1999 09-30MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING__________
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 __
The special meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order at 6:30 p.m. on September 30, 1996 by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Tammy De Weerd, Richard Hatcher, Thomas
Barbeiro.
OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Rutherford, Will Berg.
Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to start the – this is a special
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. We’d like to start with a roll
call.
1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND USE FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE
(RESIDENTIAL 7 OFFICE BUILDINGS) BY J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. – WEST
OF EAGLE ROAD BETWEEN FAIRVIEW & USTICK.
The first five items on our agenda are continued public hearings. We have had a -- the
agenda changed. We tabled them? They were not continued? Oh. That’s right.
Correction. Items 2 through 4 were tabled, they were not continued. So I think we
concluded all the public testimony on those items. So Item No. 1 is a continued public
hearing, a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, land change from residential
to mixed use, residential office buildings by JUB Engineers. Do we have any additional
comments from staff? (inaudible) want to show off your new toy?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have our report that’s been completed for
this project. I just wanted to clarify this is a request from a single-family residential
designation to a mixed/planned use development designation, and hopefully everybody
can see from the map where that is located there on Eagle Road about one-half mile
south of Ustick.
Borup: Commissioners have any questions for staff? Hearing none, would the
applicant like to make any additional presentation?
Taylor: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I’m Nancy
Taylor with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, and I’m here this evening to
speak on behalf of the project. I’m here with the owner and developer, John Barns.
Before you – you can see that we are requesting a mixed/use designation for this site.
And, actually, this site already has a school approved on the rear 12 acres, so we’re
really asking for a designation on the – thank you, on the front 8 acres for residential
and professional offices which we feel will allow us to really highlight and emphasize the
use of the school with some additional housing around it and then to provide a noise
barrier with some residential in appearance but professional offices along Eagle Road.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 2
We thought it would make a very nice project, and the school is really somewhat of the
catalyst for it to have some single-family residence adjacent to the school transitioning
to the professional offices. We did meet with the neighborhood back in July. We had a
discussion. We invited everyone within, I think, 300 feet, and I think we even extended
that. Mr. Barnes lives in the neighborhood, and we had a very informative, nice
session; we had a number of neighbors come and talk to us about the project.
Generally, they were concerned about, as one would be, about the buffering from the
adjacent development, and they were – they had not seen professional offices used
along Eagle Road. They had not considered that use. Generally, it was well received.
We have an oblique here if you haven’t taken a look at it. I might just bring that up and
show you. This is looking towards, from the north to the southwest, and we’ve just
superimposed on this site some office buildings and some residential single-family
units. This school, unfortunately, is not shown here on the site, but it would be to the
west. So our application is to allow for us to consider a mixed use. We just feel that
would be a very good use for that site. Are there any questions?
Borup: Any questions? Mr. Brown.
Brown: Do you have any trouble with the recommendation (inaudible) staff?
Stiles: No, I don’t believe so. No.
Brown: Okay.
Stiles: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anybody from the public who’d like to testify this
application? Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other question, discussion? I
think, again, as staff emphasized, that this is strictly a comp plan change. It is not
approving the layout or anything else specific on the project. The recommendation was
also to require conditional use and design review by Planning and Zoning and also pay
particular attention to buffering.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the issues that were raised last time is how
does this particular project in use work with the future plans of ACHD and ITD?
Borup: As far as their access?
De Weerd: Uh-huh. As far as the future plans of Eagle Road and access.
Borup: Okay. I could either answer that or just – I think that was addressed. Would
you like to comment on that, Shari?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 3
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, in the Eagle Road corridors study that’s been
completed, there is a public road that will be extended on this half-mile section line, and
they will incorporate that into their future plan that it will have that roadway there. We’re
not really sure the exact configuration as it comes back into this other property.
Packard Subdivision that’s in this 40 acres here has a stub street going into this
property. The current plan, as we know it, is that that stub street would go into this
property, approximately one lot depth, and then come up and follow this half-mile
section line. So they are aware of that. They have been working with Idaho
Transportation Department and will incorporate that into their plans when they submit
for a development. I’d also like to note that on this and all of these Comprehensive
Plan Amendments, we are in the process of undergoing a Comp Plan Amendment of
the entire Comprehensive Plan and a total review and update, and even though this
may be approved or recommended for approval, it doesn’t assure them that will be the
designation once we’re completed with that process. So we just wanted to make sure
that everybody knows that this is not a final thing, necessarily, if the designation
happens to change when we do the generalized land-use map for the entire impact
area.
Borup: Thank you. Did that answer your question, Commissioner? I believe, wasn’t
ITD – did that corridor study talk about no more than three access points in a mile for
the corridor study? That’s what Commissioner Brown remembers, too. Which that
would fit right in, especially on a half mile. Thank you. Any other questions from any
Commissioners? Okay. Well, we either need to do a discussion, close the hearing, or
continue it.
Brown: I’d move for closing the hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Commissioners, we can either – would we like to go ahead and discuss and
make the motions at this point? Our attorney says that they all need to be done at the
same time for a Comp Plan changes. Steve has mentioned that he felt that as long as
we do it tonight, and if they’re all – all the recommendations are passed onto City
Council at the same time, that that would meet that criteria. At one time, I was
wondering whether we need to make all nine of them in a single motion which would be
rather difficult.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 4
De Weerd: Okay. So we can make a single motion on this.
Borup: Yes. That’s – (inaudible) added that –
Rutherford: Point of clarification. The plan is to – I think it’s fine you make your motions
as we go tonight. My plan would be to prepare any recommendations you would like
me to prepare to send to City Council, and, basically, package those together with one
(inaudible) letter that said these are our recommendations on the attached
Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Borup: Okay. So we can have separate motions, but it would all be one
recommendation.
Rutherford: Correct.
Borup: That probably makes it a lot easier on the motions.
Brown: I’d recommend approval for staff’s recommendations of this Comp Plan
Amendment.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and second. Discussion? Any discussion on discussion?
Okay. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Item No. 1 is completed.
2. TABLED JULY 29, 1999: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE LAND USE OF 12.3 ACRES FROM SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL BY DEVELOPER DIVERSIFIED
REALTY CORPORATION/DAKOTA COMPANY—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND
EAST OF RECORDS: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AS
PER STAFF COMMENTS.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: I have a conflict with Items 2, 3 and 4 and would like to step down.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 5
Borup: Okay. Duly noted. Now, Items 2, 3 and 4 were tabled –
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Yes.
Barbeiro: With the recent change in my employment, I am now open to sit in on the
hearing and have sat through all of these hearing processes for this and would like to
be reinstated on this.
Borup: Okay. So noted. Commissioners, we have the option, I think, of – we can go
ahead and proceed on this, or we can open it back up to the floor for other testimony.
Is there any other testimony anybody feels – Did staff have any other comments? I
think what Will and I were just talking about, I think we’ve completed all the testimony,
we tabled these items knowing we wanted to handle all of them at the same meeting,
and I didn’t think that we couldn’t close it because then – okay. I’m sorry. Yes, we could
close it, we just didn’t act on it. We closed the public hearing, just did not act on it. We
closed and tabled. That everybody else’s remembrance, too? Okay. So we do need to
act on these items unless staff had any additional comments, but I think we had the
comments from before. It might be appropriate to review – how many Commissioners,
did the Commissioners need refreshing on this – how many Commissioners need
refreshing on this?
Barbeiro: It would be appreciated if we could do a little highlight, the Readers Digest
version of (inaudible).
Borup: My recollection is the discussion was a little bit different than some of the staff
comments, staff recommendations. At lease that’s the way the discussion was heading.
Well, let’s take them one at a time. They’re all essentially the same project. Twelve
acres to the east, and that’s the area outlined in red there, 12 acres to the east of the
project that was approved earlier. The area, I think, essentially incorporates what is
now the nursery, the D & G Nursery there. So that’s the parcel that they’re talking
about; their intention is to make a large enough parcel, the new building would be in the
red outlined area. The other area, which was originally for the building at one time,
they’re talking about the movie theater there, would become parking. But the building
was such a size they needed the extra space. The Comp Plan was – of course, it’s still
in the county, so it’s annexation, zoning in the Comp Plan changed because the Comp
Plan was – can you clarify that, Shari? What was the present designation in the Comp
Plan for that area? It was residential?
Stiles: Single-family residential.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 6
Borup: Okay. That’s what I think and single-family residential. Discussion was, and
pretty much the consensus was single-family residential. It was probably not too
appropriate on Fairview Avenue. So some change was appropriate. This piece is in
between existing subdivision and a cemetery, an active cemetery. So further to the east
was a cemetery. What’d I say? Active? Oh. Everybody’s active but the residents,
maybe. Okay. Any other questions? I don’t know if that covered – Okay. The
developer has asked for commercial designation, and I think staff’s hesitation was going
directly to the commercial without – Shari, do you want to clarify that? Was your
recommendation on condition use or –
Stiles: Our comments for the annexation and zoning portion of it was that we would
request that a development agreement be required and that any use would be required
to go through the conditional use permit as a planned development.
Borup: Thanks. Everybody understand that? Okay. I know there was some questions
on the lot lines and some of the legal descriptions and that. But I don’t – I think from my
standpoint I don’t know if those are – I didn’t feel those were major problems, maybe
some things that need to get clarified. So essentially that’s our options. If we’re talking
about, you know, approve it as requested to a commercial designation, they were
talking about a C-C zone.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, do we have the option to open the public hearing?
Borup: Well, it’s been closed.
Barbeiro: I – it’s just that I wasn’t certain if anybody had arrived to speak on this
subject --
Borup: Today?
Barbeiro: -- on this change (inaudible) the revised agenda, the original agenda showing
a continued public hearing.
Borup: Oh. At the previous hearing it was closed. That was a misunderstanding.
Barbeiro: Okay.
Borup: And we did have – I don’t think we had much public testimony.
Barbeiro: No, we didn’t. I was just commenting that the revised schedule came out
today (inaudible).
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 7
Borup: But there was some – I think the water came up again.
Barbeiro: With that, Mr. Chairman, I would wish to move that we recommend approval
to City Council, Item No. 2, request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change
land use from 12.3 acres from single-family residential to commercial by Developer
Diversified Realty Corporation, Dakota Company, making note of staff comments and
recommendations.
Borup: I think we’re going to need to clarify that. Now, that first one is just on the Comp
Plan Amendment, so the other recommendations that would affect this are on the –
would be on the other two. Okay. We have a motion.
Brown: I’ll second.
Borup: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Okay. Recommend approval of Item 2.
3. TABLED JULY 29, 1999: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
13.09 ACRES (ZONED C-C) BY DEVELOPER DIVERSIFIED REALTY
CORPORATION—4000 E. FAIRVIEW, ½ MILE EAST OF EAGLE ROAD:
APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AS PER STAFF
COMMENTS.
Borup: Item 3 is a request for – again, tabled. Item request annexation and zoning.
The zoning request is for C-C by Diversified Realty Corporation. I think this is where
staff did have some recommendations as far as the type of zoning. And then also, the
other part of that was the next item, a rezone of an existing. Do we want any further
clarification from staff on this item? Well, the difference there, I think, is the one legal
description takes in the roads, and – that correct, Shari? The difference on the acreage
size is center the roads. One’s included, center the roads, and the other is not.
Stiles: Yes.
De Weerd: Are you saying roads like streets?
Borup: Yes. Okay. Do we need to – is there any other clarification we feel we need on
this? I know it’s a little difficult when it’s been a month, whatever, when was this
previous meeting? It’s June is when we started on this.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 8
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Shari, what is the current designation for the existing family center? Is that
C-C or I-L?
Stiles: It is zoned I-L.
Borup: And that’s why the whole thing was under conditional use permit.
De Weerd: What does I-L represent?
Barbeiro: Light industrial.
Borup: Light industrial.
Stiles: This was the property that was approved several years ago back in the early
80s as a planned development for this type of development, and that’s why they just
went ahead with the conditional use for that zone.
Borup: I think the only concern on the zoning to commercial zoning would definitely be
what would be appropriate zoning, but there would not be any review which you would
have on a conditional use. If that’s a concern, yes. And that was, I think, the one staff
comment.
Barbeiro: I’m sorry. Could you say that again? I’m trying to follow the idea that –
Borup: Well, the request is for a straight commercial zone which means they’d just
come in, get a building permit and build with no review by this Commission or –
Barbeiro: Yet they would still enter into a –
Borup: Well, okay. You’re saying go ahead and do a development agreement which
could handle any stipulation we wanted to put?
Barbeiro: Yes.
Borup: So you’re saying that could accomplish the same thing as a conditional use
could.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 9
Barbeiro: Yes.
Borup: As far as your department, would that accomplish the same thing?
Stiles: I guess – we’d prefer that a condition of the annexation be that any use would
be developed under the conditional use permit process. A development agreement you
can’t get – it’s hard to get into real specifics about – you don’t know what the use is, you
don’t know what kind of buffering they’re proposing. I think it’s a lot fairer to the
surrounding property owners that they’re given the opportunity to see the actual layout
of the plan once they develop that, and the only way they can do that would be through
the conditional use process because we don’t really get into any specifics of a
development agreement until we know what the plan is. Maybe Kent has experience
with some other better ways to do it, but, I mean –
Barbeiro: We’re doing a design issue.
Borup: Which – yeah, that’s – we don’t know if we want to get into that.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: I think the thing that’s different – yeah, Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Now, if I understand it right, if a project was to go under C-C, then it basically,
there would be no review process or anything, but if it went under say like an I-L with
the adjacent property, then it would have to go through a conditional use and come
before –
Borup: Well, I think, can’t we – it can still be zoned the C-C with conditional use
stipulation –
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: -- so the zoning can still –
Hatcher: (inaudible)
Borup: Yeah. The zoning needs to be correct, and I think the difference we’ve got here
is there is a subdivision adjacent to the property which, you know, most often in a
commercial application, you’re not going to have that to contend with. We have been
given a preliminary plat of what they’re planning for that area. But a year ago, we had
another plat that didn’t happen, now, I mean, substantially I don’t think there’s been a
substantial change between the two plans other than, you know, the one’s larger, but
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 10
it’s still essentially the same usage. So that would be, I guess that would be the option
with staff’s recommendation is to recommend annexation in a C-C zoning with
conditional use.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if we could ask the developer to put up those pictures for the
Commissioners so they could see what that was? Is that out of line with – the public
hearing is closed, but it’s just a visual. There’s no testimony – and it is part of the public
record.
Borup: Yeah. Just refresh your memory on – those are already exhibits that’s been
turned in, so yes. I think we could go ahead and look at that. The white area – the gray
area’s the parking was the area that was already approved. At one time they were
proposing perhaps a theater on that site. The white area is the area we’re talking about
for the annexation, and that is where the building would go with another building down
there at the entrance. And then the area that’s already approved would be a parking
area. I believe what they did, one of the things, at least in the proposal is that they’ve
increased the landscaping buffer on the south and it looks like added some buffering to
the cemetery. Well, that’s a road – a proposed road along there, I believe. Did that
refresh your memory on the – okay. Any other questions, discussion. The I-L was
probably not the best zoning, but that’s –
Hatcher: Well, I understood there was some discussion some time ago, long before the
family center, that that might be medical I-L would allow for a medical complex, the C-C
may or may not.
Borup: Right, and they’ve been – before that time, it was one of the spots that was
talked about for the regional mall.
Hatcher: Yeah.
Borup: So it depends on how far back you want to go. And at that time, I think the City
was real anxious for that to happen. Okay. You guys ready to go ahead and verbalize
what your questions were there?
Barbeiro: Well, Mr. Chairman, if there are no –
Borup: I mean, did you have some discussion there that would be pertinent? Oh.
Okay. And why it ended up I-L? I think that was because of the whole planned unit
thing originally. They were talking an industrial and office and everything else mixed –
kind of a mixed use in there. And then the subdivision ended up getting put in after all
that other was planned. The residential was never really intended to be single-family
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 11
residential, was never really intended originally to be part of that. But it’s there, and
that’s a factor now.
Hatcher: Now, Mr. Chairman, just for public record, we were just bringing me up to
speed on some of the issues on the project, because this was heard by the
Commission prior to my appointment, so I was just a little vague on a few issues.
Borup: Okay. Did you have any other questions or did that clarify?
Hatcher: No, I think I’m okay.
Borup: Okay.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if there’s no further discussion, I would like to recommend
approval to City Council, Item No. 3, request for annexation and zoning of 13.09 acres
zoned C-C by Developer Diversified Realty Corporation to include staff comments that
a conditional use permit be a part of the recommendation.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Brown: I’ll second.
Borup: And a second. Any discussion. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
4. TABLED JULY 29, 1999: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF 11.4 ACRES (FROM
I-L TO C-C) BY DEVELOPER DIVERSIFIED REALTY
CORPORATION/DAKOTA COMPANY—SOUTH OF FAIRVIEW AND EAST OF
RECORDS: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL AS PER
STAFF COMMENTS.
Borup: Thank you. Item No. 4. This is a request for a rezone of 11.4 acres. That was
the park that was up there originally, that was designated as the parking lot, so that’s
that yellow area right there. That’s already been approved as part of the original Family
Center complex. I think the request to go from I-L to C-C was, again, just to have a
straight commercial designation, essentially without having to go through the conditional
use or any other review. (inaudible) become a part of the other parcel that we just
recommended annexation. I’m not sure in light of the motion that we just made with a
conditional use, I – I’m not sure if it’d make any difference which way this one went;
whether it stays I-L or goes C-C. Any comment on that, Shari?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 12
Stiles: I think it is really the developer’s intent to make it really conform with the
commercial use that he’s proposing instead of try to shoehorn it into that light industrial
again. Again, staff would request if it is rezoned that a condition of the rezone be to be
developed as a planned development and to be under development agreement as part
of the rezone.
Borup: So if we’re consistent, this (inaudible) probably be consistent to keep this
commercial zone as the other parcel?
Stiles: As to –
Borup: Along with the condition use? If we’re going to be consistent on what we just
did?
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: That makes sense. Okay. Any other questions? Are we ready for a motion?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, if there is no further discussion, I would like to approve
recommendation to City Council Item No. 4, request for rezone of 11.4 acres from I-L to
C-C by Developer Diversified Realty Corporation, Dakota Company, to include the
addition of a conditional use permit for any projects on this property and that this
property be combined with Item No. 3 as a planned development.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: And a second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
FOR TERRACE LAWN MEMORIAL GARDENS, INC. BY CLARK
DEVELOPMENT/BILL CLARK –4000 BLOCK FAIRVIEW AVENUE BETWEEN
EAGLE ROAD & CLOVERDALE: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY
COUNCIL AS PER STAFF COMMENTS.
Borup: Okay. Item No. 5 is a continued public hearing for Terrace lawn Memorial
Gardens by Clark Development/Bill Clark.
Brown: Welcome back.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 13
Borup: And Commissioner De Weerd is back in her chair. Okay. Again, this was one
that we had reviewed earlier. We did have the public hearing. We did not close the
public hearing at that time, so do we need any refreshing – staff, do you have any
additional comments on this item?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have our memo dated September 28th
,
1999, and our recommendations that follow. We did receive a response from the
applicant, and, again, this is not an approval of any of the concept or anything at this
point, but they are proposing that the open-space area would be the cemetery, and I’d
like to clarify that staff would consider that they need their own common area within the
development, that they couldn’t use adjacent properties as counting for their
requirement to be adjacent to the park for open-space area.
Borup: They’re saying that the Terrace Lawn Cemetery has a permanent open space?
Stiles: I can’t – Mr. Brown could probably clarify that; they’re statement is the City of
Boise designates that open space.
Borup: They cannot use the gravesites?
De Weerd: No.
Brown: It’s like a park.
Stiles: So you would consider that as meeting their open-space requirement to be
adjacent to an open space? I wouldn’t either.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Clark.
Clark: My name is Bill Clark, Clark Development, 479 Main Street. I’d like to clarify a
couple of things about the response that we made. First of all, on the item you were
just talking about with the open space, this isn’t what we said about it being adjacent to
an open space. This isn’t intended to be a substitute for required open space within the
project. This is simply a reference to the fact that it is adjacent to what essentially is
permanent open space, and is designated similarly by the City of Boise on the property
to the east, so, not trying to say that would count for any required open space.
Borup: You’re just making a note that it’s there. Is that what you’re saying? You’re just
making note that that space was there?
Clark: Yeah. Yeah.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 14
Borup: Okay.
Clark: And, also, I wanted to point out that in the staff recommendations to you, they
recommended that if you did approve the Developer Diversified, application which you
just did, or recommended it to Council, that a designation of mixed planned use would
be appropriate, and we have come to understand since submitting our application of
this difficulty that exists with the fact that the mixed residential has not been used or
really defined previously. And I think that the mixed of planned-use designation would
be satisfactory, and as I noted in my letter here, we understand that this by designated
as such that it isn’t preapproving any application, that it simply opens the door for the
possibility of the use that we have requested. Also, there was some comment about
the traffic, potential traffic. This application was reviewed by the Highway District and
approved by them. Also related to that is the fact that the property to immediately to the
east of this, is – which is showing them R-T in the white as you go eastward from that,
which is outlined in red – is designated as multi-family under the City of Boise’s
Comprehensive Plan, and we are proceeding with plans for that type of use and hope to
be able to integrate these two, although, they are in different jurisdictions. Those are
the only comments I wanted to make. If you have any questions --
Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Clark? Commissioner Brown.
Brown: So the R-T ground to the east, is that a part of the current Boise City
Annexation for the west bench?
Clark: Yes, it is.
Brown: And, so, have you asked them to change that? Because the R-T would be
classified as open space per their annexation.
Clark: Well, in their Boise City Comprehensive Plan, Commissioner, the designation for
that R-T ground in multi-family.
Brown: I understand that.
Clark: Okay. So, in the annexation process, is it your question, have we requested that
it be designated for multi-family? We haven’t made that move yet. I’ve met with the
head of the planning department and staff concerning it and have discussed how we
might go about doing that. We haven’t made that action, but is our intention to do so.
Brown: Because on their matrix, they call out the R-T as being open, an open space
similar to what a cemetery would be. They haven’t looked at the Comp Plan. What
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 15
they have done is they have looked at the county zoning, and then with their matrix
there, designated certain areas so that they have the same use as they currently do.
Clark: I’m not sure if you’re confusing – if you cross Cloverdale Road, there’s
Cloverdale Cemetery.
Brown: Right.
Clark: And all of that, which is under the same ownership as this, and all of that land
there is designated as open space.
Brown: No. What I’m making reference to is that on their matrix, no matter what your
property is, you can even have a multi-family use on something, what your zoning is
today is what they’re giving – they’ve got predefined items. And with the R-T zoning,
that’s going to stay open.
Clark. Right. Well, as you – okay. I understand what you’re saying now. It is our
intention to, in fact, we’re actively planning for the multi-family use of that site, and a
road would, as I mentioned before, a part of the agreement, and you saw on the our
plans just showed you by our Developer Diversified, that they would be constructing a
road between the Terrace Lawn Cemetery and their development. That road will be a
public road intended to serve the property we’re looking at right now. What would
happen is that that public road would then turn eastward and go to connect through to
Cloverdale Road. And that was also noted in the ACHD staff report. But, as I said, it is
our intention to request the multi-family zoning designation from the City upon
annexation.
Brown: This current property that you’re proposing for the Comp Plan Amendment
includes a much larger piece that hasn’t been subdivided yet, right?
Clark: It includes – Yes. We’ve provided to staff a legal description of this property. We
are in the process, we have created the parcel descriptions, and a portion of this
property which has not yet been broken off is that property that you just approved for
the expansion of the family center. And upon final approval of that, assuming that it’s
done by the City Council, we will then go through the parcel division process, but it is
our understanding that we, prior to the formal split of the property, that the request can
be made for designation of an area, a legally definable area under a certain
designation.
Brown: So the parcel currently described today would not be a legal land division in
Ada County?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 16
Clark: It is not yet. Nor is the property, I might add, that you just approved for
Developer Diversified. It was exact same status. But I just want to make clear, we have
the legal descriptions completed, the map’s ready, we’re ready to proceed with that.
Again, contingent upon –
Brown: Does that require a subdivision to do that?
Clark: Actually, no.
Stiles: Yes.
Clark: What it –
Brown: You’re dedicating right-of-way, and wouldn’t that require a subdivision?
Clark: We’re not dedicating any right-of-way at this time, although there may be – what
we will do is – Developer Diversified, you see in the corner of their property, there’s one
small parcel that’s actually five acres. It says R-T on it; it goes across the line. What’s
going to happen is that parcel boundary is going to be adjusted to include the entire
Developer Diversified parcel that you just approved, then there will be a –
*** End of Tape 1, Side 1 ***
-- I call it a short-platting process for the remaining parcels which would include an
expansion, what would allow for a future expansion of the Terrace Lawn Cemetery,
which is where you see that notch in this property on the eastern side of the property in
the red. Create this parcel that’s subject to this application, and thereby create a
separate parcel for the Terrace Lawn Cemetery, a separate parcel for this, and a
separate parcel for that property which is within the Boise City limits. And, actually, now
that I think about it, the way it was explained to me by the surveying firm is the city
boundaries – the impact area definition creates a boundary, I mean a parcel boundary
at south. So that already –
Brown: Not necessarily.
Clark: Not necessarily? Okay. This is how I understand it. I may have it confused, but
that property on the east will be a – which will be in the city of Boise, would be a
separate parcel, and this property would be created through a one-time split, or if
necessary, a subdivision process.
Brown: So as a part of your process you would request annexation of this piece?
Would that include Terrace Lawn too?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 17
Clark: I assume so. It would be silly not to. And what the designation would be, as I
suggested in here, it’s – as with the City of Boise, that an open space designation for
that property would be appropriate, and that’s what I was really referring to there.
Borup: And all of those things need to be worked out at the time of annexation and
future development. Any other questions for Mr. Clark from any of the commissioners?
Hatcher: Mr. Clark, my recollection was that the road going to Fairview, running north
and south of the public – will the road running east-west of Cloverdale be public or will it
be public to the property, and then there’ll be private roads within the property?
Clark: It will be – the road coming from Fairview to the property would be a public road,
and my understanding from the Highway District and Developer Diversified is that it will
be called Venture Street, and it will be built to ACHD’s standards. Once it enters the
property, what is in the ACHD’s staff report, and we have volunteered, is that it will be –
there will be a 90 degree turn. It may be something slightly different than 90 degree,
but to head eastward to Cloverdale would be a public road also.
Hatcher: No west of Venture Street?
Clark: West of Venture Street through – oh. Okay, thank you.
Hatcher: It goes over to Crossroads Subdivision.
Clark: Right. What we’ve asked, although it hasn’t been requested by the Crossroads
Subdivision, per se, it just – it might be in their interest as we move forward with this, of
the Highway District is that we – that that might be for emergency access only, and they
have left that open as to whether or not they would do that, but it would be a public road
to that point. And there is a stub from, as you can see right there, whoever’s got the
pointer is right on it. That is a requirement of the Highway District, too, that that be a
public street connection to there, whether it is always open or emergency only is
undetermined at this time.
Hatcher: I think the City’s intent would be that that would be connected. It is a public
road and it be connected with a public road.
Clark: That’s a decision, I guess, to be made by you and the Highway District. As I
said, there – none of the adjacent property owners have, in our discussions with them
or in the public hearing to this point; there may be something that I’m not aware of, has
stated any opposition to our proposal, and this issue that we’re talking about with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 18
stub street has, although I have brought it up, no one has raised a caution flag on it at
this time.
Borup: And, again, Commissioners, this is a Comp Plan change, so any design would
be another public hearing and testimony, et cetera. Any other questions for Mr. Clark?
Thank you, sir. Is there anyone here from the – like to come on up? This is your
opportunity.
Corvell: Well, I think I’ll be answered Mr. Clark’s question.
Borup: Okay. If you could state your name for the record.
Corvell: Robert Corvell, 3653 East Presidential in Crossroads Subdivision. I’m
speaking tonight not just as a property owner, but also as a Vice President of the
Homeowners Association. I have a petition signed by over half of our homeowners
against the rezoning.
Borup: Did you understand, sir, this is not a rezone?
Corvell: Well, it’s currently zoned single-family, isn’t it? Well –
Borup: It’s not in city limits this time, so it’s got a county zoning.
Corvell: Okay. Well, against having it –
Borup: Comp Plan change?
Corvell: Right. Thank you. We – like I said, we have over 130 signatures which
constitutes over half of our subdivision of 260 homeowners. It should not be construed
that the rest are –
De Weerd: I’m sorry. How many homeowners in the area?
Corvell: Two hundred sixty. It should not be construed that the others are in favor of it,
but they have not been contacted. Of the people contacted, one person said that they
didn’t care what it was, and another said that they would be in favor of apartments, but
they are not homeowners; they are renters. The reasons given are the impact on the
schools in the School District. If it is other than single-family, there would be a large
influx of school-aged children. The increase in excessive traffic, especially if Florence
becomes a through-street, a large number of people would be using that to access the
mall area. Thirdly, there, unfortunately there always seems to be a large increase in
crime which follows areas that are other than single-family, whether they be apartments
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 19
or some kind of multiple family area. And of course, the people most concerned would
be those who back up to this area. If it were multiple-family dwellings that were more
than two-story, they would, of course, have people peering into their backyards. And
lastly, if it is apartments, then that would decrease our property values accordingly. I
think that this is not just a matter of “we don’t want this in our backyard.” Crossroads
Subdivision has had to shoulder its share of the burden from Meridian in regards to
progress and expansion with the mall going in, and we feel that we’ve done our part,
and that, perhaps, if someone wants to build multiple-family dwellings that it could go
somewhere else, and I would like to submit these petitions to the City Clerk, if I could do
so.
Borup: Sure.
Corvell: Are there any questions?
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Corvell?
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Corvell, it is your request that Florence Street not be
through? That there be a block there only for access by emergency vehicles?
Corvell: Well, it’s our request that, A, this not be done. And, B, if it is done, that yes,
that Florence would not go through into the other neighborhood, whatever it is, unless,
perhaps, well – the petition states what I just said, that it not go through. And I would
not want to speculate as Vice President representing these people something else. If
you ask me personally if they were to build single-family dwellings there, that might be a
consideration, but as it stands right now, no.
Borup: And I believe that’s the same request from the developer heard from the
applicant, that it not go through also.
Corvell: Yeah.
Hatcher: Speaking for yourself –
Corvell: For myself.
Hatcher: -- on the event that it were single-family housing, you personally would have
no objection to that being a through-street.
Corvell: I personally wouldn’t, but then I don’t live on that street. I live further into the
subdivision, so it would not affect me directly.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 20
Hatcher: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions? Mr. Brown.
Brown: So you’re stating that the subdivision would prefer to see that single-family?
Corvell: Correct. I mean, we’re already somewhat isolated as it is, and with the mall on
two sides and on the – to the south of us, when Pine goes through, I would suspect that
there would probably – I’m guessing, speculating, that there would probably be some
kind of light industrial to match the Albertson’s Sundry Center and whatnot. That would
be three sides, and a forth side that would be other than single-family would almost
completely isolate us.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?
Corvell: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else like to testify? Come on up.
Yehle: I just wanted to follow Bob up here and give you –
Borup: Name for the record.
Yehle: Ray Yehle, Y-e-h-l-e, 3607 East Congressional. Bob’s representing us as Vice
President, and I’m President of the Association. I did go out on this petition and talk to
a lot of the homeowners today. I just wanted to state that we’re in a very disturbed area
right now with this commercial development around us, and we don’t know where it’s
going to end and how much more we’re going to have, and with Pine Street coming in
there someday, and an access into our subdivision off of Pine Street which is probable,
then if you tie in Florence (inaudible) to another area, and we have all this traffic, we’re
creating a lot of disturbance. I’ve talked to a lot of homeowners today, and what they’re
saying is we’ve had enough already. We don’t need any more disturbances out here,
and we’re going to move. We’re selling out. What’s happening is then realtors are
buying these homes and turning them into rentals because they’re closely associated
with the shopping center. We don’t want that. The City of Meridian approved single-
family dwellings. We’re boxed in there. We’re helpless. We’re surrounded by
commercial. Wasn’t supposed to go in there, but it did. We didn’t know this was going
to take place of all the major shopping center around us. We thought it was going to be
a little family center, doctor offices and so forth. But look at it now. And then (inaudible)
keeps expanding. What are you doing to us as individual homeowners who invested
our money in trying to make a nice little residential area out of it and a lot of retired
people and a lot of veterans like myself, and Bob’s a veteran, and we have some
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 21
veterans in there. We would like to live comfortably without a lot of havoc, a lot more
disturbances. Anything that you can do to keep more roads coming into that area and
give us more privacy, we’d appreciate it from the Meridian Council. That’s my opinion.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Yehle?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Yehle, you’ve talked about Pine Street coming in and
connecting elsewhere within the subdivision (inaudible).
Yehle: Well, Pine Street, when it goes through by the year 2001 or 2002 down by the
school, okay, we have a little stub street that’s going to tie right into Pine Street, and
they’ll want to make that an access from Pine, and then that gives an access off of Pine
Street through our subdivision over to part of that subdivision off of Eagle Road. Then if
you open up Florence all the way through, it gives them an access there to access over
to the south part of the shopping center on Eagle Road. So we’d become just cross-
through traffic all the way through our subdivision. We have no privacy anymore.
Borup: So, sir, do you feel that the access to Pine would be a detriment to the
subdivision, then?
Yehle: I definitely do.
Borup: Okay, could I – my recollection from the ACHD’s position and from others that
have testified earlier was that they wanted that because Pine Street is where the light is
going to be. There’s going to be a signal light there. That would enable the residents
from the subdivision to be able to exit without having to go through all the traffic from
the mall, from the shopping center, and that Pine Street would be more of exit for the
residents, for the residential area.
Yehle: Well, I think you’re right as far as for the residents. I think it would be good for
us, but it would sure not be good for us when the public uses it through our subdivision
to access the different parts of that new subdivision, either on the north of us or to the
west of us.
Borup: (inaudible) with that, if there was cut-through.
Yehle: Yes. So, I mean, in one way, it is good for us and the other way is really going
to hurt us. So, I, you know –
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, sir.
Yehle: You’re welcome.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 22
Borup: You wanted to testify? Come on up.
Ames: (inaudible) My name is Michael Ames and I live on 1090 North Principle. I’m
Crossroads Subdivision, and I’m here to voice my concerns. My primary concern is
about multiple (inaudible) that would be built on – can you hear me okay? I’m tired.
(inaudible) hear anything. My primary concern is that the back up the – (inaudible) right
below the block south of it. (inaudible) talk about apartment or something (inaudible) it
would block the view to my backyard, and my primary concern is about (inaudible)
degrees (inaudible) and now, I just found out about the whole thing a few days ago.
And (inaudible) going on, and (inaudible) told me that they have (inaudible) and I
learned that most of my neighbors on my street have not heard about (inaudible) what
is going on. Are they playing a game, or what? And after being informed (inaudible)
that I can (inaudible) I am a homeowner in Crossroads Subdivision, and I have a
backyard connecting to open space right now, and I’m asking you to inform the
developer whoever you (inaudible) to be more communicating with the people who live
there. I’ve (inaudible) family (inaudible) family (inaudible) in the back yard to mine.
Borup: Thank you.
Ames: I don’t know if I communicated good, but (inaudible).
Borup: Good. Any questions for Mr. Ames?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Ames, could you please point to where your home is on this map,
please?
Ames: Yes, I can. Right there to be exact.
Barbeiro: Your concern is that this development would block your view?
Ames: Right, because it would be so close to the backyard (inaudible), and I’m worried
about the privacy at night. My living room faces the backyard rather than the front –
rather than the front yard, and I’m concerned – and I know that some of the
homeowners – but, on both sides of my house have the living room facing the
backyard, and it faces to the mountains, and that’s why I bought the land because of
the beautiful view. And I wouldn’t mind having a single-level, single-family home rather
than having apartment built in the backyard. And I’ve been used to the privacy, and I’m
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 23
(inaudible) my house will go down, and I (inaudible), and I intend to stay there as long
as possible.
Barbeiro: If I could keep Mr. Ames here for a moment and ask staff, the R-T
designation, which is adjacent to Mr. Ames’ home, do we have any proposals to go in
there as of yet?
Borup: That’s owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Correct?
Stiles: Currently this is a field back behind the Seventh Day Adventist Church. It’s all
maintained as pretty much a park area. It’s all open.
Hatcher: Mr. Ames – do you have a one-story or two-story home?
Ames: One.
Hatcher: If single-family residence went in there that had two-story with a steep peak,
would that not be very similar to the privacy issues you might have if they put a two-
and-a-half story apartment complex there?
Ames: (inaudible) if all possible.
Hatcher: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand.
Ames: I’m going to have a problem with the two-story house. If I – (inaudible) and cut
the house in half (inaudible)
Hatcher: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ames.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Peterson: Ladies and gentlemen of Commission, my name is Doug Peterson. I’m an
adjacent property owner in the Crossroads Subdivision to the proposed project by Clark
Development. I have a letter here sent to me today by my wife who is out of state on
business. I’d like to read that to you, if I could, enter her concerns. “I’m recording my
protest of the proposed Clark Development Project at 4000 block of Fairview. One of
the main reasons that we bought the property we did is because we were told that
nothing would be built on this site. I do not want to have an apartment complex behind
my house. I do not want to lose my view of the mountains, and I do not want my
privacy invaded by someone having a taller building, having the ability to look into my
house. I do not want the crime rate in our area to increase due to the transient
population living in my backyard. When considering granting Mr. Clark his request,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 24
please ask yourself the following questions: Who will compensate us for the loss in our
property value? Would you want an apartment complex built next to you that takes
away your view of the mountains? Would you want your crime rate to increase due to a
more transient population? If you were looking for an apartment to rent, would you
want to be in that location? I would not. Had we known Shopko was going to be built
where it was, we would not have bought in the Crossroads Subdivision. Please
consider using that piece of property for a park. The City of Meridian does not have
enough parks. I would even welcome the increase in my property taxes to turn this
piece of land into a park. Another consideration would be to let the cemetery have this
piece of property. Along with the increase in population, there’s going to be a need for
more cemetery space. Please do not let there be apartments or townhouses on this
property.” For myself, personally, I am strongly opposed to this development. We really
enjoy the open area behind there. We assumed that probably there would be houses
built there eventually. It is now a sod farm. We do have a beautiful view of the
mountains behind our house. We have a very quiet neighborhood because the only
people in there are Crossroads residents. There are no through-streets in that area.
We’d like to keep it that way. We do have several children in the area, and we are
severely concerned about increased traffic if any through-streets did go through to that
area. We had the same concerns about Pine Street as was mentioned earlier. Yes, it is
a challenge to get onto Eagle during rush hour, but it also is a challenge for people who
would like to come through the development to go to the new Crossroads Mall. Any
questions?
Borup: Any questions?
Hatcher: Mr. Peterson, so you would prefer to see it remain single-family?
Peterson: I would. I would prefer to see it remain the way it is or be a park, but --
Hatcher: Well, it’s currently owned by the cemetery. The cemetery could use it for a
cemetery. But –
Peterson: It’s currently used by D & B Sod Farms to grow sod.
Hatcher: And I’m sure that’s a lease that they had –
Peterson: Yeah. I’m sure it is. There’s an amount of traffic that goes right behind my
backyard now because of the sod farm. But, you know, we live with that. I am an
adjacent property owner. I’m right on the corner of the red square.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Peterson, if you can move the little pencil mark up there to
the corner, is that where your property is now?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 25
Peterson: That’s my property, yes. 1194 North Legislative Way.
Barbeiro: You say that if you had known that Shopko was going in, of course, now you
know that there’s going to be an 800,000 square feet of development in that area, you
would not have purchased in that area?
Peterson: I would not. We knew that there was a family center going in there
(inaudible) family center, we envisioned tennis courts and park and swing sets and
(inaudible).
Barbeiro: If I may ask, when did you purchase your home?
Peterson: When did we purchase home? Approximately a year ago.
Barbeiro: I have had numerous discussions with many, many, many of your neighbors
with regards to the representation of the property and the homes with regard to the
family center, and I have yet to have someone tell me, “Yeah. My realtor told me that
that was going to be –
Peterson: Right.
Barbeiro: -- a large shopping center.” There was a large 16-foot by 16-foot sign on the
corner that said that was going to be a shopping center.
Peterson: It said the family center.
Barbeiro: I can only assume your realtor was infinitely aware of the project and what
was going in there and did not inform you of that.
Peterson: I can only assume that also.
Barbeiro: Okay. I deeply sympathize with that on-going concern because the realtors
in town were all aware of what was going in there. It was highly publicized. But, of
course, you not focusing on that would not have necessarily known that. The – your
first concern is for the privacy of your backyard. That you don’t want somebody looking
into your backyard; is that correct?
Peterson: That is correct. That is one of our concerns.
Barbeiro: With regards to your wife’s requests, it’s not reasonable to assume that’s
going to become or remain a park.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 26
Peterson: That’s her preferred use if she had any say to the zoning.
Barbeiro: I just think I’d rather have single-family home than a cemetery backing up to
the back of my house.
Peterson: I think a cemetery would be nice.
De Weerd: They’re quiet.
Barbeiro: Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
Peterson: Thank you.
Borup: Anyone else? Last chance.
Durkin: My name is Larry Durkin. My address is 380 East Park Center Boulevard,
Boise, Idaho. I just wanted to make a point of clarification on the road that’s coming in
off of Fairview. We are the developers of the Family Center project, and I do have a
pretty good prop from one of the earlier presentations that’s we leave with Will as part
of the project, but would it be all right if I put that up? I’ll just point it out what we’re
doing?
Borup: Sure.
Durkin: Our company has entered into a purchase agreement for this property to the
west side of – excuse me, to the east side of Venture Street. One of the obligations in
our purchase agreement is to install this road to this point which we fully intend to do.
One thing I would like to point out to you is that this is a fairly close representation of the
plan that we’ll be submitting soon for this development, and we have taken steps to
screen the back of this road, and you notice there’s not access onto Ventura (sic) from
this property, so I’ve – we are constructing this with a wall, there’s a wall here, but it will
dead-end into the property that you’re now talking about. In the traffic studies that
we’ve done, updated and submitted to the City, I’m not aware of anything taken into
consideration for this to tie into Crossroads, but in looking at the map, and I’ll take this
down and maybe, Shari, could you put up the other one? I really would see a detriment
in having that continued through to Cloverdale. With the installation of a stoplight that is
now up at Records Drive and Fairview, and, obviously, there’s a stoplight at Eagle Road
and Fairview, I think it’s a valid concern that people would take that as a cutoff and cut
through a subdivision or cut through to Pine through the subdivision. And I know, in
talking to the developer about this, talking to Clark Development about this, it isn’t their
desire to connect it. And we’d recommend that what action you take on this tonight if
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 27
there’s – I just would recommend that you advise ACHD of your concern of having a
through-street from this subdivision all the way to Cloverdale Road. ACHD has
approved many of these types of things in the past with an emergency crash gate
situation that I think that’ll be appropriate here.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Durkin? Larry, maybe just one clarification. Do you
remember when the first public hearing took place for the family center?
Durkin: For the Family Center as we now know it or the first Family Center hearing, it
wasn’t the Family Center at the time. There was a hearing –
Borup: For the first one.
Durkin: The first one I was involved in was December of 1997; the first public hearing,
and it was –
Borup: So it’s been public record since that time?
Durkin: Right. And then we had a monthly public hearing for about a year.
Borup: Right. Well, I was trying to remember how long it had been. Then the other is
more of a curiosity, and you’ll need to answer this. I just want why are you buying
property and building a road that doesn’t have anything to do with your project? That’s
very nice, but –
Durkin: Well, that’s just a business decision we make, and we do lots of things like that,
but it was part of the property purchase commitment that we made.
Borup: Okay.
Durkin: The way we purchased the land. But we are going to do it and it is in our
application to, and I just wanted to confirm that on the record to (inaudible)
Borup: I’m sure that Mr. Clark appreciates it. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay.
Ames: Hi. I’m Holly Ames. Same address as Michael Ames, my husband, and I’m
concerned about the apartment because I value my privacy more than anything else. I
don’t like people looking in my backyard. I like to be free in my back – can you hear
me? Okay. I like to be free in my backyard and do whatever we want without
somebody peeking in our backyard. Secondly, I don’t like the apartment because I’m
concerned about the crime. Michael and I have plans to have kids, but now we are
reconsidering because shopping center, maybe possibly apartment. It’s a very, very
nice area, and I would hate to see it – I hate to see it – too many building, too many
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 28
people, because in Idaho, it’s a beautiful place, and nice mountain view, and if we had
known it was going to be like this, we would never bought property.
Borup: Any questions for Mrs. Ames? Just maybe one for clarification. I wasn’t sure if
you realize exactly where this project is located. The area that’s outlined in red is a
property that’s being discussed. The area that backs up against your house is owned
by the church.
Ames: Yeah. I understand that.
Borup: Okay.
Ames: But if you build an apartment, what if the developer wants to build more or
something else? I would rather have a peaceful area as whole, as a park or cemetery,
but I can live with single-floor residential. That’s what I’m for, but I’m totally against
apartment even though it’s not directly in my backyard. You can see it – facing the
mountains on my left side.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Commissioners,
discussion? Mr. Clark, would you like to summarize?
Clark: Yes, Commissioners, Bill Clark again. Very briefly, I’d like to repeat that it’d be
our desire to have an emergency access only connection between us and the
Crossroads Subdivision, and as was noted by one of the Commissioners, that could be
the case whether this is a single-family development or not. And it could be also
impacted by multi-family development on maybe Boise’s side of the border. Also,
although we are not at that stage yet, being that we’re discussing on the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, we would be quite comfortable and anticipate that
there would be discussions about the design, buffering, heights, those sorts of things
that could make for a compatible relationship between the two types of development.
As was also noted in the discussion, it could be that two-story and larger homes could
be blocked up right against the edge of that property as well. With respect to views, we
might be able to do better than that. So those are my only comments in response. If
there are any other questions, I’d be glad to answer them.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Clark? Thank you, sir.
Clark: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioners.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Having been one of the commissioners that sat through the
Crossroads and Family Center testimonies, and they kind of got a hard time because
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 29
they are in the middle of an industrial, and even though their realtors kind of misled
them, it was industrial, and this was a permitted use. I hate to see since this is a single-
family, changing this because when they moved in there, it was single-family and I don’t
want to put another impact on them like this. If we gave them a hard time that they
didn’t know it was industrial, then at least this was single-family and they know what is
going to go in their backyard if something does go in there.
Borup: Anyone else? Mr. Brown.
Brown: Shari, with a single-family designation, they could go R-8, is that the most
dense that they could go? Could they go to an R-15?
Stiles: We do have some development within the city that’s zoned R-15 that is single-
family. That’d be The Lakes at Cherry Lane. They’re all townhouse units on separate
lots.
Brown: The thing that I see about this, my only concern is that the church property to
the south, the Seventh Day Adventist site is going to be park-like or zoning that, to my
knowledge, the Seventh Day Adventist Church plans on leaving that and using that
entire campus. They have a school there also. The cemetery’s not going to move, so
it’s going to stay there. You normally take transition from single-family to commercial
with the type of development that Mr. Clark’s proposing. R-15 zoning would allow him
to do greater density than what he’s proposing, but it would be single-family units. The
use that he’s asking for could still have that R-15 zoning on it. He could ask for that or
an R-8 and still have townhouses. And from a planning standpoint, any time that you
have single-family, that’s considered applicable uses or compatible uses, whether that’s
an acre lot next to half acre, quarter acre, or an eighth of an acre. Those are
compatible uses. And so you need some transitions, especially when we’re
recommending approval of commercial zoning along Fairview which makes sense. And
so it kind of puts, you know, muddies the water as far as I’m concerned. If we could go
up to an R-15 zoning of what he currently has, it, you know, it’s kind of 50/50. What it
does is stops him from doing apartments. That’s the only thing I can see that he
doesn’t get.
Borup: (inaudible) another minute. Anyone else?
Hatcher: To follow up on that, I think more appropriately, when we’re talking about
transitioning and buffering, you know, we have the cemetery and we have the church
property that’s pretty much vacant land or grass, then a transition of multi-family to a
single; that’s not a transition. That’s a wall. It would seem more appropriate, the R-8 or
less, even an R-4, maybe even an L-O would be more of a transition from the open
space to a single-family subdivision.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 30
Brown: But we’re not looking at zoning right now. What we’re looking at is the Comp
Plan Amendment.
Hatcher: Correct.
Brown: And the Comp Plan Amendment with the current zoning or with the proposed
zoning would allow him to have the R-15.
Hatcher: Without any change.
Brown: Without any change.
Hatcher: That’s correct.
Stiles: It still goes through the process, though.
Hatcher: Correct. Because it’ll be coming back to us anyway.
Brown: Then we would be viewing it a zone and multi-family is a transition to
commercial areas.
Hatcher: Yeah. I’m aware of that, but in this unique condition –
Stiles: Yeah.
Hatcher: I mean, a multi-family between – if we had a strip of property between the
Family Center and Crossroads, I would agree with you and say multi-family is a good
buffer between those two uses, but we don’t have that. What we’re talking about is the
separation or the transition between open ground to the subdivision. And I don’t think –
Brown: But you have a transition from the multi-family that’s going to be on the eastern
(inaudible) and Boise City. But the side that’s on ours, we have to transition. I mean,
yes, they could do a Comp Plan Amendment in Boise and have that go single-family,
but that’s not going to be compatible with the uses, commercial uses that are going to
be at the corner of Fairview and Cloverdale. And those will be commercial uses. So
you’re going to have multi-family on the Boise side of the line, and you’re going to have
this open space behind you.
Hatcher: I know exactly what you’re saying, where you’re going with it, and over at
Cloverdale on the Boise side, it’s a perfect layout for that transition. We have
commercial on Fairview then the R-T to the east of this site is multi-family, and then say
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 31
the church sells out and that becomes a subdivision. But, again, we don’t have that
luxury because we have the Family Center right smack up against this subdivision.
This is off to the side, so I don’t see what the transition is.
Brown: So then you’re saying then if we stayed with the single-family, you have the
property that we just approved, and the applications that we just approved, which is
commercial –
Hatcher: Uh-huh. Right up against –
Brown: -- right up against what is single-family. And the complaint that the residents
have about that.
Hatcher: And again –
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: With all the discussion, I have lost sight of what the ramifications of the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be in its purest form, regardless of the
proposed development here because this development is not likely going to be what is
actually built. Could you clarify it for me what voting for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would entail?
Borup: I don’t know if I can, but I’m sure I can get some help. The applicant’s request
was mixed-residential. Unfortunately, Meridian does not have a definition of that term
which has made us very hesitant to designate something without a definition. Staff’s
recommendation was to go to mixed/planned use development with everything
controlled under conditional use which could incorporate – how I think a lot of the
comments have been made, something like that would allow us to designate that area
adjoining Crossroads as some type of single-family with the transition to multi-family as
it transitioned into the other multi-family as it perhaps transitions into the commercial to
the north. But I would like Shari to maybe clarify. Do you remember what his question
was? Question was the ramifications of this Comp Plan change; how’s that going to
really affect – do you need to repeat that again, Tom?
Barbeiro: Do I?
Borup: I don’ t know.
Barbeiro: Shari, I was going over the notes here with regards to there not being a
mixed-residential designation. We have the option of recommending a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment and that it be zoned mixed/planned use development; is that correct?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 32
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: Yes.
Barbeiro: And that is, of course, allows us to go to a specific definition in our zoning
ordinance; is that right?
Borup: Right.
Stiles: I guess our main concern was that there is not definition for the mixed-
residential, and it could be construed by someone as any number of things; whereas, if
it’s mixed/planned use development, Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council would have the control of making sure that they find that whatever is proposed
there, it is harmonious with the surrounding development, and, you know, it may be that
multi-family’s not approved. It could be that you’re asking for an office use or, you
know, it could be a daycare and offices. It could be a variety of uses in that area that
could serve as a buffer between the single-family development and the commercial
development, but not necessarily a – this is approved for mixed-residential when we
don’t even know what that is.
Barbeiro: Would approving this with a mixed/planned use development designation
then require either a conditional use permit or a plan – a development plan?
Stiles: Yes in accordance with our current Comprehensive Plan, it would.
Barbeiro: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: And again, the final sentence in this staff’s comments was that approval of a
change in land use designation in no way indicates approval of any concept plans
presented. Anything else? Sir, did you have a comment that you think will be
pertinent?
Peterson: I’d just like to address Mr. Brown’s comments about –
Borup: State your name again, please.
Peterson: Doug Peterson.
*** End of Tape 1, Side 2 ***
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 33
-- Our main concern is homeowners adjacent to this property is not the difference
between single-family housing – is between single-family housing and multiple-family
housing. single-family housing typically entails homeowners, people who have a vested
interest in living in that area, where multi-family typically, a larger percentage of renters,
who really don’t have a vested interest in preserving the quality of life in that area.
Granted, they live there, but it’s easy for them to – decide, okay, I don’t like this place
anymore. We’ve trashed it. We’re moving to another place. As a homeowner, you
typically don’t do that. That’s my concern with that.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Clark.
Clark: Yes. Thank you, again, Bill Clark. One last response to this comment which is
multi-family housing does not necessarily entail all of the bad things that have been said
here. I, myself, have developed a project here in the Boise area that is multi-family that
is all ownership, and the average price is over $200,000 a unit. One thing I would like
to stress about your regulations under this mixed/planned use designation which I said
would be acceptable to us is that you’re going to retain the ability to control what
happens there, and there’s been several comments to this affect, with that designation
as to the design, as to the use, as to the open space, and I want to underline that that
would allow the neighbors to make comment in the future, too. If it were simply
designated single-family, they wouldn’t have any choice but as to – I mean, single-
family you go ahead and proceed and it doesn’t necessarily involve any discretion on
your part or involvement on the part of the neighbors. I do also want to add, and I
guess this is probably an apology, too. Several comments have been made about us
not contacting people. We did try to contact all our neighbors, and in the case of the
Crossroads Subdivision, talked with the President of the Homeowners Association and
with Lorelle Rogers who is, I’m told, been the primary contact between the
neighborhood and the City, and I said, if you want to have any meetings with the group
as a whole, just let me know, and I explained – went through the plans with the two of
them, and they said they would get back to me. I contacted the President again, and
they said no. There’s no meeting necessary. So there was some miscommunication
there, but not that we were negligent or trying to avoid that possibility.
Borup: Thank you.
Clark: Thank you.
Borup: Do you have a question for – Mr. Clark.
Hatcher: Mr. Clark, do you have a problem with the staff report?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 34
Clark: No as far as their recommendation, I don’t. I had made a clarification on the
point about the traffic needing to be further studied, but I don’t have an objection to
anything in there.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners. Did Mr. Ames have another question?
Ames: My name is Michael Ames, (inaudible) can you hear me okay?
Borup: Yes.
Ames: I can’t hear, so – I’ve been listening to discussion regarding to this area.
(inaudible) R-8 rather than R-15, and I will (inaudible) R-4 happening in the back of my
backyard, and I (inaudible) please give it sincere consideration to the (inaudible) of
Crossroads Subdivision and get (inaudible) and I would ask (inaudible) give them a
break, if you will, please.
Borup: Okay, Commissioners. Do you still wish to keep this hearing open?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Brown: I second.
Borup: We have a motion and second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: If I could ask the Clerk to read the wording on the petition submitted to us by
the residents of Crossroads.
Berg: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner. “ We the undersigned residents of
Crossroads Subdivision at the southwest corner of Fairview and Eagle in Meridian are
opposed to any rezoning of land east of the subdivision that could result in the
allowance of multiple-family residential building. We feel that the zoning should only
allow for single-family residential homes. Second, we oppose any future extension of
East Florence Drive beyond the boundaries of the subdivision. There are several
reasons why we think it is not acceptable in allowing rezoning. First, zoning for
multiple-family dwellings will create a large influx of school-aged children. The Meridian
School District is having difficulty handling the present population of school-aged
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 35
children. Rezoning with the possibility of a large number of school-aged children would
produce an undue strain on the schools. Second, anything other than single-family
housing would cause excessive traffic within in the area. The city’s streets within our
subdivision should not be used as thoroughfares or extra entrances to future
construction outside this subdivision. Traffic would increase as people drive through
Crossroads Subdivision to access Florence. Also many people would use Records
Drive to gain access to Florence, therefore infringing on the residential atmosphere we
have struggled to obtain. Third, rezoning to allow for multiple-family dwellings would
cause a future increase in crime adjacent to the Crossroads Subdivision. Multiple-
family dwellings consistently have a greater crime rate than that of single-residential
construction. Finally, many Crossroads residents moved into the area not knowing the
present zoning of the land east of the subdivision. This rezoning, if allowed to go
forward, would decrease home values within the subdivision and eliminate the privacy
of the residents directly adjacent to any future multiple-family construction. For the
above-mentioned reasons, we are opposed to this rezoning. Please consider these
issues.”
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, are we looking at a motion or some – do we need
some discussion first? Okay. I think we’ve had testimony, we’ve got staff’s
recommendations.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, the designation mixed/planned use development would be the
same as mixed use or view areas? Or is there another designation that I am missing?
Borup: You’re saying your not finding that definition in the – comment on that, Shari? Is
the terminology a mixed/planned use development? Is that in our book?
Barbeiro: Is that the same as the mixed use review area?
Stiles: In the zoning ordinance?
Barbeiro: Yeah.
Stiles: Mixed use –
Borup: You need to be looking in the Comp Plan. Sorry. You’re looking at zoning
ordinance rather than Comp Plan designation.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: I did that same thing two months ago. I forgot about it. We’re okay. I think
you’ll find the definition there in the Comp Plan definitions. Mr. Brown.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 36
Brown: Shari, in the R-15 zoning, if that’s what’s allowed in the single-family, which it
appears to me to be, is it allows for medium- to high-density attached and multi-family
dwellings and down at the bottom it says patio homes, zero lot line, single-family
homes, townhouses, apartment buildings condominiums. So with the current
designation in the Comp Plan, they could achieve what they’re proposing in their project
today; is that correct?
Stiles: I guess I didn’t – I don’t consider apartments to be compatible with what the
single-family designation is.
Brown: So are you saying that R-15 is not a single-family designation?
Stiles: R-15 permits single-family dwellings, but the apartments would, of course, not
be single-family dwellings.
Brown: But the zoning ordinance, under the definition of what an R-15 zone is, and,
obviously, that would have to be something that would be approved, what they have
today, they’re not in the city limits, they’re just asking for the Comp Plan Amendment,
but if they were able to achieve an R-15 zone as it’s currently designated on the Comp
Plan, they could build their project without having the change that they’re requesting.
Stiles: If they can make it single-family residential.
Brown: Well –
Stiles: The lots would be smaller.
Brown: Right, but the R-15 zone allows for apartments in my reading of the zone. It
allows for condominiums, patio homes and apartments. And it states in there the multi-
family is allowed in the R-15.
Stiles: With the condition use.
Brown: True. But that – so with their current zoning, or with their current Comp Plan,
they could achieve the same thing that they’re trying to get now, but they would have to
get the zone approved, and they would also have to get a conditional use. With what
they’re asking for, they – your request or staff’s request is that they go through a
conditional use.
Stiles: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 37
Brown: They could still ask for an R-15 zone with the new Comp Plan or they could ask
for, I guess, the R-8 or the – I mean, with a mixed-family, they could go down R-4; right?
They could ask for that.
Stiles: Yes. I guess – I still – I know Boise is different as far as they have a
compatibility matrix in their Comprehensive Plan. We don’t. And we take that definition
of single-family residential pretty literally, and apartments, I still don’t think, would be
consistent with a single-family residential zone.
Brown: So if I understand you correctly, then if they ask for an R-15 zone, and they
were as a part of that their conditional use had apartments, staff’s recommendation
would not be to approve the R-15 zone?
Stiles: With the current single-family residential designation, right. And I would hate –
with as much single-family designation as we have, I would hate to open that up and
just say apartments are permitted anywhere or acceptable in all those areas.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I would like to read from and get comments on from staff the
Comprehensive Plan mixed/planned use development with regards to how it was to be
implemented in the (inaudible) adjacent to I-84 Overland Road and Franklin Road. It is
5.9: “The integrity and identity of any adjoining residential neighborhood should be
preserved through the use of buffering techniques including screen plantings, open
space and other landscaping techniques.” If we were to change this to a – change our
Comprehensive Plan to allow for this to be used as a mixed use development, the 5.11
would also come into effect: “The character, site improvements and type of
development should be harmonized with previously developed land in the area and
where located adjacent to or near any existing residence or residential area shall be
harmonized with the residential uses and all reasonable efforts shall be made to reduce
the environmental impact on the residential area including noise and traffic reduction.”
Shari, could you comment on that and tell us how that would apply to this particular
property as it was referenced originally for the Franklin and Overland I-84 (inaudible).
It’s on Page 24 of that Comprehensive Plan, if you’re looking.
Stiles: I don’t have a copy of the Comprehensive Plan in front of me.
Barbeiro: 5.9 and 5.11, Page 28.
Stiles: This is referring to mixed use areas not mixed residential.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 38
Barbeiro: In your recommendations, I read it as saying staff could support designation
of this area as mixed/planned use development, and what I just read is mixed/planned
use development notes.
Stiles: Yes. I guess I don’t know what you’re asking me, Tom.
Barbeiro: Do these two items I read, would they also apply specifically to a
mixed/planned use development on Mr. Clark’s property?
Stiles: Provided the Comprehensive Plan were changed, yes. This is referring to
Franklin Overland I-84.
Barbeiro: Right.
Stiles: So it would need to include those areas. It does show mixed use area at Locust
Grove Road and Fairview Avenue plus areas north of Fairview Avenue, but that really
doesn’t include this place either.
Barbeiro: Right. And understanding that the Comprehensive Plan when originally
written did not designate this area in the same manner.
Stiles: If that is your recommendation, that certainly could be made to apply to this
piece too.
Barbeiro: Okay. That’s what I like. Thank you.
Borup: Yes. So did you reach any conclusions from that?
Barbeiro: Only that we can’t include the wording of the current Comprehensive Plan to
any recommendations we make to City Council on a change of Comprehensive Plan on
this property owned by Mr. Clark.
Borup: So are you thinking of a recommendation?
Barbeiro: I’m awaiting any further discussion from my fellow commissioners.
Borup: Commissioners, discussion? Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: I have no further discussion.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 39
Hatcher: Nope. Me neither.
Borup: Commissioner Brown. Would you like to repeat your earlier comments, or --
Brown: I guess I differ with what Shari has stated. If the R-15 zone is a single-family
zone, are you saying that it’s not?
Stiles: It does permit single-family dwellings in that zone, yes.
Brown: But it’s not strictly single-family. I think that’s the difference.
Borup: But it can be both.
Brown: Okay, well with the Comp Plan designation, if he came in and asked for an
R-15 zone and he had attached townhouses, you would allow an R-15 zone? You
would recommend approval on R-15 zone?
Stiles: Yes.
Brown: In a single-family zone, or in the single-family Comp Plan designation?
Stiles: If they were single-family.
Brown: So what’s the difference? I’m trying to see what is Mr. Clark gaining by getting
this change?
Stiles: Apparently he wants some apartments.
Brown: Well, the R-15 zone allows apartments.
Borup: But that’s the R-15 zone. It needs a different Comp Plan designation.
Brown: Well –
Stiles: Attached townhouses would be on individual lots. It’s single-family homes.
Even though they’re attached, they would be single-family homes under individual
ownership.
Brown: Right.
Stiles: So I guess it’s the ownership that makes them the single-family.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 40
Brown: So you’re saying that the R-15 zone only applies to the current zone if he does
townhouses. To his current Comp Plan?
Stiles: Right. That’s my interpretation, and if, you know, I would really hate to see, I
mean, look at this map, and you see how much is single-family residential. We’ll have
50 applications tomorrow if that’s going to be the interpretation of single-family is that
apartments are permitted in it.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Shari, you’re discussing the idea that R-15 generally refers to single-family
homes that are owned by the occupants. Isn’t the area around James Court where
there’s 96 townhouses out there that are in buildings four by four, are those – those are
all rentals. Is that an R-15 designation in there?
Borup: But I don’t think that’s the question. The question here is that the Comp Plan’s
designated this as single-family. That’s why is your question a Comp Plan change.
That area –
Stiles: They are R-15 and they are apartments.
Barbeiro: You have a combination of apartments and townhouses back in James Court.
Stiles: They are all apartments.
Barbeiro: Okay. So we have an R-15 and those townhouses are all rentals; they’re
not –
Borup: I’m not sure that there were some 4-plexes that originally put in as apartments
that made application a few years ago to condo?
Barbeiro: Yes, they did.
Borup: I’m not sure if that ever even happened –
Stiles: No, it didn’t.
Borup: -- whether or not – that’s what I’d understood that that never – so I don’t know
that there are any townhouses in that area.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 41
Barbeiro: Okay.
Borup: I don’t think so.
Brown: So with your recommendation, staff’s recommendation, then you’re
recommending approval to allow him the ability with your interpretation of the R-15 zone
to have apartments possibility in the future.
Stiles: I’m not even considering zoning at this time.
Brown: Right. I understand that. But –
Borup: I think what they’re saying is with a mixed/planned use , with a conditional use,
there’s going to be some control on the layout.
Brown: Well, we’re going to have the same type of control with any rezone and the
annexation –
Borup: And that’s, well –
Brown: -- where you have that control.
Borup: Not if it’s designated mixed-residential. Are you talking which designation?
Brown: The one that staff’s recommending or the one that he currently has.
Borup: Oh.
Brown: We have that control today.
Borup: No we don’t. Not if say we wanted to recommend single-family residential
against a subdivision and apartments against the Boise boundary which would be other
apartments. If there was more of a transition, we wouldn’t have that opportunity.
Brown: Well, he would have to have a zone that would allow him to have the
apartments, and we would see that, and before we would approve the zone, we’d have
a concept that would approve that. We’d have a CUP.
Borup: Without doing a Comp Plan change. Would that work?
Stiles: R-40 permits single-family homes, too. Are you saying that he can come in with
an R-40 and do apartments and that’s –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 42
Borup: No. He’s saying not do a Comp Plan change. Wait for annexation and zoning,
and at that time, the design would be looked at and –
Stiles: I wish we’d talked before this meeting, Kent.
Borup: Pardon?
Brown: I was late. Sorry.
Stiles: There’s another area tonight that’s going to magnify exactly what you’re talking
about, Kent, as far as if that’s the case, we’re in a lot of trouble.
Borup: I think what he’s saying is if –
Stiles: You’re saying with single-family residential, he could go ahead and come in,
request an R-15 for apartments, and the City could just deny it? Or would they be
obligated to approve it because –
Brown: They wouldn’t be obligated to approve it. What I’m stating is, if I understand
your recommendation, you’re recommending approval to a mixed/planned use
development; correct?
Stiles: If anything. If it is approved, and if you do go through with apparently you’ve
approved the –
Brown: Well, reading Steve’s staff report, it says that he’s recommending approval –
Stiles: If Developer Diversified were – if you recommend approval of that.
Brown: Correct. Okay. So if we go to the mixed/planned use development
designation versus the single-family that it has, he can still come in with single-family,
but he would have more favorable staff comments with regards to apartments; is that
correct? Now, if he stays at the designation that he has today, he can still come in with
single-family, he would have to submit a CU Planned Development to have an R-15
zone and have apartments, and he would receive an unfavorable response from staff; is
that –
Stiles: Right.
Brown: -- is that correct?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 43
Stiles: That’s where I’d come from.
Brown: So with the staff report, then, you’re recommending that this has – you would
rather see that the ability that this might have apartments in the future with the approval
of this, or that we at least entertain that in the future.
Stiles: I would, yes.
Barbeiro: Could you condense that for me, please? I want to go over that one more
time.
Brown: Looking at the staff report, the staff report says they’re recommending that we
go to a mixed/planned use development. They would have to come in with a
conditional use, they’re also going to have to do a rezone, an annexation and rezone
and conditional use with that Comp Plan Amendment that if it went per the staff’s
requirements to come in with apartments. If we stayed at the – and they would receive
– they have the possibility of receiving favorable comment on an apartment complex if
we change the Comp Plan. If we don’t change the Comp Plan under the single-family
designation and their interpretation of the R-15 zone, then they would – which would be
the – but Shari says single-family’s also in the R-40, they would not receive as favorable
comments because it doesn’t comply with what they view the Comp Plan for single-
family designation is. So the thing that I see that we’re doing is we’re allowing more
flexibility with staff’s comments and would allow apartments or would entertain the idea
of apartments. If we don’t change the Comp Plan, he can still get even more density
that what he’s currently proposing, he can come in with single-family homes with
townhouses, and depending on what the CU is, you know, he can go forward, but it
would be single-family apartments.
Stiles: And that still goes through the public process and everyone would still have a
chance to comment on it.
Brown: Right. We would still have ten more hearings; we would have that no matter
what he does.
Stiles: Right. But it’s an issue of whether it’s owned property or not. The single
dwellings.
Brown: And it’s not even that. What it is that it gives staff the ability to be a little more
favorable if he chooses to do apartments.
Borup: I think the other thing it does is give a little more ability to make
recommendations on the design and layout.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 44
Hatcher: I agree. That’s (inaudible)
Borup: With the conditional use – sure.
Hatcher: If we were to approve a Comp Plan change tonight, it would give – it would
allow us to impact or –
Brown: You would –
Hatcher: Yeah. It would allow us to be able to put additional and further restrictions
onto the development.
Stiles: You would have that either way because both would require a conditional use
permit.
Brown: Right. You would still have that ability with the conditional use to have that
further review and provide the screening or whatever that you wanted to without
changing –
Stiles: Without changing the Comp Plan.
Borup: But then they wouldn’t have the ability to – a true multi-family anywhere on
their site, even against the commercial area or against the cemetery or against the
other apartments.
Stiles: That’s correct. It would be single-family.
Hatcher: We could bring in a stipulation, later on, not tonight, but later on, during the
development that if we were to switch it, then it would allow Clark Development to go
ahead and put in multi-family in that facility, but we can then use it as that transition
because of Boise R-T is going to be multi-family. We have Crossroads that’s single-
family. This piece of property’s going to have to be the transition piece, so the west side
of the property changes within its own development from single-family whether it be
two-story townhouses, you know, to 16-plex apartments on the east side. He has that
ability to be able to still develop the property with the mixed use; whereas, if we deny it
tonight, then he’d have to come in as the R-15.
Stiles: Or R-4.
Hatcher: Or R-4 or R-8, but that’s a less favorable development, and we don’t have
further –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 45
Barbeiro: (inaudible) conditional use. You have the ability to a conditional use. You
have the ability to a conditional use.
Borup: You can come in with an R-4 or an R-8, you’re going to have the homeowners
feeling the same thing. You know, why did we allow something to be built up against
other multi-family and another commercial development? And their realtor didn’t tell
them.
De Weerd: Well, it’s already existing, so, you know, it’s pretty obvious.
Borup: What’s already existing?
De Weerd: The commercial.
Borup: Not yet. It’s not even annexed yet.
De Weerd: Well, Shopko’s built, so –
Borup: Well, that’s not adjoined to the property we’re discussing here now.
De Weerd: -- there’s some appearance.
Borup: It’s a – right now, I mean, the property that abuts this is a nursery. Nursery and
sod farm. Now they may be moving there thinking it’s a park. I just – I think this is a
unique piece of property that’s going to require some type of transition. This is a
transition.
De Weerd: Well at risk for not getting a second, I will recommend that we deny this
request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Terrace Lawn Memorial Gardens.
Borup: We have a motion. Dies from lack of second. Anyone else with a motion?
De Weerd: Well then give it a try, guys.
Borup: It’s ten to nine. We’ve been here two hours and twenty minutes. Hey. I’m just
getting going.
Barbeiro: Kent, your – you would just as soon see it go out with Comprehensive Plan
change?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 46
Brown: You know, I’m not sure. I’m not sure which way I want to go, but what the one
does is it does allow him to do apartments. If that’s what you want to do, but I’m just
trying to make the statement that that’s the difference that we’re looking at is that we’re
going to have the same amount of review, the one, and with the testimony that was
heard, they’re asking for single-family. Well, then – and I don’t know that they realize
that single-family can still be 15 units to the acre, but that’s single-family, but in looking
at Mr. Clark’s plan, the apartments do not appear to be that dense. So I really don’ t
know which I would prefer, but I was just trying to make the statement that do you
realize that with the Comp Plan Amendment you’re opening the door for the
apartments, and if that’s what you want, I don’t know which is better.
Borup: This, to me, is – it’s right in the middle. This is going to be a buffer no matter
what. And I don’t know if it’s appropriate that everything in there needs to be all the
same. I mean, you can’t – you don’t have a transition, you know, if it’s strictly R-8 or
R-15, you know. You don’t have a transition between the other pieces. It makes sense
to me that it should be single-family up against the subdivision.
De Weerd: It can still be an R-8 or an R-4 and they can level it down from a lower
density to a higher density to above the multi-family, so there is flexibility. The issue
here is do we want to open it up for the possibility of apartments? I didn’t here that in
the testimony tonight, so –
Borup: I did.
De Weerd: That they wanted apartments?
Borup: Mr. Clark did.
De Weerd: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I forgot the key person. That’s not what I heard from
the residents that would be affected by this.
Hatcher: From what I heard out of testimony and out of what is proposed for all the
land around it, we know that we have commercial to the north. We know that we have
church property to the south that’s probably not going to be developed for quite some
time. We have single-family to the west. And it’s been stated that Mr. Clark is looking
at developing multi-family to the east, so there’s only two ways that we can make any
transition. Now, the property to the east is in the Boise impact area, so we have no
control over that. So I have to make the assumption that that piece of property is going
to be entirely multi-family. So that gives us – that puts us back down to this piece of
property. This piece of property has to be the transition. We have single-family to the
west, we have multi-family to the east. Now in all fairness to Mr. Clark, going ahead
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 47
and allowing apartments on the east side of this property and in all fairness to the
residents, having single residence on the west side and then transitioning it within the
property seems to be the viable solution between these different developments. And
the only way that Mr. Clark can do that is for us to go ahead and approve the Comp
Plan change so that he can come in and build apartments. When he comes in for
rezoning and the CU and all of that type of stuff, we then have the control at that time to
make sure that three-story apartment complexes don’t get built next to Crossroads, that
the road doesn’t go through Florence. At that time, we have that control so we can still
meet both needs. That’s kind of the way that I’m looking at this and kind of the way I
feel.
Borup: That’s – Tammy, that maybe answers how I heard some of the testimony, some
of the concern was is as Richard already stated is the three-story units next to the
subdivision and the overall density. Depending on the design, as Commissioner Brown
mentioned, you could get the same density in a single – you could get a greater density
in a single-family R-15 than what you may end up with a multi-family with the open
space that the conceptual plan has. So if we’re talking about density on the overall
project, we’re not talking – you know, we got to see what’s presented, but may not be
talking any more density. It may even have more density on the single-family. I think
that we can address those two concerns on having the apartments up against the
subdivision and the overall density, too. If we’ve got the control as recommended. Go
ahead. Did you have a comment?
De Weerd: My only comment was since when do we have the responsibility to
transition from Boise to Meridian?
Brown: We don’t have the responsibility to transition from Boise to Meridian, but we
have the responsibility to provide the adequate transition within our impact area no
matter who – what the surrounding area is. It just so happens that multi-family
development to the east is in Boise. Whether it was already existing –
De Weerd: Is that already applied for then? Is that built?
Borup: No.
Brown: It hasn’t been built yet.
De Weerd: Is it an application that’s already been approved? Okay. Then whey are we
even talking about it? We’re looking at this (inaudible) –
Borup: Well, using that same reason –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 48
De Weerd: -- and we use that all the time and we say we’re not supposed to be doing
that.
Borup: Well, using the same logic, why do we ever even listen to testimony from
someone that’s outside the city limits?
De Weerd: Well, that’s a good point, too.
Borup: But half of the public testimony is people that is outside the city limits.
De Weerd: But a lot –
Borup: (inaudible) inside the city –
De Weerd: -- of that did have to do with ownership. That was the key point that I
picked up.
Borup: Well, I think that there’s a difference.
De Weerd: I’ve already made an attempt –
Borup: Okay. Mr. Hatcher, do you want to try for a motion?
Hatcher: Well, Mr. Chairman, I –
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro, either one of you.
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend approval of this Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the Terrace Lawns Memorial Gardens, Inc. by Clark Development for
the 4000 block Fairview Avenue between Eagle Road and Cloverdale to the multi-use
as described by staff – sorry. Mixed/planned use as described by staff comments.
Barbeiro: Commissioner Hatcher, if I may add these two paragraphs to your motion.
Hatcher: (inaudible) read them again? It may not be necessary. Steve, would it be
necessary to read those again?
Rutherford: You can give page number and (inaudible).
Barbeiro: Yeah. I would concur. With this I would recommend that we add 5.9 and
5.11 on Page 28 of the mixed use policies. And this would challenge Mr. Clark to then
go back, prepare a development and return to the neighborhood to essentially sell his
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 49
development to them and then come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I
would like to second Commissioner Brown’s, excuse me, Commissioner Hatcher.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion to recommend mixed/planned use development with
the addition of 5.9, 5.11 the current Comp Plan. All in favor?
TIE VOTE
Borup: I’m going to vote aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE TO TWO
Borup: All right. Commissioners, would we like a five-minute break?
6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
FROM A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION TO A
MIXED/PLANNED USE DEVELOPMENT (MILLENNIUM BUSINESS PARK) BY
G.L. VOIGT DEVELOPMENT AND OVERLAND 16 LLC—WEST OF EAGLE
ROAD AND SOUTH OF OVERLAND: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO
CITY COUNCIL AS PER STAFF COMMENTS.
Borup: Okay. Let’s reconvene our meeting this evening. Commissioners, all right?
Come on up. Commissioner Brown wishes to make a statement before we proceed.
Brown: We’re on Item –
Borup: Item 6.
Brown: Item 6 and 7 I need to abstain because they have hired my firm to handle those
items. I have a conflict of interest.
Borup: Okay. So noted. Item No. 6 is a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
In case anybody had any questions, the whole agenda tonight is Comprehensive Plan
Amendments. That’s why it’s a special meeting. Comprehensive Plan Amendment for
single-family residential to a mixed/planned use development by G.L. Voigt
Development and Overland 16 LLC. Staff, is there something you’d like to present to
us?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have our comments that are dated
September 28th
, 1999. Maybe as a little bit of background for people that may not be
aware of what has happened in this area, the John Deer Cesco is located right here, we
have an RV park here, contractors yard here. This property was originally came in 97
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 50
acres that was proposed as the Sundance Subdivision. They have split off a four-acre
parcel and donated that to the City for a future park area. Since that time, they have
sold 55 acres here to the School District for a high-school site which has left them with
this remaining parcel. This was also one parcel that has been split. They’re proposing
an LDS Church on this, I believe it’s about seven acres, and so this would be the area,
the yellow part, where they’re proposing the mixed/planned use development. As you
can tell, there has been illegal subdividing, and that would need to be taken care of
prior to any development. This is all pretty much vacant ground in this area, about 160
acres west of Eagle Road. This area in here has all been developed residentially.
There are plans to bring this sewer trunk line, and water, this sewer trunk line will be
bored under the freeway, follow approximately this alignment to serve all of this area in
here. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Any questions for Shari? Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would have one.
Borup: Well, speak up.
De Weerd: What are the traffic implications for this designation versus the single-
family?
Stiles: I’m sorry. Could you repeat that?
De Weerd: Sure.
*** End of Tape 2, Side 1 ***
-- rezone or if we change our comp plan and if they went with the plan that is along with
this proposal, how will the traffic differ between, if that went single-family versus what it
is today, or what they’re proposing.
Stiles: Well –
De Weerd: I know traffic’s a big concern on that, on Overland and Locust Grove, and
so I guess my question is would this have a higher impact on Overland?
Stiles: I guess I have to answer that with, although they have provided a concept plan
with their application, we’re not looking at a concept plan at this time.
De Weerd: I do understand that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 51
Stiles: The office, I’m not sure how much square footage they’re proposing. The
apartments, I don’t know how many units they’re proposing. Without an actual
development being submitted, we don’t know what the traffic counts would be. Single-
family homes are typically, they consider, 10 to 11 trips a day. Apartments are maybe a
little lower, maybe six per unit. Office and retail, obviously, it would depend on what
kind of services they were providing.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stiles: Do you want me to tell you about Christmas time?
De Weerd: Please.
Borup: Any other questions?
Stiles: We wouldn’t know until we had an application in hand to be able to determine
any counts, and, again, this is not an approval of this concept. It’s just allowing for
something other than single-family residential.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions? Shari, do you know how they’re proposing access
to the school site? Is it coming through this middle of this project?
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? If not, does
the applicant care to make a presentation? Oh. You have a couple short words?
Bocutt: Well, Shari covered most everything.
Borup: Name? Who are you?
Bocutt: Becky Bocutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland, Boise. This particular
piece of property is designated single-family on your current Comprehensive Plan.
North of this property you can see the C-G zone, the I-L zone; that designation there is
mixed/planned use development. Along our eastern boundary, you see the R-T from
that point, our eastern boundary, out to Eagle Road is also mixed/planned use
development. So we are contiguous on two sides to an existing designation of the
mixed/planned use development. As Shari indicated, a few years ago we came through
the process with a preliminary plat on the entire 90-some acres, and we were going to
do a single-family residential development. We ran that through, and then the School
District came to us and said that they’d tried to get a high-school site south of Victory,
and the deal had fell through, and if we were interested in providing a school site on this
property. So my clients did enter into an agreement with the school, the school has
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 52
closed on the property. Our agreement was that we would bring the sewer across the
interstate whenever they needed it, and we’re at that point where we believe it should
come across. I think it’s been about seven years ago – they told me they would need
the school within seven years, I believe three years has passed. So we’re reaching a
point where they’ll probably start planning for that high school. The sewer is back in
Wells Circle north, right up there, north of this site. We’ll bring it across the freeway,
bore the freeway. We’re doing this in conjunction with the City Water project. We bid
that out to do the bore for the water line because it would be cheaper for the City if we
could do it all as one project, one contractor. That project will begin October 15th
of this
year. It’s a joint effort between multiple land owners in the area plus my clients that own
the property you see in yellow. When the School District purchased the property, they
told me that they had one thing they wanted us to take into consideration, and that was
we do not put single-family residential in front of that high-school site. With the Borah
High problems that they’ve had, they get complaints from other high schools in the area
of cut-through traffic and the speed of the teenagers, that they didn’t feel it was
compatible. And we stated, well, with the more intense of high-school use, if it was,
say, a middle school or an elementary, we would want single-family, but we wouldn’t
with a high school. And we talked about different uses such as offices, multi-family and
commercial, and the School District stated any of those particular uses would be great.
We need a collector roadway to get into our site, and we will need our services; and so
that’s basically how we’ve arrived at the point we are at today. It’s time for us to bring
the sewer across and we’re coming before you to ask for the mixed/planned use
development zone which is, basically, one of your more restrictive designations where
everything requires a conditional use. We feel this is a good project. Eventually you’ll
see that Locust Grove overpass sometime in the future. We don’t know when, but
when that happens, that intersection will be extremely busy at that time. I would hope
that it would be signalized, and it makes sense. We testified when the Freightliner
application came before the City. One thing I stressed to the City Council was that is a
very intensive use, it is more industrial in nature, and if it is approved, then we will have
to change our designation because single-family would not be appropriate right across
Overland Road on our site. The traffic issue, as Shari indicated, we’re not asking for
site-specific approval on this site plan. We provided a concept plan just for you guys’
review for the staff just to take a look at to get an idea of what types of uses and what
type of configuration we are looking at. It’s rough, but it gives you an idea that this is a
true mixed/planned use development with a little bit of office, a little multi-family and
then some commercial up there along Overland and over at the intersection. We
understand that we’ll have to come through with a site-specific plan, landscaping plans
and a rezone application. We’re working on that at this time. We anticipate probably
submitting that application within anywhere from 30 to 90 days, and at that point in time,
we will be required to provide a traffic study for the Highway District because we’ll have
our uses pinned down. And then that can be hashed out before this body. Do you have
any questions?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 53
Borup: Any questions from the Commission?
Hatcher: Yeah. I’ve got one. Have we, and feel free to answer, have we heard
anything more from ACHD on the exact timeframe for the Overland improvement? The
last I was aware, we’re looking within two years. But that was still kind of up in the air.
Do we know, has there been any further communication from your office with ACHD in
regards to that section of Overland?
Bocutt: No, sir. We have not discussed what their timetable is. We did get a letter from
them asking us to move forward with a traffic study on the site with our site-specific
information. So I assume that they’ll be looking at that. When you consider what’s
going in on the north side and then this particular application in the future with the
rezone and PUD and then the high school, they’ll have to take a hard look at Overland
and look at upgrading it. It’s due, probably overdue, from what I’ve heard.
Hatcher: Okay. That’s all I had.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Becky, could you – using our new presentation (inaudible), show me where
Freightliner was supposed to go.
Bocutt: Directly – right there.
Barbeiro: One of the problems, it was the 24-hour use that was the problem with
Freightliner because it would be adjacent to what would have been a residential area; is
that right, Shari?
Stiles: And the traffic generated by it.
Barbeiro: Okay. The traffic generation was a greater issue than being next to a
planned residential area; is that right?
Stiles: It seemed to be.
Barbeiro: All right. Thank you.
Bocutt: Shari’s correct. I was at that hearing, and I think Sportsman Pointe, I think
some people from Meridian Greens testified that they had concerns of large trucks
going up and down Overland Road with their kids either biking or walking, and then with
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 54
the high school someday being built there, would that traffic conflict with the high-school
traffic? So that was a big issue.
Borup: Anyone else? Commissioner De Weerd.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I just, Becky, you’ve always been really good about talking to
the neighboring subdivisions. Have you entered into any dialog with them yet?
Bocutt: No, ma’am. I have not notified them. We typically do a project of this size and
magnitude, we’d notify property owners, usually get in contact with the president of an
Association and set up a meeting time for them to review the project before we submit it
is typically what we try to do. We have not done that yet. This is our first baby step
here.
De Weerd: I’d strongly suggest you do.
Bocutt: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone here that would like to testify on this
application? See none. Commissioners.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Second.
Borup: We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Would we like some discussion or are we ready for a motion?
De Weerd: I have no discussion.
Barbeiro: Seeing no discussion, Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend to City
Council request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from a single-family residential
designation to a mixed/planned use development for the Millennium Business Park by
G.L. Voigt Development and Overland 16 LLC with staff comments.
Hatcher: I second that.
Borup: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 55
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED/PLANNED USE
DEVELOPMENT (TOUCHMARK LIVING CENTERS, INC.) BY JOSEPH A.
BILLIG/WATERFORD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY—
EAST OF ST. LUKE’S BETWEEN I-84 AND FRANKLIN ROADS: APPROVE
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
Borup: Item No. 7. And that’s probably why we have most of these people here
tonight. Request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from single-family residential to
mixed/planned use development, Touchmark Living Centers by Joseph A.
Billig/Waterford Development & Construction Company. Staff.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, you have our report dated September 28, 1999.
This is for the property that would extend clear to the extent of our impact area
boundary. This subdivision is in Boise City’s impact area. The Edgeview Estates
Subdivision. What they’re proposing, this is where St. Luke’s is, where the new hospital
is going to be built. They are requesting that all of this area be designated
mixed/planned use development in order that they may come in with their retail, some
retail office, but the majority of it would be for senior living quarters with the – well, I
don’t know if they have a site plan in here or not. We’ve had numerous discussions
with them. St. Luke’s is very involved in the plans for this. It will be a good
complement for them. I would suggest that if this area is designated mixed/planned use
that we also include this so it’s not an island surrounded by the mixed/planned use
development that would still be single-family residential. There is currently a
mixed/planned use designation, I think it roughly follows this line. This is another, like
most of the other applications tonight, there has been some splitting of property that
would need to be taken care of prior to any development. Staff would recommend
approval of the mixed/planned use development provided there is adequate buffering of
the existing single-family residential, and, of course, all of that will be included as part of
any development through development agreement and the conditional use process.
You’re all familiar with what’s there now? This is all zoned C-G, this is where the R.C.
Willey’s site is. Kitty-corner from that is the Parkway Plaza, the new office building
that’s going up on that corner. This is all still single-family development in Ada County.
This, of course, all is yet undeveloped. This is all light industrial ground, the railroad.
That’s all I have unless you have some questions.
Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here
this evening like to make a presentation?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 56
Bocutt: Becky Bocutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland. I’m representing the
applicant on this application. As Shari indicated, a portion of that property is already
mixed/planned use development. The area that you see where it’s designated R-3, and
there – if you follow that line and go to the west, that is the Bews parcel, and the parcel
east of that is the Thomas/Tullis property. Approximately 60 percent of the Bews parcel
is already currently designated mixed/planned use development on your Comp Plan.
The eastern side is designated single-family, and then the Thomas/Tullis property is
designated single-family. The applicants here is Touchmark, and they would like to
build a true mixed/planned use development where, as Shari indicated, we have office,
some commercial, a nursing home facility and assisted care, different types of dwellings
for a total, complete, retirement community. It would be a multi-phased project, and we
are not asking, as Shari indicated, for any approval of that plan at this time. Just to
make the properties have the same, consistent designation on the Comprehensive
Plan. To the north of this property, it’s designated light industrial, the hospital is
designated medical facility, and then the mixed/planned use development goes over to
Eagle Road in that southeast corner of the intersection. We have submitted an
application for annexation and rezone, and a conditional use application covering the
project in its entirety. That’s at the Planning Department, I think, it’s been there about
30 days, so we do have a site-specific application that will come before you and be
reviewed. We have not met with the residents yet. We have inquired about the
convention center and got some times and costs, and we will be doing that here within
the next few weeks. That will take place prior to the rest of our applications moving
forward. I knew she’d ask that question. Do you have any questions?
Borup: Any questions for the Commission?
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Barbeiro:
Barbeiro: Becky, remind me, how many acres is this site total?
Bocutt: The total, I think, is approximately 150 acres total.
Barbeiro: Is the intent to put retirement communities there right along the freeway?
Bocutt: We have other residential developments along the freeway with appropriate
vegetation –
Borup: That would be the hard-of-hearing people along there.
Bocutt: Yes.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 57
Barbeiro: There’s nothing wrong with it. I grew up next to a freeway, actually –
Bocutt: Right. There are many things that we’re doing now where it’s not as noisy. You
still get some of the freeway noise, but with berming, combination wall, vegetation, you
can kind of buffer it somewhat.
Barbeiro: I’m trying to get a feel. I’m guessing that you’re going to layer it so you’re
going to have from the freeway, maybe some single-family homes, then as you move
towards Franklin, you might have some multi-family retirement homes, and then as you
move at Franklin, you might have some light commercial.
Bocutt: Correct. The intensity increases as you would go northward toward the arterial.
And I recommended to them, I did the Edgeview Estates Subdivision, and that’s all
single-family, and it’s got a park and a school site, and so I recommended that their
lower density, obviously, be across the canal from Edgeview. You know, a better
transition. We wouldn’t have as much opposition.
Barbeiro: It wasn’t critical of putting it next to the freeway; that’s all. I’m just trying to
understand the layering. In its final developed state, how many people would you
assume would be moving into this area?
Bocutt: That would probably be a question for them. They’ve got their information and
their data on what the number, you know, of units and the number of people per unit
would be. Mr. Neil, I think, could answer that for you.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: Just so we can continue to keep things moving tonight, I think we need to
make sure that we maintain our focus on the fact that this is a Comp Plan meeting and
not a conditional use meeting.
Borup: Well-taken point. Okay. Anything else?
Barbeiro: No.
Bocutt: Thank you, Mr. Borup. My question time’s over.
Borup: Becky, did you say, is there someone else on that side that would like to
testify? Okay. He’ll hold his comments until the end. This is a public hearing, and,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 58
again, as Commissioner Hatcher pointed out, this is strictly a Comp Plan designation
change. Anything that’s going to happen, this is the first step. Specifically if we want to
see any additional roads or anything through the property, this is the first step. So,
saying that, do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this application? If so,
come on forward.
Griffiths: Hi. I’m Trisha Griffiths. I live at 3295 North Montview. The Montview
Subdivision residents would like to defer this matter until we get a traffic study from the
ACHD. I have a letter that I would like to put into the record for you. I don’t know if you
had received one yet.
Borup: From who, is it?
Griffiths: From (inaudible)
Griffiths: On there, Exhibit A states that to amend the Comprehensive Plan that they
would like it to be deferred because there exists a significant problem with the area
relating to traffic circulation and access to the public street system. These issues were
brought up when St. Luke’s Phase III Development application was brought up, and I
think it’s really important that we have a chance to review the traffic study, and so we’re
asking that this be deferred until we see the traffic study.
Borup: Okay. Any questions of Commission?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I think it’s appropriate to, perhaps, if you could explain the
procedure for this. We’re not even looking at roads yet, right?
Borup: No. And that was the comment I was just going to make. I’m not sure how they
do a traffic study without a design. We don’t know how many roads are going to be
here, how many – the density of the project or anything. Maybe they can do that, but
I’m not sure how a traffic engineer would do a traffic study without having a project to
analyze.
Griffiths: And I guess we’d probably really can’t comment on how we feel about a lot of
stuff until we see what ACHD comes up with, because –
Borup: Well, ACHD can’t come up with anything until there’s something to look at.
Griffiths: Well, from my understanding, I thought they were checking into it and doing a
traffic impact study.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 59
Borup: We did receive a letter from them asking us to wait one month from August 19th
.
And we’re past that date, but –
Griffiths: And also, Touchmark did say that they wanted to meet with us, but that was
mentioned back in August – end of July and first part of August, and, like Becky said,
they want to, but so far we’ve been told it’d be two weeks and two weeks, and we still
have not heard anything from them.
Borup: It may be, without having this part of it done, there’s nothing to proceed on.
Griffiths: Well, I guess – you know, if they already submitted annexation and rezone
and –
Borup: No. They haven’t.
Griffiths: I though that’s what she said.
Borup: Pardon?
De Weerd: Well, today in front of us –
Borup: Okay. They may have, yes.
De Weerd: -- is just a Comp Plan change, and if we defer it today, they have to wait six
months. Our Comp Plan can only be changed every six months. The reason why we
called this special meeting for all of our Comp Plan changes and requests was that we
could do it in one final action. Because we can only do it once every six months. So,
deferring this would definitely defer it for six months, but right now, they’re just looking
for the Comp Plan change so they can proceed with the next step, and that would be
the zoning and the conditional use permit which the traffic study certainly would have to
be a component of and those sort of things. So this is kind of the first baby step.
Griffiths: Okay. So, since this is a special meeting, you guys don’t set up anymore
special meetings, then?
De Weerd: They would then file on our next regularly – wherever that application is, I
don’t know. I don’t think it’s on October 12th
, so it would be at our November meeting, if
that application, at the earliest, if it were to be recommended today.
Griffiths: Okay. So all their applications and everything would come up on the next
meeting, you’re saying?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 60
Borup: That’d be a full public hearing, yes, on –
De Weerd: You’ll be noticed within 300 feet –
Borup: And then --
De Weerd: -- at the earliest would be November before this could be heard anyway.
Griffiths: Could I recommend that the residents of the Montview Subdivision be
notified? Because I think, right now, St. Luke’s surrounds us, and they would probably
be – we would not be within the 300 feet. So I would request that you guys do notify us
(inaudible).
Borup: Is there a single individual that could be notified that would get the word out to
the rest?
Griffiths: You could notify me or John McCreedy, our attorney.
Borup: Okay. If you want to leave –
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, I think we – there is a letter of representation in here. We
should go through their counsel.
Borup: Okay. So this John McCreedy would be the appropriate one to – I just think
that’d be – whether it’s outside or is the property between this and there is more than
300 feet?
Griffiths: Yes.
Borup: Okay. Then in this case, I think we, as Commissioner De Weerd said, be
appropriate to notify – it’d make a lot more sense to notify a single individual with the
understanding that they would get that information to the subdivision.
Griffiths: Yes. I work with John McCreedy, so I have access to that.
Borup: Okay. That’d work good then.
Griffiths: Okay. Thanks.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Okay. I hope – sounds like
maybe that clarified a lot of what’s happening. So, does anyone else wish to comment
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 61
or testify this evening? Anyone from the residence? Okay. Becky, you had a
concluding remark?
Bocutt: Becky Bocutt, Briggs Engineering. Ada County Highway District did ask us to
have a traffic study done on our project. That traffic study is complete and was
submitted to Ada County Highway District. This is it here. I faxed a copy to your staff
around the first of the week. I met with Pat Doby, I believe who’s the consultant, traffic
consultant, to the neighbors. I met with him last Friday on one of my other projects. I
did allow him to read through this and comment on it. We chose the traffic engineer
that Ada County Highway District had recommended that we choose. They also
retained him to do a separate report looking at the entire area, like clear over to the
Cloverdale Road, looking at the uses, beyond the R.C. Willey story in that northeast
corner. So we are making in-roads to get these traffic issues worked out, but,
obviously, as Commissioner Borup indicated, this is not the time or the place to start
hashing those out. Our applications have been submitted, the staff has held them on
hold to see what you people did this evening. We’d like those applications to move
forward so that we can work out these traffic issues in this area and work with the
Montview residents. And we will be holding a meeting. One of the problems that we’ve
had lately is that I’ve had so many hearings that I’ve had some scheduling problems,
and then my clients do have to fly in from out of state for the meetings. So we are
trying to coordinate my schedule and theirs to come up with a meeting time for these
residents, and I hope they don’t think we’re trying to put them off here. Do you have
any questions?
Borup: Any questions? Thank you, Becky.
Neil: My name is Bernie Neil with Touchmark Living Centers. I’d like to make just a
couple of housekeeping comments. Regarding meeting with the neighbors, there have
been a couple of neighbors that I’ve had conversations with who have contacted me
and have, for instance, made a proposal that we donate some land and that the
Montview residents donate some land and create a right-in right-out access onto
Franklin, and I was agreeable to that. With that particular individual, I’ve had three
conversations, and so there has been dialog that’s been going on. And as Becky has
pointed out, we’re all busy, but also there’s the process that goes on, and until this
process is complete and being able to move ahead into the next process, we really
don’t know what we have to present, what we can move onto. And given the time that
rezoning and conditional use permit application and so on would go through, that
provides plenty of time for answering and listening to and negotiating with the
neighborhood there about their concerns and our concerns. So this has not been a
burning issue at this level for the Comprehensive Plan. Another is, you had asked the
question about how many residents, so we can certainly answer that. And you will see
in the application, I hope we’ll be able to proceed to you, that we’re in the 700 to 900 or
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 62
so resident range. Some of that has to do with how much is single occupancy, so single
person coming in or is a husband and wife, then it’s hard to predict that exactly, but we
can predict how many units would be, how many living units there would be, but not
exactly how many people be coming there, just as you might have trouble predicting
whether there would be in a regular single-family neighborhood whether it would be with
one-person, or two-person or four-person family or a ten-person family. We have some
of that, but it’s a little narrower with it being senior specific. Do you have any questions
for me?
Borup: Any questions for Mr. Neil?
Neil: Thank you.
Borup: Thank you, sir. Commissioners.
Rife: May I speak, please.
Borup: Hurry on up.
Rife: I hope that you give me the same consideration and time as the others. My name
is Patricia Rife. I’m a resident of Montview Drive Subdivision and have lived there for
over 18 years. I would like to say that the cavalier attitude of the representative of
Touchmark is representative of what we’ve gone through the past five years, and I do
hope you give us time. I do hope you give us your ears. I do hope you’ll give us the
same consideration that you do these other people. You don’t ask them to hurry on up.
Borup: I do.
Rife: And I expect rightfully so, that as a taxpayer and a citizen, that our needs, our
words, are heard and respected by you also. This gentleman says he met with – or has
talked with representatives from our Montview Drive Subdivision. If he did, they were
independent and not representative of our group. They’d made no real effort, as he
waived it off and said, well, this isn’t convenient for us, and I think that we’re entitled to
the same consideration as the people with the big money are. And I believe – I have
the feeling that you’re just brushing us off tonight. We brought a letter from our lawyer,
he wasn’t able to be here, and we’re asking that you defer this until we have the
information that we need. Until this developer is willing to meet with us and talk with us
and let us know what he has on his mind. See that strip of land between the yellow and
the Montview Park Subdivision? It’s my understanding, and St. Luke’s and this builder
either are in negotiation or that property has been sold by St. Luke’s to Touchmark.
And it’s very interesting that that isn’t yellow, too. And that’s the 300 or more foot buffer
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 63
that keeps us from being in the notification. And I don’t think that’s right. So I thank you
all for listening to me.
Borup: Thank you. Any questions for Mrs. Rife?
De Weerd: Mrs. Rife, I would hope that our attorney maybe can explain the process to
you. Again, by deferring this, it sets it off not just a month until the traffic studies are
done, it sets it off a minimum of six months.
Borup: And probably until after the new Comp Plan is adopted.
Rife: I know that it’s inconvenient, but it’s been three or four months that we’ve been
asking these people to meet with us and talk with us, and they put us off for maybe six
months.
De Weerd: And this first just a Comp Plan part of it. It’s nothing to do with the
application itself. It doesn’t have anything to do with the rezone or annexation or
conditional use process. It’s, right now, just a blank slate, and I think they heard us
when we listened to the Montview’s concerns during St. Luke’s that it is an issue and it
is going to have to be addressed, and so I think that if they come to us before talking to
you, it will be delayed until they do talk to you. So – and I can speak as one
commissioner, but that’s always been the attitude that this commission has had. If that
is any assurance to you, that is our approach.
Rife: I just don’t want the same thing to happen here as what happened with St. Luke’s.
And I hope you all hear us. Thank you.
Borup: Did you have –
Rossman: Yes. It’s somewhat difficult to explain. I’m not sure everybody really
understands what the scope of this proceeding is as opposed to a proceeding for a
conditional use permit or for annexation and zoning. All we’re talking about here is
whether under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan this particular piece of property is
more appropriately designated mixed use/planned unit development or whether it’s
more appropriately single-family residential. The developer’s not required to submit a
site plan or a concept plan for our consideration, or for the Commission’s consideration
in deciding whether or not to approve the Amendment. We’re not talking about a
particular project here or a particular site plan or anything of that nature, and the only
comments that we’ve heard at this proceeding so far really have been traffic related and
relating to an impact study. Traffic really can’t be determined on something like this until
there is a site plan or a concept plan, and that’s going to come in at a later stage. At
the stage of whether or not annexation, zoning and a conditional use permit should be
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 64
granted on this particular project. Those will all be relevant issues. ACHD will submit a
report and this Commission will thoroughly consider all of that information before
deciding on those particular applications, but those are not really appropriate issues at
this proceeding here. So, hopefully you understand that and you don’t feel like the
Commission is brushing you off. It will fully consider this project before it’s approved.
Borup: Thank you. Commissioners. Comments? Okay. Come on up.
Billig: Joseph Billig with Touchmark Living Centers. In an effort to speed up our
process, we do have an application for zoning, annexation and conditional use permit
that was submitted September 1st
. Planning and Zoning staff felt that they could not
accept that until the Comp Plan was resolved. What we’re wondering tonight is if it
would be possible to direct Planning and Zoning to go ahead and process that so we
can make the October 1st
deadline tomorrow and get the November hearing; otherwise,
if we have to wait until the results of tonight’s decision go to City Council, then we’re
really looking at probably November 1st
submission for that planning, zoning and
annexation and conditional use permit. So is there any way to kind of run those
concurrently while this is going to Council? Maybe on the pretense that it’s a condition
of approval of the zoning and annexation, obviously, if the Comp Plan’s approved, those
can go through, but ideally, we’d like to get a hearing date set up for November as soon
as possible, and I think that would help us tie in with what Montview and be able to
meet with them and show them what we have planned.
Rossman: I think in response to your request, the – all this Commission is doing is
making a recommendation to City Council until there has been a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, there really can’t be any consideration for your particular site plan
because it’s inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it presently sits, so there has
to be some final action, by my opinion, by City Council before we can really process
your application.
Billig: Until Council hears it and approves it, our application cannot really be
processed?
Rossman: That’s correct. Whatever this Commission does is only a recommendation,
and there would be another proceeding before City Council for them to make the final
determination. Until that’s done, an application would be inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Billig: I think Shari just felt if she had direction specifically from the Commission that
she could start reviewing that plan and set up a hearing date, they would. But she
didn’t want to do that without, I think, the authority of this Commission.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 65
Rossman: I don’t think there’s anything that would prevent her from, and, certainly, this
Commission can ask her to start reviewing it, I mean, there’s nothing to keep her from
doing that.
Billig: She wouldn’t be able to set up a hearing date either at this point?
Rossman: Not while, I mean, you can set a hearing date, but unless City Council has
acted upon this Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal, which they should have by
the time you get a hearing –
Billig: And that’s kind of what we’re thinking, yeah, if we can sort of get the hearing
date, I mean, if City Council denies it, then, obviously, our hearing is out the window, but
if we could sort of establish that date right now, it seems like we’re going to have to wait
at least another month on – so, if that’s possible if this Commission could recommend
that, specifically to Shari and staff, to go ahead and set the hearing date, then we could
kind of cross our fingers that the Comp thing gets approved, then be ready for the
zoning and conditional use permit hearing.
Rossman: Yeah. I don’t have an objection to the Commission asking Shari to begin
reviewing and even to schedule a hearing date for those applications with the
understanding that if Meridian City Council does not approve the Comp Plan
Amendment, there is no hearing.
Billig: Right. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
De Weerd: I would add one thing to it is you need to have your traffic information done
by then, too.
Billig: Yeah. Actually, that is complete now, so we’ve kind of hedging our bet (sic) that
we –
De Weerd: And ACHD.
Billig: And that has gone to ACHD as well, yeah.
De Weerd: Okay.
Billig: So we’ll definitely want to hear all their comments, and they will have a lot of
comments, and, obviously, we will have several more hearings.
De Weerd: Yeah. We don’t want to hear it until they have.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 66
Billig: Right. Right. And I think we all concur with that.
Rossman: And certainly if it is completed, it would be a nice thing to share with these
people that have shown up.
Billig: Yeah, and I think Becky has shared it with our traffic engineer, so I’m sure we can
work that out.
Hatcher: I probably just want to add, let the applicant be aware that, you know, this is
going to be a hot issue. I’d really like to see your package, I’s dotted, T’s crossed. I
want to see all the information early on, not at the last minute, you know, with loopholes
and, oh, we don’t have that yet, and we don’t have this yet. It bogs down the system,
and I think by your request, you don’t want that to happen either. But, likewise, I don’t
think we want to overstep our boundaries, either, and get into something that’s not legal
for the City to do. I have no objection in the Planning Department reviewing your
project, but I would defer to legal counsel as to whether or not a hearing is scheduled,
whether that can be done legally or not. So, just so that you’re aware of, you know,
whatever’s in the best interest of the City legally is what I would lean towards.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman. As I said before, there’s no problem in my opinion with –
clearly, with the applicant moving forward with, you know, gathering all of the relevant
information that’s going to be needed to be presented to this Commission at the
hearing, and there’s certainly nothing to prevent the Planning and Zoning staff from
beginning its review and consideration of the application and also to prevent – there’s
nothing that would prevent the application for being set for a hearing. Like I said before,
with the understanding that it’s contingent upon Meridian City Council’s determination.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second it.
Borup: Motion is seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion?
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval for the request for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from single-family residential to mixed/planned use
development and to include all staff comments.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 67
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES AND ONE ABSTAINED
Borup: Thank you.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, am I to assume then that that’s an official direction from
Planning and Zoning for us to process the applications?
Borup: That was not included in the motion, but I think that – Commissioners.
Hatcher: Hold on a second, Keith.
De Weerd: I’m sorry. What?
Borup: Oh. We didn’t have a – are you talking about the vote?
De Weerd: We didn’t have a quorum?
Borup: We didn’t have a majority.
*** End of Tape 2, Side 2 ***
-- Counsel.
Rossman: Commissioner De Weerd is concerned about whether the basis for
Commissioner Barbeiro’s abstention should be placed on the record, and I guess under
Idaho Law, the only requirement would be if there is a potential conflict of interest that is
the basis for abstaining. And if there is, it should be put on the record, yes.
Barbeiro: There is no conflict of interest with regard to this project.
Rossman: Okay. Then you can abstain.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: Are we okay on the vote, then? Was there a question on that? I mean, as far
as a number?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 68
Hatcher: Motion?
Borup: No. As far as the –
De Weerd: That question (inaudible)
Hatcher: -- (inaudible) it was two of three.
Rossman: Wait a minute. We only had two commissioners at that point.
Borup: Right. That’s what I’m asking. Do we need another vote.
Rossman: Because you would have to participate at that time.
Borup: I’ll vote aye.
Rossman: I apologize.
Borup: That may or may not have been a question, but we’re covered.
Freckleton: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Freckleton. Oh, yes. We do have one more item on that.
Freckleton: Two more items.
Borup: Two more items.
Freckleton: Staff had recommended that the R-3 parcel, the out parcel that’s shown on
the north boundary along Franklin be included in your recommendation, and also we
would like some direction what you would like us to do on these applications.
Borup: You didn’t put that in your final recommendation comment.
De Weerd: I said to include staff comments.
Borup: Yes, you did.
De Weerd: If you commented on it, then it’s in there.
Freckleton: It’s not a written comment.
Borup: Oh. It’s not a written comment? Oh. That was her verbal comment.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 69
Rossman: So the question was whether this R-3 section should be included?
Freckleton: Correct.
Rossman: Well, they should make a determination on that, I believe. If it’s not in staff
comments, then there should be a separate determination. You can do it by a separate
motion.
Borup: It was in staff verbal comments which is on testimony as which is on record.
Rossman: Then make a new – typically, when we think of staff comments, we’ve in the
past considered written comments. Just to be clean, let’s make a motion and include,
in particular, that issue; whether that section designated R-3 should be included or not
included.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we include staff’s verbal comments that
the lot designated as R-3 be added to this recommendation, and that we also give
Planning Department direction on process or reviewing the package currently at hand.
Borup: Shari, you – well, do we have a second? Would somebody like to add to that
motion?
De Weerd: No. I’ll second it.
Borup: We have a motion and second. Shari, did you understand the last, the second
part of that? That was to –
De Weerd: As long as it’s a complete application, okay?
Stiles: Yes.
Borup: Well, you can begin reviewings of it. Yes, the recommendation was to go ahead
and begin reviewing, and if you’re comfortable with the information received to set a
date with the understanding that if City Council votes deny, then that would be removed
from the agenda.
Hatcher: I don’t want to see it unless it’s complete.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, I think the motion was to have staff just start reviewing it.
There was no – I don’t think the Commissioner –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 70
De Weerd: Oh. You didn’t (inaudible) Hatcher.
Rossman: -- Hatcher included in his motion that it should be set for a hearing until it
has been fully processed.
Hatcher: That’s correct.
Borup: Okay. Motion is seconded. Any other discussion?
De Weerd: And that is up to staff’s discretion on when they set that.
Borup: Pretty much always, isn’t it?
De Weerd: Yeah. I just thought I’d emphasize that.
Hatcher: No more discussion.
Borup: No more discussion. All in favor? Any opposed?
Barbeiro: Present. Well, I can’t approve –
Hatcher: He can’t (inaudible) the first one.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, you’ll have to register that one, too.
Borup: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO TO ONE
8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL BY
QUEENLAND ACRES, INC.—SOUTH SIDE OF OVERLAND ROAD ACROSS
FROM INTERSTATE CENTER SUBDIVISION AND ROARING SPRINGS
WATER PARK: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
Borup: Commissioner Brown has rejoined us for Item No. 8, public hearing, request for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change single-family residential to commercial by
QUEENLAND Acres, Inc., south side of Overland across from Interstate Center
Subdivision, Roaring Springs Water Park. Ms. Stiles. Well, just a minute. We’ll have a
pause here. Talk amongst yourselves. Ms. Stiles, this is on Item No. 8, QUEENLAND.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 71
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is for the property on Overland Road. It’s
immediately south of Boondocks and Roaring Springs Water Park. This also appears to
have some kind – would involve some kind of platting would be required in order to
develop this in this fashion. We did recommend that it be approved for mixed/planned
use development, not to commercial. That would give us much more discretion on what
went in there. This is the Elk Run Subdivision here. On this property is, it’s called Roho
Enterprises, for lack of what else to call it, I guess it’s a salvage yard. This property had
come in previously with a request for annexation and zoning, the desire was to make
that into an RV park. That was denied due to the fact that this is all designated single-
family residential. Bear Creek Subdivision has been proposed for between here and
Kuna, and that application is still going through the process, I believe, it’s still at
Planning and Zoning. Stoddard Lane runs down on the western side of this property.
We did also include in our comments we wanted to make it clear that no development
we would recommend denial of any development that was not able to gravity-flow into
the existing sewer system. There’s a question as to how deep this can be sewered,
how deep -- the depth of the property that can be sewered, and so we would like to
make that perfectly clear to everybody here today.
Hatcher: I would like Bruce, if he could, just to elaborate a bit on your staff report,
because you’ve mentioned some of it can be gravity-fed into Ten Mile and the rest of it
would be going to the Black Cat trunk which we all know about. Could you just
elaborate a little more as to, I mean, kind of –
Freckleton: Certainly. Commissioner Hatcher, members of the Commission, the facility
plan that the City of Meridian commissioned JUB Engineering to prepare for us and was
approved by City Council indicates that the property is pretty much split north and south
into service areas. The north portion being able to serve to the north towards the Ten
Mile Creek, the southern portion going to the Black Cat trunkline. I believe there is a
natural feature out there. There’s probably an irrigation lateral or something that’s
probably high that is, you know, more of the dividing line. It’s hard for me to tell you
exactly where it’s at because it’s not necessarily set in stone.
Hatcher: But you’re talking because of geography and topography and stuff like that –
Freckleton: Exactly.
Hatcher: -- not has to do with zone lines or anything like that, it has to do with –
Freckleton: The ability to feasibly gravity sewer.
Hatcher: Okay. That answers my question.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 72
Freckleton: All right.
Borup: Any other questions for staff?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Shari, does the applicant agree with these requirements? Have you heard
back from them at all?
Stiles: I don’t know. I would imagine they do. I don’t know. I haven’t heard. I guess
you’ll have to speak to them.
Borup: Should we see what we could find out? Would the applicant here like to come
forward?
Scott: Yeah. We agreed to it.
Borup: Would you state your name first?
Scott: Theron Scott, 670 West Victory Road, Meridian.
Borup: Okay. And the short answer is yes.
Scott: Yes. Because three-fourths of it would gravity-flow over it the way it is. We do
have a canal that goes about where the arrow is. You moved it to quick. See where the
C is at? The canal would go from there at an angle down to – well, can I go and point it
out?
Brown: Sure. Sir, use this microphone if you would.
Scott: This one?
Brown: Yep. Oh. You need to switch it on. There’s a switch. On. There you go.
Scott: The canal would go roughly right across through here. Now, the canal is already
buried all the way up here, and it’s buried over here, so whoever buys it’s going to have
to bury it through. It’ll have to be tiled.
Borup: That’s the Kennedy lateral?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 73
Scott: Yes. And like I say, it’s 90 percent tiled through there, didn’t tile. I’m sure
Nampa Meridian would require it.
Borup: Any other questions from the Commission?
De Weerd: I have none.
Borup: Thank you, sir. So, sir – I think (inaudible) staff recommendation (inaudible) one
that is of course is gravity feed and the other was that recommended as mixed/planned
use rather than commercial. Would you say that you agree with all staff comments?
Okay. He nodded his head yes. Commissioners. Do you have any questions? I think
everyone’s said their peace.
Hatcher: I recommend that we close the public hearing.
De Weerd: Well, is there any further testimony –
Borup: Yeah. Did we have any other public testimony? Okay.
Brown: I second.
Borup: We have a motion to second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: I motion that we recommend to City Council the request for Comprehensive
Plan Amendment change single-family residential to the mixed use plan per staff’s
recommendations and include staff’s recommendations.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I second that.
Borup: Okay. It’s been moved and seconded.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, am I in left field, or are they asking that we change to
commercial rather than mixed use?
Borup: Well, they’d have to ask for commercial. Staff recommend mixed/planned use
and the applicant agreed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 74
Rossman: So now I’m in right field.
De Weerd: Now you’re in right field.
Hatcher: That’s the next application.
De Weerd: He’s jumping ahead.
Borup: What did we just do? Did we have a motion to vote? Motion and second?
Hatcher: Motion and second.
Borup: Did we vote?
Hatcher: No.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you, sir. That was easier than last time, wasn’t it?
9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
TO CHANGE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING TO MIXED PLANNED USE BY
IDAHO BASEBALL ACADEMY—NORTHWEST CORNER OF AMITY AND
MERIDIAN ROAD: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL.
Borup: Item No. 9. This is public hearing request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment
to change single-family housing to mixed/planned use by Idaho Baseball Academy for
the northwest corner of Amity and Meridian Road.
(inaudible discussion)
Borup: Ms. Stiles.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is for a property on Amity Road, the
northwest corner of Amity and Meridian Road. It is about a mile, mile and a half away
from existing city limits. They’re proposal is to go to a mixed/planned use development
from the single-family designation now. Across the street here are the old Simplot
chicken coops that are now –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 75
Berg: Albertson’s.
Stiles: Storage units?
Berg: It was Albertson’s chicken coops.
Stiles: I’m sorry, Will. I don’t go back that far. We had kind of a mixture of
recommendations as far as options. While we love the idea of having some ball fields
out there, we’re a little hesitant to recommend approval to a mixed/planned use
development due to the fact that it is so remote from existing services and city limits.
The designation of this as mixed/planned use development could also give Ada County
the opportunity to let pretty much anything and everything go out there. We can’t place
a condition on the uses when it comes for a land-use designation. I know it’s already
been in all the papers and everything that this is going to happen, but we didn’t hear
about it until it hit the papers, and was, you know, everybody’s all excited about it. They
can have the ball fields there today with no change in the land-use designation.
However, the retail and office use would require a change. One option that we had was
to designate only the two acres where they’re proposing they would have the retail and
office. Change only that two acres to the mixed/planned use. It would be kind of odd,
but it would give us a better comfort level. There are – since there are no services, that
is also in conflict with our Comprehensive Plans. Sewer is clear up at Elk Run
Subdivision. There’s – where is it? I guess I didn’t read the memo. It shows on our
Comprehensive Plan map that it is to be sewered by the Meridian Road trunk. But
Bruce is telling me he doesn’t think that is true. If that’s true, I don’t know. Maybe the
new facility plan update then by JUB indicates that this property can’t be sewered by
the Meridian Road trunk. Our existing Comp Plan shows that it is in this drainage area
for the Meridian Road trunk. The reason water is stopped at Meridian Road is because
there’s – what is it? Fiberoptic? Sewer. Sewer is stopped at Elk Run because of a
fiberoptic cable that apparently is in the same alignment that the sewer needs to run.
Another option – well, second option would be to deny it because the services that
aren’t available. The third option which would be the hardest to enforce that they –
there is a limitation on the number of type of septic systems and restricts commercial
and retail development until such time as services are available. That option would be
virtually non-enforceable for the City of Meridian. It would still fall under Ada County’s
guidelines and to basically come up with a whole new designation for a single parcel of
property is not very feasible, but, again, we certainly welcome the idea of the ball fields.
They could do that today without a Comp Plan Amendment, but we really think there’s
some serious problems with having commercial development out there. That’s about it.
Borup: Any questions?
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 76
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: Shari, you’ve got three options. Which one do you like?
Borup: You already said you don’t like “C”, I think.
Stiles: Well, yeah. I don’t like “C”. I like, I guess I like the denial. I don’t think it’s real
feasible to just designate a couple acres of that mixed/planned use development. I
don’t know how far they could go with Ada County and the R-T zone with – if they would
allow any kind of limited, short-term – I don’t know what temporary means anymore.
But I just think it’s too far out of the city that services can’t be provided. I know that the
Fire Department’s going to have a problem with something like this.
De Weerd: They said they didn’t.
Stiles: Pardon?
De Weerd: They said they didn’t in their comments. They did –
Stiles: They will need to build a water system with hydrants.
De Weerd: Right. Aren’t they going to do that anyway?
Stiles: Well, not if the City doesn’t put in services out there. I mean –
Hatcher: There are other ways besides city water but costly.
Stiles: It would be.
De Weerd: They did say I don’t have a problem with the Comp Plan change.
Stiles: Because they know it’ll have to come through for another application. The
problems will come when they have a development actually proposed out there. I’m
also a little concerned that if this does fall through and they don’t continue with their
plans it’ll be mixed/planned use development, and, you know, Albertson’s could show
up.
De Weerd: Boy. The people south of the freeway would love that.
Stiles: But we should let the applicant have an opportunity to make their pitch and –
Borup: Would the applicant like to –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 77
De Weerd: Make their pitch?
Borup: I guess we could do that. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Phillips: I’m Russ Phillips, I’m with Olson & Associates Architects. Our offices are at
1789 Broadway in Boise. We understand that this is a unique site and opportunity.
Right now we’re looking at – someone else earlier mentioned some baby steps. Well,
what we’re looking at right now is we’re going through a series of steps, and this is the
first one. And, you know, we know that it’s very difficult to determine what a use a
property’s going to be, and we’re looking at kind of the big picture here. I think there’s
probably no doubt in anyone’s mind that in time Meridian Road, Amity is going to
become a commercial retail mixed-use type area. That’s been the pattern in this valley
for some time. The question is, really, when does that occur? This property has, at this
time, I think several things going for it where this is a good time. You know, some
precedents have been set as far as it’s not entirely agricultural any longer, as was
pointed out in the staff report. There are some other uses happening around this
property. This property also has a significant physical feature which there is traversing
across the property diagonally is are two northwest gas pipelines with a 75-foot right-of-
way. That in itself really creates some unique opportunities where this land use, which
is what we’re looking at designation tonight, this land use really doesn’t lend itself to an
agricultural – excuse me, a residential use due to that pipeline corridor. Also, it makes it
very difficult to develop very much commercial retail along the Meridian Road corridor.
So it’s really an ideal area, and I think this was mentioned several times in staff report,
for an opportunity to have an open space. It’s early at this point. In the future, it can be
a real enhancement to this area. Not just an open space, but a productive open space
with athletic fields. What’s planned for the 25 acres, due to some other circumstances,
we’ve gone into quite a site development which we could show you if you have any
more detailed questions. But in the 25 acres, roughly 6-1/2 percent of the acreage will
be an indoor facility where two-thirds of that indoor facility are indoor recreational fields:
indoor baseball infield and indoor softball infield. So, therefore, that leaves the office
retail area something approximately 2,000 square feet which is two-tenths of one
percent of the entire 25-acre site. So the site is essentially all recreational. There
happens to be a large part of the indoor area that’s covered. And for those reasons,
looking at the use of this site, it seems extremely compatible to the use, and at this
point, because of the light load, as far as septic system and domestic water, our client is
willing to spend the cost of design and construction of a well and a septic system to
serve this small indoor area until at which point city services are extended to the site.
Borup: Any questions to Mr. Phillip?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 78
Hatcher: Yes. I do. You mentioned servicing the small indoor area of this facility. What
about servicing the large outdoor area? Your preliminary drawings show a rather large
stadium that, when if used for exhibition game or even, you know, regional Little League
or what not, you’re going to have a rather large group of people on that facility. You’re
going to need to have exterior public restrooms to facilitate those people besides just
the two-tenths of the site.
Phillips: Sure. Sure. If you’ve been to the Hawk’s Stadium, for example, which is
roughly the same size, you’ll note that the restroom size, the number of restroom
plumbing fixtures isn’t all that great at the Hawk’s Stadium. And then the use is
intermittent. It’s not a constant use either. And then also this facility will be phased so
that in the beginning, the (inaudible) stadium won’t be there. What’s shown there is an
overall master plan.
Hatcher: Right. I kind of gathered that.
Phillips: So, hopefully the timing will be such that as – if the use does increase to a
certain point, at that time we can phase that stadium in.
Hatcher: Right. I don’t want to get off on the track because we are dealing with
Comprehensive Plan here. Definitely would warrant some additional discussion on the
project. It’s an interesting project. I think it’s got some validity. My question to – I’ve got
a question that I kind of want to bring to the Commission. If we approve the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment here as it is presented to us, then it pretty much goes
out of our hands and goes to Ada County, and we won’t see it again.
Borup: I think that as requested. That’s why – I’ve got a question for Mr. Phillips. I’m
sorry. I don’t mean to interrupt, but do you understand the concern in the staff
comments on changing the whole 25 acres?
Phillips: Yes, we do.
Borup: And do you have any comments on any of the staff comments?
Phillips: Well, the –
Borup: I guess specifically I’m thinking of Option A where it would designate two acres,
enough for your buildings and then leave the other as your ball fields, as the residential
which you could still develop as planned.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 79
Phillips: Right. I think that makes a lot of sense because that is what our goal is
anyway is to develop the outdoor fields in that area, and we’re just asking – I think that’s
a reasonable option in our opinion.
Borup: I think the concern is if we make a Comp Plan change, if a year from now, for
whatever reason you don’t develop it, the property can be sold, you know, and then it’s
open to whatever the next person wants to do and whatever the County feels to allow.
Phillips: There’s –
Borup: So I think that’s more of a concern, not with your project, but –
Phillips: Sure.
Borup: And then, did that kind of answer, Mr. Hatcher, what you were leading to?
Hatcher: No. My concern, and it’s not really a concern, I mean, I think there’s a lot of
merit to this project. I mean, yes, it’s out of the city limits, but it’s still, I think, close
enough in the growth that we’re seeing in the southern part of the city, I would really like
to be able to, at this board, be able to, excuse the phrase, but be able to maintain
control of what goes on with this project rather than –
Borup: Let’s annex it then.
Hatcher: But if we annex it, then doesn’t the City have obligations to provide city
services?
Borup: I’m not entirely –
Hatcher: I mean, no.
Borup: I don’t know if I was entirely serious.
Hatcher: Can we annex without providing services? I don’t think –
Borup: I don’t think that’s where the complication – an applicant anticipates that this will
be within the city limits one day.
Phillips: Exactly.
Hatcher: This is going to be part of the City of Meridian, you know, in not too distant
future.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 80
Phillips: I’m not – to be honest, I’m not familiar with all of the requirements the City or
the obligations the City has. If land is annexed, there’s probably some type of
timeframe, and I think, you know, in this case we could certainly work – our plant would
work with the City on some type of verbiage to address that issue. You know, that
would be a solution. We’re definitely probably just a step ahead of the ballgame, but
with the way that we see growth occurring in this area, we’re really looking for is some
assistance in, you know, this is unique. It’s innovative, and so we’re trying to – we’d like
to work with you in determining what the best approach is. I’m familiar with some other
projects that I represented in Boise where there were conditions on the land use that
the designation or the zoning could revert back, you know, under certain conditions, too,
and that seems like a possible option.
Borup: That was in the city limits, wasn’t it?
Phillips: Yes.
Borup: Not rather than their impact area? See, that’s kind of the complication here.
And I think as far as annexation, shoestring annexation isn’t looked upon too favorably
either. I – that was one of the staff’s recommendations on their Item A was designate
up to two acres for the office complex area. I’m not sure how you do that without a
specific – Shari, were you thinking just an undesignated two acres? So we’d need a
site plan, then?
Stiles: You’d have to designate a specific area. Does Ada County, I guess I’m asking
the applicant, do they not allow recreation facilities in an R-T zone with a conditional
use permit?
Phillips: I think Steve Lawson has spoken with Ada County. As I recall, it is a
compatible use.
Stiles: It is?
Phillips: Yes.
Stiles: Why the need for a Comp Plan change if they allow that with a conditional use in
the Ada County?
Phillips: Would you like to address that, Steve? If you don’t mind, Steve Lawson has
had most of the communication with Ada County and Meridian.
Borup: Okay. Steve, come on up.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 81
Lawson: Steve Lawson. I own Idaho Baseball Academy, 1208 North Orchard, Boise.
With talking with Ada County, the primary concern with them also was the commercial
aspect of the building. That’s probably as best an answer as I can give you. I haven’t
talked to them for a while because they sent me – because it was in the impact area to
you and said that once we did what we needed to do with the City of Meridian and in
the impact area, then we’d be able to come back to them and they would basically, they
said they’ll do what –
Borup: Essentially, they said the office building part did not comply with their present
zoning?
Lawson: That’s correct. As soon as the commercial aspect –
Borup: (inaudible) didn’t meet with our Comp Plan that that would need to be –
Lawson: Yes.
Borup: That was your understanding, Shari, wasn’t it? I mean, that was – at least
that’s what you’ve stated that you assume that was the reason he’s here because of the
building, not the ball field.
Lawson: I might like to also say that I really don’t like Option B, of course, but Option A,
I think that’s still gives you guys the opportunity – you mentioned it might be – I don’t
know how we’d go about designating that two acre-spot unless, I mean, at this time
because there aren’t plans and we are taking maybe that baby step that we’ve talked
about earlier. But that would still give you the opportunity to – we wouldn’t be able to
sell it to Albertson’s. Our hopes and dreams are that we’re going to build that whole 25
acres. Now, dreams don’t always come true, but if you went with staff’s
recommendation on Option A, I think, and you placed it in the middle of that land where
if you looked at one of our drawings, you’d see where our indoor facility is. That’s not
going to be a real valuable piece of land for somebody to come in and buy such as
Albertson’s or – the corner is the valuable piece of land that people are talking about,
but – of Amity and Meridian, but if that two-acre designation was essentially in the
middle of the piece of land, I don’t think that – I think you’d still have that control you
want of not just having anything go on by letting Ada County vote in whenever they
want once we leave here. You know, that’s – I know that’s got to be your major
concern. I’m not going to turn around and sell that. I’m a baseball guy. I also want to,
even though this isn’t – again, this is just about the plan. I want to let you know that the
main part of this place, okay, as a business, the main success of – and again, this isn’t
with the plan, but of our athletes, whether it’s girls or boys or whatever is using that
indoor facility. That indoor facility allows us to practice year-round. That way it’s a year-
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 82
round business. We’ve had incredible success in the one year we’ve been open in
Boise because our guys were able to work out all winter long. We had major league
players work out there this winter, a bunch of minor-leaguers. Again, I know this
doesn’t have to do with that, but, you know, this is my chance to let you know the
impact that it can have, and that impact can be made if Option A is a part of that. I don’t
have to have that as a business owner, as a baseball man. I don’t have to have that 25
acres rezoned to commercial or mixed use. Now when I put in the application, that was
really the only way I could put it in there. I like Option A because that allows us to move
forward. Honestly, without the indoor facility, the fields probably don’t get built because
it is a year-round thing for us. It’s a dramatic piece of the business.
Borup: Steve, does your – you say you don’t have the final site plan, but do you – is
what you propose here, is it close enough to where you feel the building is going to be
that you could do a legal description with two acres?
Lawson: Sure. Actually, it’s real close. Where we – we didn’t just throw down five
fields and the indoor place there. This is about the 15th
try, you know, sun – where’s the
sun, you know, for the fielders, and – that’s the indoor facility right there. This is
actually
(inaudible) that’s the indoor facility. That’s actually the playing surface, two fields, and
then that’s the office. Hall of Fame. We have a Hall of Fame. We come to agreement
with the Idaho High School Hall of Fame. They’re going to put their museum in there if
we can build this. The pipeline goes across. We’ve been in contact with the company,
and they like the fact that if something came up, they could dig a piece of grass up
instead of street or a house, you know, if the single-family housing needed –
Borup: Housing wouldn’t be allowed over there. No built environment – no building can
be put over that pipeline. It’s an easement, so that’s all it can be is essentially green
space. I think –
Lawson: We could get very specific on that two acres that you asked about there.
Borup: And it looks like you’ve got it against your property line, so it’s not –
Hatcher: Don’t you need to include the parking as part of the –
Borup: Oh. As part of the designation? Shari, would the parking lots need – well, if
you’re going to have the ball fields, you’re going to need parking for the ball fields.
Lawson: If you’re just talking about the retail and the office space, that’s the numbers
Russ Was talking about.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 83
Borup: What were you wondering, Commissioner Brown, was size?
Brown: (inaudible) scale the building and I thought you’d need to include that large
parking lot also. (inaudible)
Stiles: (inaudible) support that building, I would think, probably.
Hatcher: Shari, with this proposal that’s in front of us, are there any ties that we have
other than the impact area with this project as far as being able to add conditions and
stipulations or things that basically the applicant was saying: they went to the County
and the County said, “well, you need to go talk to the City of Meridian, and then we’ll
support whatever they say.” But yet, we’re kind of in that no-man’s land where we can’t
really enforce a lot of our rules, but it is in our impact area, so we have the opportunity
to say what we want to say, but then who’s going to enforce it? What I’m getting at is
going back – I don’t want to get off on a tangent here, but on the design of the facilities.
We would typically deal with that with a CU or whatnot, but after tonight, as it is right
now, we’re not going to see the project again and then have to rely on Ada County, and
that, you know, nothing for your application or anything, just for the City’s safety, you
know, can we say we’ll do Option A. We’ll recommend Option A, but as a condition, if
this specific project is not built, then the two acres of mixed use is null and void. It’s
only good for this project. Can we make a condition saying that this comes before us
after they’ve gone back to the County for a preliminary or CU? Can we make
stipulations now?
Stiles: I don’t think so. That would be very awkward. I don’t think they would pay any
attention to it. They probably think we’re nuts for just doing the two-acre thing, but it’ll
give us a little bit – I’m still curious why they won’t let this develop it in an R-T as a
recreational facility. I’m concerned as they probably are, this is going to develop a whole
lot more spin-off than is shown here.
Hatcher: Well with the other support facilities around it.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Commissioner Brown.
Brown: But, Shari, we could recommend that the remainder be designated as park
area.
Stiles: That’d be great, yeah. We could color it green.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 84
Brown: So if we had the two to three acres be the one with your Option A and then the
remainder as park, then there’s nothing else that they can do. It’s not going anywhere
else other than Boise City –
De Weerd: And that would be a nice precedent to set.
Hatcher: Actually, that would be.
Borup: Very nice. To designate park area?
Brown: So if this project didn’t go, then (inaudible) it’s not going to be worth anything to
anyone else, and they’ll have to come back and ask us to change it anyway. Under the
park designation they couldn’t have the office though. That is all park.
Stiles: Not within the – if it was going to be specifically designated park – yeah. I don’t
think there’s any. It would be nice – what’s on that one piece right next to the – what
are the outparcels there on the Meridian Road?
Lawson: This is a natural gas substation and this is a residence.
Borup: And on the west there?
Lawson: That’s a residence there. That whole section (inaudible) to there.
Borup: That’s a residence also.
Lawson: And then farmland --
*** End of Tape 3, Side 1 ***
-- all around the rest of it. And there’s actually, I believe, on your Comprehensive Plan
right now, I think there’s a park dot (sic) somewhere right in this area. Whether that
means anything, but –
Brown: It’s close, but not --
Lawson: -- maybe it’s across the street.
Stiles: Yeah. It’s about a half mile down there.
Lawson: Is it down there?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 85
Borup: Amity? Oh. That’s right on the corner. Right in the middle of the chicken
coops.
(inaudible discussion)
Borup: Oh. I’m sorry. I was looking in the wrong place. That was too far away.
De Weerd: Well, why are we drawing the map? We can just (inaudible)
Hatcher: We’ll just move that green dot over on the new one. We can do that? We
have that – (inaudible)
Borup: Well, we’re making a –
Hatcher: -- recommendation? We can’t (inaudible)
Borup: Well, it’s a recommendation but it’s a Comp Plan change, but also these map
boundaries too.
Stiles: It’s almost – almost came down to zoning.
De Weerd: Well we’re updating our map right now.
Stiles: It will be a very specific Comp Plan change; that’s for sure.
Hatcher: I think it needs it for a very specific project. If this doesn’t go through, I don’t
want to see a shopping center pop up out in the middle of nowhere because then –
Borup: (inaudible) no services, the County’s not going to approve that anyway, would
they? With no services?
Hatcher: No. I was using that figuratively not literally.
Stiles: There’s nothing we can do about design criteria, though. That’s not going to
happen.
Borup: Well, we’ve got – I still think, you don’t think the County would be open to say
we would like to at least have a chance to review?
Stiles: Oh. They’ll send us an application. If that comes through for a conditional use
permit, they’ll send us an application, but they don’t typically ask for elevations or –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 86
Borup: Well, we’ve already got that.
Hatcher: Unless they change.
Borup: Right.
De Weerd: We can request by letter specifically that they notify us of this and to give us
the information.
Hatcher: To keep us informed of the progress of the project?
De Weerd: Yeah.
Stiles: They’ll send us an application. It’ll come through Ada County and they’ll send
us an application.
De Weerd: I would still recommend that you write a letter saying specifically we would
like to follow this. And not assume that they will send us anything. Just ask that they
do.
Borup: Isn’t this the first commercial – I mean, not strictly commercial, but first
commercial-type of application that we’ve had from the County, I mean, that’s been in
the County? First one that I can think of since I’ve been here.
Stiles: One, I guess, that would require a zone change. They’ve had, you know, like –
Borup: Well, we’ve had others.
Stiles: -- funeral homes and nurseries and those kinds of things.
Borup: And most of them have been residential-type changes.
Stiles: But those are all permitted in their R-T zone.
Borup: Yeah. Okay. Just make one clarification for the pipeline they’re talking about is
not a natural gas pipeline. It’s petroleum pipeline where they – Chevron where they
pump the gas through. It’s not a natural gas. Okay. Any other questions from the
Commissioners? Then, Shari, how would it proceed? Do they need to have a survey
of the building section or –
Stiles: I don’t know how much of a legal description you really need to designate that –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 87
Borup: Can’t we just say to incorporate the building shown on the proposed site plan as
presented?
Brown: State law only requires that you have a map. So we can do it from a map.
Borup: From right there?
Stiles: So if they can give us a copy of this scaled map –
Borup: Which we’ve got here.
Stiles: Well, that’s not scaled.
Borup: Oh. Nope.
Phillips: I believe it has a graphic scale on it.
Borup: Yeah, but it’s been shrunk down, hasn’t it?
Stiles: We don’t want to measure that.
Hatcher: We need a legal description.
Phillips: We’d be glad to get you a full-scale.
Borup: And that’s all we need?
Stiles: I think so.
De Weerd: They can have that available at the City Council meeting for the specifics.
Borup: Well, yeah. You’re saying there would be time for them to have a specific –
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borup: -- legal description by then. Then our recommendation would be to incorporate
the building and parking; is that what you’re –
De Weerd: Well, yes, but we still have two gentlemen sitting in the back. I don’t –
Borup: We’re not done with –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 88
De Weerd: I think they just like to hear us go on, right?
Borup: Okay. Let’s move on. Brent, were you planning on testifying? Okay.
Audience Member: No. We just was interested in some adjacent property. Interested
in your comments and potential to use that. But from the verbiage (inaudible)
Borup: It’s not going to be easy, right?
Audience Member: We would probably relinquish our concern on that particular piece
of property.
Brown: Maybe one of the soccer fields –
Borup: Well, yeah.
De Weerd: Unless you wanted to continue on that green space, you know, we can
enlarge that circle.
Borup: Yeah. We’re probably needing to get services out there before we did too much
more. Okay. Did that – okay. He was – Commissioners.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: Second it.
Borup: Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we approve the Comp Plan Amendment
modifying staff’s recommendation Option A to require the approximate two-acre portion
be changed to mixed/planned use development and that the remaining 25 acres –
Borup: The remainder of the 25 acres?
Brown: -- the remainder of the 25 acres be designated as park.
De Weerd: To include staff comments. Hey. I do have a question. At this point can we
ask staff as well to write the letter to Ada County requesting that –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 89
Borup: Sure. We can ask staff anything we want.
De Weerd: -- that we’d be notified – as well that the Fire Department be kept in the
loop in regards to the fire flow pressure and the sprinkled building.
Hatcher: (inaudible)
De Weerd: Well, that’s what they were recommending.
Hatcher: But if we give them two acres to play, you know, they can conform the building
and the parking however they want.
De Weerd: Based on fire recommendations (inaudible)
Borup: Okay. Wouldn’t that still be under the jurisdiction of the rural Fire Department?
De Weerd: It does, but I’d like a little bit more comprehensive look at it than just –
Brown: Are you asking do we need to amend my motion?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Borup: Is that going to affect how the Fire Department’s going to look at it either way?
Because it is under the direction of rural fire, and even though it’s been accounted, they
still have to –
De Weerd: Well, I –
Borup: Well, you’re right. But the Building Department’s going to be through Ada
County.
Stiles: Fire Department’s (inaudible)
De Weerd: Well to just put that underlined, highlighted, emphasis on it.
Borup: Let’s do it so we can move along.
Brown: We want to stay involved with this project.
Borup: Okay. Are we amending a motion here, or did you accept the addition to your
motion? We didn’t even have a second yet, so –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 90
Brown: No. We haven’t had a second yet. They’re asking if I will amend it.
Borup: I don’t know if you need to amend it. We haven’t even made the motion yet.
De Weerd: Well, just to add that –
Borup: Oh. Just to add that to the motion. You can say yes or no and then we can go
on from there.
Brown: I don’t want to amend my motion. I don’t – it’s not going to do anything. The
Fire Department’s going to see it.
Borup: Then go ahead and amend it if it’s not going to make any difference.
Brown: That’s true. Okay.
Borup: As a token –
De Weerd: I’ll second that.
Borup: Make Tammy happy.
De Weerd: That’s why they put me at the end. I second his motion.
Borup: Okay. Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: We are through the agenda. We’ve made all nine items. One more motion.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Ms. Stiles. I would like legal counsel to tell us how these are going to move
forward. Are Findings going to be prepared in one big recommendation or –
Borup: Yeah. I asked Steve –
Stiles: -- how are we going to do that?
Borup: -- before we started. Maybe see if Eric has a different answer. That’s a good
question.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 91
Rossman: I’ll talk to Steve and find out what he told you first. I would say in light of the
statute, my initial inclination is we do one recommendation for a modification to the
Comprehensive Plan and we include it all in that one recommendation because that
would be the single action that goes up.
Borup: That’s just what Steve said.
Rossman: Hey. We’re on – it’s telepathy.
Borup: Yeah. He said we could make separate motions, but that he would combine
them all into one recommendation.
Rossman: Yeah. I like that.
Borup: Does that answer your question, Shari?
Stiles: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Chairman. Oh. What?
Stiles: Go ahead and (inaudible) close.
De Weerd: We got something in our box from about some zone or planning and zoning
changes. Could someone explain that?
Borup: Yeah. That’d probably be appropriate. That came up at City Council.
Stiles: Especially since it said that changes were available at Planning and Zoning
Department, and we don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. It’s a recodification of
the ordinance. They had Sterling Codifiers redo the ordinance to make it conform with
all the other ordinances, and with that there’s been some minor changes, some
additions to maybe a title of a section or things like that, but it’s more of a clean-up
thing. I don’t know that there were any major changes in it. It seems like it was like a
three- or four-page – are you familiar with that, Eric?
Rossman: That was from Steve. (inaudible)
De Weerd: It was thick, wasn’t it?
Borup: Right here. This? We just got it today.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 92
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Stiles: What is that?
De Weerd: Well –
Borup: Did you get –
Freckleton: Chairman and members of the Commission –
Borup: It’s addressed to Shari Stiles and Bruce Freckleton.
Freckleton: It was noted in the paper of a hearing on October 12th
, P & Z for some
minor changes in the zoning and subdivision ordinance as well as fee change –
Stiles: Conditional use transfer change –
Freckleton: And this was from the Attorney’s Office. We made that notification and –
Borup: So this is going to be on our agenda?
Freckleton: It’s noticed to be on your agenda.
De Weerd: Is someone going to give us a presentation, like an abbreviated thing?
Borup: That’s what I was going to say. Perhaps we ought to have a little bit of
information from –
Freckleton: I’m sure you will get a presentation at the meeting, but –
Borup: From Steve? From Eric?
Freckleton: Bill.
Borup: Okay. Did everybody have a copy of that? So that you can – so everybody’s
got a copy, so we can study that.
Hatcher: (inaudible)
Borup: Yeah. That probably ought to go to him.
Brown: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 93
Borup: Mr. Brown.
Brown: I appreciate the work that staff did on the staff reports, and I –
Stiles: My staff is wonderful.
Brown: They are wonderful. And I would like to make some recommendations that
would make it easier for me.
Stiles: Okay.
Brown: One of the items, I would like to see is to know what the applicant thinks and
exactly what we’re – if we’re disputing anything on your recommendation, I would like to
see that.
Borup: That’s what we ask them.
Brown: Well, it takes awhile in the meeting, and if they have to discuss it with you
before, from experience that I had at Boise City, that really cut the process down. If we
can look at this in advance and the issue is, you know, you’re recommending denial or
you’re recommending that they do pressure sewer or not do pressure sewer. And
they’re saying they want to do pressure, then we can see what that issue is and know
about that prior to the meeting.
Borup: So you’re saying that staff could say we’ve discussed it with the applicant and
they agree with everything except for this or this?
Brown: This item. Then it makes it a lot easier for us in making our decision. And I
saw that to be the case when I worked at Boise. The only other thing I would like is the
map attached to this because I can’t always find –
Borup: Oh. You poor guy.
Stiles: Attached to what?
Brown: To the staff report. With the staff report. Right. A vicinity map and the reduced
copy that you require would really, for me and I’m asking for comment.
Stiles: I’m always for (inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 94
Brown: And having it all in one place would then make a difference to me. But that
would be my recommendations of the City.
Stiles: We’ll work towards that. Our comments are so late –
Borup: Hey. You’re doing better, remember?
Stiles: We’re working on it. If I start having Steve and Brad do all the comments, they’ll
be early.
Brown: I really appreciate having the recommendations. That makes a big difference
for me personally. I don’t know what the others –
Borup: Yes. That’s been really nice to have the recommendations written out.
Brown: And I know how difficult it is to do the items in dispute. But it really does make
a big difference and it will shorten our time –
Borup: Then if the applicant’s still here, then if they didn’t agree with what was – I think,
you know –
Stiles: If we get them done soon enough, then we can ask for a response.
Brown: Right.
Borup: Well, and that works good. What’s really critical is as long as they get it and
have time to review it and have the comments at least in mine before the meetings so
they can stand here and say, yes, we’ve reviewed them, we’ve read them all. We agree
with everything.
Brown: Even if they don’t. Even if they only have a day or two, it doesn’t take long to
read the staff –
Borup: Well, they should have it by – we really need them by Friday.
Brown: (inaudible) yes. If we got them by Friday, then they’d have them by Friday.
Borup: Yeah. Well, usually they get them before we do, I think. I think staff’s been
faxing stuff over to them. So they usually get them before we do.
Brown: The thing that I’ve noticed is that we’ve had a number of applicants come up
here, and they go down each item or each thing that’s (inaudible) –
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 95
Stiles: Some of them still will.
Borup: And probably what I need to do is work on that.
Brown: I’m going to elbow Keith and we’re not going to.
Freckleton: It’d be nice if they’d only go over the things that they dispute.
Borup: Sometimes I’ve asked them that specifically and I’ll try to do better in letting
them do that.
Freckleton: Doing a good job, Keith.
Borup: Yeah. If somebody could jab me in the ribs, that’ll help.
De Weerd: Just to add something to that, I know Shari, I think we’re getting another
planner. That’s exciting.
Stiles: That’s the rumor.
De Weerd: Well, the rumor is. But I would like to compliment the P & Z staff, you know,
the comprehensive reports we’ve been getting. It has evolved into something that’s
very beneficial, and so I want it on record that we appreciate P & Z and City Clerk’s
office and I hope that –
Borup: What are you campaigning for?
De Weerd: -- City Council actually reads these comments because they’ve been doing
an excellent job.
Stiles: I’ll make sure my staff knows.
De Weerd: And those city attorneys and Bruce, of course.
Stiles: And Sonya prepared this PowerPoint presentation for me. I didn’t even have to
ask her. She just did all these maps.
De Weerd: And that was really nice. I move that we adjourn.
Brown: Second.
Borup: All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Special Meeting
September 30, 1999
Page 96
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Meeting adjourned.
De Weerd: And thank you, Linda.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:19 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
_______________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
_______________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK