1999 11-09MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING-NOVEMBER 9, 1999
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Keith Borup.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Borup, Thomas Barbeiro, Richard Hatcher
OTHERS PRESENT: Shari Stiles, Steve Siddoway, Bruce Freckleton, Eric Rossman,
Will Berg.
Borup: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. It is time to call the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting to order. I am Keith Borup, Chairman. We do have in
attendance Thomas Barbeiro and Richard Hatcher. First Item A on the Consent
Agenda, which is the minutes from the last meeting.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the minutes as submitted.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: Motion and second to approve the minutes. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: A couple of informational items for the Agenda. Item 11 and 12, which is the
Touchmark Living Centers. If anyone is here for that, the applicant has asked to have
that item deferred. It will be deferred to our next months meeting. It is a noticed public
meeting and we will address that when it comes, but there will be no presentation from
the applicant. It will be at next months meeting. I think I am just going to procede
ahead with the outline. I don’t know if it is going to make any difference on those
others.
1. ITEM 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
ACCESSORY USE PERMIT FOR PRE SCHOOL PLAY GROUP 3 HOURS PER
MORNING-5 CHILDREN BY SANDRA LOVETT—1835 S. SWAN AVENUE:
Borup: We do have the Findings here before us. We need a motion.
Barbeiro: I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the
Accessory Use Permit for pre school play group 3 hours per morning-5 children by
Sandra Lovett at 1835 S. Swan Avenue.
Hatcher: I second it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 2
Borup: Roll Call Vote: Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Aye
Borup: Commissioner De Weerd is absent. Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Aye
Borup: Commissioner Brown is absent. Do we have the motion on the decision. Just
to read it.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the decision the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission has determined that upon review of the applicable standards and
guidelines set forth in the City Zoning Ordnance, established record and applicable law
that the applicant has met Accessory Use Standards giving the forth going the subject
application for family day care, home accessory use as set forth herein shall be granted
and the use allowed, subject to the conditions imposed herein. The Accessory Use
shall be subject to review by the City upon notice to the applicant.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
2. ITEM 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 3 BUILDING RETAIL COMPLEX OF
APPROXIMATELY 50,000 SF ON VACANT 5.5 ACRE SITE IN A C-G ZONE BY
NORCO—NORTH OF FAIRVIEW BETWEEN EAGLE ROAD AND LOCUST
GROVE ROAD:
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's I had a question on the Findings on page 13
under Item 1.16. The staff comments said that the applicant indicates a single pylon
sign 25 x 15 and a single monument sign for the center and only those signs are
approved along the Fairview Avenue frontages as a condition of approval. Those were
the signs that were submitted as part of the application that you have in your packets,
but later on page 16 under Item 1.42, it says that the applicant shall construct a sign not
to exceed 72 square feet, which is basically what we’ve been requiring along the
frontage. I was wondering which of those statements is what you intended.
Borup: Thank you. Good point. Commissioner's I think we need to clarify.
Hatcher: My recollection was Item 42 was the requirement.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 3
Borup: Yes, and that is consistent with past signage approval.
(Inaudible discussion)
Borup: Mr. Rossman, do you have a full set. Do you have page 17.
Rossman: Let me look real quick. I have in my file a office copy dated November 2,
1999 and it does have on the last page a approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law and Roll Call, which is what you need. I will pass this down to you and you can
work off of that.
Borup: We have all the other information.
(Inaudible discussion)
Borup: Clarification, Shari was it your understand a single sign or two signs. A
monument sign plus a smaller sign.
Stiles: They proposed a 25 x 15, which apparently the Commission did not want to
approve.
Borup: Right, plus they had a secondary sign.
Stiles: Even that is probably not be adequate for as many tenants as they may have in
that development.
Hatcher: If I’m not mistaken, there was no conditions put on the monument sign that we
went ahead—we are going to approve that as submitted, but the clarification was that
the 25 x 15 sign needed to be modified so that it would not be greater than 72 square
feet.
Borup: So your saying that we approved a pylon sign?
Hatcher: No we approved the monument sign and the pylon sign can not exceed 72
square feet.
Borup: That’s what I say. We approved a 72 square foot pylon sign. Is that your
recollection? Mine either. Why don’t we refer this to the end of the meeting. We are
going move Item 2 to the end of the agenda. We can discuss this and not take up other
peoples time. We can go back and check the minutes before then and get that clarified.
3. ITEM 3. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL FIBER ARTS SUPPLY STORE BY
JENNIFER OAK—55 E. STATE AVENUE, OLD TOWN:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 4
(Inaudible audience discussion)
Borup: We going to defer this? Let’s go to Item 6.
6. ITEM 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL AND LIMITED
OFFICE FOR VALERI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION BY GOLD RIVER COMPANIES,
INC.—NE CORNER OF PINE STREET AND TEN MILE ROAD:
Borup: This particular property was on our agenda previously. The annexation was
denied by City Council. This is essentially is cleaning this up. This public hearing is
open. Do we have any one here to testify? Seeing none. Commissioner's.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Do we have a motion on this item?
Hatcher: Yes Mr. Chairman, I move to motion that we recommend denial on the
preliminary plat and the conditional use permit, both items 6 and 7 to City Council.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Okay I think we still need to go ahead and handle Item 7 as a separate item, but
okay. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
7. ITEM 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 158 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND 6
TOWNHOUSES WITH 18,000 SQUARE FEET LIMITED OFFICE SPACE BY
GOLD RIVER COMPANIES, INC.—NE CORNER OF PINE STREET AND TEN
MILE ROAD:
Hatcher: I move that we make motion to City Council that---I move that we close the
public hearing.
Borup: All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend denial on the conditional use
permit, Item number 7 for Gold River Companies, Inc.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 5
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Shari do you have any clarification for us on Item 3?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's if you may recall at the meeting at the Planning
and Zoning hearing on this Item, she did present a sign. I don’t know if you can see
from there. I believe it was recommended for approval.
Borup: Oh, Item number 1.3, yes.
Stiles: On page 7.
Borup: That was the question. Commissioner's do you remember that. There was a
(inaudible) sign that was discussed and I believe approved. As requested normally by
staff, they like to have to signs approved at the time the application is approved and
was done it this case.
Rossman: Just do it that way. That is perfectly fine. Did we assign an exhibit number
to that document or anything—that sign that she proposed?
Borup: That is just part of the packet, I believe. Is that correct? Just part of the regular
packet.
Stiles: I believe she presented it at the meeting.
Borup: So it was –
Rossman: Just delete no and none. They will clarify it at City Council if that is in fact
the sign that they are proposing wanted approved.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the decision and recommendation
granting conditional use permit with subject conditions, now therefore based upon the
above and foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Planning and Zoning
Commission does hereby recommend that the applicant is granted a conditional use
permit for operation of a retain fiber arts store subject to the terms and conditions as
outlined in the findings of fact with the exception of line items 1.3, that shall be deleted.
Hatcher: I second that.
Borup: All in favor?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 6
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: You deleted no and none or you deleted the whole line?
Barbeiro: I deleted the entire line.
Rossman: Amend that motion.
Barbeiro: I wish to amend the motion to delete the words no and none in line item
1.387 of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Hatcher: I second the amendment.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Rossman: Need a roll call.
Borup: Commissioner Barbeiro
Barbeiro: Aye.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Aye.
Borup: Commissioner's De Weerd and Brown absent. Commissioner Borup, Aye.
Thank you.
ITEM 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34
ACRES FROM C-2 AND R-8 TO C-G (WALGREEN’S) BY HAWKINS
SMITH MANAGEMENT, INC.—NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND
LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: This is a continued public hearing although there was no testimony last time.
Staff, do we have a presentation?
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is for the property on the southwest corner of
or the northwest corner of Fairview Avenue and Locust Grove. There currently exists a
building here. There are several tenants in that building. There is also an office
building here. I believe, I am not sure if these are two single homes at this time
constructed. They are all part of this Carol or Doris Subdivision. Do you want me to
address both applications at this time or do you want to take them one at a time?
Borup: They would be your pleasure.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 7
Stiles: Do you all have a copy of our comments that were dated October 17, 1999?
October 7th
. sorry. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner' we have made several
recommendations that would require significant changes be made to this site plan. I
received, I don’t if it came in today or when it came in—I am assuming that it’s an
elevation of the building in this corner here. I am not positive. It appears—do you have
this—does this look familiar to any of you? Did the transmittal come with this or just in
you box like that. I really don’t know what the significance of this is but I am just
assuming that it would be this building. I can’t tell what the use of the building is. They
still have not proposed any signage. It all most appears from the west elevation that
that window could be someday used as a drive through window and that is not part of
that application and is not approved as part of this application. The Ada County
Highway District recommendations are for Carol Street or that a drive be put through to
Carol Street. They have approved an access here. It will be right in and right out only.
This does not meet district policy and it is not a very desirable location for an additional
driveway approach. It looks like staff considers that is going to cause significant
problems stacking. There will be people going southbound trying to get into the
Walgreen’s and could back up preventing people from leaving the Doris Subdivision.
This access the Carol Street access lines up with an existing access over on the Fred
Meyer site and that was the reason the driveway was put where it was in Fred Meyer’s
site, so. But Ada County did make this recommendation here. They also had some
other concerns regarding the site as our landscape setbacks we requested are not
being met. Ada County Highway District has also in their recommendations they are
not requesting any improvements to the roadway at this time. They are not asking for
curb, gutter and sidewalk. They said this segment is in there 5 year work program for
reconstruction in fiscal year 2001. They would ask them to deposit money into the trust
fund and they would construct those at a later date. We are asking that a development
agreement be entered into addressing all of our items for the annexation. There is also
the issue of these four lots here. There are easements –public utility easements within
those lots the interior lot lines, and those would need to be vacated prior to issuance of
any building permits. Staff would recommend that this site plan be revised to meet staff
and agency conditions prior to sending it on to City Council as it will require significant
changes to this plan.
Borup: Any questions? Mr. Rossman.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman to expedite matters would it be more efficient to open the
public hearing, consolidate the public hearing on 4 and 5 both? We won’t have to have
a public hearing and then reopen it again on the next item.
Borup: Your saying we can have 2 public hearings running simultaneously?
Rossman: You can consolidate and have one public hearing. Consolidate the two
items. That’s what they do quite often at City Council.
Borup: No one has ever told us that.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 8
Rossman: You are welcome to do that here or you can do it the way—piecemeal if you
want.
Borup: I like that idea. Let’s open the public hearing for Item 5.
ITEM 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A SINGLE TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH A
DRIVE THRU WINDOW (WALGREEN’S) BY HAWKINS SMITH
MANAGEMENT, INC. – NW CORNER OF FAIRVIEW AND LOCUST
GROVE ROAD:
Boyle: Clint Boyle. The address is 8645 Franklin Road in Boise. Good evening
planning commission, Chairman and Commissioner's. This evening I come to you in
behalf of Hawkins Smith, commercial developers in Boise, Idaho as well as Walgreen’s.
Just a brief history, Hawkins Smith has been developing commercial projects around
the Boise area for roughly 20 years now. They typically own the sites they develop and
some of those site you can see around town. They have developed some WinCo
stores. They are in the process of developing some Walgreen sites around the city and
they are committed to the community. They are committed to maintaining those
projects because they are owning those with tenants to lease the site. Since this project
has been continued from the last meeting we specifically requested that, because we
felt in the staff reports that were provided to us from not only from ACHD but also from
Meridian City Staff, that we wanted to meet with them a little further to try and work on
some of the issues that were presented in those reports. I think that through that
process we have been working with ACHD and their staff as well as Meridian City.
Unfortunately, most of the staff time that we have devoted to Meridian City has been
with Brad Hawkins Clark who is not at the meeting this evening. To start with I just want
to say that we believe that what we have proposed this evening is a win win situation for
both the community, the neighbor’s as well as Hawkins Smith and Walgreen’s. I am
basically, since we have both public hearing’s open, I am going to try and combine my
comments rather then separate them into the annexation and zoning and conditional
use permit. To begin with, I’d like to talk about some comments related to the
annexation and zoning. This is getting into the technical meat of the staff report. First
of all what I’d just like to mention is within the staff report, it was mentioned that there
are two commercial lots and those commercial lots would be the southern two lots,
which the lot lines aren’t outlined on there and if you will allow me, I have a laser pointer
and I am not sure if these are allowed, but if anybody is in line with it will close their
eyes. Those lot lines, there is basically a lot in the southeast corner and one in the
southwest corner. This lot contains an existing chiropractor business. There is also
another commercial building that sits behind it that will be removed as part of this. It
currently contains a bookstore. That was not mentioned in the staff report, so we just
wanted to call that to your attention. Actually, currently three detached commercial
buildings. The one on the corner is a two story multi-tenant building, as far as the
existing buildings go. As far as the conditional use permit comments, I just wanted to
possible clarify a couple of items on that. The elevation you received in your box—we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 9
submitted that last week to Brad with the City of Meridian and basically, what we wanted
to do is as part of this application, we wanted to make sure that the area indicated as a
future pad site was included as part of this application. Previous to that, they had
stated that that particular pad site, as it is labeled here, would have to come back
through the process again. We had in mind that we wanted to do a retail multi-tenant
building there and so to get that incorporated as far as this application, that was one of
the changes that were incorporated into our proposal since it was continued from the
last meeting. Therefore, you do have elevation. That elevation pertains to the area
labeled as the future pad and our concept right now is that it would be a multi-tenant
retail building and a combination of retail users. We’ve also (inaudible) and it is not
know at this time whether or not that option will be exercised for the potential for a drive
thru window that would be located on this back side to accommodate something similar
like a Moxie Java type of a site. That is the proposal that you have there as far as the
elevation plan and that is what we had proposed on the pad site. As far as the specific
comments in the staff report, in going through the site specific comments, Items 1
through 3, we agree with those. Items 1related to restricting some of the more intensive
uses and we don’t have a problem with limiting or restricting our commercial
development so that it does not contain any of those uses that are listed under Item 1 in
the site specific comments. The next item is that we will dedicate all right of way along
Locust Grove and Fairview as well as Carol Street that’s required by ACHD and again
we will comply with the requirements from ACHD as far as right of way dedications and
some of which you do have shown on this plan along Locust Grove. We are dedicating
another 10 feet of additional right of way to ACHD. Along Fairview Avenue, since the
public hearing was continued, we met with ACHD and they will not be requiring any
additional right of way dedication along Fairview Avenue and part of the reasoning for
that is across the street in the Fred Meyer complex, which you don’t see on this plan,
but their sidewalk is developed out the full width of what the future roadway will be
along Fairview when it is improved. That is the ultimate build out along Fairview and
our sidewalk on this proposal lines up directly with that. Basically, their thoughts were
the additional was roughly 10 feet of right of way that they originally requesting along
Fairview Avenue. That additional 10 feet of right of way basically all they would be able
to accomplish from (inaudible) that would be to relocate the sidewalk because as their
designs show the design on Fairview Avenue would include a two foot utility strip, a
sidewalk, a 5 foot planter buffer and then you would be out into the asphalt. So
basically they are allowing us to leave that right of way where it is existing so the line
that you see on the plan is the right of way line that ACHD will be requiring from us.
Just to reiterate, we will comply with the right of way dedications that ACHD requires as
pertaining to the staff comments in Item 2. In Item 3 again there was some mention
regarding some utility easements. We are aware of those utility easements. They
travel through the middle of the site and there is also some crossing east/west and we
will comply with that requirement and have those vacated prior to pulling any building
permits on that. We will comply with the provisions to vacate those easements.
Related to the conditional use permit itself, Items 1 through 3 and I apologize. Those
first comments I was addressing were related to the annexation request—site specific
items. The next items which are items through 3 in the site specific comments on the
staff report, we will conform to all of the requirements that relate to assessment of fees,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 10
water and sewer connections, utilization of pressurized irrigation for landscaped areas.
We will comply with items 1 through 3 in the staff report. Items number 4,5,6, and 7 on
the staff report relate to ACHD requirements and again we are willing to comply with
any the requirements and restrictions that ACHD will require of us as part of this. We
have been meeting with ACHD and this was since the public hearing was continued. At
this time I would like to enter a revised site plan into the record and I have copies for the
Commissioner's if that would be appropriate at this time. I apologize is some of the
neighbors or other members of the public can not see this. I actually have an overhead
that I prepared. I don’t know if it is possible to get it up there or if we should just
circulate a site plan, but I do have that available. Mainly what I’d like the
Commissioner's to look at is this proposal and the revisions that are shown on it relate
to the access points specifically. Basically everything else is the same as what you see
on the screen, other then the access points. What I would like to point out first of all is
(inaudible) ACHD and with their requirements through their staff, they would like to see
the access point indicated by the laser pointer, is the northern most access point that
we have proposal on Locust Grove. They would like to see that shifted toward the
center of the project and it would be restricted to a right in right out only. There is
(inaudible) a median barrier down Locust Grove as part of their build out in 2001 so that
would further restrict that to right in right out. First of all, our proposal would be to move
this access toward the middle of the site as indicated on that site plan. That would be
restricted to right in right out. Furthermore, in complying with ACHD’s requirement on
the site, we are proposing as part of this proposal to take access from Carol Street as
another access into the site. That access would be roughly where the laser pointer is t
and where it is indicated on that site plat. Now we had an ACHD commission meeting a
couple of weeks ago, since that time we haven’t had a chance to meet with the
neighborhood regarding the desire on Carol Street. We have spoke with ACHD and
(inaudible) in favor of the design we have proposed, and it is the design with
accordance with what their commission recommended at we look at as far as access
into the site. At this point, the commission has (audible) with ACHD as well until
December 1st
and that is because they wanted to see the access onto Carol Street,
which at that time we did not have shown on the site plan. As part of this access onto
Carol Street, and understanding we do have a residential neighborhood—the Doris
subdivision here, we are proposing to minimize the conflicts with traffic as much as
possible. What we have proposed on the site plan is what ACHD refers to as a choker,
which means we would extend this landscaping out in kind of a bulb shape where our
access point is located. What that does, and in addition we would wider an additional
lane along our project frontage on Carol Street. What that accomplishes is, it provides
a wide street as you are coming in our project, then as you pass our project point, that
street narrows down to a 24 foot wide pavement section which is what ACHD
recommended and that is the minimum width that they will allow, utilizing those chokers.
From that point on, it widens back out to the existing street section that is on Carol
Street today. In addition to that we will erect or place some signage out in that
landscaped bulb that reflects that it is the Doris Subdivision that you will be entering
once you pass that point. Basically what we are trying to do is minimize any
commercial traffic that may travel through the Doris Subdivision. By widening and
installing an additional lane on Carol Street, what we do is accommodate a right turn
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 11
only lane and then a thru lane and a left combined lane as well as the lane coming into
the Doris Subdivision. So, basically what we are doing is as far as (inaudible) along
Carol Street, it will have double the capacity that it has now because we will be
installing a right turn lane which is currently doesn’t have. What that will do, that will
actually provide a free right out for the residents on Carol Street, at least until the point
in the future that ACHD widens the section that is north of our project. As part of our
proposal that was mentioned that Locust Grove would not be improved as part of
ACHD’s requirements. We have met with ACHD. We want to make this an attractive
looking for the City of Meridian and we are trying to coordinate with ACHD. They are
working on their final design for Locust Grove. We would like to improve Locust Grove
curb gutter sidewalk asphalt, that is (inaudible) I guess the only hang up we might have
with that is we don’t want it to slow the project down if ACHD doesn’t have final design
for that. Assuming that ACHD has a final design on this road by the time we are pulling
building permits on this, we would actually like to improve this to their future build out at
the time that we construct the project. We are willing to construct those improvements
along Locust Grove as part of our project, assuming that we can get a final design on
Locust Grove from ACHD so in 2 years they don’t come back and tear up all the
improvements we just made. Moving on to Item number 8 in the staff report, relating to
the landscape stripes, along Fairview Avenue right now we have 24 feet of landscaping
proposed so from the right of way line into the parking is 24 feet of landscaping and
again since we have worked out the right of way line with ACHD, that will truly be 24
feet of landscaping on our property that we will maintain. We feel that this was similar
and compatible to some of the surrounding uses that have developed. There is a
Hollywood video that sits across the street to the southeast and their buffer there is
roughly 22 to 24 feet along Fairview Avenue. We do feel that it is compatible with some
of the surrounding tenants that are of a similar size to what we are proposing.
Additionally, moving on to Item 9 as far as the landscaping on Locust Grove, we are
proposing a 15 foot landscape planter from the right of way line back to where the
parking starts. Now this actually is similar to the Fred Meyer site across the street.
Fred Meyer from the right of way line back to their parking, has roughly a 12 to 13 foot
landscape planter. They do have roughly 5 to 6 feet that is actually out in the right of
way so it gives you the effect of a larger buffer that is actually on their site and what we
would propose is, in our discussions with ACHD, Locust Grove, the design that they will
have that will include a 5 foot planter. Effectively what you will have is the asphalt out in
the street, the curb gutter and then a 5 foot planter with street trees, then a 5 foot
sidewalk, then a 2 foot utility strip or landscape strip and then you are on to our site.
Effectively, with the ACHD’s proposed street section on Locust Grove, effectively we will
have 22 feet of landscaping from the street until you get to our parking. That is
combining our 15 with the 2 foot utility strip and the 5 foot planter, but effectively you will
have a 22 foot landscape strip in addition to the sidewalk. So essentially from the
street, you will have 27 feet from the gutter of the street until you hit our parking—the
majority of which will be landscape outside of the sidewalk. Again, we feel that this is
compatible and again, I guess that we would like to say yes, we will comply with what
Fred Meyer has done across the street. We actually have a couple more feet of
landscaping on our property. And again, the buffer that they have—part of that is in the
right of way. We’d like to also go along those same lines with our proposal here. As far
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 12
as Item number 10, which was the 20 foot of landscaping with a screening wall with
adjacent to Carol Street, we would still propose that with the 20 feet of landscaping and
then we will have a block wall that runs from our access point on Carol down to the
northwest corner and then from the northwest corner of the property, it will extend down
to the south to roughly mid site. That block wall is a 7-1/2 foot high block wall on our
side of the property and if you look at this detail, you can see that on the neighborhood
side, we will have a slight birming to that to help give them a better look so their not just
looking at a 7-1/2 foot block wall. They will be able to see more of the landscaping on
the Carol side but on our side, there will effectively be 7-1/2 high wall from grade. Item
number 11 is relating to the (Inaudible) and reserve strips and that is related to this
particular area along the west side of our proposal. Again, I guess what we’d like to
look at there is that is to provide some distance and some buffering between
incompatible features. What we would like to look at is that provision provides that you
will have a 20 foot planting and reserve area. We will have this driveway indicated here
that will provide some separation from the property line which is 24 foot wide drive isle.
We also have an additional roughly 4 feet of landscape considering both sides of the
block wall. In addition to that, that planning and reserve strip does not require a block
wall but we are providing one and that is to further buffer the Doris Subdivision.
Currently adjacent to this right here in this location is a pasture and the actual
residential home sits to the west of that pasture land. So we feel that is a good
neighbor there. Right now there is cedar fence that runs right on the property line. We
would propose to replace that with a block wall. As far as Item number 12, which
relates to the chiropractic building and that is an existing building on the site and
location indicated by the laser pointer there. It was stated that that would need to be
brought up to code and several of the structures to the rear be removed and at this
point there is a 3 year lease on that building and that is I guess part of the reason that
this actually is not being redeveloped as the rest of the site is because of that lease and
the commitments of that lease. There is an existing lease there with the existing
property owner. We would like to see that building removed as part of our project,
however, due to the lease and the constraints there are in, we are able to see that
happen. As far as removing those structures I guess at this point of time we would
have to defer that to the existing owner of this property. His name is John Wortal and I
am not sure that he is in the audience, but if you have questions related to that item and
discussion related to those structures related behind it, it would probably be best to
defer those to him. Item number 14 we don’t have a problem complying with that and
we will screen all of the trash enclosures. They are typically screened with opeake
fencing as well as the trash compactor behind the building. That will have a fence, an
opaque fence around it, so we don’t have problems with complying with that
requirement. Item number 14, which relates to handicapped parking, again with
(inaudible) to that, our thoughts are that we will comply with the ADA requirements for
handicapped parking related to our parking layout. It was stated that the staff felt that
the handicapped parking we were providing would not be adequate for this type of a
use and I guess what we would have to say for that is Walgreen’s emphasises
convience in optaining their pharmacy items and that is the reason for having the drive
thru here, so our thoughts on that are, we are trying to actually trying to accommodate
people –persons who may have disabilities in that they will be able to go through a drive
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 13
thru to pick up their prescriptions without ever having to leave their car. But we are
planning on conforming with the minimum ADA requirements for the handicapped
parking on the site. Item number 15 which relates to signage on the site, and I am not
sure if you have received our proposal for signage. again we have been working with
Brad and we have given him elevations of our sign and told him the locations of the
sign, which is indicated on this site plan here. We have provided him with some
elevations. If you do not have those, I have a copy of them but our proposal is for a
pylon sign and it would roughly be 25 feet in height and approximately 142 square feet
in total sign copy. That would be the only site that we would request for the Walgreen’s
site, so we would not request any additional monument signs for the Walgreen’s site,
assuming that we could get their standard pylon sign there. Then there is an existing
sign related to the chiropractor business that exists today that is a smaller sign that is
also a pylon sign roughly 12 to 15 feet in height and that would remain for the
chiropractor business and they may also want to put another small reader board on
that for this future pad site as well. Again, if they want to propose anything in addition
to that we would come back through the sign and review process that we will have to go
through with application for the signs. So if you need the sign elevations, I have those.
They have been submitted to the city previously, so hopefully you do have a copy of our
proposed signage.
Borup: We’ve got them.
Boyle: Okay. I am not sure the copy you have may include an electronic reader board.
It has been stated by the staff that their feelings on the reader board would not be
appropriate type of a signage there, so we will not be doing the electronic reader. It will
just be a standard reader board with the letters that you have to manually change.
Number 17 relates to the landscaping and again, we do have our landscaping proposal
in this plan. You can see the trees indicated as well as our planning schedule and we
just ask that you approve it with the landscaping as proposed on the site. We feel that
we have provided our most extensive landscape buffering along the Doris Subdivision
side of things. That is our intention is to keep them well buffered so we are proposing
extensive amounts of trees along that side to help accommodate buffering that
residential area. That’s basically the points—on Item 19, I all ready discussed the multi-
tenant building, so I won’t get back in to that. We believe that this is a plan that can be
a win win situation for the neighborhood, for the community and also something that will
work for us and be a beneficial project to all parties involved. If there is any questions,
I’d be happy to answer those now. Thank you for your time.
Borup: Commissioner's, any questions for Mr. Boyle? Does that mean, not at this
time?
Barbeiro: The existing building where the chiropractors office is at that has a 3 year
lease, is it your intent to perhaps to remove that building at the end of the lease?
Boyle: That is actually not our intent. As part of this proposal, we will actually be right
now there is four existing lots. We are going to be combining those into 2 lots with a lot
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 14
line that will run north south between our building and the other two buildings. It will
basically split this drive here. As part of this project, we are processing this as a
combined application, however, our ownership will be everything that will west excuse
me, east of the lot line that will run north south. Basically, we will maintain control over
the Walgreen’s parcel, the parcel that is to the west here will actually be under a
separate ownership.
Barbeiro: Thank you. That wasn’t clear.
Boyle: Again, John Wortal that owns the Idaho Athletic Club next door would be—I
don’t know if he is here, but anyway there will be cross access agreements in place
between Idaho Athletic Club, the parcel indicated with the chiropractor and the future
pad and our site. They will have full cross access between those sites.
Borup: This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this
application?
Hill: Gaylen Hill. I live at 1404 E. Carol. I’d just like to say that I am opposed to
annexing the two lots that are currently single family residence which are on the north
side of that property. That subdivision is closed loop subdivision. It was never met to
be a commercial development. I would also like to say that if this does go through, that
access on Carol Street is also—I think that would be a disaster as well. There is no
reason to have an access to that business on Carol Street. It is a fairly quiet
neighborhood. The children are out playing and riding bikes and to increase the car
traffic through there, I think would be dangerous for the residents that live there.
Borup Any questions for Mr. Hill? You say you live on Carol? How far down are you.
Are you adjacent property or down a little bit.
Hill: We live in this lot right here, which now we look out and see houses along there.
As it is now, we’d look out and see a commercial building there, which here is fine,
that’s out on Fairview which is a busy street. In closer to the subdivision is not a very
desirable thing.
Borup: Thank you Mr. Hill. Anyone else.
McRoberts: Jennifer McRoberts and I’m at 1490 Carol Street. We just purchased our
home there. Some questions that I have that weren’t answered in the presentation are,
what are the hours of operation of this business. Is it a 24-hour? What about the
lighting in the parking if this is approved. That’s all I have right now.
Borup: I can maybe address the lighting. That’s always been a concern for –and that
was one of the staff comments that the lighting would not (inaudible) to the neighbors,
so that—the lighting has been considered. Anyone else like to come forward?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 15
Ray: My name is Dennis Ray. I live at 1872 E. Carol. I am just across from Mr. Hill. I
feel the same way that having an access out of there into our area. Right now we are a
p-shaped, dead end area. It keeps traffic down and I don’t want to see traffic come in
there. We have a very hard time getting out on Locust Grove right at the present time,
because of the traffic at Fred Myers. As far as I can see it would be a traffic disaster. I
can’t see how it—commercial is just not conducive to that area. Also, on Fairview,
turning onto Locust Grove, north, you also at times of the day it backs up considerable.
This would just add to the congestion because of having another retail business in
there.
Borup: Anyone else?
Hawkins: For the record, my name is Colby Hawker. I live at 8645 W. Franklin. I am a
developer with Hawkins Smith that has assembled all the property here and just wanted
to make a couple clarifications first. The two residential pieces of property that are part
of this annexation and rezone – we have spend considerable amounts of time with the
neighbors of the Doris Subdivision themselves. There was a restrictive covenant that
was in place in the neighborhood that restricted certain lots from being residential uses.
Certain lots to be commercial uses. All of the frontage property on Fairview Avenue
had a commercial zone and was allowed for commercial purpose. The lots interior to
Doris Subdivision have a residential restriction and can only be used for residential
purpose only. In 1986 there is a piece of property on the far west side, just follow
Fairview Avenue down to the west side and then go one lot deep. It is the larger lot
deep right there. That was—there was an amendment done to the restrictive covenants
of Doris Subdivision that allowed that lot to come into commercial use. Again through
several month process, we have met with the neighbors of the Doris Subdivision and
had a restrictive amendment signed by the majority of the neighbors of the Doris
Subdivision stating that if we did the buffering along Carol Street with the planning of
the 20 foot landscape strip, extensive 7-1/2 foot block wall, put a block wall down the
west property line that this would be an acceptable use for them. Again, I would just
like to state that we feel, coming in here, this is a natural place for commercial
development to occur. You see the Fred Meyer across the street. All the other
commercial uses coming in here. The (inaudible) of course is in the over all planned
development for the city. I just see it as Clint said before, being a win win situation for
the city. We get an opportunity to take ( inaudible) out of the ground out of the county
that should be in the city anyway, we have an opportunity to improve the corner by
putting gutter, sidewalk around the whole thing. We are going to construct a better
looking commercial structure, retail structure that you’ll see in the valley. There is 2 of
them that are open today, one at Fairview and Milwaukee, one at Overland and
Orchard. Walgreen’s builds a good looking building. They are strong community
oriented tenant. They are excited to be involved and come to the city of Meridian—in
this neighborhood in fact. They view themselves very much so as a neighborhood
tenant. The reason they have chose this location is because the neighbors are all
ready here and the traffic is all ready here. Again, we have met with ACHD. I feel
tonight this is an annexation, a rezone issue, not an access issue. We are working with
ACHD to take access into our site. How they feel is best appropriate for access and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 16
safety of the (inaudible). In closing, I would just like to thank the planning staff and
Brad. He has been a pleasure to work with. I think we’ve come a long way. I think we
presented a win win situation here for the city, for the neighbors and Walgreen’s coming
into the market. We thank you very much and certainly ask for your approval.
Barbeiro: When you made your presentation to the Doris Subdivisions residents and
pickup up their majority petition to change the CC&R’s, at that time there was no access
to your store off of Carol Street in your plans.
Hawkins: That’s correct.. And again, we went in front of ACHD with a plan to take
access off of Locust Grove Road that did not have access on to Carol Street. ACHD
said that they wanted access onto Carol Street because the properties that go north
bound on Locust Grove Road right now, if you go out there, you will see several of
those properties for sale. What they envision is those properties that are fronting
Locust Grove Road, those will continue in a commercial development and that access
is needed on that site. It is the most clear –it allows one clear, concise area of traffic
movement. You can see all four intersections come together at that one place. Again,
what we are doing with the plan that you see in front of you, (inaudible) to widen the
intersection inside Carol Street, approximately 80 to 90 feet in, which would be the only
extrusion as far as any Walgreen’s customers would be concerned into the site. We are
opening it to 3 lanes which gives them better movement and we also increased the
capacity along Locust Grove by adding another lane there. So the stacking trouble they
have right now is the fact that there is only one lane on Locust Grove. (Inaudible) the
people that are turning right and going straight are stacking back past (inaudible) right
now. Once the other lane is opened up in there just increases the capacity.
Barbeiro: Understanding of that, there is only about 80 to 100 feet of access that
would be into Carol Street. Still, when the neighbors signed off on the majority to
change their CC&R’s, they did not take into account that Carol Street would be an
access into your property. This council of course can not address CC&R’s specific to
the site. My concern is that when you present this new site plan to the neighbors, those
neighbors who signed off on the majority may wish to revoke their signature for the
changing of the CC&R’s.
Hawkins: I don’t have any control over where ACHD takes access to their public
streets. Those are public streets and I have absolutely no control over where they take
access to. My hands are tied about what ACHD is going to do and again we are going
to abide by what ACHD is telling us to do. The guess the way I understand it is
Meridian has let ACHD have the control over their roadways to decide what is best for
the public. In their opinion, an access on Carol Street is the best access for the public
in this case.
Barbeiro: Mr. Rossman, I wanted to make sure my line of questioning was not out of
line because we don’t deal with CC&R’s but we are dealing with public who have seen
one site plan and now the site plan has changed.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 17
Rossman: Well and I understand that. There is no obligation certainly in the ordinance
to deal with CC&R’s or have anything that relates –modify your project in accordance
with CC&R’s. Certainly people are entitled to show up and object and obviously when
they see an access point go in there, there may be an issue with CC&R’s, but all we
can enforce here is our ordinance and whether or not is complies with it.
Barbeiro: If I may, I’d like to ask Mr. Hill and Mr. Ray to address this and if they did sign
off as a majority on the change of the CC&R’s.
Hawkins: I can answer the question for you right now. Neither of them signed the
original agreement.
Barbeiro: Thank you.
Borup: Commissioner Hatcher do you have---
Hatcher: Not as this time.
Borup: Do we have anyone else to come forward at this time. This may be your last
chance.
Hill: My name is Heidi Hill. I am Gaylen’s wife. My question I’ve heard both of the
gentlemen say comments regarding getting the neighborhood to sign off. I’ve never
seen anything about a signing off. I’ve never—reading this in the paper was the first we
heard. How would we find out about signing off or giving our input to either ACHD
issues or this particular Walgreen’s issue.
Rossman: If I may. As far as signing off, I think he was referring to CC&R amendments
which is the covenants you have with your home. Obviously if you have an issue
regarding that, you should probably your HOA and probably get some information from
the developer as well. As far as having you say as far as ACHD is concerned, they
have their proceedings and they are required to provide notice in accordance with—
Hill: Should we have received some kind of –
Borup: If you are within 300 feet you should have received—
Rossman: Are you within 300 feet of this development?
Hill: Yes.
Borup: The city would notify within 300 feet. ACHD probably publishes theirs.
Anybody have any questions for Heidi? I had one on traffic concerns. Anyone else.
Hatcher: I wanted to ask a few questions of staff. The first one, when this was
originally reviewed and you compiled your staff reports and recommendations, at that
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 18
time what was proposed was the parking count versus landscape ratio. It looked like it
was pretty tight both ways and if there was very much increased in landscaping they
would need parking and a fine balancing act between them. What that count at that
time taken into consideration the property lines as described earlier this evening
between the Walgreen’s and the other development.
Stiles: Commissioner's, Commissioner Hatcher the we didn’t know that was the intent
when they submitted this application and if you look at the application for the conditional
use permit, it is for a single tenant commercial building with a drive thru window. That is
what their application is for. It was not for multiple buildings on a lot. It wasn’t for 2
drive thru's and at that time when they submitted this, we weren’t aware that they
wanted to re-subdivide this property. It is 4 existing lots. We knew they’d have to do
some kind of re-subdivision but no, since they don’t show any proposed lot lines, we did
not take that into account. By looking at this right now, if you just took were they are
showing a line on this revised plan they submitted, it appears that for the Walgreen’s
store itself, it would meet minimum parking requirements.
Hatcher: So the 4.34 acres that was submitted includes all 4 lots. Not just the 2
eastern lots.
Stiles: Correct.
Hatcher: Can you clarify for my benefit –I drove by the site and you’d mentioned in your
recommendation the removal what looked to be like storage sheds in the back of the
chiropractic business. Give me some clarification where you were heading with that.
Stiles: Well, Brad did prepare these comments. It’s, I think, I can’t remember what
those buildings were used for. It seems at one time they were used for a fruit stand. I
am sure they meet no codes what so ever to be usable and that was why the statement
was made to remove those buildings.
Hatcher: So this (inaudible) the fruit stand not any attachment. It looked like there was
some attachment, sheds if you will, on the back side of the building.
Stiles: I think there is just a lot of stuff.
Hatcher: Another questions, has the Planning Dept. or even the developer received or
have documentation from ACHD addressing these issues of not needing this much right
of way here and that much right of way there. As of right now, we only have the
developers word on that. I would want to see the documentation in writing.
Stiles: All we have is the draft report. I believe he stated they are not going to be
before the commission until December 1st
.
Boyle: Yes, that is correct. We have met with ACHD commission once all ready. We
have met in front of the ACHD Commission and at that time our proposal did not
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 19
include access onto Carol Street. As part of that first commission hearing there
proposal to us was that we come back an access to Carol Street. Since that time, we
have talked to their staff and again your right, this is developer’s word on this. I guess
what our proposal would be is that we are willing to provide 24 feet of landscaping on
our property adjacent to Fairview Avenue. That leaves it in our hands to make sure that
right of way is where it is at. If they are picking up another 10 feet of right of way, we
would have to provide our buffer behind that right of way. I guess we could even go
further, if it was going to hold up this commission to say that if the ACHD right of way
along Fairview Avenue were to chance substantially to 10 feet additional or what ever,
we would come back in front of this commission. We would be willing to do that
because we are confident with our discussions with ACHD staff that that is all they
require it what’s existing.
Hatcher: Hold on a minute, I got a couple questions. Could you bring the site plan that
you have back up. My first question is, is when you were talking earlier you were
talking about this being a separate development from this and that you could not
address any of the issues that we or I see on the west side. Is that correct?
Boyle: They are a part of the same application. Can I use this laser just for a second.
This pad, our store will be developed pending our approvals, within the next year. The
existing chiropractor would stay. This future pad, we don’t know what the time table
would be on that. It depends on how fast we could get tenants as far as the
construction schedule on that. However, the improvements as far as the parking area,
the landscape islands that you see internal, those would all be constructed as park of
our overall application. The only thing that you would be left with for the short term, this
pad area here, we would propose that that remain in just a gravel base until we have
the tenants. Actually this property owner will be the one getting those tenants for that
building so—
Hatcher: But you are representing that—
Boyle: We are representing that as well and we will develop it.
Hatcher: You’ll develop it all together at the same time.
Boyle: That is correct. The only think that will not be developed –
Hatcher: That is the only thing I needed to know. You’ll be doing the development.
Once a right of way set back is established and the property line is established, I don’t
see an adequate landscape buffer here. I support staff here. Whatever agreement you
come up with with ACHD on these two locations is negotiable, but my biggest concern
for the entire development is what is with the new site that was submitted to us tonight,
what you are doing is taking a chunk out here for access. This is all getting pulled down
and then basically all that landscape disappears and it is all road. There is no buffer for
half of the Walgreen’s site. These are the issues and concerns that I see and once you
are to make the required adjustments to meet those requirements per city ordinance, I
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 20
then concerned that you aren’t going to have your adequate parking count. Even
though you have cross access easements, as these two being separate parcels, each
parcel has to stay on its own.
Boyle: Yeah, and my understanding, as far as the parking on the site and may the staff
can correct me if I am wrong, but we are well over on our parking requirements for this
site for retail type users. I think originally, part of what they may have been looking at is
this pad is a potential restaurant type use or something like that. It will be just a multi-
tenant retail. The type of restaurant type of use that you may see would be something
like a Moxie Java, which isn’t a big sit down attraction or even a fast food like
McDonalds’s. As far as the buffering goes here, your right. This buffering up to the
point where our proposed access is, would be reduced down to about 10 feet, if you
look on that plan. Basically you’d have about 10 feet of landscaping there. There is a
couple of reasons for that. One, this came out in ACHD commission meeting, they are
in favor of having the duel egress out of Doris Subdivision, if you may. The right turn
out as well as the straight thru left, to elevate stacking of what would occur back into
Doris Subdivision and provide them easier access out of Doris Subdivision. So your
right, accommodate that extra lane, we do have to add some pavement on that
landscaping. The item is, one of the reasons that the access point is where it is on that
plan is, directly across the street, there is a driveway that goes into a garage for an
existing residential home that is across the street. The reason that we put the access
there was so that that access wasn’t closer to the intersection of Locust Grove because
ACHD would allow that to be within to be 50 feet away from that and we are back
roughly 80, 90 feet. Had we put the access closer out to Locust Grove and provided
more landscape buffering up to our access point, all of our traffic would have had their
lights shining right in to their windows. So what we tried to do was line it up with the
driveway across the street. In talking with the residential user across the street and
again this is ACHD’s feelings, that property right now, just due to the Fred Meyer
shopping center, has lost any additional value that it’s going to have as far as a
residential user. This residential property will no longer appreciate residentially. How it
will appreciate, is commercially, and I think it has all ready been proven. This
residential user here, has had some appraisals done and his commercial value is
substantially higher then his residential and continues to climb as commercial areas
develop. Two points. One is that, your right, the buffer through this will be down to
approximately a 10 foot buffer. The assumption is that this property more than likely, at
least at some point in the future, will convert to a commercial doctors office, dentist,
what ever you have there. At that point of time the access points between the two
would be aligned as well. For now, we’ve pushed that drive back so that all of the traffic
exiting our site, that may be exiting there, the headlights would be shining on to a
garage rather then directly into the house. Did that address those concerns
adequately?
Hatcher: That addressed them.
Borup: Mr. Boyle, could you comment on the hours of operation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 21
Boyle: I do know the hours of operation will not be 24 hour. I believe they will be
roughly from 9 in the morning until 9 at night. I do know for a fact that this will not be a
24 hour store.
Barbeiro: What are the operating hours of the other existing Walgreen’s?
Boyle: You are really putting me on the spot now. Maybe Colby with our office could
answer those questions.
Hawkin: Walgreen’s has different hours of operations for different stores depending on
where they are located. They’ve got a neighborhood store which this store is. Their
hours typically run from 9 in the morning until 9 at night. Maybe 8 in the morning until 8
at night. Their location at Fairview and Milwaukee for instance is more of a regional
location and it is a 24 hour store. They vary. This is not a 24 hour store and the hours
will be some where around 9 to 9, 8 to 9, something like that.
Barbeiro: You have another store out off of Overland.
Hawkin: Overland and Orchard. That one is open and it is a 24 hour location.
Barbeiro: So, right now the only 2 Walgreen’s in this town are 24 hour operations. Is
that correct?
Hawkin: (totally inaudible) The intent is not to have a 24 hour store in this location.
Barbeiro: Thank you. Mr. Chairman if I may ask the staff. Shari today we’ve learned
that there will be two separate ownership’s on this lot, while they will be developed by
the same developer we have a property that is sub-divided. Knowing that the property
is sub-divided, would staff’s comments differ greatly in any way or would it be advised to
go back in as a staff and review this again looking at the amount of parking, keeping in
mind that each ownership in each ownership must provide adequate parking on its own.
Stiles: Commissioner's, Commissioner Barbeiro. We were looking at the application
that was in front of us as far as the single tenant building with a drive thru. That is what
they submitted the conditional use permit for. They did not submit the conditional use
permit for more then one building on a lot or for a second drive thru. You did receive an
elevation that indicates possibly another drive thru, but the comments that we made as
far as the parking, we probably considered the whole 4-1/2 acres. That’s what we
looked at as far as what they indicated would be the square footage for the Walgreen’s,
the possible square footage of a future building, but we did not look at it as separate
lots. Obviously, depending on the actual square footage of some of these buildings,
they may not meet the over all parking requirements.
Borup: Do we know what the square footage would be for the Walgreen’s store?
Stiles: One per 200. It would be 76 I believe, 76 parking spaces.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 22
Borup: Okay. I just counted about 92 on the revised plat.
Hatcher: On the east lot?
Borup: So it looks like they are over.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, keeping in mind the public hearing is still open, staff comments
do not reflect the use of the existing building or the future pad and they were unaware
of this as well as while it is under one development, it will be two separate ownership’s.
I am left to wonder if we should not await staff’s comments with this new information
prior to making a recommendation to City Council.
Borup: Have you decided what other information you’d think you’d be looking at on –for
one I assume—looking at re-subdivision, legal descriptions? What other information
would you—
Stiles: They would have to re-plat it. They are going to have to vacate it. We would
like to see signage in accordance with whatever your direction is for the signage and do
not want to see multiply applications for signage. I think we should consider this as a
whole.
Borup: I think the main concern from Commissioner Barbeiro was the aspect of two
separate parcels, how that effect the original comments and taking that in light, would it
would they substantially chance.
Stiles: We are working on transfers of conditional use permits through the city
attorney’s office. I believe that will go to City Council next week. Right now, in order to
transfer a conditional use permit from one owner or one applicant to another, they
would have to start over. That is probably not how is it going to be when the ordinance
revised.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, further clarification on that. Shari is there any clarification or
adjustment that the applicant needs to do to the submitted paperwork due to this
change. We know that we are talking three buildings, 2 lots. Once it is re-platted the
applications been submitted as one building, one lot. Is there any clarification in your
paperwork that needs to be done for it to be a legal application.
Stiles: I believe their application needs to be revised and they need to request in their
conditional use permit what they are now requesting.
Boyle: Sorry to take up your time here tonight. I just wanted to respond. The site plans
that we presented, right now you have in front of you a plan that shows landscaping.
We have also submitted to Brad a plan that show with the Meridian City Staff, the lots
split, how we would like to see those two parcels divided and in our advertising, in fact
in the notice signage that we posted on the site even, it was for multiply buildings on
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 23
multiply lots. That was for the buildings. We have to post this in advance to the
hearings. When we went down to the city, that was exactly what they told us to write on
the notification was multiple buildings on multiple lots. We felt that we represented
multiple buildings in this request, in fact we received a notice on this agenda that stated
that it was a single tenant, Walgreen’s, and as soon as we got that notice, we contacted
Meridian and asked the planning staff why did this come out like this. Our proposal was
for multiple buildings. They assured us that that would be clarified in this meeting.
Now, unfortunately, Brad is not here tonight. He was the planning staff person that
we’ve worked with, but again it was brought up in front of him just a few days ago to
clarify that yes, this request was for multiple buildings. That has been a concern to
make sure that that was clear to everyone and it appears that it was not. I just want to
state that as far as our representations from the start of this application,
Borup: Mr. Boyle, could I interrupt maybe. I am not sure whose signature this is—from
your company though?
Boyle: That is correct.
Borup: Did you notice what it said?
Boyle: That says a single tenant commercial user on that.
Borup: Single tenant, commercial building.
Boyle: I guess again it goes back to since this was previously postponed and even
prior to that in our discussions with the city
END OF SIDE 2
Borup: I don’t think there was any confusion on that was there? That (inaudible) have
been on the site plan from the beginning. I think that was our understanding. I think the
original understanding that third site was a future (inaudible) with no building usage,
design, anything determined at this point. Wasn’t that what you’d stated earlier that you
did come up with a design because Staff said it would need to be a separate application
at the time (inaudible)
Boyle: They did not inform us of that. At the time, we asked them – we wanted to
clarify to make sure that was a part of this approval process, and at the time they stated
that that could be a part of this approval process, but that they had not seen elevations
on that pad, and that’s what they needed to complete the process; therefore, that’s why
we submitted the proposal of elevations for that (inaudible)
Borup: That’s why –
Rossman: Mr. Chairman.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 24
Borup: Mr. Rossman.
Rossman: I guess a question we can expedite this – the question is, Shari, do you
need further analysis on this or is there something that is needed before we can
address this application? I mean – debating over whether or not they submitted it right
or were asked to submit it right or whether they told Brad or anybody else, the question
is, is there something more that needs to be done by Planning and Zoning
Administration in light of the fact that they are asking for more than they originally
requested.
Stiles: I think they need to revise the conditional use permit application.
Rossman: Okay. That seems to answer the question.
Stiles: Stating what they’re –
Borup: Stating two parcels or –
Stiles: If they’re proposing two drive-throughs, they need to show that. I know that
Brad did work extensively with them. Unfortunately, I don’t think that our staff can be
held responsible for filling out their application for them. I also think in light of what has
been stated about Ada County Highway District tonight, we have no evidence of that.
I’d like to see a revised site plan that incorporates what we have requested and what
Ada County has requested prior to your action on this project.
Borup: Mr. Boyle, you say ACHD’s meeting on December 4th
or December 1st
.
Boyle: December 1st
; that’s correct.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman.
Borup: Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: Maybe what I would suggest is that we – on this – actually, on both of these
Items, continue them to the December meeting after the applicant has had a chance to
meet with and receive documentation from ACHD. That way, we also have it. I’d also
give time for the applicant and the Planning Department to come to a consensus on the
Staff comments. I know that Mr. Boyle’s stated numerous times that he’s worked with
Brad and everything, but without Brad here, again, we’re taking your word for it.
Boyle: Unfortunately, Shari’s time is valuable and she hasn’t been available to work
with; though, we would have liked to have some time to work with her, but she hasn’t
been available for any of the meetings that we’ve had.
Borup: Either way, we would want to see the documents.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 25
Boyle: That would have been worked out in meeting with their staff – revised site plan,
et cetera. Now, as far as the documentation you want from me, ACHD, I think that you
probably have their staff report that showed that indicated the access onto Carol Street.
Could you just clarify for me what additional documentation you need from ACHD as
well as from the Planning staff so we know where to proceed?
Borup: I think just the final report rather than the draft report. Anything else,
Commissioners, on the ACHD –
Hatcher: ACHD – yeah. It just needs to be the final report and it needs to address the
specifics of your agreement with them based upon this revised site that you submitted
tonight. Their draft report is generic in their requirements, whereas what you’ve
described and presented tonight is specific. That’s really what we need to have in front
of us from ACHD.
Borup: Okay. Then, additional, you addressed some of the Items mainly on the
buffering. I guess it’d be up to how the rest of the Commission feels. I think you’ve
addressed those fairly well. The one thing you may want to take a look at is on the
signage issue. I think we’ve been fairly consistent on monument signs as opposed to
the pylon signs.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, back to that ACHD thing before we get off track. The number
one concern is why I was saying we needed to have some ACHD documentation is
because of their change of right-of-way requests and your agreement with ACHD that
they’re not going to need what this typically requested.
Boyle: Okay. I guess – that’s fine if that’s what you’re comfortable with. I guess what I
was asking for was just that you to place a condition on the approval that they not
require any additional right-of-way other than what we’re representing, and if they do
require an additional right-of-way that we would have to come back before this
Commission. Along Fairview Avenue; do you understand? Do I need to clarify? So,
basically, I guess what we would like to see would just be if you felt that you could move
ahead with an action, it would just be that there be a condition placed on it, that if ACHD
required any additional right-of-way along Fairview Avenue that the application would
come back in front of you.
Hatcher: That is something that we can do.
Boyle: For that one item.
Hatcher: For that one item, right. That’s the buffering and – buffering of the revised
plan and Staff’s comments and stuff like that. Basically, I would –
Boyle: I guess we’d also just like to get a little bit of clarification. As far as the pole sign
on the corner, we are just requesting that the one pole sign for Walgreen’s and then that
the existing chiropractor sign remain. If we are limited to monument signs, what we
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 26
would like to propose at that time would be that we would be allowed to have two
monument signs; one at our entry point on Locust Grove and one at our entry point on
Fairview Avenue.
Borup: That’s why we brought that up now so you could have time to look at that.
Barbeiro: I’m in agreement with Mr. Hatcher that I wish to continue the public hearing to
our December meeting.
Borup: Okay. Make a motion.
Barbeiro: Did you make a motion?
Hatcher: I didn’t make a motion, but I motion that we continue this public hearing until
our December 14th
meeting.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: The motion is seconded. All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Barbeiro: That was for Item 4 and Item 5.
Borup: Combined?
Barbeiro: Combined.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. Shari, have you got any additional comments on the signs?
Monument signs and (inaudible) Is that in general compliance with the City sign
ordinances such as it is?
Stiles: It would be my preference to see those signs. I think if they’re talking about a
single tenant sign, they (inaudible) --
Borup: (inaudible) I give them from now to next meeting to have a design brought to us.
Stiles: I think the 72 feet would probably be acceptable for one tenant.
Borup: It would seem to me. (inaudible) building – the building signage, et cetera, what
you’ve already got there, but – okay. It has been pointed out that this would probably
be a good time for a break. We are – do have several more items on the agenda, but
hopefully we can get through them. I can tell you last month we went to 3:00. That will
not be happening tonight or probably ever again. We will address that as the hours
approach. Have a short break at this time. Thank you.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 27
(at which time the meeting was in recess at 9:17 p.m.)
ITEM 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
283 LOT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON 80.83 ACRES FROM R-T TO
R-4 BY WOODBRIDGE COMMUNITY, LLC—SOUTH OF E. FRANKLIN
ROAD AND EAST OF S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: Okay. We’d like to go ahead and reconvene tonight’s Planning and Zoning
meeting, conditional use permit for 283-lot planned development by
Woodbridge Community. Shari -- Is Shari doing this? Okay.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's this is for the annexation and zoning of two
separate parcels of property. The parcel here is adjacent to what is called the
Stonebridge Industrial Subdivision. They’ve requested a zoning of LO. Staff has
recommended that all uses be developed under the conditional use permit process as a
planned development. This 80 acres here they are proposing for a 283 lot single family
subdivision. I would like to address both—
Rossman: Shari, I wasn’t here at the last proceeding but wasn’t the annexation and
zoning all ready addressed in a previous—we are just dealing with a conditional use
permit. We certainly don’t want to rehash that one.
Stiles: Oh, I’m sorry. No we certainly don’t. This is just the general vicinity map. It is
Greenhill Estates Subdivision here. Magicview subdivision here. Eventual access is
proposed to hook up with Magicview and go be able to access the signal on Eagle
Road so there would be access all the way from Eagle Road to Locust Grove. Down
here is where they are currently building the Jabil Mfg. Plant. These two properties
right here are currently designated in our Comprehensive Plan as single family
residential. Staff would recommend as part of the update to that that these be
designated for a use other then single family residential. Probably the most
controversial issue and what the few people are here for tonight I guess is the issue of
connection of this road to this subdivision. We did get a draft report from Ada County
Highway District. They are recommending that the full 50 foot right of way be
constructed on the Woodbridge side with curb, gutter and sidewalk and that this section
from Autumn to the north property boundary of Woodbridge be constructed as a 24 foot
wide paved section with no curb, gutter or sidewalk, for permanent vehicular public
access. Staff does agree with the recommendation that this be continued through as a
public roadway, however, we would support a condition that they go ahead and pave
that 24 feet, provide ballads at the property line to prevent vehicular access in the short
term. Still build the 50 foot right of way street section on the south side and as such
time as Ada County Highway District and the City agree that needed to be a permanent
public access, that the ballads would be removed at that time, but we would imagine it
would be sometime before they would cross the Five Mile Creek area and actually need
that access. We had a condition initially that we asked for the secondary access to be
available after 100 lots were built. The applicant came back and asked if we would
consider the second access to be required when development east of Five Mile Creek
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 28
occurred. That would be approximately I believe there would be 163 units in this
western section prior to going over the Five Mile Creek. At least what they proposed in
their concept plan. We did receive some additional information and have reviewed it,
however we did not get the comments completed prior to this meeting. The access that
this applicant proposed would also—this access to Magicview would also be in this area
that they have proposed. I don’t know, maybe they can address any conversations that
have been had with the property owner here or the adjacent property owners here. I
don’t know if that is going to be a function of what Ada County Highway District is going
to be required to do or not. I note just for the applicant, they have proposed the
minimum street frontages. You’ll find in your packets. We would just like to make sure
that the type D lots that they have proposed, some of them as they have shown on the
concept plan do not meet that minimum street frontage, although with some minor
tweaking I think they can easily meet those. I did want Kenny Bowers to comment on
the minimum pavement width for the individual driveways they are proposing 14 feet.
While they will not exceed a length of 150 feet for their proposal, I would like to get his
input on whether that is adequate. They do usually ask for 20 feet of the paved surface.
It may not be an issue with him, but like I said I did not get his response. Another area
they had, under Item 21 show that the ditches to be tiled would be shown on the final
plats and we would ask that those be shown on preliminary plats when those are
submitted. Under 24, detailed signage plans will be subject to design review in
separate permits we would strike as required by City Ordinance and add as a condition
of annexation. Number 26, we would like the phasing to be shown on the preliminary
plat map. There is not insurmountable issues. We do very much like this project. It is
one of the more innovative projects to come before us in as least as long as I’ve been
here. We just did not feel comfortable with the additional information that was given
that we fully understand what it is they are proposing and we’d like to make sure that
the applicant gets what they are asking and that we know what they are asking prior to
making a final recommendation. Ada County Highway District will not be acting on this
until the 17th
of November and while we do have the draft staff report, that doesn’t
necessarily mean that’s what the commission is going to recommend. There is a little
bit of a problem in just stating that it will be subject to Ada County Highway District
requirements because their commission could significantly change the requires and
then it would not be what we had anticipated. There was another issue that the Public
Works Department was concerned about and that was in this area here. This will come
up during the platting as well. The city is going to require a common lot for the sewer to
go through. We had to discuss that with the applicant. It does not seem to impact
those lots as to make them unbuildable, but in concern for protecting that easement and
protecting the sewer line, we’d like to make sure that that was included as part of any
development agreement.
Borup: Does that conclude. Any questions from the Commission? Not at this time.
The applicant like to come forward?
O’Neil: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's my name is Peter O’Neil, President of O’Neil
enterprises the managing member of Woodbridge, LLC. We are making several
assumptions here tonight that should probably make clear at the beginning. At the end
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 29
of last session, which was in October, it seem that the focus was on three issues. One
what we are calling the access issues that had to do with emergency access. It had to
do with circulation and where the secondary access –and had to do with the timing of
those issues. The second issue was the so called 22 foot versus the 32 buffer strip and
landscape area along Locust Grove Road against the project and the third on was
brought up by some of the Commissioner's that I had a statement in the letter
responding to the initial staff report that in addition to those specific areas, there were
several other comments that depending upon how they were interpreted might or might
not effect us or the City or what our intents were. In an effort to deal with those three
main issues, we met with staff shortly after the last meeting and then decided that what
we really ought to do is make an attempt in offering the total conditions of approval
which would clarify all of the conditions, some of which were not included in the staff
report, but we wanted included because they were part of our application as well as to
deal with the specific issues of access and this buffer zone. Let me deal with those first
and then I might react to some of Miss Stiles comments this evening. We have not
received a staff report, just for you information, what you got in your packet on Friday,
was a draft of that was given to staff Wednesday. The final draft which was not a lot
different other then the cover letter that went with it that was delivered to you on Friday.
Just to save any suspense, there were not of the issues that Miss Stiles brought up now
that we think are deal breakers. Again, let me go back and say the way this process
works as I understand it is we still have to go through he preliminary plat process and
final plat process, but before we do that, the City Council, you have to recommend to
them the annexation and zoning as well as the conditions of approval for the PUD
approval and conditions there too. We took the position that these conditions as we
wrote them, could act at least as an outline or a guideline to the development
agreement which must be negotiated between the developer and the City that is
ultimately approved by the City Council. I don’t think it—it is our intent to get these as
close as we can from an intense standpoint. You get more that two lawyers and more
than one lawyer in a room and they are all going to have some pride in authorship. We
don’t have a problem with that so long as they are clear and the City knows what they
are getting and we know what we are going to get. With those preambles, let me
specifically address the access issues—one that people keep forgetting—there is a
primary access which is from Locust Grove. It is hard to see on the little drawing, but
basically we typically do a significant island at the entry so there is a way in and out, so
that helps in emergency as well, you’d have a hard time blocking the intersection.
You’d have to have to accidents simultaneously to block that intersection. Secondary
vehicular access, we are suggesting that it goes where the arrow is in the southeast
corner of the property or at a location that we mutually agree on between the city and
ACHD that moves in the Magicview general direction and hooks up with the full
transportation system. We have offered or suggested in the conditions that we have to
identify that location prior to the platting of anything to the east of Five Mile Creek so we
know—can’t very well plat it if we don’t know where the road is leaving. We have also
suggested that that be made fully functional by the 166 occupancy permit. The reason
that we are picking that is there is essentially 165 units as the plan currently shows it to
the west of Five Mile, so the time we get to the east of Five Mile the secondary access
should not only be identified but improved. That is our suggestion of the linkage. As it
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 30
relates to the emergency access and the timing thereto, we are suggesting that the
connection to Greenhill Estates become the emergency access location that we would
hook up to that in a driveable all weather but gravel road at the 100th
occupancy permit
for emergency purposes. We are suggesting that that be improved at the 166th
permit.
We are suggesting that that improvement is the 24 feet on the Greenhill side and
essentially 24 feet on our side, which would be 12 feet of pavement and 4 feet each
side of that of grass (inaudible) and there be Ballard’s installed so it is for pedestrian
movement and it is for emergency vehicle movement and keeping in mind that that
works both ways. The emergency vehicles can use Woodbridge as a primary access to
Greenhill and vice versa. We are also suggesting that our side of that be put within a
50 foot right of way that would be dedicated to the highway district so if as and when
the City and the highway district and neighbors and who ever can all agree, that that
should be hooked up permanently. At least there is a right of way there to do it. That’s
our proposal. As it relates to the Locust Grove landscaping, and that by the way is, I
just summarized our point number 7, our condition number 7 in the 7 AB and C. The
Locust Grove landscaping strip, we did do a conceptual landscape plan and we did not
do a detailed landscape plan because, when you get right down to it, it incorporates a
major entry area that we frankly have not designed yet. It would incorporate a
significant buffer fence which is really where you going to get the sound and visual
buffer. We have not designed that yet. Those could be subject to final approval—the
further approval to final plat. Don’t have a problem with that. It just seems a little out of
context for us to have a detailed plan that specifies a specific tree and a specific
planning program before we know what stock is available and how that ties into the
whole plan. Those are covered in 7 and 8. I would comment that this whole sequence
of approval of whether the ACHD commission has approved something specific or
whether it is a staff report, somewhere you have to cut into it and I guess I would take
the position that the City of Meridian, the neighbors and ourselves may be better served
if the conditions I have suggested essentially follow what we heard in testimony a few
weeks ago. I think was following the tenor or the commission and I would seem to me
that when we go to the highway district, if those were approved conditions, the Planning
and Zoning Commission was forwarding to the Council, I think that would strengthen
the position of getting what it is you want as opposed to saying I don’t know ACHD, you
tell us what’s best for Meridian. You can go either way but I take a shot for what it is
you think you want, which is consistent with what we want, I think and I believe it is
consistent with what most of the neighbors want and we would encourage you to come
to the highway district when that time comes around. One thing that needs to be made
clear, at least in the staff report from the highway district, it talks about a secondary
access, so if Greenhill Estates becomes the full time secondary access, there is no
need for an improved access to Magicview, according to their staff report. I don’t think
that is good traffic planning for the City of Meridian. That is my opinion. I think what we
have proposed is what we ought to do. Again, I could deal with some of Shari’s
comments. I think we have covered some of those verbally before with staff and I did
not hear anything she said other than this Greenhill Estates issue—connection issue
that we would necessarily take exception with. I think we can fine tune some of the
wording of some of the conditions which essentially has to happen as part of a
development agreement. We can hash them out tonight as well. That is your pleasure
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 31
of how you want to handle that. I think I will limit my comments to that. No sense going
through the whole project again. We have been there. I do think it is not often in all
honesty that we spend 4 hours in a public hearing and come back again, and in
general, not in general, in specific the staff likes the project and is supporting it. We’ve
got a few issues and details to work out. I think the read of the Commission last time
was it was supportive. It needs to find a way to work it though the process and if the
neighbors, by in large were supportive, other than the fact that they wish there weren’t
any more cars on Locust Grove and Franklin. We kind of agree with them on that and
would like to work or help be a catalyst to improve that intersection at Locust Grove and
Franklin. I guess our hope tonight is we end up moving this on to Council and letting
them take a shot at it. I’d be happy to answer any questions later on or now, whatever
the process works.
Borup: Any questions for Mr. O’Neil. Okay thank you. Did you have anyone from your
staff or—oh okay. Thank you. I think we have heard what ACHD is recommending.
What the developer recommends. Time is for –again this is a public hearing. Do we
have anyone here from the public who would like to—again keep in mind, we heard
everyone’s testimony last month. We are certainly here to hear anything new. Come
on up, who ever would like to be first.
Knowlton: I am Kimberly Knowlton. I live at 2369 Autumn Way. I am here representing
the homeowners of the Greenhill Estates. I am the committee chair person of the
Woodbridge Development for the Greenhill Estates HOA. I would just like to begin by
saying that we have recently reviewed the ACHD plan draft for the Weatherby road stub
and we believe whole-heartedly—well first of all before I get started, I’d like all the
Greenhill Estates homeowners please stand and be represented. You can see we all
feel very strongly. We have been working closely with OEI and the development of that
80 acres behind our homes. We feel very comfortable with the preliminary plat. Please
excuse me if I am using terms that aren’t exactly accurate because this is not
necessarily my field. We were very pleased to see that wanted primary access on
Locust Grove and secondary access to Magicview. We were very disheartened when
we reviewed ACHD planners report saying that they wanted primary access on Locust
Grove and secondary through Greenhill Estates on to Autumn Way. Their estimate, as I
am sure you have reviewed, is all most 3000 cars a day and in their ultimate wisdom,
and I do want to review a couple of their points, they feel that less then 5% of those
cars will actually access our subdivision on a daily basis. It seems inconceivable to me
that someone would actually, in that subdivision, go through as many as 2 to 3 stop
signs, wait several lights on Franklin up to 4 or 5 if your (inaudible) to take a right onto
Eagle Road to wait yet another stop sign before you access the interstate, when you
could go right through that Weatherby road stub. There is not a stop sign. There is not
a speed bump. There is not a light. There is nothing to stop them and I think we all
agree that human nature is to take a short cut—roll and go as I call it. So it is just
inconceivable to me that ACHD feels that less then 100 cars a day will come through
our subdivision. We are getting an incredible amount of traffic right now from people
who are simply trying to avoid the intersection of Franklin and Eagle. We have had a lot
of –there is several homeowners that live on those corners—and it is just incredible. All
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 32
times of the day here is subdivision with no street lights, no sidewalks, no stop signs, no
speed bumps, and we have hundreds of cars cutting though our subdivision trying to
avoid that light. I don’t think it is very reasonable for ACHD to have us understand that
those people will be taking those other roads, rather then our roads. We would like to
ask you as Planning and Zoning Commissioner’s, to agree with the developer and
agree with the homeowner’s that if we are going to open up and combine or connect
these two subdivisions, and I think there is some good thought in that direction, that we
are restricted at this time to nothing more than a –I don’t even know what the term is---
ballad—emergency vehicle access only with a restricted (inaudible) and to take a look
at that in the future as to whether it make sense to open it up or not open it up. The
conditions that Pete O’Neil outlined being graveled at 100 lots and actually (inaudible)
at 166 lots, I think that we as homeowners can agree with that and can accept that,
even though a lot of us would like to be left alone, we understand that progress is
inevitable and we feel that we would have a much stronger case at the ACHD
Commissioner hearing on the 17th
, if we also had the City of Meridian agreeing with the
developer and also the homeowners that we would like to see restricted access and
really force ACHD to take some long term, a long term look at the traffic not only going
to be created by the Woodbridge subdivision, but also the Jabil Mfg. Development that
is going on across the street. There is a lot –this is a lot bigger pond then it has been,
so we would just ask you to please go with the recommendation made by the developer
to restrict that access at 100 lots and restrict it at 166 lots force ACHD to look for a long
term solution rather then an easy fix. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions for – I’ve got one and that is on your what the subdivision feels
on the design of that whether it should be (inaudible). Are you in complete agreement
with what the developer is proposing or do you understand what he is proposing?
Knowlton: I believe that I have a pretty good understanding of it and from what I
understand, it will be at 100 lots, it will be a graveled 24 foot wide graveled access—
27—20 feet wide and that at 166 lots, it will be widened to the standard 50 feet—or not
standard, I think it is bigger then standard.
Borup: Let me repeat what he had here. They are proposing 24 feet of paving on the
Greenhill side. 12 feet on the Woodbridge side with 4 feet of the grass (inaudible) on
each side. That is a concrete paver type stone that you can drive over, but grass grows
in-between them.
Knowlton: Okay, and that—
Borup: That is their proposal, with of course the knock down ballads and other stuff that
has been discussed. It that a design that neighbors and neighborhood has
somewhat—
Knowlton: I think so. You know it’s hard to conceptualize because a lot of us aren’t
familiar with that but I think the restricted access is our main concern—that it is not a full
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 33
vehicular access. That it is restricted for emergency vehicles only and pedestrians
because we want to be good neighbors.
Borup: Okay, thank you. We have someone else that was like to come on up.
Buckert: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner's, I am Wanda Buckert, 971 Wells Circle.
That is in the Magicview Subdivision, property owner of lot 20. I was unable to be here
for the October 12 meeting regarding the Woodbridge Subdivision. After that meeting, I
was informed by my neighbors that Mr. O’Neil stated that they could use the north end
of my property for their second access to their proposed Woodbridge Subdivision. For
the record, I would like to state that I am opposed or at least very reluctant to allow that
right of way across my property. I feel that I should have been approached before the
O’Neil Enterprises made the statements at October 12th
meeting. After the fact, Scott
Beecham did phone to ask for a meeting. According to Mr. O’Neil’s remark at that
meeting, I had unusable land that could be used for his road. I would like to point out
that none of my approximately 5 acres is unusable. I would also like to point out to the
staff that I have given Meridian City, number one the main line sewer easement on the
north end of my property all ready. That sewer serves—that line services the St. Luke’s
hospital and the ever growing Magicview development. Second, the City of Meridian
and developers had a main line sewer easement to go from the northwest—they have
it. To go from the northwest corner to the southwest corner being the full length of my
property, and this sewer main continues under the freeway to serve as future
developments on a near or around Eagle Road and Overland Road. Third, the past
summer Meridian City needed yet another easement for a 12 inch water main to cross
from the southwest corner to the northwest corner. At that point, giving up that much
right of way, seemed to be getting out of hand on my property. After thinking about it,
decided having access to both sewer and water mains was worth it. This easement
was also granted, but I feel enough is enough. Three sides of my property they are all
ready in easements. I hope this will explain a little bit why I am not agreeable to more
easements, which would go over your sewer easement. I am not use to this speaking
in public. An access road would create more traffic then we are all ready burdened with
on Magicview road and I feel with added traffic, roadway noise, it would devaluate my
property. I feel my property has future potential for multiple apartments or commercial
uses and is not unuseful. In the future, whoever might buy my property, they can make
the decision as to whether they want to give up or sell land for a roadway on the north
end. Of course,
END OF SIDE 3
Buckert: I am not opposed to progress, nor the subdivision, but this is my position at
this time. Thank you.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's?
Barbeiro: Steve do we have this picture in your (inaudible).
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 34
Buckert: Yes, she had a picture up a long time ago. She had an arrow. Oh she isn’t
there. This one is it.
Barbeiro: Can you tell me which property is yours.
Buckert: (left microphone) Okay.
Barbeiro: Don’t leave yet. The City has all ready taken this easement, this easement
and this easement, is that correct?
Buckert: Correct.
Borup: Ma'm do you know what the size of the sewer easement on the north of your
property.
Buckert: Do I know the size? You mean of the easement. It is a 20 foot easement on
all three sides.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, how far does Five Mile drainage –
Buckert: It goes right through my property.
Hatcher: About what location. Is this a correct representation.
Rockrohr: Dick Rockrohr, 2715 Autumn Way and I am in the Greenhill Sub. Of course I
am in agreement with the homeowners in Greenhill about the emergency access, but in
light of what I found out at this meeting about the proposed secondary access that was
by the developers across this corner and to that culdesac there, I am rather concerned
that maybe they will never be able to procure that for a reasonable amount of money.
Either that one or the one to the north, which they could access that one also. At the
last meeting they talked about also being able to access that culdesac possibly. I would
be concerned without some kind of an agreement or right of way in place before this
thing is approved, that when it comes down and they say oh that is the only way you
can get out of there and ACHD say’s you have too, they are either going to dump them
right out into Greenhill, because that is the cheapest way to go---
Borup: Sir, maybe I could clarify that right now. In their draft copy of proposals, they
stated exactly that and I think Mr. O’Neil mentioned that before development would take
place to the east of Five Mile Creek, approximately 166 home that there would be a
operable access to Eagle Road. They are proposing that that would be in the –
Rockrohr: Part of the conditions that they would perfected that access without going
through Greenhill. That’s great with me then. I’m sorry.
Robinson: My name is Bill Robinson. I am at 2165 Springwood. I would like to make a
few brief comments and if I could point out some of the concerns over there. First of all,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 35
I have lived at our present location all most 25 years now. To start with, any connection
in from the south to Greenhill's is an invasion of our privacy from the way we see it, and
I am sure you have heard that before. Whether it is traffic, bicycles, horses, dogs or
what ever. The really scary thing is having traffic going through there. One of the
things that I would like to point out, if you look at this, this corner right here is going up a
hill at a right angle turn and that is a fairly serious safety hazard right now. Having more
traffic going up around there, this tends to be a little bit of a raceway when people are
coming out of here, come up the corner slowly and then accelerate down here and go
out onto Franklin road. There are times in the winter we get a little snow, the postman
can’t get up that hill and we help push him up. Having traffic coming in around here and
around these access routes to get out on Franklin is pretty formable to me. I appreciate
what I have seen of the development in terms of the quality that is being proposed. I
think that is a very good addition over there in terms of access through Greenhill, I am
really opposed to having any access through there. If emergency says you have to
have it there, that is one thing. But us being a crossroads for other neighborhoods
because of emergency, isn’t really very palatable either. That is my personal opinion,
but I in general support the Greenhill's position.
Borup: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kidd: My name is Dean Kidd. I live on 2127 Autumn Way. Chairman Borup,
Commissioner's I’d like to present this to yourselves for a kind of an overall synopsis of
what living within the Greenhill Subdivision is becoming. There has been numerous talk
about and of course my contention is and the reason why I am speaking now, is
because of this stub road. That being the topic tonight. I happen to live right there, so I
am not going to repeat what has been said tonight, because virtually I agree with all. I
am glad to meet Pete O’Neil for the first time. I have spoke with Scott Beecham. I think
O’Neil Industries is a very, very top notch development firm. As a owner within the
Greenhill's, I feel comfortable with what they do within RT is going to be equal to our
above our standards. I have no problems, development is going to happen, we can’t
stop it. The one thing that needs to take some real serious consideration is this stub
road. Mr. O’Neil spoke about the main access on Locust Grove. Of course, that’s the
common. We have had testimony about an access within this area. The first thing that
I would like to ask the lady that testified if she compensated for the easements that
went through her property and will she be compensated for a right of way road. This
easement in here was established when the subdivision was established many years
ago. When that was established, nobody knew what was going to happen. No one
knew that there was going to be possibly a subdivision of this magnitude would ever go
in there. Because of that, it has been brought out, there is no sidewalks, there is no
street lights of any kind. We spoke of the grade going up, which is a very true
statement and I will give you one more example. This is a very (inaudible) corner over
here. Extremely blind. I almost ran over a child a year ago and I am saying it come so
close it was ridiculous at that corner. Our traffic in here from what I can see in the last
11 years that I have lived here has increased dramatically. Why? I am not going to say.
I am not going to make accusations that traffic has increased or what ever people
cutting the corner. We all know they do, but to what degree, I can’t say. All I know is,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 36
yes it has increased. Harley Davidson motor bikes running about when nobody owns a
Harley within the subdivision, okay… We has a major accident right here about 3 or 4
days ago. Accidents are happening. This subdivision is catching it from 3 sides and it
is not going to be long until it is going to be a 4th
side. We’ve got talks in the plans of
widening of Fairview. We’ve all ready had on over, onto Eagle Road. We’ve went
through St. Luke's. We’ve got a major intersection construction in the future of the
Crossroads of Franklin and Eagle. We’ve—
Borup: Mr. Kidd, your going to have to wrap it up.
Kidd: I am hurrying. I’m talking..
Borup: But your repeating stuff that we have heard and that we all ready know.
Kidd: You all know it. We’ve been through a lot. Now we are looking at this and the
last thing we need is a development this access here. Emergency access I have no
problem with and I don’t think the sub-development does either. So I would ask that the
Commission take and recommend that this hear be emergency access only and as far
as what O’Neil spoke about, I would like to see the same thing on our side. Maybe we
could do that. Make it a join effort. Make it a nice greenbelt type thing. Emergency
type traffic and leave it at that. Thank you.
Mecham: I am Brian Mecham. I live at 2159 Autumn Way. I have spoken before in
front on this topic, but since the last time a couple things have occurred and we’d like to
address those just so that having seen a few thing and if I am a little punchy it is
because I just moved back from Singapore and wasn’t expecting to sit here in a 3 hour
meeting tonight. The first question I have is on the secondary access—I mean the
emergency access. If I understand right, I’d like to get clarification. When is
emergency required, at what number of homes.
Borup: It is going to be what is agreed on. What the proposal is 166, which would be
approximately half—approximately development up to the Five Mile Creek which would
be a natural phasing point.
Mecham: So no emergency access is required until 166 home.
Borup: No, they are talking about having a gravel at 100 home.
Mecham: I know. My question is, do you have to have emergency access—when do
you have to have a permanent one—when do you have to have permanent emergency
access, at what number of level of homes.
Borup: 166.
Mecham: 166, okay. So I propose that nothing be done in our subdivision on that stub
road or that emergency vehicular access until they approach 166 homes. 165, 164
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 37
and what I mean by that, at that point is then go ahead and put in the grass pavers, go
ahead and do what is being proposed as far as the width and that, but no permanent
pavement, no gravel, but more of a pavers and I can-- One of the questions that I want
to bring up having sat here tonight and watched another community be effected by a
developer going in and saying one thing and having them change their residents or their
technical jargon of changing their restrictions within their community, and know all of a
sudden they are going to have a potential road there—I just want to go on record to say
that when—I trust O’Neil Enterprise and but I also know that a few things have
happened since we’ve started our negotiation and discussion with them. A conceptual
plan that we first saw that you have up there, shows a park there. It does not show a
road. It does not show anything and all of a sudden it has gone from a park to a road.
There is one thing that has all ready been changed that wasn’t there before. They’ve
talked to us about it, so it was not like a surprise, but it was a surprise from when we
first met with them and started talking to the community. We were very excited about
seeing that conceptual plan. There was not any vehicular access into our community. I
am a little nervous now that…
Borup: But you understand why it was added?
Mecham: My question is though is—
Borup: (Inaudible) because of a ACHD requirement. The only reason is came up was
because of the access that was all ready in existence from Greenhill.
Mecham: I want to address something again. When I bought my property I went to the
right of way division and talked to them about vacating that so I could buy that when I
bought my home. They said, we have to wait and see what is going to be developed. If
that developer or what ever is developed that they don’t need access, then we could
vacate the property to me. When that conceptual plan came out, there was no need for
that road or the developer did not have a plan that the road would go there, I’m sure.
Being a business man myself, I know that they drew the conceptual plan and you could
yank that park out pretty quick which is what is being done now. I was excited about it
cause I thought I could go to ACHD and vacate that because the developer did not
need that access. Things have changed and it concerns me. The other thing that
concerns me that I found out tonight is no ownership of the land for the secondary
access. That is a big concern that I am going to end up with the secondary access
going right through my house within 166 homes. These facts that are starting to
surface make me start to switch from being in favor of the project to being opposed to
the project. The one thing that I wanted to also state, is that going back to the
emergency vehicular access, I am still in support of the project from it can bring to our
community. What I want to say though is the emergency vehicle access, I don’t want to
do anything at 100 homes. I have talked with Scott Beecham and he says there is
going to be about 4 to 5 homes—4 sales a month—4 to 5 they estimate how they are
going to develop out so 166 homes, doing you math, would be about 40 months. So,
about another 3-1/2 years and—so what I am saying, let’s not do anything. Let’s let out
community stay the way it is for 3-1/2 years and then at that point, don’t go with the
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 38
road, go with the pavers and the understanding that eventually that a road might be in
there but it could be 10 years down the road. To put pavement there makes things
permanent and you know, if the county wanted it permanent in the past, they should
have put the road in in the past and them we would have known that something was
going to go through there, but to have it. I just hope that again, we, I just was to
reiterate that as long as we can address that, the secondary access or the emergency
access to push that back not say it’s 100 homes or something or push it back to 166
homes before any work starts to be done there.
Borup: Anyone else before we rap things up.
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Borup: I think maybe see if the developer would like to (inaudible).
O’Neil: I could deal with each of these comments, but I think what the primary thing that
I want to say—let me touch two what I would consider minor issues and then one
significant one. As far as the design of the emergency access easement on the
Greenhill side, we’d be happy to improve that with the same way we are talking about
our side, with narrow pavement, grass crete and soft as opposed to hard. I think the
only reason it was written like that was we figured we had to give ACHD something and
let them get at least half of it the way they wanted. That is not a problem. We can do
that either way. I would comment on the last speaker’s issues. I am not sure I followed
all of that but I think that was never intended to be a park. It was a pedestrian access
because it connected to a right of way and that it is an obvious emergency vehicle
location and if somebody needs an emergency vehicle, that is where it would be. That
was in the original plan. We did not call out any specifications because we hadn’t even
met with ACHD or the City. We have not changed our fundamental at all. We don’t do
that, so our credibility is important to us and don’t want that to be of question. The
major issue is how to get to Magicview and I very much apologize to Mrs. Burkert. We,
I think, attempted to talk with as many neighbors as possible before the last hearing.
We were certainly told in no uncertain terms at the last hearing that we better talk to our
neighbors to the southeast. I apologize if there was anything we said that could have
been construed and could have been reported back to you that we have talked to you
and we have access over that property. Quite the contrary. I think we said we had not
talked. That the little culdesac that stops there is a logical target point and frankly we
just have not done all our homework to know whether that is the most logical place or
not. Our point is that we would like to work with you. I think there is some
undeveloped property in the back of those two platted corner lots there on the other
side of Five Mile Creek that isn’t your property. There isn’t any access and isn’t much
that they could do with the property. I apologize very much if it was anything we said
could have been a done deal. We understand that we have some work to do there.
We want to work with our neighbors, and frankly it is one of the reasons why it’s next to
impossible to pin down a location at this time because all of a sudden we are dealing
with the most valuable property in the world. It very well could be that somebody in one
of those locations would like access to their back forty and that would turn out to be a
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 39
better location. It could also be that all of that property essentially in transition anyway
and there may be another plan that comes forward in the next few months that we
would want to hook into. Our commitment is that some people were concerned. Well,
gosh, we end up saying we can’t go out through Magicview so then we have to come
through Greenhill. I think Commissioner Borup nailed that one. We’ve got half a
project, if that is what we end of doing and anybody that has been in this business, the
arithmetic doesn’t work on half a project, so there is a big hammer over our heads to
work out an access to the east. Other than answering any questions, that covers it.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? Mr. Hatcher.
Hatcher: It’s not so much a question as it is just for Mr. O’Neil. On the Locust Grove
landscape buffer, with the additional clarification information that you had submitted,
basically if ACHD doesn’t go over 5 lanes on Locust Grove, everything I think works out
great and is per some of your other developments, particularly River Run on the east
side. Granted, it got a much larger buffer. My only concern is your lot lines for the front
clusters as to if ACHD were to flex their muscles and say, hey, your going to give me
that 96 foot of right of way, then we put a curb, gutter and sidewalk in addition to that,
basically is what we are looking at is a real small strip of grass before the fence that is
on your lot line, for this high end planned community. Has that been taken into
consideration? Have you specifically talked to ACHD or what your proposing here, is
this based off of track record and assumptions?
O’Neil: I’m not sure I can recite chapter and verse in terms of how many trips per day a
five lane section—two traffic lanes each way with a turn lane in the middle can carry. I
think it far exceeds any projection out in any reasonable time frame that the traffic
studies have made for Locust Grove Road, so it is on that assumption that will never
become a seven lane deal and if there is, there is room in the right of way to do that. It
would get a little tight and by then the landscaping would be so mature that it would
probably work. I think we are going on what the traffic guys say and what APA’s future
plans and traffic counts say. Just logic tells you that it is not going to exceed that.
Hatcher: I am in concurrence with you in that this is not going to happen in your lifetime
or my lifetime. Maybe your son and your grandson is going to have to do this
remodeling and build a block wall, but I wanted to know where you are coming from and
why you were making these assumptions.
Borup: A little bit on conditions of approval. Do we want to handle this right now or—it
sounds like the Commissioner's were leading toward closing the hearing. This I feel we
would need the developers input.
Hatcher: Do you want to do a discussion with open public forum?
Borup: That would be fine. You had some questions concerning some of the conditions
of approval you mean.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 40
Hatcher: I think maybe getting a little more specific.
Borup: With the applicant or with staff or both?
Hatcher: A little bit of both.
O’Neil: Suit yourself on that. We will do whatever you folks—
Borup: Let’s go ahead –
O’Neil: I think there is—the development agreement is going to be a very specific
agreement and I think if we are generally in agreement with the conditions, there is
going to be ample opportunity to fine tune them, and whether you want to do that as a
committee as a whole or—
Borup: That was the kind of point I wanted to clarify. These are still draft and
somewhat in general terms that they will be refined when they get into the final
agreement.
Hatcher: I don’t think we want to try drafting the development. We just want to address
some specific issues on your proposed conditions. Seven B and 7C which is generated
a lot of discussion, controversy, potential solutions and what not. I pretty much wanted
to state on those specific issues that I feel comfortable and I am in concurrence with
OEI on their approach to this issue and that the way it lays out is that anything west of
the Five Mile Creek would be developed prior to secondary emergency access. Now I
know and OEI’s point of view, that is a awful lot of money sitting there undeveloped if
they don’t do it the right way and get that proper access. I feel extremely confident that
that secondary access and the way it is written in their proposed conditions of approval,
reading that they will have an operable access prior to the issuance of the 166
occupancy permit. I wanted to make that a point of discussion. The other point of
discussion is I think we have as a group, as a body, in general have gone with what
ACHD has approved or recommended. On a few occasions we have bucked the
system so to speak. The emergency access to Greenhill's, I think is a perfect example
where we need to step up and tell ACHD this is what we think is better for our
community, because they are looking at the big picture and not the specific instances. I
would even go so far as to change the developer’s recommendation on that I would still
maintain the required 50 foot right of way. That is the existing and match up with
Woodbridge so that 50 or 75 years from now if a road does have to go in there, the right
of way is there. I would go so far as to not even put a paving strip in there. The
proposal is for a 24 foot rule street section on Greenhill and then a 12 foot paving
section with a 4 foot grass crete on each side on the Woodbridge side, what I would
probably proposed, pending Meridian fire dept approval, just put in a 16 or 18 foot wide
concrete grass crete strip down the middle of that with ballads so that the fire trucks can
get through there, but we don’t have any asphalt. We talk the difference between that
18 feet and the 50 foot right of way, you put some grass and some trees in there and
have it as a pedestrian pathway and be done with it.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 41
Borup: So you saying no asphalt at all. All grass crete.
Hatcher: All grass crete. (applause)
Borup: I think the comment I made last time, if it could meet the weight requirements
for the fire department. Did we get an answer on that? We did not get an answer on
that. It has been done in other subdivisions and met the weight requirement for the fire
department.
Hatcher: Tom just brought up a point that I would want to elaborate on. As far as
bicycles go with kids, maybe a five foot meandering sidewalk on the side of the grass
crete or something like that so there is at least a small portion of hardscape for bicycles.
This is something that we need to address in general as a group or a body, but as far as
specific design, let’s leave that up to OEI and (inaudible). Let’s just approve a
conceptual design for that. The last thing that I wanted to bring up is the conceptual
idea of the project I think that OEI has done an outstanding job on putting together
preliminary information and getting that information to us. As far as not being a done
deal as far the secondary road to Mountain View, I leave that completely up to the
developer in being able to come to terms and agreement with the potential land owner,
the lady that spoke earlier or someone else along the eastern property line as stated in
the conditions of approval. The developer will not be able to develop the eastern half of
this project until that road is put in and is usable. I wanted to make that point clear.
That is all I have.
Borup: Okay, Mr. Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Ditto
Borup: I definitely agree on the emergency access too. There is several minor things I
think on the draft conditions. The only thing that I have a question on is maybe set
back. I don’t know if you had taken a look at the set back proposals. I think the matrix,
the chart is well with keeping what you would expect in a PUD. The think that I had not
initially notices is that the set backs is from the sidewalks rather then from the property
line. Unless I looked at this wrong, the property line has landscaping on so in effect it
would put some of these—like the side entry garage would be 4-1/2 feet from the
property line with the proposals here. I believe that—
Barbeiro: Front property line or side?
Borup: Front.
Barbeiro: That is not the way I read it.
Borup: The set backs on the drawings were from sidewalk. It is going to depend on the
street. The loop road street is pretty much a normal street section. The other
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 42
neighborhood streets sections have the normal 50 feet right of way with a 29 back to
back rather than a 37.
O’Neil: We do get along reasonable well with the highway district but there is a few
things we have done battle with them on 20 years. I don’t like their typical street
sections. One of the reasons we ended up doing a lot of private streets and earlier
developments is we don’t think these little neighborhood streets should be 37 feet wide
and 50 foot rights of way and so on. We finally won that argument in the sense of the
29 foot road section with 5 feet of sidewalk, but they ran across a state statute that
states all public road rights of way has to be 50 feet wide. Even though we have one of
those little neighborhoods that serves 20 or 30 lots, you have to have a 50 foot right of
way so if you have 29 feet and 5 feet and 5 feet, that 39 feet, we were putting in 42 foot
just to give you a little slop on each side. A 42 foot right of way until a few years ago
when a new attorney from the highway district said you know there is a state statute
that says that all public rights of way has to be 50 feet. I think it is insane because there
is not reason that those neighborhood streets are every going to be expanded. That is
why we like to go with the back of pavement or the back of curb because nobody else is
going to use that property other then the property owner. Rather then have that
expensive concrete and a big set back and a little bitty backyard, we’d like to bring
some of them back to the street and provide more living space. That is the rationale
behind it. It is this kind of artificial notion that every right of way has to be 50 feet wide.
Borup: I can understand what you are saying. Maybe while you are up…maybe you
could address. I also had a question on the right of way on Woodbridge—the 72 foot.
Is the HOA taking care of the landscape maintenance in that. You need to do a
maintenance agreement with the highway district.
O’Neil: Yes a license agreement.
Borup: I was just curious why you went that way rather then a landscape lot.
O’Neil: You can do them either way and we have done them both. I think what
happens is those right of way get to be very hard lines, and sometimes you want to put
a little wiggle in the thing and if it is all within the right of way, you get an opportunity to
do some wriggling for (inaudible) purposes and you get a piece of it pushing the right of
way so we’ve just decided to do bigger rights of way and then do a license agreement
so we maintain the whole thing.
Borup: By having a 12 foot landscaping lot along there you still want to make use of the
rest of the right of way that was not being used. So you would still need an agreement
with ACHD. One of your documents showed an asphalt path on Locust Grove.
(Inaudible) showed anything, ACHD specified concrete. Is that something that is still
being decided or –
O’Neil: I think ACHD’s typical standard is a 5 foot concrete sidewalk right behind the
curb. We are suggesting on our side there is no five foot sidewalk on the curb. Instead
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 43
there is an 8 foot asphalt hiking and biking path set back from the curb so if you fall off
your bike you don’t land on Locust Grove Road. The section I believe shows a five foot
curb on the far side because that is their standard. The bike path will be asphalt.
Borup: Who maintains that.
O’Neil: We end up with a license agreement in front of Locust Grove. I stopped fighting
that because if you want it taken care of nicely, you better make sure you have the right
to take care of it as opposed to getting some third party to take care of it.
Borup: So your still addressing that with ACHD. I think in their last draft copy they
specified concrete. I guess that is still under discussion with them.
O’Neil: Yes.
Borup: There would not be any garage less then 20 feet from the sidewalk. I am
assuming that on the zero setback proposal for the back that that would be an offset.
That in your covenants some where? I don’t mean an offset, I mean a staggered—if
there was a zero lot line garage on one property line, the adjoining property line would
need to be on the opposite.
O’Neil: If we do that yes. I think the way we have handled that in the past is with a use
and maintenance with the neighbor so the property stays straight. There would not be
two adjoining garages.
Borup: Any other discussion. I’d like to ask Shari then. I know you have had some
concern on specifics, on conditions of approval. After what has been said tonight,
realizing that this would be the draft that would go into the development agreement, are
you feeling more comfortable at this point.
Stiles: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner's I guess you do have my copy with the notes that
I made on their draft. I guess I wouldn’t feel comfortable taking these straight as they
are presented without some minor modifications.
Borup: Isn’t that what happens when it’s goes into a development agreement?
Stiles: It would if you don’t accept it with this draft conditions verbatim as they
presented them.
Borup: Maybe we need to get some clarification but I understood that’s what the
applicants intention was. Anyway. That is was not met to be verbatim. Mr. O’Neil could
you maybe clarify that just a little bit.
O’Neil: I think that gets to where we don’t want to commit to something we can’t deliver
on. The City can’t deliver on. I think that’s a legal or somewhat of a technical issue and
I think if you added what ever number of conditions or an overview of your approval or
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 44
recommendation for approval tonight, the conditions of approval as set forth or subject
to, modification by staff and City Council in the development agreement, I think that’s
what we are intending but obviously we want to protect ourselves that all of a sudden
something doesn’t come out of left field from staff that has not been discussed. We did
not get a staff report and did not get the hand written—based on what was said tonight,
I did not hear anything that causes us particular heartburn.
Borup: I don’t think that was—I don’t think Shari was looking at anything new. Maybe
just a clarification on (inaudible) and things along that line.
O’Neil: I’d suggest that that be added somehow—what ever motion.
Borup: I think maybe the concern was that if this was intended to be a final document,
that it may need some clarification. If it is not intended to be such, then it certainly is
the best place to start. And, it is much easier for the city to take your draft and make
any changes into try to draft a thing from the beginning. That was helpful. Thank you.
What would you like to do?
Hatcher: Mr. Chairman. I move we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman. Let me ask a few questions. I was not here at the last
proceeding and I apologize for that. I am a little clued out on what we are looking at
here. My understanding is it is an application for conditional use permit for a planned
unit development that will be followed by a preliminary plat and the final platting
process. The issue, and I don’t know what you have in front of you Keith. I certainly
END OF SIDE 4
Borup: Approval that OEI drafted that was in our packets.
Rossman: What are you proposing from this? Adopt these conditions of approval as
conditions of approval of the conditional use permit for the planned unit development
and that with the intent that perhaps these conditions will also be incorporated into the
development agreement.
Borup: Yes, but more of a working draft not a word for word verbatim document. I think
City Council has that option anyway.
Hatcher: We’d just be recommending approval general approval based upon—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 45
Borup: I think some of the things in here that are specific and effect the project are the
set backs. In my mind that has been clarified.
Rossman: Let me ask Shari this. Have they provided obviously our ordinance or the
Meridian City Ordinance provides certain requirements be met in the application for
planned unit development. Has all of that been provided to your satisfaction.
Stiles: Yes, I believe they have provided everything we’ve asked for.
Rossman: Are they asking for any variations from the requirements of the planned unit
development?
Stiles: Not that I am aware of. They do have a list of things that they have not
provided. Their not on 13—
Borup: On 14 where it refers to specific illustrations—is that one of the things you were
referring to?
Stiles: Under 13 they put inapplicability of certain PDR requirements. Submission of
specific elevation exhibits. Of course we are not going to ask for every house, but they
have offered a general elevation, a theme of the development. Some model elevations.
Specific of architectural style and building design. Again they’ve got general elevations.
Building materials and color. Whether they are going to have a general thyme or their
architectural control committee will take care of that. They are going to have to include
that in the covenants they submit with their plat.
Borup: You saying those are the things normally part of a PUD but they are not
applicable here.
Stiles: These are ordinance requirements. They are showing they don’t believe they
necessarily need to show those. Garbage storage, public parking areas. They show
public parking as far as for the community center. They don’t show storage area, guest
parking areas and maintenance building. I don’t whether they addressed that. I can’t
remember whether they said they were going to have outside people come in and do
that. I don’t recall. Those are the things that they have not provided. They are not
particularly major items.
Borup: Essentially your saying you agree with what they’ve written—other then you
might want to see storage and garbage storage areas at the community house.
Stiles: You mean I agree with that number 13? I don’t have a problem with that.
Rossman: So what your being asked to do is recommend approval of the conditional
use permit with the general conditions set forth in OEI’s conditions of approval.
Anything in addition to that? Any staff comments that are to be included?
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 46
Borup: We want the staff comments.
Hatcher: I don’t have a staff report.
Borup: I think the only thing, I think the Commissioner's may have differ from the staff
report was on the emergency access.
Rossman: Okay. Everything that is in the staff report is addressed within these
conditions of approval.
Borup: Well…
Rossman: Your calling on us to draft some kind of recommendation to City Council.
We need to make it clear in your motion and in your--.make it clear what you want in
that as far as conditions so that we can appropriately draft that. We are not coming
back to you with written recommendations for your approval.
(Inaudible from the audience)
Borup: Lets reopen the public hearing.
Rossman: Mr. O’Neil what are you proposing that we recommend to the City Council
and we have a process here and we have a planning and zoning commission that has a
process before it and that is to make a recommendation to City Council, if there is
something more then is set forth in your conditions of approval, what is it that you want
this commission to recommend to City Council.
O’Neil: I am not sure I’ll give the appropriate legal answer to that, but the conditions of
approval go with the application. The master site plan and all of the narrative and
sections and things there too. That was what submitted. The conditions of approval
are typically the commissions reaction and staff’s reaction to that submittal that says
yes, we agree with these. We want to add some additional conditions and that’s what
we’ve tried to incorporate here, so I’m not sure we have a debate other than the issue is
that there is a plan out there that we want to build and the conditions assure the city
that we built it the way that we said we were going to, but by the same token that we
have the right to do the set backs and all of the specific things that we suggested we do
that you have to go through the PUD and CU to get there. We tried to make that clear
last time and I understand that revolving attorney issue.
Rossman: It is not a revolving attorney issue, it’s an issue that this type of application
does not come before the commission every day obviously and we don’t deal with these
every day and we just want to make sure that when we do it, we do it right the first time.
O’Neil, I guess that in the letter that was sent last week, our letter is perhaps the City
Attorney should review this to advise the process that you go through so nobody gets
hung up that jumped over a step that you should go through.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 47
Borup: I am still confused in where you thought there was a problem.
O’Neil: Well, if somebody made a motion that said let’s forward these conditions of
approval on to City Council with the recommendation that they be approved, that’s part
of the application and the plan that wants to be approved by the City Council. Adding
future staff reports and so on, obviously the council is going to get their own staff
reports, but I just or maybe I misunderstood where you are going with that but it
sounded like this was an interim step and—
Borup: No, I think so. The staff report was done last month and he was talking about
whether incorporate that staff report and with our recommendation which is our normal
process.
O’Neil: Yeah and that is what this intent was to try to incorporate things that were or
were not said. The staff report, if you recall, had some comments, some suggestions
and some conditions. What we tried to do was consolidate those in a way that be
specific so that somebody could say, what did we approve.
Rossman: So my question or the answer to my question is that your conditions of
approval address and incorporate the staff report and the conditions in the staff report.
O’Neil: Pretty much.
Rossman: In understand you position. The recommendation we are making to City
Council, assuming they make such a recommendation is that City Council approve your
application, your site plan and all your proposal with the addition of the following
conditions, general conditions set forth within this document. I just wanted to make that
clear so that they understand what they are supposed to do and of course it will be
addressed again at City Council and they will certainly say their two cents worth, but
there will not be another staff report usually prepared---will there? Shari? I am talking
about this stage on this application and City Council. This recommendation goes to
City Council. Are you going to prepare another staff report?
Stiles: Based on what we got with these conditions of approval, we will make
recommendations to Counsel for some modifications of those conditions, yes. They will
not be major, they will just be more clarification. That was our intent when we got it.
We got this emailed to us and what we had hoped to do before tonight was to actually
take that document, show strike outs where we would like the language and add
anything that we wanted to clarify. We can still do that at Council because it is another
public hearing.
Rossman: Yeah, ideally those issues get addressed before the Planning and Zoning
Commission first and then addressed at City Council. That is the reason for having the
Planning and Zoning Commission but obviously if they are not—there is nothing that
would preclude you from raising them the first time at the City Council.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 48
Hatcher: I was just going to ask Shari if we have addressed those issues tonight?
Minor modifications. Have we addressed those issues tonight. Is there any of those
issues that have not been discussed?
Stiles: I did bring up some of them as I was going through the draft. I talked to Scott
briefly before the meeting tonight about some of those—the requirement for a
development agreement, the future development on parcel B, subject to development
under the conditional use permit process instead of just meeting our LO requirements.
Taking our some ambiguous language that does not need to be there in our opinion.
Adding the swimming pool, which is proposed in their site plan to the open space—
those kinds of things. Changing 166 to 164 or 3 or what ever it is that they proposed—
minor. That was our intent when we got this was to be able to turn it around, but we just
didn’t have the time to do it.
Rossman: I am satisfied Mr. Chairman. I apologize for the diversion.
Hatcher: I would not see any problem in having Shari compile those modifications
between now and the City Council meeting.
Borup: Those things would still be level for discussion I assume at that time, between
you and the applicant prior to the City Council meeting.
Stiles: If this is recommended for approval tonight, it will go to City Council for public
hearing on December 7th
and that should give us plenty of time to make sure we get our
comments back to the applicant and I mean if I felt that anything we were going to come
up with would create a significant change, that would require it to come back to
Planning and Zoning Commission, I would say so right now. I don’t think that that is the
case so—
Borup: Since you brought it up, I just gotta ask on the 166, 164. You counted 164 and
the applicant counted 166 lots this west of the creek.
Stiles: 163 single family homes west of the creek.
Borup: So it’s the first phase up to Five Mile.
Stiles: They have identified that it would be prior to any platting east of the creek is
when that would be. They came up with 166 for some reason, I don’t know.
Borup: All right. That’s what I assumed it was just a counting thing. Okay we still have
a public hearing open.
Hatcher: I make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 49
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we have a motion?
Hatcher: Yes, I will attempt this. Mr. Chairman, I motion that we recommend approval
of the conditional use permit for a 283 lot planned development on 80.83 acres from an
RT to an R4 by Woodbridge Community, LLC south of east Franklin Road and east of
south Locust Grove Road with the following conditions. The first one is that staff
comments. The second one is that the draft conditions of approval in general be
accepted pending minor editing and modifications by planning staff. Third would be
general compliance and acceptance of the information submitted by OEI and that there
would be no major deviations. How we would define major deviation I’m at a lost for but
the over general concept of everything that they’ve presented I think we should
recommend, but if they are going to go off on a tangent, I don’t know how we want to
address that. The other issue would be the access on the north side of the
development that will attach Weatherby access that we recommend to City Council that
a 18 foot wide grass crete strip be installed on both sides of that access and that a 5
foot meandering sidewalk be installed, both within the 50 foot right of way and the
difference –the remaining difference of that right of way be maintained in landscaping. I
think that’s it.
Rossman: Just a few clarifications, just on the first two conditions. One, you said staff
comments. My understanding is those are incorporated in the draft conditions of
approval and we don’t, when it comes down to it drafting the actual recommendation if
we have conflicting conditions. We certainly don’t want that. I think if they are in fact
incorporated into the draft conditions, then it should just be the draft conditions and
exclude the staff comments or the staff conditions. Do you see what I mean?
Hatcher: Do you feel comfortable with that Shari?
Borup: Well I think staff had a lot other comments had pertained with City Ordinance
and etc. that weren’t necessarily addressed in the conditions of approval.
Rossman: But with regard to the items or the conditions that were addressed in staff
comments—if it’s addressed one way in staff comments and one way in the draft
conditions—
Hatcher: What am I supposed to put in the recommendation?
Borup: My understanding by the motion that the draft of conditions would take
precedence accept for the motion on emergency vehicle. That was the only one, there
may be other, but that was the one I was aware of that differed from the staff comment.
Staff was going along with ACHD’s recommendation.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 50
Rossman: We will do our best. There just isn’t a lot of direction and the fact that now
we are faced with the task in going through and comparing the two and determining
where there is conflicts and where there aren’t conflicts and what should be included
and what should not be included. That is somewhat difficult.
Borup: Maybe it would be easier if we reviewed the findings before it went to City
Council.
Rossman: We can do that.
Borup: We use to.
Rossman: It will just delay the project and I am not sure that is necessary. We will just
do our best and send it up and if they disagree with it, they can certainly raise it up
there.
Hatcher: Can we not recommend and adopt both staff comments. If there is a conflict
that would be noted. We are talking another month in which a resolution can be
brought to and discussed—
(Inaudible)
Hatcher: This is the way it is going to be tonight because it is too big of a conceptual
project to recommend the exact requirements.
Rossman: The purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to make a
recommendation and I think that you make a recommendation and the staff has a
different view on it, they will certainly present that to City Council. Let’s not put altering
conditions—lets just make a recommendation and if that is in fact these draft conditions,
lets stick with those and if staff disagrees with it, they will raise that in their comments to
City Council at that preceding. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission is obligated
to make a recommendation and I think they need to pick one go with it and they it will
be addressed at City Council.
Borup: Staff has 19 comments, a lot of them I don’t think they are all addressed in the
other and there is no conflict. It’s just one is addressed in one area and one is
addressed in the other.
Rossman: Okay, well we will go over them and see what we can figure out. On number
2, I prefer to take out the comment that subject to minor change by staff, lets make the
recommendation and send it up and once again, if staff has minor changes, they can
present those to City Council and City Council can address them there. What that
implies is that minor change will occur in the recommendations between here and City
Council. What we are going to do is make a recommendation. That is going to be in
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 51
City Council’s file and staff will also present any changes that they will want to make to
those recommendations. Do you understand what I mean? Okay.
Hatcher: I am glad I’m a architect and not a lawyer…
Borup: Essentially this sounds like just one part of the motion needs to be modified and
that was on the minor change.
Rossman: Number 2, the comments. Comment number 1, staff comments where not
in consistent with the draft conditions and comment number 2, just exclude the
comment about subject to minor changes by staff.
Hatcher: I amend my motion by what he just said.
Borup: Okay. We have a motion.
Barbeiro: I second that motion.
Borup: That motion is seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. This is completed for this Commission, we hope. While they are
clearing out Commissioner's, for general guideline, I would like to see maybe we don’t
open up any hearing after midnight. Whatever is going a midnight would probably be
the last one.
Hatcher: Didn’t we agree upon that as a procedure at the last meeting?
Borup: Well, after the meeting was over we discussed that.
Hatcher: Well, it was still on record.
Borup: Okay, were we.. Item number 9 Staff.
ITEM 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CORPORATE HEADQUARTER FACILITY, CREDIT UNION AND DRIVE
UP TELLER UNITS BY CAPITAL EDUCATORS FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION—LOTS 14,15,18,19 IN BLOCK 2 OF HONOR PARK
SUBDIVISION NO. 3:
Siddoway: Chairman Borup and Commissioner's, Item Number 9 is Capital Educators
Federal Credit Union. It’s a conditional use permit required by the fact that they have
proposed drive thru tellers. The vicinity map is before you on the screen. They are
proposing using these 4 lots in the cross hashed area right here. Just to get you a little
bit oriented, this is Franklin Road, the new fire station site is right here. Meridian
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 52
cemetery is right here. These lots between—to the north up to Franklin are currently
undeveloped. This culdesac is also not yet developed. The only development that is in
any of these lots is on this lot right here and it is electrical wholesale. The other lots are
currently vacant. To the west, these lots are vacant. This right here is part of Story
Park and that is where the soft ball fields are. This is the site plan that is proposed.
Stratford Drive is up here. You can see the two culdesacs that are on the two sides of
the property here. In general, we like the site plan. It has a good separation of traffic
circulation. We want to point out 3 comments. One is the requirement for one 3 inch
Caliper tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt is not met by this site plan. There is
however, plenty of room to incorporate the missing trees. They have street buffers
along Stratford Drive and along the two culdesacs along either side. We would request
the trees be placed along the street in those street buffer areas. The second comment
is regarding the two handicap spots that are adjacent to the main entrance that they
actually need to be striped to meet ADA specifications and have an isle of their own and
not to use the paved entrance as part of the area used for that handicap access isle.
The third requirement deals with this driveway in the rear. It is 16 feet wide. The fire
department has requested at least 20 feet in width to give them adequate access. That
is all I have.
Borup: Any questions from the Commissioner's? The applicant like to come forward.
Simmons: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission my name is Mike Simmons. I
live at 1717 N. 11th Street in Boise. I with ZGA Architects and we represent Capital
Educators this evening. We’ve reviewed the staff report on the project and we concur
with their recommendations and their comments.
Borup: I appreciate that report. Any questions from the Commissioner's. No
questions. Thank you sir. See how easy it is when you agree with staff. Is there
anyone from the public that would like to come forward. Seeing none, Commissioner's.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Thank you. This is a request for conditional use permit so there will not be
another public hearing.
Stiles: No.
Borup: Right. So do we need to declare findings? Mr. Rossman, for some reason that
was decided last time. We were instructed to, in the motion to have findings prepared
since there would not be another public hearing.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 53
Rossman: Okay. That’s new to me. That’s fine, that’s certainly appropriate.
Borup: Maybe we weren’t instructed but we did it. I don’t remember why, but we did it.
Rossman: I’m not sure that’s—
Borup: But I think the rationale is that this is the board that hears the public hearing and
probably we are the ones that should—
Rossman: But the rationale on the other side is that were not talking final action. We’re
not making the final determination and under state statute when final action is taken,
findings are to be prepared. That’s find, we can send up findings—
Borup: I think the thing I like about it is tonight we changed both findings. Two of the
three we had to make corrections to. The City Council would not have known that.
Hatcher: That puts an additional month into the loop.
Rossman: No it doesn’t. City Council would have to come back to approve findings
too.
Borup: Findings never did take any extra time.
Barbeiro: With that, I request that the City Attorney prepare Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law regarding the request for conditional use permit for the Corporate
Headquarter facility, credit union and drive up teller unit by Capital Educators Federal
Credit Union.
Hatcher: I don’t see that we need facts and findings. I just don’t know what the benefit
really is.
Borup: Well we have to have findings. City Ordinance. You mean have us do it or not?
Barbeiro: It will cut a month off.
Borup: No it will come out the same.
Rossman: It cuts a month off assuming that the body that is taking final action, City
Council, agrees. If City Council decides something differently, they are going to have to
come back again a month later at City Council for findings.
Borup: What it could do is cut 2 weeks off.
Hatcher: Just for argument sakes, if we recommend this project now, it goes to City
Council on December 7th
.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 54
Borup: In this case I don’t think it matters. There was no questions or anything. Staff
comments were agreed upon by the applicant. It’s an easy…
Hatcher: It is a slam dunk and that is why I don’t know why we are doing facts and
findings.
Rossman: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Commissioner Hatcher. I think we just ought to
make a recommendation, send this thing to City Council and let them do the findings.
They are the body that is taking final action. I do apologize for the mixed signals you’ve
been getting. I had no idea that that was recommendation last time.
Borup: I don’t remember how it came, but I still would think it was the right thing. Lets
go ahead without on this one.
Barbeiro: I wish to withdraw my motion. In place I wish to that we recommend approval
of the request for conditional use permit for corporate headquarter facility credit union
and drive up teller by Capital Educators Federal Credit Union, to include staff comments
and recommendations.
Borup: Okay we have a motion.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR
SEVEN GATES INDUSTRIAL SUBDIVISION BY SEVEN GATES
PROPERTIES, LLC—RE-SUBDIVIDE EXISTING LOTS 8,9,10 OF
LAYNE INDUSTRIAL PARK INTO 4 LOTS:
Borup: Do we have a presentation from staff?
Siddoway: You bet. Chairman Borup and Commissioner's this what you see in front of
you on the screen is the re-subdivision of these three lots in the cross hashed area.
They are on commercial street near Nola Road and adjacent to the railroad along the
south property line. You have our comments dated November 5th
. In general, we
concur as staff with the need to re-subdivide these lots. The situation that is out there
now, lets see if we have a slide, nope, on the three lots there currently exists three
buildings that do not match the lot lines. They were built over the lot lines and this re-
subdivision would take into account where the buildings were actually placed on the site
and placed the lot lines between the buildings. The only real issues we have with this
are, there are two… One deals with under our site specific comments, number 3, it
deals with the landscaping. The applicant has requested a variance. The variance
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 55
application has been processed. It will be heard by the City Council at the same time
this plat comes before them. Basically this site has 114, 800 square feet of asphalt
between the 3 existing lots, well it would be 4 proposed lots actually once the 4th
lot is
built. Based on our requirement for one tree per 1500 square feet of asphalt, this would
require 77 trees. The applicant is proposing 34 trees. We feel as staff that is
inadequate. The applications that were made originally for the site had landscaping
requirements on them that were never met. We feel that we would like to see the
applicant be required to provide a perimeter landscape strip across the west, south and
eastern edges of the subdivision to provide as many trees as possible and to get as
close as possible to what our ordinance is. They still won’t be able to meet the
ordinance, but we have calculated that by doing a ten foot wide landscape easement on
the plat in those areas just described, and placing trees 30 feet on center, they can
provide another 34 trees for a total of 68, which would only be 9 shy of the ordinance
requirement as opposed to 43 less then the ordinance requirement as their current
proposal would provide. It would also provide 20 of those trees along the railroad right
of way which is a future transit pedestrian corridor and we’d like to dress that up. The
second issue deals with the parking and we realize this landscaping requirement would
effect the parking. One problem with the parking, as noted in our site specific comment
number 5 is that the use of these building have changed from when the building permits
were issued to uses that have more intensive parking requirements and the eastern
most lot in particular falls short on parking requirements. We realize that taking 10 feet
along the perimeter would make it difficult, but we think that a variance from the parking
requirements should have to be applied for and that is it going got take some give and
take on both the landscaping and the parking requirements but that we should be
getting as much landscaping as feasible from this project. That is all I have at this time.
Borup: Any questions? Is the applicant here?
Hinckley: My name is Rod Hinckley. I work for Edwards and Cummings. Our client is
the owner of the property. I guess you guys all have your copy of the preliminary plat.
Primarily, we take out approximately 11,000 square feet of parking and putting 10 foot
landscaping around that perimeter, approximately 400 square foot of parking space,
that is about 27 spaces. Seems like ( inaudible) yeah there is a parking problem. If you
take a look over at (inaudible) if could be remedied but it would be real tough with the
landscaping. Its asphalt and fenced right to the perimeter.
Borup: Lot 4 is you say?
Hinckley: The whole, basically the 3 developed sides are.
Borup: Asphalt is right to the property line?
Hinckley: Yeah, right. See the little symbol in there and it’s got a real nice hurricane
fence and it is pretty much asphalt right to the property line.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 56
Borup: That is the easy way to handle this is staff comments that you may have other
opinions on. Your addressing number 3 on landscaping. Staff, how long was the
current landscaping ordinance been in effect?
Siddoway: Since 1993.
Borup: And these buildings were built when?
Hinckley: I believe in 95—95 or 96.
Borup: So they were built after the current landscaping ordinance.
Hinckley: And it is really consistent with what goes on in the rest of that subdivision.
Notice not trees along the railroad track.
Borup: Was there a variance applied for at that time?
Hinckley: Not that I am aware of, but I may not have all the information—or about any
of the other properties in the neighborhood. Maybe some of them just kinda been let
slide, I don’t know the history of all that. As far as the parking goes, what they are
proposing to do is move this trucking company or repair company from building three
into the new proposed building, have the moving and storage warehouse take over the
back half of the building to and they would need some (inaudible) parking back there for
their trucks which would help the parking problems in the area. You’d probably want
the 22 parking spaces on lot 4 to be striped and ( inaudible) as part of this I imagine.
Borup: Any additional comments?
Hinckley: Well, it would be not only inconsistent with the rest of Layne Industrial
Subdivision, the landscaping that has gone on in every other site on there, but I also
understand that there is kind of a bail out position, if it is not suitable for a site where
perhaps the owner could provide some trees for public parks in lieu of onsite which
might be acceptable to the land owner as part of the approval.
Borup: Your talking about the proposed landscape ordinance?
Hinckley: No I believe there is a position in the ordinance where you can’t really fit that
onsite, you can basically buy trees for your parks.
Borup: I don’t think that is in the current ordinance. That is a proposal.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, when they approached us with this we had at one time said,
we had proposed a twenty foot wide landscape buffer in the areas I just talked about
around, and what we had said was we want you to provide all of the trees required by
the ordinance at one per 1500. You must provide as many of that number as possible
on the site and then maybe we could work out an agreement with the Parks Dept. to
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 57
provide the remainder of those off site on public ground. We are not asking for that in
this. We are simply asking for the amount that they can fit on site, to be provided on the
site and the variance take care of the rest.
Borup: How is the consistency between the ordinance and the other buildings and sites
along the same subdivision.
Hinckley: We turned in a whole slue of pictures with our application of the whole
neighborhood basically.
Siddoway: I have not done a site by site inspection. I just turned to Shari. She says
that they comply with the ordinance as far as she knows.
Borup: Did you have some other comments? I am sorry I interrupted you. It sounds
like your main two concerns is on landscaping and parking.
Hinckley: Yeah and removing the parking. I know with this lot 4 building 1 that there
historically has been a parking problem from what I hear, and I guess it maybe cause
there is kind of easy access to a dirt lot there. If it is there, people will use it. Kind of
more of a usage and enforcement problem then anything I believe.
Borup: Your representing the current owners and they’ve owned it for how long?
Hinckley: They built the building—their original owners of those 3 lots since it was sub-
divided.
Borup: Do you know why that second building I assume it was the second building built
-did they start at the east end and work west.
Hinckley: They built all three under the same site plan. As a matter of fact, they had on
the original site plan they had a building penciled in over here as another building but
future building there wasn’t money or a renter to make it feasible to build it.
Borup: Was there some type of approval at that time? Apparently there wasn’t.
Hinckley: It was shown on the original site plan as a future building.
Borup: No No No. I mean on ignoring the original lot lines and building the buildings
over the lot lines.
Hinckley: Well, apparently so. They had building permits and site plan form that
showed that.
Borup: So the building department much have—
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 58
Hinckley: Here, we want to build these buildings. We are keeping them 60 feet apart
and we want to put a forth one here in the future but we don’t have the money. Instead
of getting the conditional use permit and putting
END OF SIDE 5
Borup: It looks like it needs cleaning up. Any questions from the Commissioner's?
Hatcher: I am surprised that this had occurred. I can’t say, Steve why did this happen,
but I mean we’ve got 3 buildings on 3 lots. Now we have an application for the forth
building. Did (inaudible) divide these three lots into four lots and build a forth building,
does that still meet our density requirements for that subdivision and that zoning.
Siddoway: These lots do meet the minimum lot size requirements for the zone.
Borup: There is no problem with utilities?
Hinckley: Not entirely. (Inaudible). We are going to have to do a little pot holing—not
in the street –up by the water meter here and see if we can find this sewer service. It
supposed to be over here. There seems to be a little discrepancy between what the
builders say was there and what the city kind of has on record from the subdivision as-
builts. We won’t know until we get into it.
Borup: It should have had service to your new lot 1.
Hinckley: There is supposed to be a sewer service there.
Borup: Looks like if there was utility problems it would have happened when they built
the first 3 buildings. The forth one—
Hatcher: Keith, that is not necessary true. Right now the existing conditions are 3
buildings on 3 lots. I’d have to ask Bruce how the utilities were sized on Commercial
Street and how is our—what is the water flow, the fire flow, the sanitary sewer. I mean,
are the utilities going to be able to handle the 4th
building that was never planned for in
the original design.
Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher, we have noted the discrepancy in the as-built
drawings. It is not clear on our records which building is hooked to which service at this
point. The services were designed for commercial set-up when the subdivision was
built. There are separate fire lines that run into each lot—separate from the domestic
lines. We are going to have to try to get this all worked out as to how we are going to
serve this next building. The plumbing code does require that separate buildings have
separate services, so some additional service lines are going to have to be installed. To
your question of fire flows out in that area. We have been experiencing some lower
pressures, lower then desirable pressures in this area. My department currently has
plans on the table for a main line extension from Eagle Road down –extension which
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 59
would be Commercial Court, tying into the end of this development. That will tie in a 10
main into the end of this development and a complete loop. We anticipate that this is
going to greatly improve the pressure and flow situation out here.
Hatcher: You can’t at this time confirm or deny whether or not buildings 2 and 3 are
running off of the same service from Commercial Street.
Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher, at the time this development was put in, there was
a single service line run in at the common lot line between lots 9 and 10 for service to
lot 10. There was a duel service put in to the common lot line between 8 and 9 for
service of lots 8 and 9. The thing we are not clear of is if building 4 or the building on lot
4, is connected to that single service and if lots 2 and 3 are connected to the 2 services
that were there for lots 8 and 9 or whether there was some crises-crossing or –
Hinckley: Or an extra line out at the end that no body really know.
Freckleton: Yeah or there was additional services put in during construction of the
development. I have no record of it. I am going off of the construction plans and the
as-builts supplied by the developer. So his comment as to having to do some pot holing
and some additional investigation is quite appropriate. We need to get this flushed out
and I think we can accomplish that through our water department and my department
and the developer.
Hinckley: As far as fire flows I do realize they are a little low in that area. As a matter of
fact these other three buildings I believe were required to be sprinkled because of that
and the new one would have to be also.
Hatcher: Shari, do you have comments on the parking conditions that we have here in
the subdivision and or this proposed project taking into account the required
landscaping and everything? Due to its use it seems to me without going through and
crunching numbers that we would be tight or even short on parking stalls. Did you guys
look at that closer?
Stiles: Commissioner Hatcher, members of the Commission they would be short based
on the use they have now. When they came in with the building that is shown on lot 4,
we did not get any information on the number of employees or the number of vehicles
that were used in the operation. They can accommodate the needed parking for the
most part meet our ordinance requirements if they change the driveway width to meet
whatever ordinance requires. They might be a little short. They still will need a
variance and they are going to need cross access easements because they don’t have
driveways that accommodate those buildings within that lot—each individual lot.
Provided the building on lot three remains warehouse, entirely warehouse, they could
accommodate that possible on the site with cross access easements. The one on two
is probably the worst one as far as parking. And to kind of clarify what had happened in
the past on this. When these building were built, we were not issuing certificates as
zoning compliance. We did have a site plan that we submitted and when the final
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 60
inspection was asked for from Planning and Zoning, we went out there and they did not
have the landscaping that they had shown for the building permit. When I talked to
John Forsythe, he doesn’t remember this now, but he agreed that he would make up for
the missing landscaping when they developed the rest of the parcels. They did show a
forth building on the initial plans. We told them they could not have 4 buildings on 3
lots. Their comment was well we are not asking for that building, we are asking for this
building. So that is how it has come them having 4 lots, 4 buildings, want 4 buildings on
3 lots. They were made initially aware that if they wanted to do four buildings on 3 lots
they could have to have a conditional use permit and that we could expect the
landscaping to be brought up to ordinance as part of that conditional use permit. They
did opt, we had the –we did talk to the representative here and it was a choice of either
re subdivide it our come in with the conditional use permit. Conditional use permit
would have required a minimum of 10 per cent common for the entire site and of course
other conditions that could have been placed on it in addition to ordinance requirement.
That is why they opted for the re-subdivision. I just wanted to make sure that you had
for your record, you did receive a letter from one of the property owners within the
subdivision. Another thing, with the landscaping, I don’t know of another site within that
subdivision that has this huge expanse of asphalt. There is some equipment storage
areas, they are not parking areas. Basically this is building and parking and that’s all
there is.
Borup: Do we have anyone else here? Seeing none.
Hatcher: I recommend we close the public hearing. I motion that we close the public
hearing.
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Do we need a little discussion here? The only two issues were landscaping and
somewhat on parking.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman, do we have a means of maintaining the correct number of
trees without taking away the additional 11,000 square feet.
Borup: I need to (inaudible) on the staff and it does not appear that it is possible.
Staff’s recommendation only would I mean if they do the other on the perimeter, would
come 9 feet short. What do the 11,000 feet come from? From the applicant?
Hatcher: Ten foot landscape buffer along the back property line next to the railroad.
Which is quite generous upon staff’s—it’s quite generous from staff asking for 10 feet.
Storage unit was just built with I think 40 foot on the railroad because of the current
requirements. If staff does not have a problem with the density, the locations, the sizes,
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 61
public works feels that they can adequately or service the additional building or in the
near future service it, I don’t see any major problem with the request. I think (inaudible)
with staffs comments.
Borup: One staff comment is that a variance would still need to be applied for. Is that
both the landscaping and parking.
Siddoway: A variance has been applied for for landscaping not for parking. We had no
information about the parking until we received the plat as part of this application with
the parking information on it. So, based on what we reviewed here, our comment was
that a variance needs to be applied for for parking.
Borup: That’s what I was saying. Also the landscaping variance has all ready been
applied for.
Siddoway: It has all ready been processed.
Hatcher: And the variance is to reduce it to 10 feet.
Siddoway: No, their variance is proposing to reduce the required number of trees to
just the 34 that they are proposing. Staff’s comments on that is we would like to see the
additional 34 added on with the 10 foot landscape easement for a total of 68. The
variance would make up for the additional 9 that are still missing. It may not be a full
nine once you take off 10 feet around the perimeter. It might be one less or—
Hatcher: So what we currently have now is a sea of asphalt. Staff is asking for a 10
foot landscape buffer on the south property line.
Siddoway: South east and west.
Hatcher: South, east and west. And a total of how many trees?
Siddoway: A total of 68 trees.
Hatcher: Which would be 9 short of the required.
Borup: The variance is at City Council right.
Siddoway: Yes, variances are only heard at City Council. Its been processed and is
being held—
Borup: We don’t have anything to do with the variance anyway.
Siddoway: Your comments would affect the plat and we would ask that an easement be
required on the plat as a 10 foot easement for landscaping for the provision of those
additional 34 trees.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 62
Hatcher: So our recommendation is kind of irrelevant if the variance is going to be
approved by City Council.
Siddoway: We’ll be addressing the same issues with them.
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we recommend to City Council approval
for the request for preliminary and final plat for Seven Gates Industrial Subdivision by
Seven Gates Property, LLC re-subdividing the existing lots 8,9 and10 of the Layne
Industrial Park into 4 lots with staffs recommendations.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A 3 BUILDING RETAIL COMPLEX OF
APPROXIMATELY 50,000 SF ON VACANT 5.5 ACRE SITE IN A C-G
ZONE BY NORCO—NORTH OF FAIRVIEW BETWEEN EAGLE ROAD
AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD:
Borup: The only question was on signage. We had to conflicting statements. One said
that the applicant indicated the pylon 25x15 sign, staff recommended a 72 square foot
monument sign. Our minutes what I read indicated that if the applicant proposes a
monument sign not greater than 72 square feet that we essentially giving our approval
and not need to come back before us with any type of sign approval. If they want to do
otherwise—Shari, I had a question on—either way they need to apply for a sign permit?
So if they were proposing a pylon sign, that would come back before this Commission?
Stiles: NO. We would like you to make the conditions part of the conditional use permit
or part of the application.
Borup: That it be monument only, you mean.
Stiles: Well I think there needs to be limitation on the size and number –if it is
something extraordinary were submitted to us then we would bring it back to P & Z. If it
was something that staff could not support, we’d come to P & Z and say this is what
they are proposing, what do you think. But the 25 X 15 if we are going to be consistent
I’d like us to be actually consistent and not say well this one is okay and that one’s not.
We had another one on the agenda tonight that was proposing a pylon sign that was
denied.
Borup: Well, so we were maybe wrong in our discussion in the minutes about even
coming back before us, but the consensus was if it is a monument sign under 72 square
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 63
feet that we’ve given our approval. Did they have a secondary sign at the other
entrance?
Stile: They did but it was only –
Borup: A little directional type thing.
Hatcher: Clarification. Monument sign is something that is anchored to the ground. A
pylon sign is up in the air. I could have swore that we talked about a 72 square foot
pylon sign and monument sign so long as the total square footage is signage for the
project did not go over 72 spare foot. That is why we joked about having the one sign
that was a foot tall and 72—
Borup: Well here, the minutes were—well there is a lot of inaudible's here, but it came
down to Borup 72 square foot monument sign we really don’t need to see them again.
Brown, unless they choose to do another kind of sign then it would come back before
the commission. Shari said unless it is 72 feet by 1 foot. I don’t think we even talked
about a pylon sign without more information and again that would not be consistent with
what we’ve been doing. On the whole City corridors. Our recommendation, well Shari’s
recommendation was monument sign.
Stiles: That’s mine. I don’t think it was in the comments. The comments that were
prepared said that the 25 foot and the other sign that were submitted were approved.
Borup: The minutes say a 72 square foot maximum, 72 square foot monument sign
was approved. Really what we’ve got is two conflicting things. We can either we can
change the findings how ever we want but 1.42 says to construct a sign not to exceed
72 square feet. It does not say monument. 1.16 makes reference that the applicant
applied for a 25 x 15 pylon sign and a single monument.
Barbeiro: (Inaudible)
Borup: A on A Frame or
Stiles: I would ask that you just take out the entire last sentence of that.
Borup: That is what I was going to say.
Stiles: Take the whole thing out and say monument sign not to exceed 72 square feet
is approved as part of this application subject to design review.
Hatcher: I agree.
(Inaudible)
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 64
Hatcher: 1.16 scratch the last sentence and 1.42 add the word monument sign. Done
issue. I motion that we do that… I make a motion (Inaudible discussion) I move that
we approve the fact and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the conditional
use permit for a 3 building retail complex of approximately 50,000 sf on vacant 5.5
acres site in a C-G zone by Norco, north of Fairview between Eagle Road and Locust
Grove with the following modifications: 1.16 delete the last sentence which reads
applicants indicate a single pylon sign 25 x 15 and single monument sign for the center
and only those signs are approved along Fairview Avenue frontage as conditions of
approval. Again strike that sentence. And then item 1.42 the applicant shall construct a
monument sign, add the word monument, not to exceed 72 square feet.
Barbeiro: Second the motion.
Borup: Roll call vote. We have a motion and second. Commissioner Barbeiro.
Barbeiro: Aye
Borup: Commissioner Brown and De Weerd absent. Commissioner Hatcher.
Hatcher: Aye
Borup: I apologize to the applicant. We did not realize someone was here for that I
guess.
ITEM 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF
157.876 ACRES FROM R3 TO LO BY TOUCHMARK LIVING
CENTERS/JOSEPH A. BILLIG:
Borup: Public hearing is now open.
Hatcher: I make a motion that we continue the public hearing to December 14th
..
Barbeiro: I second the motion.
Borup: Motion and second to continue the public hearing to December 14th
. All in
favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
ITEM 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING CONTINUING CARE
RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE AND RETAIL USE BY TOUCHMARK
LIVING CENTERS/JOSEPH A. BILLIG:
Borup: Public hearing is now open.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 9, 1999
Page 65
Barbeiro: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we continue the public hearing to
December 14th
.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: We have a motion and second to continue to 12/14/99. All in favor.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
Borup: Commissioner's, we are out of here at 11:59, oh we are not out of here yet.
Barbeiro: I move that we conclude our meeting this evening.
Hatcher: I second it.
Borup: All in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:00 A.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
_________________________
KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
________________________________
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK