zoning
other than the U.S. Post Office. The Post Office is R-15 and as in the first paragraph in
the staff report the reason for this is –the applicant did appeal the original planning and
zoning administrators decision to not allow accessory use. That is the reason for this.
The staff felt that the size of the building was large enough that it was not represented
in the original use application and because of the size, I believe it is between 800 and
900 square feet, they were required to come in for this conditional use. The principal
issue that I will point out in the staff report is the elevation. The applicant may or may
not have modified that, but the ordinal elevation did not include any kind of a window or
architectural project on the East First side of the building. We would as that some kind
of feature be added on that. Other then that, I think that covers it.
Borup: Okay, thank you Brad. Any questions from the Commissioners? Brad, did you
have some other information?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 2
Hawkins: I was just going to point out that the dark bordered building is the proposed
addition. It is set back 6 feet from the side of the property line which is adequate for
building code.
Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here or the representative here this evening? Give
your name please.
Chase: Cindy Chase.
Borup: Is there anything you would like to explain about your project? Actually, we do
have a staff report and something I am going to be asking most applicants here and I
realize this when you may not-—first of all have you had a chance to read the staff
comments.
Chase: Yes I have.
Borup: Are there any comments or concerns, disagreements on those comments. That
might be the shortest way to handle this.
Chase: I don’t have any. The one regarding the window. We haven’t be able to decide
if Planning and Zoning or whoever wanted us to move it back or to leave it up to the
front, so whatever they want us to do. We wanted it to be pleasing to the neighborhood
as well.
Borup: I think what they were saying on that they thought a window so some
architectural design on there rather than a flat straight wall. Okay. They did make one
comment on having a walk way between the two buildings. Were you all ready planning
on that?
Chase: Not really between the two because the north side of the building has windows
that face the fence, so it is not a walk through area. There is a fire escape that goes
down that way.
Borup: So the doorway on the southeast end of the building is the entrance. Your
saying your not planning a sidewalk there.
Chase: I’m sorry. There is a walkway to the front door. There is a back door and there
is a concrete patio between the existing building and the garage.
Borup: The staff made a comment on (inaudible) walkway between the existing house
and the new building.
Chase: It does not show that we have the fire escape deck there. So, where that is
that whole “L” shape area that goes north and west, is concrete all ready.
Borup: Okay. It is just not indicated on the plat then.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 3
Chase: Right. You can’t tell that that’s concrete.
Borup: Okay. Any Commissioners have questions for the applicant. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone else who would like to come forward and
testify on this application. Seeing none. Commissioners we do have an open public
hearing which means before we proceed we need to close it.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second it.
Borup: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Any discussion or are you ready for a motion.
De Weerd: The staff addressed all of my issues. And since the applicant agrees with
them I have nothing.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro. You look like your trying to say something.
Barbeiro: I would like to ask staff a question. It is my understand that the new building
would have to be ADA compliant. Is the existing building compliant? If it is not,
because they are building another building on the same lot, does that not then require
them to bring the existing building up to ADA standards.
Hawkins: Commissioner Barbeiro. They do have occupancy on the existing building
and it should have been inspected by the building inspector and been approved. I have
not been there to review the width of the doorways or ramps, but I believe that maybe a
question for the applicant. I did not look in to the existing building on this.
Barbeiro: Do you know when the existing building was last remodeled.
Chase, R: I may have the answers to that. My name is Ray Chase.
Borup: We may be able to comment, right now the public hearing is closed.
Chase, R.: Okay, I thought maybe could answer the questions.
De Weerd: Well you could have if you would have asked it when the public hearing was
on. Mr. Chairman, I move that we reopen the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 4
Borup: Okay, this hearing has been reopened. Sir if you would like to come on up.
Chase, R.: My name is Raymond Chase. I sit on the parent corporation that owns Kids
Club. The building is 70 to 80 years old. As far as the ADA compliance, we are not
accommodating children that fall under the disabilities act. Our compliance is for
parents or guardians who fall under that guidance. If I could use a pointer. Access, like
Cindy stated, this is concrete area here. Access pursuant to ADA brings you into the
building from the driveway to the concrete area. This will be level as well. I don’t want
to use the term grandfather but because the building was so old there are no ramps to
the building to get into it because it would not be feasible. As far as any guardians or
parents that needed to pick them up that fall under the guidelines of ADA, they would
have access up to the building.
Barbeiro: If I may ask our board member architect, in your experience if another
building is built on the same site, does that not require both buildings to be brought up
to ADA standards.
Hatcher: Not typically. Under this condition the existing building if it does not require
sufficient modifications to the existing building then ADA upgrades are not required.
The new building will need to meet, whether its being serviced for disabled people or
not. It will still need to meet those requirements. Other then that, the one question you
and I talked about earlier, that is whether or not splitting the lot for 2 separate buildings
is a concern. As to whether or not this is a separate building, or an addition to an
existing building, it is something that needs to be considered.
Borup: I believe that’s why it is before us for a conditional use permit because of the
two buildings.
Barbeiro: That seemed to be our largest question. If that is allowable within the city
ordinance to build two buildings on a lot that one building was initially—
Borup: It requires a conditional use permit.
Barbeiro: Okay, thank you. With that I have no further questions.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: With that, I may again make a motion to close the public hearing.
De Weerd: I’ll second that.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Public hearing has been closed, again.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 5
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of the condition use
permit for expansion of the facility to accommodate existing children by Ray Chase, to
include staff comments.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM NUMBER 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR OPERATION OF CORN FIELD MAZE FROM SEPTEMBER 10th
THROUGH
NOVEMBER 1st
, 1999 BY SAM JOHNSON & THE MAIZE, LLC—LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF I-84 AND EAGLE ROAD:
Hawkins: Commissioners, I know this looks like the big black blob project. Sorry for the
print. This is coming before you due to a development agreement that was signed
between the Idaho Elks Rehabilitation Company, who is the property owner when they
annexed into the city limits any future uses required a conditional use permit. Thus you
are having it before you. I would ask to incorporate the comments from August 6th
of
staff. The one issue that I would point out on the very far west boundary here. Rackum
Road. ACHD did make a comment which you should have in your packets that they
may require—right in right out on to Overland. The applicant should address the issues
of anticipated traffic and they may or may not have had further discussions with ACHD
about that comment. ACHD left it rather open. Our main concern would be the
appropriate signage and then also reference the dust control issue, which I think is Item
number 2 or 3 on the report. Thanks.
Borup: Any questions for Brad from the commission?
Hatcher: Question for staff. Has ACHD put any provisions or have any documentation
for temporary traffic control to prevent left turns across Overland into the site?
Hawkins: Are you referring to something like a temporary medium that would actually
be placed in Overland Road.
Hatcher: Right. Do they have some sort of standards or something that they have used
in the past—how is the applicant going to prevent cross traffic turning?
Hawkins: At this point they are not required to. My understanding—I actually don’t
know the answer if ACHD has that. I know that the City of Meridian Police Dept. has
gotten involved occasionally. Situations that are more temporary than one. Three
months would probably be a little long for that so therefore ACHD would need to be
involved.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 6
Borup: Any other questions. Would the applicant like to come forward and comment
and present his application.
Johnson: My name is Sam Johnson. I am with the Maize, LLC. We wish to open on
September 10th
through November 1st
. Technically we are closing October 30. In
regards to the access off of Overland Road onto Rackum Lane, ACHD has—I have
talked to them numerous times. Their bouncing back and forth between different ideas
what to do for better control and better access to that property. At this time, they have
given us a letter that should be in the packet that’s just brought to our attention that it
could be in the future Rackum Road and Overland Road intersection restricting that to a
right in and right out only. As far as that, they’ve given us the go ahead. With the
concern that it is increasing traffic for that intersection. The –I was told by the ACHD
that there was a possible park and ride lot proposed for half way down Rackum lane on
the curve. They were planning to do a left turn medium and widen Overland Road to a
left turn medium on to Rackum to ease the traffic. At least so people aren’t rear ending
each other. Also, dust –before we move on is there any questions or comments on
that.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I have a couple questions. First of all, I was real excited to
see your site plan. I thought I’d get a map on how to get to your maze, but it wasn’t on
there. Where are your generators going to be located.
Johnson: We will have 2 generators. This is the site for this year. The maze is all
ready created. Entrance is labeled here and our generator will be somewhere close to
that entrance. Kind of tucked back into the corn sheltered behind the trailer or some
such—to keep the public out—
De Weerd: How far away is that from that subdivision?
Johnson: The maze –there is another site plan here—this is kind of a miniature version
of that of the vicinity map here. The corn field as it is now, goes off at an angle at this
point and concludes over here. The maze is only in a 12 acre spot out of 22 acres.
The entrance is right about is up closer to the freeway. It kind of sits on an angle.
De Weerd: And you mentioned a second generator.
Johnson: If there is a second generator we hope there is not need for one, but if there
is one it will be in the same spot.
De Weerd: And what are your times of operation?
Johnson: We are opening September 10th
, Monday through Thursday 4 to 10 PM and
then Friday is 4 to 11 PM and Saturday is 10am to 11pm.
De Weerd: Did you happen to have any neighborhood meetings to talk to the
neighbors about your corn maze?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 7
Johnson: Yes, we sent out some notices for a neighborhood meeting. I apologize they
arrived way late. There was a glitch on our part. We were not required to have a
neighborhood meeting, but we wanted to let the neighbors know what was going on
answering questions at that time. I again apologize. There was only 2 or 3 in
attendance because the letters were sent out at a late date.
De Weerd: Do you feel that you adequately addressed their concerns?
Johnson: Yes.
Barbeiro: Mr. Johnson, what have you changed in your plan to address the Meridian
fire concern?
Johnson: In the maze we typically implement 2 or 3 emergency doors or short cut
doors that allow people to get through quicker. We do always have fire extinguishers
on hand and our parking lot this year is going to be much bigger to accommodate the
traffic and also have fire lanes so to speak. There is no it is not possible to drive a
vehicle inside the maze, but we have our staff there every night with two way radios that
we are in constant contact with myself and if anything was to happen there is—we can
show the quickest way in and out of any situation.
Barbeiro: Remind me again what the size this lot is.
Johnson: This is just over 12 acres of the maze itself. 5 miles of pathways.
Barbeiro: And in that along with the parking and everything what is the size of the lot.
Johnson: The parking we haven’t designated it. There is potential for twenty, twenty
five acres of parking but we are going to rope that off (inaudible) maybe even less. We
typically use 5 or 6 and we don’t want people driving and kicking up dirt around in the
areas that are not parked.
Barbeiro: What is the staffing of the maze?
Johnson: On weekdays we will have up to 15 and on weekends we will have up to 30.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Johnson. Again this is a public hearing. Do we have anyone
who would like to stand and comment on this application?
Rackham: My name is Mr. Rackum. I live on Rackham Lane. I did have some
concerns that if I didn’t get to address the public meeting because I got my letter at 4
o’clock the day of the meeting and I had other plans. I did discuss this with Mr. Johnson
on the telephone before I left for that meeting that day. I did not some of the things that
addressed this evening that I have concerns with. The main concern that I have is the
Rackum Lane is a two lane road with an “S” in it. It goes back to the lot. It’s a 55 acre
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 8
parcel of ground and the road that goes into it is on the east the southwest corner and
then to get back to the maze, you have to cross a field. The dust from crossing that
field is what I have a concern with because my home is located downwind from the
prevailing wind from that field. The farmer that has been using that for the last 15 or
years have been very cordial in being able to prevent a problem because he used the
road that goes along the south edge of the property. There was never a need to go out
across the field. The field is a plowed field. This is a concern I have and I did not hear
that addressed. The other concern I had was control of parking. We enjoyed the maze
that was there last year down on Eagle Road and a few of my family that are still home
are looking forward to going to it, but we also have reservations about the parking along
the road there because I did experience several problems on Eagle Road. We saw
people parking on the road and blocking the road to where they were problems along
Eagle Road. I don’t know how you control people and make people think and
understand that the it’s a public road not a private road on Eagle Road where they were
last year. We saw people making U-turns trying to go either north or south on Eagle
Road after they came from the maze creating some traffic problems. If that were to
occur on Rackum Lane that would be a real problem. I have equipment that goes in
and out of that on emergency basis day and night and I was concerned also with that
access being available with my equipment going in and out of there. There are no
speed signs on that road which probably should be if it were going to be opened up to a
public road there are only my family that uses that road and the farmers that use it
during the summer time. There is a lot of people that use the maze and most of them
are good drivers and some of them are not, according to what I saw on south Eagle
Road last year, so the speed on that was not at all controlled at this point. Having
exited that road for several years since the interchange was put in, I found that right
turn was a good idea but left turn can be a real problem. I addressed that at the
meeting they had with a proposal of a park and ride on the east side of the “S” on
Rackum Lane. When the county talked about doing that because two problems are
there, you have traffic coming from the left during commute traffic very heavily and in
the mornings you have traffic making left turns onto Overland Road going east and the
only lane they have to go into is the lane you would want to go out into to make a left
turn if you were coming out of that lane. Some people are courteous enough to give a
little leeway if you didn’t judge them coming around the corner 90 mph. Some are not
and they just as soon drive over the top of you as go around you. That is a real
concern I have. The county indicated in their meeting that they were going to have a
right turn in and right turn out for their park and ride, but for some reason that was
supposed to be put in last year and that has not happened. I do know that there is
going to be a problem for somebody who pulls out and turns left about time the left
hand signal going east on Overland turns, particularly during commute traffic when
you’ll have probably 25 or 30 cars in that left hand turn lane trying to beat that signal
before it turns green or red. We avoid that and we have learned to avoid that ourselves
during those times because of that problem. The bulk of the visits are going to be after
school and in the evening where this parcel for the maze and if you have people come
off Eagle Road to go to it. South bound on Eagle Road, left turn on Overland you would
have people backed up through the intersection trying to make a left turn with traffic
coming to get on the freeway to get home any where from 3 o’clock to 6:30. From a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 9
public safety point of view that should be addressed because I’ve lived there and seen
a lot of that in the time that I spend there. The real concern I have is the speed limit the
parking along the road Rackum Lane and the dust control. The maze is quite a ways
back. It is on the easterly more portion of the 55 acres, but getting back to that maze
through that plowed field is going to be a problem with some people. Mr. Johnson
mentioned to me he thought he’d put a gravel road back to the parking area. Knowing
some people as I’ve seen in my life, they don’t like to stay on the road. They go around
those who want to go on the road and go slow and then we will have a dust problem. A
question came to my mind when someone hear asked about fire protection. That is a
corn field and if someone were to go in there and start a fire in that field, there are
several homes downwind from that in that subdivision that could be at risk. I don’t know
what kind of fire control there would be to prevent anything from going into those homes
should there be a fire there. That field only has about 20 foot road on the south side
between the back fields that are (inaudible) of those homes and the edge of the corn.
That is all I have.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Rackham. Any questions from the commission? Do we have
anyone else here this evening? Not a lot of neighbors. Look’s like your it huh.
Commission’s questions, discussion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I had a question for Mr. Johnson.
Borup: Mr. Johnson, if you’d like to come forward.
Barbeiro: Had a couple of notes here with regards to Mr. Rackham’s discussion. One
of them was, is there an alarm in the event that there is a fire that would require
evacuation?
Johnson: There is no typical fire alarm. We typically use like one of those megaphones
to make a loud noise, but with that much space and 10 foot high corn, you can’t really
hear people yell. That is why staff has all of our employees will have radios and they
are dotted throughout the maze constantly to alarm or if anything were to take place
that they can notify everybody at the same time.
Barbeiro: That may be fine for the staff keeping in mind that you only have one staff
member per acre.
Johnson: At least. It is usually one during the slow times and 2 or 3 during the busy
times.
Barbeiro: And you satisfied that that is sufficient to evacuate the field in the event of a
fire and getting everybody evacuated away from the fire.
Johnson: Yes. I –with their contacting them and letting them contact the individuals,
that is the fastest possible way to alarm everybody if such thing were to occur.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 10
Barbeiro: Mr. Rackham’s major concerns had to do with the flow of traffic. It would be
my recommendation that you meet with the Meridian Police Dept. and coordinate a
traffic control plan that may include temporary speed signs, temporary parking signs,
temperate right turn signs that would include orange cones or lit orange cones showing
that your only going to turn right and entrance signs telling people there are only right or
left hand turns. Would you be willing to work with the Meridian Police Dept. to develop
that and then go to a traffic control store here in town and rent all of the necessary
cones and temporary signs necessary to have a control traffic plan.
Johnson: Yes, definitely.
Barbeiro: Then that will be included in my recommendation for the conditional use
permit.
Johnson: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: What have you been proposing to do to control the dust? Mr. Rackham had
mentioned gravel out to the parking lot but spreading gravel out in the people of an
agricultural field doesn’t seem very wise.
Johnson: I don’t remember ever suggesting that but I do—we are planning to do if I
may—we are going to section off this—the corn starts here like I mentioned and this is
about 22 or 25 acres of plowed ground right now. We don’t need that. We typically use
anywhere—try to use 4 to 6 acres. Last year and the year before we were limited with
3 to 4 acres and that got crowded. We are grateful to have this 25 acres to work with
and what we are planning to do is about here—the maze starts here but about here we
are going to rope off this back half of the field so people aren’t tearing around and
kicking up dust. From Rackham Lane here, we are going to rope off and flag off a
corridor to the parking area with entrance signs and also exit signs and arrows. Our
exit will be up against the highway and there is an existing dirt road that comes around
back down to this entrance to the access road. That is our traffic flow proposal and also
for the dust we have arranged for water trucks to come in weekly or whenever
necessary to water down the entire parking lot and mainly the entrance and the exit
roads to keep the dust down.
Hatcher: As far as water trucks go, I think that would be a wise idea but your at
minimum looking daily and possibly depending on the Friday and Saturday business,
your looking to be able to adequately control that dust your looking at probably 2 or 3
times on a Friday and a Saturday.
Johnson: Yeah and we will do whatever is necessary. Usually after our packing lot
becomes very packed, especially after it has been watered a couple time, it becomes
so packed it looks all most like cracked desert and it doesn’t have much dust. It’s the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 11
where the traffic is constantly driving over at the entrance, is where the dust is kicked
up. We will, if there is dust flying, we will water it down.
Hatcher: My other question was what are you proposing to do for fire control. Not so
much the fire departments comments or egress from the maze but the issue that Mr.
Rackham brought up in the event that the maze was to ignite, what have you proposed
to prevent that fire from spreading.
Johnson: We –it has been my experience that dry corn doesn’t burn very well unless it
is a huge fire and something is very hot to enlarge to ignite an entire field. We’ve in the
past, tried to ignite a single stock of corn and it wouldn’t. In the event that it was to
happen, we have fire extinguishers and that is to the extent to what we have to control it
from spreading because it is an agricultural field. There is only a 20-25 foot road that
goes around the perimeter of the entire field and there again, the corn does come up to
that road.
Hatcher: Might I suggest since your not using that large of a lot that you round the
perimeter of this field do a multiply plow probably one or two tractors wide to increase
that 20 foot fire break to say 40 or 60 feet. It shouldn’t impact your operation and
should help give additional protection to the adjacent subdivision.
Johnson: I am in favor of that. I will bring that up with the farmer. It is his crop and we
can see if we can work something out with that.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: Just one comment he might give Mr. Rackham his phone number so that
when concern arises he can give you a call.
Johnson: Yeah that is my plan to give my card to all neighbors and particularly Mr.
Rackham and we are not going to allow anyone to park on Rackham Lane. There is
not need to. If they do park there, it’s about a ¼ mile walk for them so I don’t anticipate
anyone trying to park on his road. Yes we will give numbers out.
Borup: Mr. Johnson (inaudible) this year is 50 to 75 per cent bigger than last year. Last
year 3 or 4 acres this year your looking at 6.
Johnson: We will probably mark off about 8.
Borup: So your talking double of what you had last year so there should not be a
overflow problem.
Johnson: No.
Borup: Did you have in mind (inaudible) no parking signs on Rackham Lane—just
some temporary no parking signs. I agree, if they have to walk up a ¼ mile and the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 12
parking lot is adequate there, probably not a big danger. How about –any thought on a
temporary speed limit sign as we mentioned. (inaudible)
Johnson: Yeah that is –we can work with the Police Dept. and also the ACHD.
Borup: Okay, I don’t know if there is any specific—is this a private road.
Johnson: No it is not.
Borup: It is a ACHD public road so you need their permission to post that then. That is
something that you could either do or have them see if they would post it or have a
temporary sign either way. Then you did—the fire department had commented that
have no smoking signs posted. Is that all ready—
Johnson: Yes that is taken care of and we do that every year.
Borup: Mr. Johnson you did get (inaudible) comments earlier in the month didn’t you.
Okay just to make sure of that. I have no other questions. Thank you.
Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Okay, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Do we need any discussion before we make a motion? Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I make a motion that we approve the request for conditional use permit for the
operation of cornfield maze from September 10 through November 1 by Sam Johnson
and the Maize LLC which would include all staff comments and I would also make a
requirement on top of that that the Maize LLC coordinate traffic control requirements
with the Meridian Police Dept. and ACHD if necessary at the expense of the Maize LLC
any temporary signage, barricades what not be property be distributed throughout
Overland and Rackham Road. I would also make a requirement in that motion that the
fire break around the perimeter of this existing field be increased to 60 foot.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Anybody else have any items that they would want to add to that motion? I
would like to have perhaps (inaudible) no parking signs on Rackham and that some
type of speed limit sign be posted.
Hatcher: I will include that in my motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 13
Barbeiro: I concur.
Borup: We have a motion and a second. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM NUMBER 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
(R-T TO R-4) BY CHARLES CRANE—LOCATED AT 3610 W. USTICK ROAD:
Borup: Steve, you got that report.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's, this is a request for annexation and
zoning for Charles Crane for 1.9 acres, currently zoned R-T. He has requested an R-4
zone. The property is located north of Ustick Road west of Ten Mile, Englewood Creek
Estates Subdivision is to the south across Ustick Road. Dakota Ridge Subdivision is
over here. The existing City of Meridian Waste Water Treatment Plant is to the north
about a quarter mile. It does not abut the property but is in the vicinity. I would like to
address annexation issues in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. It is only 1.9 acres
but it is located—there is a small triangle that is outlined in black right here. The
property is actually split in two by a single family residential and rural residential
agricultural designations in the Comprehensive Plan. Based on this, we felt we could
approve the annexation but we felt that R-4 was too dense. We would like to
recommend that nothing more dense than an R-2 zone be allowed
****END OF SIDE ONE*****
Siddoway: Agreement be required that would restrict the property to only be allowed to
be split into two parcels. The applicant has stated his intentions to apply for a one time
lot split after annexation and we would state that he must provide the required
documentation showing eligibility for that one time lot split. The only other issue that I
feel that needs to be brought up would be the fact that the city in the past has been
adverse to allowing development in and around the waster water treatment plant and
should consider whether or not this would set a precedent. We would be in favor of the
recommendation as stated with an R-2 zone and requirements that only 2 lots could be
made out of it.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's for Steve.
Barbeiro: What are the plans for expansion at the waste water treatment plant and how
do you expect that to impact on this lot.
Siddoway: I do not know about plans for expansion. Perhaps Bruce might be able to
address that. It is a waste water treatment plant and the odors that go with that is the
main reason for not wanting development in and around it. Bruce can talk about
expansion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 14
Freckleton: Commissioner Barbeiro. The plant is under constant expansion. Our
expansion though is north of Five Mile Creek. We don’t anticipate that we would have
anything south of Five Mile Creek. Five Mile Creek is what is running more or less with
Ustick Road there north of the subject site.
Borup: Anyone else? Okay, is Mr. Crane or his representative here this evening. If you
could state you name and address and phone number.
Crane: My name is Charles Crane. My address is 3610 W. Ustick. Phone number is
895-8010.
Borup: Thank you. Is there any—would you like—first of all any comments on the staff
report and maybe explain what your intentions are.
Crane: Our intentions are kind of generated by financial problems. We like where we
live and we’d like to keep all of it, but some financial pressures are pushing us to get
some money somewhere. Because the property was originally split back in the 70’s, I
discovered it was eligible for a one time split. That’s what we talked about that we
could sell a little section of it and get some money to settle some of our problems. I
proceeded to check the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning rules and regulations and
it appeared to be that we could change the zoning by getting annexed to the City of
Meridian. So, our intention is to split off a section and either sell the existing house and
a section of land and build in the future on a piece of land, or sell the piece of land to
get some money.
Borup: So you plan essentially the same thing staff recommend that it be split into two
parcels. So that was all you were planning on doing. So you are looking at trying to
subdivide it into multiple lots or anything.
Crane: That is not our intention at the moment. On the staff reports, that’s one of the
things I was going to ask if we could do the R-4 zoning—we actually could I go through
a couple items on this. Most all of them I agree with and are just fine with us. The
zoning recommendation of R-2 instead of R-4—we’d applied originally for the R-4
zoning, based on the Comprehensive Plan of that section being in the white—single
family residence type area. That’s one thing I was asking for. In the agreement not to
develop the land any farther than a one time split, I was going to ask if that
recommendation could be set aside because anything more than a one time split would
have to come before this commission again. Any kind of subdivision request would
have to be approved by this commission and the City Council. We are selling part of
the land. I think it might effect the value of selling the piece of land if there were extra
restrictions on it. We don’t know who our buyer is and the more restrictions on it, the
more draw backs might be or less potential buyers we would have. We were asking if
we could have just a plain R-4 zoning and also since the area surrounding us is R-4,
across the street in the subdivision, the Englewood Subdivision, the Dakota Ridge
Subdivision and round the corner on Ten Mile, that R-4 and industrial behind us at the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 15
waste water, we figured an R-4 would fit in with the Comprehensive Plan. Also, there is
one other note on there. Comment number 8 on your notes—that this was the first
application. I talked to my neighbors before I started this and checked if it would be
okay with them if we did something like this. One of the comments from the neighbor to
the west of us, Betty Lou Briton, was that she all ready started on the process of doing
this at one time and had to quit because of the cost of sewer system. She would have
had to get some pumps put in that were too expensive. So, we are not the first one
that’s done some things in this area. Also, I think just recently one of the other
neighbors, Larry Peterson on the east side of us, got a conditional use permit for a new
power substation on his property. It’s up in the corner next to Ten Mile Road. Things
have been happening in this area so this is not really new.
Borup: I think what their statement was a first application for annexation, which would
still be a true statement.
Crane: I believe Betty Lou did apply—at least that’s what she told me.
Borup: How many years ago?
Crane: Not too many. She did not say when.
Borup: Okay, it had to be more than three.
Crane: It might be. One other item, number 4. The—we have a domestic well and our
own septic system and I know being annexed into the City you are required to join the
City water and sewer system. Because of our financial situation, I was wondering if we
could get annexed but put a delay on the connection to the City water and sewer for say
6 months until we had a buyer or until we were financially able to pay for the extra
hookup costs.
Borup: Essentially, your comments was on Items 2 and 4.
Crane: Number 2, number 4, number 7 which was the development agreement. I
would like to just stick to the normal planning and zoning rules and not have extra
commitments made on my part that would be—
Borup: But that is a normal rule.
Crane: That is? Oh okay.
Borup: As far as the development agreement.
Rutherford: Mr. Chairman, the development agreement is a usual condition of
annexation as is the requirement for water and sewer. I don’t know, I believe Charles
may be referring to the restrictions that can only be split into two.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 16
Borup: He had mentioned item number 7, entering into a development agreement.
That’s normally standard item.
Crane: I have only been to one other hearing. This is all new for me.
Borup: Any other questions or comments you’d like to make?
Crane: No, all the other items on the recommendations are all according to what we
were planning on.
Borup: Okay. Commissioner's questions for Mr. Crane.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman if I may ask staff a question. Is the requirement to hook up to
city water and city sewer necessary prior to any development on the land? If the land
remains unimproved, does he still have to hook up to sewer and water prior to or as a
condition of annexation regardless of development.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barbeiro, it is an ordinance requirement that is
something that could be taken up with City Council. They are the only ones that could
grant a time extension or a variance to that.
Barbeiro: But it is possible to have a variance which would not require him to hook up
to city water and sewer until the property was to be developed.
Freckleton: If council grants that, yes. But it is an ordinance requirement.
Borup: That was your only question? Any other Commissioner's? Thank you Mr.
Crane. We may call you for some more questions. Again this is a public hearing. Any
one else wish to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioner's questions
comments.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman again, deferring to staff can you give another explanation as to
the request to keep it as a R-2, understanding that the waste water treatment plant is
there and you object is likely to prevent residential development on that lot and then set
a precedent for the (inaudible). Is that in essence what your proposal of keeping it an
R-2 is?
Siddoway: That is half of it. The other half is the fact that the parcel is split in two with
the designation of rural residential and single family residential, the rural residential
would require no lot split smaller than 5 acres in size where as single family residential
would allow up to 8 units per acre in an R-8 zone. We felt that the intent was to try to
keep it rural but allow single family -–e are trying to find a compromise between the two
designations since they both existed on the same lot and felt like our rural residential
zone in our zoning ordinances was the best compromise.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 17
Barbeiro: Does the property now –if annexed would it sit as a island or could Dakota
Ridge and Englewood Creek also currently annex into the city.
Siddoway: They both are currently annexed into the city and zoned R-4.
Barbeiro: Thank you. Mr. Chairman I have no further questions.
Borup: Anyone else? I do have a question on—what would be the development
requirements to proceed on this, even with two lots. I am assuming you were saying
sewer and water needs to be brought to the property. Do curb, gutter and sidewalk
need to be done. Well, that is on Ustick so no. That would not be. The rest of the
normal subdivision requirements or if they are doing just a lot split with 2 lots, sewer and
water would be the only development requirement the city would have.
Siddoway: I believe that is true.
Borup: How about if you wanted two additional lots. In that case it would be to be a
subdivision plat.
Siddoway: In that case there would need to be a subdivision plat and then the—that is
when curb, gutter and sidewalk type improvements would be required.
Borup: An everything else that goes with developing a subdivision. I am not sure if Mr.
Crane realizes that. Any other questions?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Moved and seconded we close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Discussion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I am inclined to defer to the staff comments and wish to see
that the property be zoned no more than an R-2 with your assistence and without
objection of the other Commissioner's, I’d like to make a proposal that we zone it no
greater than R-2, yet the applicant had requested an R-4. Can we make the
recommendation for an R-2 only, or are we to only stay within the bounds of the
application.
Borup: Might have some help from the—but I believe that is correct. We have an
application. We either –this has come up in the past. I think we had the option of
recommend approval or denying with a recommendation. Can he change his
application before City Council without coming back to us.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 18
Rutherford: Commissioner's, my advice in this situation would be you could basically
approve to the City Council the R-4, the R-2 now that it is before you, you don’t
necessarily have to grant exactly his request. We have seen the City Council do this in
the past where someone will ask for an R-8 and they will give them an R-4 and they
change their plans accordingly and they either say I don’t want it or they come back
with the appropriate plans before the City Council. At this point you can do the R-2 with
no problem, in my opinion.
Borup: As I understand then the applicant could either procede with that or appeal the
recommendation.
Rutherford: Well, I guess it would (inaudible) City Council and say you know I think the
commission was wrong and here is what I would ask you to do and the City Council
could act accordingly.
Borup: As far as granting—I think as far as the variance, the City Council is the one
who needs to address that anyway. Did that answer your question Commissioner?
Barbeiro: Yes, thank you. With out any objections from the other Commissioner's, I
move that we recommend to City Council that request for annexation and zoning by
Charles Crane for 3610 W. Ustick Road from RT to R-4 be corrected and re-approved
from RT to R-2, making note of the additional staff comments.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM NUMBER 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF .6 ACRE FROM
R-8 TO L-O BY MIKE GAMBLIN—LOCATED AT CHERRY LANE AND LEISURE LANE:
Borup: Steve are you doing this presentation?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's. This application before you is a request
to rezone a parcel of land from R-8 to L-O by Mike Gamblin. The parcel is highlighted
in yellow here. It actually has two zoning designations on the same parcel. It is
currently L-O along Cherry Lane as the drawing shows and R-8 behind it. This
application would rezone the entire parcel to L-O. We would point out that Cherry Lane
is designation as an entry way corridor in the Comprehensive Plan and have
recommended that appropriate landscape setbacks be provided in the comments. The
proposed use, which Mr. Gamblin can discuss in greater detail, is for professional
offices on that parcel. We would recommend approval of this with the requirement that
a development be required that incorporates the staff comments for regulating the
development as dated August 6, 1999. That’s all I have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 19
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? Is Mr. Gamblin here this evening?
Gamblin: My name is Mike Gamblin. I live at 3208 N. Linda Vista Place in Boise. My
telephone number is 322-5544.
Borup: Have you had a chance to review the staff comments?
Gamblin: I have and I have no objection to the staff comments or recommendations.
Borup: And that’s the short answer. Commissioner's have any questions for Mr.
Gamblin?
De Weerd: Do you have any response to ACHD comments?
Gamblin: I have read through those. I agreement with those. I had a meeting with
them and we discussed them. Anything in particular that you wanted to—
De Weerd: I just wondered if your landscaping allowed for the ACHD requirements for
Leisure Lane.
Gamblin: It will at the time. I am coming forth with just a request for the rezone. I don’t
have a development plan per say. I am not asking for anything other than the rezone.
My understanding is at the time some one goes to develop the property, they will have
to enter into a plan in accordance with the city and ACHD.
De Weerd: Did you provide the photo’s.
Gamblin: I did.
De Weerd: Thank you. That was a very nice part of it.
Borup: Anyone else at this point. Thank you Mr. Gamblin. Do we have anyone from
the public who wish to stand and address concerning this application. Seeing none,
Commissioner's.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 20
Borup: Is there a request for a rezone as he stated development would-- This would
be a straight rezone, so a development would be handled with on a staff basis, is that
correct. This is not a conditional use permit.
Rutherford: Yeah, assuming that professional offices are proposed on the site
(inaudible) in the yellow zone we’d handle it with (inaudible).
Borup: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval for the rezone of .6
acres from R-8 to L-O on Cherry Lane and Leisure Lane to incorporate all staff
comments.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES:
ITEM NUMBER 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR IN HOME DAYCARE BY KATHY PURCELL—LOCATED AT 2241 E. CLARENE
STREET:
Borup: Brad.
De Weerd: Brad, do we have any pictures on this one?
Hawkins: We have an architectural rendering for you. Commissioner's this is a request
for a conditional use permit to increase the number of children. She currently has a
accessory use permit. The location is Dove Meadows Subdivision. Currently has a
AUP for family daycare, 1 to 5 children. The ordinance requires a conditional use
permit for 6-12 children and she is proposing to increase the number of kids at her
daycare to a group child care home status. That could be 6-12 kids. We do ask that
you incorporate staff comments from August 11th
.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Brad.
Hawkins: This is the area and floor plan of the house and the principal area for daycare
would be the highlighted room there.
Borup: Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening.
Purcell: That is me and I have never done this before so I am really nervous. My name
is Kathy Purcell. I live at 2241 E. Clarene.
Borup: Have you had a chance to review the staff comments?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 21
Purcell: I just got them today. Briefly.
Borup: You just got them today?
Purcell: Yes. I picked them up at the Clerk’s Office this afternoon.
Borup: They were prepared on the 11th
.
Purcell: I did not receive any. I got a call from Linda. She asked me if I received them
and I said no. I know that they had a concern regarding the play area in the backyard.
Number 11. The idea that I have for the type of daycare that I want to have and why a
good reason—I got to have enough room to have mind, but I am going to set it up to
where there is going to be groups. Not all, and I won’t have up to 12 children. My idea
was more of 8, included 2 and one on the way. But, I am going to hold groups where
were we have activity areas and inside and also activity scheduled, supervised activities
outside. Mostly I have school age children that go to school year around, so I won’t
have all of them there. I also do utilize part of the dining room and the living room.
They kind of like the 27 inch TV in the living room for quiet time. I let them rest. They
have movie time and they can either go to sleep, that is fine, if not when the movie is
over they go back to the main area for either craft time or different craft time in the
dining area. It is more a creative and challenging—I mostly have school age though I
do have—my daughter is 2 and my son is 7. There was a question regarding the
vehicles from ACHD and just more of the traffic. I have the one mother that has—she
has 3 kids so it’s just her car that comes. I have another one that’s waiting to come and
she has 3 children also. That would pretty much—I might have drop ins occasionally
depending on who is in desperate need or who needs help that day. In that aspect, I
have plans to just 2 cars that come and then my helper that comes during the day. I
think that was the only real questions that I ran across that really wouldn’t be a problem.
Borup: Commissioner's any questions? Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mrs. Purcell, you are aware that the City of Meridian is drafting a child care
licensing ordinance that may change the requirements for your existing daycare. The
person that is coming in to assist you. I am assuming that this is some one who comes
in the mornings and then in the afternoons you said most of the children are school age.
Purcell. Yes, the 3 that I have are off-track and they are there all day, but she does
come in and help. If I am reading where you question is going, all left that I need to do
in order to get my license, which I was planning on doing, is just have the Central
District Health inspection. I have taken the first aide and CPR classes and the finger
printing, which has taken for ever. I have done that about 2 months ago and I am
planning on having my helper do it as well—just in the case that she is left alone with
them.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 22
Barbeiro: Okay. It is fortunate now that you’ll only have 2 parents coming in on a
regular basis as each of them have 3 children each. That may chance next month and
you’ll all of a sudden have 8 parents coming in and out dropping children off. Have you,
with regards to the neighbors, that can be a little frustrating for neighbors to have.
Purcell: My neighbors, probably not. They’re—I made sure and took the time to talk to
–especially the neighbors that are on the road anywhere around my house. I discussed
and talked with them about it and made sure that—and actually most of them are going
to be gone and won’t be back until after the majority of the children are picked up. I do
have, and you actually can’t see it, I have an extended concrete pad which my actually
driveway will hold 4 cars. I park my car in front of my house to deter, in case there is a
problem with trying to do U-turns in front of my house. That way it leaves them more
space just pull in, back up and pull out. Usually the parent I have now she picks up at
5:30. The parent I will have, she picks up at 5. There will be, at least right now, space
in-between the drop-offs and pickups so it is not real congested at any certain specific
time.
Barbeiro: The play area requiring the 6 foot solid fence, I presume that is your
backyard. It is currently set up with a 6 foot solid fence?
Purcell: Yeah, it seems taller, but yeah.
Barbeiro: Is the front yard fenced off or is it open.
Purcell: The front yard is a lot smaller and yes it is open, but the back yard is
completely enclosed.
Barbeiro: You did not intend to have the children—
Purcell: Absolutely not.
Borup: While your on the fence, where does the side fence line go to?
Purcell: It goes to approximately 2 feet back on the garage side. It goes across and
back all the way down the actual border of the house and the other side goes in-
between, it goes between the living room and the 3rd
bedroom, but that whole side is
enclosed off and the kids are not—it is completely fenced out area where they can’t go
to.
Borup: The point that I was looking at is if there is—you probably have more play
space than the 3700 feet.
Purcell: It seems pretty big to me.
Borup: Just looking where you got fence, it’s probably more than that cause your some
on the side and a patio area, etc. Commissioner's procede.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 23
Barbeiro: If I may ask staff (inaudible) if there is a washer and dryer –can you tell me
what the doors are between the washer and dryer—just a simple metal folding door
between them?
Purcell: It’s a vinyl by folding door.
Barbeiro: Staff is there any concern with having that dryer within a area like that where
the potential exists for (inaudible) seeing that there is no fire enclosure or separation
with the dryer and the main area where the daycare would be.
Hawkins: The site is inspected and with this request to go to the new to the higher
number of kids, both the fire dept. and planning and zoning staff would do an on-site
inspection. For the most part, I am not aware of any City Ordinances that specific those
kinds of safety issues. It could potentially brought up with any kind of licensing from the
Dept. of Health and Welfare. They have a few more safety standards than the city
does.
Barbeiro: I would defer to the Meridian Fire Dept. on factoring their in-house inspection.
Purcell: I’ve had an inspection from the Fire Dept. and from Planning and Zoning all
ready for my first permit. At that point, they had no concerns.
Borup: Any other Commissioner's? Okay. Thank you Miss Purcell. Do we have
anyone here in the audience want to stand and comment on this application. Seeing
none. Commissioner's.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Borup: Okay.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of the conditional use
permit for in home daycare on 2241 E. Clarene Street to include staff comments.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and a second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 24
ITEM NUMBER 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING
OF 4.34 ACRES (R-T TO C-G) BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS
LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION:
Hawkins: Mr. Chairman just for clarification did you say Item number 6 on the agenda?
Borup: I believe I said number 7. I was jumping ahead. Yes it is item number 6.
Hawkins: Going asleep on the job Chairman. We will go ahead and do staff comments
on both 6 and 7 if that’s all right. This application is for an annexation. The property is
currently zoned R-T in the County. It is this cross hatched piece here. There is quite a
bit of development going on here in this Magic View Subdivision. Gentry Way is an
approved location for a Holiday Inn Express. There is another application this evening
for this parcel for offices I believe and this is the existing Texaco, the Eagle Partners
project is here, which is the Chevron/Macdonald’s. Approved plat for Midvally Business
Park, which is approximately 5 one acre pieces. The request from the applicant is to
annex from R-T to a C-G zone. C-G is the existing zone of these other adjacent
properties. Just would ask that staff comments dated August 30 be incorporated. A
couple of items to point out on there for your clarification Commissioner's, most of them
are fairly standard. Item number 7 on page 4 and item number 8 on page 4 both deal
with the landscaping issues. This is the proposed site plan. The applicant may have a
modification of this, which I will defer to him for further clarification, but this is what is in
your packet. The items that I refer to deal with the landscape strip on the Freeway
Drive which is here on the south end. In-between I84 offramp for Eagle Road which
comes around here and then Allen Street is here. This would likely be the principle
entrance off of Eagle Road coming from the north the principle entrance to get in to
their site. It is a proposed 60,000 sq. facility. The staff does request that there be a
widening of the landscape strip on Allen as well as on Freeway Drive and 35 feet is as
an entry way corridor and that is what we feel, because of the high visibility be included
and we did make a suggestion. I do not know if the applicant has had any discussions
with ITD. To my understanding it has not been done before but to have some kind of a
license agreement to in the area between I84 ITD’s existing right of way and Freeway
Drive on the off ramp there is space to potentially buffer a little bit. The site is well the
parking lot is well designed we feel in terms of the existing landscaping. The offset
there on Allen the existing 10 feet here in Midvalley Business Park to the north, if that
was continued I think it would provide more continuity between the two parcels. The
one other error on page 5 of the staff report, we did not complete the sentence on
number 9, which you may have noticed, but that’s the intent there that I just pointed out.
The proposed 10 foot landscape strip on Sonntag’s north boundary would continue the
current 10 feet on the north side. There are also public works a couple of public works
issues which Bruce may want to address. Thanks.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, Brad. I do have a question. What is on the west side of the
property. Is that residential?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 25
Hawkins: The west side is residential, right now yes. Single family house with some
agricultural implements.
De Weerd: And that buffering is adequate?
Hawkins: There is a existing informal request to planning and zoning from the Magic
View Subdivision for a Comprehensive Plan change. There is not a formal application,
but it has been submitted to the city by the homeowners. Approximately 70 acres in the
subdivision and they are requesting it be changed from single family which is currently
is in the Comprehensive Plan to mixed residential. That’s one of the issues we were
considering with that is that there maybe a more similar use in the future. The existing
use yes, we felt that the 20 feet was adequate there. They do taper in a little bit there
and come back out in order to get an access drive on the west side there of building 2.
I’m sorry, mixed plan use is the request from the Homeowners Assn. Excuse me.
De Weerd: One more question for Brad. Do we get anything from ACHD on this.
Hawkins: I did not receive anything, no.
Borup: Thank you.
Freckleton: Chairman Borup, members of the commission. I’m not sure which
comment number it is but I just wanted to point out a situation out there with sewer and
water service. The developer of the Holiday Inn Express which is across Allen Street to
the east, recently installed sewer and water mains to service the Holiday Inn site.
Construction has stopped on that project and has stopped before those mains could be
received their final testing and approval. We have not accepted them for ownership
and maintenance and that is still the situation today. It is real unclear as to when they
will gear up and get going on construction again, but this point of time, construction has
stopped on the Holiday Inn project.
Borup: At this point there is no sewer service.
Freckleton: At this point in time we don’t have sewer or water that can serve this site.
Borup: Okay, thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess my question would be, can the two applications in
front of us tonight somehow assist in paying for that development so they can hook up
when Holiday Express comes in that they would reimburse them.
Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd. That is certainly a possibility. Hubbell
Engineering, as you recall, is developing north of the side, the Midvalley Business Park
and they are in the same boat. It may be very beneficial for all these applicants to get
together and work this out. My understanding is there’s some outstanding bills to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 26
contractor that installed the mains and they certainly would be open to having their bills
paid.
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions? Again this Item number 6 is annexation and
zoning. Is the applicant or one of his representatives here this evening.
Freeman: My name is Scott Freeman. I am with Johnson Architects. We are the
architects on this project for the applicant. I have a couple of boards I’d like to put up.
Can I do that at this time.
Borup: Yes but you realize that anything any exhibits need to be left here.
Freeman: Yeah this was submitted to Brad at the time we applied. We did get a copy
of the report and we did have a chance to go through it. There are a handful of items
on there that I would like to address either with questions or proposals. The first one
and again I don’t know which item it is on you list, but the landscape strips on both Allen
Street to the east and the future Freeway Drive to the south. We have taken a look at
some possibilities in expanding the landscape stripe to better comply with staff
requirements. I brought some sketches
****End of Tape 1 and 2
Borup: the staff comments today?
Freeman: I received the staff comments yesterday.
Borup: Oh, okay.
Freeman: I work fast. Originally we did have a 4 foot landscape buffer on the east
side. We are proposing here with some minor modifications that we expand that to an
11 foot buffer and I believe that would comply with staffs recommendations. You
comment on the one item on the staff report that was not complete regarding that 10
north buffer, I am unclear exactly what that was referring to. Was it commenting
perhaps that this 10 foot strip here to the north return around the corner and continue.
If we expand this to a 11 foot buffer, is that—
Borup: I believe what he was referring to is if you continue your buffer on north
adjoining parcel proposing a meandering buffer. He is talking on that buffer up along
there—along Allen Street from the other project. By your going a 10 foot that would be
more in align with what they are doing and have some continuity there.
Freeman: Currently along that north property line we do have a 10 foot buffer all along
the north property line and the 11 foot buffer—the 10 foot buffer here would include a 10
foot buffer on the front—I guess is what I am trying to say.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 27
Borup: Okay your right. We are talking two different items there. That along north
property line is item number 9. They are saying 10 foot on both—is that what your
saying.
Freeman: Yeah, we provide a 10 foot buffer on the north. I guess to clarify my
question, it was that if we do expand this east buffer to an 11 foot buffer, have we
indeed complied with both of those comments.
Hawkins: Yes.
Freeman: Okay. On the south side we originally I believe a 6 foot landscape buffer
there and in reconsidering this it appears as though we can get a 19 foot landscape
buffer on our property without going across the street and addressing Idaho State
Transportation Dept in any way. I would propose that the 19 foot landscape buffer
along that south side be considered as acceptable treatment for buffers on the Freeway
Drive. I guess I can get further feedback on that in a minute. You’ll notice on this new
landscape plan there is a difference between the new landscape plan here at the corner
and what was originally submitted which is also indicated on the board here behind me.
Originally we had proposed that an additional curb cut be added near that corner, but in
talking to ACHD they prefer that that be relocated off the corner 150 feet in either
direction. We felt that since that would put that additional curb cut significantly close to
either the north or the west curb cut all ready planned that it would be better just to
eliminate that one. I believe in discussions with planning early on that that curb cut was
kind of a non-issue. We either could or could not have that. Are there any questions
about the proposed landscape buffers so far. Guess I can address these right in front
of you. The second question I had regarding the comments was the requirement for
gravitational sewage flow from the site. We have considered what to do about that with
our civil engineer and it appears that the only possible way to get sewage off of this
property because of the existing topography is to use a sewer injector system. We did
not want to use one either, but the only way to flow with gravity would be to build up this
site like 10 feet. If I can describe the topography a little bit that might be more clear.
The existing site topography right now runs from the east toward the west downhill and
there is approximately a 10 foot difference between the east side and the west side.
Our building, therefore, is going to sit anywhere from two to four feet below the
elevation of the street over here. If we were to build up the site in order to have a
downhill slope for sewage to the street, we would potentially end up with an 18 to 20
foot differential on the west property boundary which seemed excessive to us and
would be very difficult and expensive to accommodate. We are proposing that we
balance the cut and fill in this side as much as possible in the interest of drainage and
of access –vehicular access. The proposal of the sewer injector pump is one that we
feel that is necessary.
Borup: Okay.
Freeman: The other item I wanted to address was the question on irrigation on this
property. It was pointed out that we would not be allowed to tap into the domestic water
mains along the street. There is some surface irrigation available on this site, however
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 28
there is some questions whether it would be adequate enough to provide a pressurized
irrigation system. There is also an existing well on the site which is referred to in the
staff report currently being used for domestic purposes. We have considered using it as
much as possible for irrigation of the site. Unfortunately it is right smack dab in the
middle of the site where we would like to build. A couple of questions I have regarding
that are, if it is determined that the surface irrigation water available is not adequate to
irrigate this landscaping, and the well in addition to that would (inaudible) adequate
water, would it be possible to relocate the well (inaudible) and put another on near by,
or is that something that would be impossible.
Freckleton: Chairman Borup, members on the Commission, that is a question that
needs to be addressed to the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The City of
Meridian does not have jurisdiction on ground water wells. I believe in the past there
has been some relocation of wells, as long as you have a permit for a well on the site.
Freeman: Okay. As a follow-up to that question and that is helpful, if it is determined
that the surface irrigation available to us and the well are both inadequate to water the
landscaping as required, is there any consideration given to that problem. Is there
anyway to use what we can from other sources and then tap into the City mains as a
backup.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton and while your thinking about that, what are the adjoining sites
around here. They’ve all had the same requirement also haven’t they. Have they
designed their pressurized irrigation system yet? Do you know. We are talking a
project right to the north and two across the street.
Freckleton: Chairman Borup, the Midvalley Business Park adjacent to the north is in
the process of designing a pressurized irrigation system for their site. Same
requirement. Holiday Inn to the east, their landscaping area, I believe, was small
enough that it didn’t exceed our maximum allowed. Under our permits with water
resources, we can not use domestic to water an area larger then a ½ acre total size. I
believe the calculations that were submitted, there was about 35,000 sf of landscaped
area.
Borup: Do you know how Midvalley was designed in theirs. Was it off the irrigation
system?
Freckleton: I have not seen any design for it yet.
Borup: Would it be practical for two projects to combine on their pressurized irrigation
systems on the design—
Freckleton: It’s definitely something that could be looked into.
(Inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 29
Freeman: We are going to have to investigate how much water we have available
there, but that does give me an idea of what our options are.
Freckleton: One other thing that you might consider too is a shallow well. We have an
abundance of ground water in Meridian and I believe as long as you do a well that is
less than 18 feet, it is not even a permit. You may be able to do all most a reverse
french drain type system that you could pump out of.
Freeman: Again I can talk to the Dept of Water Resources about that. I think that sums
up the questions I had on staff report. I did offer some solutions as far as landscaping
requirements. If there is going to be discussion on that, I’d like to have the opportunity
to address you again to answer anything that is proposed. Is that all right.
Borup: Yes. We would probably insist on it. Did you address item number 6 on the
parking stall size? The driveway.
Freeman: Oh yes I did. We have changed that and it is reflected on the new sketch to
a 25 foot drive. Any other questions for me?
Borup: Any questions? Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: For Mr. Freeman and for staff, with regards to the requirement that you can
not irrigate more than ½ acre for domestic water, is there any allowance for a pro rated
irrigation system where you can guarantee that if it is a 35,000 sf area you can
guarantee that at least half of that area can be irrigated from ground sources. Does
that then break off and allow him to irrigate the remainder with domestic water.
Freckleton: Commissioner Barbeiro, I don’t recall ever seeing a situation like that. We
could certainly look into it. We are just bound by our permits with water resources as
far as what we can use our domestic water for—and there is that cut off.
Barbeiro: But under these circumstances he could provide documentation showing that
less than ½ acre would be used for domestic water irrigation. Is the rule so black and
white that regardless of how much –if his pressurized system were to show that he
could irrigate 25,000 of that 35,000 and then only 10,000 would have to be irrigated
from domestic, the agreement that we have would not allow for that or is that option
available in negotiations.
Freckleton: This evening I don’t have an answer for you. That is something that we
could certainly look into though. Once their investigation is complete and they know
where they are at, if whether their just not going to be able to do it any other way, we
can address the issue then.
Barbeiro: Scott, have you come across anything like this where you have—(inaudible)
that you can not irrigate off of domestic water. You get together with the city and water
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 30
resources and come up with an agreement that we may not have to go in and have the
concern of ground water and surface water.
Freeman: I think immediately we are going to be looking into that and having
discussions with planning and the Dept. of Water Resources to see if there is a solution.
I guess my question would be, is the solution what a solution hold up the development
agreement that we are going to make or can that be amended to the development
agreement that we make. Our intention is to comply with staff’s requirements. I just
wanted to be honest and let you know that it could be impossibility to irrigate the
landscape with what we have. Yes, certainly I am going to investigate those options.
Borup: I would think that could be addressed in the development agreement.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, do you anticipate that you could have some of this
information flushed out prior to City Council?
Freeman: Refresh for me when that is going to take place. September 21. I think that
should be adequate time to address this, yes.
Borup: Is that parcel (inaudible) irrigated now? Is that irrigated pasture?
Freeman: I don’t know for certain. (Inaudible) In the past—I don’t think it’s currently
being irrigated. I guess there is one other thing which you’ve adequately addressed
and that is the incompletion of the utility lines in the street. You did suggest that
perhaps we could make those improvements our self and maybe come up with a
reimbursement agreement for the site down stream of us. I guess it is up stream in the
case of sewer. I think (Inaudible)
Borup: I think what he saying is the lines are in or partially in—just not completed and
test and whatever you can work out with the other individuals. The city just needs an
approved—
Freeman: I will have to look into the legality of that (inaudible) in to somebody else’s
construction contract. We will look into it.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. I would suggest getting a hold of Hubbell Engineering.
They are the ones working on Midvalley Business Park. They have also had dialogue
with the construction firm that installed those lines.
Barbeiro: With regards to the sewer injection system or lift station, how will this effect
this project and what are the public works views on having a lift station on this site.
Freckleton: Commissioner Barbeiro, the City of Meridian is getting ready to install a
new trunk line underneath the interstate. It is west of the site. It is along the western
boundary of Magicview Subdivision. This site could be gravity served, I believe, to that
trunk line, but the lines would have to come from the west up what is called Freeway
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 31
Drive, along the interstate, in order to serve the site. I believe that that would be the
way that we could serve it—by gravity. As I said, the trunk line is scheduled to start
construction here shortly and this point of time there are no plans to put a main in
Freeway Drive.
Borup: Just expand on Mr. Barbeiro’s the injection system would be onsite and that
would be the applicant’s responsibility for maintenance etc. It does not really affect the
city lines.
Freckleton: This is all within the same drainage area. I will address that issue with our
plumbing official tomorrow and see what his feeling is. It could be some time before
that main is in Freeway Drive, so an injection system may be the only option at this
point of time.
Barbeiro: And in the case of an injection system, this would be a temporary injection
system not necessarily a permanent one. I am guessing 60,000 sf, we are looking 18
months of completion, is that about right?
Freeman: That’s our goal—between 12 and 18.
Barbeiro: Twelve months then, you can be pretty assured that the lines would not be in
in 12 months. Twenty four months possibly.
Freckleton: That’s one of those crystal ball questions. As Brad mentioned they’ve had
some interest from other parcels in there on doing some mixed use type
Comprehensive Plan changes, so I think there are some people with some ideas in
there. As you know our trunk lines are extended or our main lines are extended by
development and so the city has no plans at this point of time of putting anything in at
Freeway Drive.
Barbeiro: So, as it stand now the lift station would be temporary and it would be a
condition that once the new lines come in that the lift station be abandoned and they
hook up to the new line. Is that correct?
Freckleton: That would certainly be my recommendation, yes. It should be designed
with provision to be abandoned and gravity sewer to the south toward Freeway Drive.
Borup: And I would think the applicant would that would be the goal they would have
also rather than have that injector system.
Freeman: Yeah. It’s less (inaudible)if the trunk lines were there we would certainly use
them, but I think we can design for the use of the future trunk line when it does become
a reality.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, Bruce. About approximately what’s the distance between this
proposed site to the future trunk line that is on the west side of the subdivision.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 32
Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher. Probably about 1200 to 1800 feet. It is hard to tell
with the—
Hatcher: The reason I was bringing that up was that potentially depending upon the
distance, depending on the time line of that trunk line and the cost of putting in the
future line on future Freeway Drive might out weight the cost of a temporary lift station
and then conversion over at a later date. It is something for the applicant to look into as
to what option he might want to proceed with—if it works within his time line. What is
the approximate time line for the trunk line itself, not for any off shoot mains.
Freckleton: I look for that to be going in probably within 3 to 4 weeks—to having
construction commencing in there.
Hatcher: And availability to tap into it—how long for this project?
Freckleton: To be able to get to the trunk line—I have not seen any kind of a time line
on this project yet. It is pretty extensive. It is going all the way to Overland Road on the
south side of the interstate, crossing under the interstate. There is 2 pretty good size
bores involved to bore underneath the interstate so I hate to even venture a guess on a
time line.
Freeman: Did I hear it stated that there were no plans to extend that trunk line to future
Freeway Drive at this time? Or it is planned to extend along Freeway Drive?
Freckleton: At this point in time, the trunk line is going to come down the western
boundary of Magicview Subdivision across under the interstate to Overland Road.
There are no plans on the board right now to take it east on Freeway Drive.
Borup: Taking it east would be driven by development—only development going in.
Freeman: Which could take a significant amount of time.
Borup: If you waiting for other developments.
Freeman: So what we are proposing is perhaps we could extend that line under the
cost of this development.
Borup: There are agreements where they’d be reimbursed as it is connected on.
Freeman: Okay. Another thought that comes to mind. If (inaudible) tap fees for the
sewer line on the east side, would we then be required to pay tap fees again when we
have to tie into the trunk line to the south.
Freckleton: No you wouldn’t. Once you pay the assessments, it runs with the land.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 33
Hatcher: My suggestion was just (inaudible) time frame of that trunk line, that the cost
of doing a temporary lift up Allen Street to the line that is currently going in and installed
it might the cost the long term cost might out weigh installing a gravity feed line into the
new truck line being installed. That’s an option.
De Weerd: Mr. Freeman you refer to a couple of suggestions from ACHD so have
you—do you have a draft or report or –
Freeman: I did receive a draft report. I don’t have that with me. I am surprised to hear
that you did not receive one. Would that normally come directly from ACHD to you.
Borup: Yes, a lot of times they don’t like to give us the draft and wait till the final.
Freeman: I do have a draft report. Like I said the one recommendation we had to
address was that corner curb cut and we decided to eliminate it. The rest was about
fees and money.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Freckleton: There was one other comment that I did want to point out and that was in
regards to the legal description for the annexation.
Freeman: Do you want me to address that?
Borup: If you’ve got the answer.
Freeman: Well I have a partial answer I suppose. Originally we were notified that the
first legal description that we submitted was not adequate because it didn’t technically
meet the definition of a (inaudible) and bounds description. We did have the surveyor
submit another one and I believe that was submitted on August 5th
. The report I
received yesterday was the first time that I or it was brought to me attention that one
also has a problem. I have a call into the surveyor to have him contact your department
and get whatever problem there is straightened out because obviously there is some
miscommunication going on as to what you there. My understanding is now the legal
description does not show that our property abuts the City of Meridian. Is that correct.
Freckleton: Your contiguous on the north and I believe on the east, but not on the
south. The situation on the south is really a strange one. When that interchange was
built ITD acquired additional land to relocate Freeway Drive. Freeway Drive used to be
about where the onramp is now. ITD acquired some additional land, is my
understanding, and relocated Freeway Drive. If you go into the Ada County Assessor’s
records and look to try to find it, you won’t find it. I’ve done it. ITD technically owns
Freeway Drive. Ada County Highway District maintains it through a –some sort of a
maintenance agreement that they have with ITD. It is kind of a real weird situation out
there, but if you’ll have your surveyor contact my office, I can certainly get him the
information that I have. I have copies of deeds and that sort of thing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 34
Borup: That was the only problem at this point was that little no man’s area there on
the south.
Freckleton: Correct. It is just a strip of land that would remain in the County unless we
get it included into the boundary description for this parcel.
Borup: Thank you. This is a public hearing on annexation for this property. Do we
have anyone here in the audience that would like to address the Commission. Seeing
none, Commissioner's.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
De Weerd: Does anyone have questions for staff or questions among ourselves before
we close this.
Borup: Remembering this is annexation and zoning. They’ve asked to be annexed in
zone C-G which is—We do need a motion to procede. Oh I’m sorry. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Good thing somebody is watching me. Now…
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we recommend to City Council the request
for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from R-T to C-G by Sonntag Eye Associates of
Lot 5 of Magic View Subdivision to include staff comments.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM NUMBER 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR 60,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND OUTPATIENT
SURGERY FACILITY BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT
LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION:
Borup: Staff any additional comments.
Hawkins: No. Just like to incorporate comments from the previous item.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 35
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Freeman. (inaudible) on items that really pertain to the
conditional use permit. That is kind of the way things are normally done. Anything
additional that you’d like to comment on.
Freeman: No. I do have some drawings available of the elevations and some
renderings if you are interested in viewing those, but I don’t have any additional
comments unless there questions I can answer.
Borup: I think we’ve got copies of those. Would you like to incorporate your previous
comments and testimony into this item.
Freeman: Yes.
Borup: Commissioner's, any questions for Mr. Freeman? We do have the elevations
and I think we have covered the landscaping aspect. Don’t know if there is any
comments or questions on the building itself.
De Weerd: Is this a phased in project.
Freeman: Yes. We are planning to phase the construction.
De Weerd: In what manner.
Freeman: I’ll describe that to you. The first phase of construction will include the one
story wing in this area. Phase 2 which will be a separate construction package will
include the remainder --the two story portion to the south.
Hatcher: The approximate time frame between Phase 1 and 2.
Freeman: It could be that the Phases will be transparent when you visit the site. That
is our hope at this time. Ron do you have any comments on what the maximum length
might be? Any where from zero to 4 months. Most likely it is going to continue right on.
Barbeiro: So, based upon your discussion on the schedule, the entire project would still
be completed within 12 months.
Freeman: Yes.
De Weerd: This is a entry way corridor and the 35 feet of landscape along the entry
there I guess is of particular interest to me and I wondered why, when you went back to
the drawing board you could only get 19 feet.
Freeman: Well, most of that has to do with the required parking. We do have some
additional parking over what would be required for a facility of this size. We need some
parking along that south property line in order to meet the minimum. That is the reason
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 36
for not increasing it the full 35 because we would effectively eliminated the entire line of
parking.
Borup: Do you know what the distance is from your property to the freeway.
Freeman: No, I don’t.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, can we get further clarification from staff on a earlier discussion
about landscaping between future Freeway Drive and ITD land. I was kind of unclear
as to what you were talking about there.
Siddoway: Commissioner Hatcher, that the references if you view along the south
boundary this project they if their property line Freeway Drive and then continuing south
is I84’s right of way and there is a strip. Unfortunately we don’t have a rendering of it or
a map, but there is a strip of land. I don’t know the width, between the off ramp from
Eagle Road onto I84, which actually I84—this project immediately to the south is not I84
itself. It is the off ramp. That strip of land there again that was simply a suggestion. I
don’t believe it has been done before in the city. There are agreements with ACHD to
landscape and their right of way through license agreements and that was simply a
suggestion there. I think probably if you view the elevations, it is a very attractive
building. Certainly the goal is not to hinder view of the building itself. I think one of the
issues is sound. Of course one thing that has not been talked about is a berm. 19 feet.
Our landscape architect would have to answer. You probably could not get that tall of a
berm in 19 feet, but some kind of a berm may provide some of that esthetic effect that
would be lost if the full 35 feel wasn’t granted.
Borup: (inaudible) concern—a lot of concern just that the on going weed patch along
the off ramp—or on ramp. Is that a lot of what you are trying to address.
Siddoway: Mainly trying to address consistency in projects along entry way corridors.
That is what the Comprehensive Plan calls for is 35 feet and there is little bit of a
judgement call as to whether this would fall into entry way. I84 is –but that is really the
goal to get consistency from project to project in terms of the width.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I have a question for Steve. Can they get the same visual
effects with 19 feet with a berm defect.
Siddoway: Yes, if it was the—if the amount of landscaping was increased in terms of
the shrubbery and trees. I know that there is an easement 10 feet along future Freeway
Drive that would restrict any planting within that first 10 feet. But now that they have
increased that to 19 feet, there would be room beyond that initial 10 feet to plant trees.
A 19 foot easement with a 3 to 1 maximum slope—you could not get any higher than 3
feet with a berm. A 3 foot berm with trees and additional landscaping could be very
nice.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 37
De Weerd: Now clarify that. As far as the right of way and the additional 10 feet—I’m
sorry, you lost me on that one.
Siddoway: It is my understanding that a long future Freeway Drive the first 10 feet into
the property is covered by a utility easement that they could not plant trees in. So if this
is 19 feet, they now have an additional 9 feet beyond that 10 foot easement that they
could plant trees in. They could berm with a 3 foot high berm and a 3 to 1 slope within
the 19 feet and provide trees that were planted at least 10 foot back from the property
line.
De Weerd: And your suggestion would be that they could add some additional
plantings in there?
Siddoway: Certainly. Trees, if I were making a recommendation I’d say trees, at least
35 feet on center with the addition of shrubbery on the ground plane would really dress
that up.
Borup: Steve, does anyone—you or maybe Mr. Freeman elevation differs between that
strip and the off ramp on ramp.
Siddoway: I do not know.
Borup: If there is an elevation difference in my mind I wonder how much more a berm
would add if your all ready looking at it anyway.
Siddoway: I am getting an indication from the audience that it is lower on the ramp then
along that drive there.
Borup: So in that situation would a berm add as much as the planting themselves
would?
Siddoway: I would say yes because you could actually see some of the landscaping
that is there. You will see more of it with the berm.
Borup: Any other questions? Thank you Mr. Freeman. Did you have any other
comments.
Freeman: It seems to be that a low berm would be more in line with what we were
intending to do anyway. It is not a building that we intend to hide from the freeway
entirely. We did make an attempt to make it an attractive building an addition to the
community. It doesn’t sound like the intent here with the landscape berm is to hide the
building. I think a 3 foot landscape berm might actually help hide some vehicles along
that first front row but it doesn’t sound like it would block views of the building. Nor is
the recommended tree planting if there indeed going to be 35 feet on center.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 38
De Weerd: No and I don’t think that is the intention. It is just the visual effect with a
landscape strip and the softening—not to hide your building. It is a nice looking
building.
Borup: Anyone else wish to address the Commission this evening? Come on up.
Willis: Thora Willis, 3555 Montvue Drive. I have some questions that probably all of
you know, but since we don’t have that information—I would like to see the site map for
a few minutes—that has the streets and how it fits on the streets—just for a few minutes
and –
Borup: You mean the other lots around it?
Willis: Yeah. The other lots. Do we know how many marking spaces are for physicians
or staff. What is reserved for staff, what is reserved for physicians and what is reserved
for patients. How many out patient suites are there—either operating suites—how
many doctors are we talking about in this building. The neighbors—from I84 to Magic
View—is that the 10 feet or is it at the RT going toward Allen. Are they building it up to
10 feet. Are those neighbors going to be looking at a mountain of dirt and building.
Borup: Well, it is not going to built up 10 feet. They said if they gravity feed they would
have to. They are trying to accommodate the site.
Willis: It is a sloped site. Okay. Can somebody answer those other questions for me.
Borup: Okay Mr. Freeman or is there someone else that would answer that better. I
think the first question was on parking. You made mention that you had additional
beyond requirement, but could you explain.
Freeman: I going to put this overhead back up to help explain. As you can see the
building configurations separates the parking into 3 sections. This section back here in
the northwest corner is really what we intend to designate as employee and staff
parking. I don’t have the numbers on this one. I think staff may have a copy that does
have the numbers on it. That is probably 70 spaces back there, approximately. The
comment about building up the site, as was explained by the Commissioner, we do not
intend to build up the site at all. We are actually going to recess this building somewhat
down from street level along the east property line. Most of the building is going to be
medical office space. The exact number of tenants that are going to be in there, I can’t
tell precisely but I can explain what I do know. This single story wing will have one
medical tenant in it with a couple of operating rooms. The two story section there are to
pods of 2 stories. The ground floor on the western pod will be dedicated to an
operating room facility and the remaining 3 floors, both the upper here on the west and
both floors on the east, will be given to doctor’s offices. The number of doctors in there
could range from 1 or 2 to 10. We have not determined yet who exactly is going to be
in there.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 39
Borup: Okay, thank you. Anyone else wish to address the Commission? Mr. Freeman
is there any summary comments you’d like to make.
Freeman: No, I think I’ve said enough.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner's. Does staff have any final—
Siddoway: Bruce and I were discussing this 10 foot easement along future Freeway
Drive and apparently the city has no utility’s within such an easement, so we would
simply state that if that easement is vacant of utilities, then we would allow and
encourage the landscaping—the trees to be centered, even if it encroaches into that
easement. If there are utilities within that easement then the trees ought to be outside
of it. If it is a vacant easement they could plant in it.
Borup: (Inaudible) sewer or water.
Siddoway: All city services (inaudible) utilities would be within
****END OF SIDE 3*****
Siddoway: Freeway Drive.
Borup: Mr. Freeman. You aware of any other—
Freeman: Well (inaudible) as a irrigation and utility easement and I do think there is an
irrigation line that runs along that south property line.
Borup: Ask if that be verified if there are existing utilities or irrigation—No power or
telephone or anything. Sound likes that’s the case there is nothing in there it might give
you more flexibility on what you.
Freeman: It may because if we do indeed tile the irrigation line that is in there, we could
probably move it so we could maximize the area we could actually plant in.
Borup: Thank you. Anything else.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIES: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval to City Council for
request for conditional use permit for 60,000 square foot medical office building and out
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 40
patient surgery facility by Sonntag Eye Associates to incorporate staff comments and I
would like to add that no building permit be issued prior to all sewer and water facilities
being operational and approved.
Borup: Okay. Did you include staff comments. Okay thank you.
Barbeiro: Excuse me with inclusion of the modified site plan as offered by Johnson
Architects today.
De Weerd: Just to reference staff comments number 7 with a 35 foot landscape strip
that the 19 foot would be acceptable with some additional plantings working with staff
and with staff approval.
Barbeiro: I concur.
Borup: Okay add that to the motion.
Hatcher: In addition on the motion, I think it needs to be clarified that upon coordination
with staff, if a lift station is installed to temporarily provide sewer to the northern line that
upon installation of utilities in the future Freeway Drive that this project be switched over
to gravity fed and the temporary lift station be abandoned.
Barbeiro: I concur.
De Weerd: So have I seconded that yet? I would second all that.
Borup: Now we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Thank you. That concludes Item number 7. It would be a good time for
a five minute break.
ITEM NUMBER 8. REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 12.801 ACRES
FOR TARAWOOD SUBDIVISION BY MICHELANGELO INVESTMENTS, LLC—
SOUTH OF LOS ALAMITOS PARK & NORTH OF SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS:
Borup: We would like to reconvene the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting. Brad.
Hawkins: Commissioner's, again I’d like to address comments to both the annexation
application and preliminary plat together. The first annexation application they
requesting a rezone from the current county rural transition to an R-4 zone. This is the
site here in the middle. It is bounded by R-4 on the east with the proposed Thousand
Springs Subdivisions. On the north with existing Los Alamitos and on the south by the
proposed Sherbrooke Hollows, which does have some construction begun on the south
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 41
but not adjacent to this site. It is more or less an in fill subdivision. The location is
access would be taken off Locust Grove to enter the site. The more specific detail of
the plat is here. You should have in your packets a response from Briggs Engineering
to our staff comments. The principle concern if you read that is the proposed
pedestrian pathway that staff would like to see here on this far east boundary. It is an
on going issue as you know with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District in terms of access.
In their dedicated easements for the Ridenbach Canal. I guess more or less the
philosophy here is to meet Comprehensive Plan to encourage pedestrian pathways.
There is not currently on the proposed Thousand Springs a connection, but if you don’t
build it now it is not going to happen in the future and that is the reason for asking for an
adjustment here to get an easement. Exactly where, I guess we felt between lot 7 and
8 would be the most appropriate to access and then potentially come down south.
There is an existing easement in Sherbrooke Hollows on the south here which also
leads to the Ridenbach easement. Other then that we do ask that the staff comments
be incorporated. Thanks.
Borup: Any questions for Brad at this point? Is the applicant or their representative
here this evening.
Bocutt: Becky Bocutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland, Boise. I am representing
the applicant in this matter. What we are bringing before you as Brad indicated, it’s an
in fill parcel. It is developed on 3 sides. We are requesting an R-4 zoning designation
which is consistent with Los Alamitos, Thousand Springs and Sherbrooke Hollows. We
have 32 buildable lots in this project on approximately 12.8 acres. Our density is 2.5
dwellings per acre. The project will be accessed through existing stub streets. There
are 2 existing stub streets coming out of Los Alamitos. There on easy jet. They were
stubbed to this property. In the Sherbrooke project we put that stub street there and I
believe that is constructed because that is in Phase 2. The stub streets and the sewer
and the water are available to this site. We have the Ridenbach Canal on our east
boundary on the west boundary we have the Nine Mile drain. We concurred with staff
comments and conditions with the exception of sites specific number 5 as stated by
Brad where staff is requiring pedestrian separate pedestrian lots on each east and west
end of the property leading to the drain and to the Ridenbach Canal. One thing I’d like
to show you first of all, this is the subject property here. This is a map that I did for
Sherbrooke Hollows at the highway district to show all the linkages we have with public
streets. All the streets are outlined in the green. This right here is the subject property.
The lot lines are not reflected but the street connections are very similar. This was
drawn prior to that preliminary plat. As you can see with this linkage here, this leads
through public street with 5 foot sidewalks both sides to a vehicular bridge across
Ridenbach Canal and makes a connection to Thousand Springs Subdivision. With this
vehicular connection where we have ACHD public bridge, 5 foot sidewalks both sides,
we will have our pedestrian connection. Also, if you come south out of this project in to
Sherbrooke Hollows we have a designated pedestrian pathway. It is paved up to the
edge of the easement for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. This property has trust
funded for half that pedestrian bridge and the Thousand Springs project will be trust
funding for the other half. Those monies will be with Ada County Highway District and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 42
the bridge the pedestrian bridge will be constructed as soon as Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District gives their approval. Some of the members here are new, so I might
explain Nampa Meridian Irrigation District’s position. They have basically fought us on
any pedestrian connections along their right of ways or easements. There has been a
agreement in the past few months I believe for pedestrian access along a particular
drain. Mr. Borup may be able to comment on that. That was not one of my projects. I
believe he has some details on that. However, on live canals or laterals, they have
granted us any pedestrian access. That doesn’t mean that people don’t jog on them,
walk their dogs, ride their bikes. Yes, that still happens but according to Nampa
Meridian Irrigation District, if we designate these as pedestrian pathways then we are
encouraging people to use their easements or their right of ways. They feel that they
have a liability and according to their board of directors, I went before their board on
these pedestrian bridges with Thousand Springs, and their board and their attorney
made it quite clear until Nampa Meridian Irrigation District is in indemnified by the city of
Meridian in some type of agreement, we will not allow these accesses. If this body or
the staff imposes a condition that says you shall provide pedestrian access Nampa
Meridian will not allow me that connection. So they will go nowhere. My point with this
map is, we’ve all ready got these designated areas. I think we should try to coordinate
them and combine them. We don’t want kids having multiple points of access to these
water ways. Yes, they can be used for recreation but they are still a danger. If we can
control the access, I believe that is the best approach from a planning perspective.
With the linkages, public street linkages and our sidewalks and this connection here, in
the future I think it is satisfactory. That is why we disagree with staffs condition.
De Weerd: Becky while your up there, can you point out, I understand there is some
open areas or park land. Can you point those out.
Bocutt: Yes, I highlighted right here in yellow. This is 54 acres that has been
purchased by the Meridian School District for a future high school with a collector that
will come off Overland Road for access to this site. There is 4 acres right here in the
southeast corner that was deeded to the City of Meridian by G.L. Voight Construction
about 3 years ago. 2.3 acres were deeded to the City out of Los Alamitos and then with
Thousand Springs number 2, this was deeded on the plat to the City of Meridian and
that is about 2.4 acres. This was designated for a future park site or elementary school
site. That was what was debated when this project came through the process and Los
Alamitos. Since the city has ownership, there has been talk by the school district that
they believe that will end up being a city park. They are looking for other property in the
vicinity for a future elementary school out in this area. The only portion that is not
owned by the city is this little portion here that I dashed in yellow, they would like to get
possibly another 4 acres here to kind of square that parcel up. This property is not
developed at this time. The city has made it quite clear to the property owner and
people that have optioned the property, that they will be expecting this little area to be
put with this property for the park site. A gentleman lives here on Eagle Road, I think
he is with the Lyons Club. He was asking me questions about going in and improving
this. I don’t know if Tammy knows anything about it on the Parks Department or the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 43
committee, he discussed that the Lyons Club would go in and make some
improvements and try to get that park in service.
De Weerd: Was that Gordon Harris in Kiwanis?
Bocutt: Yes. Okay Kiwanis that was it. Lyons, Kiwanis close. Anyway, he indicated
that they’d like to make some improvements and get some donated time from
contractors especially where they have contractors in the vicinity on the adjoining
subdivisions. While those guys are out there, maybe get the properties leveled and see
what other donated time could be rounded up. Lastly, as far as compatibility, the
densities in this particular project are consistent if now a little bit lower than Sherbrooke
Hollow’s and Los Alamitos. The lots that adjoin our northern boundary here—the
smallest is 8400 square feet and they are probably ranging 84 to 89 hundred square
feet. They are a little bit larger over here, but as you can see the way we designed this
with the two culdesacs coming up, we have minimized the number of lots backing up to
these existing developed lots. Our lot sizes range from 10,800 square feet here, we’ve
got one that is 10,100 all the way up to this lot here is 23,900 square feet. I do have
one smaller lot that is 8528 but its side lot line abuts this lot one on the corner of
Goldway and Easy Jet. We are pretty much in the ball park if your averaging out our
lots are probably a little bit bigger cause we are averaging more toward the 10’s and
9,000 square feet. That concludes my presentation. Do you have any questions.
Borup: Commissioner's?
Hatcher: The only question that I’ve got is maybe addressed back to you and that’s
what Becky brought up in regards to this on going dispute as to the irrigation canals—
access or no access. I know that Meridian has been in the works for some time trying
to create green belts for lack of better words, on some of the main fringe canals, but yet
I also know that—I know exactly what Becky is talking about. Where has the city gone
with that.
Borup: I don’t know if I am a good one to talk about that or not. It has been in the
Comprehensive Plan since the Comprehensive Plan was developed. At this point, the
only one I am aware of is the Fathergill Greenbelt. The city and Nampa Meridian did
come to an agreement and have a agreement signed on that project. I really feel its –
we’ve accomplished it once.
Hatcher: Would it establish a precedent for future –
Borup: I would hope so. Where we can go from there I don’t know. We need to get our
foot in the door at least one other area.
Hatcher: Steve, do you have anything else to add to that?
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Hatcher, I only know that Nampa Meridian has
had issues based on liability and fears of trash being thrown into their live irrigation
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 44
ditches. I know that as staff, we feel strongly that they need to be encouraged and we
want to see them developed in the city. The issues with Nampa Meridian has been a
road block and I do not know of wholesale solutions to that at this point.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro has a question.
Barbeiro: What is block 1, lot 1.
Bocutt: Block 1, lot 1 is a portion of this property but it’s an unusable portion. It was
intended for access into the parcel through an existing easement. As you can see, this
property is land locked until these stub streets were provided. It did have access
through an easement off Locust Grove. I think Mr. Stepello could probably tell you the
long history on that but it is not a usable parcel. Our recommendation to him was that it
be platted as a separate non-buildable lot and then if an adjoining property owner could
utilize that area, that would probably be the best use. We do not intend to landscape it.
It is next to the drain too. The drain running or are adjacent to it.
Barbeiro: And for the record, I belong to Kiwanis.
De Weerd: Becky, how would you maintain that lot?
Bocutt: That lot 1? Our intent is to leave it in its natural state. It’s taken up by part of
the drain and the access road along the drain. Some of its—the use like I said is to
make an arrangement with the adjoining property owner because their the one that can
use it. Lot 3 really couldn’t use that area. It’s 57 feet wide and it runs back a couple
hundred feet so it’s just kind of like a little access corridor that was created years ago.
It is part of this property so we can not exclude it from the plat. Something has to be
done with it.
Freckleton: Becky I was just wondering, could that be split into 3 different parcels and
then deeded to each of those 3 adjacent property owners instead of having it one piece
and letting them just occupy it.
Bocutt: Possibly if the city would consent to that. If it is just one lot I don’t know if Gary
would allow us to do a property boundary adjustment where we were segregated into 3
parcels. If it is a non-buildable lot anyway, I don’t know what the harm would be. I
guess you’d have to consult with the (inaudible).
Freckleton: It would be a better way to clean it up it looks like.
(inaudible audience discussion)
Borup: Becky I think you are saying that at this point the developer would not be
maintaining that lot. When you say natural state that means a weed patch.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 45
Bocutt: Correct. It would not be manicured. We hope to make arrangements. Mr.
Stoppello has been working on that.
Borup: It sounds like from that standpoint trying to deed that to those three lots would
be preferable in the long run to the applicant too.
Bocutt: We have an option I believe of going to the west. I think that’s what this
gentlemen—he has shown some interest in it. We have looked at that option. Going
with lot 3 makes no sense. Manicuring that area does not make any sense either.
Borup: Don’t you have a canal between that and the property to the west?
Bocutt: There is a drain running through there. I believe this gentleman can explain
why he would want that.
Borup: We will have a chance to do that right now. Any other questions for Becky.
Sir would you still like to comment.
Babitt: I am Gene Babitt. 2570 S. Locust Grove Road. I own the drain ditch—the 50
foot of the drain ditch. Mike the gentleman right over here owns the ground on the
other side, the west side of it. What I would recommend is the developer deed that
ground to him and I’ll work out a deal with Mike to give him that 50 foot and that will end
the problem so simply that there won’t be no problem.
Borup: Have you had a chance to talk with the developer.
Babitt: He never comes around. I know what your saying. I’d be glad to talk to him.
Definitely.
Borup: Telephone’s work real good.
Babitt: Yes, but it is a two way street.
Borup: Okay any questions for Mr. Babitt. Anyone else here to testify on this
application.
Suitor: My name is Mike Suitor. 2620 S. Locust Grove. Like Gene, our neighbor said,
where that north figure is the end—that is our property. Then you have Gene’s 50 foot
and then Franks number 1 lot. Frank has used an easement through our property to
get to his (inaudible) for agricultural purposes. Our statement is that the first I heard
was when Gene just mentioned about Mr. Stopello deeding over the land or however lot
1 to me—it’s the first I heard of that, but the reason I am here is that the easement is
used for agricultural purposes. With a three new accesses through –2 through Los
Alamitos and 1 through Sherbrooke, we would like to see no construction or
development traffic down that easement at all. We don’t feel there is a reason or need
for that since the accesses will happen. We were worried that with his personal
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 46
easement that we did not want that to go to any landowner, let’s say lot 3 or whatever or
a home owners association would that easement become defunct. I am not sure how
much you have access over that but we just wanted to state that so that with the other
accesses there is no reason for it. Before that, it was the only way to get into his
property and to cut his hay.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Just a clarification, your saying –when
you say easement your saying that’s true that the applicant does not have the deed to
that property. They are not the owners?
Suitor: You talking lot 1 or my property.
Borup: Lot 1.
Suitor: He has the deed to that property.
Borup: Okay. There is a easement through your property to get to that lot 1.
Suitor: Off of Locust Grove. That is the only way into the property.
Borup: That crosses the drain ditch then.
Suitor: yes, and it also crosses—there is a home property that I have an easement
through and then there is also Gene’s property that he has an easement through too.
Borup: Your right. We don’t have any jurisdiction over that. You may want to read your
easement agreement and see what or how that applies.
Suitor: With lot 1 and it sounds like it is not going to be addressed as far as
landscaping or any form of maintaining, will there be any fencing –what other
requirements are involved in this as far as is it just there. Will there be some form of
fencing?
Borup: We may need to discuss that more. There is a perimeter fence around the
subdivision.
Suitor: On both sides of the ditch?
Borup: This is a unique situation. I think that is why trying to do something with it rather
then let it sit there is being discussed. I don’t think we’ve ever run across anything quite
like—it’s not impossible but it is a little different. Anything else. Okay, thank you.
Anyone else wish to address the Commission. Come on up sir.
Demayo: My name is Michael Demayo. I’m at 1986 E. Easy Jet. Couple of questions I
had. I wanted to know if the new subdivision had a pressurized irrigation system and if
it does, will it tied into the system that serves Los Alamitos. That’s a question that I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 47
have. Another question I have is living on Easy Jet, there is a potential traffic safety
issue that I am concerned about. All the vehicles to the east, in particular the part of
Los Alamitos that’s up above the upper right hand corner, everybody exits on Easy Jet
because of the streets the way the streets are on 3 bars and at the top party jet it’s not
real easy to get out of the subdivision. Everybody on the east end and on Easy Jet
comes down Easy Jet and then makes a right on Bayou Bar to get out of the
subdivision. Now we are adding I think it is probably 50 homes that come down that
street and now we are adding another 30 houses there. Everybody comes racing down
Easy Jet and hangs a right on Bayou Bar. I don’t know if it was possible to make a
recommendation that there be a stop sign put in at Easy Jet and Bayou Bar. That was
a concern of ours. We live there and there is a lot of traffic on that street. Another
question I had was the utilities—are any of the streets in Los Alamitos going to have to
be dug up to extend the sewer and water and other utilities. It is a question that I would
direct to the developer. I had really three questions in there. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. I can maybe address the one. I think the stop sign is something
that needs to be addressed to ACHD or the Meridian Traffic Committee can make
recommendations to ACHD. A letter to them may handle that. We will get the applicant
up to answer those two questions. Anybody else wish to come forward.
Webb: Hi I’m Janet Webb. 2626 So. Goldbar Way. I had a question merely because I
went out this morning and did a little background work on our area. And by our area, I
mean within that mile that we are discussing. You know how many homes are in that
area? 1170 homes. That is a lot of homes. We have a couple little acres over here
and a couple over so swish them together we got a little tiny park. At this point with that
much density plus I understand when I visited with Planning and Zoning and Public
Works they are discussing new housing development or new multi family dwelling on
Locust Grove and Overland—on that corner which is going to even more intensify this.
The way this is set up it would make a marvelous park. You have access to several
areas that seems like that work has all ready been done for you. The area that is that
number 1 area that is extended out there, possibly with some arrangements with some
other departments you could get that on through as a bike path. I have no idea, but it
has some very beneficial things. I realize that this is going to knock the dollar our of Mr.
Stopello’s pockets, but by the same token I think it is worth consideration. We have a
very low number of parks in this area and I think as we grow on south of the freeway as
we seem to be doing, we’re going to be desperate for some place. Talked with the
parks department. They are interested. They would be in hog heaven if they had a
park of any size. I simple bring it up because I see it as a need for the community. I
realize it’s probably not going to go any further because we are losing dollars by putting
it into parks, but by the same token, we are losing something valuable in our community
by not having the parks. I think you very much.
Borup: Thank you. Any one else?
King: Jeff King. 2603 Bayou Bar. I also have some concerns with the traffic on Bayou
Bar and on Time Zone, especially with the next phase of Sherbrooke Hollows. I feel
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 48
that those roads will be well trafficed and I have some definite safety concerns in
regards to that. I also have some concerns with lot 1 of block 1. I feel that that does
need to be maintained or deeded out to the adjacent property owners. Those are my
comments.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions. Anyone else? Seeing none, Becky would you be
able to come up and address a couple of questions. I don’t know if you took notes.
First I have is on the irrigation system—how is it tying in. Is it tying in to adjacent, etc.
Bocutt: Yes sir I can explain that. There are 2 pressurized irrigation systems in this
vicinity. One is Los Alamitos which is also connected to Salmon Rapids. They have 2
sources. One a well for backup and their primary source is from Nampa Meridian
Irrigation Facility. The other regional station in this vicinity is Thousand Springs. It is
located at the Ridenbach Canal. If you see where the pedestrian path is in the
northeast corner of Sherbrooke there is a little square. That is an existing regional
pump station. Both those systems have been turned over to Nampa Meridian Irrigation
District. According to them, when we inquired about this property they stated that they
wanted us to make a connection to one of those two systems. Their preference was
not that we have an independent system for 32 lots. It is not cost effective for the
district to maintain it. They are trying to get us to combine the systems and in this
particular area, like I said, we’ve got to multiple subdivisions on two regional stations. I
can not say it will not be on the Los Alamitos system nor can I say that it will. It has not
been determined at this point. It will be determined by Nampa Meridian on which one of
those systems has the capacity to handle these additional 32 lots.
Borup: Okay, so they will make that determination—they will not try to do a loop. They
don’t try to tie into the systems.
Bocutt: I have questioned them on looping the systems to obviously improve pressure,
just like we do with domestic water service. They have indicated that they don’t want to
do that. I believe it goes back to the allocation of appropriate water rights so if they
keep them kind of isolated but linking them you may have one subdivision using far
more water than they have rights for. I believe that’s where it stands but I have asked
them that very question. I did not get a real straight answer. The second question was
traffic safety. We can talk to Ada County Highway District if there is a necessary for a
sign. The signs are $35 and then like $20 to install. They are not an expensive item. If
the intersection warrants it, that is something they will typically work with the residents
and new projects. I would have to consult with Mr. Stopello. We are not required to
install that sign, but if he deemed it necessary, we could possible work something out.
We have to have ACHD’s approval. The third question relates to sewer and water.
Sewer and water is stubbed out of Los Alamitos. I believe it is stubbed there at South
Bayou Bar Way and it is stubbed to the property. It should be either right outside the
asphalt or right at the edge. To answer your question, will we be going in and tearing
up your existing roads, no. Those services are there. The city when they reviewed that
project made sure those stubs were provided for this parcel. The question arose about
park area. I believe the map that I showed was a little bit deceptive. I’d like to reiterate
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 49
that. The property that has been deeded to the City of Meridian up to this point is
approximately about 8-1/2 acres. If they get the additional 4 acres in that adjoining
property that I designated on that map, that would give them a total of a 12 acre site.
That’s the size of park that would be up in your northeast corner inaccessible to Los
Alamitos. That is a pretty good size park. The average neighborhood parks usually are
between 5 and 7 acres and so a 12 acre park is good size. It is not a regional park that
is like 30-40 obviously. That should satisfy some of the recreational needs in the area.
Obviously this area will require regional parks and I think is making the city is making
some inroads in their long term planning for those regional parks. As far as traffic, there
was traffic studies done. Los Alamitos and Sherbrooke and Thousand Springs, I did
Thousand Springs and Sherbrooke and then we did not last two phases of Los Alamitos
so I am aware of all the traffic studies and basically what was stated and the traffic was
considered in this property to be going in those two directions so that one subdivision
did not bare the burden of all the traffic. You will have some vehicles exiting to the
south. You’ll have some going through Los Alamitos and out to Locust Grove. When
Sherbrooke Hollows is completed with the phase 4, it’s just off the map as you see that
one street that terminates there, that goes on out and connects to Locust Grove. That
will give that area a second outlet to Locust Grove. Thank you. That’s it.
Borup: Any other questions for Becky.
De Weerd: No, but I just might add to Miss Webb. I am a big proponent of parks and
open space and that 8.7, hopefully plus 4 acres is adjoining to 42 acres of the high
school. That is some real decent green space. I think a lot of us would kill for that kind
of open space in our residential areas. Hopefully that does address those concerns.
You will have that available to you. I would love to see anything parkland. Sometimes it
is not realistic, but I would agree with you.
Borup: Anything else for Becky? I have one question then. We get back to this lot 1
block 1. Some comments have been—are you in a position to comment on that
anymore tonight or do you need to get back with Mr. Stoppello as far as—I think the
cities concern is and most the residents and I think from that standpoint too, no one
wants to maintain—I don’t think he wants to be maintaining that. I don’t think the city
wants an eyesore weed patch there. Whatever is the best solution is up to the land
owner, of course but or do you need to get back to him or address any of that tonight.
Bocutt: Mr. Stoppello is here this evening. I don’t know if he wants to consider what his
options are or try to address that.
Borup: We would welcome your comments Mr. Stoppello.
Stoppello: My name is Frank Stoppello. 782 Arlington Drive, Eagle, ID. The intent of
designating that lot 1 as a non buildable lot was for the expressed purpose of selling it
to adjacent land owners. I have spoken to one land owner and told him he had first
choice at it. At this point there is nothing that could be done until I get further along. I
don’t intend to if it can’t be sold, then I was intending to sell it with lot 3 that it adjoins
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 50
right there, but my intent, my main intent was to sell it to an adjacent land owner. That
is about all I can tell you. I certainly would not want to keep it and have to go out there
and mow it or put flower beds in there for the rest of my life, I can tell you that much. I
know the land owners that are adjacent there, like Los Alamitos that have reported my
alfalfa field as a weed patch, would not let me allow that to go to weeds.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions? Any final summary from staff? Okay.
Commissioner's.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Is there any discussion?
De Weerd: Just that lot 1 needs to be either maintained or deeded out.
Hatcher: I concur. Looks like he’s got 4 adjacent land owners that potentially can
absorb that lot in whatever fashion the developer requires. I don’t think it should be left
in it’s natural state, as it was stated earlier.
Barbeiro: Commissioner De Weerd. When you say deeded out—sell it, give it away.
De Weerd: Well, I certainly think that that is up to the developer how he deals with it.
Whether it’s a part of lot 3. If it can be absorbed by property owners on either side or
sold, if he can’t come to an agreement, I guess he has to maintain it.
Barbeiro: So it is your idea that the developer maintain the land until the land is owned
by someone else. In the meantime, as long as he owns it, he maintains it.
De Weerd: However he transfers that ownership, whether he gives it away or sells it,
that’s up to him.
Barbeiro: But in the meantime as long as he maintains ownership he maintains it.
De Weerd: He maintains it.
Borup: Sounds like your leaning toward putting that in as a requirement.
De Weerd: Exactly.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 51
Hatcher: The other item of discussion would be the pedestrian access to the drainage.
It would seem to me even though it could be a mute issue down the line, is that
between lots—it would seem to be we would want to put a pedestrian access between
lot 6 and 7 to attach to the adjoining pedestrian access. It seems to be a little unfair to
have the this particular subdivision have to go around an access through other
subdivisions under the pretense that a possible agreement would be formed with
Nampa Irrigation. I think it should be put in there now and in the hopes of better things
to come later.
Borup: Any other comment on that? Did you mean 6 and 7 or 7 and 8?
Hatcher: Between 6 and 7 and connect to the existing –I guess it would be proposed.
Borup: I don’t believe you can connect through 6 and 7 without crossing through
another lot.
Hatcher: If you went down the property line.
Borup: You’d have to go down 6 and 7 then along the back of 7 your saying.
Hatcher: And then connect with where the proposed one is. You could do 7 and 8 as
well.
(Inaudible discussion)
Hatcher: Commissioner Barbeiro brought up a good point. In locating that there would
mess up the cords on 6 and 7 but if it was between 7 and 8 it would be able to be
balanced. Anyhow, my topic was that it should be added. Where it’s added we’ll
leave up to the civil engineers.
Borup: Looks like between 6 and 7 there is an existing easement wide enough back
there that may be accommodating but I don’t see it on the plat.
***END OF SIDE 4***
Barbeiro: access to the canal, I found Becky’s argument compelling. There are two
accesses planned. One existing one planned.
Borup: Your talking about the Ridenbach or the drainage.
Barbeiro: The Ridenbach. Find the third access while it would be nice and convenient
is not necessary on this lot as that access would be more convenient for what appears
to be 18 lots, the remaining lots would find the access to the canal equally as
convenient from either of the other accesses.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 52
Borup: So your saying people are going out for exercise, it is not going to hurt them to
walk a few hundred feet more.
Barbeiro: It kind of reminds me of people use to use the elevator to go to the weight
room.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I have one other question for staff. In their staff
comments number 2 on page 1, that staff doesn’t recommend a development
agreement for this project. Why is that.
Hawkins: Commissioner De Weerd the purpose of that was the stub streets that come
in limit, to a certain extent, the use—typically a development agreement is used for
precautionary methods so the city can hold the developer to something if for some
reason they backed out of the plat, but the property was still annexed, they are held to
some standards of what to do with the property. In this instance, staff just felt that if this
is a—if your recommending approval, leaning toward that on the plat, that those
conditions on this piece of property will be included in that plat and would not
necessarily be needing a development agreement for the conditions would not to be
included in the development agreement since you would have an associated plat. It’s
certainly a call that is made on a case by case and I think that the configuration of this is
such that we felt that it would be appropriate if you were leaning towards approval.
Borup: City Attorney have any comment on that?
Rutherford: As insurance, I am kind of a fan of the development agreement. It gives us
extra teeth. I understand staffs comments. Personally, I would recommend a
development.
Borup: For what concern? What staff said made a lot of sense to me in this particular
situation.
Rutherford: And not being completely familiar with all the recommendations of staff, at
this point I would not be able to tell you specifics. My concern would be again with a
development agreement we would have further insurance that the specifics were going
to be adhered to by way of additional teeth.
Borup: Okay, thank you. Any one else. At this point (inaudible)talked about (inaudible)
lot 1 and the pedestrian pathway.
Barbeiro: (Inaudible)
Borup: Your correct. That’s not even pertinent for right now. We have had some nice
discussion for something later on.
Barbeiro: With that note if I may I’d like to recommend that we approve to City Council
for their request for annexation and zoning of 12.80 acres for Tarawood Subdivision by
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 53
Michelangelo Investments, LLC—south of Los Alamitos Park and north of Sherbrooke
Hollows (inaudible) staff comments.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Okay, we have a motion and second. Any discussion.
De Weerd: You want to keep the recommendation then for the development agreement
not to be then, because that is a staff comment.
Barbeiro: No, I presume keep the development agreement as staff.
De Weerd: Not needed.
Borup: Staff’s comment was that a development agreement was not needed.
Barbeiro: Excuse me. I misunderstood that. I would opt that a development
agreement be included to our recommendation to City Council.
De Weerd: So you amending your motion.
Barbeiro: I am yes, thank you.
Hatcher: And I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: That was Item 8. Now that we have had all this discussion, --
ITEM NUMBER 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR
TARAWOOD SUBDIVISION BY MICHELANGELO INVESTMENTS, LLC—SOUTH OF
LOS ALAMITOS PARK AND NORTH OF SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS:
Borup: Staff.
Hawkins: We have no further comments to add and ask to incorporate comments from
the previous item. Thanks
Borup: Thank you. Becky?
Bocutt: Becky Bocutt, Briggs Engineering. Please incorporate my previous comments
to the record.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 54
Barbeiro: On a personal note—I made the lot 1 block 1 as kind of an off shot and it
turned into a 20 minutes discussion. If I ever do that again, remember to tell me you
don’t want to go there. I apologize for building such a large discussion with such a
small issue.
Bocutt: Well I think the adjoining neighbors, that something needs to be addressed
what’s going to happen with it and if I was a neighbor I would ask the same question.
This is the first time I have ever seen that little remnant like that. As Mr. Stoppello
indicated, if no one is interested then it can go with lot 3, it could one heck of a big
garden. That’s one idea.
Borup: Do we have anyone who would like to testify on item 9.
Ashworth: My name is Dave Ashworth. I live at 2564 Bayou Bar. I echo some of the
concerns of my neighbors earlier when we discussed this. I also agree with some of
those concerns but also have concerns too the fact that this is being a fill project. I
would like to have an answer about concerns about the look and feel of this subdivision
will fit within the neighborhoods that are all ready established such as Los Alamitos,
which I live, I would like to see—you see the lot sizes are similar. That’s fine, but I want
to know the feel of the neighborhood is going to be very similar to what we have.
Seems like it doesn’t have an identity and I’d like to see some answers to address as to
how this is going to work within the existing subdivisions.
Borup: I guess I am not quite sure of your question. I mean that is a characteristic of in
fill. Often times they don’t have their own identity they are absorbed by the surrounding
subdivisions. As the applicant testified earlier, the lot sizes are on the whole larger and
they would anticipate that it would definitely be compatible to surrounding subdivisions.
I’m not sure what they could answer beyond that.
Ashworth: There is some unique aspects to Los Alamitos as far as sidewalks and
layouts and those kinds of things that I would like to see maintained to keep the look
and feel of the general neighborhood the same.
Borup: Okay, I think we can get an answer to that. Thank you. Any one else. If not,
Becky could you address that one issue?
Bocutt: Yes the gentleman is correct. The subdivision will not have it’s own
independent identify because it does not have a separate grand entrance on a arterial
road. As far as the feel of the subdivision, those will be established through the
protective covenants. The covenants will be just as stringent as Los Alamitos, if not
more. The anticipated value of the homes on these lots –obviously that is determined
by the market, but it will be consistent with Sherbrooke Hollows and Los Alamitos. They
could range anywhere from $145-$150 all the way up to $200—Like on the larger lots
next to the canal that are like the 23,000 square foot lot you could put a $200-$250,000
house on it. As far as the improvements, they’d be very similar. We have not
determined if we are doing off set sidewalks or putting the sidewalks at the back of curb.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 55
Sherbrooke Hollows has sidewalks at the back of curb. Los Alamitos has, I believe, 5
foot, 4 foot off set side walks. That particular item has not been determined. As far as
they are worried about the value of their properties, this will be consistent and
compatible.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner's. No other questions, discussion. I am waiting for
a motion.
Barbeiro: I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second it.
Borup: Moved and second we close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Did we have all the discussion last time. Any final comment from staff.
Can we still remember the discussion of things you wanted to add to your motion.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend for approval annexation and
opps sorry—wrong one. The request for preliminary plat for Tarawood Subdivision to
include additional conditions that being that they maintain or deed out lot 1 and that
they an additional condition would be that a pedestrian path between lot 7 and 8 be
added and to incorporate all staff comments.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Discussion.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. The notes on staff requesting a pedestrian pathway between
lot 7 and 8—do we have the option of within the recommendation to City Council,
allowing them to put it between 7 and 8 or between 8 and 10 or between 10 and 11—
however the developer sees fit, or do we have to designate a specific spot.
Borup: I think we can leave that open.
De Weerd: Yes, I would withdraw the specifics that a pedestrian path be connected
with the pedestrian pathway in Sherbrooke Hollows in some manner.
Borup: It would not connect with Sherbrooke Hollows path because it just goes to—
De Weerd: Then the pedestrian bridge.
Barbeiro: Essentially you want to state that there be a pedestrian pathway—
Borup: It would go (inaudible) easement is what you saying.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 56
Barbeiro: That connects east to Tarawood Street and the Ridenbach Canal easement.
De Weerd: Did you get that Steve? I amend my motion.
Hatcher: I second her amendment.
Borup: Any other discussion. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM NUMBER 10. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO 2-
STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS (EAGLE ROAD PROFESSIONAL CENTER) BY
ANDREW SIMONDS-FERMOR, LLC—GENTRY WAY AND ALLEN STREET:
Borup: I need to mention that Commissioner Ken Brown has joined us for this
application and the rest of the evening. Looks like we got Steve.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's, this application before you as you
mentioned two two story office buildings. The site is located on this map in the cross
hatched area. The application that we all ready reviewed previously tonight for Sonntag
the medical office building, is on this parcel. Again, the parcel right here is for the
Holiday Inn Express. To the north we have a Texaco and further north we have the
Eagle Partners Chevron McDonald’s project. Hubbell Engineering site is here and St.
Luke's would be across Eagle Road in this area marked as L-O. This project has been
before you before for annexation and zoning and tonight this is the conditional use
permit. You should have our comments dated July 12, 1998—1998 that is what is says.
We would change that to be 1999 and request that they be included in the testimony
tonight. The applicant has contacted me with concerns about the requirement for no
temporary signs. The concern was that it would prohibit a construction sign on the site
and for lease signs. I would like to state for the record that the –that requirement is not
intended to prohibit those signs. It is intended to prohibit temporary signs of occupancy
in the future, sandwich boards, A Frames, other banners affixed to the sides of the
building once the building has occupancy. Specifically the construction sign on the
property during construction and a for lease sign when it is trying to be leased is not
prohibited by that requirement. That is all I have at this time.
De Weerd: Steve, can you tell me that parcel behind Chevron and north of the
applicant parcel where Allen Street is going to go through—do you know the progress
of that?
Siddoway: The progress of the street? I do not.
Hawkins: The requirement Chairman De Weerd is for—there is 108 foot ACHD right of
way that is required to be constructed as a part of Eagle Partners project. They are
only required to stub to the property line. At this point, I don’t believe we are aware of
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 57
any time frame for looping that to head south to align with Allen Street. They are just
required to go to that west property line of the Eagle Partners site. There is no time line
that I am aware of.
Barbeiro: With regards to the discussion about the sewer access that we had in a prior
hearing, what effects do (inaudible) on this lot.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, it is the same situation. The main
lines are being extended south from Magic View Drive down to the Holiday Inn site
which is south of Gentry Way there. Water and sewer both so it is the same situation as
what we discussed with the agenda item 6 and 7 on the Sonntag project.
Barbeiro: It would be your recommendation that as with that project, a building permit
not be issued until the sewer and water access were functional, operational and
approved.
Freckleton: That is correct. The sewer situation is a little different on this parcel than it
is on the Sonntag piece. I don’t believe that there is any need to pressure the sewer. It
will gravity flow from this side.
Borup: Anyone else? Do you have any other comment Steve?
Siddoway: I would just like to I do have a copy of the proposed site plan here which I
will put up. I will let the applicant actually do most of the presentation on this site plan.
You can see the two office buildings—this would be Gentry, Allen Street over here.
Eagle Road is on this side. Again, Eagle Road is a entry way corridor and 35 feet of
landscaping would be required along that. The other aspects of the development I
leave to the applicant.
Borup: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Simonds: I am Andy Simonds with Fermor, LLC, 2700 Airport Way in Boise. Guess
first off I would like to agree with the staff comments except for the date on this and also
with regard to, I’d like to elaborate a little bit on what signs are permitted and not
permitted from a temporary sign standpoint. I think Steve and I have an agreement on
what is the intent of that, but I would like to see it somehow in writing so both sides
know that the other side isn’t trying to cross the line in some way. With regard to the
sewer lines, one request that I would have is instead of not issuing a building permit
until the whole sewer situation is resolved, maybe we leave that to the occupancy
permit stage. That way we would not be held up as far as being able to get started on
the work. Having winter approaching and so forth, it is critical to get going before the
weather sets in and precludes any site work and other things. Regard to any other
questions I’d be more than happy to answer.
Borup: Your saying then you either agree –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 58
Simonds: We’ll comply with all the staff comments I am saying.
Barbeiro: To Bruce, would it make a difference either way –would your preference be
not to issue a building permit until the sewer and water were complete or certificate of
occupancy.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Barbeiro, I would rather keep it at the building
permit stage. That is the stage that we have held up the Midvalley Business Park,
Hubbell Engineering’s office building. We have an agreement with them that there will
not be a permit issued until the sewer situation is resolved as well. It is a good point in
time to do that.
Barbeiro: Okay then in keeping with Sonntag and Assoc. as we did recommend to City
Council that they not be issued a building permit until that is completed.
Freckleton: That is correct. The –I’ve heard a couple of times that they are on the
verge of starting. But like I say, I have heard it a couple of times now, so I would just
make the recommendation to the applicant that they get together with Hubbell
Engineering and maybe with the group of them they can get this worked out.
Borup: Bruce could you elaborate on the sewer line is installed buried under the road
the whole length.
Freckleton: Sewer and water are both installed. The sewer is—
Borup: Has it been tied into the main line?
Freckleton: Yeah. I don’t believe it has had it’s final air testing and final inspections.
The water has not had it’s pressure test or bacteria testing done.
Borup: Sounds like it is not a lengthy process if everyone can get things moving then.
Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Simonds, I do understand your point about the certificate of occupancy or
the building permit and it’s came to a point of keeping with in consistency with Hubbell
Eng., with Sonntag that keeping yours in the same line and my hope that that individual
item would encourage all of you to get together very quickly and resolve them.
Simonds: I am not opposed to that. I guess the fundamental problem with it is none of
us contracted for the work. It was all contracted by the developer of the motel to the
south. Since we had no part in negotiating any of the work or the pricing, suddenly we
have to assume some obligations that we didn’t necessarily have any part in negotiating
to begin with. Not to say that we would have done a better job, but the flip side is –we
are just assuming obligations that were on somebody else’s shoulders by this scenario.
It is kind of difficult to put us in that position.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 59
Borup: Likewise if they hadn’t, there would not be any sewer there and—
Simonds: But we would have brought it to where we needed it.
De Weerd: Well if you have a different scenario you’d like us to consider—I just early
on I suggested it as a possible fix to what the current situation is, so if you have a
different scenario, I would welcome that.
Simonds: That’s why I brought up the whole idea of the occupancy permit because it
gives us everybody a lot more time to even potentially work things out with the
developer of the motel who originally contracted for all the work. Right now, I can’t
comment on where he is on any of this stuff. I know I have talked to a contractor and
the contractor has told me that he is not sure when he is going to paid. It is a big
problem.
Barbeiro: Can we defer back to staff and ask Bruce his knowledge of where the
domestic water and sewer lines are now. What needs to be completed.
Freckleton: Commissioner Barbeiro the sewer needs to have a final inspection done on
it and I am not certain whether it has been air tested or not. It may need to have air test
done on it which is a 2 hour thing. The water main, I am sure that the mains probably
will have to be re-chlorinated and flushed and bacteriological would have to be taken to
make sure that it will pass. That is about all that is left.
Barbeiro: Okay, so with the water main and bacteriological samples your talking about
3 to 7 days depending upon the test results—we are talking no more than about $6000
in testing and then for the sewer, maybe $2000 in testing and checking. Is that about
where you would see it.
Freckleton: Probably less then that even, but at point of time, the city doesn’t own them
and we don’t take them over for ownership and maintenance until all of the testing has
been complete and all the final inspections have been done.
Barbeiro: But it does give these three landowners an idea of what the costs are going
to be. What would be involved if they could go out and contract and have that done.
Freckleton: I don’t know. That is possibly a legal question. These are mains that
belong technically to someone else.
Hatcher: I would ask the question to the attorney’s office as to what the legal
ramifications are—muddy in the water on this issue. What is our legal ramifications of
having these different potential projects all in the same subdivision, paying for the
testing so that the city could take ownership of the lines so they can do their projects
but yet we have a subcontractor out there that has installed the lines that has not been
paid. Are we saying that the projects down the line compensate this subcontractor for
the work he’s done so the city can take over this ownership. Are we saying that he sits
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 60
on his hands until who ever hired him pays him. That is where the legal (Inaudible) is
getting real muddy, because we can’t take over ownership until that subcontractor is
paid because of liens and liabilities and all that stuff. It is not a matter of whether the
developer—who pays him as long as the subcontractor gets paid.
Freckleton: And City Attorney Bill Gigray has looked into this situation and he is
working on it, trying to dig up some legal information for us.
Hatcher: It really seems unfair to hold up all these other projects because someone
else dropped the ball. I empathize with you and others situation but at the same time I
would hate to see you sit there with this empty shell of a building not able to rent it out
because you don’t have sewer and water. I don’t want to put you in that position. I
concur with the other Commissioner's that its going to be a building permit.
Simonds: I’ve got another suggestion if I may. Perhaps we can all get together and
bond for those improvements.
Hatcher: (inaudible) I think City Council would need to talk about when it comes to
bonds.
Freckleton: I don’t understand what that would accomplish. You still have a contractor
that hasn’t been paid.
Hatcher: If I understand it right, the city would bond out the money to pay that
subcontractor and then the city would be liable for money getting reimbursed on that
work to pay for the bonds.
Borup: And then the subcontractor probably feel comfortable going ahead and having it
tested.
Hatcher: If it was a bonded issue, then the city would take on the liability of getting
reimbursed where as we have been talking about evening, is that the potential
developers of the other projects take on the liability of getting reimbursed. I don’t want
to comment on what the city should or shouldn’t do.
Freckleton: I guess I would like to get guidance from legal counsel on that.
Rutherford: Commissioner's, I think it is possible. But, obviously when you talk about
bonding that’s a whole separate process in front of the City Council. It is a possibility. I
know to echo the sentence that Mr. Freckleton—Bill has been looking into situations like
this. Unfortunately, I haven’t had an opportunity to speak with him about his findings. I
can’t give you any guidance on particulars tonight.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner Brown.
Brown: Mr. Simond, does your clients own this property then?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 61
Simonds: We don’t yet. It is all pending getting our final approvals.
Brown: And the seller is representing that he is selling a buildable lot.
Simonds: In get into the technical details of our deal, no he is riding with us until we get
all of the approvals.
Brown: It seems logical that that’s where the burden should be—back on the seller
selling you something that you can build on. If I bought a residential lot I’d expect that
is would have sewer and water so I could build a house. Why should I anticipate that I
have to work with the city then to get sewer and water to me.
Borup: I am assuming this is more of a situation by an undeveloped lot.
Simonds: It is to a certain degree but the utilities were being installed when we went
under contract and all assumptions were that everything would be ready. Part of our
deal was to ride along and get all of the approvals and then close escrow on the land.
Borup: What type of time frame did you have wanting to start construction.
Simonds: As soon as possible. If we wait too long then we get into—
Borup: Are there plans ready to turn into the building department?
Simonds: Plans will be ready within –we would be ready to turn them in by the end of
the month—meaning the end of September.
Borup: Okay. It doesn’t sound like that is out of the realm that this whole thing could be
worked out by then. That is what I am wondering. You could be a while in the building
dept. before your back. I don’t know that the time frame necessarily a problem I guess.
I don’t think we are going to solve that tonight.
De Weerd: Yes, my point.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Simonds
Hatcher: Did we finally describe what sign problems you had. You mentioned it initially
in your comments but then you didn’t specifically say what was the problem.
Simonds: All I care about is clarifying. We adopt their comments they say no
temporary signage. I think it would be nice to elaborate that to where we could put up
leasing signs.
Borup: I think staff clarified that and it’s part of the record. We are in the process of
writing a sign ordinance now and that would be in keeping with the new ordinance. A
clarification up front rather than a problem later, but I think staff clarified that—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 62
Barbeiro: If there was any concern you could refer back to precedent where every
property in this town has for lease signs. The family center for instance which is under
construction. They will have a building open here in three weeks and they still have a
for lease sign up. As well as a banner saying help wanted. Open soon.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. You will be phasing this in.
Simonds: The intention is yes to phase the first building being the one closest to Eagle
Road.
De Weerd: And how will you maintain the property that is not being developed.
Simonds: As part of the first phase we intend to build—all of building one plus do all the
perimeter landscaping and paving around building one, leaving just the pad and black
top to be done later for building two. All the street frontage will be improved.
Borup: Any final comments.
Simonds: The only comment I have is thought I’d show you a picture of our rendering.
Could have brought my full size one but was afraid you guys might want to keep it.
Barbeiro: So that is a brick veneer with a –
Simonds: There will be a concrete tilt-up more than likely—buildings with a brick veneer
on them and just a(inaudible). For the most part they will be concrete and brick
buildings.
Barbeiro: What will the proposed tenants medical/professional—
Simonds: So far it has been a mix of a lot of professional office users. We’ve been—it
is tough to market a picture but we have had a lot of interest from everything from
insurance agencies to doctors to engineering groups—quite a mix, but professional
offices is what we are anticipating here.
Barbeiro: Could you foresee anything retail like a copy center.
Simonds: Possibly but not probably. We are trying to keep it more a professional office
than kind of a retail blinking lights kind of thing. We do have ample parking outside
also. More than what code requires.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here who would like to testify on this application.
Willis: Thora Willis, 3555 N. Montvue Drive. I’d like to ask the same questions again. It
says there is available 248 parking spaces. I would like to know how many of those are
for the physician or the primary leasee—how many for staff and how many are
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 63
designated for patients or the patron. Is this a (inaudible) building? Is it to be finished
as leases are rented out or will suites be—will all of the suites be put in and how many
suites are designated for these 2 buildings.
Borup: Anyone else. Mr. Simonds I don’t know how many of those questions can you
answer at this time, but if you would like to try.
Simonds: By the time I got back I had only written down two of them. I think there are
three. First off, regarding parking as I said when I was up here before, we meet or
exceed all of the requirements for Meridian’s general offices. Our parking is 247-248
stalls is about 5 per thousand on the net rentable area of those buildings. With regard
to the actual project, and how much will be build no versus later, that’s all a function of
how many leases we end up with. The likelihood is that we will build the shell and core
we could conceivable have the building half leased by the time it is ready for occupancy.
We could have more leases then that, but it is hard for me to answer. To elaborate on
the parking, we don’t know if we are going to have any medical tenants. We don’t know
what the demand will be from those tenants as far as parking. We need to balance all
that to make sure we don'’ use up all our parking and still have 5-10 thousand feet to
lease when we can’t park anybody on the premises. What was the other question.
Totally a function of leasing.
Barbeiro: So as it stands now do you currently have any leases?
Simonds: We have no signed leases yet. We are currently talking with several different
people.
Barbeiro: So if one the day the project was built and you did not have a leasee, you
would eventually have your entry lobby and second level elevator lobby completed.
The rest of it would be an empty shell.
Simonds: We’d have a lobby on the first floor, stairs up to the second floor. A elevator
in place. All of our central equipment room, janitors closet and probably a set of
restrooms either on the first floor and the second floor, depending on a lot of factors.
Borup: Commissioner's.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second.
Borup: We have a motion and second, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Next.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 64
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend for approval the request for
conditional use permit for a two 2-story office buildings at Gentry Way and Allen Street
as proposed by the Andrew Simonds-Fermor, LLC with staff comments and the add the
condition to that in regards to the water and sewer issues be resolved prior to the
building permit.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. I need to declare a possible conflict of interest. I serve on
the executive committee of the Police Activities League PAL Board and they have
soccer fields out at St. Luke's. I would like to get your judgement on whether I have a
conflict or not. I would be more than happy to step down for this.
Borup: You have an opportunity for financial gain from this?
De Weerd: I certainly don’t, and I am not on the soccer board.
Borup: It is my understanding that’s the main criteria that council –
Rutherford: Mr. Chairman, at this point a simple declaring a conflict and you folks
saying okay, let’s proceed is sufficient. I guess it would be potential conflict. Maybe an
apparent conflict but not an actual conflict would be the terms we’d use.
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I do not live within 300 feet but I do live adjacent to St. Luke's
across the street and I just wanted for the record to make that aware that I’m no
financial gain from their approval. I am probably impacted by them but
***END OF SIDE 5***
Borup: Duly noted.
ITEM NUMBER 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PHASE 3 OF ST. LUKES MERIDIAN MEDICAL CENTER BY ST. LUKES
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER—520 EAGLE ROAD:
Borup: Staff, Steve do you have a presentation.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission this application is for Phase 3 of
St. Luke's Meridian Medical Center. It is a conditional use permit. The property as you
probably know is located on Eagle Road. The previous application for Eagle Road
Professional Center is in this parcel marked R-T. This is the Texaco and Eagle Partner
site is up here. Montview Subdivision is to the north. That red line that I just drew
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 65
shows the limits of Phase 3 being on this side of the line, the existing Phase 1 facility is
located here. Phase 2 is currently under construction here. This application for the
conditional use permit is for Phase 3 which would add a 24 hour hospital to the site.
The proposed building in Phase 3 is 6 stories plus a basement level and the mechanical
penthouse for a total of 182,600 sf and is 108.67 feet tall. The applicant called me this
afternoon and let me know that there is a correction on general comments number 3 as
to the uses. He stated –I currently show that the lower and first floors are for diagnosis
treatment and administration. The second floor is for surgery. The third forth and fifth
are patient rooms and the sixth floor will remain unimproved for future expansion.
Apparently they are leaving both the fifth and sixth floors unimproved for future
expansion, however the sixth floor does not have any parking provided for it in the
proposed parking area. Because of—and they will be providing parking for it in the
future, I would like to state for the record there should be a conditioned placed that
requires that parking for the sixth floor square footage to be provided prior to any
certificates of occupancy being issued on the sixth floor. The parking is provided for
future expansion in the fifth floor all ready. The construction materials will be similar to
what you all ready see on site in Phases 1 and 2. We would ask that the staff
comments dated August 9, 1999 be incorporated and that is all we have at this point.
Brown: Steve, where is the sixth floor occupancy parking proposed if they ran out of
site.
Siddoway: I believe that should be a question for the applicant. I know that they are
working on a land swap deal that would give them the land to do that. But I do not
know the status of that deal.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Brown: Steve does this follow the original plan when they originally submitted this
layout for the third phase.
Siddoway: Yes. This to my understand there is nothing in this application that would be
in conflict with their approved originally conditional use permit.
Borup: Any other comments from any other staff? Is the applicant here and would like
to come forward to address us.
Dearsdorf: Chairman Borup, members of the Commission my name is Chuck
Dearsdort. I live at 3287 Sugar Creek Drive here in Meridian. I am also the
administrator of St. Luke’s Medical Center. I am pleased to be here on behalf of St.
Luke's and are seeking your approval to procede with the hospital in Meridian. There
will be two other individuals who will provide remarks and are available for questions.
First we will be hearing from Jeff Hull who is the director of architecture and
construction for St. Luke's and Mr. Bill Bodner who is the Vice President for St. Luke's.
Jeff will speak first and talk about the site and related matters and then I’ll talk a little bit
about the hospital itself.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 66
Hull: Good evening. My name is Jeff Hull. My address is 190 E. Bannick, Boise,
Idaho. My business phone is 381-2023. First I want to thank you for your amazing
endurance tonight. And second, I’d like to say thanks Shari and Steve and staff for all
their help on this. We have no issue with any of the items on the staff report. Steve’s
correction to our fifth floor being shelled is correct. We have no concern with the
requirement of parking for the sixth floor being a condition of occupancy. Real quickly,
just to address the one question that was asked, the location of parking for the sixth
floor. We do own ten acres that is not illustrated on the site plans, but it extends directly
north of our eastern most property line. On the colored board up here you can probably
see those two dark marks that extend on up. They are the property boundaries of our
ten acres (inaudible) on north. As Steve alluded to, we are working with a developer to
our east—the folks from Touchmark here and are attempting to exchange a ten acre
parcel there. That is why we are reluctant to commit to the location and exact
configuration of parking for the sixth floor today. We would prefer to continue
developing to our east as this project continues to march to the east. Instead of
extending that parking on the ten acre piece we have today, but even if that does not
come through, the arrangement with Touchmark, we do have the land available to us
and under ownership today to accommodate our parking needs. Just a brief—maybe
you weren’t here in ’94 when we introduced Meridian campus plan. The concept of the
campus plan is one of a ring road, a private road that rings the periphery of the
property. The concept being you get the vehicular movement around the perimeter of
the site, bring the cars into the parking and then have the pedestrians come from the
parking to the building. We are dealing with elderly folks, little kids, pregnant people,
folks on crutches, people in distress. We don’t want to engage an interaction between
the car and the pedestrians. We try to keep the car moving to outside and the
pedestrian moving to the core. The ring road has been part of our concept from Phase
1, Phase 2 and it continues with Phase 3 and will continue on with future Phases. The
ring road concept was in Phase 1 again. During Phase 1, we did submit for
consideration or just for understanding, a conceptual campus master plan. At that time
in 94, 95, we did not envision with our best efforts, the phenomenal growth that you
folks and we are experiencing in this area. We have proposed Phase 1, Phase 1 is an
ambulatory center on the first floor, physician offices on the second. We thought that
would get us along for about 5 years before we had to consider Phase 2. We barely
had it open and we were designing Phase 2. Phase 2 the first five or six tenants just
began business here in the last few weeks and we were (inaudible) balance of the
tenants and essentially the majority of Phase 2 is committed. When we had shared
with Meridian ACHD ITD, the original Phase 1, the hospital, the actual in-patient unit
which we are here asking your consideration today, was not anticipated until Phase 5.
It was going to be 20-25 years out. Best demographic projections our professionals
could help us come up with. What has surprised us is we are at a point today where we
need a hospital in this location to serve the community. That has brought the Phase 5
element of the conceptual plan from a few years, forward into our planning process and
instead of being part of Phase 5, it is now what we call Phase 3. The concept of how
the site builds out, the organization of the site and the planning is still valid, the
sequencing, if you will of the different occupancies and uses of the site has changed as
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 67
the demands have driven us to that. We do have in our application, a letter from our
traffic engineer who has revisited our original 1994 traffic study. We asked him to
consider testing, if you will, measuring the existing traffic volumes at the completion of
Phase 1 and comparing that to the projections we had estimated in our planning of
Phase 1 in the campus build out. Our engineer has discovered was all the facility was
performing at a greater volume then we expected. The traffic was half of what we
anticipated. We were able to measure the actual performance of the traffic, compare it
to an estimate and modify our estimates for future planning. He states in his report that
the traffic signal at the St. Luke's Drive at the northwest corner of our site, can and will
handle the build out of Phase 2 and the complete build out of Phase 3 at a level of
service B, which starts as A is the best and so on down. We have been before ACHD.
There are concerns about traffic on Eagle Road in this project. Phase 1 and Phase 2
should generate an estimated 2100 vehicle trips per day. Phase 3, when it is built out,
all six floors, should generate approximately 3100 vehicle trips per day. The unique
thing you need to understand traffic volumes on a hospital is the hospital is off peak.
Our staff or a bulk of our staff are there from 7 to 3:30. They start showing up at 6:30
and leave by 3:30. That’s the highest volume of our staff. The 3100 trips is also
because it is a 24 hour service now with the emergency and in patient stuff. Those
3100 trips are spread out over 24 hours. We did receive favorable recommendation
from ACHD. They have not formalized, or we have not received any kind of report and I
believe in speaking to Steve today, staff has not received a formal recommendation. As
late as it is, I’d like to keep that to my comments and make myself available for any
questions. I am the director of architectural construction, so I am available to speak
specifically to the planning issues. Chuck is here and ready to speak to you more of
kind of the business issues and occupancies within and how the building itself will
perform.
Borup: Thank you. Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: As far as to the planning keeping in mind that the downtown St. Luke's
(inaudible) was build with a foundation and structural steel with the idea that they would
go higher and subsequently did. This building being 6 stories is it your intent to build
this with a heavier foundation, heavier structural steel so that you could go as high as 6
stories more on top (inaudible)
Hull: We are designing the structure as we speak and it would maximize as this
building today. The fifth and sixth floors give us enough capacity to reach about 148
beds, which is almost half of what we have in downtown Boise. When we have a need
for an additional surgery, labor deliver or in patient beds, we will literally near this exact
building, if you will to the east and will (inaudible) the expansion we have. Downtown
Boise we are a lot more constrained and land availability here we can spread out a little
more instead of going up.
Barbeiro: Is there any intent to move some of the services that you have in downtown
Boise to Meridian.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 68
Hull: Chuck can speak a little more—essentially this is not to move services from Boise
but certainly to meet the health care needs of the entire community. It is not moving
something away from Boise.
Barbeiro: And will this facility have a heliport.
Hull: This facility will not have a helistop. We have illustrated on our site plan the
potential for an emergency landing area. It is gray and kind of dashed in on the
overhead, just for purposes of where it will be. It will be grass, much like we used at
Fort Boise Park in downtown Boise, if there is an emergency need. Right now we can
transport faster in service transportation helicopter. We will come back before the city
at such time that we need an official helistop developed on this project, but right now we
are not asking for approval of a helistop.
Barbeiro: This will be a trauma center 1-2-3. Thank you.
Brown: Jeff, when you submitted your original concept you had 5 phases, right? You
had Phase 1,2,3 and 4 that mirrored what 1 and 2 have done. Now you are telling us
that the next phase will mirror what phase 3 is and is that it?
Hull: No. The –Chuck can talk a little longer terms on the demographics. We have the
ability now with phase 3 here to mirror and add additional hospital in patient capacities
there. We still have the availability on the south end to add on if you will to Phase 2—
much in relationship to what Phase 1 and 3 are and add more medical office capacity
as needed and then continue addition on. We still have a lot of flexibility in how we add
on and expand out campus.
Brown: So as I recall from before, it looked like a quad out in front and then you had a
high story for the 5th
phase. I can’t remember how many—
Hull: What the study was kind of doing for us was also seeing what the maximum build
out of this piece of property. How much square footage, how much parking can we fit
on this 37-1/2 acres. The maximum with 2 parking structures, this site could have
afforded the two Phase 1 and 2 as we have them developed at 3 stories, we were
anticipating 3 and 4 and probably stepping to 5 and the potential for 5 to grow up to 7
stories. Again, we were crystal balling out 20-25 years, but that was kind of the
concept.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: Well, since this is more on the planning side and you have referred to
ACHD, we have a draft and they are recommending cross access agreements. Could
you address that.
Hull: St. Luke's has offered in writing a cross access easement to our neighbors to the
north in Montview Park. As requested at the first ACHD meeting, they asked us and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 69
their staff and Montview to get together and try to resolve some traffic safety issues with
their access on Eagle Road. We recognize that. We have an offer before them. That
offer was extended in time and opportunity last Wednesday night verbally. We re-
formalized that in writing today. What that is, is St. Luke's is willing to deed an
easement to our neighbors to the north for a residential easement and we have offered
$100,000 to help design, permit and construct as much of the improvements as we can
get to with $100,000 from a point on our northern driveway to a point that they identified
on their southern property line to match up some cross access easements. We have
not had any official response to that offer.
De Weerd: So that would access out on to Franklin?
Hull: No, that would give them—the residents of Montview access from their
development somewhere in this general area down on to our northern driveway and
access to the signal that we improve with Phase 1 and get them to a signal to get in and
out of Eagle Road.
De Weerd: And those improvements would be to widen your private drive.
Hull: The improvements were anticipated to get over the utilities between our current
asphalt drive and through out landscaping—displacing that landscaping where we may
need to do with the (inaudible) in that location as well as any landscaping, paving or
what ever to get across our property with appropriate driveway type improvements to
and/or through there however far $100,000 would get us.
Borup: Any other questions for Jeff. Thank you.
Dearsdorf: I will speak from here. I think it will be helpful to use this. What this shows
is Phase 1 and Phase 3 and as if you were looking at the buildings either from looking
south or looking north, either way in effect. It gives you a flavor of what the services
are. I will talk about Phase 3. On the lower lever we will have support services both
clinical and the thing such as food service distribution and pharmacy, lab will be on the
lower level. On the first level is where the emergency department will be as well as
administrative support services, such as medical records and admitting, registration and
so forth. I might note that there will be a connection between Phase 1 and Phase 3.
Two corridors connected. The buildings actually have to be 40 feet apart for fire code
reasons. As you go up second floor, we will have surgery and cardiac cath labs. We
will have 8 operating rooms and also all the support things for that and 2 cardiac cath
labs which are diagnostic resources for identifying if you have blockages in your heart.
One the 3rd
floor is all obstetrics. We will have 20 postpartum beds and the support
services for that, including nursery, labor and delivery and the C-section rooms. On the
fourth floor we will have 42 beds and it will be a combination of medical, surgical, ICU
and pediatrics. The intent is 5 ICU beds, 6 pediatrics and 33 medical surgical. We
really do anticipate that the 5th
floor are probably going to be needed for beds, probably
within 3 to 4 years after we open based on the demographics—based on the growth
that is occurring. It is indicated that we leave the 6th
floor unfinished also. The question
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 70
earlier about the emergency department. It is not a trauma center. It is a community
emergency department. We currently have an urgent care center that is open 7 days a
week, 14 hours a day and we would of course move to 24 hours and continue 7 day a
week service. As far as our bed need, I might comment on that. We have development
the bed need on the most conservative approach that there is in terms of more heavily
managed care market and so we are being very conservative in our approach and try
not to over build as some communities have. There is a real need, there is a shortage
of beds and will continue based on the growth of this area. That gives you a little bit of
flavor of the Phase 3. We are coming back in addition to the ambulatory services we
have now, we are adding some additional ones. We will add additional imaging
services, particularly in the MRI. Some additional non-invasive cardiac services such
as nuclear stress testing. We also add an addition to our screening mammography we
will add diagnostic mammography services as part of this project. As you are aware,
we do have 3 and now with Phase 2 we’ve added 3 additional meeting rooms in the
lower level. We’ve made them available to the community and will continue to do so.
We have also offered and had available the past 3 years, the soccer fields at no charge
to the community also. That gives you a little bit of a flavor of what the hospital and
what this project is about and if I step over to my notes there is a couple three things I’d
like to add. I guess—we need to note that 14 months ago, St. Luke's did announce
publicly that we were planning for a hospital. We are at the point that in doing the
excavation and concrete and steel acquisition documents we could literally start next
month. We are that far along. We do not want to wait. We want to be able to catch the
fall construction and get that hole dug and get the concrete and footings poured so that
we can move ahead and not be held up by winter also. That is very, very important to
us. I don’t think any of us, including those who have lived in this area for a while really
anticipated the growth, but there is need for a hospital in this area. There is thousands
of people that can be served by services without having to drive downtown. We think
this is very positive for the community. In addition to the payroll that is currently being
provided, all most 3 million dollars, there will be an additional 12 million dollars in Phase
1 of the 62 bed initial portion of that before we add the 5th
floor or do anything with the
6th
floor. Twelve million dollars of payroll that will be part of this community. There will
be a 24 hour emergency department. I can’t tell you how many times people have
asked for that service. There will be a full service community hospital here in Meridian.
This will be the first community build in many many years and it is meeting a real need.
With that summary I will stop and be happy to answer questions, but we do seek your
approval to procede.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions.
Barbeiro: Mr. Dearsdorf. I am not familiar with ever seeing a heliport proposed or
designed in a hospital for anything less than a trauma to—second level trauma center. I
am going to assume that the intent is that this will be a second level trauma center and
perhaps a first level at some in the future.
Dearsdorf: You know Jeff noted that we are trying to design the site continuing to look
down the road another 20-25 years. I am not sure what will happen in this valley in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 71
terms of growth and needs. It there were someday down the road a need for a 300 bed
hospital, I do not know what those needs would be. Right now, St. Luke's is a 300 bed
hospital, has a helio pad on top of the 10th
floor and is not a level one trauma center.
We are not planning to be a level one trauma center. None of our strategic planning
that proposal or thinking being done for this site, but if we –I think we would be short
sided if we didn’t at least plant the grass where one could be someday.
Barbeiro: I understand that both St. Luke's and St. Al’s are level two trauma centers at
this time.
Dearsdorf: St. Al’s is a level one trauma center.
Barbeiro: Tell me again—we are looking at the 3rd
and 4th
floor, those two combined are
62 beds?
Dearsdorf: The levels floor 3 and 4 combined would be 62 beds. 20 OB and 42
combined med/surg ICU Peds.
Barbeiro: Could you show me where the emergency room is planned and where
emergency services would access the hospital.
Dearsdorf: Be happy to. I should note that currently the urgent care center can be
accessed directly by the public—currently the urgent care center which is open 14
hours a day, 7 days a week can be entered directly from the outside on this corner of
Phase 1. I should note we do have county ambulances parked on site right now. They
do transport patients where needed. The intent would be to move that into a new
emergency department which will literally take up ¾ of this first floor. We are serving
between 24 and 25 thousand people just in urgent care this year. The intent would be if
I may go a little beyond—here is Eagle Road, here is the interstate. When you come in
on to this loop road as Jeff described, the entrance to the hospital would be here. A
drive in under entrance because floor 3,4 and 5 are extent out a little bit so the hospital
entrance for the public and for admissions could come here if people did not want to
access it through the current site. The emergency department is off the loop road right
here, which would be the public walk in drive in drop off emergency entrance. The
ambulance would be on the north side, similar to what it is now. The ambulance—we
have an ambulance access.
Barbeiro: Show me where the ambulance would drop the patients.
Dearsdorf: Ambulances would probably back up in this area. Right now they are
parked here and can pick people up and drop off here.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Dearsdorf.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. I have a question that might be best addresses to Jeff Hull.
Possibly staff might be able to help just as well. Has there been communication
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 72
between St. Luke's and the Meridian Fire Dept. in regards to their existing equipment
and being able to access the 5th
and 6th
floors during a fire. At this time I do not believe
that Meridian has the proper equipment.
Hull: To the best of my knowledge there has not been. We are moving very fast just
trying to get this done. We did speak with not only Skip, but also the (inaudible) Chief
such on Phase 1 and Phase 2, but we have not gotten in to see those folks on Phase 3
yet.
Hatcher: I don’t see anything in my pamphlet from the fire department.
Borup: Any other questions Commissioner's before we move on with public comment.
This is a public hearing. We are here to get public comment. Due to 2 things, one the
time of day and the other when we usually have—I am assuming that every one here is
here for this application. I hope that is the right assumption. It is the last one on the
agenda. To make good use of your time and our time, maybe need to limit the amount
of time. Our official policy is on the board is 3 minutes. We want to get the information.
Often times, probably one of the best methods is if a neighborhood comes together and
I am assuming this is all from the same neighborhood. A neighborhood spokesman can
be a real effective method by doing that. By doing that we could allow more time for
that spokesman than we could individual person. Again, I am making some
assumptions and I am assuming that most of you here are probably want to address the
aspect of the road access and if that is not a right assumption then we are still here for
that. But because of that I think I might like to divide the comments into 2 areas. First
of all, any general comments on the project itself and then (inaudible) the comments on
the road access. We know there has been some time spent with ACHD and we do
have their draft copy of staff comments, but we are looking (inaudible). I don’t know if
you do have a neighborhood spokesman. It looks like you apparently do.
McCreedy: Chairman Borup, commissioners, my name is John McCreedy. I’m an
attorney. My business address is 1275 Shoreline Lane in Boise. I’m here tonight
representing the Montview Subdivision residents, which is the site to the north of the St.
Luke’s property. If I could have those in attendance tonight stand. Those are some of
my clients. Other clients are not able to be here tonight. I would request your
indulgence to give me a little bit more than three minutes to get our comments into the
record and to let you know our thoughts on this development application.
Borup: Yes, that has been our policy when it’s a representative firm.
McCreedy: And then I do know that a few of the clients want to make a few additional
comments. They’re the folks that are actually the ones impacted and it’s always my
preference to let you hear from at least a few of them so you have a flavor of how they
feel about it. I have organized a number of exhibits. I’ll hand them to the city clerk.
There are 15 exhibits in all. I unfortunately did not have time today to make all of the
extra copies for each of you, but would offer to do that should you defer or take this
matter under advisement so that you have them and I’d have them delivered out to you
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 73
tomorrow if that’s your preference. But I did want to go through and highlight some of
the points in those exhibits. Our basic thrust is that we are requesting that the
commission deny or defer this development application. And I will go through
specifically the reasons because I think when anybody ever suggests that you deny an
application you’d better have a darn good reason for it. First I want to let you know that
we have worked with St. Luke’s for a long period of time, since approximately 1995 I
personally worked with them. We have had a good relationship with them and it’s just
been recently that we’ve seemed to have gotten in a somewhat less favorable role with
them. Now the reason we’re asking you to deny the application is because under your
zoning ordinance, you have to find a couple of key items in order to approve a
conditional use permit. One of them is that you have to find that the application will not
be hazardous to neighboring uses. You also have to find that the application will be
served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways and
streets. Which I think is one of the age old questions in Ada County and that is, do you
have authority over streets or does ACHD or do you share authority over streets with
ACHD? I think under your own zoning ordinance you have an obligation to follow that
ordinance and to enforce it. And so you do have to make a finding that the facility will
be adequately served by public streets and facilities. And you have to make that finding
perhaps with some advice from ACHD, but ultimately it’s your call. Now the question
regarding the fire department was one we had not picked up, but that says right now
that it’s not going to be served adequately by public services. So that question needs to
be answered before the application is approved.
Borup: Could you repeat that again?
McCreedy: The question about the fire department not having the ability to serve the
fifth and sixth floor of Phase 3 I think is a very important issue.
Borup: Ok.
McCreedy: It goes to the question of public services. To try to briefly go through the
exhibits that I have provided to you, one of the problems with this application is that in
1994 when your predecessors, I’m not sure if any of the members here served on the
commission in 1994, I hope you didn’t, it would be a long time to be on a commission
that’s a lot of hard work. Um, but this property was annexed and zoned in 1994 by the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission and I’ve provided you as exhibit one, those
conditions; your findings and conclusions. There are a couple of things that are real
important. One, it was recognized at the time that a hospital was going to go there, but
the other aspects of the development were largely unknown, and that’s on page three of
that exhibit. The Ada County Highway District comments were incorporated in full in
1994 and I’ll talk to those 1994 ACHD comments here in a minute. But finally and
perhaps most importantly, because the development was not known exactly what it was
going to be at that time, you required a development agreement. Which I think was
about the time that Meridian first started requiring development agreements. That was
shortly after the Idaho Legislature authorized communities to require development
agreements. And in fact you made the entry into a development agreement, a condition
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 74
of annexation. And you stated that if those conditions of annexation are not met, the
property would be subject to de-annexation. This is on page 12 and 13 of exhibit one.
And you indicated that in the development agreement issues like the timing of
development would need to be addressed, as I think is typical of many development
agreements. Now we searched the records of Ada County just last week and there was
no development agreement ever entered into by St. Luke’s regarding this property in
the city of Meridian. So the conditions of annexation and rezone haven’t been met. I
think what was also contemplated in that development agreement is that future phases
would be subject to conditional use permits. So the question that we have is, how can
you go forward on approving future phases when the conditions for approval for of the
prior phases have not been met? We think the answer to that is, and as I understand
from talking with your planning staff, the commission and the city council have required
developers to back up, complete their development agreements, before they go
forward. If that’s good for other developers it seems to be good for St. Luke’s also. So
we would suggest that a deferral until that development agreement is negotiated and
recorded would be in order. We would also suggest that the development agreement
be done in a public context. That is, with the neighbors having an opportunity, excuse
me, to comment on the terms of that development agreement. Exhibit two is the 1994
ACHD findings. And you may hear some testimony tonight about public versus private
roads. Well, let me tell you that I did not represent these clients in 1994, but I did
represent them in 1995. And at no time in 1994, and I believe your findings and
conclusions for 1994 will reflect this, did any Montview resident come down here and
support a public road or a private road? In fact they took no position on whether the
road should be public or private, because as your findings and conclusions from 1994
show, there was no testimony in opposition to the application in 1994. So, I raise that
point because you’ll probably hear testimony, and you’ll read in the packet that I
provided that we originally opposed a public road. That’s not true. We took no position
on a public road or a private road in 1994. But what ACHD did in June of 1994 is it
warned St. Luke’s that a connection, and if I could have staff maybe put up the vicinity
map. That would be, I appreciate that Steve, on the overhead. What ACHD did in 1994
is it warned St Luke’s that a future connection between St. Luke’s and the Bews
property, which is to the east. This is the former Bews property. It is now the subject of
a Touchmark Living Center’s application that’s been submitted to the city of Meridian.
And you may be familiar with a couple of issues on the Touchmark application. But
what ACHD did in 1994 is it told St. Luke’s that it anticipated future roadway
connections to the east. It didn’t say public or private, it just warned St. Luke’s that
future roadway connections to the east would be anticipated and the ACHD said that
the developer should coordinate those connections with the district staff, ACHD staff. In
1995, Ed Bews, the former owner of the property that is now the Touchmark application,
submitted some development applications. First of all he submitted a conditional use
conceptual plan. That went before ACHD for conceptual review only and that’s exhibit
three. ACHD at that time recommended two stub streets, including a public road
through the St. Luke’s property. Again, I believe St. Luke’s was fully aware of that
application, they participated in that application by providing comments so again they
were told a public road would be required. Mr. Bews then came back for a more
detailed conditional use permit application. But in the meantime, and this is exhibit four,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 75
ACHD commissioned a traffic study. And I’ve provided you with a complete copy of that
traffic study with the exception of the appendices. And that traffic study showed that at
full build out, St. Luke’s would be putting 25,720 vehicle trips per day onto Eagle Road.
That would be what would be generated by that project, all the phases. 25 almost
26,000 vehicle trips per day. When Mr. Bews came back for a more detailed conditional
use approval, ACHD recognized the significance of that. And exhibit 5 is ACHD’s
approval of the Bews application on a detailed basis. And what ACHD required then,
was that a traffic impact study be prepared, a second one, and that when the levels of
development reached certain points, traffic control measures be implemented. One of
those traffic control measures was a public street, connection Eagle Road to what is
now the Touchmark property. And that is set forth in exhibit five. And ACHD says,
“when indicated by the traffic impact study, acquire right of way for and construct a
public road from the project site to Eagle Road.” Again I think St. Luke’s participated in
that application, I know they participated in that application. So again they were warned
that a public road would be put through. Exhibit six is a sub-regional transportation
study and I provide that to you for the reason that based on an interview with Mr. Hull,
St. Luke’s was projected to complete phase 3 in the year 2015. It’s 1999 and they’re
asking for approval of phase 3 so they are approximately 15 years ahead of their
development schedule. I think Mr. Hull’s comments recognize that. My point is that in
that sub-regional transportation study, the traffic volumes for the year 2015 were found
to be level of service E and F. And in particular level of service F for the intersection of
Eagle and Franklin. We also supplied to you and a traffic study performed by Pat Doby
which shows that for the Montview Subdivision access out onto Eagle Road, current
conditions are level of service F. So we have basically the 2015 traffic conditions in
1999. Exhibit seven is an Eagle Road access control study that MK Centennial put
together for ACHD. The point of that study is to demonstrate to this commission that as
traffic conditions on Eagle Road worsen, ACHD and ITD will implement access control
measures.
****END OF SIDE SIX
McCreedy: I’ve provided you with a couple of the ACHD commission approvals on
other development applications, including the two development applications that were in
front of you tonight, that were adjacent to Eagle Road. And I wanted to highlight a few
provisions of those. But first exhibit eight is the ACHD findings and conclusions on the
McDonald and Chevron and Eagle Partners LLC application. The reason I provided
that to you is because there, ACHD required a public road to be constructed and
financed. And the reason they did it was because of the severe traffic, safety and
congestion problems that were being experienced by the residential neighborhood in
the area. That’s at page three of exhibit eight. That was their solution to the problem,
dedicate a new public road and exact it from the developer. The two development
applications that were in front of you tonight, I’ve provided the ACHD findings and
conclusions as exhibit nine. Very important findings and conclusions in there are, and
these are development applications that were just in front of ACHD July 28th
of this
year. And on both development applications ACHD concluded that Eagle Road will not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 76
be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by this proposed
development. They site nearly 32,000 existing vehicle trips per day on Eagle Road and
if you read those findings closely, that’s based on a 1996 traffic count. So they don’t
even have the current data. That data’s three years old. Traffic count: 31,975 on 11-6-
96. Even using the 1996 data and looking at the developments in the area, Eagle Road
is beyond capacity, and ACHD recognizes that. What that means, that is a state
highway so of course the questions is, what am I going to do about it. I don’t have
jurisdiction over that as a local commission. Well what you do have jurisdiction over is
whether or not this development is going to be adequately served and what kind of
impacts its going to impose on the neighboring residence and what kind of conditions
you can impose to solve those impacts. What we are asking you to do is to require St.
Luke’s to dedicate some or all of its private drive for public use for the Montview
residents. In the same fashion that the 1997 centennial study recommends. Because
you have authority over traffic issues, I believe you have the authority to do that. Now
we have provided to you as Exhibit 10 the memorandum of agreement between St.
Luke’s and the Touchmark property owners. I provide this to you to show you that as I
read it, St. Luke’s and Touchmark have something entirely different in mind. They are
going to grant each other mutual easements that will be provided on to Touchmark and
St. Luke’s and there not to be able to be extended to any other property owners
adjacent to or using the roads going through Touchmark or St. Luke’s. I think their
intent is that they’ll have their private roads and so what about the Montview residents.
If fact, in that memorandum of understanding, they mention the Montview residents.
They mention the fact that the Montview residents might file a law suit and they mention
a fact that St. Luke's will hold Touchmark harmless. In essence, they will handle the
lawsuit. So this is not a concept that is new to them. I provided you as Exhibit 11 our
traffic study by Dolby Engineering. He concludes that at the present time the Montview
intersection with Eagle Road operates a level of service F conditions. That it is a
relatively unsafe and stressful situation that needs to be corrected. Pat Dolby a traffic
engineer suggest that not only the 1997 access study, but the 1995 Bew study support
public access through the St. Luke's road. I am losing my voice and I think that is a
good time for most attorneys to stop. I have provided to you what I think is the most
recent St. Luke's ACHD approval. I know that Commissioner (inaudible) mentioned a
draft. They took final action on August 11th
. Exhibit 12 is their final action. They did not
require St. Luke's to provide the Montview residents with public access. Instead they
made it a special request of the application. They also made a special recommendation
to the City of Meridian and the Idaho Transportation Dept. I don’t believe it would be
appropriate to take action on this application until you have had an opportunity to read
that final recommendation that ACHD put together. The reason I say that is cause we
spent a lot of time over there arguing this issue. I know ACHD staff spent a lot of time
putting their final draft together. So respect to them, I would request that you have an
opportunity to review it. We disagree with their conclusions. We think you have the
authority and ACHD also had the authority to require public access for the Montview
residents (inaudible) St. Luke's intersection. The ACHD Commission, with all due
respect to them, chose not to require that and I believe that they choose not to require
that incomplete ignorance of all of the studies and the evidence that we gave them,
which shows that that has been the plan and St. Luke's has been warmed of it for many
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 77
years now. How that happened, I don’t know, but we hope to correct that. I have
provided to you as Exhibit 13 a letter I got from the Transportation Dept. on August 25.
I sent ACHD’s final conclusions to the Transportation Dept. and asked them, what do
you think? They said, well we generally concur, but we disagree with one conclusion
and that is when the Montview residents have their access cut off, being right in right
out only, so functionally cut off. They can only get in and out by taking a right and
taking another right. So they would have to go down to the Franklin stoplight, pull a U
turn or find somewhere else to turn around to get back down Eagle south and get out
on to the highway. They said, ITD said, when that happened, when the median
constructed in Eagle Road, built the frontage road at the same time. And the question
that I have is, to where? The only place you can build a frontage road is the St. Luke's
signalized intersection. So if your not going to give up public access out the signalized
intersection, the frontage road doesn’t do anything for us. ITD under their access
control study is not going to allow any other accesses on Eagle Road. Item 14 in the
packet I provided states our reasons for rejecting St. Luke's offer. It’s a persuasive
offer. It’s an attractive offer in some respects. But it is very unattractive in other
respects and that’s our reason why we have not accepted it. One, it allows us only
private residential access. It does not solve the long term public problem of public
access to Eagle Road. It also does not compensate the property owner for giving up a
portion of their property. It has a number of other problems. We have detailed those for
you. Finally, Exhibit 15 is a letter Larry Sales sent to Will Berg on August 16th
, you City
Clerk. What Mr. Sales said was we have the Touchmark application. Touchmark wants
to develop the property to the east of St. Luke's, 140 acres. In order to do so,
apparently your staff has told them they need a Comprehensive Plan map revision. So
they have submitted an application for that. St. Luke's has—ACHD has stated to the
City of Meridian, hold on. Please don’t process that application until we complete a
comprehensive traffic impact study. In my own conversations with Larry Sale with
ACHD, he has indicated to me that they intend to have that traffic impact study include
St. Luke's master plan and include the development from St. Luke's. They also intend
to make some recommendations regarding public roads. Where they will go. How it
will all shake out at ACHD I don’t think anyone can predict at this point. We are going to
stay in the same path of getting a request in for public access out the signalized
intersection at Eagle Road. My point is, if ACHD has asked you to hold the Touchmark
application until the comprehensive traffic impact study is completed, including the
public transportation system in the area and the impacts from St. Luke's, it makes
sense to see that study before you approve the St. Luke's application. My caution is
and my hope is, is that you won’t approve this application until you have solved this
public transportation issue because now is the time. That is the message from the ITD
letter that I provided to you. Their conclusion is now is the time for all the parties to get
this Montview access issue resolved and that’s what we are requesting that you do
tonight. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I apologize for my voice and
that you for your patience. I’ll certainly stand for any questions.
Borup: Commissioner's, any questions for Mr. McCreedy.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 78
Barbeiro: Mr. McCreedy. With regards to a notice about a memorandum between
Touchmark and St. Luke's, keeping in mind of course that you only provided one copy—
McCreedy: And I apologize for that.
Barbeiro: I need a little more background on that. If there is a memorandum, first off I
am a little surprised that you would have access to a memorandum—a private
memorandum between Touchmark and St. Luke's and along with that, if there are
comments in there that are for a lack of a better term, derogatory toward the studies
and needs of the neighbors, certainly that in itself would be quite incriminating.
McCreedy: Commissioner Barbeiro. First, the way I got this memorandum I am
understanding was from the City of Meridian’s files, because it was submitted with the
Touchmark application. I have very wonderful clients who come down here often for me
and review records so I get complete copies of what is submitted. It was submitted as
part of the Touchmark application, so it’s a public record. That’s how I got a hold of it.
Now whether the comments are incriminating or not, I can’t really comment on that.
What I find disturbing is that they contemplated a lawsuit by the Montview folks. What
they contemplated over, I don’t know but it is obvious to me that they’ve been allocating
risk amongst themselves. I believe it relates to the issue of public access.
Barbeiro: You say you believe it relates to the issue of pubic access. Again, without
having a copy of that to read, and certainly I am not going to set aside my weekend to
read all 15—you alluded to assumed—when you say I believe it was referenced to
access again without having it to read in front of me, I’m not finding anything other than
some assumptions. Can you provide for me, a little bit more concrete evidence that
Touchmark and St. Luke's are in collusion.
McCreedy: No, I can’t and I’m not testify to that effect.
Barbeiro: You may not be testifying to that effect, but you are building a case that in
essence is saying that Touchmark and St. Luke's are in collusion and that St. Luke's is
aware of and is ignoring numerous fact and public record. You are building a
(inaudible) case this item being a case of St. Luke's constant disregard. I need
something more than just a letter (inaudible). If there is a collusion between them,
show me something concrete more than just a alludes to collusion.
McCreedy: Let me back up, okay. Exhibit 10 is from City of Meridian records. It was
submitted with the Touchmark application. It provides, as I read it, that Touchmark and
St. Luke's a mutual, as I understand it, private access easement. There also includes a
provision that St. Luke's will indemnify Touchmark, if the Montview residents sue. It
doesn’t say over what issue. It doesn’t say, you know, all of the details. I can’t answer
that. All I can tell you is what the document says.
Borup: Sounds to me like it was prepared by an attorney.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 79
McCreedy: Could very well be.
Barbeiro: Along with that, having done a number of development agreements and large
construction sites, that is a very common agreement amongst where you have no
access and need to get access to another property. And that, it is not unusual for one
property owner to ask for indemnification from another property owner with regards to
the possibility of risk. I keep going back to this one document because it is the
document you illustrated as the piece (inaudible) to show that there was some
collusion. That is the impression that I am left with.
McCreedy: With all due respect Commissioner Barbeiro, if I gave you that impression I
want to no longer give you that impression. The meaning of the document for me is
that despite having knowledge that ACHD has wanted a public road in that area for
some time, St. Luke's and Touchmark have planned otherwise. That’s the meaning of
that document for me.
Barbeiro: Okay, that good. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions?
De Weerd: I just have one. In your opinion, why did ACHD approve this.
McCreedy: Why did ACHD approve the development application?
De Weerd: Approve this application in front of us. They did not recommend denying it
as presented.
McCreedy: I’m not sure I’ve read too many reports where ACHD has recommended
denying much. So I don’t think they deny often. I think they generally approve
development applications. I think the question is what conditions do they attach to
development applications. They did not attach a condition to this development
application, requiring the developer to grant public access out St. Luke's driveway to
Eagle Road. They made it a special request, but not a requirement. We objected to
that. In fact we asked them for their reconsideration. They denied our reconsideration.
On the record they stated that as I understand it, they believe the issue will be resolved
by future development applications. Including future St. Luke's development
applications and the Touchmark development applications. I disagree with that. I think
now is the time to solve the problem because the conditions of the Montview
Subdivision are all ready level of service F. If you look at the studies that I have
submitted, they support taking action now. That’s what was stated on the public as a
matter, as I understand it, the commission’s decision. They also felt they did not have
legal authority to require that—to require a public cross access easement or require
public access on behalf of the Montview residents, out St. Luke's signalized
intersection. I disagreed with that and I submitted to them my own legal analysis. So
it’s been a much debated issue. I don’t know if that answered your question.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 80
De Weerd: Does the final decision differ from the draft that we have?
McCreedy: Sufficiently. In many findings and in the –I don’t believe the special request
differed too much, but the findings did differ. In particular, the findings as they relate to
imposition of access control on Eagle Road. I think ACHD recognized based on
information that was presented by us and others that under the 1997 access control
study, and because of the conditions of the Montview access to Eagle Road, it is
appropriate to now take further access control measures. Those measures are,
construct a median in Eagle Road, limit Montview’s access to right in right out only and
construct the frontage road. When those get taken I’m not sure because I can’t answer
that question for ITD, but the letter from ITD says, now is the time to solve the problem.
The question I have is, where does this frontage road go to if we are not preserving
some kind of public traffic corridor through St. Luke's signalized intersection to get the
Montview traffic out on Eagle Road. It is a solution to only half of the problem. It is not
much of a solution if we don’t get the traffic out onto Eagle Road.
De Weerd: So now are you telling me that ACHD is not talking to ITD?
McCreedy: Well, I am not going to testify to that effect. I believe others may have
opinions regarding that. I am not going to express them, but I know that when I—I can
say what I know. I know that when I approached ITD, they had not yet seen ACHD final
conclusions. I had to fax them over there. This was Larry Stroch at ITD. I believe,
based on my comments and conversations with Mr. Stroch, that he was aware of the
issues, but he had not yet been asked by ACHD to comment on them. That’s accurate.
What other communications ITD and ACHD have had, I can’t testify to that.
De Weerd: And, so you issue here is the public access on to St. Luke's road.
McCreedy: The public access by the Montview residents through St. Luke's private
driveway and on to Eagle Road. The request is that you require St. Luke's, as a
condition of this development, to dedicate sufficient right of way to locate public access
out it’s driveway on to Eagle Road. How the engineers design that, what the footage is,
I can’t answer that. We would certainly be willing to have Mr. Doby participate in that.
He’ll work with the folks on that, but I can’t testify to that.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCreedy, let’s presume for a moment that St. Luke’s
were to, may I go through that?
Borup: Sure.
Barbeiro: As I understand it, your current request is that St. Luke’s or as St. Luke’s has
offered, they wanted to build a road, I believe it’s going to connect at about right here,
taking a portion of this lot, is that correct?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 81
McCreedy: Patty Rough’s property.
Barbeiro: Ok.
McCreedy: Patty (inaudible).
Barbeiro: And then the road would come out here. Then again, let’s presume for the
moment that St. Luke’s offers to reimburse the property owner, build the road complete
and give you access to the road going into the hospital. Where would there be a
problem with that?
McCreedy: It’s a private road. When—and as I understand the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan, the Montview Subdivision is identified as an area for mixed
planned use, not residential. When the Montview residents first began working with St.
Luke’s they were told that these further phases of development would not happen for a
number of years and as a result they made an effort to preserve their residential
property. That’s not going to happen much longer. I think they’ve all come to the
conclusion that their property is destined for some form of commercial development,
spin off from St. Luke’s, similar to the two applications you heard earlier tonight. As a
result, it is important in the long term for that public access issue to be solved. The offer
by St. Luke’s is a short term, private, non-public sector solution. What the Montview
residents want is for the public sector, the government agencies to enforce a public
solution for public access, similar to one of the subdivision applications you heard
tonight, ok. Ultimately public access was provided to the Stoppello property, three
different public accesses. There should be no reason why the Montview residents can’t
share in the same benefit of public streets. So when they in turn sell their property for
commercial development they can sell it with access to public streets and they don’t
have to beg for it or take a value for their property that is substantially diminished
because they can’t offer it.
Barbeiro: You’ve simply now redefined the question. The question was access to a
residential property. You have in your own words now redefined the question that these
people want public access to property for future commercial development.
McCreedy: That is part of their goal.
Barbeiro: OK, the assumption then would be that it is their wish that St. Luke’s at some
time would expand into their property.
McCreedy: I can’t testify as to what St. Luke’s intent is in the future.
Barbeiro: I would gather that if Touchmark were to take all the land to the east, that
would leave St. Luke’s only one place to go, to the North, into the Montview Park
Subdivision. With that in mind, St. Luke’s would have access to a property that they
would be seeking out. I can see one concern being that now the residents of Montview
have no competition to purchase their property because it would pretty much leave it to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 82
St. Luke’s since St. Luke’s would have control over the access to their property. That’s
what I’m trying to get and it’s kind of coming a little clearer now.
McCreedy: And there are all those issues out there and I believe that all the clients that
I have had discussed and looked at those issues and considered them, but there are
also two other very important issues. They have a current safety issue right now that
needs to be solved right now. And it is not St. Luke’s responsibility to solve that issue
by granting private access and the residents shouldn’t be forced to accept sub standard
private residential access only as a solution to that. Also, all of the transportation
studies that have been prepared contemplate this public connection. So the question
becomes, why aren’t we implementing the plans? That is the correct solution, in our
opinion.
Barbeiro: And many others.
McCreedy: Well, at least in the studies that we’ve seen.
Barbeiro: The focus then is a permanent solution with public access and should St.
Luke’s extend that out to Touchmark, the extension beyond that is public, private, or you
have no interest in that?
McCreedy: Well there are any number of solutions for the public transportation system
in the area. I think a number of them can accommodate St. Luke’s need for a private
campus, without unreasonable disruption to that campus. And if I might—I don’t have
St. Luke’s—well here it is. We sat down with St. Luke’s and one of the ACHD traffic
planners and looked at a couple of those issues one day in an effort to try and solve it.
And one of the potential solutions was to take the entrance way into St. Luke’s property
for however far up good traffic engineering makes sense, and make that public. And
allow it to T off into the Montview Subdivision at least preserve that corridor for that
future use. So the frontage road has a place to connect. St. Luke’s then can protect its
private campus by having its private campus start here. That proposal was not
acceptable to St. Luke’s. I can’t testify as to what the proper engineering solution is
because that’s not my expertise. But I do know that I think ACHD intends to study the
problem as part of the Touchmark application. And that’s the purpose of the request for
the deferral. If they choose not to study that issue, and we’ve asked them to, and if
they choose not to make a recommended solution to that problem, I think it’s an
opportunity lost. But we’ve asked them to do that, and it’s my understanding from
talking with Mr. Sale that he intends to require as part of the Touchmark application,
consideration of the impacts from the St. Luke’s property. Now what were he to also
require that particular alternative to be studied, I don’t know.
Barbeiro: If we could solve the problem today, what you would have is St. Luke’s would
build a road through to the corner there as I described earlier, straight down and make it
a public road from that point all the way to Eagle Road, and that would solve your
problem today.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 83
McCreedy: I don’t believe that’s consistent with the plans that the engineers and the
studies have put together, so I would be reluctant to endorse that recommendation. I
think a more—a plan that is more consistent is the frontage road connection and
preservation of that corridor.
Barbeiro: Ok, frontage road connection is—I have nothing to visualize that, I’m not
following that.
McCreedy: Ok, materials that I did provide do show those, at least in the very
conceptual stage. Again this goes back to the need for the ACHD supervised study
from the Touchmark application. Not being a traffic engineer I can’t stand up here and
tell you what the best solution of the problem is.
Barbeiro: Would it be fair to say that the residents would be satisfied if St. Luke’s were
to purchase the land from the lady, build the road complete and from the point where
the access to the Montview Park Subdivision connects with St. Luke’s existing road and
making that road completely public that that would. .
McCreedy: To ACHD standards?
Barbeiro: To ACHD standards, that that would complete the needs of the neighbors
and give you a permanent solution.
McCreedy: I think it may. That’s something I’d have—it’s a significant enough issue
that I’d want to visit with Ms. Rife, and have Ms. Rife have an oppor—cause she owns
the property—she would need to visit with her neighbors and find out if that’s a solution
that’s acceptable to them. It’s something that hasn’t been put on the table. So we
haven’t had an opportunity to discuss it and we’ve got a large group of people and I
would want to make sure they’re ok with it so I’m hesitant to commit to it, but I think. .
and then the other thing is I think ITD and ACHD need to look at it.
Barbeiro: Oh, I agree with ITD and ACHD do need to look at these things, but I think
this is giving St. Luke’s an opportunity to make one step up from their original proposal
and allow them to move into a conditional use permit, allow them to build their property.
Keeping in mind one note that you did make and I do agree with you completely, if a
development plan was a part of the original conditional use permit and a development
plan has not been (inaudible).
McCreedy: Development agreement.
Barbeiro: Excuse me, development agreement, that a development agreement should
be in place before a conditional use permit or annexation ordinance.
McCreedy: And commissioner I would just—I try to be fairly careful on these things
when I deal with at large group and my hesitation is I’d want to get together with them,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 84
make sure they understand, and give them an opportunity to discuss it. So, I’m hesitant
to say absolutely yes.
Barbeiro: With that and with St. Luke’s people behind you, I would suggest that you
and St. Luke’s get together with that option, present it and see if St. Luke’s would go for
that portion of it and then you could present it to your clients. In the meantime, we do
have the issue of the development agreement that would need to be discussed along
with that.
McCreedy: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions for Mr. McCreedy? Ok, Mr. McCreedy could you explain
your understanding of the offer that St. Luke’s has made at this time?
McCreedy: They have put that in writing and they have given it to us and we have
responded to them in writing.
Borup: (Inaudible) I’m not quite sure I’m understanding where they’re proposing the
road to go.
McCreedy: Right. I’d want to look at the writing to make sure I’ve got all the specifics
and details of it, but I can give you the general outline of it. And Patty you can throw
something at me if I don’t get this right. As I understand it, St. Luke’s has offered to pay
$100,000 to build a private residential only access road, paved, being private not
necessarily ACHD standards therefore, from—as I understand it—it’s in the
neighborhood of where phase 3 begins and it connects to Patty Rife’s property. The
$100,000 would be the limit. If that got them approximately ten feet or twenty feet away
from—it’s right on this lot right there.
Barbeiro: You might try going to the overview here and pointing it out.
McCreedy: If that got them to ten feet from the—it’s right in this area—from the existing
Montview Road, so be it, the Montview residents would have to finish the remaining ten
feet out of pocket. As I understand the estimates, that may be close to complete the
job, it may not be. It doesn’t for any compensation for Ms. Rife for giving up her portion
of that property and again it is residential owned, and it is private. Again I’d want to look
at the letter and refresh my memory on any other specifics, but I think that’s. .
Borup: Isn’t that essentially what you’ve been saying all night that you wanted?
McCreedy: No. What I . .
Borup: No, I mean the location of the road. Yes I realize the difference between public
and private.
McCreedy: Right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 85
Borup: But, I thought in Commissioner Barbeiro’s summary of what you’re asking for
that’s what was restated.
McCreedy: The way I understand Commissioner Barbeiro’s questions is if that were the
deal, would it be acceptable, assuming it was public? And St. Luke’s paid for the
entirety of it and St. Luke’s compensated the property owner. And what I’m saying is I
would want to visit with the clients and find out first before I say yes. That deal has not
been put on the table. My second reservation to that is. .
Borup: The deal to pay it in entirety and make it public has not been.
McCreedy: And that compensates the property owner.
Borup: Right, but the location of the road. .
McCreedy: The location has been discussed and that is the offer that St. Luke’s has
made in that location.
Borup: And that sounds like the same thing that you’ve been saying that the residents
would prefer.
McCreedy: If I portrayed that testimony, I need to correct it. I think that may be
inconsistent with the long term general plans of ITD and ACHD for the area.
Borup: Ok.
McCreedy: Given that, I would want to make sure those agencies are comfortable with
that choice.
Borup: So essentially what you’re asking for then is a public road consistent and
compliant with ACHD and ITD’s long range plans, nothing more specific beyond that.
McCreedy: And I don’t think we’ll know that before the Touchmark study is completed.
Borup: Ok.
McCreedy: It may not cover that issue, but if I have anything to do with it I’m going to
certainly ask them to cover that issue, and we have already. And the point from the
Meridian Commission is to preserve that corridor.
Borup: Just one informational thing. Looking at some of the information that you
submitted (inaudible) that there’s about 19 lots that are affected by this, within
Montview, I did not count the one’s fronting on Franklin.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 86
McCreedy: There’s 26 total lots in Montview Subdivision, the ones that front on
Franklin I believe are going to be affected by the decisions that are made by Meridian,
ACHD, and ITD regarding the public transportation system in the area and the reason. .
Borup: Well, no. They wouldn’t have access to this road that you’re talking about
though.
McCreedy: Well I think they would have secondary access through this road because I
think ITD and I think ACHD. .
Borup: Now wait, the ones on Franklin, how are they going to have access to this
road?
McCreedy: Well, hold on a sec.
Borup: From their lot.
McCreedy: I think that ACHD intends to eliminate direct lot access onto Franklin Road
as time goes by. And so those lots are going to have to find some other access. What
that other access is, I don’t know. It may be this it may not. But that’s my
understanding is they intend to eliminate that direct lot access onto Franklin Road.
Borup: Well, that’s a whole different issue. There’s 26 total lots in the subdivision I was
trying to get a feel for how many.
McCreedy: There are and you’re right there is a distinction of those that front on
Franklin Road and those that don’t .
Borup: Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. McCreedy? Thank you Mr. McCreedy.
(Inaudible)
Borup: Ok, that we’re going to allow you at the end if you have—any comment on your
proposal on your access road at this time? Otherwise I think you’ll have a chance for
the summary at the end.
Hull: Thank you. Jeff Hull, again with St. Luke’s. And I would like to fill in some of the
details as to why what you spent so much time discussing up here is undoable from
ACHD perspective, and Mr. McCreedy was at the same meeting I was when they
explained that to all of us. And the reason ACHD was able to support that as a private
road but they cannot accept that as a public road.
The issues started with the location of a road here that was a recommendation from
Montview to (inaudible) for us to consider.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 87
Barbeiro: For a moment could you—first let me (inaudible) microphone. There’s a red
pen there—if you could do some drawing and give us a little better view of what your
proposals are.
Hull: I will do it yes. I’m an architect, but that doesn’t mean I can draw straight.
Montview asked us to consider something in here that would extend on in to our right of
way. What ACHD explained to us was that the geometry of the vehicular movement in
a situation like this where cars would cut across does not meet their design standards
and they could not accept that location and configuration as a public road. The other
thing that John failed to share with you is that the road that we have improved, if you
will, was not constructed ACHD standards. It is not of the sub-base asphalt section,
slopes, curbs, etc. to meet ACHD standards. That was built as a private driveway to
meet our standards for our engineer’s recommendations. We did a study in ’96 when
this issue was before you folks as a condition of the Bews project to extend this road
through our campus and make it a public road. And our estimates at that time would be
about $3.5 million for ACHD or whomever to acquire the right of way at that time, 96,
fair market value for the land, make the improvements to bring the system into
compliance with ACHD standards, and re-affect the St. Luke’s property to allow us then
to have our internal ring roads inside of their right of way. And it was that kind of
information that led your city council to remove the condition that ACHD placed to put a
public road through our campus. In addition to the fact that they stated, they felt that
this was a singular piece of property, they approved it as planned, they approved it with
the master plan, the ring road etc., and they felt it was inconsistent to extend a public
right of way through a singular piece of property just as it would be to run it through any
individual private parcel at their home or something, so. I hope I’ve shared with you
why the solution you were trying to come to and creating an ACHD solution through
there was dismissed by ACHD at that meeting we had in Mr. McCreedy’s office.
Borup: Thank you. Are you (inaudible) of the road.
: (Inaudible).
Borup: On this one issue? Ok.
Bodner: My name is Bill Bodner, I’m with St. Luke’s Regional Medical Center. Also just
to add to Mr. Hull’s comments, you need to know that ACHD spent several meetings
hearing volumes and hundreds of pages of testimony similar to tonight, multiplied times
many factors, that we have met with the neighbors on numerous occasions that we’ve
tried to reach, with our offer of a private lane cross-access agreement and our offer of
$100,000 which no public entity frankly, could have exacted from us legally. It would
have been a double exaction and I’m sure your attorney could familiarize yourself with
the terms, but all of St. Luke’s impacts of its site, and that’s—let’s remember that’s what
were here tonight to talk about is this new hospital. All of the traffic impacts of this new
hospital were exacted in 1994 by ACHD and Meridian and in all of the plans for the
master build out of this site. Those exactions were not based on phase 1 or only on
phase 2, they were built on the full build out. And so I think you need to consider what
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 88
St. Luke’s has done and indeed it was described as and ACHD staffer who sat in the
negotiation sessions with us and Meridian as one of the most phenomenal offers that
he’s ever heard made by a developer. Also, just want to add that we have tried and I
think Commission Barbeiro seemed to hit the nail on the head, we’ve tried to
understand their issues, their concerns about access to Eagle Road. We’ve provided
them with a private road, private cross-access, deeded offer, that’s pretty strong, that’s
a deeded offer that we’ve offered to them, but it is a private lane access. It’s not a
public highway, it’s not public roadway, number one because ACHD does not have the
funds or the desire or the ability to accept their solution at this time, therefore the
solution that we’ve offered is the only one that would be acceptable to ACHD and that’s
why their recommendation is what it is. With that I’ll stand for any questions or we’ll
take it as it comes.
: I’m sorry, your name again.
Bodner: Bill Bodner. I’m a vice president at St. Luke’s.
Barbeiro: Ok. It was only a couple of days ago we had a developer come in here and
offer us $360,000 to help extend a sewer line to his development, so to offer them
$100,000, there have been numerous offers similar to that and in excess of that. We
cannot deny that St. Luke’s effects on the traffic on Eagle Road with the implementation
of a stoplight there, has had a detrimental effect on the neighbors ability to make a left
hand turn to get out on Eagle Road. What they have is a position where the traffic is
backed up past their access and they cannot make a left hand turn, so the existence of
the hospital and the traffic improvements have impacted on their access to Eagle Road
and it is a serious problem. I do not find your solution to be adequate enough. If we
want to back down and defer to ACHD who will not allow a public road through here, yet
you only offer what amounts to a portion without compensation. First I’d like you to
define for me what it—define a deeded road.
Bodner: A deeded private lane access provides a deed to the homeowners who can
access and utilize that road, that would include all of the Montview Subdivision
neighbors to have a deed, a legal document giving them permanent access to and
through that site.
Barbeiro: So these neighbors, each will have a. ..
***END OF SIDE SEVEN
Barbeiro: land.
Bodner: Correct. For, if I could clarify for a private lane residential usage. The issue,
and I think it’s why you’ve just spent 45 minutes with Mr. McCreedy, is that they’re
asking for unfettered, (inaudible), unpredictable development. This could be another
power mall, this could be another series of high volume, it could be a truck stop, it could
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 89
be any number of things and as you heard Mr. McCreedy mention, and it’s certainly at
basic standards, is that when a developer creates a problem they’re required to help
medicate and have a taking for that. What Mr. McCreedy and Montview neighbors are
requesting of this commission is that an exaction of a public roadway for an unknown
commercial development be created for their development and the totally unknown
future commercial use. That is what is absolutely unacceptable to St. Luke’s. If I could
step away for one second just to clarify, the reason is that as you look at our site plan
and every component that has gone into its planning, this is a private lane as our
architect Jeff Hull mentioned earlier. It’s not designed ACHD standards. For it to
become a public road there are millions of dollars of cost impacts. But perhaps just as,
if not more importantly, for this to become a public road through here, there become
significant setback issues, we lose parking, we lose road circulation, we lose every
concept of traffic circulation and safety on our campus that this entire campus has been
designed to since Phase I was developed in Meridian’s 1994 approval of our Phase I
and its 1996 approval of Phase II. And if we are required to make this a public road we
will go back to the drawing board and spend months if not years trying to figure how to
reconfigure and redesign the entire circulation patterns and setbacks and parking
requirements for this property. And frankly that’s not something that this community and
its hospital and health care needs can afford.
Barbeiro: Ok, going back to your statement of the tremendous amount of effort you’re
going to have to put into this, I find that to be an exaggeration at best because with
Touchmark picking up your land to the east, if these residents have a public road into
their neighborhood, that you now have competition for the land north of you. It is my
belief that because you have put your access here that Phase V, VI, VII, VIII, your intent
is to go to Franklin. It is my belief that you didn’t put that road there on the edge, you
put that road there with the intent of that being in the middle of your development. So,
with that I would say that if you do not grant them a public road, although we have to
keep in mind of course that ACHD isn’t going to allow for that, it pretty much locks these
neighbors in if they wish to ever sell that for commercial development. You’re pretty
much the only show in town to buy from them and it doesn’t allow for them competition
or and opportunity to seek out other sellers for commercial development on that land.
Borup: Tom, just a clarification. That may be to the effect, but I believe that road was
put there because it was the proper setback from the intersection of the freeway and
Eagle Road, that was a requirement. And that was where they had to put the access.
Barbeiro: If that were the case then I would defer to that and the engineers on the
council.
Bodner: Thank you, it is true. It’s the only lot you can steal square footage from.
Borup: You know that may have been the result of having the road there, but I don’t
believe that was St. Luke’s first choice for the road if I remember right.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 90
Bodner: It was not and if I could also, I guess, submit there seems to be a focus on
Eagle Road. There are many other options other than Eagle Road, and it’s called
Franklin and I think the entire McCreedy and Montview discussion has completely
ignored the existence of Franklin Road, number one.
Borup: So you’re saying there can be a public access to Franklin just as easy as
coming through this property here?
Bodner: ACHD as part of the multiple hours of review, realized that there are numerous
options, you’re right Commissioner Borup. There are numerous options, all of which
have costs, all of which have impacts and all of those options have to relate somehow
what the Montview subdivision is going to be used for someday if it becomes a massive
commercial development. And not a St. Luke’s caused issue. If St. Luke’s is added to,
and certainly there are traffic studies that indicate the volumes of traffic we’ve added,
we are adding with this development and our previous developments to Eagle Road. If
we’ve added to the volumes, and we have, we have already spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars creating the and paying for the lighted intersection that was
required by ITD and ACHD and Meridian, and so we’ve complied with all those
requirements and we’ve had the exaction taken for our development. If Montview
wants to someday create a commercial development, it would be incumbent upon this
commission probably to decide what exaction to take from that developer.
Barbeiro: Do you understand that each of you present compelling arguments, but the
concern is that we’re still essentially locking these people out. If we want to put it in
perspective, no perhaps it is not your responsibility per say to offer this yet the Idaho
Transportation Department and Ada County Highway District have recommendations
for a public road and I’m getting the conflicting words without the papers in front of me
to tell me yes, no, yes, no. If they have--there’s another option for you, apart from
presenting them with a private road and paying for the road and paying for the
compensation of the land owner to get together with the neighbors and work out
another way for Franklin Road. This would be a good will gesture to them to seek out
another exit on Franklin Road allowing them access and kind of pulling yourself out of
the whole spectrum allowing them public access to Franklin Road, allowing them
competition if they wish to sell it to somebody else. That option exists for you.
Bodner: I think that what you’re recommending is exactly what ACHD’s
recommendations have been and we’ve certainly stand ready to comply with ACHD’s
recommendations which is that we try to work something out with the neighbors and we
try to figure out a solution to this. But ACHD recognized after many hours of testimony
that the neighbor’s expectations and demands exceeded the exaction that should be
taken from St. Luke’s and its patient care dollars. And if I could just offer a kind of a
metaphor comparison, if you will, of this situation that one of the ACHD commissioners
made that I think shed a light, at least for me it did. One of the ACHD said, “Now Mr.
McCreedy, let me get this right,” she said, “if you’re a farmer and you’re building a new
barn and you decide to provide a paved road to that new barn on your property and
your neighbor came and said, you know what, if you’re want to build that new barn, then
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 91
you’ve got to buy some of my land and build a paved road over to my barn too.” I
think, it worked for me. And I think that it may work for some of you as well.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I’m sorry to interrupt all this, but its getting late and it seems
that there’s an issue here with this road and we can all theorize on what ACHD meant
or didn’t mean, but I would rather have ACHD’s final report and ACHD here in person to
represent what it was that they’re intent was. And, you know, because we can hear
from both sides back and forth and without ACHD here to tell us what their reasoning
was and what their final decision was, I don’t think we have reason to go any further,
let’s give these people an opportunity to be fresh and put them first on our agenda and
just continue this, please.
Borup: I think there probably are going to be a lot more questions. The only question I
have—there’s a lot of people who have been here a long time. Some of them may not
wish to come back again, but they would like to get a few words in this evening.
De Weerd: Yes, let’s let them then.
Borup: So I think we’d like to proceed with that. Sir, and I think someone over here has
their hand up earlier.
Willis: My name is Rick Willis, I live at 3555 Montview Dr. and my phone number is
887-3955. And I had decided that I wasn’t going to speak here tonight, I think Mr.
McCreedy covered the issue very well for the subdivision, but after hearing this last
emotional somewhat patronizing rebuttal, I think you deserve to hear an emotional
response from the neighborhood and I’ll leave out the patronizing part. I’ve been a
resident of Montview Subdivision for about 8 ½ years and there’s been a lot of changes
there, particularly in the Eagle Road corridor and particularly directly in my backyard
with the development of the St. Luke’s facility back there. When that facility started, St.
Luke’s did in fact meet with the neighbors and they explained their plan, which has
been described here as a four phase plan taking approximately 20 years. We asked
them at that time if there would ever be a full service hospital there and they said well,
we don’t know, maybe someday. Well, it hasn’t been 5 years and that full service
hospital is just around the corner. And it’s having a big impact on us as residents. And
it’s has a big impact on that corridor out there that we’re talking about. You know, we’ve
heard all kinds of figures here tonight about how much traffic that hospital is going to
generate, all the way up to 25,000 or whatever figure they gave you, four or five
thousand cars. Well, I’m here to tell you that if you had a full service hospital on that
property today, it wouldn’t accommodate the current traffic that’s out there. And I know
from what I speak, because tonight I came home and I looked at my watch and it was
4:46 when I got to the St. Luke’s light and I could not proceed through that light
because traffic was backed from Franklin and Eagle through that light and out to the off
ramp on the freeway. Now, if St. Luke’s had got their light where they wanted it that
traffic would have been that much further out on the freeway. Now I ask you how in the
world are medical or emergency vehicles going to access that property? They couldn’t
do it today and they can’t access our property today and they’re certainly not going to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 92
be able to access that property if you get 20 or 25,000 cars out there. You just flat can’t
do it. That intersection is jammed today. And that’s not counting the medical building
on the (inaudible) corner of Franklin and Eagle, the (inaudible) the McDonald’s, the
standard station, the Holiday Inn Express, the additional medical building we’ve talked
about here today, and what about when RC Wiley is up and running and the family
living center on the corner of Fairview and Franklin. Where’s that traffic going to go?
These developers have a responsibility for alleviating the problems they’re causing the
neighborhood in this community. And I’m very disturbed to hear that the developers, for
whatever reason, on the west side of Eagle have to dedicate property for public right of
way and St. Luke’s doesn’t when they’re the biggest development and causing the most
impact. I mean St. Luke’s ought to answer that question for us. If I was the developers
on the west side of that road I would be very irate and I would be asking that question.
We asked that question (inaudible) highway department. Ada County Highway District
would not give us an answer. They ignored it. They did not want to answer that
question. One of the commissioners did say, well St. Luke's has some costs here.
They built a road and then they put in a light. Remember they requested that light. I
think if you check today, that light does not meet any of the off set requirements for a
traffic light. They got concessions and got that light. The commissioner said, well they
got the road and then he asks some questions of these folks. We got some different
answers here tonight. They got some answers tonight but the other night they said
what standard is you road built to. They said I don’t know. They did not know. They
told you tonight, but they did not know a week ago. One of the Commissioner's said
well what did the roads cost. You guys remember. You all know about the different
fingers. One was three, one was two, one was four. They did not have a clue what the
road costs. Then the traffic engineer came in and asked what impact is St. Luke's
going to have on the traffic and that corridor. And what’s the projected traffic increase
on Eagle Road. He came them a figure. One of the Commissioner's said, partner—
we’ve all ready passed those figures. He did not have a clue. Look at the planning
process. They has a 20 years plan and they missed it by 15 years. Look you don’t
know what standard your building to. You don’t know what your costs are. You don’t
know what the impact of what your doing is and your management plan is off by 15
years—if you were a (inaudible) corporation—we won’t go there. We got problems.
What I would suggest to do folks if your decisions are going to be made in any way
shape or form, on any kind of a traffic study or prediction or whatever, presented by
these developers, take another look at it. Commission your own studies. Do your own
traffic count. Go out there and drive those roads. I don’t care what your counts say, if
you go out there today and there is an intersection blocked, there is a problem there. It
doesn’t matter what you predicted in the future. You can’t access that property today.
There needs to be at least two accesses to St. Luke's Hospital. What are they going to
do if emergency vehicles can’t get in there and one access is blocked. They should be
required to provide public access and right of way for the residents just like every other
developer in this community. The other thing that really aggravated me was I know
helicopters and I really got burnt when I saw that heliport in my backyard. They are
telling you they are not going to build a heliport. If they’re not, I don’t sure want to see it
there. Why did they put it there? They have all those acres between the hospital and
the interstate and remember tonight, there is a corn maze on the other side. It ought to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 93
be back there in the corner where it could not bother anybody. That is just a pet peeve
of mine. I am sorry I get so emotional here but it is an emotional issue because it
affects us.
Borup: Are you saying that the traffic is at a stage right now that you can’t get in and
out of your subdivision, even whether St. Luke's—
Willis: You can get in and out of the subdivision if the traffic is kind enough to let you in.
The highway department put up do not block intersection signs. That seems to work for
the traffic that is in the traffic lanes. We have traffic that gets in the turn lanes. Soon as
they come through the St. Luke's light, if they are going to go east on Franklin, they get
on the shoulder. If they are going to go west on Franklin, they get in the center lane.
Borup: It sounds like your talking existing traffic on Eagle Road.
Willis: Existing traffic—what are you going to do with this development when they are
going to dump their 20,000 cars in there. One thing and I’ll shut up. School started
today. I suggest that all of you go down to the bus barn Friday afternoon and talk to
those bus drivers (inaudible)get Magic View, Montview, that little section of Eagle Road
and Franklin-Eagle intersection and get their slant on things—or better yet get on the
bus and ride with our kids on day and I think you will have a different opinion of what is
going to happen out there or what is happening and I think your decision will be a whole
lot different. Thank you.
Borup: Thank you sir.
Ruyf: My name is Patricia Ruyf. I live at 360 Montvue Drive. I have lived there for 18
years. I lived there with my husband and you might wonder where he is tonight. He
died last October. (Inaudible) St. Luke's their so concerned about themselves and their
property and the care of their patients. They have been building there for 3 years and I
husband had a severe respiratory problem. The man across the street from where I live
has cancer of the lung also. They created such dust that my husband and Marv Rider
could not go outside. We called everyday and begged them please, have you
construction crews put down some water. Can you cut the dust a little bit so Jer could
go outside. He didn’t make it. The second thing that I would like to say is that before
you, when you do issue them a permit, before you do it please I beg you, have your
Meridian Fire Dept. do a drill, do a run at 7 a.m. in the morning as though they were
going to do an emergency run to St. Luke’s facility have them do one at 5 in the
afternoon and give their report before you go ahead with this. Thank you very much.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to finish up tonight.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. I sorry your right.
Borup: Sounds like you don’t have a second.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 94
Hatcher: Obviously.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd had made reference to continuation (inaudible).
Do you want to make the motion or discussion first.
De Weerd: I think we need some discussion as far as a date. Do we want to make this
a single—I would like to continue this and I would also like to suggest a special time.
This will take up a whole agenda and I am sure we will have other items to discuss. It’s
not like I enjoy special meetings. This probably would warrant it.
Borup: What issues is it you feel that we need to –
De Weerd: The Fire Department, ACHD. I would like ACHD here in person to answer
some questions.
Hatcher: If at all possible, I would like to get a representative from ITD here as well.
De Weerd: So, one last issue is perhaps someone to address the issue of the
development agreement, if that’s an issue.
Borup: Okay I think at this point the only ACHD report that we have is the one that—
De Weerd: It’s a draft.
Borup: The only one we have Mr. McCreedy had the final and it isn’t in his exhibit. We
don’t have a copy of that. Would the rest of the Commission like copies of the—exhibit
that he brought.
Barbeiro: With regards to the full exhibit of what he brought, I believe that Mr.
McCreedy would want us to highlight certain items within that and certainly 500 pages
we all are going to miss certain items that you wish that (Inaudible) summary. I would
suggest that you either prepare a summary or go after those specific items and
prioritize them that you wish that we pursue what the most --
McCreedy: If you’d like me to prepare a written summary of what I did all ready
summarize and make additional copies of the exhibits, give me a date and time and I’ll
have it in to you.
Barbeiro: But you understand there appears to be about 400 or 500 pages there. I
could read all 400 or 500 pages and still miss those items that you wish us to highlight
the most.
McCreedy: Commissioner, give me a date and time and I will have a written summary
and additional copies of the exhibits. I will comply with your request.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 95
Borup: I think what Commissioner Barbeiro may be at least, tell me if I am right, from
my standpoint I would rather read the original documentation in you file, but I mean
there is a lot of maps, you’ve got maps of things clear over the other side of town all
most. I am seeing things up on (inaudible) junior high school. I am assuming that had
to do with the Eagle corridor study. I don’t know of all that is pertinent as it needs to be
on this location. Some of the information on the—to me I think special (inaudible) would
be the original findings of fact and that type of stuff your maybe talking about Tom.
Barbeiro: He can present it with specific items that are most important and prepare a
summary on top of each individual item. Here is the things we want you to concentrate
on and behind that have a little document.
Borup: I think you have the option of that or one of us going through and pulling out
what we think is pertinent.
McCreedy: What my preference would be is if you would give me 7 days I’ll have a
written summary in and I will present you with additional copies of the exhibits I have
provided to you. In the written summary I’ll direct you to where in those exhibits I would
like you to focus your attention. If you want to give me a page limit on my written
summary I’ll do my best to comply with that. Always give a lawyer a page limit and a
time limit and see how they do.
Borup: Seven days is definitely not going to be a problem.
Barbeiro: Commissioner De Weerd is it your intention that we continue the meeting to--
Too many in September all ready, so you’d like to have a single issue meeting perhaps
the 3rd
week of October.
De Weerd: Well we have the 14th
and the 30th
?
Borup: The 14th
is more than filled.
De Weerd: Well, I understand that. I don’t want to address this issue with any others. I
don’t think it is fair to the people that come here to speak and it is not fair to any one. I
would be willing to do a third meeting in September. That is me personally.
Borup: Any other comments.
Barbeiro: Commissioner De Weerd wishes to have a single issue meeting in
September that would be fine. The item that is going to come back is that the original
conditional use permit for Phase 1 and 2 as described by the neighbors attorney is that
a development agreement was suppose to be a part of the conditional use permit and
no development agreement has been offered. What’s likely going to happen is if St.
Luke's does not present us with a compelling argument as to why one was not offered
or that the neighbors are in error in their description of how the original conditional use
permit was set up, either we are going to continue it again or that a building permit will
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 96
not be issued until a development agreement is entered into. The options are we can
go into a 3rd
meeting in September and find that St. Luke's presents a compelling
argument telling us that a conditional use permit requirement was not a development
agreement or we will be convinced that a conditional use permit agreement was that
a—
De Weerd: Commissioner Barbeiro, will you summarize and—
Barbeiro: We are either going to continue it but the primary function is going to be again
the development agreement. Was that a part of the additional conditional use permit.
De Weerd: Okay, thank you.
Borup: That might be something for the City Attorney to look into between now and
then.
Rutherford: Commissioner's I can look into that and would stress that if the
development agreement was a conditional use permit originally, it needs to be done.
We have done this previously where they’ve been overlooked by our previous City
Attorney’s. It would need to be done. I don’t believe it would require a public hearing or
anything of that nature because if it was in the original Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law that would be the guide for the development agreement. It would
be a simple matter of drafting that document and having it signed.
Barbeiro: So we would know prior to the next meeting weather that was true or not.
Rutherford: It would still need to be on the City Council agenda because the City
Council would need to act on that, but I doubt you’d have resolution of the development
agreement issue. However, you would have an indication of where it is going.
De Weerd: How is the 22nd
.
Borup: 16 and 23rd
are open. That is a Thursday. The 9th
, 16th
and 23rd
. Those are
Thursdays. The 16th
? That is only 3 meetings in a row.
(Inaudible discussion from the Commissioner's)
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we continue this public hearing until September
16th
to begin at 6:00 o’clock.
Borup: Any comments from the other Commissioner's?
Brown: Mr. Chairman I’ll second that for a discussion.
Borup: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 97
Brown: Mr. Chairman I would ask that the Fire Department tell us at that meeting be
prepared to tell us what they can do with regard to the height of the building or what
they can fire protect. I would also ask that the Planning Dept. be prepared to discuss
changes to the original plan versus what they propose today and if that original
agreement was binding, to keep that road private. I would also ask the legal
department to look into the whether that development was ever filed and the legalities
of us being bound of having that agreement today.
De Weerd: And that staff request ACHD’s presence please and that we get a final
report from them.
Hatcher: I was just going to say if there is a possibility of getting a current—not the
latest whether it be 96, 97, a current traffic count of that area, if there has been one
done of one underway.
Borup: It would have to be underway. They give us the most recent they have.
Barbeiro: In addition the Ada County Highway District—since there seems to be a
discrepancy be ITD and ACHD, can staff request a representative from ITD to also be
here to clear up the differences between ACHD and ITD.
Borup: Is there any question on who is to contact who? Steve will. Fire Dept., ACHD,
ITD and the original application information—4 items.
Siddoway: Fire Department representative, ITD representative, ACHD representative,
any more current traffic counts available and check into the requirements of the original
conditional use permit. I will do that.
Borup: Okay. Realizing that we’ve got their schedules to work around too. If one of
those representatives couldn’t be here, I am thinking ITD, if the information’s could be
available or if they could meet with ACHD prior to that and still convey that information
to us would be helpful. Thank you. We had a motion I believe. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Special Meeting
August 31, 1999
Page 98
Borup: Okay this application has been continued to September 16, 1999 at 6 PM.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I move that we adjourn.
De Weerd: I would second that.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:12 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILES OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
__________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG JR., CITY CLERK